The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the motion circulated in the chamber, with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.
That:
(a) the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Senate amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be reported immediately,
(b) consideration of the message shall have precedence over all other business, including senators' statements and question time, until determined,
(c) immediately after the message is reported, the following motion in respect of the message shall be proposed from the Chair and considered without amendment:
That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.
(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the motion is proposed, the question on the motion shall then be put, and
(e)—
(e) at the conclusion of consideration of the message, government business order of the day No.4 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 shall be called on and have precedence over all government business until determined.
The Senate divided. [10:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the motion circulated in the chamber with respect to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be agreed to without amendment or debate.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:15]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [10:18]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That—
(a) the message from the House of Representatives relating to the Senate amendments to the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018 be reported immediately,
(b) consideration of the message shall have precedence over all other business, including senators' statements and question time, until determined,
(c) immediately after the message is reported, the following motion in respect of the message shall be proposed from the Chair and considered without amendment:
That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.
(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded—
(d) a senator speaking to the motion shall not speak for more than 5 minutes and, if the debate is not concluded at the expiration of 30 minutes after the motion is proposed, the question on the motion shall then be put, and—
(e) at the conclusion of consideration of the message, government business order of the day No. 4 Treasury Laws Amendment (Strengthening Corporate and Financial Sector Penalties) Bill 2018 shall be called on and have precedence over all government business until determined.
The Senate divided. [10:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [10:28]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2018
That the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Senate amendments to the bill.
Senate divided. [11:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017
… realise operational efficiencies, reduce unnecessary regulation, clarify ambiguities and remove redundant provisions.
Industry have indicated to us that they're satisfied now and that they no longer have any objections to the board.
No. We don't yet support the actual concept. We think that it needs to actually prove that it's going to deliver value as part of the broader structural changes in the regulatory system.
Can you tell us what process the department undertook to determine that the establishment of the governance board of the APVMA should be implemented via an amendment to an existing bill in the Senate?Ms Gaglia said:
As we've stated, that was a decision by the minister.
Just the minister. Is the department aware of any concerns from stakeholders relating to the implementation of the governance board, particularly with regard to perceived or actual interference in the independence of the APVMA?
Certainly, up until the time we submitted the revised amendments, that was the case. Industry had made it quite clear to us that they had concerns that the way we had drafted the original amendments didn't make it clear enough that the board wouldn't be involved in the day-to-day regulatory decisions of the APVMA, hence why we've altered and revised the amendments. Industry have indicated to us that they're satisfied now and that they no longer have any objections to the board.
… then each subsequent year it goes to cost recovery. Are you opposed to that model?
We're happy to look at all measures that will seek to improve the operational efficiency of the regulator. There are two issues here, and in the context of this inquiry it's why I make the point of separating them. One is about their scientific technical competency and the other is about their efficiency.
We have never been on the record criticising or questioning their scientific or technical competency, because they've never given us a basis to do so. We are on the record, in any criticisms of the APVMA that we have made, specifically as to efficiency and timeliness. My view is that the original bill, that is now being amended in the Senate, was an important bill. I understand it was supported by all sides of politics.
That should have proceeded as is and the issue of a governance board been dealt with as part of the second part of streamlining, with a broader look at all the measures that could be undertaken to improve the operational efficiency of the APVMA.
We are obviously concerned about any extra costs being put into the system, because they either act as inhibitors to bringing products to market—and on that point I already note that a third of the full costs of research and development for a new product are directly related to costs of regulation. If we are proposing measures that are bringing more costs into the system, that are being borne by registrants and, hence, then on farm, we need to be assured that they will deliver real efficiencies.
Just to clarify, I don't think I've heard anyone speak ill of the APVMA's technical work, not at all. It's just been the time of—wanting to get clearance, so we've got that clear. Did you say you were consulted by the government or you weren't?
We were. We don't support, necessarily, that initiative at this point.
Is it the governance board?
The governance board. We believe it should be part of a broader efficiency package, that we look at how the whole agency works. I think it's important to note that the APVMA is not without a range of corporate governance oversight at the moment. There is the audit committee which is externally appointed and works with the CEO. There is a range of government committees in there. It is more that we would like to work through the issue as part of a range of other reforms.
… you said earlier that you are not opposed to the governance board—in fact, you supported the concept. Yours is an issue around timing only and cost recovery?
No. We don't yet support the actual concept. We think that it needs to actually prove that it's going to deliver value as part of the broader structural changes in the regulatory system.
Moving the APVMA would allow it to have a closer interaction with the people who actually use agricultural and veterinary chemicals, as well as build a centre of excellence in the research of agricultural issues.
The estimated economic cost of $23.19 million excludes any potential cost to industry arising from the risks to the agricultural sector, the chemical industry or Australia’s trading reputation. Whilst these risks are real, their impacts and consequences are based on a probability of an event occurring and as such in adopting the principle of conservatism they have been excluded.
To effectively undertake the move of the APVMA and adopt relevant risk mitigation strategies, the cash cost to the government could be significantly higher than the estimated economic cost of $23.19 million.
The most significant risk identified through the analysis relates to the ability of the APVMA to relocate, or to recruit and replace, key APVMA executive, management and technical assessment staff within the first two years of relocation. Critically, the loss of technical assessment staff (regulatory scientists) has the potential to seriously disrupt the ability of the APVMA to successfully fulfill its purpose and achieve its objectives in the short and medium term.
Further, a key concern for stakeholders in relation to the relocation of the APVMA to Armidale is the impact that the relocation may have on the approval of new chemicals for use. Stakeholders are concerned that delays to the approval of new chemicals will arise as a result of the loss of staff, the disruption to business and/or the impact to the APVMA’s current reform agenda. The analysis found that if poorly executed, the economic costs of moving the APVMA could therefore be considerably higher than identified in the cost benefit analysis. Based on conservative estimates of a one year delay in the approval of new products, the potential impact on the agriculture sector for crops alone could be between $64 million and $193 million per annum. The risks to the agvet chemical industry associated with moving the APVMA are also significant with a one year delay in the approval of new chemicals potentially impacting industry to the value of between $0.8 million and $2.7 million per annum in terms of lost revenues.
The construction of the new business models for Armidale should be regarded as a high priority and delivered by a full-time team headed by a senior executive with a direct reporting line to the CEO. In order to insulate the team from the day-to-day and operational pressures of a busy regulator, the team should be separated from the ongoing business and include staff located in Armidale. Arrangements could also be made to facilitate the transfer of staff who wish to relocate to Armidale into this team so they have opportunities to contribute to the construction of the new model and the training of new staff.
The maintenance of a sufficient internal scientific capability will require vigorous efforts to retain and recruit appropriately skilled regulatory scientists.
This will require active management of staff relocations including incentives for staff to relocate and an accelerated recruitment program. The APVMA should also consider targeting staff from overseas pesticide and veterinary chemical regulators, either on permanent appointment or on secondment. Remote working may provide a means of retaining some more experienced staff. However, only some of the functions currently performed are suitable for remote working, and it is highly unlikely that this would be a long-term viable arrangement for the bulk of the staff involved in the function.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education (Senator Cash) and the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cameron and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) today relating to the execution of a search warrant on Australian Workers' Union premises and to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.
