The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen says Labor accepts that company tax falls hardest on workers rather than wealthy shareholders, and aims for a 25 per cent company tax rate to spur economic growth.
"I would like to see the corporate tax rate come down over time. I have previously said the nation should be aiming for a 25 per cent corporate tax rate," Mr Bowen said, adding that it would not be easy to do.
… lowering the corporate rate for smaller businesses only … creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize.
In worse case scenarios some businesses might actually lay people off to get smaller - and the size based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth.
Instead we want a level playing field regardless of the size of the company.
The U.S. tax policy changes are expected to stimulate activity, with the short-term impact in the United States mostly driven by the investment response to the corporate income tax cuts.
The Senate divided. [12:28]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 9), insert:
(2) Clause 2, page 3 (table item 17), omit the table item.
(3) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 4), after item 5, insert:
5A Subsection 3 ( 1 )
Insert:
large ADI has the same meaning as in theIncome Tax Assessment Act 1997 .
Note: For a consolidated group, the head company is the large ADI.
(4) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 6), after item 6, insert:
6A Subsection 23(1A)
Omit "section 23A", substitute "sections 23A and 24".
(5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 8 (line 10), omit "section 23A", substitute "sections 23A and 24".
(6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 8 (lines 12 to 14), omit the item, substitute:
8 Paragraph 23 ( 3 ) (b)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) in respect of the standard component:
(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—27.5%; or
(ii) if the company is a large ADI for the year of income—30%.
(7) Schedule 1, item 13, page 9 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute:
13 Paragraph 23A(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) in respect of the ordinary class:
(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—27.5%; or
(ii) if the company is a large ADI for the year of income—30%; and
(8) Schedule 1, page 9 (after line 6), after item 13, insert:
13A After section 23A
Insert:
24 Rate of tax payable by large ADIs
The rate of tax in respect of the taxable income of a company (other than a life insurance company or an RSA provider) that is a large ADI for the year of income is 30%.
(9) Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (lines 14 to 18), omit the item, substitute:
15 Paragraph 28(a)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(a) if paragraph 98(3)(b) of the Assessment Act (about beneficiaries that are companies) applies:
(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—the rate specified in subsection 23(2); or
(ii) if the beneficiary is a large ADI for the year of income—the rate specified in section 24; and
(10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 10 (line 7), omit "Paragraph 23(3)(b)", substitute "Subparagraph 23(3)(b)(i)".
(11) Schedule 1, item 23, page 10 (line 15), omit "Paragraph 23A(a)", substitute "Subparagraph 23A(a)(i)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 11 (line 7), omit "Paragraph 23(3)(b)", substitute "Subparagraph 23(3)(b)(i)".
(13) Schedule 1, item 31, page 11 (line 15), omit "Paragraph 23A(a)", substitute "Subparagraph 23A(a)(i)".
(14) Schedule 1, item 35, page 12 (line 7), omit "Paragraph 23(3)(b)", substitute "Subparagraph 23(3)(b)(i)".
(15) Schedule 1, item 39, page 12 (line 15), omit "Paragraph 23A(a)", substitute "Subparagraph 23A(a)(i)".
(16) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 18), after Part 8, insert:
Part 8A—Amendment of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
40A Section 960 ‑265 (at the end of the table)
Add:
40B Subsection 960 ‑270 ( 3 )
After "item 14", insert "or 15".
40C Subsection 960 ‑275 ( 6 )
After "item 14", insert "or 15".
40D Subsection 960 ‑280 ( 6 )
After "item 14", insert "or 15".
40E Section 960 ‑290 (heading)
Omit "levy threshold for the major bank levy", substitute "thresholds for major bank levy and large ADIs".
40F Subsection 960 ‑290 ( 1 )
Omit "the amount mentioned in the provision listed at item 14", substitute "an amount mentioned in a provision listed at item 14 or 15".
40G Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 )
Insert:
applicable reporting standard has the same meaning as in theMajor Bank Levy Act 2017 .
40H Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 ) (paragraph (aa) of the definition of indexation factor )
Omit "for the amount mentioned in the provision listed at item 14", substitute "for an amount mentioned in a provision listed at item 14 or 15".
40J Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 ) (paragraph (b) of the definition of index number )
Omit "the amount mentioned in the provision listed at item 14", substitute "the amounts mentioned in the provisions listed at items 14 and 15".
40K Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 )
Insert:
large ADI : an Australian resident company is alarge ADI for an income year if:
(a) disregarding subsection 701‑1(1) (the single entity rule) both of the following apply:
(i) the company is an *ADI;
(ii) the amount equal to the total liabilities of the ADI for any *quarter in the income year, as reported under an *applicable reporting standard, exceeds the *large ADI threshold for the quarter; or
(b) the company is the *head company of a *consolidated group and paragraph (a) applies to one or more *subsidiary members of the group for the income year.
Note: The effect of this definition for a consolidated group is that, if paragraph (a) applies to any member, the head company is a large ADI. The head company's status as a large ADI affects the rate of tax payable on the head company's taxable income (worked out on the basis that subsidiary members are part of the head company): see subsection 701‑1(1) (the single entity rule) and the Income Tax Rates Act 1986 .
large ADI threshold : thelarge ADI threshold for the *quarter starting on 1 July 2017 is $500 billion. The amount is indexed quarterly.
Note: Subdivision 960‑M shows how to index amounts.
(17) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 25), after subitem 41(8), insert:
(9) The amendments made by Part 8A of this Schedule apply to the 2023‑24 year of income and later years of income.
(10) The amendments made by Parts 5 and 8A of this Schedule also apply for the purposes of determining the corporate tax rate for imputation purposes for the 2023‑24 income year.
Note: This ensures the amendments made by Parts 5 and 8A can be applied to the 2022‑23 income year for the purposes of working out the corporate tax rate for imputation purposes for the 2023‑24 income year.
(18) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 14 (line 3) to page 17 (line 20), omit the Part, substitute:
Part 1—Amendments commencing 1 July 2023
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997
1 Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 ) (definition of corporate tax rate )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
corporate tax rate :
(a) in relation to a company that is a *large ADI—means the rate of tax in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by section 24 of that Act; or
(b) in relation to another entity—means the rate of tax in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by subsection 23(2) of that Act.
2 Subsection 995 ‑1 ( 1 ) (definition of corporate tax rate for imputation purposes )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
corporate tax rate for imputation purposes , of an entity for an income year, means:
(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the rate of tax for the income year in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by subsection 23(2) of the Income Tax Rates Act 1986; or
(b) if the entity was a *large ADI for the previous income year—the rate of tax for the income year in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by section 24 of that Act.
(19) Schedule 3, item 1, page 19 (lines 5 to 15), omit the item, substitute:
1 Subsection 160AAB ( 1 ) (definition of statutory percentage )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
statutory percentage means:
(a) if the year of income is the 2002‑03 year of income or a later year of income before the 2024‑25 year of income—30%; or
(b) if the year of income is the 2024‑25 year of income or a later year of income and the policy concerned was issued by a company that is a large ADI (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) for the year of income—30%; or
(c) otherwise:
(i) if the year of income is the 2024‑25 year of income—27.5%; or
(ii) if the year of income is the 2025‑26 year of income—27%; or
(iii) if the year of income is the 2026‑27 year of income—26%; or
(iv) if the year of income is the 2027‑28 year of income or a later year of income—25%.
1A Subsection 177A ( 1 ) (definition of standard corporate tax rate )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
standard corporate tax rate means:
(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—the rate of tax in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by subsection 23(2) of the Income Tax Rates Act 1986; or
(b) if the relevant taxpayer is a large ADI (within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) for a year of income in which the DPT tax benefit is obtained, or would be obtained—the rate of tax in respect of the taxable income of a company covered by section 24 of theIncome Tax Rates Act 1986 .
(20) Schedule 3, item 2, page 19 (line 19), after "Company A", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(21) Schedule 3, item 3, page 20 (line 12), after "Company E", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(22) Schedule 3, items 6 and 7, page 20 (line 28) to page 21 (line 8), omit the items, substitute:
6 Subsection 65 ‑30 ( 2 )
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) However, reduce the *tax offset by the amount worked out by multiplying your *net exempt income by:
(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—0.275; or
(b) if you are a *large ADI for the income year—0.3;
if you have a taxable income for the income year.
7 Subsection 65 ‑35(3A)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3A) In reducing *net exempt income for an income year under subsection (3):
(a) unless paragraph (b) applies—each 27.5 cents of *tax offset reduces the net exempt income by $1; or
(b) if you were a *large ADI for the year—each 30 cents of tax offset reduces the net exempt income by $1.
