The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.
… started quizzing me on the changed definition, and I gave him some basic information on the thresholds that were applied in the new listing in 2016.
He is now keen for—
and I to meet with Angus Taylor to answer questions on the technical aspects of the listing outcome.
He made the point that for farmers in Monaro this is ‘the number 1 issue’ of concern for them.
In recognition that public office is a public trust … Ministers will act with due regard for integrity, fairness, accountability, responsibility, and the public interest …
… it is critical that Ministers do not use public office for private purposes.
Ministers must bear in mind that their private interests can give rise to perceptions of conflicts of interests …
… These Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.
… it is critical that Ministers do not use public office for private purposes.
… these Standards require that Ministers make arrangements to avoid conflicts of interests arising from their investments.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Future Drought Fund Bill 2019
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019.
The Senate divided. [13:03]
(Acting Deputy President—Senator Bernardi)
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
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.
FUTURE DROUGHT FUND BILL 2019
The Liberal-National Government is focused on helping farmers and communities prepare for inevitable future droughts.
The Future Drought Fund is a long-term investment to build drought resilience, including preparedness and recovery in our most drought affected communities. It will enable farmers and their communities to fulfil their potential as productive and profitable contributors to the Australian economy by improving the performance of the agriculture sector.
Healthy farming landscapes with innovative farming techniques will contribute to a drought resilient and sustainable agriculture sector. The Future Drought Fund will be available to support research, development and innovation. It will also support the delivery of infrastructure projects, promote the adoption of technology and deliver improved environmental and natural resource management to enhance sustainable agricultural practices. The Future Drought Fund will provide farm and community support to bolster drought resilience across Australia's rural and regional communities.
This Bill establishes the Future Drought Fund and provides an initial credit of $3.9 billion. The Government intends to grow the Fund until it reaches $5 billion, while at the same time drawing down $100 million per year from 1 July 2020 to build drought resilience across Australia. Once established, the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable revenue stream to build drought resilience across Australia.
This funding is additional to the funding already made available by the Liberal‑National Government to assist farmers during an existing drought and will not replace existing funding.
The Bill contains a robust and transparent governance framework, which has been augmented by amendments made by the previous Parliament in the House of Representatives, and I thank the current and former members of the House of Representatives crossbench for working productively with the Government on these. The governance framework is similar to the frameworks of other funds, such as the Medical Research Future Fund.
The Future Drought Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians, which has a proven track record of managing investment portfolios on behalf of the Government and maximising returns over the long-term.
The Bill requires the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to issue directions setting out the Government's expectations as to how the Fund will be managed and invested by the Board, including setting a benchmark return for earnings. In setting the benchmark rate of return, the Government will consider the objectives to grow the fund to around $5 billion and make annual payments to the Agriculture Future Drought Resilience Special Account of $100 million per year to build drought resilience.
The Government will develop and publish the Drought Resilience Funding Plan to ensure that a coherent and consistent approach is undertaken when considering and providing funding for drought resilience projects. The draft Funding Plan will be informed by expert advice from the Future Drought Fund Consultative Committee, which will be established by this Bill. The Consultative Committee will consist of a diverse range of experts in fields such as the agriculture industry, drought resilience and rural and regional development. The Funding Plan will also be informed through public consultation over a period of at least 6 weeks.
The Funding Plan will be reviewed every four years to ensure that emerging priorities are appropriately captured and the Fund remains future-focussed. To help inform these reviews, the Productivity Commission will conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of each Funding Plan before it expires, including having regard to the economic, social and environmental outcomes. The Productivity Commission will make recommendations and the report will be tabled in each House of the Parliament.
In developing the Funding Plan, the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management (Minister for Drought) will have regard to the National Drought Agreement and any successive agreements, as well as any related Government drought policies and strategies.
The Funding Plan will inform the design of the programs, which will be considered through future Budget processes. The Consultative Committee will provide advice to the Minister for Drought on whether the proposed design of a program for arrangements or grants is consistent with the Funding Plan.
To further ensure consistency with the Funding Plan, the Minister for Drought is required to seek advice from the Regional Investment Corporation Board before entering into any grants or funding arrangements. The Regional Investment Corporation Board is a skills-based independent expert board with the knowledge and experience needed to oversee significant government investments in farm businesses and water infrastructure. All funding decisions will comply with the Commonwealth's established rules and guidelines on grants and procurements. Detailed information on grants and arrangements under the Future Drought Fund will be published on the Agriculture Department's website.