Opportunistic Refugee Inspired By Medivac Bill To Get Lost At Sea, Spend 5 Years In Nauru, Develop Excruciating Illness And Then Maybe Briefly Come To Australia For Medical Treatment Under Armed Guard
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the Murray-Darling Basin.
That on Wednesday, 13 February 2019, following valedictory statements being made relating to SenatorWilliams, that valedictory statements be also made relating to Senator Leyonhjelm.
That, on Thursday, 14 February 2019, contingent on the tabling of the Prime Minister's annual report on Closing the Gap, the documents be considered at the time for general business, for not more than two hours.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Mutual Reforms) Bill 2019
Wine Australia Amendment (Trade with United Kingdom) Bill 2019
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019
That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to mutual entities and for related purposes; a Bill for an Act to amend the Wine Australia Act 2013, and for related purposes; and a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes.
That these bills be now read a second time.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (MUTUAL REFORMS) BILL 2019
This Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) to enable mutual and cooperative firms, particularly the mutually-owned financial institutions, to raise the capital they need to compete with investor-owned banks, insurers and other competitors.
Cooperatives, mutuals and member-owned firms have a proud history across the country, providing generations of Australians with customer and community-focused alternatives to profit‑driven businesses. The oldest member-owned firms even pre‑date the Commonwealth, with some tracing histories that extend back to decades before Australia's Federation.
Over their long history, member-owned firms have been operating reliably and consistently across many industries including agriculture, banking and finance, housing, insurance and retail.
Over 14 million people, nearly 2 in 3 Australians, were members of these organisations in 2017.
Yet despite their value to customers and the community, mutuals and cooperatives in Australia have long been underappreciated and ignored by our federal laws. They face a number of barriers preventing them from growing to their full potential, placing them at a disadvantage.
This Bill represents the outcome of a long and comprehensive process to identify and address the regulatory impediments facing the mutuals sector, starting with the Senate Economics References Committee report on Cooperative, Mutual and Member-owned Firms in 2015. This report highlighted the impediments to competition and consumer choice, caused by uncertainty and a lack of capital raising options for mutual and cooperative firms.
Recognising that our federal laws were effectively forcing mutuals and cooperatives to compete with one arm tied behind their back, in 2017 the then Treasurer, Scott Morrison, commissioned Mr Greg Hammond to advise the Government on regulatory and legislative changes that could remove the barriers facing the sector.
The Government accepted all 11 of the Hammond Report recommendations and we have been working with the mutuals sector, the legal community and regulators to develop this Bill.
The Government has consulted with the Legislative and Governance Forum on Corporations in relation to the Bill, which has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement 2002.
It is a credit to the Prime Minister who, as Treasurer, pushed these reforms forward and he deserves to be acknowledged as these reforms now come before the Parliament.
This Bill will introduce a definition of a mutual entity into the Corporations Act for the first time. It will remove the uncertainty around demutualisation provisions and disclosure requirements that have prevented mutual Authorised deposit-taking Institutions, otherwise known as "mutual banks", from raising capital in the past, and it will create a new type of bespoke instrument, called a Mutual Capital Instrument, which allows mutuals to raise equity through a specialised capital instrument. The Bill also provides a simple, standardised process for mutuals to amend their constitutions to take advantage of the introduction of Mutual Capital Instruments, should they wish to do so.
With this legislation, the Government will finally ensure that cooperatives and mutuals are recognised in our federal laws.
Our reforms will mean more opportunities for mutual organisations by allowing them to raise the funds they need to make long-term investments for the benefit of their members, and to compete effectively with shareholder-owned companies for the benefit of all Australians.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
WINE AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT (TRADE WITH UNITED KINGDOM) BILL 2019
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 20
The enactment of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act 2018 in December 2018 was a critical step to combat terrorists and serious criminals using digital technology to hide their illegal activities.
Australia's law enforcement and national security agencies are now equipped with the tools they need to keep Australians safe, while operating in an increasingly complex modern communications environment.
The Assistance and Access Act established a framework for national security and law enforcement agencies to seek assistance from the communications industry — to support investigations and operations that would otherwise be delayed or stymied by suspects' use of encrypted communications. The legislation also introduced new computer access powers to ensure that our agencies can access lawfully obtained content and data.
The Government is keenly aware that the legitimate use of encryption keeps the data of all Australians safe and secure when they interact with digital platforms. Maintaining the security of networks and devices is paramount to ensuring Australians can harness the potential of modern technology. I reiterate the words of the Attorney-General in his second reading speech on the then Assistance and Access Bill — the legislation prohibits the creation of so-called back doors.
3 Commissions are empowered to use the industry assistance measures. This 2The legislation does not allow for mass surveillance. Access to personal information must be authorised by existing warrants and authorisations, which are subject to their own safeguards, including judicial oversight.
The Assistance and Access Act itself contains important safeguard and oversight measures to protect the privacy of Australians, maintain the security of the digital ecosystem and ensure powers are exercised responsibly. A key purpose of the Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 is to further strengthen these oversight mechanisms.
This Bill amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to bring forward the review of the Assistance and Access Act by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor — to provide timely assurance that the Assistance and Access Act is operating as intended.
The Assistance and Access Act already requires the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Act. The Bill expedites the timeframes for this review — so that it will be finished before the end of, rather than after, the 18-month period beginning on
8 December 2018 when the Act received Royal Assent.
Bringing forward the review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor will bolster the effective, timely and expert monitoring of the Assistance and Access Act — to make sure this framework is working and is striking the right balance.
Aside from bringing forward the timing, this amendment does not change the purpose and nature of the review by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
The Bill also amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to ensure Commonwealth and State anti-corruption bodies and Investigative
will help these bodies identify and investigate serious crime, and law enforcement misconduct and corruption across the public sector.
Commonwealth and State anti-corruption bodies and Investigative Commissions were included in the original Assistance and Access Bill that was introduced into the House on 20 September 2018. These agencies were, however, subsequently excluded from the scope of the industry assistance measures in accordance with a recommendation from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS). The exclusion of these bodies was recommended as an interim measure while the Committee continued its consideration of the Act.
The Chair of the PJCIS informed the House yesterday that it is now the consensus view of the Committee that the Act be extended to these agencies.
Anti-corruption agencies and Investigative Commissions have an important oversight function and typically have access to intrusive powers, like interception warrants and telecommunications. The use of interception and surveillance powers has enabled these bodies to collect vital, and often powerful evidence. However, similar to the experience of interception agencies, the evolving technological environment has created challenges for anti-corruption bodies and investigative commissions. Increasingly, their capacity to rely on these important tools is being undermined.
A joint submission from the Commissioners of eight State anti-corruption and Crime Commissions plus the Commissioner of the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to the PJCIS' Inquiry into the Act has called for the urgent extension of the Act's industry assistance measures to these agencies. The Commissioners note that these powers are crucial in their fight against organised crime and corruption. Their argument for the need for these powers is compelling.
