The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate—
1. acknowledges the historic action of the Holt government, with bipartisan support from the Australian Labor Party, in initiating the dismantling of the White Australia Policy;
2. recognises that since 1973, successive Labor and Liberal/National Party Governments have, with bipartisan support, pursued a racially non-discriminatory immigration policy to the overwhelming national, and international, benefit of Australia; and
3. gives its unambiguous and unqualified commitment to the principle that, whatever criteria are applied by Australian Governments in exercising their sovereign right to determine the composition of the immigration intake, race, faith or ethnic origin shall never, explicitly or implicitly, be among them.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Australian Greens moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter; namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the censure of Senator Anning.
The Senate divided. [10:48]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Whish-Wilson)
Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015
Indigenous individuals have an equal right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States shall take the necessary steps with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of this right.
No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.
… … …
It is a mistake for legislators to act on the deeply held emotional concerns of many when that involves crossing a threshold that will affect the entire society in perpetuity.
Having good palliative care available is not a reason to deny the option of assisted dying. Similarly, providing patients with the option of assisted dying is not a reason to ignore the need to invest in quality palliative care.
The AMA believes that doctors should not be involved in interventions that have as their primary intention the ending of a person's life.
… the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor.
No law and no process can achieve that objective. This is the point. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system.
They define the norms and values of a society and in this case the principles concern our view of human life itself. It is a mistake for legislators to act on the deeply held emotional concerns of many when that involves crossing a threshold that will affect the entire society in perpetuity.
If my opposition to AVE is based on ancient wisdom, it is not that of Jesus of Nazareth but Hippocrates of Kos, who lived some 350 years before.
I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course.
It is understandable, though tragic, that some patients in extreme duress—such as those suffering from a terminal, painful, debilitating illness—may come to decide that death is preferable to life. However, permitting physicians to engage in assisted suicide would ultimately cause more harm than good.
Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician's role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.
Instead of engaging in assisted suicide, physicians must aggressively respond to the needs of patients at the end of life. Physicians:
(a) Should not abandon a patient once it is determined that cure is impossible.
(b) Must respect patient autonomy.
(c) Must provide good communication and emotional support.
(d) Must provide appropriate comfort care and adequate pain control.
In one study in Belgium, they surveyed doctors and found that 32 per cent had gone outside of the regulations.
… in many cases, pain and suffering were not the primary motivator for an assisted suicide request, with a fear of being a burden on relatives a more common reason in patient surveys.
… a number of features of the bill are contrary to rule of law principles and traditional common law rights and privileges.
… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.
I am a little worried about secret deals and I am a little worried that undertakings might have been made which weren't brought to the party room and the prime minister likes to talk about due process – I am very concerned about lack of due process.
Once this bill is passed the expectations of patients and families will change. The culture of dying, despite certain and intense resistance, will gradually permeate into our medical, health, social and institutional arrangements. It stands for everything a truly civil society should stand against.
Even if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn't that the price worth praying for all the people who could die with dignity?
Even if a few grannies get bullied into it, isn't that the price worth paying for all the people who could die with dignity?
However, there is significant judicial and academic opinion which suggests that laws made by territory legislatures are not merely suspended or dormant for the duration of any inconsistent Commonwealth law and then enter back into force upon its removal …
… there are strong grounds for suggesting that item 2 of Schedule 1 is insufficient to revive the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 (NT). The rights of individuals and interests at stake are too important to allow uncertainty on this score.
… provide the basis for an argument that the [NT RTI] Act would be invested with a Federal character that it did not possess prior to the commencement of the Euthanasia Laws Act 1997 (Cth) or would not possess following the mere repeal of that Act. There is a real danger of the Act becoming entrenched and thus leaving the Assembly powerless to amend or repeal it …
… instead of the Northern Territory law being revived, the Legislative Assembly there and in the other territories would be able to pass a new law, should they so wish—
I think that is appropriate given the principles of democracy involved, given the time that has elapsed and also given the constitutional issues [rather] than to attempt to revive something that may not be possible to do and it would certainly be inappropriate to leave practitioners and others in a situation where they may be unclear as to the legality of their actions.
I tasked the Department of Health to ensure that as many people as possible approved for home services are receiving some form of support. The report will be released once I have been assured of this.
What the commission has established so far is that the science was referenced initially.
A 2010 preliminary guide to the then-proposed basin plan used hydrology modelling to identify how much water should be recovered from irrigators and other consumers and returned to the environment.
Scientific experts recommended a range within which a "sustainable diversion limit" should be set. They based their work on the Water Act's requirement that the limit must reflect an "environmentally sustainable level of take".
In the Act, that level is defined as the amount of water that can be used for consumption, including for irrigation and industry, without compromising key environmental assets and outcomes, ecosystems or the productive base of the water resources themselves. The legal definition says that the level of take—and therefore the diversion limit—must be based on environmental considerations.
While the Act stipulates that economic and social impacts should be considered in managing the basin plan overall, it does not allow them to form part of those calculations at the start—
The expert work presented in the guide—and peer reviewed following scientific protocols—suggested that the amount of water to be recovered from irrigators should be somewhere between 3856 gigalitres and 6983 gigalitres a year.
But it warned that the lower amount had a "high degree of uncertainty" of achieving the desired environmental outcomes.
That meant 3900 gigalitres was the bare minimum that should be recovered for the environment. Even then, that was unlikely to be enough to do the job.
But between the publication of the guide and the finalising of the plan, something changed. Suddenly, it had to begin "with a two".
When the basin plan was produced, the amount of water the authority said had to be recovered was significantly lower—at just 2750 gigalitres a year.
That material and evidence, I stress, is regarded by me as highly desirable to be considered by my commission, in the interests of everyone, including South Australia and South Australians, affected by the Basin Plan.
… 30 to 40 bodies were removed from the barracks each morning … They would be carried out completely naked and stacked like firewood on carts … Then for good measure as they passed through the gates their skulls were smashed with axe handles.
Perhaps it was His will that at least one man out of that 1500 be allowed to witness a Christian rebirth in Lithuania.
He who does not defend his freedom is not worthy of it. AMEN.
Of course we want to take the company tax cuts, legislated as an important part of our economic achievement, to the next election.
We're making a rod for our back.
New coal-fired power stations will not reduce the cost of electricity and will not aid efforts to reduce emissions.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Keneally and Ketter today relating to a grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to a Centrelink trial of an automated debt recovery system.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Monday, 20 August 2018 at the time for private senators' bills:
No. 86 Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Reporting of Gas Reserves) Bill 2018.
Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 (subject to introduction).
No. 49 Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers be extended to 12 September 2018.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 October 2018:
The My Health Record system, with particular reference to:
(a) the expected benefits of the My Health Record system;
(b) the decision to shift from opt-in to opt-out;
(c) privacy and security, including concerns regarding:
(i) the vulnerability of the system to unauthorised access,
(ii) the arrangements for third party access by law enforcement, government agencies, researchers and commercial interests, and
(iii) arrangements to exclude third party access arrangements to include any other party, including health or life insurers;
(d) the government's administration of the My Health Record system roll-out, including:
(i) the public information campaign, and
(ii) the prevalence of "informed consent" amongst users;
(e) measures that are necessary to address community privacy concerns in the My Health Record system;
(f) how My Health Record compares to alternative systems of digitising health records internationally; and
(g) any other matters.
Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for a plebiscite at the next general election in relation to the level of migration to Australia, 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.
Australia's population increased by 3.5 million people in the decade 2006 to 2016. Around 60% of that population increase came from immigration.
There is no doubt that immigration is the cause of Australia's exceptional population growth.
If we continue to allow annual immigration targets to determine the size of our population, then the Australian Bureau of Statistics expects that Australia's population increase will double from 25 million to 50 million in just 30 years. Melbourne and Sydney will become megacities of over ten million people, but there is no evidence that we can plan and pay for this growth.
Governments, both Liberal and Labor, argue immigration is good for the economy, but economist Judith Sloan says immigration benefits special interest groups. She says the economics of immigration are very clear. In the short term immigration reduces per capita income and in the long term per capita income gains are very modest, but these calculations ignore the congestion costs, house prices and the loss of amenity.
Our immigration policy is like a horse that has lost its rider. It is dangerous. What we need is a rider, a population policy to safely guide the immigration horse.
Each year the government of the day sets an immigration target, but there is no plan to take into account the cumulative long term consequences of those yearly decisions. In fact it is the States and Territories that are left to manage the ever increasing population. State Governments are now carrying very high levels of debt and have little prospect of ever paying these loans.
If high levels of legal immigration are such a good idea, why is Australia the only OECD country with a population greater than ten million that is increasing its population at the rate of over 1.7% a year?
In 2011 the percentage of overseas born was just over 25% but today it is over 28%. In certain regions of our major cities those percentages are much higher due to concentration of settlement by certain groups.
No other comparable country has such a high proportion of overseas born. We have double the percentage of overseas born when we compare ourselves to the United States, the United Kingdom or New Zealand.
It is time to put the interests of citizens first and to stop pandering to special interest groups, including business, higher education and property developers who benefit from excessive immigration.
The Lowy Institute Survey reported a 'sharp spike in anti-immigration sentiment' in 2018, causing their annual sentiment measure to change from positive to negative.
The 2017 Scanlon Survey reported 37% of respondents see the current immigration intake as too high, but when respondents remained anonymous 74% said that Australia did not need any more people.
In the same year the Australian Population Research Institute found 54% of respondents, who were Australian voters, wanted the number of immigrants reduced.
The government and the opposition must be aware of these findings, but they have not changed their positions. Jointly the major political parties want a bigger and bigger population for Australia.
Is it that these political parties do not believe the results of these surveys?
Inevitably the sample sizes in these surveys are small when compared to the total population. Perhaps the major parties will be persuaded of the electorates view if a plebiscite on immigration is held at the next general election, because that is what is proposed in the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018.
My Bill proposes to ask voters "Do you think the immigration rate is too high?"
My view is that an overwhelming majority of Australians will say that the immigration rate is too high, when they are told 62% of the population increase in the decade to 2016 was the result of immigration.
It is clear to see that the benefits of a high level of legal immigration are outweighed by problems, but political parties depend for much of their support from the special interest groups which benefit from high immigration.
The Liberals and Labor have two choices. Either they accept there is no political support for high levels of legal immigration or they can argue there is no problem with legal mass immigration.
There is plenty of evidence the government and the opposition will use statistics to mislead the electorate on the real cause of Australia's population explosion.
There are three recent examples worth noting.
The first one took place on the day after the Budget in May this year when the Treasurer said that permanent immigration only accounted for around 20% of Australia's population growth.
Treasurer Morrison made that statement knowing that many permanent visas can only be issued after residency requirements in Australia are met. Once these pathway visas are taken into account, permanent immigration accounts for around 60% of Australia's population growth and not the 20% claimed by the Treasurer.
The second example involved the publication of figures which showed that in 2017-18 the number of permanent migrants had dropped from 190,000 to 163,000, but the government failed to say that a further 40,000 people were on bridging visas awaiting the outcome of their applications for permanent residence. In other words, the government can manipulate the figures by reducing staffing resources.
Labor is just as deceptive, because like the government they will not accept there is a problem with permanent immigration.
Labor says the immigration problem is one of temporary migration because we have two million temporary migrants in Australia, including up to half a million foreign students. Temporary migrants, however, are just temporary and unless they are on a pathway visa they leave Australia.
Political parties must be stupid to deny there is a problem with permanent migration, because families do notice demountable classrooms at the school, crowded train platforms, buses that don't stop because they are already full, ever increasing travelling times between familiar destinations and long wait times to see specialist doctors etc.
I have often been called a 'populist', but all I do is listen to people wherever I go.
Unlike most of the political class I talk with people, who are doing their best to get by, and they tell me that politicians are out of step with them on the issue of migration.
I take the view that I am here to represent the views of most Australians or a significant majority of Australians.
One Nation believes that our immigration should be reduced to 70,000 a year or whatever number is necessary to maintain the current population size and a sustainable population profile.
Australia is a dry continent and our vast land fragile. We need to consider the carrying capacity of the country.
At the end of World War II Australia's population was over seven million people and 90% of those people were born in Australia. In 1945 we were short of labor and the war had created a feeling that a bigger population would be necessary if we were to defend ourselves in the future. After the horror of the war in Europe many people wanted to leave and start a new life in Australia.
I acknowledge the hard work and the contribution made by so many overseas born Australians and their families, but that does not mean that we should continue to have the highest levels of legal immigration in the world.
I do not believe in a bigger and bigger population, but more importantly I believe Australian Citizens need to be given a say and that governments should not act on this issue without a mandate from the people of Australia which is why I am putting this Bill before the Senate for debate.
That the Senate—
(a) expresses the view that political re-education internment camps are the tool of brutal totalitarian government; and
(b) urges the Minister for Foreign Affairs to raise with foreign governments any concerns brought to her attention about the existence of such camps.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, by the adjournment on 20 August 2018, the modelling of the impact of the Targeted Compliance Framework on CDP jobseekers that was undertaken by the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet as part of the development of the reforms to the CDP, and the historical data used as part of this modelling, and the regional breakdown of the employment outcomes for CDP for the period 1 July 2015 to 31 May 2018.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Antarctic Division’s (AAD) headquarters is based in Kingston, Tasmania,
(ii) the AAD currently employs approximately 300 staff at the Kingston headquarters,
(iii) the AAD has a proud history of world-leading scientific research that has been led by a dedicated workforce based in the Kingborough municipality, and
(iv) as a small suburban population centre, Kingston’s retail businesses are heavily reliant on the 300 jobs that the AAD headquarters provides;
(b) expresses concern that the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and the Turnbull Government, are yet to publicly commit to maintaining the AAD’s headquarters in Kingston; and
(c) calls on the Turnbull Government to:
(i) commit to the long-term future of the AAD in Kingston, and rule out moving the location of the current headquarters, and
(ii) further commit to not making any decisions that would result in a net loss of AAD staff from Kingston.