Drought is a constant factor in Australian agriculture and the establishment of the Future Drought Fund will provide a new, secure, predictable funding stream for drought resilience into the future to ensure the potential of this vibrant industry is realised through drought resilience planning.
The Government has been absolutely clear that use of the dormant Building Australia Fund to deliver the Future Drought Fund will have absolutely no impact on the funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is fully funded through the Liberal-National Government's responsible economic and fiscal management that has delivered a strong and improving budget position, and a credible path back to surplus in 2019-20. Sustained responsible economic and fiscal management has ensured that the National Disability Insurance Scheme is fully funded, without the need to increase the Medicare levy or proceed with the previous Building Australia Fund measure.
It is why we are now in a position to guarantee Australians with a disability, and their families and carers, that all planned expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme will be met in this year's Budget and beyond.
We have also committed more than $100 billion over the next 10 years to new and upgraded transport infrastructure projects across Australia, $47 billion of which is planned to be invested over the forward estimates.
Helping our farming communities face the challenges of drought is a key focus of this Government and because we have fully funded the NDIS and made substantial infrastructure commitments, we are in a position to build a sustainable source of funding for drought resilience, preparedness and recovery across Australia.
FUTURE DROUGHT FUND (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019
The Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019 facilitates the establishment of the Future Drought Fund through amendments to related legislation.
The consequential amendments to these acts enable the effective operation of the Future Drought Fund at commencement, including the abolition of the Building Australia Fund.
Commencement and further details can be found in the explanatory memorandum.
We'll support it not just for $100 million; we'll support it at every level you're prepared to put forward. We can bring it forward to the current financial year, not 12 months time. It could be more than $100 million, and we'd vote for it.
At the end of the motion, add:
“, but the Senate:
(a) condemns the Government for its failure over six years to develop and implement a comprehensive and effective policy to assist rural and regional communities facing severe drought conditions; and
(b) notes that the inferior response contained in the bill requires the abolition of the Building Australia Fund, which could be used to build road, rail, and other vital infrastructure—including water infrastructure—in these very same rural and regional communities.”
… the paramedics, people from Gold Coast Health and every single person who got involved in this emergency effort.
I'd urge the federal government to review the recommencement date of the recovery of these debts because there could be a very real human impact on a community that is already hurting.
Only the strongest and fastest possible action on climate change will reduce the risks and limit the impacts of climate change on the Reef.
From 1 July 2014 to 31 January 2019, 81,596 Protection visa applications were lodged by persons who entered Australia lawfully by air.
I'm sure that when those people turned up to work that day they weren't expecting that they were going to be part of some mass evacuation exercise.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Cash from 22 to 25 July 2019, for personal reasons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill for 23 July 2019, for personal reasons.
That general business notice of motion No. 38, standing in my name for today, proposing an order for the production of documents relating to the Phoenix Australia report, be withdrawn from the Notice Paper .
That consideration of the business before the Senate on the following days be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make their first speeches without any question before the chair, as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 10 September 2019—Senators Scarr, Van and Rennick;
(b) Wednesday, 11 September 2019—Senators Marielle Smith and Walsh;
(c) Tuesday, 17 September 2019—Senators Antic and Davey; and
(d) Wednesday, 18 September 2019—Senator McMahon.
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Multi-Jurisdictional Management and Execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan, be established to inquire and report on the following matters:
(a) responsibilities in relation to the management and execution of the Murray Darling Basin Plan consistent with the objects of the Water Act 2007, in particular:
(i) Commonwealth responsibilities,
(ii) state and territory responsibilities, and
(iii) areas of uncertainty or potential conflict in respect of responsibilities;
(b) the effects, positive or negative or otherwise, of the different approaches of the states and territories to water resource management in the Murray Darling Basin including, but not limited to:
(i) legislation, regulations and rules,
(ii) management and administration, including differences in management organisations,
(iii) measuring, monitoring and compliance,
(iv) enforcement, and
(v) openness and transparency;
(c) complications in respect of basin-wide or cross jurisdiction oversight, including the oversight roles and jurisdictional limitations of:
(i) state, territory and federal parliaments,
(ii) state, territory and federal courts, and
(iii) state, territory and federally-instituted inquiries and Royal Commissions;
(d) any bill related to the Murray Darling Basin referred to the committee; and
(e) any related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 1 November 2020.
(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators:
(a) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) 2 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) 1 nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens; and
(d) Senator Patrick.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator;
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and
(c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, and Senator Patrick as deputy chair.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to examine.