Access to the industry assistance measures will ensure anti-corruption bodies and investigative commissions can overcome the issues caused by technologies such as encryption. Specifically, anti-corruption bodies and investigative commissions will be empowered to obtain legitimate and necessary assistance from domestic and international communications providers in accordance with the existing safeguards and limitations in Part 15 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Importantly, the use of the industry assistance powers remains subject to oversight from the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The Bill ensures that anti-corruption bodies and investigative commissions are able continue to fulfil their function and have access to the same powers as the law enforcement and national security agencies that they oversee. The Bill does not provide anti-corruption bodies and investigative commissions with unfettered powers. Indeed, these bodies will be included within a framework that is currently operating and is subject to strong safeguards and oversight measures.
It is vital that such national security legislation is supported by appropriate safeguards and oversight measures. This Bill enhances the already strong measures in the Assistance and Access Act to ensure the powers are proportionate to the threats they are designed to counter, that these powers are used appropriately, and that the privacy and data security of innocent Australians is preserved. Importantly, the Bill also increases the accountability of those public officers that Australians entrust to keep them safe and secure.
4 I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Unsolicited Communications) Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to unsolicited communications, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill gives back some power to the people. It seeks to give consumers and voters more control over unsolicited electronic and telephone communication from political parties and registered charities, which currently enjoy broad exemptions from laws that otherwise prohibit or limit telemarketing calls and spam messages.
This problem was highlighted most recently when Mr Clive Palmer spammed voters nationally with SMS messages, prompting hundreds of complaints to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).
It is not the first time this is happened and, unless the measures in this bill pass, it will not be the last. We know voters are unhappy about receiving these SMS messages, but ACMA is largely powerless to act on these complaints.
This bill seeks to address this situation, and to do so in a way that strikes a balance between the rights of consumers and the implied freedom of political communication protected by the Constitution.
The bill amends the Spam Act 2003 to require that any electronic electoral message – essentially messages designed to influence voters in a federal election - must include an unsubscribe function.
It is a simple yet effective means of managing this type of mass unwanted texts from political parties and candidates.
Under the provisions of the bill, each electronic electoral message needs to make a clear statement advising the recipient that they can unsubscribe from further electronic communications and provide an electronic link to do so. The unsubscribe link must be functional, and able to handle a reasonable amount of traffic at all times of the day for at least 30 days after the message is sent.
Including an unsubscribe function in these messages allows voters to control whether they wish to continue receiving these messages, based on whether the message, party or candidate is of interest to them.
It would also mean ACMA would not bear the brunt of voter discontent over unsolicited political texts, and it could ideally deploy the resources it uses on these complaints to other productive work.
Should parties or candidates get an unsubscribe request, they can feasibly send one last message acknowledging the request and providing a subscribe link in the event the voter changes their mind down the track.
The bill also seeks to ensure more honest telephone campaigning during elections, by ensuring that the use of actors in voice calls is disclosed at the outset.
The bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to require actors performing in electoral voice calls to be identified as actors.
Unless the use of actors in political propaganda and messaging is properly disclosed, there is always a risk that the actors can be misrepresented as real people, or mistaken by voters as real people, and that their stories and experiences may be taken as genuine rather than illustrative or manufactured to make a point.
Frankly, if a political party can't persuade voters of the merits of their argument without relying on pretence, then their argument has no real merit.
And finally, this bill will also seek to give consumers some control over unsolicited and unwanted calls from registered charities.
Under the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 , Australian numbers registered on the Do Not Call Register may receive telemarketing calls from registered charities, among others, and consumers have little recourse should they wish to "opt out" of these.
We all recognise and value the work of charities. However, we also know from news reports and consumer advocates that charity telemarketing calls can become a nuisance, and worse, for some vulnerable consumers.
A 2017 survey published by ACMA, Telemarketing calls in Australia: Consumer experience research , found cold calls from charities were the most common type of telemarketing call received on landlines, and that almost half of all those surveyed found telemarketing calls from charities to be "a problem".
Another survey, conducted by consumer advocate CHOICE in 2016, found charities to be the main source of unwanted calls. Its Who ' s on the Line report found about 25% of respondents received calls from a charity to their landline at least weekly, and 20% received them to their mobile. About 5% reported receiving daily calls. This was despite some respondents saying they had made repeated requests to be taken off contact lists.
The survey also found 74% of respondents thought charities should not be allowed to call numbers on the register, and 88% agreed with the statement, "I wish there was more I could do to stop these unsolicited calls".
These nuisance calls impacted their view of the charity and their desire to donate in future, and some respondents also expressed concern over the sometimes heavy-handed and emotionally manipulative tactics of telemarketers.
The UK experienced the worst of this in 2015, when 92-year-old Olive Cooke took her own life in part because of the distress caused by the avalanche of cold calls she received and letters requesting donations – reportedly up to 3000 letters in a year - from charities and their authorised marketing agencies who shared her contact details between them.
A UK review of fundraising self-regulation released that year, chaired by Sir Stuart Etherington, touched on Ms Cooke's death, and made recommendations including the creation of a new regulator.
The Regulating Fundraising for the Future report succinctly stated: "…we are clear that charities and voluntary organisations must be allowed to raise funds from the public. We are equally clear that this right to ask is not unbounded. For the public, the right to be left alone, or approached with respect and humility, is equally strong. This is not simply a matter of public interest, but is also key to the long-term sustainability of charities".
The UK now has a Fundraising Preference Service, operated by the new Fundraising Regulator, which allows members of the public to opt out of communications from their specified charities.
This bill proposes a simpler solution than that: allowing consumers on the Do Not Call Register to opt out of receiving any telemarketing call made on behalf of a registered charity.
It is not the intent of the bill to curtail the important work of registered charities or make it difficult to fundraise.
As of June 2016, the Do Not Call Register had 10.65 million registered Australian numbers and it is envisaged the vast majority of numbers would remain as charity-contactable numbers , as defined in the bill.This is because the bill requires consumers to take action to 'opt out' of receiving telemarketing calls from charities - as opposed to making them 'opt in' to receiving calls – and it is expected that only those consumers who are particularly distressed or annoyed by charity telemarketing calls would be motivated to take that action.
The bill does not contain a similar opt out provision for political parties and candidates because the public is much more comfortable - happy even - hanging up on these calls than they are about terminating a call made on behalf of a charity.