That Business of the Senate order of the day No. 5, proposing a reference to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, be discharged from the Notice Paper .
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, by no later than 9.30 am on 21 August 2018:
(a) documents held by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science relating to the announcement, establishment and implementation of the partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation; and
16 No. 107—15 August 2018
(b) documents held by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) relating to the announcement, establishment and implementation of the partnership with the Great Barrier Reef Foundation.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 30 July 2018, the RUOK? Conversation Convoy began to raise awareness that a conversation could change a life,
(ii) the Conversation Convoy will travel across 14 000 kilometres and 25 communities to show Australians that every day is the day to ask “Are you OK?”, and
(iii) the Conversation Convoy will conclude in Sydney on 13 September 2018, which is also RUOK? Day – this important day was first established in 2009 to raise awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill-health;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) the statistics around suicide and mental ill-health are heartbreaking and confronting,
(ii) in 2016, 2 866 Australians lost their lives to suicide – research also reveals that around 65 000 people attempt suicide every year and hundreds of thousands of people are impacted by each suicide death, and
(iii) one in five Australians experience mental ill-health in any year; and
(c) urges:
(i) all levels of government and the community to work together to reduce the impact of suicide and mental ill-health in our society, and
(ii) that work must continue towards reducing stigma and raising community awareness around suicide prevention and mental ill-health.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Mr Tom Raue, recently preselected as the New South Wales Greens candidate for the inner Sydney seat of Summer Hill, once wrote in a student newspaper column “why is consensual sex with animals considered so heinous that it must be illegal? Why is it taboo to even talk about it? Yes most Australians find it disgusting, but that is not a good enough reason to legislate against it. Consensual sex with an animal should not be illegal, no matter how distasteful it may seem”;
(b) further notes that these statements are in keeping with the writings of Victorian Greens Party co-founder and former candidate, Professor Peter Singer, who has also sought to break down taboos on sexual relations between humans and animals; and
(c) rejects all pushes by the Greens and other activists to promote sexual intimacy between humans and animals.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) since September 2015, there have been a number of parliamentary inquiries into contamination of Defence-owned and neighbouring properties by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances and chemicals (PFAS), and
(ii) the upcoming Christmas will be the fourth Christmas that the residents living in the so-called 'red zone' surrounding Williamtown RAAF base in New South Wales will have had to endure with no resolution from the Federal Government; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) immediately implement a voluntary buy-out programme for affected property owners of PFAS contamination originating from Defence-owned land,
(ii) ensure the voluntary buy-out programme is at market rates for the affected properties prior to the public announcement of the contamination, plus the average increase in property values in the region since,
(iii) provide monetary compensation for those that wish to remain living at their property, and
(iv) ban the use of PFAS substances and chemicals, which have contaminated at least 90 communities across the country as a result of their use in fire retardants for decades.
The Senate Divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate:
(a) notes the increasing number of Confucius classes or institutes being established within the Australian education system, accompanied by generous foreign government grants;
(b) also notes an SBS report that:
(i) Australia has the third largest number of such institutes after the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and
(ii) there were 525 institutes and 1 113 classrooms across 146 countries worldwide by the end of 2017;
(c) further notes concerns that have been expressed, including in the documentary ' In the name of Confucius ' aired around Australia during the winter break, regarding academic freedom and freedom of conscience at or around these institutes;
(d) likewise notes comments attributed to Mr Ross Babbage, a former head of strategic analysis in the Office of National Assessments, and now a senior fellow at the Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) in Washington, stating that Australian universities are "naive" about what goes on in the institutes, and that since early 2018 the United States' Federal Bureau of Investigation has been warning about the institutes' activities on United States' campuses;
(e) observes that the New South Wales government is reviewing its engagement with the institute; and
(f) calls upon the Minister for Education and Training to work with his state and territory counterparts to ensure full reviews of their engagement with these institutes and classrooms.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) on 27 March 2018, the Senate passed a motion recognising the importance of strong digital encryption in protecting the personal and financial information of Australians, in preventing identity theft and other crime, and in ensuring that public interest whistleblowers, journalists, and other civil society actors can conduct their activities more securely,
(ii) on 31 July 2018, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) made a statement that 'My Health Record' legislation will be amended to "ensure no record can be released to police or government agencies, for any purpose, without a court order" ,
(iii) on 14 August 2018, the Government released draft legislation that requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant in order to search electronic devices and access content on those devices, and
(iv) currently, under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 , law enforcement agencies can access telecommunications metadata without a warrant; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) extend the requirement for a warrant to metadata, and collection and interception of all communications of Australians, for consistency and to uphold Australians' right to privacy,
(ii) support the continued development and use of strong encryption technologies, and
(iii) not actively undermine encryption and privacy by introducing legislation that compels telecommunications and information technology companies to break encryption or introduce weaknesses into communications systems or devices used by Australians.