(11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings, the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Higher Education Accommodation and Financial Stress Survey released on 8 July 2019 found that more than half of students reported high to very high levels of psychological distress and say that their studies are impacted by financial stress,
(ii) many students regularly go without food and other necessities while they study, with a quarter of surveyed students experiencing food insecurity, and
(iii) students should be able to focus on learning, not on where their next meal is coming from; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) make TAFE and university education free for all,
(ii) urgently increase student payments, such as Youth Allowance by at least $75 a week, and
(iii) properly fund mental health services to give students the support they need and deserve.
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, and for related purposes. Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
It is time to make a bold and express stand for freedom in this country.
The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019 is designed to explicitly protect the inherent, unalienable freedoms of each and every Australian.
The Bill achieves this protection by prescribing a set of fundamental "Australian freedoms" that lawmakers will be required to consider and protect in the design, drafting and appraisal of new laws.
These newly prescribed freedoms include the freedom of opinion, speech, thought, conscience and religion as well as the rights to life and protection of the family. They also include freedom from torture and retrospective criminal laws.
As intended by our liberal-democratic predecessors, these prescribed, unalienable freedoms will be given priority over other human rights. Where competition or conflict occurs, these Australian freedoms will take priority, irrespective of whether the competing right:
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (the Committee) will be armed with these explicit and prioritised Australian freedoms when carrying out its assessments of proposed laws for compatibility with human rights and freedoms. This will have the effect of better disciplining all lawmakers into preserving, respecting and prioritising our unalienable freedoms. Lawmakers will be less able and inclined to curtail or remove freedoms and only dare propose to—let alone succeed in doing so—if the rationale is explicit, unavoidable and compelling.
The Committee will also be armed with these explicit freedoms when either:
Why is it now necessary to better prescribe and protect what was long implied?
Since Federation, our Constitution, lawmakers and common law practitioners have implicitly upheld these Australian freedoms; treating them as default positions to be keenly defended and protected. They were considered inherent and unalienable; unable to be taken away or transferred, and pre-existing of the state.
In fact, many of our predecessors—or founding fathers of the liberal-democratic West—considered that the nation-state only arises to better ensure, via a constitution, the protection of those unalienable freedoms (and maybe very little more).
Unfortunately, these freedoms—long-considered implied and existing by default in our Constitution and common law—can no longer be taken for granted. As myriad new rights are defined, with new laws enacted and new legal and corporate precedents set, these unalienable freedoms are being gradually whittled down, crowded out and competed away.
In this postmodernist politically correct (PC) era of identity politics, new rights, laws and interpretations are proliferating; ones that reward or appease certain interests and divide humanity into groups, often based on identity. Human and other rights are being increasingly contrived for certain groups or agendas which intrude on and undermine the inherent freedoms, dignity and sanctity of the individual. This in turn unpicks the fabric of liberal-democratic society.
In fact, more—not fewer—anti-discrimination Acts, commissioners and enforcements are being proposed by many, and not always from one side of the political aisle. Moreover, in law and in practice, the term "discrimination" has worryingly broadened. In many circles—both legal and social—it now seemingly also includes criticism, critique and anything other than endorsement, celebration and praise.
Will we one day have to overtly and eagerly applaud certain things as do North Koreans in front of their President?
Tepid tolerance or mere acceptance—that may trigger discomfort, hurt feelings or offence—can be construed as borderline discrimination and grounds for sanction. As such, anti-discrimination laws can become useful weapons to ostracise and suppress criticism of certain positions and views, driving opponents out of the public space and eroding fundamental freedoms of speech, expression, association and conscience. By doing so, it also prevents us from considering, describing and solving problems that a liberal democracy is so good at and exceptional for, relative to the socialist, tyrannical or developing world.
To counter this trend of new PC rights and anti-discrimination law eroding our unalienable freedoms, piecemeal Acts are being proposed to protect very specific freedoms. For example, a freedom of religion Act has been proposed to protect the views and practices of the religious from the relatively new, but burgeoning, rights of the LGBTIQ+/rainbow community; one that has become quite imperialistic and aggressive since winning the same-sex marriage debate in 2017, as many predicted.
Unless handled very carefully—both legislatively and in subsequent interpretations and practice—such a response gravely risks a slippery slope towards blasphemy laws, which certain religions and their adherents will eagerly exploit.
