The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 9.30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Please convey my warm thanks to the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives for their kind letter, sent on the occasion of the Thirtieth Anniversary of the opening of Australia's Parliament House which is being celebrated today.
I remember with fondness my visit to Canberra during Australia's Bicentenary and was interested to learn that Parliament House now attracts more than one million visitors each year.
This message comes with my best wishes to you and the Australian people for a most successful year of events marking the milestone in the history of your National Parliament.
Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2018
The committee divided. [09:44]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 40, page 35 (line 5), omit " When amended tax assessment may ", substitute "Amended tax assessment to ".
(2) Schedule 1, item 40, page 35 (line 9), omit "may", substitute "must".
(3) Schedule 1, item 40, page 35 (line 16) to page 36 (line 6), omit paragraphs 56(2A) (a) to (c), substitute:
(a) the amendment to the tax assessment is made under item 5 of the table in subsection 170(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (amendment due to fraud or evasion); or
(b) both of the following apply:
(i) the parent's adjusted taxable income worked out as a result of the amended tax assessment is higher than the parent's previous adjusted taxable income;
(ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the parent unjustified financial hardship, having regard to the financial situation of the other parent; or
(c) both of the following apply:
(i) the parent satisfies the condition specified in subsection (2AA) in relation to the amended tax assessment;
(ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the other parent unjustified financial hardship; or
(d) all of the following apply:
(i) the parent does not satisfy the condition specified in subsection (2AA) in relation to the amended tax assessment;
(ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the other parent unjustified financial hardship;
(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that special circumstances exist.
(2AA) A parent satisfies the condition in this subsection in relation to an amended tax assessment if the parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment on or before:
(a) the day by which the parent was required to lodge his or her income tax return for that year of income with the Commissioner of Taxation (taking into account any deferral under section 388‑55 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 ); or
(b) the end of 28 days after the parent was given the tax assessment (including an amended tax assessment) by the Commissioner of Taxation; or
(c) the end of 28 days after the parent becomes aware that the tax assessment is not correct if the parent did not apply for the amendment on or before a day referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) because of circumstances beyond the knowledge or control of the parent.
(4) Schedule 1, item 42, page 36 (after line 25), after subsection 57(7), insert:
(7A) However, the Registrar must not amend an administrative assessment of child support under subsection (7) unless:
(a) the amendment to the tax assessment is made under item 5 of the table in subsection 170(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (amendment due to fraud or evasion); or
(b) paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply and the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the parent unjustified financial hardship, having regard to the financial situation of the other parent.
(5) Schedule 1, page 36 (before line 26), before item 43, insert:
42A Paragraph 58A(2 ) ( b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) all of the following apply:
(i) paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply;
(ii) the amount subsequently ascertained, as mentioned in subparagraph (1) (b) (i), is higher than the amount that was determined under section 58;
(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the parent unjustified financial hardship, having regard to the financial situation of the other parent; or
(ba) all of the following apply:
(i) paragraph (a) of this subsection does not apply;
(ii) the later amount that the Registrar determines, as mentioned in subparagraph (1) (b) (ii), is higher than the earlier amount determined under section 58;
(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the parent unjustified financial hardship, having regard to the financial situation of the other parent; or
42B Paragraph 58A(2 ) ( c)
Omit "neither paragraph (a) nor (b) applies", substitute "none of paragraphs (a) to (ba) apply".
(6) Schedule 1, item 43, page 37 (lines 8 to 35), omit paragraphs 58A(3B) (a) and (b), substitute:
(a) both of the following apply:
(i) the parent's adjusted taxable income worked out as a result of the amended tax assessment is higher than the amount determined under section 58;
(ii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the parent unjustified financial hardship, having regard to the financial situation of the other parent; or
(b) all of the following apply:
(i) the parent lodged his or her income tax return for that year of income with the Commissioner of Taxation on or before the day by which the parent was required to lodge the income tax return for that year (taking into account any deferral under section 388‑55 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 );
(ii) the parent satisfies the condition specified in subsection (3BA) in relation to the amended tax assessment;
(iii) the Registrar is satisfied that the amendment of the administrative assessment would not cause the other parent unjustified financial hardship.
(3BA) A parent satisfies the condition in this subsection in relation an amended tax assessment if:
(a) the parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment on or before the day by which the parent was required to lodge his or her income tax return for that year; or
(b) the parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment before the end of 28 days after the parent was given the tax assessment (including an amended tax assessment) by the Commissioner of Taxation; or
(c) the parent applied for the amendment of the tax assessment before the end of 28 days after the parent becomes aware that the tax assessment is not correct if the parent did not apply for the amendment on or before a day referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) because of circumstances beyond the knowledge or control of the parent; or
(d) the parent did not apply for the amendment of the tax assessment on or before any of the days referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c), but the Registrar is satisfied that special circumstances exist.
(7) Schedule 1, page 39 (after line 7), after item 43, insert:
43A At the end of Subdivision B of Division 7 of Part 5
Add:
58BA Commissioner to inform Registrar of amended tax assessments
If the assessment of a parent's taxable income for a relevant year of income in relation to a child support period is amended (whether or not because of an objection, appeal or review), the Commissioner of Taxation must inform the Registrar of the amended assessment as soon as practicable after it is made.
The committee divided [10:01]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation 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.
Today I am introducing legislation to facilitate the complete establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio, which brings together Australia's security, law enforcement, criminal intelligence and emergency management functions under the direction of one senior minister.
This bill amends 36 Acts to make Ministerial and Departmental functions and powers clear on the face of legislation affected by Machinery of Government (MoG) changes to establish the Home Affairs portfolio and related changes strengthening the Attorney-General's oversight of intelligence, security and law enforcement agencies. Measures in the bill implement the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its reports into the bill and the additional proposed Government amendments, tabled on 26 February and 28 March 2018 respectively.
The new Department of Home Affairs is now responsible for setting strategies and coordinating policies on counterterrorism and violent extremism, counter foreign interference, serious and organised crime, cybersecurity, border security, immigration and social cohesion.
The portfolio includes the Department of Home Affairs as well as the Australian Federal Police, AUSTRAC and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.
ASIO will be included within the portfolio after the passage of this legislation.
Each of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies will retain their full statutory independence. This structure is modelled loosely on the arrangements in the United Kingdom and, of course, their Home Office.
At the same time, we are strengthening our intelligence architecture by creating an Office of National Intelligence in the Prime Minister's portfolio and empowering it with a leadership role in our intelligence community.
Modelled loosely on its US counterpart, the ONI will not only provide analysis and assessments but also advise on priorities, improve coordination and raise performance accountability across the community.
Together, these initiatives represent the most far-reaching reorganisation of our national security architecture since the Hope royal commissions of the late seventies and early eighties.
Why now?
To those who argue that the system is not broken, I can reassure you that you are absolutely right.
We have been incredibly well served by our intelligence, security, and law enforcement agencies.
There has not been a single point of crisis that has led politicians to scramble in hasty reaction.
But that is precisely the point.
We are not going to sit here avoiding improvements that could be made and waiting for a crisis that exposes the need for them.
If I could quote a former head of ASIO, Paul O'Sullivan, speaking immediately after the Prime Minister's announcement to establish a Home Affairs portfolio, he said, 'Improvements should be made before something is broken.'
Or to quote his successor, and also former head of ASIS, David Irvine, 'Too often, governments are only stirred to improve national security or law enforcement capabilities after some catastrophic failure.'
These reforms are driven by the reality that the threat environment we face is rapidly changing and, it has to be said, worsening.
The fact is we are being tested, stretched. States are adapting. Terrorists are adapting. Serious and organised crime gangs are adapting. And so must we.
New threats are emerging which did not exist when the security architecture was designed in the 1970s. Others have evolved to be barely recognisable from what we knew back then. Much of this evolution has been enabled by technology.
The reforms mean that our national security system will be stronger, more resilient and more responsive.
Freedom
Importantly, at the same time that we are strengthening our security arrangements, we are also strengthening integrity and oversight.
In his enhanced role as first law officer and minister for integrity—that will not be his title, but that is essentially a good description of the role—the Attorney-General will assume responsibility for the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
And the Attorney will continue to sign off on all ASIO warrants.
There are some who believe security and freedom to be binary opposites, as if there exists a universe in which you could have one without the other.
To the contrary, I am sure that all honourable members agree that these dual objectives can be—in fact must be—mutually reinforcing.
'Freedom,' said the philosopher Karl Popper, 'defeats itself if it is unlimited.'
Terrorism
Terrorists, hostile intelligence agencies, people smugglers and criminal syndicates—from drug peddlers to paedophile rings—are all probing for our vulnerabilities, online and off.
Border security
We have seen extraordinary progress in our efforts on border security. There has not been a single people smuggling boat reach our shores in over 1,200 days. No deaths at sea, no illegal people smuggling trade, no kids in detention.
Compare this achievement with the frayed social cohesion that you see elsewhere in the world when nations lose control of their borders and fail to invest, as we do, in the integration of migrants who arrive.
Tragically, in our own country, a collapse of border security emboldened 50,000 individuals to entrust their lives to people smugglers. This resulted in over 1,200 deaths at sea.
We cannot afford to let this happen again. We will not let it happen again.
At the same time, we have been able to increase our humanitarian program as well as resettle 12,000 refugees from the Syrian conflict.
This would not have been possible without our strong border management policies and high levels of public confidence in our well-managed migration system.
When we look around the world—with its broken borders and 65 million displaced people—we see that this is no time for complacency. People smugglers are constantly testing our resolve. I want to pay credit to the work of the Department of Home Affairs, the work of Operation Sovereign Borders and the work of the Australian Border Force, and the leadership that has been shown by the minister and, of course, by his predecessor, now Treasurer.
Foreign Interference and Espionage
We start from a stronger foundation than most other countries. Australia's strengths are freedom, diversity and security.
These attributes are not mutually exclusive; rather they are mutually reinforcing.
Security is a prerequisite to the trust and confidence that allows a diverse and free society to flourish.
The far-reaching reforms the Prime Minister introduced last year align with our vision for how we will engage with the world—from the foreign policy white paper to the defence white paper to the Cyber Security Strategy.
Our reforms will strengthen the Australian Cyber Security Centre's role as the backbone of our enhanced cybersecurity capabilities. The operational experts in the ACSC will work closely with the policymakers in Home Affairs.
And the transformation of the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory authority within the Defence portfolio enhances our international leverage.
These reforms will enhance the benefits of the nine tranches of national security legislation the coalition has taken through parliament since August 2014.
From combating foreign fighters and preventing terror attacks at home, to the telecommunications sector security reforms and establishing the Critical Infrastructure Centre—the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio provides a lasting foundation to make best use of these reforms and safeguard Australian lives and interests.
Key aspects of the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Amendment Bill.
These changes to our national security agencies and arrangements are the most far reaching in our history.