The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialised cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has listed glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans",
(ii) a Californian Superior Court jury has ordered Monsanto pay $39 million in compensatory damages, and $250 million in punitive damages to former grounds keeper, Mr DeWayne Johnson on the grounds that their glyphosate product, Roundup, contributed to his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma,
(iii) this follows a review by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) of glyphosate, following the IARC finding, which "found no grounds to place it under formal reconsideration", and
(iv) glyphosate is still widely-used in Australian agricultural, gardening, grounds-keeping and land management environments; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to immediately request the APVMA to conduct a formal review of glyphosate, and request Monsanto (now Bayer AG) to make all internal scientific documentation, relating to the carcinogenicity of glyphosate, publically available.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2018:
The appropriateness and effectiveness of the objectives, design, implementation and evaluation of jobactive, with specific reference to:
(a) the nature and underlying causes of joblessness in Australia;
(b) the methods by which Australians gain employment and their relative effectiveness;
(c) the extent of consultation and engagement with unemployed workers in the design and implementation of jobactive;
(d) the ability of jobactive to provide long-term solutions to joblessness, and to achieve social, economic and cultural outcomes that meet the needs and aspirations of unemployed workers;
(e) the fairness of mutual obligation requirements, the jobactive Job Plan negotiation process and expenditure of the Employment Fund;
(f) the adequacy and appropriateness of activities undertaken within the Annual Activity Requirement phase, including Work for the Dole, training, studying and volunteering programs and their effect on employment outcomes;
(g) the impacts and consequences of the job seeker compliance framework;
(h) the appeals process, including the lack of an employment services ombudsman;
(i) the funding of jobactive, including the adequacy of the 'outcome driven' funding model, and the adequacy of this funding model to address barriers to employment;
(j) alternative approaches to addressing joblessness; and
(k) any other related matters.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that transparency, in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and its implementation, is critical to public confidence; and
(b) orders there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by 23 August 2018:
(i) advices requested in a letter from the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources of 3 May 2018, namely, all prior advice provided to the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources of 3 May 2018, concerning:
(A) the construction and proper interpretation of the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan,
(B) the lawfulness of the proposed amendment to the Basin Plan disallowed by the Senate on 6 February 2018,
(C) the lawfulness of the proposed amendment to the Basin Plan disallowed by the Senate on 14 February 2018,
(D) the lawfulness of the adjustment made to the Basin Plan, the subject of a disallowance motion defeated in the Senate on 8 May 2018, and
(E) the constitutional validity of the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan,
(ii) all documents, including any minutes of meetings made in accordance with section 196 of the Water Act 2007 , evidencing the reasoning behind the change of reductions in diversions required to achieve environmental watering requirements of 3 856 GL (high uncertainty) and 6 983 GL (low uncertainty), down to a reduction in diversions to 2 750 GL in the report,The proposed ' environmentally sustainable level of take ' for surface water of the Murray-Darling Basin: Methods and outcomes , dated November 2011, and the Basin Plan, as enacted on 23 November 2012,
(iii) all documents, including any minutes of meetings made in accordance with section 196 of the Water Act 2007 , relating to the incorporation of social and economic outcomes into the determination of the long-term average sustainable diversion limit reflecting an environmentally sustainable level of take between 8 October 2010 and 23 November 2012,
(iv) all documents, including any minutes of meetings made in accordance with section 196 of the Water Act 2007 , evidencing the further analysis conducted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to investigate the ability of alternative SDL options and water recovery strategies to achieve environmental objectives which lead to the adjustment of the recovery target from 2 800 GL to 2 750 GL,
(v) all documents, including any minutes of meetings made in accordance with section 196 of the Water Act 2007 , referring to the analysis of the equivalent environmental outcomes as required by section 7.15(1) (c) of the Basin Plan of each of the 36 supply measures,
(vi) record of any agreement to use another method within the meaning of section 7 of the Basin Plan for any of the 36 supply measures, and
(vii) the peer review of the report, Guide to the proposed Basin Plan , dated October 2010.
The Senate divided. [16:24]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 7 of 2018 .
Of the new bills examined in Report 7 , 12 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit, or do not engage, human rights. To complete its technical assessment of compatibility with Australia's international human rights law obligations, the committee has requested further information in relation to 10 bills and legislative instruments.
Of these bills and instruments, I would like to highlight four instruments made under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 , which relate to:
the resolution of complaints about national disability insurance scheme (NDIS) providers;
incident management systems for NDIS providers to record reportable incidents;
the disclosure of information by the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commissioner; and
the conditions of registration for NDIS providers that use 'regulated restrictive practices' in delivering NDIS support.
As outlined, these instruments raise a range of issues relevant to the human rights of people with disabilities. Consequently, the committee has requested further information from the minister as to the human rights compatibility of these instruments, particularly regarding the scope of various measures and the adequacy of safeguards to protect human rights.
Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of ten bills and legislative instruments. It includes the committee's concluded examination of five park management plans made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .
In relation to these instruments, the committee sought further information from the minister as to whether the measures engage and permissibly limit the right to freedom of expression on the basis that they provided certain restrictions on media reporting. The minister's response contained additional information which enabled the committee to conclude that, while certain measures in the plans do limit freedom of expression, they are nevertheless likely to be compatible with this right, because they are sufficiently circumscribed and are only as extensive as necessary to achieve a legitimate objective. This illustrates the constructive process of liaising with legislation proponents to identify relevant information in order to assist the committee in its assessment of legislation.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 7 of 2018 to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Review of the Defence Annual Report 2015-16
August 2018
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that in future years, the Department of Defence make available to the Committee all documentation that demonstrates the breakdown of Portfolio Budget Statement outcomes to internal programs to enable the Parliament and other agencies to analyse Defence performance.
Government response
Agree.
Previously, Defence has reported the annual outcome for the Portfolio Budget Statement programs by cost summary for each program as part of the online version of the Defence Annual Report. Defence will ensure this level of reporting is included in the online version of future publications.
Together with the Portfolio Budget Statements, the Defence Corporate Plan provides the external strategic narrative about Defence investment in military capability and how it intends to meet and measure performance against government requirements.
In accordance with guidance from the Department of Finance, the Annual Performance Statements report to what extent Defence has fulfilled its purposes as articulated at the beginning of a reporting year in the Defence Corporate Plan. This includes reporting on non-financial performance criteria in both the Defence Corporate Plan and in the Portfolio Budget/Additional Estimates Statements. The Annual Performance Statements are made available in the Defence Annual Report.
The Defence Annual Report 2016–17 includes the mapping of the Defence Purposes from the 2016–17 Defence Corporate Plan, and the outcomes and programs from the Portfolio Budget/Additional Estimates Statements 2016–17. The 2016–17 Annual Performance Statements also includes a narrative detailing the level of achievement against each of the performance criteria in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that future Department of Defence Annual Reports should clearly report performance against the Portfolio Budget Statement outcomes and detail the level of achievement against all program sub elements. If purposes are used for external communication, the linkages between Portfolio Budget Statement outcomes, departmental programs and the purposes should also be made clear.
Government response
Agree.
Section 39 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) introduced a requirement for entities to prepare annual performance statements for publication in the annual report. The annual performance statements report to what extent the entity has fulfilled their purpose(s) as outlined in their Corporate Plan. Section 39 of the PGPA Act superseded the requirement under section 63(2) of thePublic Service Act 1999 to report performance in relation to the deliverables and key performance indicators of the programs in the Portfolio Budget Statements, and the effectiveness in achieving the planned outcomes in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
The Annual Performance Statements were prepared in accordance with the PGPA Act for the first time in the Defence Annual Report 2015–16 . The quality of the annual performance statements is improving as Defence achieves better alignment between the non-financial performance criteria in the Corporate Plan and the Portfolio Budget/Additional Estimates Statements.
The Defence Annual Report 2016–17 includes the mapping of the Defence Purposes from the 2016–17 Defence Corporate Plan, and the outcomes and programs from the Portfolio Budget/Additional Estimates Statements 2016–17. The 2016–17 Annual Performance Statements also includes a narrative detailing the level of achievement against each of the performance criteria in the Portfolio Budget Statements.
Defence is continuing to improve the alignment between the non-financial performance information in the Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Corporate Plan to establish a clearer read about how Defence is fulfilling its purposes.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence develop a transparent reporting mechanism that demonstrates changes in effectiveness or efficiency resultant from the First Principles Review related change for consideration by the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by 31 March 2018.
Government response
Agree.
Defence agrees in principle with Recommendation 3, but suggests that the timeframe be amended to 31 July 2018.
Defence notes that a number of improvements relating to efficiency and effectiveness have been gained by implementing the First Principles Review.