(23) Schedule 3, Part 1, page 21 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:
8A Subsection 713 ‑545 ( 6 ) (definition of ordinary class tax rate )
Omit "a life insurance company", substitute "the life insurance company".
(24) Schedule 3, item 9, page 22 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(25) Schedule 3, item 10, page 22 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(26) Schedule 3, item 13, page 23 (line 13), omit "Subsection65‑30(2)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑30(2)(a)".
(27) Schedule 3, item 14, page 23 (line 15), omit "Subsection65‑35(3A)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑35(3A)(a)".
(28) Schedule 3, item 16, page 24 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(29) Schedule 3, item 17, page 24 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(30) Schedule 3, item 20, page 25 (line 13), omit "Subsection65‑30(2)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑30(2)(a)".
(31) Schedule 3, item 21, page 25 (line 15), omit "Subsection65‑35(3A)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑35(3A)(a)".
(32) Schedule 3, item 23, page 26 (line 5), after "Company A", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(33) Schedule 3, item 24, page 26 (line 30), after "Company E", insert "(which is not a large ADI)".
(34) Schedule 3, item 27, page 27 (line 13), omit "Subsection65‑30(2)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑30(2)(a)".
(35) Schedule 3, item 28, page 27 (line 15), omit "Subsection65‑35(3A)", substitute "Paragraph 65‑35(3A)(a)".
(36) Schedule 4, page 28 (lines 3 and 4), omit the heading.
(37) Schedule 4, items 1 and 2, page 28 (lines 5 to 14), to be opposed.
The influential union, which represents workers at coalmines and generators, wrote to the—
government in May cautioning it against rushing to "unreliable and expensive" green energy.
The 50 per cent renewable target is not realistic. Whilst you can build solar and wind generation to achieve the target on paper, what do we expect is going to happen at night?
During the summer months it is still very warm into the evening … you will have high demand, no solar and potentially little wind generation.
Each box represents a portfolio except for (1) which is in the Education portfolio and (2) which is in the Health portfolio. Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
On 14 April 1986 President McClelland made a statement concerning the use of supplementary questions.
Since that time—
successive Presidents have consistently ruled that supplementary questions are appropriate only for the purposes of elucidating information arising from the original question and answer.
… I believe I had the best prospect of leading the Liberal Party to success at the next election.
My job from here … is to make sure I can prosecute the sort of messages that I have just spoken about and that is what I am focused on.
… I will do whatever I can now to make sure that we are in a position to win the next election …
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) and the Minister for Regional Communications (Senator McKenzie) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister and Gallacher today relating to the Turnbull Government.
Climate change is real, it is affecting us now, and it is having a particularly severe impact on Australia. And yet, right now, we have every resource available to us to meet the challenge of climate change except for one: and that is leadership.
"The 50 per cent renewable target is not realistic. Whilst you can build solar and wind generation to achieve the target on paper, what do we expect is going to happen at night?" read the advice to Treasury, released under state Right to Information laws. "During the summer months it is still very warm into the evening … you will have high demand, no solar and potentially little wind generation."
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to climate change policy.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2018:
Support for Australia's thalidomide survivors, with particular reference to:
(a) adequacy of compensation and support;
(b) responsibility for providing support;
(c) provision of financial compensation;
(d) the role of the Australian Government in compensation and support; and
(e) any related matters.
That the Migration (Validation of Port Appointment) Bill 2018 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2018.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Tuesday, 21 August 2018 be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Faruqi to make her first speech without any question before the chair.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy (Senator Birmingham), by no later than 10 am on 10 September 2018, documents held by the Department of the Environment and Energy that demonstrate that, before the grant of $444 million to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation (the Foundation) was approved:
(a) due diligence was carried out on the Foundation; and
(b) evidence was provided of the capacity of the Foundation to manage a grant of this size and to reduce its administration costs by approximately 50%.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) Love Your Body Week is from 3 to 9 September 2018 and is Butterfly's annual awareness campaign, supported by Sportsgirl, to help boost young people's body confidence,
(ii) Love Your Body Week encourages everyone to change appearance‑based conversations at school, home, work and online, and
(iii) during this time, schools and youth organisations across Australia will work to help promote body acceptance and to celebrate diversity;
(b) calls on all levels of government and the community to work together to address social and cultural norms that contribute to body image concerns, especially among young people; and
(c) encourages anyone needing support with eating disorders or body image issues to contact Butterfly's National Helpline on 1800 ED HOPE (33 4673).
That the Senate:
(a) notes that 19 August 2018 was World Humanitarian Day, and this year's theme is #NotATarget, recognising that humanitarian workers should not be targeted in conflict;
(b) acknowledges the millions of civilians around the world whose lives have been caught up in conflict;
(c) honours the brave health and aid workers who are targeted or obstructed from delivering appropriate aid to people in need; and
(d) pays tribute to the government employees, members of civil society and representatives of international organisations and agencies who risk their lives to provide humanitarian aid and protection.
That the Senate:
(a) notes the announcement of the Australian Bravery Decorations by the Governor-General, among which:
(i) 1 person has received the Star of Courage for acts of conspicuous courage in circumstances of great peril,
(ii) 18 people have received the Bravery Medal for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances,
(iii) 40 people have received the Commendation for Brave Conduct for acts of bravery considered worthy of recognition, and
(iv) 8 members of the Queensland Police Force, and 4 members of the New South Wales Police Force have received Group Bravery Citations for a collective act of bravery, by a group of persons in extraordinary circumstances, that is considered worthy of recognition; and
(b) congratulates all recipients and every unnamed Australian who has assisted others in times of emergency.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that 21 August 2018 marks the 75th anniversary of the election of the first woman to the House of Representatives, Dame Enid Lyons, in the Tasmanian electorate of Darwin, and Dame Dorothy Tangney, also elected that same year as a senator for Western Australia and the first Australian woman to the Australian Senate;
(b) acknowledges the statements made by Dame Enid Lyons in her first speech, that her election was 'an occasion which, for every woman in the Commonwealth, marks in some degree a turning point in history'; and the statement of Dame Dorothy Tangney who stated 'I ... realise my great honour in being the first woman to be elected to the Senate. But it is not as a woman that I have been elected to this chamber. It is as a citizen of the Commonwealth; and I take my place here with the full privileges and rights of all honourable senators, and, what is still more important, with the full responsibilities which such a high office entails';
(c) notes that Dame Enid Lyons went on to become the first woman to serve in the cabinet and, since that time, women have served in leadership roles, including committee chairs, Chief Government Whips, Speaker of the House of Representatives, President of the Senate, ministers and Prime Minister of Australia;
(d) notes Dame Dorothy Tangney's advocacy for the welfare of women and children, education, health and the living standards of working people; and
(e) recognises that by their determination, Dame Enid Lyons and Dame Dorothy Tangney paved the way for women to seek election, to hold leadership positions in the Parliament, and to become the head of an Australian Government.
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to implement an energy policy that both:
(a) lowers energy prices for both households and businesses; and
(b) incorporates Australia's emission reduction targets to meet Australia's Paris commitments.
That the Senate:
(a) expresses its deepest sympathy to the people affected by the devastating floods in southern India's Kerala state;
(b) notes that more than 350 people have died, and 800,000 have been displaced by one of the worst floods in the history of Kerala, and that aid agencies are reporting massive destruction and fears that the death toll could climb, as hundreds of thousands are denied access to clean water, sanitation and food and shelter;
(c) acknowledges the generous efforts by the Indian community in Australia, and the wider diaspora, to assist with the relief effort, and offers support and sympathy to the Australian Indian community as they respond to this unprecedented natural disaster;
(d) acknowledges the significant response effort underway by the Indian authorities; and
(e) calls on the Australian Government to provide any assistance the Indian Government may require to help the people of Kerala in their immediate hour of need, and in the longer term, to recover from this disaster and rebuild their homes and their lives.