First, the creation of the Home Affairs portfolio bringing together our law enforcement, counterterrorism, counter foreign interference, border security, transport security, intelligence and cybersecurity capabilities.
For the first time we have a single Minister, the Minister for Home Affairs providing the government with comprehensive, integrated advice about the threats we face and how we should respond.
Second, the overhaul of our intelligence architecture will add new capability, coordination and accountability. The new Office of National Intelligence will provide strategic leadership and enhanced enterprise management.
Third, the Attorney-General will enhance his role as first law officer. He will retain responsibility for the administration of the criminal justice system, including formal international crime cooperation mechanisms, while taking on a suite of new oversight responsibilities with our intelligence community.
The Attorney-General will be the Minister for Integrity, in line with the United States and UK models. We must ensure Australians have confidence in the scrutiny and oversight of our intelligence agencies.
Security and integrity go hand in hand, each enables the other.
Conclusion
The question is not what freedoms must we forgo to ensure security but what security is required to enable our freedom.
Security is a precondition for the trust and confidence that allows a diverse and free society to flourish.
This Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill will build our resilience, reinforce the integrity of our systems and prevent malicious actors from taking advantage of our freedom.
A decade ago it was all about counterterrorism, still a very, very pressing threat, as we know. But adversaries, threats and technology have proliferated and evolved.
North Korea is a pressing threat to peace at this minute but it cannot distract us from the need to combat Islamist terrorism, or foreign interference in our political system, or criminal syndicates looking to smuggle drugs, people, weapons or run paedophile rings all aided by the internet.
These are all critical priorities. They all must be our focus.
The new arrangements will help us integrate all our efforts to counter these threats, growing threats, and prioritise and reprioritise as necessary for optimal results and without unnecessary duplication.
This is how we will keep Australia safe, keep families safe, keep our interests secure.
This is the pathway to ensure our great nation retains its freedom, security and diversity.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
… these initiatives represent the most far-reaching reorganisation of our national security architecture since the Hope royal commissions of the late seventies and early eighties.
The Committee notes that machinery of government changes are a matter for the government of the day. As such, it is not within the remit of the Committee to consider the broader policy decisions behind the changes, but to scrutinise the amendments as proposed.
Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
We must ensure Australians have confidence in the scrutiny and oversight of our intelligence agencies.
Security and integrity go hand in hand, each enables the other.
The Senate divided. [10:36]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Sullivan)
(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:
8. Schedule 3 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.
[consequential—commencement]
(2) Page 61 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Amendments relating to oversight of intelligence agencies
Intelligence Services Act 2001
1 Paragraph 29(1) (a)
After "to review the", insert "activities,".
2 Subsection 29(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) The functions of the Committee do not include:
(a) reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; or
(b) conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD, ONA, AFP or the Immigration and Border Protection Department.
3 After section 29
Insert:
29A Ceasing or suspending review of agency activities
Certificate received from responsible Minister
(1) If:
(a) the Committee undertakes a review under section 29 of an activity by ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD or ONA; and
(b) the relevant responsible Minister is of the opinion that:
(i) the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(ii) the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister may give to the Committee a certificate in relation to the matter stating the Minister's opinion and the reasons for it.
(2) The Minister must give a copy of a certificate under subsection (1) to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(3) A decision of the Minister under subsection (1) must not be questioned in any court or tribunal.
(4) Where the Minister gives a certificate under subsection (1) in relation to a review, the Committee must cease or suspend the review.
(5) Subsection (4) has effect subject to subsection (7).
Review by Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security
(6) Where a Minister has given a certificate to the Committee under subsection (1) the Committee may refer the certificate to the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security.
(7) Within 30 days after the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security is referred the certificate, the Inspector‑General must:
(a) review the certificate and consider:
(i) whether the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(ii) whether it is reasonable to conclude that a review by the Committee would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations; and
(b) provide written advice to the Committee setting out the Inspector‑General's opinion in relation to the matters set out in subparagraphs (a) (i) and (ii).
(8) If the Inspector‑General advises the Committee under subsection (7) that the activity is not an ongoing operation, or that the review would not cause interference with the proper functioning of the relevant body or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations, the Committee may proceed with the review, or commence a new review into the activity.
[oversight of intelligence agencies]
(2) If the appropriate Minister determines that a review would be injurious to national security, he or she must inform the Committee of his or her determination and the reasons for it.
(3) If the appropriate Minister determines that the review would no longer be injurious to national security or if the appropriate Minister is informed that the activity is no longer ongoing, he or she must inform the Committee that the review may be conducted.
The committee divided. [11:03]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator O'Sullivan)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3, column 1), omit "Schedule 2", substitute "Schedules 2 and 3".
(Norfolk Island—criminal and civil procedure)
(2) Page 14 (after line 12), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Procedure in criminal and civil matters relating to Norfolk Island
Norfolk Island Act 1979
1 Subsection 4(1)
Insert:
civil matter means any matter that may be determined by the Supreme Court other than in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction,
constable means:
(a) a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police; or
(b) a member of the Police Force of Norfolk Island.
host jurisdiction:
(a) in Subdivision B of Division I of Part VIIA—has the meaning given by subsection 60B(3); and
(b) in Division 2 of Part V1IA—has the meaning given by subsection 60P(3).
Magistrate of the Territory means a person appointed as a magistrate under a law in force in the Territory.
prison includes a lock-up or other place of lawful detention.
Registrar means the Registrar, or the Deputy Registrar, of the Supreme Court.Sheriff means the Sheriff, or the Deputy Sheriff, of the Territory.
2 Section 59
Omit "Subject to regulations referred to in paragraph 67(1) (a),", substitute "Except as provided under this Act,".
3 After Part VII
Insert:
Part VIIA—Procedure in criminal and civil matters
Division 1—Criminal matters
Subdivision A—No limitation period on prosecution of sex offences
60A No limitation period on prosecution of sex offences
(1) A prosecution for an offence against a law of the Territory may be commenced at any time after the commission of the offence if that law is listed in Schedule 5.
Note: See section 60M for the meaning of an offence against a law of the Territory.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if:
(a) but for that subsection, the offence would be subject to a shorter limitation period, including a shorter limitation period that has expired (either before the commencement of this section or before the commencement of the prosecution); or
(b) an immunity from prosecution in relation to the offence has arisen because a shorter limitation period has expired (either before the commencement of this section or before the commencement of the prosecution).
(3) Schedule 5 has effect.
Subdivision B—Hearing criminal matters in another jurisdiction
60B Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with host jurisdictions
(1)The Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with the government or an authority of any of the following for the purposes of the effective application of the provisions of this Subdivision relating to sittings of the Supreme Court in that jurisdiction in the exercise of the Supreme Court's criminal jurisdiction:
(a) a State;
(b) the Australian Capital Territory;
(c) the Northern Territory.
(2) No power is conferred, or duty or function imposed, on an officer of a State under this Subdivision unless:
(a) an arrangement has been entered into with the government or an authority of that State under subsection (1); and
(b) the conferral of the power or imposition of the duty or function is in accordance with that arrangement.
(3) Each of the following is referred to as a host jurisdiction in this Subdivision:
(a) a State in relation to which an arrangement has been entered into under subsection (1);
(b) the Australian Capital Territory;
(c) the Northern Territory.
60C Supreme Court may sit in a host jurisdiction
(1) Subject to this section, the Supreme Court, in the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, may sit in a host jurisdiction if to do so would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
(2) The Supreme Court may, at any time after prosecution for an offence against a law of the Territory commences and before the jury has returned its verdict, if it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it, order:
(a) if the trial of the offence has not begun—that the trial be held in a host jurisdiction, and at a time and place, specified in the order; and
(b) if the trial of the offence has begun—that the trial be discontinued, the jury be discharged and a new trial be held in a host jurisdiction, and at a time and place, specified in the order.
(3) The Supreme Court may make an order under subsection (2) at a sittings of the Court in the Territory or in a host jurisdiction.
(4) The Supreme Court may make an order under subsection (2) at a sittings of the Court in a host jurisdiction whether or not the accused is present but, if the accused is not present, the Court must only make the order if:
(a) the accused is represented; and
(b) the Court is satisfied that the accused understands the effect of the order.
(5) Where the Supreme Court makes an order under subsection (2), the Court may order that:
(a) on the warrant of the Registrar, a Magistrate of the Territory or such other person as the Supreme Court directs (being a person who holds an office in relation to the Court), the accused be removed to the place specified in the order, and held there, for the purposes of the trial of that person and for any related proceedings; and
(b) on the summons of the Registrar, all persons required to attend to give evidence in the trial or proceedings attend at the place specified in the order.
(6) When exercising its criminal jurisdiction in a host jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has, and may exercise, all the powers that it would have if it were exercising its criminal jurisdiction in the Territory.
(7) A power exercised by the Supreme Court under subsection (6) is taken to have been exercised by the Court at a sittings of the Court in the Territory.
(8) Where the Supreme Court is sitting in a host jurisdiction for the purpose of a trial in that jurisdiction, the Court may, if it is satisfied that the interests of justice require it, order that, for the purpose of viewing a place, or taking evidence from a person, in the Territory, or for a prescribed purpose:
(a) the trial be adjourned for such time as the Court considers reasonable and necessary, and be continued in the Territory for so long as is necessary for that purpose; and
(b) on the warrant of the Registrar, the accused be returned to the Territory for the purposes of the continuation of the trial and any related proceedings; and
(c) the jurors empanelled for the trial go to the Territory and remain there for such time as the Court directs for the purpose of continuing to attend as jurors in the trial.
(9) A person who appears as a witness in the Supreme Court in a trial, or in related proceedings, held wholly or partly in a host jurisdiction, must be paid by the Commonwealth such fees and allowances as would be payable to the person if the person had appeared as a witness in a trial held in the Territory.
(10) Where:
(a) the Supreme Court, when exercising its criminal jurisdiction in a host jurisdiction, makes an order, issues a warrant or summons or gives a judgment; and
(b) a person fails to comply with that order, warrant, summons or judgment; and
(c) that failure would have constituted an offence against a law of the Territory if it had occurred there;
the person commits an offence against this Act punishable by a penalty that is the same as the penalty for the offence referred to in paragraph (c).
60D Juries outside the Territory
(1) Subject to this section and the regulations, the laws in force in a host jurisdiction relating to each of the following:
(a) the qualification of jurors;
(b) the preparation of jury lists and jury panels;
(c) the summoning, attendance and empanelling of juries;
(d) the number of jurors;
(e) the right of challenge;
(f) the discharge of juries;
(g) the disagreement of jurors;
(h) the remuneration of jurors;
(i) other matters concerning jurors (other than matters dealt with under section 60E) after they have been summoned, appointed or sworn;
that apply for the purposes of the trial of a criminal matter in the Supreme Court of that jurisdiction sitting at a place in that jurisdiction, extend and are to be applied, with such changes as are necessary, for the purposes of the trial of a criminal matter in the Supreme Court of the Territory when sitting at that place.