The Government has asked Defence to provide an update on First Principles Review implementation, including progress measuring and reporting on improvements in effectiveness and efficiency, in July 2018. Given the timing of work already underway to measure efficiency and effectiveness and the existing requirement to report to Government in July 2018, Defence suggests that it would also be appropriate to provide the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade with an update on measurement and reporting of effectiveness and efficiency improvements in July 2018.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends the Department of Defence consider leveraging private sector expertise during Investment Committee Gate Zero deliberations; where the addition of an industry expert may increase public confidence in approach to market decisions.
Government response
Agree.
Defence agrees with the intent of Recommendation 4. Defence will leverage private sector expertise in the development of Gate Zero proposals but does not propose industry representatives be invited into the Investment Committee as a part of the deliberative process. Defence intends to strike the right balance between early industry engagement and leveraging industry experience, whilst maintaining a competitive environment and protecting the Commonwealth's negotiating position.
Industry will be engaged at multiple points up to and including Gate Zero. Defence intends to leverage industry's expertise in a number of ways, including but not limited to:
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence work with the Defence Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to harmonise and streamline reporting matrices to the Parliament to allow for independent Parliamentary oversight.
Government response
Disagree.
The Department of Finance has issued guidance to Commonwealth entities on how to meet the obligations under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 (PGPA Act) and the PGPA Rule 2014 to provide a transparent approach to reporting on performance to Parliament.
In accordance with the Department of Finance's Resource Management Guides, Defence prepares a corporate plan and annual performance statements in the annual report.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence improve:
the consistency between the Defence Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report;
the reporting of Departmental expenditure on major projects in real as opposed to out-turn dollars; and
the reporting on the cost and status of Australian Defence Force capability.
Government response
Recommendation 6.1: Agree. The 2015–16 Annual Performance Statements, published in the Defence Annual Report 2015 –16 are the first statements produced by Commonwealth entities under the PGPA Act. The 2016–17 Annual Performance Statements in theDefence Annual Report 2016 –17 demonstrated greater alignment between the outcomes in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2016–17 and the purposes in the 2016–17 Defence Corporate Plan. This enhanced the narrative of Defence's non-financial performance for the reporting period.
The Defence Annual Report 2016–17 also improved the transparency of reporting on planned expenditure set out in the Portfolio Budget Statements. This reporting will continue to mature in future reporting periods.
Recommendation 6.2: Disagree. Government approvals are required and obtained on an out-turned basis. To allow effective performance reporting, budget estimates are reported on the current price basis against actual expenditure.
Recommendation 6.3: Disagree. The Defence Annual Report does disclose results and performance in relation to the Defence Workforce (2015-16 Defence Annual Report Chapter 7). Additionally the online version of the 2015-16 Defence Annual Report includes comparable information published within the Portfolio Budget Statements and the Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements on Acquisition, Sustainment and Facilities and Infrastructure.
Improvement in performance reporting must take into account that the level of aggregation and disambiguation required to make the report suitable for publication at the Unclassified level may compromise the meaning of the information, to the point that it becomes potentially misleading.
The Australian Defence Force Headquarters Governance and Coordination will work with line areas conducting performance reporting to improve the quality of performance reporting provided, within the constraints of the Australian Government Protective Security Policy Framework.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence investigate opportunities to partner with industry to advance research and innovation on space capabilities.
Government response
Agree.
Defence is already working with industry to develop innovative space related capabilities, including through the Defence Innovation Hub and the Centre for Defence Industry Capability.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence review the Plan Suakin scope and objective; its implementation timeframe and resourcing to ensure that this signature program is and continues to meet all of the Department's personnel capability needs.
Government response
Agree.
Since the Defence Annual Report 2015–16 was tabled the Services have implemented all but one component of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Total Workforce Model, designed and developed by Project Suakin. A robust evaluation plan has been put in place to monitor the benefits envisaged by implementing the Total Workforce Model. Suakin as a project will close four years earlier than envisaged.
Navy, Army and Air Force are now able to apply a range of innovative service arrangements that enable them to provide Defence capability through a flexible, contemporary and sustainable workforce. The Total Workforce Model provides individual ADF members with access to service arrangements that allows them to better balance their personal and military commitments. This enhances Defence's position as an employer of choice and improves its prospects of attracting and retaining key ADF personnel.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence urgently review security clearance processes, resourcing and timeframe to ensure all organisations that require the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency to complete vetting and subsequent re-assessment of clearances are being serviced in a timely manner.
Government response
Disagree.
The Australian Government Security Vetting Agency (AGSVA) completed a review in 2016 and commenced a reform and renewal program which has significantly improved performance in the following 2 years.
AGSVA continues to work closely with stakeholders to identify further reforms and improvements in business processes to develop a sustainable whole of government capability to meet higher clearance demand into the future.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Department of Veterans' Affairs investigate options for an independent authority to review all unsuccessful Veterans' Review Board determinations in consultation with the affected veteran or their delegate to alleviate the stress and burden of making their own case to appeal.
Government response
Agree in part.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs has committed to undertaking an Advocacy Service Models Scoping Study in response to this recommendation and to the following two recommendations of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report: The Constant Battle: Suicide by Veterans :
Recommendation 23:
The Australian Government establish a Bureau of Veterans ' Advocates to represent veterans, commission legal representation where required, train advocates for veterans and be responsible for advocate insurance issues.
and
Recommendation 24:
The Australian Government establish an independent review to assess whether further support mechanisms for veterans appearing before the Veterans ' Review Board are required :
Among other things, the Scoping Study will examine:
Airports Amendment Bill 2018
Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018
Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (OECD Multilateral Instrument) 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.
We all recognise the 22 Australian federal leased airports are critical infrastructure assets to our nation's productivity and economic growth.
The Government regulates planning and development on our airport sites through the Airports Act 1996 . Under the Airports Act, all federal leased airports (except Mount Isa and Tenant Creek) are required to prepare a master plan every five years to establish a strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport as well as prepare major development plans for specific major on-airport developments.
The Airports Act sets out the required content of each plan and prescribes the public consultation process an airport lessee company must undertake prior to the plan being submitted for Ministerial consideration. On average, the current legislative process requires an airport lessee company to expend significant resources and it can take the company two years on average to develop each plan.
Certain aspects of these processes are generating inefficient outcomes for industry as well as imposing unnecessary and onerous administrative and compliance costs. I also recognise on-airport developments are not immune to fluctuations in the marketplace and the economic climate.
The measures contained in this Airports Amendment Bill 2018 will fine-tune existing regulation and streamline policy intentions; it will not significantly shift policy or regulatory oversight. It reinforces the Government's commitment to implement measures consistent with its deregulation and productivity agendas. The Bill offers a more proportionate and efficiency-based regulatory approach that reduces administrative and compliance costs for operators. It also creates regulatory certainty for industry and maintains appropriate and effective regulatory oversight.
This Bill can be considered in three parts.
Part one proposes two key changes to the existing master plan process, the first of which is to implement a differential master plan cycle to enable federal leased airports, other than the major airports; Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), to submit a master plan every eight years instead of every five years.