Another trend eating away at our unalienable freedoms is the rise of a disturbing form of PC corporate fascism. Increasingly, large employers and organisations are requiring their employees to sign employment contracts that place myriad PC prohibitions on the private lives, expressions and conduct of those employees; either due to pressure from sponsors, Twitter and social media or from the PC busybodies increasingly nesting in their own human resources or communications branches.
The typical justification is that it helps prevent employees from tarnishing the good name of the employer or brand and risking bringing it into disrepute. This has the effect of employers increasingly owning the lives of their employees in totality; not just the work that they do or the roles and tasks they perform. Without restoring some balance and common sense here, many unalienable freedoms of these individuals will be stripped away as they become, in effect, wards of their employers.
Such freedom-sapping terms in these contracts should not be enforceable, let alone drafted in the first place. However, in this era of Twitter and social media they are becoming the norm and employees feel that they have no choice but to accept and live by them. Whilst this Bill does not directly limit corporate fascism, it will help curb new laws being made that enable and encourage it. It also opens a potential avenue for the examination of existing anti-discrimination laws and practice which, in turn, could help identify and address their freedom-sapping effects.
For example, certain anti-discrimination law and practice can give rise to policies of "diversity and inclusion" in a workplace or industry sector. However, when activists are allowed to drive these policies and their enforcement to the extreme, unwanted views, ideas and people can be conveniently nobbled or even driven out of the public sphere.
This is another justification for an Act that seeks to prioritise the unalienable freedoms of all Australians and helps to remind us of our liberal-democratic roots and better selves.
In the United States, they at least have a Bill of Rights—comprising the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution—to counter these assaults and forays on basic freedoms. We do not. Sadly, it seems, we can no longer rely on our lawmakers, judiciary and corporations to uphold the freedoms that made Australia so free, expressive and prosperous.
These freedoms need to be reasserted—not through a US-style Bill of Rights, which would be overkill—but through a change to the law which makes it far more difficult for the Parliament to ride roughshod over our unalienable freedoms with so little justification when passing laws conferring new rights on certain citizens or groups (or examining existing laws that are shown to gratuitously crimp these freedoms).
Australian freedoms (and sovereignty) are being eroded by forces both within and beyond our borders.
The United Nations (UN), through its myriad treaties, conferences and compacts, seeks to undermine the sovereignty of liberal-democratic nation-states. These UN instruments and agendas also deliberately curb the liberties of the citizenry of these states to determine their own outcomes.
Last December, the UN held migration and climate conferences in Marrakesh, Morocco and in Katowice, Poland respectively.
Thankfully, the Australian Government was sensible enough to reject signing the Global Compact on Migration in Morocco; designed to lay the foundation for open borders through a "right to migration". However, concerningly, the UN's other migration compact—on refugees—has yet to be as keenly rejected by our Government and so remains very much in play.
The UN climate conference in Poland further pushed signatories to the Paris Climate Accord—like Australia—toward a "right to sustainable development". These conferences and their outcomes empower radical green ideology on climate change and till the soil for all the redistributive taxes and stultifying regulations that are intended and will inevitably flow.
Last month's conference in Bonn, Germany, saw the UN climate agenda co-opting rainbow and indigenous politics to further unite globalist, left-wing causes and undermine the freedoms of the individual in favour of "woke" identity groups.
On another domestic front, over the last decade, we have seen the atrocious free speech cases around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). These involved Queensland University of Technology students, the late Bill Leak (and in a similar scenario Herald Sun cartoonist, Mark Knight), Andrew Bolt, Sonia Kruger and Samantha Armytage.
In each of these cases, someone was able to take offence at what had been either said, drawn or written, file a basic complaint to the Race Discrimination Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) —either openly or anonymously—and have that complaint enthusiastically taken up by the Commissioner. The respondent was then dragged through copious lawfare often without the complainant further impacted (even known).
Under section 18C of the RDA, the process imposed on the respondent has become the punishment. Such capacity for hit-and-run offence-taking invites vexatious, effortless complaints that target and silence political opponents. Any PC identity group protected by such legal rights and processes can weaponise the system to take out its opponents as well as shield other groups from that opponent's scrutiny and criticism (for example, Andrew Bolt).
The section 18C cases have had a chilling effect on speech and expression in the indigenous, immigration and multicultural space. So much so that real problems, valid criticisms, necessary critiques and likely solutions cannot be freely discussed as the threat of lawfare—for commentary which falls far short of defamation, libel and incitement to violence—looms large.
Worse, at the last election, Mr Shorten's Labor opposition was proposing to:
Proposals like this will not remain dormant for long. They will be dusted off and proposed again.