I believe the provisions set out in this bill are measured, responsible and responsive. These amendments will give people a more satisfactory level of control over unwanted calls and texts without unduly interfering with the operations of political entities and charities.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety (the Royal Commission) commenced on 18 January 2019, and started hearing evidence from witnesses in Adelaide this week,
(ii) part of the Royal Commission's task is to examine substandard care and the causes of any systematic failures that have affected the quality or safety of aged care services,
(iii) the Royal Commission will also examine existing policy, regulations and practices in order to consider reform and change to deliver better outcomes for those receiving aged care in Australia now and into the future,
(iv) the Honourable Richard Tracey AM RFD QC stated that the Royal Commission was a "once in a lifetime opportunity" and cautioned the aged care sector against instructing staff not to talk to the Royal Commission or to withhold information,
(v) aged care providers approved under the Commonwealth Aged Care Act 1997 were asked to provide information to the Royal Commission, with the largest 100 providers invited to make written submissions by 7 January 2019, and the remaining 1,882 approved aged care providers to provide their written submissions by 8 February 2019, and
(vi) at the commencement of the Royal Commission, fewer than half of the 1,982 approved providers had responded to the Royal Commission's invitation for submissions;
(b) urges every approved aged care provider who has not yet put forward a submission to the Royal Commission to do so, as a matter of urgency;
(c) further notes that, under section 6M of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 , it is a criminal offence for a person to punish, disadvantage or otherwise injure a person who has appeared as a witness or produced a document or given information or a statement pursuant to a summons requirement or notice issued by the Royal Commission; and
(d) denounces any attempt by aged care providers to stop current or former employees from participating freely in the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates refugee Mr Behrouz Boochani on winning Australia's richest literary award, the $100,000 Victorian Prize for Literature, as well as claiming $25,000 for first place in the category of non-fiction;
(b) recognises that Mr Boochani won the literary prizes for his memoir, No Friend But the Mountains: Writing from Manus Prison , which was written on a mobile phone and charts his flight from Iran and his experiences in offshore detention;
(c) notes that Mr Boochani described his win as "It is a victory not only for us, but for literature and art, and above all, it is a victory for humanity – a victory for human beings and human dignity ... A victory against a system that has never recognised us as human beings. It is a victory against a system that has reduced us to numbers. This is a beautiful moment."; and
(d) expresses its dismay that Mr Boochani was not able to attend the awards ceremony as the Iranian-Kurdish journalist remains on Manus Island where he has been in detention since 2013.
Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Export Control Act 1982, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Export Control Amendment (Banning Cotton Exports to Ensure Water Security) Bill 2019 is a necessary response to the failure of the Australian Government, and the Governments of New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, to respond positively to the findings and recommendations of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.
Regrettably, it is necessary to open debate on an unpalatable measure that may ultimately prove necessary to protect and restore the environmental health of Australia's biggest and most vital river system.
In his report, released on 31 January 2019, Commissioner Bret Walker SC delivered a damning indictment of water and environmental management under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and recommended a complete overhaul of the scheme, specifically to reallocate much more water from irrigation to the environment.
The Royal Commission found the Murray-Darling Basin plan ignored potentially "catastrophic" risks of climate change.
The Commissioner found that Commonwealth officials have committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions.
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has repeatedly pushed aside and suppressed good science while the defence of sectional interests has prevailed over the health of our major river system.
Perhaps most importantly, the Commissioner found that the so-called "triple bottom line" approach, in which economic and social factors are considered to reduce the water recovery target for the environment, is fatally flawed, and at odds with provisions of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 which requires that Basin water resources be managed "in the national interest" and, inter alia, " to protect, restore and provide for the ecological values and ecosystem services of the Murray-Darling Basin".
Large scale water buybacks, and a consequent reduction in irrigation – especially in the northern Murray-Darling Basin – are essential to restore the environmental health of the river system and ensure water security for cities, towns and communities downstream.
It should be recalled that the Royal Commission was prompted by allegations of massive water theft by New South Wales' irrigators.
The Royal Commission proceeded with its work in the face of conspicuous non-cooperation from the Australian Government, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and from the New South Wales and Queensland Governments.
Meanwhile drought has gripped the Murray-Darling Basin.
Rivers have stopped flowing in north-west New South Wales, leaving some towns on severe water restrictions.
Major fish kills in New South Wales, including two on an extraordinary scale at Menindee, have resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fish dying.
Against this background, it is remarkable that the Royal Commission's report has been met with government reactions ranging from indifference to outright hostility.
The New South Wales and Queensland Governments have effectively rejected the report and its recommendations out of hand. The Australian Government appears indifferent, while the South Australian Government's response has been low-key to the point of timidity.
In these circumstances, in which there is no political movement to embrace the Royal Commission's report, it is necessary to consider other measures to protect and restore the environmental health of the Murray-Darling Basin.
In this the role of cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin cannot be ignored.
The overwhelming majority of Australian cotton is grown in the Murray-Darling Basin with some 90 per cent exported, mainly to China and India.
This is a highly successful industry, but one that imposes a major drain on the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 21.4 per cent of Murray-Darling Basin irrigation water was used in cotton production in 2005-06.
In 2008-09, the ABS reported that cotton accounted for the highest proportion of irrigation water used in the Murray-Darling Basin – 23 per cent, exceeding that used for cereal crops – 20 per cent – and for pasture for grazing – 15 per cent.
For 2010-11, the ABS further reported that:
For 2011-12, the ABS reported that 1,996 gigalitres were applied to cotton production in the Murray-Darling Basin, nearly one third - 32 per cent - of all water used in the Basin in that year.
Curiously, the most recent ABS report for 2016-17 doesn't give figures for agricultural water use in the Murray-Darling Basin but does give figures for national volumes.
In 2016-17 cotton used 2,566 gigalitres of 9,104 gigalitres of national water use - 28.2 per cent.
Given that there is hardly any cotton grown outside the Murray-Darling Basin, the percentage of water used for cotton production in the Basin is probably rather higher.
Cotton is the single largest piece of the challenge of managing the water resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.
And although the Royal Commission report does not single out cotton, in the absence of Commonwealth, state and territory government commitments to fully implement the Commission's recommendations, that is precisely what must be done in Australia's national interest and the health of our rivers.
This Bill is intended to trigger a national debate on the future of the cotton industry in the context of its impact on the Murray-Darling Basin.
Centre Alliance's firm view is that major choices need to be made and that the environmental health of the river system, water and food security must be our national priorities, not cotton exports.
Exporting cotton is like exporting water. Australians live on the driest continent on the planet yet are using our precious national water resources to produce a water intensive crop which we then export overseas so that foreign entities can profit from making textiles and clothing.
Export cotton production should not be given the same priority as food producers, or for that matter, the towns and cities dependent on the river system for water supply, and the overall environmental health of the river system all the way to the Coorong lagoon in South Australia.
This Bill will prohibit absolutely the export of cotton grown in Australia.
It is not unusual to regulate or, in some cases ban, the export of agricultural commodities in the national interest.
The Export Control Act 1982 allows the making of regulations relating to "prescribed goods" that are declared as such by regulations.
Subsection 7(1) of the Export Control Act provides that regulations may prohibit the export of prescribed goods from Australia.
The Bill will insert new section 7AA which would provide that three years after the section commences, the regulations are taken to have declared that cotton grown in Australia is a prescribed good; and prohibited absolutely the export of that cotton.
The prohibition will apply to the export of cotton grown anywhere in Australia.
The production of cotton for use in Australia will not be affected.
In this regard it should be noted that section 99 of the Australian Constitution provides that the Commonwealth "shall not, by any law or regulation of trade, commerce, or revenue, give preference to one State or any part thereof over another State or any part thereof."
The Bill is intended to be compliant with this constitutional provision.
The three-year time frame before the ban will take effect will allow cotton farmers to anticipate and prepare for an end to cotton exports.