(2) For the purposes of a trial in the Supreme Court held wholly or partly at a place in a host jurisdiction, the jury list that would be used for the purposes of a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of that jurisdiction sitting in the same place is to be used as well for the purposes of the trial in the Supreme Court of the Territory.
(3) The precept for a jury is to be issued by the Registrar, or such other person holding an office in relation to the Supreme Court as the Court directs, and the Sheriff or such other person as the Court directs must prepare the jury panels and summon jurors.
(4) The person who has custody of the jury list referred to in subsection (2) in the host jurisdiction where the Supreme Court is holding a trial must:
(a) give a copy of that list to the person directed by the Court to prepare a jury panel; and
(b) indicate on that copy the names of the persons who, to that person's knowledge, would not, if summoned at the time the copy is given, be liable to serve as jurors under the law in force in that jurisdiction.
(5) The Commonwealth must pay any reasonable fee demanded for a copy of a list referred to in paragraph (4) (a).
(6) Any remuneration required to be paid to a person who serves, or is summoned to serve, on a jury in a trial in the Supreme Court held wholly or partly in a host jurisdiction must be paid by the Commonwealth.
(7) Where a law applied by this Act for the purposes of a trial in the Supreme Court requires an act or thing to be done by a person specified in that law, the Court may, if it is necessary to do so for the purpose of the effective application of the law, order that a person who holds a specified office in relation to the Court do that act or thing, and the law is taken to apply to that person accordingly.
(8) The regulations may provide that the provisions of a law referred to in subsection (1) that are specified in the regulations have effect with any modifications specified in the regulations.
(9) In this section, jury list means the roll, list, or book on or in which the names of persons liable to serve as jurors appear.
60E Offences in relation to jurors
(1)A person who is served with a summons to attend as a juror in a trial in the Supreme Court held wholly or partly in a host jurisdiction must not:
(a) fail to attend in accordance with the summons; or
(b) having so attended, withdraw from the presence of the Court, without the permission of the Sheriff, before being discharged or excused by a judge of the Court or the Sheriff.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 1 month.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code (Commonwealth)).
(3) A person must not impersonate a person who is a juror with the intention of sitting on a jury.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months.
(4) A person must not:
(a) engage in conduct that results in the corruption of a juror; or
(b) make or promise a payment to a juror, or confer or promise to confer any other benefit on a juror in relation to the person's service as a juror, other than a payment of the ordinary remuneration of the juror's employment; or
(c) being a juror, accept such a payment or benefit.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(5) In this section:
juror includes a person whose name is on a jury panel.
60F Removal of accused to host jurisdiction to stand trial
(1)Where the Supreme Court makes an order under paragraph 60C(5) (a) in relation to an accused, the Registrar, a Magistrate of the Territory or a person directed by the Court under that paragraph, may:
(a) by warrant directed to all constables, require them to convey the accused in custody from the Territory to the prison specified in the warrant and to deliver the accused into the custody of the officer for the time being in charge of that prison; and
(b) by warrant directed to that officer, require that officer to detain the accused in that prison under this section.
(2) A warrant directed to all constables may be executed by any constable.
(3) An accused delivered into custody at a prison in a host jurisdiction under a warrant under subsection (1) may, subject to any order of the Supreme Court, be detained in that prison or any other prison in that jurisdiction for so long as the accused's detention is necessary for the execution of the order.
(4) An accused may, while in custody, be dealt with in the same manner, and is subject to the same laws, as if the warrant issued under subsection (1) had been issued under a law in force in the host jurisdiction relating to holding persons in custody pending the trial of those persons.
(5) The Commonwealth is to pay to the host jurisdiction the reasonable expenses of maintaining an accused detained in a prison under a warrant under subsection (1).
60G Accused to be conveyed to Court
(1) Where an accused has been removed to a host jurisdiction under this Act, a judge of the Supreme Court may order that the accused be conveyed to the Court for the purposes of trial in that jurisdiction, and any related proceedings.
(2) Where a judge of the Supreme Court makes an order under subsection (1), the person who has the custody of the accused must release the accused to a constable to enable the accused to be conveyed to the Court in accordance with that order.
60H Return of accused to Territory
(1) Where the Supreme Court makes an order under paragraph 60C(8) (b), the Registrar may, by warrant directed to all constables, require them to convey the accused in custody from the host jurisdiction in which the Court made the order to the prison in the Territory specified in the warrant and to deliver the accused into the custody of the officer for the time being in charge of that prison.
(2) A warrant referred to in subsection (1) may be executed by any constable.
60J Person taken to be prisoner under Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Ad 1923
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a person has been tried in relation to an indictable offence against a law of the Territory by the Supreme Court sitting in a host jurisdiction; and
(b) the person is convicted of that offence and sentenced to imprisonment.
(2) The person is taken:
(a) to be a prisoner within the meaning of the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923; and
(b) to have been removed to that jurisdiction under that Act.
(3) The provisions of that Act apply (so far as they are capable of applying) in relation to the person accordingly.
60K Person taken to be criminal lunatic under Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Ad 1923
(1) This section applies if a person who has been removed to a host jurisdiction under this Act:
(a) is found to have been insane at the time of the commission of the offence; or
(b) is found or certified, or otherwise lawfully proved, to be unfit, on the ground of insanity, to be tried for the offence; or
(c) is convicted of an offence and afterwards certified, or otherwise lawfully proved, to be insane.
(2) The person is taken:
(a) to be a criminal lunatic within the meaning of the Removal of Prisoners (Territories) Act 1923; and
(b) to have been removed to that jurisdiction under that Act.
(3) Sections 9 and 10A of that Act apply (so far as they are capable of applying) in relation to the person accordingly.
60L Repatriation of person tried in a host jurisdiction
Where:
(a) a person has been removed to a host jurisdiction under this Act; and
(b) the trial of the person in the Supreme Court sitting in that jurisdiction has concluded; and
(c) the person is acquitted (other than on the ground of insanity) or is not, after the date on which the trial concludes, required to serve a sentence of imprisonment; the Commonwealth must, on application by the person to the Secretary, provide the person with means to enable the person to return to the Territory.
Subdivision C—Historical offences, conduct and engaging in conduct
60M Historical offences
In this Division, a reference to an offence against a law of the Territory:
(a) includes a reference to an offence against a law in force in the Territory at the time the conduct constituting the offence is alleged to have occurred; and
(b) includes a reference to an offence against a law mentioned in paragraph (a), even if that law has subsequently been amended or repealed.
60N Meanings of conduct andengage in conduct
In this Division:
conduct has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth'sCriminal Code.
engage in conduct has the same meaning as in the Commonwealth'sCriminal Code.
Division 2—Civil matters
60P Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with host jurisdictions
(1) The Commonwealth may enter into arrangements with the government or an authority of any of the following for the purposes of the effective application of the provisions of this Division relating to sittings of the Supreme Court in that jurisdiction in the exercise of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction in civil matters:
(a) a State;
(b) the Australian Capital Territory;
(c) the Northern Territory.
(2) No power is conferred, or duty or function imposed, on an officer of a State under this Division unless:
(a) an arrangement has been entered into with the government or an authority of that State under subsection (1); and
(b) the conferral of the power or imposition of the duty or function is in accordance with that arrangement.
(3) Each of the following is referred to as a host jurisdiction in this Division:
(a) a State in relation to which an arrangement has been entered into under subsection (1);
(b) the Australian Capital Territory;
(c) the Northern Territory.
60Q Supreme Court may sit in a host jurisdiction
(1) The Supreme Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction in civil matters, may sit in a host jurisdiction under this section if to do so would not be contrary to the interests of justice.
(2) If a civil matter is before the Supreme Court for hearing at a sitting of the court, the court may order that the hearing of the matter be adjourned and continued at a sitting of the court in a host jurisdiction, and at a time and place, specified in the order.
(3) If a civil matter is not before the Supreme Court for hearing, a Judge may order that the matter be heard or continued at a sitting of the court in a host jurisdiction, and at a time and place, specified in the order.
(4) When exercising its jurisdiction in a civil matter in a host jurisdiction, the Supreme Court has, and may exercise, all the powers that it would have if it were exercising its jurisdiction in that matter in the Territory.
(5) A power exercised by the Supreme Court under subsection (4) is taken to have been exercised by the Court at a sittings of the Court in the Territory.
(6) A person who appears as a witness in the Supreme Court in the hearing of a civil matter, or in related proceedings, held wholly or partly in a host jurisdiction, must be paid by the Commonwealth such fees and allowances as would be payable to the person if the person had appeared as a witness in the hearing of the matter held in the Territory.
(7) Where:
(a) the Supreme Court, when exercising its jurisdiction in a civil matter in a host jurisdiction, makes an order, issues a warrant or summons or gives a judgment; and
(b) a person fails to comply with that order, warrant, summons or judgment; and
(c) that failure would have constituted an offence against a law of the Territory if it had occurred there;
the person commits an offence against this Act punishable by a penalty that is the same as the penalty for the offence referred to in paragraph (c).
(8) An order made under subsection (2) or (3) to hear or continue a matter in a host jurisdiction, may:
(a) if the matter is before the Supreme Court for hearing at a sitting of the court—be revoked by the court and replaced with an order that the hearing of the matter be adjourned and continued at a sitting of the court in the Territory, and at a time and place, specified in the order; and
(b) if the matter is not before the Supreme Court for hearing—be revoked by a judge of the Court and replaced with an order that the matter be heard or continued at a sitting of the court in the Territory, and at a time and place, specified in the order.
(9) An order (made under subsection (8) or otherwise) to hear or continue a civil matter at a sitting of the Supreme Court in the Territory may be revoked and be replaced with an order under subsection (2) or (3).
4 Paragraph 67(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) prescribing circumstances in which the prosecution for an offence against a law of the Territory (as defined for the purposes of Division 1 of Part VITA) is taken to have commenced for the purposes of subsection 60C(2); and
5 At the end of the Act
Add:
Schedule 5—No limitation period on prosecution of sexual offences
Note: See section 60A.
1 Offences against certain provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 of Norfolk Island
(1) Each of the following provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 of Norfolk Island is listed for the purposes of section 60A:
(a) sections 62 to 81;
(b) sections 86 to 91D;
(c) a provision of Part I1IA;
(d) a provision of Part IX, as it relates to an offence against one of the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c).
(2) In this clause:
Crimes Act 1900 of Norfolk Island means theCrimes Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales, as amended before 16 December 1936 and applied in Norfolk Island, subject to any modifications made from time to time under laws that were in force in the Territory before 1 January 2008.
2 Offences against the Criminal Code of Norfolk Island
(1) Each provision of the following Parts of the Criminal Code of Norfolk Island is listed for the purposes of section 60A:
(a) Part 3.6;
(b) Part 3.7;
(c) Part 3.9;
(d) Part 3.10;
(e) Part 2.4, as it relates to an offence against any provision of one of the Parts mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).