All federal leased airports are currently required to prepare a new master plan every five years irrespective of the operational, administrative, resourcing and financial capacity of individual airports or the level of impact their operations have on the community. Implementing an eight year master plan cycle for secondary and general aviation airports, will minimise the impacts of these factors.
I also recognise that implementation timeframes of various components of the master plan, including key airport infrastructure projects and other aviation and non-aviation developments, the ground transport plan and environment strategy, generally extend beyond the current five year submission cycle. Therefore, this amendment aims to enable longer-term planning at these secondary and general aviation airports.
Please note, this amendment will not change the current situation for Sydney West Airport; it will maintain a five year cycle along with the other four major federal leased airports, once the airport is operational.
The second change is to mandate the inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in each new master plan. While the Airports Act currently requires an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be included in a master plan, it does not specify the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be renewed for each new plan.
The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast is a computer generated descriptor of aircraft noise widely used by State, Territory, Local Governments and land use planning agencies for long-term planning and development arrangements around airport sites.
Therefore, the Government maintains it is essential each new master plan contain the most up-to-date information to facilitate integrated, balanced and coherent planning outcomes and to inform incompatible and sensitive land uses from encroaching too close to airports.
Part two of the Bill relates specifically to the monetary trigger for a major development plan.
Major development plans are required for each major airport development at federal leased airports, excluding Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. The Airports Act prescribes the circumstances which trigger a major development plan, including a monetary trigger, for certain development where the cost of construction exceeds $20 million.
In 2007 the Airports Act was amended to increase the monetary threshold from $10 million to $20 million due to ongoing increases in building costs since the Act came into effect. Further increases to the construction activity costs and inflation since 2007 have resulted in an increased number of on-airport developments unnecessarily triggering the requirement for a major development plan.
The Bill proposes to increase the current $20 million monetary trigger for a major development plan to $25 million. The monetary threshold will be reviewed and revised via legislative instrument every three years; having regard to changes in construction activity costs and associated indexations to ensure the monetary trigger accurately reflects and keeps pace with economic and marketplace conditions.
The Bill further proposes an additional legislative instrument to clarify the type of construction activities that should and should not be included when calculating if a project triggers the monetary threshold for a major development plan. For example, airports must include costs for base building fitout in its calculations. Base building fitout includes the internal cladding to finish off the base building prior to tenancy fitout. However, the airport is not required to include tenant specific fitout costs and tenant supplied items. This instrument will remove any confusion for industry and ensure a consistent costing application across all federal leased airports.
Part three of the Bill relates specifically to major development plan processes.
The first amendment imposes a new 15 business day statutory decision timeframe within which the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport must consider applications from airport lessee companies for reduced consultation periods for major development plans, with such applications deemed refused if there is no Ministerial decision within this timeframe.
This amendment will not impact the prescribed requirements for public consultation, however it will provide industry with certainty about the Ministerial decision timeframe, which could then be accounted for in the airport's planning process.
The final amendments proposed in this Bill relate to substantial completion of an approved major development plan.
The Airports Act currently requires an approved major development plan to be substantially completed, unless otherwise specified in the approval, within a maximum of five years with only one option for the Minister to extend the period by up to a further two years.
While the majority of approved major development plans are completed in the prescribed timeframe, on rare occasions some larger or more complex developments, such as a new runway, may be subject to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances beyond airports' control. As a result, achieving a substantially complete status may require more than the standard seven year timeframe.
Where an airport is committed to substantially completing an approved major development plan, the airport should be given the opportunity to do so without the threat of legislative penalty. Therefore, the Bill proposes to remove the restriction on the number of times the Minister may extend the timeframe for substantial completion.
In rare circumstances a project with an approved major development plan may become unviable due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond airports' control. For such instances, where the project has not commenced, the Bill proposes the airport can notify the Minister of its intentions to not proceed with the approved major development plan without the threat of legislative penalty.
These amendments recognise that airports would have already expended significant financial and administrative resources to have a major development plan approved. Therefore, these amendments will minimise regulatory uncertainty for airports and industry and ensure an efficient and streamlined process.
The Bill also includes:
On a final note, I would like to acknowledge our airports are nationally significant infrastructure assets that keep us connected to each other and connect Australia to the world. They continue to play a major role in driving the economic development of Australia as enablers of commerce and trade, and the social and economic benefits they provide to all Australians should not be understated.
This Bill is yet another example of this Government consulting with and responding to the needs of industry to achieve better regulatory outcomes for all.
I commend the Bill.
The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 seeks to improve and streamline the operation of legislative frameworks for Commonwealth Acts and Instruments by making amendments to various Acts, primarily the Legislation Act 2003 andActs Interpretation Act 1901 .
The key purpose of the Bill is to implement those recommendations of the Report on the Operation of the Sunsetting Provisions in the Legislation Act 2003 that can only be addressed by legislative action.
Last year, a review of the sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act was conducted by a committee comprised of three senior Commonwealth public servants.
The sunsetting provisions provide that a legislative instrument is automatically repealed approximately 10 years after commencement. Sunsetting ensures that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for so long as they are needed.
The committee found that the sunsetting framework is, in general, fulfilling its stated purpose. As at 1 October 2017, over 2,000 legislative instruments have appeared on sunsetting lists tabled in Parliament under section 52 of the Legislation Act. Of those instruments, approximately 20% were allowed to sunset, 19% were actively repealed, and 24% were replaced (comprising approximately 63% of the listed instruments in total). These statistics indicate that the sunsetting framework has substantially contributed to keeping the statute book up-to-date.
The sunsetting of older legislative instruments is also an important mechanism for the Australian Government to reduce red tape, deliver clearer laws and align existing legislation with current government policy.
The Attorney-General's Department has made enhancements to administrative processes and internal guidance to assist Commonwealth rule‑makers and agencies to manage the sunsetting of their legislative instruments efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the law.
However, some legislative action is necessary to further streamline and improve the operation of the scheme.
This Bill seeks to include more flexibility in the sunsetting framework by broadening the scope of the Attorney-General's power to issue certificates of deferral of sunsetting and declarations of alignment of sunsetting. It also provides for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these powers.
The time restriction on the Parliament's power to roll over the sunsetting date of a legislative instrument will also be removed.
The Bill will provide that rules made by each of the federal courts are not subject to the sunsetting framework, as there are already numerous mechanisms in place to ensure that rules of court remain fit‑for‑purpose, relevant and required.
Further, this Bill provides a definition of 'sitting day' as it applies to the disallowance provisions of the Legislation Act. This definition is consistent with current practice, but will provide greater legal certainty about the status of legislative instruments in circumstances where the Parliament has sat on an unscheduled sitting day.
This Bill will also make minor changes to a number of provisions to clarify their operation, in particular the interaction between the disallowance, tabling and automatic repeal provisions of the Legislation Act.
In addition to the amendments resulting from the recommendations of the committee, this Bill will make other minor and technical amendments to the Legislation Act and the Acts Interpretation Act to clarify their operation, resolve inconsistencies between provisions and simplify language.
