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 the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the conduct of business, namely a motion relating to the consideration of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 and a related bill.
… the right of Australian citizens to enter the country is not qualified by any law imposing a need to obtain a licence or 'clearance' from the executive …
A Commonwealth law may be unconstitutional if it authorises the Executive to determine and impose punishment for criminal conduct. A ministerial decision to grant a TEO is arguably punitive, and arguably invalid. In granting a TEO, a minister is effectively determining and imposing punishment for a citizen’s alleged conduct—or prospective offence—in the form of an order preventing re-entry.
Protecting the safety and security of the Australian people must always be the paramount concern of Government. But rushed laws at risk of Constitutional challenge pose an unnecessary risk to national security. The Australian people must be able to have confidence that public safety and the work of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies is protected by laws and powers that are strong, proportional and without legal ambiguity.
… this is a matter which does not involve an individual case. It is a technical matter, not necessarily a strategic matter. It does affect all governments of all political persuasions. Therefore, on the basis that it does not set a precedent, the government does think it should be tabled …
Governments usually table that legal advice when it is not terribly controversial and when it assists their case; they never do it if it does not assist their case.
The Senate divided. [10:47]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
(2) The Minister must not make a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person unless either:
(a) the Minister suspects on reasonable grounds that making the order would substantially assist in one or more of the following:
(i) preventing a terrorist act;
(ii) preventing training from being provided to, received from or participated in with a listed terrorist organisation;
(iii) preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act;
(iv) preventing the provision of support or resources to an organisation that would help the organisation engage in an activity described in paragraph (a) of the definition of terrorist organisation in subsection 102.1(1) of the Criminal Code; or—
(b) the person has been assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to be directly or indirectly a risk to security (within the meaning of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979) for reasons related to politically motivated violence (within the meaning of that Act).
A Commonwealth law may be unconstitutional if it authorises the Executive to determine and impose punishment for criminal conduct. A ministerial decision to grant a TEO is arguably punitive, and arguably invalid. In granting a TEO, a minister is effectively determining and imposing punishment for a citizen’s alleged conduct – or prospective offence - in the form of an order preventing re-entry. If such an order is to be made to exclude an Australian citizen from entering Australia, it is the Law Council’s view it should be made by a court, not a Minister.
But rushed laws at risk of Constitutional challenge pose an unnecessary risk to national security.
… … …
When it comes to matters of national security, Parliament must take the time to get laws right. That is why we are calling on the Senate to send it back to the PJCIS for further scrutiny.
At the end of the motion, add: ", and:
(a) the bills and any circulated amendments to the bills be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry and report by 11 September 2019; and
(b) further consideration of the bills be made an order of the day for the first sitting day after the committee has reported."
The Senate divided. [11:19]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [11:23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Subsection 27 provides that the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 does not apply to decisions made under the provisions of the Bill.
(v) in which a writ of Mandamus or prohibition or an injunction is sought against an officer of the Commonwealth;
the High Court shall have original jurisdiction.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Report no. 3 of 2019
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 24 July 2019 at 7.17 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
a) the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment Statistics) Bill 2019 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2019 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 bereferred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 5 September 2019 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3.The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
(see appendix 3, 4, 5 and 6 for statements of reasons for referrals).