(2) In this clause:
Criminal Code of Norfolk Island means theCriminal Code 2007 of Norfolk Island, as in force from time to time on and after 1 January 2008.
6 Application of amendments Trial of criminal matters
(1) To avoid doubt, Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part VIIA of the Norfolk Island Act 1979, inserted by item 3 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the trial of an offence even if the trial has begun before the Subdivision commences.
Hearing civil matters
(2) An order that was made under a provision of the Norfolk Island Regulations 2017 (theRegulations) described in column 1 of an item of the following table and was in force immediately before the commencement of Division 2 of Part VIIA of theNorfolk Island Act 1979 (theAct), inserted by item 3 of this Schedule, has effect on and after that commencement as if it were an order described in column 2 of the item.
Continuation of orders made under the Regulations
Item Column 1 Column 2
1 An order under section 8 of the An order under subsection 60Q(2) of
Regulations the Act
2 An order under subparagraph 9(a) (i) An order under subsection 60Q(3) of
of the Regulations the Act
3 An order under subparagraph 9(a) (ii) An order under paragraph 60Q(8) (b)
of the Regulations of the Act
That this bill be now read a third time.
Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017
We're looking to grow Ten, we're looking to evolve Ten, we're looking to see Ten be successful in every way possible …
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund was agreed by the Turnbull Liberal Government as part of a back-room deal with the then Nick Xenophon team in exchange for support for the repeal of the 2 out of 3 cross-media control rule in 2017;
(b) notes that the Government's disastrous record on media diversity and public interest journalism includes:
(i) removal of a key media diversity safeguard which prevented even greater consolidation in Australia's already highly concentrated media sector with the repeal of the 2 out of 3 cross-media control rule;
(ii) budget cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars from the ABC and SBS, which are trusted sources of investigative journalism in Australia;
(iii) pushing community television off the broadcast platform to an online delivery model without an adequate transition period;
(iv) threatening journalists with criminal sanctions simply for doing their jobs under the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017;
(v) policy inaction in the face of the loss of more than 3000 journalism jobs in Australia over the past five years;
(c) notes that media diversity and support for public interest journalism are not mutually exclusive and that Australia needs both;
(d) calls on the Government to stop actively undermining media diversity and public interest journalism in Australia;
(e) calls on the Turnbull Government to drop its destructive attack on the ABC; and
(f) calls on the Government to support media diversity and public interest journalism in Australia.".
The government's position was that the Guardian Australia's parent entity was foreign and therefore would not qualify. I do not believe this is relevant. What is relevant is that Australian news stories and analysis are being produced by Australian journalists.
I fear that there was narrow, blinkered ideology at play on the part of some Coalition backbenchers and some crossbenchers… You have to ask whether blind ideology, yet again, got in the way of sensible public policy.
My view is that the role of journalists for a long period of time, before this digital disruption we're talking about, was being almost a cop on the beat in the public sphere—'This information is unreliable and shouldn't be published; this information is reliable and should be published.' Part of what's happened with the collapse of the business models is there's no-one to pay the cop on the beat anymore. That role has been diminished, and what you have instead is a free-for-all of hyperpartisan debate, where everybody says everybody's lying, everybody can accuse everybody of fake news, and it's hard to know what you can trust.
Constant cuts are also negatively affecting the ABC's ability to fund public interest journalism and local newsrooms. Budget cuts in 2014 saw the elimination of the local Friday edition 7.30 program (formerly calledStateline ) from eight states and territories, diminishing the in‐depth coverage of state politics, health, education and environmental issues.
Deep cuts to reporting staff, field crews, travel budgets and other current affairs programs have also occurred across capital city newsrooms over the last three years. This month the state issues TV program Australia Wide , has been eliminated, and plans to downsize influential radio showsAM ,PM andThe World Today look likely. International bureaus have also been downscaled over the last decade following the cancellation of Australia Network – with many overseas bureaus manned by single‐person video‐journalists.
It is notorious, in terms of news and current affairs, that we, among the democracies, have the least diversity in our newspapers and have very little in television.
Media concentration in Australia is amongst the highest in the world. Our daily press is the most concentrated in the world … Our pay TV industry is the most concentrated in the world …
… for every $1 spent on a specified investigative story, $287 in policy benefits resulted.
If experienced journalists are to be employed, to find things out, if journalists are to be developed and trained, if institutional cultures are to be built to support them in their dirty, vital work, then there must be money …
… keep Australians safe, with new investments to secure our borders and, as always …
They are rude! They call us animals, they mock our country … They yell 'F..k Australia' …
… the development of a business case and scoping study for the outsourcing of visa processing functions.
We have lost a lot of our old people who have advocated and fought very hard to see this day of recognition. Having our native title recognised is a welcome achievement for the Nyul Nyul people. Native title gives us as Traditional Owners a much stronger position at the table to negotiate agreements for our country. Native title for us is a tool to work together and aim to bring prosperity in many ways for our people. Our apical ancestors' spirits will be with us every step of the way. We owe it to them and our future generations moving forward.
Increasing the age pension age is a responsible reform to meet the challenge of an ageing population and the economic impact it will have for all Australians.
… … …
Australia must move towards a higher pension age over the next decade.
A better approach would be to index upper age limits in all laws …
… … …
How might age indexation operate in—
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2018-19 Budget.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to the 2018-19 Budget.
That the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
The Senate divided. [15:40]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate:
(a) notes that the Government intends to charge interest on income support debts;
(b) recognises that income support recipients often accrue debts through no fault of their own;
(c) considers this is a sledge-hammer approach and will disproportionately hurt Australians who have made a mistake or do not owe a debt at all; and
(d) urges the Federal Government to abandon this punitive approach and instead focus on measures that will decrease inequality and poverty. ( general business notice of motion no. 801 )
The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, standing in my name today, be postponed until the first sitting day of the following session.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) in his address on 30 April 2018 to the Palestinian National Council in Ramallah, the Chairman of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, included the following statements:
"The Jews who moved from Eastern and Western Europe had been subjected to a massacre by one country or another every 10-15 years, since the 11th century and until the Holocaust in Germany. Okay?
But why was this happening?
...the reason for the hatred of the Jews is not their religion but their function in society. That is a different issue.
So the Jewish question, which was prevalent in all European countries, the anti-Jewish (sentiment) was not because of their religion, but because of their function in society, which had to do with usury, banks, and so on.
You may or may not know this, in 1933, one month after Hitler's rise to power, there was an agreement between the German Ministry of Economics and the Jewish Anglo-Palestinian Bank in Jerusalem. They agreed that any German Jew who wants to emigrate to Palestine could have his movable and immovable property transferred to Palestine.
Did Hitler love the Jews to such a degree? Any Jew who wanted to emigrate to Palestine was entitled to receive all his property, both moveable and immoveable.
... So their narrative about coming to this country because of their longing for Zion, or whatever - we're tired of hearing this. The truth is that this is a colonialist enterprise, aimed at planting a foreign body in this region...",
(ii) these statements by Mahmoud Abbas, which relied upon quotes from Karl Marx, Josef Stalin and Isaac Deutcher, are historically incorrect, and
(iii) the Holocaust resulted from the Nazi belief that Jewish existence must be totally eliminated everywhere – in May 1941, Hitler said, "Germany's goal will be the extermination of the Jews who reside in Arab territories under British rule";
(b) condemns this anti-Semitic speech as historically inaccurate and incompatible with the aims of the peace process and two-state solution between Israel and Palestinians; and
(c) calls on the Government to support the State of Israel as a democratic nation governed by the rule of law having a legitimate right to exist.
… we condemn anti-Semitism in all its forms and confirm our commitment to the 2-state solution and to live side by side in peace and security.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on its inquiry into PFAS contamination be extended to 23 August 2018.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on the following days, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make their first speeches without any question before the chair, as follows:
(a) Wednesday, 9 May 2018—Senator Storer; and
(b) Wednesday, 20 June 2018—Senator Stoker.
That:
(1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 10 May 2018 and up to and including 31 May 2018 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 July 2018 (together with the provisions of any related bill) are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 18 June 2018.
(2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the order of 31 August 2016, as amended, allocating departments and agencies to standing committees.
(3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate.
(4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain:
(a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and
(b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent.
That the Senate:
(a) notes the resolution of the 70th World Health Assembly on Cancer Prevention and Control in the context of an integrated approach;
(b) expresses its support for the resolution and for global co-operative efforts to reduce the incidence and mortality of cancer; and
(c) urges the Australian Government to:
(i) consider and, where appropriate, implement the actions the resolution calls upon member states to implement, and
(ii) where appropriate, support the Director-General of the World Health Organisation in implementing the actions the resolution calls upon him to implement.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) in its response to question on notice no. 197 from the October supplementary estimates, NBN Co provided breakdowns on the number of premises expected to be ready for service in each state by 2020, broken down by technology type, as well as the number of premises expected to be in design and construction in each state by 2020, broken down by technology type,
(ii) the Senate asked for an update to this information as question on notice no. 145 at the 2017 additional estimates hearings,
(iii) NBN Co responded to question on notice no. 145 with reference only to its response to question on notice no. 197 from the 2017-18 supplementary Budget estimates and to other public documents that do not contain the specific information sought,
(iv) the Senate sought a clarification of NBN Co's response to question on notice no. 145 on 24 April 2018 and requested a response by 4 May 2018, and
(v) the NBN Co response has not been received; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communications, by 9.30 am on 10 May 2018, an updated response with information current to 13 March 2018.
Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to remove Commonwealth restrictions on cannabis, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I introduce the Criminal Code and Other Legislation Amendment (Removing Commonwealth Restrictions on Cannabis) Bill 2018.
Adults should be free to make their own choices, as long as they do not harm others.
Accordingly, this Bill removes offences and civil penalty provisions in Commonwealth law for dealings with cannabis.
The Bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 . It prevents cannabis, including any product obtained from a cannabis plant, from being defined as a controlled or border controlled drug. In so doing the Bill excludes dealings with cannabis from the serious drug offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. For completeness, the Bill amends theCriminal Code Regulations 2002 so that cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) are no longer listed as controlled and border controlled drugs.
The Bill amends the Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990 . It removes cannabis and THC from the Act's definition of narcotic drug, and removes dealings in cannabis and THC from the Act's definition of dealing in drugs. Together this serves to remove dealings with cannabis from the Act's offence provisions.
The Bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to remove what will be redundant references to cannabis, while maintaining the existing disciplinary consequences for dealings with other drugs.
The Bill amends the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 . It repeals Chapter 2 of the Act, which establishes medicinal cannabis licences and imposes offences and civil penalties for dealings with cannabis that are not authorised by such licences. The Bill also amends Chapter 3 of the Act, which establishes drug manufacture licences and imposes offences and civil penalty provisions for dealings with drugs that are not authorised by such licences. Chapter 3 is amended so these licences and the associated offences and civil penalty provisions do not apply with respect to dealings with cannabis.