In particular, it will clarify that a provision in the Legislation Act allowing a legislative or notifiable instrument to commence before the instrument is registered operates despite any rule or principle of common law. Any retrospective commencement of a legislative or notifiable instrument, however, is displaced to the extent that the retrospective commencement adversely affects the rights or liabilities of a person other than the Commonwealth. This provides a protection against retrospectivity for adversely affected individuals without rendering an entire instrument or provision of an instrument ineffective in relation to all people both prospectively and retrospectively.
It will also clarify the limits of the First Parliamentary Counsel's power to rectify an error on the Federal Register of Legislation. This error correction power ensures that administrative errors, such as lodgement of the incorrect version of an instrument or compilation for publication on the Register, can be rectified without requiring the rule‑maker to repeal and remake the instrument.
Finally, this Bill will clarify that, where an Act refers to a provision of another Act or State or Territory law, and that provision is repealed and re‑enacted, a reference to the repealed provision extends to the re-enacted provision even if it is differently numbered.
This Bill provides an opportunity to improve and streamline the legislative frameworks for Commonwealth Acts and delegated legislation that ensure Commonwealth laws are up-to-date, clear and align existing legislation with current government policy.
The Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 includes four key changes relating to the superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians, judges and civilian employees of the Commonwealth.
The first key change concerns a measure announced in the 2012-13 Budget relating to a reduction in the tax concessions on superannuation contributions of very high income earners, which is known as the Division 293 tax.
In 2013, the legislation for several Commonwealth superannuation schemes was amended to allow a person to request that they be paid a lump sum amount from their scheme to meet their Division 293 tax liability. This is done using a Division 293 tax release authority.
The Judges ' Pensions Act 1968 was not amended as judges are exempt from the Division 293 tax for constitutional reasons. However, there are a small number of non judges that have been granted the same status as judges for the purpose of membership of the Judges' Pensions Scheme. These non-judge members, and any future non-judge members, are subject to the Division 293 tax.
The Bill therefore includes amendments to the Judges ' Pensions Act 1968 that are similar to those made to the legislation for other Commonwealth superannuation schemes.
The second key change included in the Bill is to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to ensure that in all circumstances in the future that the calculation of any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety-net benefit payable to an estate is enough to ensure the Superannuation Guarantee requirements are met.
The actuary for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme has advised that, in certain limited circumstances, in the future, the current calculation method would not produce a benefit that would meet the statutory minimum Superannuation Guarantee requirements.
Under the current provisions of the scheme, this could potentially occur in the future, where a scheme member dies who had retired after age 65; had very long service; who had converted a significant proportion of their pension into a lump sum; and has no spouse.
The Bill therefore includes amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to change the calculation method to ensure that any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety-net benefit payable to an estate will meet the statutory minimum Superannuation Guarantee requirements. The amendments do not increase any parliamentary pension entitlements for any individual members.
The third key change included in the Bill concerns reversionary superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of children. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, theJudges ' Pensions Act 1968 , theFederal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 , theSuperannuation Act 1976 and theSuperannuation Act 1922 provide for benefits to be payable to, or in respect of, a person who is the child of a deceased member of one of the schemes established by those Acts.
Generally, the requirement is that the child must prove that from the age of 16 and above, they remain in formal full time education to be eligible for a reversionary benefit. In addition, in some schemes where the child is between age 16 and 25 the child must also not be ordinarily in employment.
The amendments increase the minimum age that a child will have to meet the test of being in full time education from age 16 to age 18 and remove the requirement for an eligible child to not be ordinarily in employment.
This reflects that the majority of current children do not leave formal education until at least the age of 18 and that part-time and casual employment is common.
These changes are consistent with those that have already been made to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme.
The fourth key change included in the Bill is in relation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board. Under the changes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board will be reduced from eleven to nine directors.
The Bill also includes two minor amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 . The first provides the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust with the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting. However, this flexibility is subject to the Trust first determining in writing that it may make decisions without a meeting and setting out the way in which trustees are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. The second allows an actuary other than only the Australian Government Actuary to provide advice in relation to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme.
The Bill also corrects a misdescribed amendment relating to the Judges ' Pensions Act 1968 .
This Bill represents another important step in demonstrating the Government's ongoing commitment to tackling multinational tax avoidance.
The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, commonly referred to as the Multilateral Instrument, is a key element of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project, which identified fifteen specific areas in which countries should take action to address multinational tax evasion. The Multilateral Instrument is the output of BEPS Action 15.
Under this Government Australia has been a strong supporter of the BEPS project, and remains at the forefront of global efforts to ensure that multinationals' profits are taxed in the jurisdiction where economic value is added or created. Since coming to office, the Government has implemented a comprehensive suite of integrity measures designed to prevent multinationals from shifting untaxed Australian profits offshore.
The Multinational Instrument is a multilateral treaty that will modify the majority of Australia's bilateral tax treaties to include new integrity rules that will help prevent those treaties from being exploited for tax avoidance purposes. More specifically, and from an Australian perspective, it will include rules designed to:
The Multilateral Instrument will also improve the effectiveness of tax treaty-based dispute resolution mechanisms, including by allowing taxpayers to refer unresolved disputes to independent and binding arbitration (where Australia's treaty partners agree to adopt these optional arbitration rules). These features will provide greater certainty to taxpayers in relation to tax treaty-related disputes.
To date, 78 jurisdictions have signed the Multilateral Instrument. Australia signed it on 7 June 2017.
Pending its ratification by other jurisdictions, the Multilateral Instrument will modify the application of 31 of Australia's 44 bilateral tax treaties; that is Australia's tax treaties with Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
This innovative multilateral approach will generate significant time and cost savings for Australia, by avoiding the need to bilaterally renegotiate each of these treaties individually to achieve similar outcomes, a process that could take decades.
Effective international cooperation is critical to maintaining the integrity of the international tax system and the Multilateral Instrument clearly demonstrates the results that such cooperation can produce.
The Government is committed to continuing this cooperation and to working actively with the OECD and the G20, and bilaterally with Australia's tax treaty partners, to ensure that Australia's tax system remains fair and open, and keeps pace with international best practice.
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Bill 2018
That the Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Regulations 2018, made under the Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Act 2017, and the Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Regulations 2018, made under the Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Act 2017, be disallowed.
… the Minister to prescribe products as emissions-controlled products and make rules relating to those products …
The Senate divided. [17:21]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Whish-Wilson)
Restoring Territory Rights (Assisted Suicide Legislation) Bill 2015
People make all sorts of assumptions about the quality of my life and my levels of independence. They're almost always wrong.
I've lost count of the number of times I've been told, "I just don't think I could live like you," or "I wouldn't have the courage in your situation," or, my favourite one to overhear (and I've overheard it more than once), "You'd just bloody top yourself, wouldn't you?".
… … …
Also, social attitudes towards disabled people come from a medical profession that takes a deficit view of disability. This is my major concern with legalising assisted death; that it will give doctors more control over our lives.
… the advocates support a bill to authorise termination of life in the name of compassion, while at the same time claiming they can guarantee protection of the vulnerable, the depressed and the poor.