That the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the work of the organisation Global Citizen, which is a movement of engaged citizens who work towards ending extreme poverty and empowering girls and women,
(ii) that on 16 August 2018, Global Citizen launched the #SheisEqual campaign in Brisbane, which calls on citizens around the world to stand up for female empowerment and gender equality and ensure opportunities for girls and women everywhere, and
(iii) Australia's commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, in particular SDG5, which concerns the pursuit of gender equality, and the focus of gender equality in Australia's International Development Program;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) that in order for Australia to prosper, women need to be empowered to take up opportunities,
(ii) the importance of empowering women and girls across the world to ensure that they are able to receive health, education and not be discriminated against, and
(iii) the significant work of Global Citizen in creating a network of passionate individuals who work to end extreme poverty throughout the world; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) acknowledge the importance of supporting health, education and opportunities for women, both in Australia and around the world, and
(ii) support the goals of the Global Citizen #SheisEqual movement, including:
(A) women's economic empowerment,
(B) ending gender discrimination in the law,
(C) girls' education, including in emergencies, and
(D) ending hunger and malnutrition for women and girls.
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the passing of Kofi Annan on 18 August 2018, and expresses its condolences to his family;
(b) notes that 19 August 2018 marked World Humanitarian Day, which is a day that honours all humanitarian and United Nations, and associated personnel, who have worked in the promotion of the humanitarian cause and those who have lost their lives in the cause of duty;
(c) recognises the significant contribution made by Kofi Annan in recognising and defending the human rights of people across the world during his tenure as Secretary-General of the United Nations;
(d) further notes that:
(i) Kofi Annan served as Chair of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State—the Commission was a neutral and impartial body which sought to improve the welfare of all people in Rakhine State,
(ii) in his role as Chair, Kofi Annan strongly condemned the attacks in Rakhine State and urged security forces to exercise restraint, and
(iii) the final report of the Advisory Commission called on the Myanmar Government to:
(A) ensure that the return/relocation of displaced people be carried out in accordance with international standards, is voluntary, safe, and takes place in a dignified manner, and
(B) ensure dignified living conditions in camps, including improved shelter, water and sanitation, education, and access to livelihood opportunities;
(e) notes that nearly 700,000 Rohingya have fled violence and persecution in the northern Rakhine province of Myanmar since August 2017; and
(f) calls on the Federal Government to assist the Myanmar Government to implement the recommendations of the final report of the Advisory Commission.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) on 27 June 2018, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents (number 908), ordering that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources (Senator Canavan), by no later than 8 pm on 28 June 2018, documents provided as an incoming brief to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, Ms Jody Swirepik, and
(ii) on 10 July 2018, Senator Canavan advised the President of the Senate that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources did not provide an incoming brief to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, Ms Jody Swirepik;
(b) further notes that, in response to questions from Senator Patrick on 25 May 2018 during additional estimates hearings of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on cross-portfolio Murray-Darling Basin Plan matters, Ms Swirepik confirmed she had received an induction briefing prepared by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office; and
(c) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by not later than 11am on 23 August 2018, all documents provided to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, Ms Jody Swirepik, as an induction briefing, including its cover brief and all attachments
That:
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) since 2013, the Department of Human Services (the Department) has had a program underway to upgrade its child support system ('Cuba')—the approved budget was $102 million,
(ii) during the 2015-16 financial year, the total budget was exhausted without the project being completed,
(iii) since the 2015-16 financial year, funding to complete the system has come from the Department's internal investment fund and ICT BAU budget,
(iv) in response to questions taken on notice during the inquiry of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into digital delivery of government services, the Department advised that it was unable to determine how much had been spent on the project,
(v) in response to questions asked at Budget estimates, the Department could provide no indication of the total spend on the project or provide a target completion date, and
(vi) in response to a freedom of information request—Department Reference LEX 37339—the Department indicated there are 49 documents in existence that fit within the description of 'final versions of all formal executive briefings submitted to the Secretary, Department of Human Services between 1 July 2017 and 30 June 2018, where the topic of one or all of the executive briefings cover the cost, resource allocation and/or progress of the Child Support System redesign Programme'; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Human Services, by no later than 10 am on 10 September 2018, the 49 documents identified by the Department in FOI Department Reference LEX 37339.
The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the release of the report by Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Healing Foundation, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Stolen Generations and descendants: Numbers, demographic characteristics and selected outcomes ;
(b) recognises:
(i) that the report found that Australia's Stolen Generations face long-term disadvantage for a range of measures, including poorer health and social outcomes, and
(ii) survivors of the Stolen Generations are three times more likely to have been imprisoned in the past five years;
(c) acknowledges that the negative effects of forced removal are not limited to those directly removed; descendants also consistently experience poorer health and social outcomes; and
(d) urges the Federal Government to urgently address the effects of unresolved intergenerational trauma, and implement a national reparations scheme for survivors of the Stolen Generations and their families.
That the Senate:
(a) acknowledges that deregulating energy retailing has enriched the big energy companies and has completely failed to benefit consumers;
(b) notes that energy retailing is an inelastic market and that consumers do not actively exercise choice – the super profits reported last week by Origin, AGL and Energy Australia reflect this poorly functioning market;
(c) supports fully re-regulating electricity prices as first proposed by The Greens in August 2017; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to ensure that the legislation introduced into Parliament regulating energy retailers is designed to benefit households that exercise no choice, in recognition that making no choice about electricity tariffs is an acceptable option for households to make.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) dugongs and sea turtles play an extremely important role in the ecological balance of Australia's marine life, particularly throughout the Great Barrier Reef,
(ii) the populations of both dugongs and sea turtles have declined significantly over the past 15 years,
(iii) population decline is due to cumulative pressures, such as ocean acidification, pollution, commercial fishing and other human impacts that include Indigenous hunting, and
(iv) dugongs and sea turtles are both long-lived, slow-breeding and migratory species, meaning recovery from population decline can take many years;
(b) recognises:
(i) the right of Indigenous Australians to hunt these species under section 211 of the Native Title Act 1993 ,
(ii) the cultural significance traditional hunting practices have for Indigenous communities,
(iii) that, while hunting rights are not restricted to non-commercial purposes ( Akiba v Commonwealth [2013]), native title was envisaged for satisfying personal and communal needs, not to allow for the black‑market trade of meat from these critically threatened species, and
(iv) that 'regulation of the Native Title right is not inconsistent with the continued existence of that right' ( Akiba v Commonwealth [2013]);
(c) acknowledges:
(i) Indigenous clans, such as the Wulgurukaba people from the Townsville region, who have adopted sustainable take practices that include self-imposed quotas and cultural measures against poaching, and
(ii) collaborative efforts between Indigenous clans, such as the Ipima Ikaya Aboriginal Corporation, who recently implemented a moratorium on the hunting of dugongs on the Cape York Peninsula while they a develop a sustainable management plan;
(d) encourages other Indigenous clans to cease hunting of dugongs and sea turtles until sustainable management plans can be implemented; and
(e) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) increase funding for Indigenous ranger programs on the Great Barrier Reef,
(ii) assist in facilitating an Indigenous, Elder-led approach to making traditional hunting practices more sustainable, and
(iii) ensure that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority prioritises the development of Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements (TUMRAs) to more effectively manage the traditional use of dugong resources in cooperation with traditional owners and the Queensland Government.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that:
(i) the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has aired a damning investigation into the apparent failure of the Australian Greens (The Greens) to properly handle allegations of sexual misconduct within its ranks,
(ii) multiple women interviewed by 7 claimed that The Greens did not adequately address reports of assault and harassment committed by party staff and volunteers,
(iii) Mr Rory Markham, a lawyer who is advising a number of women who stated that The Greens mishandled their complaints about sexual misconduct, stated that the party had shown an attitude of 'absolute dismissiveness' and that the priority seemed to be to 'maintain party brand at all costs', and
(b) calls on all parties to ensure they have proper protections in place to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual harassment.
The inability of the Turnbull government to progress any coherent policy or legislative agenda.
That the Coalition might be about to tear itself apart over climate again is an indication of insanity.
The NEG is good for Tasmanian jobs and puts more downward pressure on power prices—
This important step continues to build the case for increased interconnection and Tasmania's position as the Battery of the Nation delivering clean, reliable and affordable electricity to Tasmanians and the nation.
If Peter Dutton is the answer, you have to ask yourself what the hell is the question.
About 85% of respondents said they believed some, most or all of the federal members of parliament were corrupt …
A lot of our people are facing that fact that they are in the last six months of their political careers. They've got houses, school bills, cars that they've set up for themselves on the basis that they're earning $200,000 plus—
What do they do if they're suddenly out of work?
The inability of the Turnbull Government to progress any coherent policy or legislative agenda.
That the Senate take note of the document.
… the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.