The Bill also amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 so that the Poisons Standard established by the Act does not apply in relation to cannabis. This will be consistent with the non-application of the Poisons Standard to nicotine in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking. It will also ensure that the Act cannot be used as a vehicle to ban cannabis.
The Bill commences a year after Royal Assent, allowing time for state and territory governments to choose to maintain or alter their own laws relating to cannabis. They may maintain their bans on cannabis, with exemptions for medicinal use, if they choose. Alternatively, they may legislate to allow broader use and to regulate with respect to various matters such as children and driving.
The Bill does not introduce a cannabis tax. Existing alcohol and tobacco taxes are not sound policy and should not be replicated.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate
(a) notes:
(i) the passing of Mr Stuart Devlin, AO CMG on 12 April 2018,
(ii) that Mr Devlin was born in Geelong and designed Australia's decimal coins that were released into circulation in February 1966,
(iii) that Mr Devlin designed coins for thirty other countries, as well as medals and coins for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, and the medals for the founding awards of the Australian Honours System,
(iv) that Mr Devlin also designed furniture, jewellery and tableware,
(v) that, in 1982, Mr Devlin was appointed goldsmith and jeweller to the Queen,
(vi) that, amongst his numerous awards and honours, in 1980, he was named a Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, and in 1988, Officer of the Order of Australia,
(vii) that, in 2011, Mr Devlin was named Australian of the Year in the United Kingdom, and
(viii) that the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Philip, described Mr Devlin as "probably the most original and creative goldsmith and silversmith of his time, and one of the greats of all time"; and
(b) extends its condolences to his family.
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) that Australia's Motor Neurone Disease (MND) Awareness Week will be held from 6 May to 12 May 2018,
(ii) that MND describes a disease in which the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control walking, talking, eating, swallowing, and breathing progressively die – MND is also known as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis or Lou Gehrig's disease,
(iii) that life expectancy of a person diagnosed with MND is short, being less than 3 years,
(iv) that at present, two Australians are diagnosed with MND and two die from the disease every day – an estimated 420 000 are living with MND across the world,
(v) the importance in raising awareness that MND has no effective treatment and there is no cure, yet MND can strike anyone at any time,
(vi) the vital role the MND community plays in providing care that minimises the loss of dignity for those suffering from MND, and
(vii) that progress has definitely been made with MND research, and ongoing effort is needed to achieve breakthroughs that will lead to a cure; and
(b) acknowledges the collective effort of MND associations, families and friends in ensuring no one faces MND alone, and striving to raise awareness and engage with the community towards bettering our understanding of the causes of MND, finding effective treatments and discovering a cure.
Defence Amendment (Sovereign Naval Shipbuilding) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Defence Act 1903, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill, the Defence Amendment (Sovereign Naval Shipbuilding) Bill 2018 , will inject the concept of sovereignty back into Australia's purported 'sovereign' Naval Shipbuilding program.
The aim of the Bill is to ensure that Australia continues to develop and sustain a sovereign naval shipbuilding capability.
The Bill will amend the Defence Act 1903 to require that new vessels 30 metres or more in length, that are to be built for the Commonwealth of Australia for use by the Royal Australian Navy, must, except in times of defence emergency or in time of war, be built in Australia by a well-established, high performance Australian owned and controlled shipbuilder.
The Bill will apply to all major naval construction including patrol boats, frigates, destroyers, submarines, supply ships, or aircraft carriers.
The Bill reflects an understanding that Australia's uncertain strategic future requires a much greater measure of national self-sufficiency as a Pacific naval power, supported by a sovereign naval shipbuilding and support sector.
Construction of Royal Australian Navy vessels in Australia by Australian owned and controlled shipbuilders will serve Australia's national security interests and maximise the economic benefit of the naval construction program to Australia.
When the government released its Naval Shipbuilding Plan on 16 May 2017, it stated:
This national endeavour is the most significant nation building project Australia has ever undertaken. Larger and more complex than the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme and the National Broadband Network, the Naval Shipbuilding Plan that the government is delivering will engage all states and territories through their contributions to naval shipbuilding and sustainment of both current and future naval vessels, or as contributors to industry supply chains, or providers of national workforce development and skilling to meet the growing need for skilled naval shipbuilding workers across the sector.
Centre Alliance is fully supportive of the Federal Government's $90 billion continuous Naval Shipbuilding program, but a significant change in approach is required in the interests of our national security and to maximise the economic benefit of the program to Australia.
This Bill is very deliberately designed to counter the approach taken by the Defence Department's procurement bureaucrats in the Future Frigate program whereby Australia's two established and highly capable shipbuilders, ASC and Austal, have been excluded in the tender documents from having responsibility for the build.
Instead the Government has invited three foreign ship designers to bid for the job, offering them a taxpayer-funded shipyard in Adelaide and a $35 billion contract to establish themselves to compete with the long standing Australian companies.
The Government may imagine that this approach will yield some cost savings but it will ultimately sell out our wider national interests.
There has been an unambiguous shift away from the use of local shipbuilders in Australian naval and maritime construction programs:
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the bureaucrats advising Government are determined to see the quiet death of a sovereign shipbuilding capability in Australia and its replacement with foreign entities operating on Australian waterfront real estate.
It is hard to imagine how the Government imagines Australia will develop a sovereign shipbuilding capability with our future submarines being built by the French company, Naval Group (formerly DCNS), and now our future frigates being built by a British, an Italian or a Spanish company.
Ultimately a sovereign shipbuilding sector will need to be largely self-sustaining.
This point has been made by Austal's chief executive, David Singleton, who has observed that:
… we need to work on creating an industry that stands on its own two feet, free of government subsidy. We cannot afford for the naval shipbuilding industry to be addicted to government welfare for its survival. The key lies in exports and the key to exports lies in Australian companies owning the intellectual property behind every ship they build. The ability to conceive new ship designs, develop them and build them in Australia needs to be a clear focus of the future Australian shipbuilding industry.
It is absolutely vital that through our very large investment in submarines, frigates and patrol boats, the Federal Government secures the intellectual knowledge in the minds of Australians, resident in Australia and working in Australian companies, so that we have the capacity to design new ships for ourselves and for our export markets.
Yet the Government's approach is to see foreign companies take the lead in these nationally significant programs; foreign companies that will control the programs, foreign companies that will install their own management teams in Adelaide and elsewhere, foreign companies that will control the intellectual property and determine our shipyards' strategic direction.
When an export opportunity arises, it won't be for the Australian shipbuilder and shipyard to determine if we can export; the decision will be made in the context of the corporate plans of executives in Paris, Rome, Madrid or London. These will be decisions that will be made on the basis of the global commercial perspectives of those companies without Australian government consultation or control.
The Government's decisions to implement our naval construction programs in this way have been fundamentally flawed. This has to stop, and it has to stop now.
Consequently, the Bill contains a provision that will mean the law applies from the date it was announced—as has been done for other Government bills. This will have effect on both the Future Submarine Program, for which no build contract has yet been signed, and the Future Frigate Program.
With regard to the specific provisions of the Bill, these will apply only to agreements by the Commonwealth for building new vessels intended for use by the Royal Australian Navy, and do not apply more generally to government vessels. However, this Bill does not prohibit the Government from choosing an Australian shipbuilder for other government vessels.
The Bill only applies to vessels of over 30 metres in length. The length overall of 30 metres will cover all major vessels for the Navy including patrol boats similar to the Pacific class patrol boats, offshore patrol vessels, corvettes, frigates, destroyers, cruisers, aircraft carriers, amphibious ships, submarines, supply ships, and auxiliaries, but will exclude smaller vessels such as launches, rigid-hulled inflatable boats, lifeboats, small landing craft and barges.
The Bill specifies that the Commonwealth may only enter into an agreement for the building of a vessel intended for use by the Navy with an entity that is incorporated in Australia, and that is not a subsidiary of a foreign entity, nor controlled by foreign persons within the meaning of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 . This is to ensure that Australian naval construction will only be undertaken by Australian shipbuilders incorporated in Australia and under the control of Australians.
The Bill will not prevent foreign shipbuilders tendering to be the prime contractor in any shipbuilding program, but they will need to sub-contract the entire build to an Australian-controlled shipbuilder that meets minimum experience and performance thresholds.
The Bill is consistent with the provisions of Australia's free trade agreement obligations which exclude much national security-related procurement from their non-discriminatory provisions, including procurement of naval vessels, small craft, pontoons and floating docks, as well as naval marine equipment.
The Bill provides that an agreement for the building of a vessel intended for use by the Navy must provide for the provision, grant or conferral by the entity, or the Australian shipbuilder, to the Commonwealth of intellectual property rights relating to the vessel for the purposes of maintaining, repairing or modifying the vessel. This provision ensures that the Commonwealth will retain the ability to ensure ongoing maintenance, repair or modification of Navy vessels in Australia.
The Bill requires that the Commonwealth must be satisfied that the Australian shipbuilder has demonstrated its capability to deliver an ongoing shipbuilding or upgrading program and to build or deliver major upgrades to vessels intended for use by the Navy, and demonstrates international competitiveness, compliance with relevant industry standards, and financial viability. These conditions are consistent with the standards that have already been applied to Australian shipbuilders engaged in major naval shipbuilding programs for the Commonwealth.
The effect of these provisions will be to ensure the know-how from major taxpayer-funded naval construction programs is transferred to Australian-controlled companies, not to subsidiary companies of foreign entities.
Australian shipbuilders will be able to assure export customers that they have the confidence of their own Navy.
Foreign shipbuilders will not have veto power over any export opportunities Australian shipyards could engage with.
There will be reduced exposure to foreign corporate risk in relation to naval construction projects of great importance to national security.
Profits from Australian naval construction will be made in Australia by Australian shipbuilders.
The benefits in terms of national security and economic development are unquestionable.
While the Bill will allow overseas procurement of naval vessels in time of a defence emergency or war, it will provide an unambiguous legislative direction that Australian naval construction must take place in Australia by Australian companies with the consequent benefits for our defence industrial base and long-term strategic self-reliance.
Nearly one hundred and ten years ago the then Prime Ministers Alfred Deakin and Andrew Fisher committed the funds and signed the contracts for the acquisition of the first vessels for the Royal Australian Navy.
Contrary to the wishes of some who argued that the Navy's new ships should be built at the cheapest possible price in British shipyards, the Deakin and Fisher Governments took a different path.
While those early contracts provided for the purchase of a number of vessels from British shipbuilders, they were also designed to lay the foundations for naval construction in Australia by specifying that one of Australia's new ships, a torpedo boat destroyer, HMAS Warrengo , would be assembled not in the United Kingdom but at the Cockatoo Island dockyard in Sydney, thereby ensuring the transfer of new shipbuilding skills and capabilities to Australia.