No doubt some cotton farmers may shift production to other irrigated crops. Some may move to other activities including significantly less irrigated water. Overall, it could be anticipated that termination of the cotton export market would result in significant reduction in demand for Murray-Darling Basin water resources. This would provide an opportunity to return significant volumes of water to the environment, consistent with the objectives of the Water Act to manage the Basin water resources "in the national interest" and to "protect and restore the ecosystem of the Murray‑Darling Basin".
Significantly the proposed three-year time frame will also provide the Australian Government and the governments of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory time to reconsider and implement the recommendations of the Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission.
If governments are able to come together and adopt policies based on open and transparent science, and consideration of the national interest rather than the defence of narrow sectional interests, the measure proposed in this Bill may well prove unnecessary. In the absence of such action, however, the environmental degradation of the river system will undoubtedly continue and calls for radical action, most likely focussed on the cotton industry, will most likely grow.
"It is regrettable that we should have to consider such a measure, but in the absence of real commitments to put the health of the Murray-Darling first and foremost, and implement the Royal Commission's recommendations, this is something that must be considered in Australia's national interest.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 5 February 2019 was Safer Internet Day, an annual, worldwide event to help raise awareness about internet safety, and empower individuals and communities to have more positive online experiences,
(ii) the internet has opened an unprecedented opportunity for people to communicate and receive information anywhere and at any time,
(iii) internet users of all ages are exposed to risks and threats online, including fraud, identity theft, unauthorised access to personal information, image-based abuse, cyberbullying, stalking and exposure to unreliable information or illicit materials, and
(iv) this year's theme, 'Together for a better internet', encourages everyone to take responsibility for making the internet a positive experience by being kind and respectful to others, seeking out positive opportunities to create and connect, and reporting inappropriate or illegal content and behaviour online;
(b) encourages all Australians to promote internet safety and to help make the internet a positive experience for all users; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government, and all future Australian governments, to continue working with state and territory governments, schools, community groups, the information and communications technology industry and the wider community to make the internet safer.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 12 February 2019 was World Cholangiocarcinoma Day, an international effort to raise awareness of a form of liver cancer that develops in the bile duct cells,
(ii) 1 in 67,000 Australians are diagnosed each year with cholangiocarcinoma – around one per day,
(iii) in Australia, cholangiocarcinoma generally has a five-year survival rate of around 30%, and
(iv) many cholangiocarcinoma patients are diagnosed too late for potentially curative surgery; and
(b) recognises the need for continued efforts to improve the diagnosis, treatment and survival rates for rare and less common cancers, such as cholangiocarcinoma.
That the Senate—
(a) observes that:
(i) this week marks Ochre Ribbon Week, raising awareness of the devastating impacts of family violence in First Nations communities and calling for action to end the violence against First Nations, especially our women and children, and
(ii) the Ochre Ribbon Campaign is an initiative supported by the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum and its member organisations across Australia;
(b) recognises:
(i) that First Nations women are 32 times more likely to be hospitalised from family violence, and 10 times more likely to be killed as a result of violent assault,
(ii) the damaging impacts of intergenerational trauma, invasion and racism on First Nations communities, and
(iii) that First Nations men and women are working to address family violence and community safety at the grassroots and their efforts should be supported; and
(c) calls on the Morrison Government to:
(i) ensure all First Nations women have access to culturally-safe, specialist legal services, regardless of where they live, and
(ii) develop justice targets to reduce family violence and incarceration rates in First Nations communities.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the Franchising Code of Conduct and Oil Code of Conduct be extended to 14 March 2019.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month,
(ii) this year, Australians are being encouraged to take 'ovary-action' by knowing the signs, symptoms and risk factors of ovarian cancer,
(iii) there has been very little improvement in treatment in 50 years and there is still no early detection test, and
(iv) the best way of detecting ovarian cancer is to know and recognise the signs, symptoms and risk factors; and
(b) urges all levels of government to encourage Australians to become more aware of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer, to know their family history, where to get help, and to create communities where people openly talk about ovarian cancer.
That the Senate acknowledges and congratulates:
(a) the 35 worthy Tasmanians who were recipients of the 2019 Australia Day honours on 26 January 2019 for their outstanding achievement and services to Tasmania, and Australia more broadly;
(b) Member of the Order of Australia (AM) recipients: Mrs Jennifer Mary Ball, Mr Ian Andrew Chesterman, Mr Graeme Bernard Lynch, Dr Donald Raymond McTaggart, Mr Kevin William Perkins and Dr Bryan Geoffrey Walpole;
(c) Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) recipients: Professor Donald Roderick Chalmers and Professor Ross Raymond Large;
(d) Order of Australia Medal (OAM) recipients: the Honourable Dick Godfrey Adams, Mrs Rachel Alamil Bessant, Mr Peter Sheu Cheong Chung, Mrs Ketrina Jane Clarke, Ms Denise Jae Delphin, Mrs Anne Margaret Fagg, Mr Michael George Gandy, Dr William Peter Holm, Mr Terry William Kay, Mr Stephen John Knight, Mr Thomas Joseph O'Halloran, Mr Adam George Marshall, Mr Robert Maurice Patterson RFD, Mr Michael Charles Perkins, Mr Phillip John Pyke, Mr Peter John Quigley, Mr Kevin John Shadbolt, Mr Peter James Tonkin and Ms Joan Lesley Wright;
(e) Australian Police Medal recipients: Constable Tania Curtis and Sergeant Rodney Stacey;
(f) Australian Fire Service Medal recipients: Tasmania Fire Service Chief Officer, Mr Chris Arnol; Leading Firefighter at Ridgley Fire Brigade and Second Officer at Burnie Volunteer Fire Brigade, Mr Scott Clarke; and Wattle Hill Fire Brigade volunteer, Mr Terrance White;
(g) Emergency Services Medal recipients: Regional officer for the southern region, Mr Mark Dance; SES volunteer unit manager for Circular Head, Mr Lynton Free; and Huon Valley SES volunteer and deputy unit manager, Mr Alton Bond;
(h) Conspicuous Service Medal recipient: Lieutenant Colonel, Mr Paul Mellin O'Donnell; and
(i) Australian Corrections Medal recipient: Mr Shaun Patrick Wheeler.
That there be laid on the table by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Cormann), by no later than 3.30 pm on 14 February 2019, all outstanding answers to questions on notice as at 31January 2019 from the 2018-19 supplementary budget estimates hearings in the following portfolios:
(a) Health (210 answers);
(b) Human Services (91 answers);
(c) Industry, Innovation and Science (7 answers);
(d) Treasury (14 answers);
(e) Education and Training (22 answers);
(f) Jobs and Small Business (4 answers);
(g) Communications and the Arts (1 answer);
(h) Environment and Energy (2 answers);
(i) Prime Minister and Cabinet (including cross-portfolio Indigenous matters and agencies) (8 answers);
(j) Defence, including Veterans' Affairs (75 answers);
(k) Foreign Affairs and Trade (1 answer); and
(l) Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (1 answer).