Bol, ke labh aazaad hain tere
Bol, zubaan ab tak teri hai
Tera sutwaan jism hai tera
Bol, ke jaan ab tak teri hai
Senate Economics References Committee Inquiry into non-conforming building products
Australian Government response to the interim report: Protecting Australians from the threat of asbestos
AUGUST 2018
Background
On 23 June 2015, the Senate referred an inquiry into non-conforming building products to the Senate Economics References Committee, to examine:
a. the economic impact of non-conforming building products on the Australian building and construction industry;
b. the impact of non-conforming building products on:
i. industry supply chains, including importers, manufacturers and fabricators,
ii. workplace safety and any associated risks,
iii. costs passed on to customers, including any insurance and compliance costs, and
iv. the overall quality of Australian buildings;
c. possible improvements to the current regulatory frameworks for ensuring that building products conform to Australian standards, with particular reference to the effectiveness of:
i. policing and enforcement of existing regulations,
ii. independent verification and assessment systems,
iii. surveillance and screening of imported building products, and
iv. restrictions and penalties imposed on non-conforming building products; and
d. any other related matters.
The Inquiry lapsed following the dissolution of the Senate (44th Parliament) on 9 May 2016, for the general election on 2 July 2016.
On 11 October 2016, the Senate agreed to the Committee's recommendation that the Inquiry be re-adopted in the 45th Parliament.
On 13 October 2016, as part of its broader Inquiry into non-conforming building products, the Committee adopted additional terms of reference seeking submissions regarding the unlawful importation of products containing asbestos, and their impact on the health and safety of the Australian community.
Submissions to the Inquiry closed on 18 January 2017.
Following the Grenfell Tower fire in London, on 21 June 2017, the then Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Hon Craig Laundy MP, wrote to the Chair of the Committee, Senator Chris Ketter, to request the Inquiry be used to conduct a public hearing to specifically examine the non-compliant use of cladding products in Australia.
The Committee agreed to prepare an additional interim report on the implications of the use of non-compliant external cladding materials in Australia as a priority. That report was released on 6 September 2017 and the Government's response was tabled on 14 February 2018.
The reporting date for the interim report on asbestos was 22 November 2017 and the reporting date for the final Inquiry report is 16 August 2018.
The Australian Government has given consideration to the findings and recommendations presented in the Committee's interim report on asbestos, and tables the following response for the Committee's consideration ahead of the final Inquiry report.
Government Response
The Australian Government acknowledges the significant impact on the health and safety of the Australian community that may arise from exposure to asbestos. The Government supports the decision of the Committee to examine the issue of unlawfully imported goods containing asbestos as part of its broader Inquiry into non-conforming building products.
The Committee's interim report on asbestos includes 26 recommendations, with many directed at matters the Government has addressed or is considering. This includes:
Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments are responsible for managing asbestos within their jurisdictions. This includes work health and safety (WHS), public health, consumer safety and environmental regulation. Australian governments work closely together to develop consistent regulatory and policy frameworks.
The Australian Government, through ASEA, works with governments at all levels to ensure there is a coordinated national approach to dealing with asbestos. The Government more than doubled ASEA's ongoing level of funding from 2018–19.
The Government shares the community's concerns over incidents of goods containing asbestos unlawfully imported into Australia and is committed to maintaining effective border control.
In September 2016, the Department of Jobs and Small Business (formerly the Department of Employment) and the Department of Home Affairs (formerly the Department of Immigration and Border Protection) established the Asbestos Inter-Departmental Committee (Asbestos IDC) to provide strategic direction to enable effective policy and regulatory coordination across Commonwealth agencies in managing asbestos issues across the supply chain.
The Government has progressed a range of initiatives to improve supply chain management and assurance pre, at and post border. The Australian Border Force (ABF) is managing goods that pose a risk of containing asbestos through a substantial increase in the targeting and testing of goods at the border.
Government agencies are also actively working with importers and industry to ensure they understand the requirements and their responsibilities under import laws. This includes the need to put in place assurance measures across the supply chain to ensure that asbestos does not reach Australia in the first place.
Australian Government agencies are also working together with state and territory WHS regulators to address incidents of unlawfully imported asbestos being installed in a workplace. Consideration is being given to the powers of inspectors to require the removal of the asbestos in this circumstance.
Commonwealth, state and territory governments have also established mechanisms to respond rapidly to the identification of unlawful asbestos importations, to prevent these goods from posing a risk to the community. A Rapid Response Protocol ensures that relevant government agencies share information and facilitate communication to the community about the safe handling and disposal of imported goods containing asbestos.
The Government recognises the importance of maintaining a strict prohibition on the import and use of asbestos and will continue to work collaboratively with all levels of government, industry and the community to address this issue.
Response to the Recommendations
Recommendation 1
Through the Council of Australian Governments, the Australian Government pursue a coordinated and consistent whole of government approach to strengthen federal and state legislation and regulations to address the illegal importation of asbestos.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The existing coordinated and consistent approach to addressing the unlawful importation of asbestos and appropriate mechanisms has strong support from all levels of government in Australia.
The responsibilities of Commonwealth, state and territory agencies are clear in relation to the prevention, detection and management of imports, which unlawfully contain asbestos. There is an effective regulatory framework in place, underpinned by a range of laws across the import supply chain at the Commonwealth, state and territory levels in the areas of public health, environment, WHS, importation, building regulation and consumer law.
The Government has established a range of policy and regulatory coordination mechanisms at ministerial and senior executive levels to ensure a coordinated and systematic approach across this framework. Commonwealth, state and territory ministers and senior officials responsible for WHS regularly meet to progress WHS issues, including asbestos-related issues.
The Asbestos IDC, which the Department of Jobs and Small Business and the Department of Home Affairs established in September 2016, provides strategic direction to enable effective policy and regulatory coordination across Commonwealth agencies in managing asbestos issues across the supply chain. The Asbestos IDC brings together Commonwealth agencies responsible for WHS, border protection, trade, environmental protection, public health and consumer safety. ASEA is also on the Asbestos IDC. The work of the Asbestos IDC has involved clarifying roles and responsibilities and identifying opportunities to strengthen the legislative framework. The Asbestos IDC undertakes consultation with employers and unions.
The Heads of Workplace Safety Authorities' (HWSA) Imported Materials with Asbestos Working Group also meets to discuss asbestos management issues. The working group includes representatives from the ABF, the Departments of Home Affairs and Jobs and Small Business, Safe Work Australia (SWA), ASEA, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), all WHS regulators from the commonwealth, states, territories and New Zealand responsible for asbestos matters. The Working Group has established a Rapid Response Protocol to address instances of unlawfully imported asbestos, with communication channels to enable a swift response to contain and appropriately deal with those instances within Australia.
SWA, the national agency on work health and safety policy, also supports a coordinated and consistent approach to the regulation of asbestos in the workplace. SWA comprises membership from the Commonwealth, all states and territories, employers and unions. The model WHS laws, for which SWA is responsible, deal comprehensively with asbestos in the workplace, including through the implementation of a domestic ban on its use.
Australia has had a ban on the unauthorised manufacture, use, reuse, import, transport, storage or sale of all forms of asbestos and asbestos-containing materials since 31 December 2003. The ban was introduced under Commonwealth, state and territory work health and safety legislation and is complemented by import and export prohibitions under the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) and theCustoms (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (Cth).
Regulation 4C of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) prohibits the importation of asbestos, or goods containing asbestos, except in very limited circumstances, such as where the Minister administering theWork Health and Safety Act 2011 (Cth)has provided permission to import asbestos for the purpose of research, analysis or display. Regulation 4 of theCustoms (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1958 (Cth) prohibits the exportation of asbestos, or certain goods containing asbestos, from Australia unless a permission or exemption has been granted or a lawful exception applies.
As noted in the response to Recommendation 15, the Department of Home Affairs is developing advice to government on changes to the offences and penalties for the unlawful import/export of asbestos detailed in customs legislation.
The Departments of Jobs and Small Business and Home Affairs are also considering amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) andCustoms (Prohibited Exports) Regulations 1956 (Cth) at the recommendation of the Asbestos IDC. The proposed changes would improve consistency of the regulations with the model WHS laws and make other necessary updates.
As noted in the response to Recommendation 20, SWA is currently reviewing the power of regulators to deal with the removal and disposal of asbestos that has been unlawfully imported and then used in workplaces.
The comprehensive and coordinated approach the Government is taking to the enforcement and management of Australia's strict import/export prohibition and workplace ban on asbestos means that additional work through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is unnecessary.