It was recognised then, by Deakin and Fisher, that the new Royal Australian Navy had to be supported by a sovereign Australian shipbuilding industry.
More than a century later, this Bill seeks to give effect to that vision—an Australian Navy built in Australia by Australians.
That:
(1) The Senate notes that:
(a) on 7 February 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents concerning all assessments of the 36 adjustment mechanism projects completed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA);
(b) on 22 March 2018, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) tabled documents within the scope of the order in full; and
(c) on 23 March 2018, the MDBA wrote to Senator Patrick advising that the documents they had provided do not, in isolation, provide a good representation of how the final agreed package of projects was put together by jurisdictions, and the strength of the assessment process undergone by all proposals brought forward by Basin states, but advised that there was a final modelled notified package that included all issues raised by jurisdictions in their assessments.
(2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 3.30 pm on 15 August 2018:
(a) the final modelled notified package for all adjustment mechanism projects; and
(b) the current project status of all adjustment mechanism projects.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) MAYDAYS for Eating Disorders is the Butterfly Foundation's annual awareness and advocacy campaign, which takes place nationally throughout the month of May,
(ii) this year, MAYDAYS is focussed on raising the alarm on the crippling cost of eating disorders – the Butterfly Foundation has conducted a survey asking Australians to share their experiences on the cost of treating eating disorders and has found that:
(A) 1 in 3 people had to go into debt in order to treat their eating disorder,
(B) 40 per cent of individuals could not complete studies or qualifications,
(C) 78 per cent of carers lost work or study hours in order to provide support, and
(D) 1 in 4 people had to delay or stop treatment;
(b) calls on all levels of Government and the community to work together to help ensure those with, or at risk of, an eating disorder are able to access evidence-based early interventions and treatments;
(c) acknowledges the amazing and tireless work undertaken by eating disorder professionals across the country; and
(d) encourages anyone needing support with eating disorders or body image issues to contact Butterfly's National Helpline on 1800 ED HOPE (334673).
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) 28 April 2018 commemorated World Day for Safety and Health at Work and Workers' Memorial Day, and
(ii) World Day for Safety and Health at Work and Workers' Memorial Day is a day for promoting safety and health in the workplace and to honour those who have died from work-related injury or illness;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) Ms Gayle Woodford was a remote area nurse in South Australia who was attacked and killed while on call in South Australia's Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands in March 2016,
(ii) the maliciousness of the attack, the isolation of the work-setting and the dedication to her patients and their families drew collective shock and grief from around the country,
(iii) in November 2017, the South Australian Parliament passed a law that now requires remote area nurses, like Ms Gayle Woodford, to work in pairs, known as 'Gayle's Law' – the law came into effect in South Australia on 12 December 2017,
(iv) 'Gayle's Law' is only effective in South Australia, despite the Northern Territory implementing a second responder call-out policy since March 2017,
(v) in November 2017, at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting, federal and state health ministers discussed adopting similar safety measures within their jurisdictions,
(vi) with the Minister for Health's endorsement, health ministers agreed to investigate how these guidelines could be implemented under their own relevant state or territory legislation, and
(vii) whilst the matter was considered at COAG and a commitment to better protection for nurses is welcome, there needs to be action in the form of legislation;
(c) recognises that:
(i) Australia might be a federation but there is no reason nurses should be afforded different safety and security rights depending on what side of our state and territory borders they carry out their vital work, and
(ii) there are about 1,000 remote area nurses in Australia, mostly women, and their work is challenging where they can be called upon for everything from a toothache or a wound needing stitches, to medical evacuation, childbirth or domestic violence-related injuries;
(d) further recognises the efforts of Ms Woodford's family and RAN Core to ensure that 'Gayle's Law' is introduced and passed into every Parliament in Australia; and
(e) requests the Minister for Health to urge his state and territory counterparts to adopt similar legislative safety measures within their jurisdictions without delay.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) 12 May 2018 is International Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) Awareness Day,
(ii) ME and CFS is a debilitating neurological illness that affects the brain, endocrine system and muscles in adults and children,
(iii) ME and CFS affects between 94,000 and 242,000 Australians, with around 25% of people with ME and CFS unable to leave their house or bed,
(iv) the lack of a current diagnostic test for ME and CFS is a barrier to people receiving timely and accurate diagnosis,
(v) there is no current cure or effective treatment for ME and CFS and more biomedical research needs to be done to better understand this medical condition, and
(vi) there are actions and activities across Australia this week to mark Awareness Day, including Millions Missing events;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) the positive development of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) establishing a ME/CFS advisory committee to advise if new guidelines are needed in Australia, and
(ii) the important role of families and carers of people living with ME/CFS; and
(c) urges:
(i) the NHMRC to ensure the ME/CFS advisory committee runs an open and transparent process that includes advice from leading scientists and clinicians, and
(ii) federal, state, territory and local governments to take leadership, and work with people who have ME/CFS to help them get the support they need.
That there be laid on the table, by no later than 11.45 am on 10 May 2018, outstanding answers to the questions on notice listed, relating to department or agency staff based overseas, asked of the following ministers:
(a) Senator Cormann, Minister representing the Prime Minister, question on notice no. 698;
(b) Senator Payne:
(i) Minister for Defence, question on notice no. 710,
(ii) Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, question on notice no. 723, and
(iii) Minister representing the Minister for Defence Personnel, question on notice no. 728; and
(c) Senator Cash, Minister representing the Attorney-General, question on notice no. 702.
That there be laid on the table, by no later than 11.45 am on 10 May 2018, outstanding answers to the 23 questions on notice listed, asked of the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann):
(a) nos 358, 359, 360, 361, 362 and 363 (asked on 10 February 2017);
(b) no. 473 (asked on 5 May 2017);
(c) nos 502, 503 and 506 (asked on 17 July 2017);
(d) nos 577, 578, 579, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 585 and 586 (asked on 30 October 2017); and
(e) nos 690, 691 and 692 (asked on 5 February 2018).
Treasury Laws Amendment (Axe the Tampon Tax) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 , and for related purposes—Treasury Laws Amendment (Axe the Tampon Tax) 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.
I introduce to the senate the Treasury Laws Amendment (Axe the Tampon Tax) Bill 2018,which seeks to remove the Goods and Services Tax (GST) from sanitary products. Sanitary products are defined in the Bill as tampons, pads, liners, cups, sponges and other products used in connection with menstruation.
Since the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 came into effect in 2000, people who menstruate have been paying tax on sanitary products. While items like sunscreen, folic acid and personal lubrication are exempt from GST as health products, sanitary items are not. Sanitary products are essential for millions of Australians to maintain health and hygiene connected with the cycle of menstruation. They are no less pertinent to the maintenance of personal and public health than the exempt items, therefore the justification for sanitary items attracting GST is flawed.
If it were cisgender men who required sanitary products in relation to a natural function of their bodies every month, it is unlikely that the GST would have been added in the same manner. The current Act amounts to a tax on the biology of people who menstruate and it never should have existed in the first place.
From the very beginning there has been strong opposition from the public about the decision to apply GST to sanitary products. There have been protests here at Parliament House in Canberra, and at universities and in cities around the country. For over 17 years people have been protesting.
The first petition to this parliament opposing the GST on sanitary items was tabled here in this place on 15 February 2000, with 10,355 signatures calling on the Government to make tampons and sanitary pads GST-free. Since then, there have been countless similar petitions started by individuals, community groups, university groups, charities and political parties.
The justification for keeping the tax on sanitary products that has been put forward by both Labor and Coalition is to say that it would be impossible to make the change without the support of the states and territories who are the recipients of GST revenue. It is certainly not impossible. It is a change that can be enacted by the Federal Parliament.
The engagement and input of the states and territories is however important for this issue, which is why I have written to state and territory treasurers to urge their support for removing this unfair tax. We know that a number of the states already support this reform. I commend this bill to the senate, as a way to demonstrate the national leadership and action that is required to finally fix this matter.
It's worth noting that the money the states currently receive from the tax on sanitary items represents only about 0.05% of the total GST revenue they will collect this financial year. This should not be seen as a genuine obstruction to changing in the Act. The legislation to impose the GST on sanitary items was made federally, and the federal parliament can lead the way and fix it.
For state, territory and federal budgets this tax is a drop in the ocean. The impacts of the GST on sanitary products are actually felt by people who need to purchase the products. This tax disproportionately affects low income women and transgender people, many of whom have insecure work and housing. It's easy for some to dismiss this as a non-issue. But there are people who are sometimes faced with having to make a choice between buying tampons or buying food. The fact that they're charged more for an essential sanitary product because of the GST is unacceptable.
The Greens support the removal of this discrimination, and we want to see this matter addressed as soon as possible by the Parliament. I am introducing this bill on behalf of every person who has signed a petition, attended a protest, written to their MP, or felt the financial burden of this unfair tax. This reform is long overdue.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) according to the Anglicare Australia 2018 Rental Affordability Snapshot, only 6 per cent of surveyed rental properties nationwide were affordable and appropriate for households on government income support payments,
(ii) the same research showed that for households on the minimum wage only 28 per cent of surveyed rental properties nationwide were suitable, and
(iii) the 2016 Census data revealed that more than 116 000 people were experiencing homelessness on Census night; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) provide real support for people who are homeless by increasing the real level of funding for homelessness services and social housing, and
(ii) work with the states, territories and relevant non-government organisations to set national minimum tenancy standards to ensure that tenants' rights are protected in relation to matters including fairer processes around lease terminations and evictions, fair standards to govern the amounts by which rents can be increased, and provide for long-term residential leases that enable households the full enjoyment of a secure home.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) 8 May 2018 was World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day and its theme in 2018 was 'Everywhere for everyone, with a smile',
(ii) this date is a global celebration of the work and bravery of Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers around the world, and the diverse humanitarian services they offer in communities everywhere,
(iii) it also commemorates the birth, 190 years ago of Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross and the recipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize,
(iv) the activities of the Red Cross are without question a major achievement of human civilisation, both multidimensional and internationally recognised,
(v) in 1864, the First Geneva Convention was signed, establishing the International Red Cross Movement,
(vi) since then, the Red Cross has played a decisive role in dealing with numerous humanitarian crises, and
(vii) the International Red Cross Movement has evolved into the largest humanitarian network in the world, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and the National Societies active in about 190 countries; and
(b) further notes that:
(i) every year, around the world, the Movement supports many millions of people affected by conflict, natural disasters and other emergencies, through its network of around 14 million volunteers and 450 000 staff,
(ii) the current global refugee crisis is an international challenge that calls for solidarity with the afflicted populations, and Australia's constant presence with the help of organisations and movements, such as the Red Cross, and
(iii) World Red Cross and Red Crescent Day is not just a reminder of the principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, but also a starting point for our commitment to alleviating human suffering and protecting human life and dignity in Australia and around the world.