No law and no process can achieve that objective. This is the point. If there are doctors prepared to bend the rules now, there will be doctors prepared to bend the rules under the new system.
No matter what justifications are offered for the bill, it constitutes an unacceptable departure in our approach to human existence and the irrevocable sanctity that should govern our understanding of what it means to be human.
Although the evidence received enabled the committee to consider some of the provisions of the Bill in detail, there remain some technical issues with a number of the provisions of the Bill. These include clarification of the definition of a dying with dignity service, clarification around the definition of a terminal illness, the number of medical practitioners required to consider the request, consistency of definition around decision-making capacity, and the serious consequences for medical practitioners who relied upon the immunities in the Bill if such immunities were later found to be unconstitutional.
The committee notes conflicting evidence it received in relation to the primary constitutional basis for the Bill under—
The committee was told that there could be very serious consequences for medical practitioners who relied upon the immunities in the Bill, if such immunities were later found to be unconstitutional. This concern is enlivened by the virtual certainty that any federal legislation dealing with voluntary euthanasia will face constitutional challenge.
My opinion is, I believe, no better formed than the views of a democratically elected parliamentarian of the Northern Territory—a parliamentarian who was required over a much longer period of time than I to determine how the laws of that state like territory should apply. I am not one of those who believe that because I am in the federal parliament my opinions are that much superior to those of representatives of the people of the Northern Territory.
I support this bill, which removes a longstanding injustice done to citizens of the Northern Territory and the ACT.
And that's all it does.
It is not a bill that legalises medically assisted suicide.
Or which creates a system of safeguards to define and regulate the circumstances in which people may seek medical assistance to end their lives.
It may be argued that there are two separate issues:
My answer to both questions is yes, and I wish to state briefly the reasons why I believe this bill should be passed.
I am one of the few in this place who took part in the 1997 Senate debate on the legislation the bill seeks to overturn.
My view has not changed.
In 1997, I said:
"I am probably the last one in this chamber to argue that the state has no right to interfere in the lives of its citizens.
To the contrary, I believe that the role of the state is to provide some form of sensible regulation which is vital for the fair and equitable running of a society.
Therefore I won't say that the state has no right to tell a person when they can or cannot die, because I am aware that people are already making those decisions.
What I believe the state must do is ensure that people have access to safety, proper medical advice, and as much decent care and support as can be given.
There are others who also oppose the bill before us today on the grounds that the state has no right to restrict the freedom of an individual to seek their own death and to seek medical assistance to do that.
It gives me a sense of ironic pleasure to quote John Stuart Mill, who argues that 'the only justification for restricting freedom through law is to prevent harm to others'.
It puzzles me somewhat that so many of the free marketeers in this Parliament, who would normally proclaim the sanctity of the individual and invoke the name of Mill, are in this instance opposing the individual's right to self-determination.
I also acknowledge that many senators support this [1997] bill on genuinely held religious grounds ... However, Australia is a secular nation, and as its Parliament we have an obligation to make secular laws, not religious ones."
One of the consequences of the 1997 Act was that it restricts equality before the law on the basis of where people live.
If you live in one of the states, your state's parliament is considered competent to legislate on euthanasia.
But if you live in the Northern Territory or the ACT, your territory's assembly is denied that competence.
The bill now before us removes that geographic inequality.
And in doing so, it would restore to the territories the right to allow their residents to seek medical assistance to end their lives if they are facing a protracted, painful death from incurable illness.
There is no justification for elected parliaments refusing to allow individuals to make that decision.
If you apply the John Stuart Mill test—that a restriction of freedom is only justified to prevent harm to others—who is harmed when the law denies individuals of sound mind the right to end their lives in the circumstances I have described?
The harm is done to the individuals whose autonomy has been denied.
They have lost control over their lives.
A law on assisted suicide should stipulate appropriate safeguards to ensure that personal autonomy is respected.
The Northern Territory law overturned in 1997 did have these safeguards.
That is also true of the assisted dying law recently enacted in Victoria.
It is important to be aware of this, because one of the most common cited reasons for opposing voluntary euthanasia is the fear that some people will not be choosing freely when they ask to be helped to die.
Perhaps, the opponents of assisted suicide say, because of subtle pressure from families who see them as a burden.
Or pressure from hospitals that are short of beds for patients who will recover.
These are familiar scenarios put forward in the course of any debate on euthanasia.
It is claimed that legalising voluntary euthanasia will start us on a slippery slope to a society of manipulation and abuse.
I do not accept the notion that we cannot devise laws to avoid such an outcome.
And I remind senators that the unregulated environment that applies in every Australian jurisdiction except Victoria is much more likely to result in the manipulation and abuse of the terminally ill.
We should not pretend that medically assisted suicides do not already take place, but without safeguards.
Opponents of medically assisted suicide like to evoke images of fascist regimes that used euthanasia to eliminate the unwanted.
That is not what the NT Act overturned in 1997 and the present Victorian Act allow.
Both those laws contain safeguards to prevent abuse — safeguards that do not exist in jurisdictions without such laws.
The NT law allowed medically assisted suicide only in strictly defined circumstances.
A person seeking assistance to die had to be an adult, and suffering from a terminal illness causing severe pain for which there was no treatment acceptable to the patient.
They had to have proper medical advice about the likely course of their illness, and about other options such as palliative care.
The doctor had to be satisfied that the patient was of sound mind and acting voluntarily, after due consideration and without restraint.
A second doctor with specialist qualifications in treating the patient's ailment had to confirm the first diagnosis.
A psychiatrist had to confirm that the patient was not suffering from treatable depression.
There had to be two cooling-off periods.
Seven days between the patient requesting medical assistance to die and the issuing of a certificate authorising that assistance.
And another 48 hours between the certificate being issued and being acted upon.
A request for assistance to end life could be rescinded by the patient at any time and in any form.
And, the law provided penalties for any person who attempted to influence a doctor to end the life of another person.
And for anyone who improperly induced another to sign or witness a form requesting medically assisted suicide.
Under the NT Rights of the Terminally Ill Act, no doctor or other health-care professional could be obliged to assist someone to die.
There was no attempt to force people to act against their moral beliefs.
A law with those stringent safeguards is not a law that de-values human life.
It is a law that respects the choices people make.
I support the principle that the will of the Senate should not be distorted.
If a senator is not able to attend because of ill-health, it is appropriate that pairing arrangements are made.
In this case, arrangements are made informally and not through the parties.
This is a conscience-vote bill.
Accordingly I have agreed to pair with Senator Sinodinos.
However, for the reasons I have set out I hope that this bill will be passed.
The Northern Territory and the ACT assemblies should be able to resolve this matter democratically, just as the parliaments of the states are able to do.
That is the question posed to us by this bill, and our answer should be yes.
The Senate divided. [19:03]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The question is really does the APS have the capability set it needs to deliver for the challenges Australia faces in the next quarter century?
… do we have sufficient capability? Answer: absolutely not.