Recommendation 2
The Australian Government adequately fund the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency so it is able to deliver the next National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness and to carry out its other functions, both current functions and new functions set out in recommendations in the report.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government provided ASEA with additional ongoing funding of $1.7 million per annum, commencing in 2018–19, in the 2017 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). This more than doubles ASEA's base level of funding, from $1.6 million, to $3.3 million per annum.
The additional funding ensures ASEA can work effectively with state, territory and Commonwealth WHS regulators to implement the National Strategic Plan for Asbestos Management and Awareness to protect workers and the community from Australia's deadly asbestos legacy, as well as achieving an end to asbestos-related disease.
The funding will ensure that ASEA is well placed to coordinate the implementation of phase two of the National Strategic Plan with Comcare, the states and territories. The funding ensures the Agency can maintain an appropriate level of staffing and conduct research in priority areas to support effective policy and programs that reduce exposure to asbestos.
Recommendation 3
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection and Australian Border Force undertake an external review of their industry consultation arrangements with a view to strengthen and formalise the contribution from stakeholders. Ideally, these should be through formal meetings on a regular basis with those who are on the front line who are adversely impacted by illegal asbestos importation.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
An independent review of border processes for asbestos concluded in 2016. This review examined industry engagement undertaken at the time, and it identified opportunities for organisational and technical improvements. Following the review, there has been an increased focus on formalised consultation and engagement.
The Department of Home Affairs continues to enhance and update the information it publishes with respect to asbestos, and it engages directly with key stakeholders via a number of internal and external consultation fora, including through:
The Department of Home Affairs' efforts complement those of other agencies, including through ASEA's work in driving a national focus on health and safety issues on asbestos. ASEA has broad stakeholder reach, including with state and territory regulators, unions, industry associations and asbestos support groups.
The Asbestos IDC coordinates a whole-of-government approach to the consultation and engagement that occurs with relevant stakeholders. The recommended external review of industry consultation arrangements would likely result in a duplication of effort given the current work of the Asbestos IDC and ASEA, and the 2016 independent review already undertaken.
Recommendation 4
The Australian Government continue to strongly advocate for the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention and support a change in the voting rules if required for this to be achieved.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government will continue to advocate strongly for the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention. The Government is supportive of examining all mechanisms and implications of improving the effectiveness of the Convention, including changes to voting rules if required. The whole-of-government position for the Conference of the Parties planned for 2019 will be developed in advance of the Conference.
Recommendation 5
In the event that the Australian Government is unsuccessful in listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III at the 2019 Rotterdam Convention, the Australian Government should consider pursuing bilateral or multilateral asbestos treaties with importation disclosure requirements equivalent to an Annex III listing.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
Should the listing of chrysotile asbestos in Annex III of the Rotterdam Convention be unsuccessful at the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention planned for 2019, the Government will consider alternative approaches.
Recommendation 6
The Australian Government in its course of the regular review of free trade agreements with other countries, include in the review provisions regarding asbestos containing materials.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The recommendation does not reflect Australia's ongoing commitment to the regulation of dangerous goods or the provisions of existing free trade agreements. Australia's Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments already preserve Australia's ability to regulate dangerous goods. Nothing in these agreements requires Australia to lower safety standards and regulations.
Specifically, Australia's FTAs all contain a Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Chapter, reaffirming Australia's right to impose product standards and technical regulations to protect human health or safety. TBT chapter provisions ensure that trading partners apply technical regulations and standards equally to products originating domestically or from overseas.
TBT chapters also encourage regulatory convergence among trading partners, for example through the adoption of international standards—but such convergence is generally pursued outside of FTA review mechanisms as they relate to regional and international, rather than bilateral efforts (as per Recommendations 4 and 5).
In addition to the TBT chapter, FTAs also include general exceptions, which enable Australia to implement measures to protect human health or safety, and animal or plant life.
Recommendation 7
The Australian Government continue its support for asbestos bans internationally and promotes awareness of the risks of asbestos in the Asia-Pacific region.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government already advocates and supports asbestos bans internationally, as well as promoting awareness of asbestos risks.
The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) bans the use of asbestos containing materials in the Australian aid program. DFAT's policy on Managing asbestos risk in the aid program outlines its approach to managing asbestos-related hazards, including implementation of the banon the use of asbestos-containing materials in all aid program activities and investments.
DFAT actively works with partner governments, aid donors and delivery partners to promote the sharing of knowledge and information on best practice for awareness, management and eradication of asbestos across the Asia-Pacific region.
DFAT also has mandatory safeguards in place to ensure the Australian aid program assesses and manages potential adverse environmental and social impacts. DFAT's Environmental and social safeguard policy seeks to protect the rights, health, safety of the environment, communities and people.
Recommendation 8
The Australian Government require mandatory Asbestos Awareness Training for a wide range of occupations in the construction industry and provide adequate funding for nationally accredited training for this purpose.
Response — Supported in part
The Government supports this recommendation in part.
All Australian WHS laws impose a mandatory obligation on primary duty holders to provide information, training, instruction and supervision to ensure work is performed safely as part of their duty of care.
This broad duty is supported by specific regulations requiring the training of workers about asbestos. For example, the model WHS laws, developed by SWA and enacted by the Commonwealth and a majority of states and territories, require workers who may carry out work involving asbestos to be trained in the identification and safe handling of asbestos and asbestos containing materials. This includes workers in the construction industry. Victoria and Western Australia have not enacted the model laws but have similar arrangements in place ( Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 (Vic) andOccupational Safety and Health regulations 1996 (WA) ).
Current requirements under model WHS laws allow for training to be tailored to the work being carried out. A number of nationally accredited training courses in asbestos awareness are already available and being delivered. Course participants or their employers fund participation in these courses and the Government considers this appropriate.
Recommendation 9
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection and Australian Border Force consider the merits of developing and implementing a comprehensive education campaign for all importers of the risk and responsibilities regarding asbestos containing materials and the definition of asbestos containing materials used in other countries.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Department of Home Affairs and the ABF already undertake significant consultation and engagement to ensure awareness by importers of the assurances required to demonstrate that goods at the border do not contain asbestos. In addition to the resources on the Department of Home Affairs' website and in its publications, the Department has also made significant progress engaging and reaffirming industry and importer understanding of the necessity for compliance with Australia's strict prohibition on the importation of asbestos.
Furthermore, as referenced in the response to Recommendation 3, the Department of Home Affairs will continue to work through existing fora (such as Trade and Goods Compliance Advisory Group and the Asbestos IDC) to ensure information, education and engagement across industry and individual importers continues to be consistent, timely and relevant.
Recommendation 10
The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency develop a one-stop-shop website to provide single point for participants across the supply chain to access information regarding the illegal importation of asbestos.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government supports measures to improve public access to information about asbestos.
ASEA updated its website on 2 February 2018 and provides access to a wide range of information about asbestos, including links to relevant agencies such as the Department of Home Affairs for more detailed advice. ASEA's website provides:
ASEA will continue to refine its website to ensure it provides up-to-date links to comprehensive information that meets the needs of the public.
Recommendation 11
The Australian Government review the Australian Border Force staff resourcing required to effectively monitor and prevent the illegal importation of asbestos.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The ABF continually reviews its allocation of resources across a range of border threats to ensure an appropriate response. To this end, the ABF has significantly increased its operational efforts towards addressing the risk of asbestos since the organisation commenced on 1 July 2015, including the targeting and testing of at-risk goods.
The ABF is confident that its response to unlawfully imported asbestos is proportionate to the risk, and the ABF will continue to review the commitment of resources to preventing and detecting asbestos importations as appropriate.
Recommendation 12
The Australian Government consider the merits of having a specialist unit within Australian Border Force to manage illegal asbestos importation.
Response — Not supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The ABF is responsible for managing numerous risks to the Australian community and has an effective structure that is both flexible and adaptable to dealing with those risks, including managing prohibited goods such as asbestos, weapons and drugs. The stand-up of specialist units for individual prohibited items is not an efficient or effective way of enforcing border controls, given the significant volume and type of goods coming across the border each day.
The ABF already has in place assessment processes to identify goods that are at risk of containing asbestos. If the ABF determines that the goods require sampling for the purposes of laboratory testing, the importer is responsible for contracting a qualified professional to do so. This sampling and testing is under the supervision of, and not by, the ABF, and occurs in a manner that complies with jurisdictional WHS laws.
The ABF will continue to maintain its focus on asbestos and it will monitor and assess the level of resourcing required to ensure an appropriate operational response that is proportionate to the risk.