That is why we, as Australians, need to more explicitly define and protect our unalienable freedoms in law; to stop the encroachment of other rights being defined and enforced, particularly those favouring PC identity groups and their activists.
This Bill will help to challenge lawmaking mindsets and practices that too readily tamper with and restrict our unalienable freedoms. This Bill puts freedom first; it will ensure that politicians explain how proposed legislation protects our inalienable freedoms and ensures their protection is given priority over other human rights.
Some rights advocates may claim rights evolve; however, if that is the case, rights are cannibalising each other. Some key rights are unalienable and essential to the human condition. Adding ever more rights is nonsensical; Parliament must ring-fence Australia's key freedoms.
Governments must be made to justify any erosion of our fundamental freedoms and rights if we are to maintain sanctity of the individual and, on a national scale, our sovereignty.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the third sitting day of December 2019:
(a) disclosure and public reporting of sensitive and classified information, including the appropriate regime for warrants regarding journalists and media organisations and adequacy of existing legislation;
(b) the whistleblower protection regime and protections for public sector employees;
(c) the adequacy of referral practices of the Australian Government in relation to leaks of sensitive and classified information;
(d) appropriate culture, practice and leadership for Government and senior public employees;
(e) mechanisms to ensure that the Australian Federal Police have sufficient independence to effectively and impartially carry out their investigatory and law enforcement responsibilities in relation to politically sensitive matters; and
(f) any related matters.
The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the age of criminal responsibility is currently set at 10 years old around Australia, meaning children as young as 10 are being charged, brought before courts, sentenced and imprisoned;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) around 600 children below the age of 14 are locked up in youth detention centres each year and many hundreds more in adult prisons, and
(ii) the majority of these children are First Nations children;
(c) recognises that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recommends that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be at least 12 years; and
(d) calls on state, territory and federal governments across Australia to work together to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 years, as a minimum.
The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since the last sitting of the Senate, there have been a further 3 women killed by violence in Australia, taking the overall national toll for 2019 to 29, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint,
(ii) there is no national government reporting program to record the ongoing toll of women killed by violence in real time – this work is currently left to researchers at not-for-profit organisations like Destroy the Joint,
(iii) on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner,
(iv) 1 in 3 Australian women has experienced physical violence since the age of 15,
(v) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,
(vi) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,
(vii) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,
(viii) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner,
(ix) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence,
(x) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence in the previous 12 months at 3 times the rate of non-Indigenous women, and
(xi) in 2014-15, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise domestic violence against women as a national security crisis,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them,
(iii) legislate for 10 days paid domestic violence leave so that women do not have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety,
(iv) implement all 25 recommendations contained in the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on domestic violence in Australia, tabled on 20 August 2015, and
(v) much like the national road toll, maintain and publish an official real-time national toll of women killed by violence in Australia.
Leave granted.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) a strong and resilient agricultural sector is key to the continued growth and wealth of the Australian economy, especially rural and regional towns,
(ii) Australian farmers and graziers are world leaders in safe, ethical and humane methods, and
(iii) Australian farmers and graziers are typically 'mum and dad' operations, employing people throughout their local region and reinvesting in their local community; and
(b) condemns the actions of 'animal activists' like Aussie Farms Inc. and supports state and federal legislation that supports Australian farmers and graziers by ensuring they can go about their businesses safely.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The actions of the Queensland police force in arresting a journalist covering Adani protesters, which undermine freedom of the press and the right to protest in Australia
The Queensland Police Service … arrested seven people following protest activity at a port facility near Bowen this morning.
Just after 6am, police responded to reports up to 40 protesters were impeding road and rail access to the Abbot Point Road facility.
A 28-year-old Victorian man and four male French nationals aged 29, 30, 32 and 39 were charged with one count of trespassing on a railway.
Two Victorian women, aged 20 and 22, were charged with one count each of trespassing on a railway, obstruct railway and contravene a police direction.
If the new world is to be a world of men, we must be not pallid and bloodless ghosts, but a community of people whose motto shall be, 'To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'
That the reports be adopted.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report:
Advisory Report on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 July 2019
Introduction
On 12 September 2018, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 (the Bill) was introduced in the House of Representatives.
On 13 September 2018, the Minister for Home Affairs, the Hon Peter Dutton MP, referred the Bill to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry.