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the National Redress Scheme, which was established in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, has been operating since July 2018,
(ii) as of November last year, 2,335 survivors have made applications to the National Redress Scheme, but only 28 have received compensation,
(iii) the primary reason for this delay is due to institutions that are responsible for child sexual abuse not opting into the Scheme or staggering their entry into the Scheme, and
(iv) the National Redress Scheme was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2015, and institutions have had sufficient time to prepare for their entry into the Scheme; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Families and Social Services to:
(i) continue encouraging all institutions within states and territories which are currently signed on to the National Redress Scheme, to opt in,
(ii) seek a timeframe from institutions that have publically stated their intention to join the Scheme as to when they will start fully participating in the Scheme, and
(iii) make this timeframe publically available so that survivors, many of whom are elderly or ill, can have some clarity about when they will receive the redress that is owed to them.
That the Senate—
(a) requires legislation committees to set a deadline for the return of answers to questions on notice from the 2018-19 additional estimates of not later than Friday, 29 March 2019; and
(b) for the 2019-20 Budget estimates only, varies the order of the Senate of 25 June 2014, Estimates hearings - Unanswered questions on notice, to require that the statement required under paragraph (1) of the order be laid on the table by not later than Monday, 1 April 2019.
Murray-Darling Basin Commission of Inquiry Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish an inquiry into the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill may now be read a second time.
I rise today to speak in favour of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission of Inquiry Bill 2019. This summer we have seen before our eyes what scientists, ecologists and river communities have been warning us about for years: an ecosystem in collapse.
Unprecedented mass fish deaths in Menindee have crystallised the crisis unfolding in the nation's most important river system. The Productivity Commission has raised concerns about the capacity of the current management and governance arrangements.
Meanwhile, the South Australian Royal Commission slammed the Plan, the Authority, and management by the Basin States. Commissioner Bret Walker found instances of corruption and maladministration. He raised questions about the validity of the Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take, and the very lawfulness of the Plan itself.
Scientists have been telling us that the 2750GL water recovery target is inadequate. The South Australian Royal Commission found a target that appropriately considered the environment would be somewhere between 3980GL and 6980GL. Throughout the Basin it is clear there is not enough water.
We have seen cases of fraud, donation scandals and corruption. If we are to save the Murray-Darling Basin, what we need are not prayers but answers and a plan of action. We know there is not enough water in the river. So where is the water? Why is so much less water making it downstream? How do we account for the fish deaths, and for the ill-health of the Coorong? Why has a water management plan, designed to deal with drought, failed at the first hurdle? Why hasn't Queensland had questions to answer? How did cotton have a bumper crop last year? Why isn't anyone talking about floodplain harvesting? These questions, and many others, must be answered.
While the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission made comprehensive findings, key individuals and agencies were prevented from giving evidence at the Commission. Thus far its findings have been side-stepped by those who need to heed them if the river is to survive.
In 2017, then Minister, Barnaby Joyce bragged to irrigators that he had taken water away from the environment. In NSW, Minister for Regional Water, Niall Blair gave himself the right to retrospectively approve illegal floodplain works in the Barwon-Darling, even if they do not comply with the plan. Meanwhile, Ernst & Young have found "unique fraud risks" in an analysis of the $3.2 billion fund set aside to purchase environmental water, meaning that money could be paid without any water ever being recovered.
It is not just individual ministers. In 2018, the Liberal National Government, with the support of Labor, passed a 70GL cut in the water recovery target for the Northern Basin. In the Southern Basin, the decision to pay for 'water efficiency measures' instead of buying back 605GL also had bipartisan support. This leaves less and less water for the environment. Now we have a million dead fish.
It is clear that the power and greed of corporate irrigators, the politicians who are happy to serve their interests, coupled with a plan that leaves too much to chance, handshakes, winks and nods have combined to deliver less and less water to a river system already under strain. We are seeing the river system dying before our eyes for the sake of corporate greed and political power.
It is not impossible to save the Murray-Darling. It is not impossible to manage healthy, thriving river systems in ways that benefit the environment, communities, and businesses. But to get there we need answers, those responsible need to be held to account, and we need to overhaul our broken plan. It is time to take a look under the hood of corporate cotton, corruption, and climate change.
This Commission of Inquiry will ensure that no stone is left unturned. It will examine misconduct, the implementation of the plan and any adverse effects it has on the environment, agriculture and river communities, the allocation of funds and the real impact these funds have had or not had on environmental watering, and the impact of climate change on Basin water resources.
If we are to understand what has happened to our precious rivers and find solutions, we need to get to the bottom of what has gone on and look for solutions.
I urge you to support this Bill; the survival of our nation's most important river system hangs in the balance.
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the severe impact that flooding in North Queensland and the Gulf region has had on families, businesses, agricultural producers and the transport industry;
(b) notes with regret that in excess of an estimated 300,000 head of livestock have perished due to the floods;
(c) further notes the long-term effects this will have on the livestock industry in North Queensland and the Gulf; and
(d) commends the Federal, state and local Governments for the assistance provided to flood-stricken communities thus far, whilst noting that sustained support will be needed to allow affected communities and industries to properly recover.
Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Water Act 2007 , and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Water Amendment (Purchase Limit Repeal) Bill 2019 will repeal Barnaby Joyce's 1500GL cap on buybacks. We need as many tools as possible to get the Basin Plan back on track. At the moment, if the supply projects, the 605GL of "down water" projects, don't deliver results then buybacks is not an option. If the Murray‑Darling Basin Authority recommends that more water for the environment is needed, then buybacks may not be an option. We need options.
As the review of the Basin Plan draws nearer then we need to remove barriers to implementing the Basin Plan. The Basin is under pressure and the government doesn't seem to care. The fish kills south of Menindee are a stark reminder of what happens when you ignore nature. When we learnt of the fish kills Labor asked the Prime Minister to take action - and no action was taken. Labor therefore sought scientific advice from the Academy of Sciences regarding mass fish kills—then the government decided to undertake a similar study.
The government did not act until Labor took action.
When the fish kills occurred Labor's Shadow Minister for Water visited Menindee to inspect the disaster first hand, and to meet with locals. The government was nowhere to be seen. Again it was Labor at a state and federal level taking the lead.
The Productivity Commission and the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission have both produced reports regarding implementation of the Murray‑Darling Basin Plan. These reports raise serious issues in regard to the Coalition government's ability to manage Australia's water resources. They highlight that at every turn people like Barnaby Joyce turned the dial against river health.
Mr Joyce wrote to the South Australian Minister attacking the 450GL of water for the environment. He boasted in a pub that he was fighting against water reform. The government has been attacked for ignoring the science, for allowing water theft to occur and for secrecy. Labor raised those issues, and sought assurance from the government. And to their credit the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Mr Littleproud, took action.
The question is—is it enough to undo the harm of those that went before him on the Coalition side?
Labor wants the Basin Plan delivered in full. We want every option for water purchase looked at, noting that it is voluntary purchase; it's not forcing someone to sell. It is running a tender.
We also want infrastructure projects to work and for the supply measures to deliver but we won't close off options if they don't.
The 1500GL cap on buybacks wasn't part of the Basin Plan and when it was supported a few years ago Labor said our support was conditional that it didn't impact on achieving the objectives of the Basin Plan. By removing the cap we are giving options to government, to act on advice they receive and to use buybacks if the 605GL of projects don't deliver.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require photographic identification on Medicare cards to prevent misuse and fraud, and for related purposes. Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019 .