Recommendation 13
The Australian Government review the Customs Act 1901(and other relevant legislation) to address the challenges of enforcing the existing importation of asbestos offence, with the aim to close loopholes and improve the capacity of prosecutors to obtain convictions against entities and individuals importing asbestos. This review should include consideration of increasing the threshold required to use ' mistake of fact ' as a legal defence.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Department of Home Affairs is preparing advice to support the review on changes to the offences and penalties for the unlawful import/export of asbestos, detailed in customs legislation, including in relation to the 'mistake of fact' defence.
Recommendation 14
The Australian Government prioritise prosecution of illegal asbestos importation cases.
Response — Not supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The decisions to commence proceedings for offences against the Commonwealth occur on a case-by-case basis.
In determining whether to pursue prosecution, the Department of Home Affairs and the ABF take into account both the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth and theLegal Services Directions 2017 (Cth).
Under the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, a prosecution should commence only when there is a prima facie case, reasonable prospects of securing a conviction and the prosecution is in the public interest. TheLegal Services Directions 2017 place an obligation on the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies to act as a model litigant. In line with this obligation, consideration as to whether litigation is the most suitable method of dispute resolution is also relevant.
Recommendation 15
The Australian Government review the quantum of penalties for breaches of Australia ' s importation ban with a view to increasing them.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
Existing financial penalties for the unlawful importation of asbestos are:
for an individual, a pecuniary fine of up to $210,000 or three times the value of the goods, whichever is greater
for a company, a pecuniary fine of up to $1,050,000 or 15 times the value of the goods, whichever is greater.
The decision to impose a penalty following conviction, and the size of that penalty, is at the discretion of the Court.
In lieu of prosecution, the ABF may impose administrative sanctions, including financial penalties through issuance of an infringement notice under the Customs Act 1901 (Cth).
Recommendation 16
Where an importer intends to import goods that have been deemed high risk of containing asbestos, the Australian Government require the importer, prior to the importation of the goods, to conduct sampling and testing by a NATA accredited authority (or a NATA equivalent testing authority in another country that is a signatory to a Mutual Recognition Arrangement).
Response — Not supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
Mandatory testing is not always an efficient and effective way of providing assurance that the goods are asbestos free. Mandatory testing is costly to industry, particularly for importers who are demonstrably compliant.
The ABF requires importers to have adequate assurance measures in place to demonstrate that the goods they are importing do not contain asbestos. The types of measures an importer may put in place may include, but are not exclusive to, testing. Assurance can include a combination of processes, such as the identification and removal of at-risk components before import (for example, brake pads in vehicles), which would remove the necessity to test; collation of evidence through demonstrated knowledge of the supply chain (including the manufacturing process) and building assurances into contractual arrangements with suppliers.
When goods arrive at the Australian border, if the ABF is not satisfied with the importer's level of assurance, the ABF will direct the importer to have the goods tested by a National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) accredited laboratory.
Recommendation 17
The Government examine the European Union ' s regulations and processes for testing of products for asbestos prior to import and determine if it is suitable to adapt them to benefit and enhance Australian requirements.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government will advise the Senate Economics References Committee on the suitability of adapting the European Union's regulations and processes for testing for asbestos in Australia in its response to the Committee's final report.
Recommendation 18
The Australian Government consider placing additional mandatory requirements on procurers of high-risk products to have a due diligence system in place for the prevention of the import and use of asbestos containing materials.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government considers that existing guidance on due diligence for importers, and the mandatory requirements under WHS laws, are already sufficient.
For example, the model WHS laws in place in a majority of jurisdictions require a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers it engages, directs or influences, relevant to dealing with the risks posed by unlawfully imported asbestos. These duties include:
PCBUs that design, manufacture, import or supply plant, structures or substances have specific 'upstream duties' under the model WHS laws. This reflects their ability to influence the safety of these products before they are used in the workplace. These PCBUs have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their products are without risk to health and safety when used at a workplace. This duty extends throughout the entire lifecycle of that product.
An officer of a PCBU is required to exercise due diligence to ensure that the PCBU complies with duties and obligations. It is unlikely that further regulation will achieve a measurable improvement in the issue of illegal asbestos importation.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that other states and territories pass similar legislation to Queensland ' s Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products—Chain of Responsibility and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2017.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation
While directed to state and territory governments due to their constitutional responsibility for the regulatory framework governing the built environment, the following information may be of interest to the Inquiry.
The Building and Construction Legislation (Non-conforming Building Products — Chain of Responsibility and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2017 (Qld) (Queensland Amendment Act) amended legislation, primarily theBuilding and Construction Commission Act 1991 (Qld) (Queensland Building Act) in a number of ways. The Queensland Amendment Act amended the Queensland Building Act to include an additional object in section 3(e) to: regulate building products to ensure the safety of consumers and the public generally; and persons involved in the production, supply or installation of building products are held responsible for the safety of the products and their use.
The Australian Government notes that the Queensland Amendment Act was not designed to address asbestos. The model WHS laws already comprehensively deal with the issue of asbestos. As noted in the Department of Jobs and Small Business' submission to the Inquiry and the response to Recommendation 18, PCBUs that design, manufacture, import or supply plant, structures or substances have specific 'upstream duties' under the model WHS laws. These PCBUs have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their products are without risk to health and safety when used at a workplace.
Recommendation 20
Commonwealth, state and territory governments work together to develop nationally consistent legal obligations to require the removal and/or disposal of illegally imported asbestos (if it is safe to do so following consideration of the hazards likely to be faced by the workers undertaking the work) and to make importers responsible for the cost of such removal and/or disposal of asbestos.
Response — Supported
The Government supports this recommendation in part.
Under the model WHS laws, all jurisdictional regulators have powers to deal with the removal and disposal of asbestos that has been unlawfully imported and then used in a workplace. SWA is currently reviewing these powers to determine whether they need to be strengthened. The issue is also being considered as part of the independent review of the model WHS laws which is due to report by the end of the year.
Should any issues with regulators' powers to deal with removal and disposal of asbestos be identified, amendments to the model WHS laws will be progressed through SWA's usual governance processes including consideration by Safe Work Australia Members and WHS ministers.
Recommendation 21
The Australian Government review and clarify the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner with regards to asbestos containing materials in building products in line with the Commissioner ' s responsibilities.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government considers the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC) is already clear in the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (Cth).
The FSC has a legislative function related to the compliance of building materials with the performance specifications of the National Construction Code (NCC), and is responsible for administering a WHS Accreditation Scheme for companies seeking to undertake Commonwealth funded building work.
The FSC's WHS Accreditation Scheme criteria already represent the most stringent requirements in Australia for managing asbestos hazards on building sites. Conditions of being an FSC accredited company include that the performance requirements of the NCC must be complied with, and that appropriate policies, procedures and safe work practices must be in place, including in relation to the management of high risk hazards (such as asbestos which may be present in existing buildings, structures and land). The FSC has the power to suspend or revoke a company's accreditation where a condition of accreditation has been breached.
Recommendation 22
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission conducts compulsory recalls where asbestos is found in consumer products, unless there are significant issues and risks associated with a compulsory recall, noting that legislative change may be required.
Response — Not supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
Division 3 of Part 3-3 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) presently allows the responsible minister (Commonwealth, state and territory consumer ministers) to issue a compulsory recall notice for consumer goods of a particular kind if certain threshold tests have been met.
The ACCC is the national consumer product safety regulator responsible for jointly administering and enforcing the ACL with state and territory consumer affairs agencies under a 'one law, multiple regulator model'. The ACCC takes a hazard and risk-based approach to intervention in consumer product safety matters. In addition to compulsory recalls, the ACL provides for a range of graduated regulatory interventions to address consumer product safety-related issues, including voluntary recalls of consumer goods and safety warning notices.
Compulsory recalls
Under section 122(1) of the ACL it is at the discretion of the responsible minister to issue a compulsory recall notice for consumer goods of a certain kind if the minister is satisfied that legislative thresholds for regulatory intervention of this type have been met.
If the Commonwealth Minister proposes issuing a compulsory recall notice, section 132A of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) requires the Minister to issue a proposed recall notice. The proposed recall notice must include an invitation for anyone who supplies, or proposes to supply the consumer goods to request the ACCC to hold a conference in relation to the proposed recall notice (section 132A(3)(e)). However, if it appears to the Commonwealth Minister that the consumer goods create an imminent risk of death, serious illness or serious injury, a recall notice can be issued without delay under section 132J of the CCA.