That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Cormann), by no later than 11.45 am on 10 May 2018, all outstanding answers to questions on notice as at 26 April 2018 from the 2017-18 additional estimates hearings in the following portfolios:
(a) Health (141 answers);
(b) Human Services (16 answers);
(c) Jobs and Innovation (Industry, Innovation and Science), in which no questions have been answered (91 answers);
(d) Treasury (48 answers);
(e) Education and Training (118 answers);
(f) Jobs and Innovation (Jobs and Small Business) (73 answers);
(g) Environment and Energy (126 answers);
(h) Prime Minister and Cabinet (including cross portfolio Indigenous matters and agencies) (74 answers);
(i) Defence, including Veterans' Affairs (60 answers);
(j) Agriculture and Water Resources (including cross portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters), in which no questions have been answered (212 answers); and
(k) Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in which no questions have been answered (128 answers).
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Prime Minister's unfair budget, which gives big business and the banks an $80 billion tax handout and makes Australians pay for it with savage cuts.
Another component of other taxes is the Skilling Australians Fund levy.
Since the 2017-18 MYEFO, Skilling Australians Fund levy receipts are forecast to be $465 million lower over the four years to 2021-22. This reflects the measure to expand the Levy refund and exemption provisions, delays in the passage of enabling legislation, as well as decreased demand for temporary work visas.
State and Territory governments will be offered a new agreement which is estimated to provide $1.2 billion over the four years to 30 June 2022.
Lord Jesus, teach me to be generous;
teach me to serve you as you deserve,
to give, and not to count the cost,
to fight, and not to heed the wounds,
to toil, and not to seek for rest,
to labour, and not to seek reward,
except that of knowing that I do your will.
That the Senate take note of documents nos 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Austra lian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report: Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017
Overview
In light of the ongoing entrenched and polarised views of stakeholders on safe harbour reform, the Government supports the Committee's recommendation to expand safe harbour to the educational, cultural and disability sectors. These sectors provide valuable services to the community and already demonstrate a comprehensive approach to managing and protecting copyright content.
Submissions to the Committee demonstrate that there is strong support from a wide variety of stakeholders to extend the scheme, at least, to these sectors.
Australian Government ' s Response
The Australian Government's Response to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report on the Copyright Amendment (Service Providers) Bill 2017 is set out in detail below.
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Report Recommendation 1:
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill. The Government supports this recommendation.
The Australian Greens' Dissenting Report
Recommendation 1:
The Australian Greens recommend implementing the definition of service providers as proposed in the Government's 2015 Exposure Draft of the Copyright Amendment (Disability Access and Other Measures) Bill 2016, which defined 'service provider' as a provider of transmission, routing or connections for digital online communications without modification of their content between or among points specified by the user of material of the user's choosing.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
A full extension of the safe harbour scheme to all carriage and service providers remains a highly contested copyright reform. This view was made clear in the 2017 public consultation process on safe harbour conducted by the Department of Communications and the Arts (the Department), and was reflected in the submissions to the Committee.
During the Department's consultations stakeholders agreed that extending the scheme to educational, cultural and disability sectors was an appropriate and proportionate reform at this time.
The Bill provides some momentum to a long standing and contentious issue which has seen no movement, despite numerous reviews over the last 10 years. The Government's intention by progressing this Bill is to ensure those sectors that are recognised as providing highly beneficial community services to the Australian community are afforded protection sooner rather than later.
Recommendation 2:
The Australian Greens recommend that the intent and language related to activities that are carried by a third-party provider 'on behalf' of an entity that is a 'service provider' be clarified in consultation with stakeholders.
The Government supports in-principle the recommendation to clarify the language related to activities that are carried out by a third-party provider 'on behalf' of an entity that is a 'service provider'.
The Government has consulted further with stakeholders on this issue and will table an addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum.
The addendum clarifies the Government's intention that institutions that will come within the definition of "service provider" in the Bill may engage third parties, such as cloud service providers, to carry out some or all of system and network activities on their behalf. By doing so that institution will retain safe harbour protection.
Recommendation 3:
The Australian Greens recommend that the Government continues to review copyright legislation to introduce a Fair Use exception and to remove geocodes that enforce different prices and conditions of use of content by Australian consumers.
The Government notes the recommendation to review copyright legislation to introduce a fair use exception. On 19 March 2018 the Government announced that it was seeking stakeholder views to establish whether there is general stakeholder support for some of the options for copyright reform proposed by the Productivity Commission in its Report on Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements, in particular:
These consultations address the Greens' recommendation to review copyright legislation.
The Government does not support a review of geocodes that enforce different prices and conditions of use of content by Australian consumers. This is in line with the Government's Response to recommendation 5.2 of the Productivity Commission's Report on Australia's Intellectual Property Arrangements.
The full Government's Response to the Report can be found at:
https://www.industry.gov.a u/innovation/Intellectua I-Propertv/Documents/Government-Response-toPC-Ind uiry-into-IP.pdf
That Senator Whish-Wilson replace Senator Rice on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into air route service delivery to rural, regional and remote communities, and Senator Rice be appointed as a participating member.
Interstate Road Transport Legislation (Repeal) 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.
SECOND READING SPEECH
In 1987, the Australian Government introduced the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) as a voluntary, alternative national registration scheme for heavy vehicles weighing more than 4.5 tonnes solely involved in interstate trade or commerce.
FIRS was a response to industry concerns about state and territory registration schemes that, at the time, deterred and restricted interstate road transport.
It was also designed to promote safer interstate trade and greater use of high productivity vehicles through an exemption for FIRS-registered vehicles from standard state and territory stamp duties for newly purchased vehicles.
At the same time, it provided a mechanism that made sure long haul heavy vehicles made an appropriate contribution to road maintenance through their registration.
FIRS represented the first comprehensive land transport strategy for this nation. A tangible, collective commitment to improve the transportation of freight across the country by addressing challenges arising from a lack of uniformity in state and territory registration schemes.
In the thirty years since FIRS' introduction, a lot has changed. Heavy vehicles have grown in size, and the national road freight task has nearly tripled in that time.
Articulated trucks now take on nearly 80 per cent of the freight task, with the use of B-double trucks, and with a notable shift by operators toward other Higher Productivity Vehicles, such as road trains.
The lack of coordination between states and territories that resulted in a haphazard regulatory environment no longer exists, through ongoing efforts by jurisdictions to harmonise heavy vehicle arrangements.
Initiatives such as uniform registration charging agreements and increased ongoing communication between states and territories have made FIRS redundant.
The numbers bear this out. The number of FIRS registered vehicles have declined steadily for nearly a decade after peaking at nearly 22,000 vehicles.
As of 30 June 2017, there were 13,927 FIRS-registered vehicles (including trailers) in Australia, representing only 1.6 per cent of the Australian fleet.
Independent modelling suggests the size of the FIRS fleet will continue to fall, reducing to approximately 1 per cent of the total fleet by 2022.
An independent program evaluation (the Evaluation) in 2016 revealed the stamp duty exemption afforded by FIRS had not improved safety outcomes nor reduced fleet age, with industry figures showing the average fleet age to be around 14 years – a figure that has not reduced since the introduction of FIRS.
Continuation of FIRS perpetuates an unfair situation where relatively few operators can access a financial benefit that around 98 per cent of heavy vehicle operators cannot.
The decline of FIRS registrations, combined with the Evaluation report finding no evidence of FIRS achieving its policy objectives, support the Australian Government's conclusion that a tax exemption for a minority of operators is not sufficient reason to retain an ineffective regulatory program.
Transport companies today require the flexibility to adjust their operations to suit changing customer requirements and market opportunities. Consistent feedback from industry has highlighted that flexibility is essential to being competitive and responsive to market changes.
It's just not possible for many small businesses in the road transport industry, where around 70 per cent of operators have only one vehicle, to take advantage of FIRS.
It is imperative that we protect Australian small businesses and remove policies that may impede the growth of a sector so crucial to preserving our standard of living.
FIRS was established as one mechanism to provide funding for road maintenance, but this remains a challenge. The Australian Government is pursuing reforms with states and territories through the Heavy Vehicle Road Reform mechanism, independent from FIRS, as this approach will be far more effective than the current reliance on FIRS' shrinking base.
This Bill is the first step in the delivery of a new system that better serves the needs of today's transport industry.
Consistent with the stance of Australian Governments' since 2009 and affirmed by the COAG Transport and Infrastructure Council in May 2017, this Bill will progressively close FIRS and make way for the progress of national heavy vehicle reforms, beginning with a modern national registration system for heavy vehicles.
The national registration system will be open to all operators in states and territories participating in the Heavy Vehicle National Law reforms, and is scheduled to commence on 1 July 2018. This Bill seeks to facilitate this transition.
From 1 July 2018, existing FIRS operators will seamlessly move to the new registration system once their current FIRS registration period concludes, and will immediately be able to access benefits associated with the new system.
Full closure will take place on 30 June 2019. Existing FIRS operators moving to the national registration system by this date will be eligible for a once-off stamp duty exemption, as well as immediate access to the benefits of the new system.
Australia has changed in the last 30 years. Our needs are different, our priorities have changed and our collective regulatory capabilities have also improved.
The closure of FIRS is the next logical step in moving Australia towards a more productive and effective heavy vehicle registration policy.
Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018
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.
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING AMENDMENT (LOTTERY BETTING) BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
Traditional lotteries and keno games are popular and long-standing recreational gambling products that form an important income stream for thousands of small businesses across Australia, including newsagents, pharmacies, pubs, RSLs and community clubs. They provide millions of dollars in tax revenue to every state and territory in Australia and help fund important services and infrastructure for the community such as hospitals, schools, public transport and roads.
Every time a customer buys a ticket in an official lottery draw, a percentage of the ticket price goes toward supporting community services and small business owners. Official lotteries have keno games have been a feature of the Australian gambling product landscape for a long time, and are well understood and accepted by consumers.
In contrast, lottery and keno betting services are relatively new. They provide little taxation revenue and absolutely no benefits to the thousands of small business owners across Australia. Furthermore, with the light regulation imposed on these services, they can entice customers away from traditional lotteries and keno games which further impacts the benefits to the community and small business.
Many Australians have voiced their concerns about the emergence of lottery and keno betting services. The Government has carefully considered these concerns.
Last year, the Minister for Communications raised these concerns with the responsible Minister in the Northern Territory, which so far is the only jurisdiction to licence lottery betting. The Northern Territory Government responded by introducing a partial prohibition on lottery betting, such that betting could not be offered on Australian lotteries. Whilst this was a positive step, the Australian Government believes stronger and more comprehensive action is required.
The Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2018 will amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 to prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to Australians.
State tax and small business revenue
Traditional lotteries are heavily regulated and pay a considerable amount of tax to all states and territories. For every lottery ticket sold, up to 28 per cent is allocated to state and territory taxes to support regulatory oversight and government services, whilst up to 9 per cent is paid to agents for relevant sales costs and income requirements.