On 13 February 2019, the Committee tabled its report into the Bill. The report made nine recommendations, which are addressed below.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1
2.39 The Committee recommends the Government amend the definition of 'aviation security' in proposed section 3UL of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 to specify the scope of activities to which the term applies.
Response — Agreed
The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 2
2.41 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to include a savings provision to ensure the move-on powers do not interfere with the right to peaceful assembly, or give police the ability to use the powers to disrupt or quell a protest that is peaceful and does not disrupt the safe operation of an airport.
Response — Agreed
The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 3
2.67 The Committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police be required to record the number of occasions on which an identity information direction is issued under proposed section 3UN of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018. Such records—detailing the number of identity check directions issued at each major airport—should be made public on an
annual basis.
Response — Agreed
The Australian Federal Police will update its policies and procedures to capture the number of occasions on which an identity information direction is issued under proposed section 3UN to enable annual reporting.
Recommendation 4
2.95 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to include, in certain restricted circumstances, the right to seek urgent or expedited judicial review.
Response — Agreed-in-principle
The Government will amend the Bill to address the intent of this recommendation.
In issuing a move-on direction, a constable or Australian Federal Police protective service officer will be required to use an approved form that includes details to enable the person to contact a Federal Court registry in the State or Territory in which the direction is given. These details could include, for example, a telephone number, address or a website which sets out the contact details for the relevant Federal Court registry.
Providing these contact details will assist the person subject to the move-on direction to apply for judicial review or interlocutory orders in relation to the direction. This information could include, for example, information relating to the process for making an urgent or expedited application for judicial review or interlocutory orders.
Recommendation 5
2.98 The Committee recommends that the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to clarify the definition of senior police officer under proposed section 3UO(5)(b) of the Bill.
Res p onse — Agreed
The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 6
2.100 The Committee recommends that the Australian Federal Police be required
to record the number of occasions on which a move-on direction is issued under proposed section 3UO of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018. Such records—detailing the number of move-on directions issued at each major airport, and the number of move-on directions at each major airport that resulted in an individual missing a flight—should be made public on an annual basis.
Response — Agreed
The Australian Federal Police will update its policies and procedures to capture the number of occasions on which a move-on direction is issued under proposed section 3UO to enable annual reporting.
Recommendation 7
2.102 The Committee recommends that Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to ensure that, in circumstances where a senior police officer provides oral authorisation for a move-on direction, the authorisation is documented in writing as soon as practicable.
Response — Agreed
The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 8
2.116 The Committee recommends that proposed section 3UR of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be amended to ensure that obligations to provide information if requested apply equally to uniformed and plain clothes constables and Australian Federal Police protective service officers.
Response — Agreed
The Government will amend the Bill to address this recommendation.
Recommendation 9
2.125 The Committee recommends that, subject to the recommendations in this report, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 be passed.
Response — Agreed
The Government will update the Bill to implement the recommendations of the Committee.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating members [ for the purposes of the 2019 election ]: Senators Ayres, Bilyk, Carr, Chisholm, Ciccone, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Green, Keneally, Kitching, Lines, McAllister, McCarthy, O'Neill, Polley, Pratt, Sheldon, Sterle, Urquhart, Walsh, Watt and Wong
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Walsh
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Marielle Smith
Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate notes that free or unlimited water entitlements given to fossil fuel companies by State and Territory governments, while farmers struggle with drought conditions, significantly undermines the effectiveness of any drought response by:
(a) depriving farmers of water;
(b) exacerbating droughts; and
(c) worsening climate change which further exacerbates droughts."
It's bloody-minded and barbaric.
This is going to definitely impact on the integrity of [the Great Artesian Basin].
… the time has come to say goodbye and I want to be able to thank you all for all the pleasant and happy times that we have achieved along the way.
You guys have been really lovely to me personally and to my family.
I want you to treasure the great times so that what we are left with are fantastic memories.
May God bless each and every one of you for contributing to these memories.
I have observed all of the individuals involved grow in confidence and improve their communication skills. Discussions with their mentor has allowed the apprentice to open dialogues with the company regarding their future and the skills they would like to learn going forward. This has resulted in opportunities that may not have eventuated without the mentoring support provided.
The highly fragmented populations are susceptible to localized impacts, including bushfires, forest management practices, habitat destruction and over exploitation by collectors.
I slept several nights at Rockpool on a pastry bench because there was no way I could go home and come back in time …
I went into depression but I couldn't even figure out if it was a depression. I just wanted to get out but I didn't have any choice because of the 457 visa.
We invite you to walk with us in a movement of the Australian people for a better future—