In the cases of Great Wall and Chery Vehicles, and Polaris youth quad bikes, the threshold tests for recommending that the Commonwealth Minister issue compulsory recall notices were not met. The suppliers took satisfactory voluntary action to address the hazard by removing the goods from the market and providing affected consumers with a remedy. The ACCC monitored the effectiveness of these recalls.
Voluntary recalls
The interim report states that the ACCC did not administer recalls for Great Wall and Chery Vehicles, and Polaris youth quadbikes. In each of the cases, the suppliers of these consumer goods voluntarily took action to recall these goods according to section 128 of the ACL - Notification requirements for a voluntary recall of consumer goods.
Safety warning notice
The ACL also provides for the responsible minister to publish a safety warning notice to the public about possible product-related risks to consumers (section 129 (1)). Safety warning notices have been published in relation to a number of product safety-related issues, including 'fire wallets' due to identified asbestos content and more recently for Polaris youth quad bikes where certain parts of some models may contain asbestos.
Once the investigation has been completed and a proposed ban notice or a proposed recall notice or a recall notice without delay has not been published or issued, the responsible minister must, as soon as practicable after the completion of the investigation, publish the results of the investigation (section 130(1) of the ACL). The responsible minister may also announce in this notice whether any action is proposed to be taken and if so, what action is proposed (section 130(2) of the ACL).
The ACCC publishes compulsory and voluntary recall notices, and safety warning notices on the Product Safety Australia website (www.productsafety.gov.au) to alert consumers on behalf of the Commonwealth Minister.
Recommendation 23
In circumstances where the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission becomes aware of a product containing asbestos and subsequently determines not to issue a compulsory recall of that product, the committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission shall within thirty days of that decision publish a statement of reasons.
Response — Not supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The ACCC does not consider that there is merit in publishing a statement of reasons if it determines not to recommend that the Commonwealth Minister issue a compulsory recall notice for consumer goods containing asbestos. This is because there would already be a voluntary recall or other risk communication and risk management strategy in place, meaning suppliers would be taking satisfactory action to meet their obligations to prevent those goods from causing injury to any person. A safety warning notice may also be in place. These interventions would seek to address the hazard and publicly inform consumers about any safety risks, therefore a statement of reasons would have no useful application.
Recommendation 24
The Australian Government review the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ' s public reporting of asbestos containing materials in consumer products, both in relation to informing the public where there are risks to safety, and also monitoring and aggregating reporting of incidents over time.
Response –Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The ACCC prioritises the assessment of product safety issues, which have the potential to cause serious harm to consumers. The ACCC's product safety regime captures consumer goods, which are goods that are intended to be used, or are of a kind likely to be used, for 'personal, domestic or household use'. Where the ACCC has become aware of asbestos containing materials in consumer goods, it has publicly reported this to consumers.
The ACCC has in place monitoring procedures to ensure that appropriate further action can be taken where this is warranted. It is standard practice, for example, for the ACCC to undertake a risk assessment and trend analysis when it becomes aware of a hazard associated with a consumer good and to communicate any safety risks to consumers via the Product Safety Australia website.
Recommendation 25
The Australian Government establish a national public asbestos register.
Response — Noted
The Government notes this recommendation.
The language of the recommendation suggests a broad scope, potentially covering Australia's considerable asbestos legacy, although this Inquiry's focus on asbestos has been on unlawful imports.
ASEA and the Department of Home Affairs both provide lists on their websites of goods that could contain asbestos. The asbestos-containing materials in both lists may already exist in the built environment as legacy asbestos, or they may exist in goods that could be unlawfully imported into Australia in the future.
In addition, the ACCC publishes recall notices of unlawful imports that have been specifically identified. This information provides the public, importers, and others in the supply chain with the necessary information on products that may potentially contain asbestos.
The Government focuses on preventing the unlawful importation of goods containing asbestos and the ABF has significantly increased its efforts to target unlawful importation. The ABF continues to refine profiles and alerts to target asbestos, based on factors such as the nature of the goods, country of origin, overseas suppliers and importers of concern. However, sharing the details of these profiles, which could include information provided for other purposes, would not only raise privacy concerns, but would be counter-productive as suppliers may seek to protect their sales market in Australia—such as by changing their commercial operations—to counteract targeting of their goods at the Australian border.
Regarding legacy asbestos, ASEA has developed a National Asbestos Profile as recommended by the World Health Organisation and the International Labour Organization. The National Asbestos Profile includes comprehensive information about the use of asbestos in Australia, populations at risk from current and past exposures, and information on regulation, importation and risks.
The model WHS Regulations developed by SWA and enacted by the Commonwealth and a majority of states and territories, require preparation of an asbestos register where asbestos is identified at the workplace, or is likely to be present from time to time. The register must record the location, type and condition of the asbestos, must be regularly maintained, and be readily accessible by workers, their WHS representatives and others who carry out work in that workplace. This means that there is already a record of, and relevant information about, asbestos at a workplace for persons who may be affected by its presence. This ensures that the relevant people are aware of asbestos in the workplace and there is no additional benefit in making this information publicly available.
The Government considers the mechanisms in place to identify and manage both legacy asbestos and unlawful imports discussed above ensure that the relevant entities have the information they need to appropriately manage associated risks. Developing and maintaining a national register would be costly and time consuming, and make a questionable contribution to the management of asbestos given the range of measures already in place.
The Government will however consider any benefits that arise from the work of the Victorian Government in developing a comprehensive register of asbestos in government buildings and in planning its removal. This test case would inform discussions by jurisdictions on the feasibility of collaborating to develop a national register.
Recommendation 26
The Australian Government consider the merits of requiring importers and suppliers to hold mandatory recall insurance for potential asbestos containing materials.
Response - Not Supported
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government notes that this recommendation is an adjunct to Recommendation 22, which the Government also does not support.
Appendix A
List of contributing departments and agencies
Department of Jobs and Small Business
Department of Home Affairs, including the Australian Border Force
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of the Environment and Energy
The Treasury
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Safe Work Australia
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Hanson-Young
Appointed—Senator Faruqi
Education and Employment References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Hanson-Young
Appointed—
Senator Faruqi
Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into Jobactive
Participating member: Senator Faruqi
Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018
Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment 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.
On 24 October 2015, the Turnbull Government announced that we would review the Space Activities Act 1998.
The aim of the review was to ensure that Australia's space regulation accommodates technological advancements and does not unnecessarily inhibit innovation in Australia's space capabilities.
The review concluded in November 2016.
It found that the Space Activities Act should have additional flexibility to accommodate the changing operating environment for space activities and support innovation and investment in the sector.
The Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill does just that.
It reduces red tape for businesses undertaking space-related activities in Australia.
The Turnbull Government is committed to ensuring businesses are able to grow and create more jobs without the burden of unnecessary red tape.
The Bill will support innovation and investment, and provide additional flexibility to adjust to the changing operational environment of the space industry—while balancing safety and risk of potential damage with the national interest.
The global space sector is worth over USD 345 billion, and growing at 10 per cent annually.
Australian businesses represent just 0.8 per cent of this industry internationally: a disproportionately small share considering our immense capability in space-related sectors, including our immense advanced manufacturing capability, and our world-leading work in fields such as automated mining and precision agriculture.
Combined with our expertise, the extraordinary growth of this global industry makes it vital for Australian businesses to be able to participate with minimal regulatory burden, while maintaining Australia's international obligations.
I would like to thank all stakeholders who have participated in the review's consultation processes, as well as the subsequent consultations on an appropriate legislative framework.
Today's introduction of the Space Activities Amendment (Launches and Returns) Bill 2018 is the culmination of these processes.
The Bill broadens the regulatory framework to unlock potential further opportunities for space sector growth in Australia and reduce barriers to participation in the space industry.
It will bring us in line with agreed international practice and standards by streamlining the approvals process and insurance requirements for launches and returns.
The Bill will encourage our businesses to innovate, invest and create jobs.
The global space sector is a major source of technological advancement that provides broader applications and benefits across industry and society—not just in space exploration, but in sectors spanning communications, defence, mining, transportation and agriculture, to name but a few.
This Bill will allow our emerging space industry to keep pace with international and technological developments, while updating and streamlining regulation to encourage private investment.
It will create a more flexible regulatory environment to make it easier for these businesses to tap into global supply chains and access the benefits on offer for all Australians.
To reflect the changing nature of launch facilities, the Bill includes licencing arrangements for launches from Australian aircraft in flight, in addition to more traditional ground launches.
The Bill also provides appropriate safeguards to mitigate the risk of damage from the launch or return of a space object, or from the launch of a high power rocket.