In 2016-17, it was estimated that official lotteries paid $1.1 billion in state and territory taxes.
Over $350 million is earnt by some 4,000 newsagencies and official lottery agents across Australia from sales of official lottery products. Newsagents rely on this money to run their businesses. Traditional keno services conducted in clubs and hotels across Australia help support community services and sporting initiatives.
In comparison, lottery and keno betting services contribute significantly less tax and only to one jurisdiction in Australia. They do not pay any commissions to small businesses. It is clear that a shift away from official lotteries will have a negative impact on state taxation revenue and small business.
Traditional lotteries are built on guaranteed prize pools from ticket sales and are required to comply with strict audit and consumer protection measures. Unlike official lotteries, lottery betting services are not required to comply with the guaranteed prize pool model – instead, their major prizes are covered by insurance policies. This allows lottery betting service providers to offer bigger prizes more frequently which further impacts on the financial benefits of traditional lotteries.
IGA amendments
The intent of the Interactive Gambling Act is to minimise the scope of problem gambling in Australia by limiting the types of interactive gambling services to Australians. Lottery betting services allow consumers to bet on the outcome of up to 25 lottery draws being conducted around the world each week, with the promise of massive jackpots ranging in the hundreds of millions, which could lead to problem and at-risk gambling.
This Bill will prohibit the provision of lottery and keno betting services to customers physically present in Australia. It will also prohibit the betting on a 'contingency that may or may not happen in the course of the conduct of a lottery' to ensure that bets cannot be accepted on the outcome, or any aspect, of a lottery or keno draw.
Nationally consistent regulation
The Commonwealth is responsible for online gambling matters and is best placed to implement a national position in relation to lottery betting services in Australia. This is consistent with the important work being done to establish the National Consumer Protection Framework, which aims to standardise harm minimisation controls for wagering services across all states and territories.
These amendments to the Interactive Gambling Act will also enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) to enforce compliance, and respond to any complaints about lottery betting services being provided by either Australian or international operators. The Government recently expanded the powers of the ACMA to take stronger action against the provision of illegal interactive gambling services to Australians.
Conclusion
Many Australians enjoy lotteries and keno as a recreational activity, and the Government is committed to ensuring online gambling takes place under a robust legislative framework with strong consumer protections and within the boundaries of community standards.
I commend this Bill.
PROTECTION OF THE SEA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
Australia is heavily reliant on international shipping. Ninety-nine per cent of our imports and exports by weight are carried by ships. Therefore, as a government, it is our duty to ensure that our laws for the prevention of marine pollution are adequate, up to date and consistent with international law.
The Bill I present today, the Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2018, will ensure that the framework for preventing marine pollution is in line with international requirements. It will also allow for consistency between key pieces of legislation that implement our obligations domestically, and provide for the continued application of the Protection of the Sea levy legislation without unnecessary regulation.
The Bill primarily amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 , known as the POTS Act. The POTS Act, together with theNavigation Act 2012, implement domestically our international obligations stemming from theInternational Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (known as MARPOL) adopted at the International Maritime Organization, or IMO.
The amendments to the POTS Act set out in this Bill will implement Australia's international obligations to ensure that the master of a ship has vital information relating to relevant cargoes on board before discharging the residues of those cargoes. This will allow the master to discharge these residues appropriately, and only into the sea where it has been determined, and declared that the cargo residues are not harmful to the marine environment.
Australia's implementation of these amendments to MARPOL is consistent with our long‑standing support for protection of the marine environment, and our active backing of, and participation in the IMO.
The Bill also makes a machinery change to the Protection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Act 1981 . The amendment will remove the need for regulations to prescribe the manner in which a Protection of the Sea levy notice may be served in particular circumstances. This minor change will allow theProtection of the Sea (Shipping Levy Collection) Regulations to be repealed, removing a dated and now‑unnecessary piece of regulation.
Together, these amendments will ensure consistent and efficient legislation and that Australia continues to meet its international obligations.
I commend the Bill.
STATUTE UPDATE (AUTUMN 2018) BILL 2018
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Statute Update (Autumn 2018) Bill 2018 makes minor and technical changes to the Commonwealth statute book to improve its quality and accuracy.
Statute Law Revision Acts and Statute Stocktake Acts have been passed on a regular basis since 1934 as a means of removing obsolete and spent provisions from the statute book and correcting mistakes in drafting. They are traditionally non‑controversial and regarded as an essential means of keeping the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up‑to‑date.
The process of statute law revision and update aims to enhance the clarity and efficient use of the statute book. These bills:
This Bill contains six schedules.
Schedule 1 corrects errors in five principal Acts and makes minor technical improvements to clarify the text of the law.
Schedule 2 amends four Acts to replace outdated references to "the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia" with references to "Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand".
Schedule 3 to the Bill makes amendments to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 which are consequential to the enactment of theActs and Instruments (Frameworks Reform) Act 2015 . These amendments provide additional guidance on the application of sunsetting and disallowance provisions of theLegislation Act 2003 and update superseded references to theLegislative Instruments Act 2003 to theLegislation Act 2003 .
Schedule 4 repeals 22 obsolete references to the Crown in right of Norfolk Island, reflecting the abolition of that body politic on 1 July 2016.
Schedule 5 repeals spent provisions in two Acts.
Schedule 6 repeals 40 amending Acts which are now obsolete.
These ongoing corrections and improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up‑to‑date, accurate and user-friendly.
Migration Amendment (Skilling Australians Fund) Bill 2018
That the Basin Plan Amendment (SDL Adjustments) Instrument 2017, made under the Water Act 2007, be disallowed [F2018L00040].
The Commonwealth has committed a further $1.58 billion to recover 450GL of environmental water with neutral or beneficial socio-economic impacts …
The 450 gigalitres is not an optional part of the basin plan. It was agreed to in 2012 and we have to deliver it.
We've made a decision to support the plan and that's part of the plan.
All players must understand the 605GL of 'downwater' and the 450GL of 'upwater' are tied together.
… it was in 1991 when the game changer arrived and a new player turned up to the negotiating table. In 1991 the new player arrived with a blue-green algae outbreak that went for one thousand kilometres and the environment turned up to the negotiating table and proved to be more ruthless and less compromising than any of the states. The environment turned up to the negotiating table in 1991 and said, if you're going to manage the river this way then none of you can have the water. Effectively, the rivers decided collectively that if we were going to manage the water as though it stopped at state boundaries then the water was willing to stop …
The Senate divided. [18:50]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Ketter)
Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017
The Senate divided. [19:02]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
With the passing of Claude Charles Livermore (Charlie) on August 8 this year it seems fitting to honour him by sharing his story of remarkable compassion and courage during his time as a PoW.
The Aboriginal PoW not only survived three- and-a-half years at Changi, the notorious Japanese prison camp during the war, but through his bravery helped other PoWs to survive.
He gained national recognition for the "Deerstalker" incident, of which most say saved his and others' lives.
Charlie was born on October 13, 1920, in Bundarra.
When WWII broke out, the then 21-year-old wasted no time enlisting.
His wife, Nora Livermore, said he was keen to enlist, but unprepared for the plight that lay ahead.
"He may have even added two years on to his age just so he could go to war," Mrs Livermore said.
A member of the doomed 2/18th Battalion, Charlie was captured in Malaya upon arrival.
For the next few years as a PoW he demonstrated insurmountable courage and heroism.
He learnt Japanese while in prison to help his fellow inmates and gradually Charlie was able to make acquaintances with the guards.
"By being able to talk to them, the guards liked him more than the other prisoners, so he could then ask for extra rice," Mrs Livermore said.
"They were all thin like African children so Charlie did whatever was necessary, including steal food for his comrades to ensure they did not die as a PoW."
One of the most famous tales among the PoWs at Changi, and indeed throughout Australia today, is the unusual campaign Charlie launched against the Japanese, known as the 'Deerstalker' incident.
Being Aboriginal made Charlie a particular victim of "Deerstalkers", Japanese guards unconvinced Australia had native black people.
One guard in particular insisted that Charlie was an Indian and beat him severely when he protested his Aboriginality.
"There was no such thing as an Aboriginal to the Japanese back then," Mrs Livermore said.
After much prompting by his PoW friends, Charlie used the Aboriginal technique of ''pointing the bone' at the "Deerstalker," an Aboriginal tradition that many believe will kill the person the bone is pointed at.
The results following Charlie's pointing of the bone were extraordinary.
Major Doug Okey recorded them in his diary.
He wrote: "I have never been quite sure what caused the change in the guard's attitude towards us after that, but change he did."
"The guard sold items to the officers at half price, but it was too late. The bone had been pointed and, sure enough, he was taken off the island on a stretcher and according to eyewitnesses, in great agony.
"His death was announced some days later."
Upon his return from the war, Charlie married and produced eight children. His wife said no matter where they went Charlie was respected by everyone.
"People knew Charlie from all over the place and despite his treatment as a PoW, he never once said a bad word about the Japanese," she said.
"Being a Christian, Charlie believed we were all equal."
During his final years, Charlie suffered from various war-related diseases, such as chronic bronchitis and nerve damage.
But, despite his ill health, daughter Yvonne Kent said he never once missed an Anzac Day celebration.
"He was very sick earlier this year but he insisted on getting out of bed. He said, 'I'll see one last Anzac Day'," Mrs Kent said.
As one of the elders of the Kamilaroi tribe, Charlie Livermore was respected throughout society and will remain in the hearts and minds of those whose lives he saved and those who he touched through his incredible life story.
With the benefit of hindsight we should have gone earlier for this inquiry. I am just explaining to you quite candidly that we were motivated absolutely by doing the right thing, by forming the view, which is a matter of public record that it was time for action rather than for more inquiries. As it turns out, this inquiry has come up with some significant revelations …
When it comes to opt in, it is one of the few mechanisms that is available to us if you believe in standards, if you believe in changing culture and best interests. It is one of the few ways that you can actually help the sector. The majority of them actually contact their clients on a regular basis, not once every two years, but on a regular basis: once a month, once every three months, once every six months. We think it is quite reasonable to say at least once every two years make contact. At least do something for the clients, because—you know what?—it is not for free; you are actually charging people fees. If you are going to do that we say do it and do it properly.
So who benefits? I just say: follow the money and have a look at who is involved and who benefits. The four major banks, and AMP, control 80 per cent of the finance advice business in Australia. Good luck to them. But they should not, at the same time, be in concert with the government trying to diminish the good protection measures for consumers.
If the legislation foreshadowed by Senator Cormann is introduced, is passed and becomes law, who wins? We know who the winners are. They are the four banks I named and AMP, commission-based salespeople and retailers of financial products who persuade banks to recommend to customers the sale of their particular product …
The violations described in this report speak to an amoral attitude to the taking of life and to human dignity, and where dehumanisation has become institutionalised.