Question agreed to.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019 is intended to achieve exactly what it says, to stop, by including photographic identification, a Medicare card from being used by someone other than the person to whom it is issued.
Presently, there is nothing to stop someone from sharing their Medicare card with anyone who hasn't been issued with one, or is not eligible for a card, in order to source medical services at cost to the Government.
As a result, health providers have no way of verifying that the name on the card is that of the person they are treating.
Eligibility for a Medicare card is available to Australian and New Zealand citizens, as well as visitors from a range of countries with which Australia has reciprocal agreements. These include Belgium, Finland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Ireland, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Anyone with a permanent resident visa can also get a card if living in Australia. Even if they aren't, they continue to be eligible for Medicare for 12 months after leaving the country.
You may also get a Medicare card if you live in Australia and have applied for a permanent residency visa or permanent protection visa, provided you are on a visa allowing you to work or you are the parent, spouse or child of an Australian citizen or permanent resident, or a New Zealand citizen living here.
There are additional ways of qualifying for the free or subsidised health benefits which a Medicare card provides, depending on the type of visa you have been granted.
As it stands the use of Medicare cards is wide open to rorting, with nothing to stop a person who does not qualify for free or subsidised medical assistance from borrowing a card from a friend. And it does happen.
When was the last time someone checked your ID when you used your Medicare card? It has never happened to me.
The 2018-19 budget for Medicare, or 'medical benefits' as it is labelled, is $24.1 billion, compared to an estimated total expenditure in 2017-18 of $23.3 billion. It is forecast to grow to $25.5 billion in 2019-20, $26.8 billion in 2020-21 and $28.2 billion in 2021-22.
Medicare costs represent a significant part of the country's health budget and this is growing as the population ages.
Possession of a Medicare card has a financial value to whoever uses it, representing free or subsidised health care.
Passports and drivers' licences are protected in part from fraudulent use by having photographic identification of the person to whom they are issued. I see no reason why this should not apply also to Medicare cards.
By providing for this, this Bill will stop fraudulent use and the consequent drain on the health budget.
It will strengthen the integrity of the Medicare Scheme, surely an outcome which everyone would welcome.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 2 April 2019:
The role of the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) in the recent detention in Thailand of Mr Hakeem Al-Araibi, with particular reference to:
(a) processes that led to Australia notifying Thailand that Mr Al-Araibi was travelling, and the subject of an INTERPOL Red Notice;
(b) the actions of the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the AFP following Mr Al-Araibi's arrest in Thailand;
(c) the actions of Australian authorities in relation to Mr Al-Araibi's arrest and detention;
(d) the duty of care Australia owes its citizens and permanent residents who are at risk of facing inhumane treatment overseas;
(e) the operation of the INTERPOL Red Notice system, and whether it adequately protects the rights of Australian citizens and permanent residents;
(f) measures that could be implemented to prevent similar cases from occurring in future; and
(g) any other related matters.
The Senate divided. [16:02]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government immediately to allocate $10 billion to commence the construction of the much-needed hybrid Bradfield Scheme.
The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) over the 2018-19 summer, more than five people have died or been injured as a result of taking illicit drugs,
(ii) there is a real possibility that these deaths could have been prevented and harm reduced if pill testing services had been offered at music festivals and in the community,
(iii) best-practice pill testing models involve a consultation with a health practitioner about the content of the pill, and a person's choices about whether or not to consume illicit drugs,
(iv) pill testing services give health services critical information about what has been consumed and provide people with more information about what is in the pills that they are taking than they otherwise have access to,
(v) a large number of relevant medical professional organisations have declared their support for pill testing over the summer period, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and the Australian Medical Association, and
(vi) members of Parliament from both the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party have expressed support for pill testing, but the leaders of both of the parties are refusing to consider these real and critically-important benefits; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) urgently develop and implement a pill testing policy to prevent more deaths and harm, and
(ii) work with the medical community, community groups and all state and territory governments to implement existing models which demonstrably have worked and helped save lives.
The Senate divided. [16:16]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the gambling industry donated almost $3 million dollars to the Liberal, Labor and Australian Conservatives political parties in 2017-18,
(ii) these donations came from sports betting companies, casinos and poker machine operators,
(iii) the Australian Hotels Association was the second largest political donor in the country for the 2017-18 year, with declared political gifts leaping from $153,000 in 2016-17 to $1.1 million last financial year,
(iv) Australia has the world's worst per-capita gambling losses of $1,000 a head,
(v) there are at least 115,000 Australians at the moment who are directly and seriously harmed by gambling, and another 280,000 experiencing significant risk,
(vi) for every person directly harmed by gambling, between 5 and 10 friends, family and others, including employers, are also affected – this means that up to 5 million Australians could be negatively affected,
(vii) online wagering is the fastest growing gambling segment, with over $1.4 billion gambled online each year,
(viii) pokies cause the most harm, with three out of four people being harmed by gambling, principally using poker machines, and
(ix) enormous donations from the gambling lobby to the major political parties has resulted in consecutive Australian governments failing to support harm-minimisation reforms that would help protect people from predatory gambling; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ban corporate donations from the gambling industry,
(ii) introduce evidence-based harm-minimisation and product safety measures to reduce the development of problem gambling, and to assist gamblers to limit their expenditure,
(iii) phase out poker machines, and, in the meantime, implement $1 maximum bets per spin, $20 machine load-up limits, and $500 jackpot limits, and mandatory pre-commitment for pokies and sports betting, and
(iv) ban sports betting advertisements during the broadcast of sporting events and children's viewing times.
The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) until 24 November 1992, gay, lesbian and bisexual people were explicitly banned from serving in the Australian Defence Force (ADF),
(ii) between 1953 and 1992, at least 489 men and 165 women in the ADF were investigated for being LGBT – data provided to Parliament in 1992 on discharges between 1987 to 1992 revealed 73 honourable discharges of lesbian, gay and bisexual people and 21 dishonourable discharges of LGB people across Army, Navy and Royal Australian Air Force,
(iii) a recent report by ACU Associate Professor Noah Riseman, indicates that LGBT personnel were subject to harrowing interviews that probed intimate personal details and surveillance of movements during and outside of service hours – these practices saw LGBT service members humiliated and intimidated, forcing many of them to resign their posts or be dishonourably discharged,
(iv) lifting the ban in 1992 ended the threat of dismissal for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, but it did not grant equal treatment to LGB service members – many Defence members still kept their same-sex relationships a secret for fear of bullying or other persecution, and
(v) transgender people continued to be subject to policies, until September 2010, that required them to discharge if they intended to affirm their gender; and
(b) calls on all parliamentarians to:
(i) acknowledge the personal and professional harm that these policies have caused,
(ii) recognise that discriminatory dismissals on account of sexuality or gender identity, suspected or otherwise, continue to impact the mental health and wellbeing of some affected ex-service members, and
(iii) celebrates the contribution of the LGBTQ people who bravely served in the ADF despite these discriminatory policies.