This Bill will enable Australian business to engage more fully with the global space industry, supporting extraordinary opportunities to create jobs right across the economy.
I commend the bill to the Chamber.
Over the life of this Government, we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to building a financial sector that is unquestionably strong, unquestionably accountable, and robustly competitive.
This Bill takes the next step on this path and delivers on promises that we made in the 2017-18 Budget to ensure that our regulatory architecture keeps pace with changes to the financial environment. It includes two measures relating to financial sector ownership restrictions and bank licensing that will work in tandem to make this critically important sector of our economy more contestable, more innovative, and improve overall choices and outcomes for consumers.
We are building on reforms including:
Today's Bill significantly reduces barriers to entry that are preventing the innovation that our financial system needs, while still prioritising the safety of consumers and the broader financial system.
In particular, and consistent with the draft recommendations of the Productivity Commission's review into competition in the financial sector:
I will now provide additional detail on these reforms.
Under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act , no individual can hold greater than 15 per cent of a financial sector company without being subject to approval under a national interest test.
This is an important mechanism to ensure, among other factors, that prudentially regulated institutions have access to sufficient financial resources during times of stress and that their owners have the capabilities necessary to fulfil their responsibilities.
However, as identified by the House of Representatives Economics Committee in its first review of the Four Major Banks, the criteria against which a national interest determination is made are not transparent, and this can have unintended consequences, particularly for start-ups.
The Government believes the broadness of a national interest test is warranted when assessing significant transactions under the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act . However, the Government agrees with the view that it is less justifiable when considering ownership of small institutions when they are just starting out, given that due to their size they pose limited risks to financial stability or a large numbers of consumers. This is particularly true given that:
This is an unacceptable outcome that this Bill will fix in two ways.
Firstly, the ownership threshold beyond which Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval will be required for all financial sector companies will be increased from 15 to 20 per cent, in line with the threshold that exists in theForeign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 . There is no policy rationale for this discrepancy. Making the two Acts consistent will simplify investment in the financial sector and remove a significant regulatory hurdle for institutions where owners are seeking to hold 15 to 20 per cent of available shares.
Secondly, we will introduce a streamlined Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval path for small domestically incorporated financial sector companies—that is, banks and life insurance companies with less than $200 million in assets and general insurance companies with less than $50 million in assets—that are seeking a prudential licence for the first time or have been licenced for fewer than five years.
Under this model, qualifying institutions will not be assessed against the national interest framework. Instead, as long as the firms' owners are 'fit and proper' and the firm itself undergoes regular reviews of its ownership structure and provides relevant information to APRA each year, Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval will be granted.
To ensure, however, that new-entrants receiving approval under this framework do not receive a competitive advantage relative to existing firms, or grow so large that their ownership structure begins to pose risks to consumers, once such firms grow beyond the relevant asset threshold their owners will be required to either:
Together, these two elements of the Bill will ensure:
While Schedule 1 to this Bill makes significant inroads to cut red tape in relation to new businesses' ownership structure, the Government recognises that the power of this change on its own is limited. Even with an Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act approval in hand, start-ups need to obtain an APRA-licence and be ready to comply with a range of prudential requirements covering everything from financial resources to corporate governance and remuneration policies from the day that they start operations.
Meeting these requirements is a central part of Australia's regulatory architecture and APRA's prudent approach to managing financial sector risks was key to Australia's relative success during the Global Financial Crisis. As such, this is not a structure that any Government would want to undermine. However, where there are opportunities to reduce barriers to entry without increasing risks, we support them being investigated.
That is why the Government fully endorses APRA's new restricted Authorised Deposit Institution licensing framework. This will be similar to the United Kingdom's model, which, since 2014, has seen more than 10 new banks commence operations—compared to only one start-up bank in Australia in the last decade.
Under APRA's approach, start-up banks will be able to obtain a restricted licence for up to two-years, or a time specified by APRA. During this time they will be subject to a limited suite of prudential requirements and strict caps on the size of their business, granting them the opportunity to prove their business model and attract the funding they need to successfully compete in the long term. After two years, successful licences will transition to meet the full framework.
Building on our reforms of the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act , Schedule 2 to this Bill therefore makes a number of technical amendments to the Banking Act to support this new licensing approach. In particular, the Bill grants APRA the power to:
While the revocation of a licence without the possibility of merits review is a significant step, it is a necessary protection when banks are being allowed to operate at lower regulatory requirements and a bank's continued operations during an appeal process would pose unacceptable risks to consumers. It is also necessary, more broadly, to protect the reputation of all 'restricted Authorised Deposit Institutions' at a time when they are trying to build their businesses and attract customers.
Under this approach, natural justice would still be provided to time-limited licensees, with APRA required to provide notice of its intent to revoke a licence in writing and allow the licensee to make submissions in its defence. This adequately balances the need for licenced institutions to have their rights protected, against those protections required by the broader community. It will also have no impact on existing banks, or new banks that acquire a full banking licence.
To conclude, this Bill is yet another example of the Government's commitment to creating more competition in the financial sector which ultimately leads to better outcomes for consumers. This two-pronged approach to simplifying the process of setting up a new financial institution—relaxing both ownership restrictions and licensing rules for new entrants—will support investment and drive the kind of robust competition necessary to create better, cheaper, products for all Australians.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Serious and organised crime syndicates are operating in an increasingly fluid manner across jurisdictional borders. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission estimates that the cost is at least $36 billion per annum.
Depriving criminals of their wealth is a key measure in combatting these insidious individuals. Unexplained wealth laws provide a valuable tool for law enforcement to confiscate the assets of these criminals where they cannot demonstrate that this wealth has been lawfully obtained.
However the scale and complexity of this criminal threat has necessitated an enhanced focus on cooperative, cross-jurisdictional responses by Australian governments.
The Unexplained Wealth Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 will provide a national approach to target unexplained wealth. It will enable all participating jurisdictions to work together to effectively deprive these criminals of their wealth, irrespective of the jurisdictions in which they operate.
Through a referral of powers from participating States, the scheme will allow Commonwealth unexplained orders to be used where a person or property can be linked to a broader range of State and Territory offences.
This will allow the AFP to use a single unexplained wealth order to target criminal syndicates instead of the patchwork of orders that would otherwise be sought by Commonwealth, State and Territory law enforcement agencies.
The scheme will also enhance the capability of State and Territory agencies to contribute to national efforts by providing access to enhanced information gathering powers and the ability to use lawfully intercepted telecommunications information in unexplained wealth matters.
The Bill also incentivises greater cooperation between jurisdictions through the establishment of new equitable sharing arrangements. These arrangements will give participating jurisdictions preferential treatment in the distribution of seized assets.
The scheme will not replace existing unexplained wealth schemes around the country, but rather create a more effective and cooperative network of law enforcement working towards a common goal.
I thank the States and Territories that have worked with the Commonwealth to design the national cooperative scheme on unexplained wealth. In particular I acknowledge the efforts taken in New South Wales, with the introduction of the necessary referring legislation in their Parliament earlier this month. I will continue to negotiate with the remaining States to secure their support to ensure the benefits of the scheme are maximised.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this critical legislation. Together we can demonstrate we are committed to working collaboratively to strengthen unexplained wealth laws and strike at the heart of organised crime.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017
That the committee agree to the amendments made by the House of Representatives.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
The foundation of a nation's greatness is in the homes of its people.
Any woman entering the public arena must be prepared to work as men work; she must justify herself not as a woman but as a citizen; she must attack the same problems, and be prepared to shoulder the same burdens.
She could reduce me to tears about the state of a railtrack …
… is still a land of promise. We cannot afford to neglect some recognition of our past, even though we gaze into the future.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017
… our sense of Australia as an egalitarian country…The Australian experience in recent decades shows that inequality has increased strongly in economic boom times and flattened with a slower economy and slow wage growth across the board.
… freezing Newstart Allowance and family payments while indexing pensions to earnings growth, a long-term trend towards greater inequality in hourly wage rates, and growing inequality in the distribution of wealth, which generally increases inequality in investment income. These underlying trends are likely to reassert themselves and increase inequality once stronger economic growth is restored.
Mr Hockey, do you think that sanitary products are an essential health good for half the population?
The lack of genuine electoral competition and the absence of an inclusive political process mean that the 29 July election is not representative of the democratic will of the Cambodian electorate, and therefore its outcome lacks credibility.
We are deeply concerned at the many numerous and credible reports that we have received…That in the name of combating religious extremism and maintaining social stability (China) has changed the Uighur autonomous region into something that—