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the South Australian Royal Commission handed down its findings on 29 January 2019; and
(b) Commissioner Bret Walker, SC found that the construction of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was unlawful.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, by no later than 5 pm on Friday, 15 February 2019, all legal advice received by the Department or relevant agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the National Water Commission, relating to the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 2750GL water recovery target.
[The Senate divided. [16:26]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the decision of the NSW Land and Environment Court to block the proposed Rocky Hill coal mine on the ground that it will contribute to climate change – Chief Judge Brian Preston, SC noted in his judgment that the proposed coal mine "will be a material source of greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change";
(b) acknowledges the link between burning coal and climate change;
(c) recognises the power of grassroots community activism and the outstanding work by Groundswell Gloucester and the Environmental Defenders Office; and
(d) congratulates the community and Groundswell Gloucester on this landmark decision.
In the case of the Rocky Hill Coal Project, the aggregate GHG emissions over the life of the Project are sizeable, although the Project is not one of the largest coal mines in Australia. The Minister noted that the proposed production of the Rocky Hill mine appears to be about a third of the production of the average coal mine in NSW (Minister's closing submissions, [423]). Refusal of consent to the Project would prevent a meaningful amount of GHG emissions, although not the greater GHG emissions that would come from refusal of a larger coal mine. However, the better reason for refusal is the Project's poor environmental and social performance in relative terms. As I have found elsewhere in the judgment, the Project will have significant and unacceptable planning, visual and social impacts, which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. The Project should be refused for these reasons alone.
That the Senate—
a.affirms the right of every citizen to feel safe in their own home;
b.recognises the sad reality that the police cannot be everywhere at every time;
c.accepts that Australian citizens have the absolute right to defend themselves and their family from harm;
d.notes that, due to the failure of the current Government to restrict immigration from lawless Third World countries, criminal types are being allowed to come here and subsequently terrorise the Australian public with home invasions;
e.acknowledges the growing public outrage at Sudanese gang crime as expressed at the recent rally of concerned citizens at St Kilda; and
f.calls on the Commonwealth and state Governments to legislate Castle Doctrine into Australian law to allow Australian citizens the right to defend their families and homes with, up to and including, lethal force against Sudanese gangs and other criminals.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in the last 15 years, Labor Governments around Australia have progressively forced Parliaments and every government department and instrumentality to begin public meetings with a secular genuflection to Aboriginal prior settlement called "acknowledgement of country",
(ii) this practice constitutes a tokenistic exercise invented by left-wing white activists, with absolutely no relationship to any authentic Aboriginal tradition, and simply seeks to co-opt aboriginal identity as a political weapon to undermine European settlement,
(iii) the bogus nature of this manufactured 'tradition' is highlighted by the fact that the wording used in Federal Parliament acknowledges the Ngunnawal people as the so-called "traditional custodians" when in fact the Kamberri people were the original Aboriginal inhabitants of the region from which Canberra took its name, and
(iv) while the Gillard Labor Government imposed this left-wing tokenism on the Federal Parliament in 2010, subsequent Liberal-National Governments have notably failed to remove it from the standing orders, and this stands as a metaphor for their lack of conservative commitment and weakness of political will;
(b) seeks to assist the current Liberal-National Government to listen to its conservative conscience, and its political constituency, by proposing the removal of this socialist mantra for them; and
(c) amends standing order 50, by omitting the following:
(i) the words "and acknowledgement of country" in the title of standing order 50, and
(ii) "The President shall then make an acknowledgement of country in the following terms: I acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area and pay respect to the elders, past and present, of all Australia's Indigenous peoples.".
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) recent violent crimes against numerous women,
(ii) that blame for these crimes rests with the perpetrators, not the victims,
(iii) that, despite all policy efforts and wishful thinking, there will always be some individual men in our community intent on violence against women,
(iv) that the first duty of government is to protect citizens from harm, but police cannot be everywhere at all times, so citizens must be allowed, if they choose, to deter and defend against attacks,
(v) that the innate ability of individuals to deter and defend against attacks varies, with women and the elderly generally more vulnerable,
(vi) that pepper spray can assist deterrence and self-defence, particularly for the vulnerable,
(vii) that the use of pepper spray is generally non-lethal and does not require prior training,
(viii) that pepper spray is unlikely to be used for criminal attacks, and
(ix) that, in most other countries, pepper sprays are not even regulated, let alone prohibited; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to legalise the importation of pepper spray, subject to the state governments legalising the carrying of pepper spray, to deter and defend against attacks.
The Senate divided. [16:38]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) the South Australian Royal Commission handed down its findings on 29 January 29 2019; and
(b) Commissioner Bret Walker SC found that the construction of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was unlawful.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, all legal advice received by the Department or relevant agencies, including the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the National Water Commission, relating to the development of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the 2,750GL water recovery target.
The Senate divided. [16:42]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Federal Government is spending $48.7 million to commemorate the 250th anniversary of James Cook's first voyage to Australia and the Pacific, of which $6.7 million is being spent on a replica of the HMB Endeavour to circumnavigate Australia;
(b) recognises that First Nations peoples are still feeling the impacts of ongoing dispossession and oppression and continue to have poor health, employment, justice, housing and education outcomes, and high rates of child removals; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to reallocate the $48.7 million towards meeting our Closing the Gap targets and a truth telling process.
The Senate divided. [16:48]
The President—Senator Ryan.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that on 25 October 2017, the then Minister for Jobs and Small Business (Senator Cash) told a supplementary Budget estimates hearing that her media adviser, Mr De Garis, had received information that raids on the AWU may take place 'from a media source';
(b) further notes that, in court proceedings on 12 February 2019, Mr De Garis has now named the Minister's then-Chief of Staff as the source of the information; and
(c) orders the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education, to attend the Senate at 2 pm on Thursday, 14 February 2019, prior to questions being called on, to make a statement of not more than five minutes to explain this apparent inconsistency.
The Senate divided. [16:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees, as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red.
COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
List circulated on Wednesday, 13 February 2019
Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Dean Smith
Appointed—Senator Hume
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Stoker
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Dean Smith
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—
Discharged—Senator O'Neill
Appointed—Senator Chisholm
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Senator Sinodinos
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Waters on 4 March 2019
Appointed—Senator Steele-John on 4 March 2019
Discharged—Senator Steele-John on 6 March 2019
Appointed—Senator Waters on 6 March 2019
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Abetz on 13 February 2019
Appointed—Senator Duniam on 13 February 2019
Discharged—Senator Duniam on 25 February 2019
Appointed—Senator Abetz on 25 February 2019
House—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Hume
Privileges—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Collins
Appointed—Senator Kitching
Procedure—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Hume
Appointed—Senators Duniam and Dean Smith
Selection of Bills—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Hume
Senators' Interests—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Faruqi
Appointed—Senator Waters
We are all grateful and humbled by the spirit of our people, and we're humbled by their courage.
Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill 2018
I am making a statement of protest about the revolving door of prime ministers that has been going on for the past 10 years. I will sit on the crossbenches of the chamber and I will reserve my right to vote on bills on a case-by-case basis.