Dean Smith
Chair
25 July 2019
Appendix 1
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment (Assisted Reproductive Treatment Statistics) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To assess operation of proposed reforms; to assess other factors that influence success rates such as selection criteria imposed by IVF clinics
Possible submissions or evidence from:
AIHW
Fertility Society of Australia
IVF Directors
Individual fertility clinics
Specialists including Dr Rob Norman and Dr Richard Henshaw
Embryo Donation Network
National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit and ANZARD team at UNSW
VARTA
Vic Health Complaints Commissioner
ACCC
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date( s):
As determined by committee
Possible reporting date:
11 November 2019
Appendix 2
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider the detail and implementation arrangements of the measures.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Treasury, ATO
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date( s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
5 September 2019
Appendix 3
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Human rights concerns
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Human rights and legal experts and stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date( s):
October 3-4
Possible reporting date:
October 17
Appendix 4
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019; Counter-Terrorism
(Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
to ensure bill adheres to international human rights and security obligations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
United Nations, Human Rights Law Centre
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date( s):
8-9 August 2019
Possible reporting date:
9 September 2019
Appendix 5
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Human rights concerns – could lead to racial profiling and police state enforcement. Despite civilians not being required to carry identification, this bill will empower law enforcement officers to eject from airports, ban from flights, fine, or even imprison civilians – travelers or otherwise – if they are unable to produce identification when demanded. Offices may demand identification from civilians if he/she "suspects … that the person has committed, is committing, or intends to commit an offence [or] considers on reasonable grounds that it is necessary … to safeguard aviation security". This could lead to situations like "Operation Fortitude" a multi-agency operation in 2015 that saw the ABF, police, and transport officers using racial profiling to do random spot-checks on visas (despite there being now requirement for visa holders to be carrying those documents on their person)
Possible submissions or evidence from:
legal and human rights experts and advocates such as The Law Council of Australia, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Australian Human Rights Commission, and Civil Liberties Australia.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date( s):
14-16 August
Possible reporting date:
12 September 2019
Appendix 6
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2019
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Human rights concerns, as it will discriminate against particular cohorts of applicants.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
legal and human rights experts and advocates such as The Law Council of Australia, and the Human Rights Law Centre.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date( s):
5-6 September 2019
Possible reporting date:
14 October 2019
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add "and the following bills not be referred to committees:
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2019".
The Senate divided. [11:55]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
At the end of the motion, add: "but, in respect of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019, contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the bill be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 September 2019."
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Monday, 29 July 2019 at the time for private senators' bills:
No. 4 Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019
No. 26 Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018
No. 25 Human Services Amendment (Photographic Identification and Fraud Prevention) Bill 2019.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion to give precedence to a motion to enable Senator Keneally a statement of two minutes.
That the motion be now put.
The Senate divided. [12:26]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) a general business notice of motion circulated by the Opposition relating to the economy; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2020:
The adequacy of Newstart and related payments and alternative mechanisms to determine the level of income support payments in Australia, with specific reference to:
(a) consideration of what constitutes an acceptable standard of living in Australia, including the cost of safe and secure housing;
(b) the labour market, unemployment and under-employment in Australia, including the structural causes of long term unemployment and long term reliance on Newstart;
(c) the changing nature of work and insecure work in Australia;
(d) the appropriateness of current arrangements for supporting those experiencing insecure employment, inconsistent employment and precarious hours in the workforce;
(e) the current approach to setting income support payments in Australia;
(f) the impact of the current approach to setting income support payments on older unemployed workers, families, single parents, people with disability, jobseekers, students, First Nations peoples, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, people living in regional and remote areas, and any others affected by the process;
(g) the impact of geography, age and other characteristics on the number of people receiving payments, long term unemployment and poverty;
(h) the adequacy of income support payments in Australia and whether they allow people to maintain an acceptable standard of living in line with community expectations and fulfil job search activities (where relevant) and secure employment and training;
(i) the economic cost of long-term unemployment, underemployment, poverty, inequality and inadequate income support payments;
(j) the economic benefits – including job creation, locally and nationally – of increasing and improving income support payments and supports, and decreasing poverty and inequality;
(k) the relationship between income support payment levels, minimum wages
and wage stagnation in Australia and other comparable economies;
(l) the interactions with other payments and services, including the loss of
any increased payments through higher rents and costs;
(m) the cost and fiscal sustainability of any changes;
(n) the relative merits of alternative investments in health, education,
housing and other programs to improve outcomes;
(o) other countries' approaches to setting income support payments, minimum
wages and awards;
(p) other bodies that set payments, minimum wages and awards in Australia;
(q) the role of independent and expert decision–making in setting payments;
and
(r) any other related matters.
The Senate divided. [12:39]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Productivity Commission Response Part 2 and Other Measures) Bill 2019
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Streamlined Governance) Bill 2019
That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to A Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to intellectual property, and for related purposes; A Bill for an Act to amend the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 , and for related purposes; and A Bill for an Act to amend theNational Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 , and for related purposes.
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.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS AMENDMENT (PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION RESPONSE PART 2 AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill is the second piece of legislation that delivers on the Morrison Government's commitment to review and reform our intellectual property system.
The intellectual property system — or IP system — is an important part of the economy. It encourages the development of new technologies, products and markets. In 2016 the Productivity Commission undertook a comprehensive review of Australia's IP system, including copyright, trade marks, patents, designs and plant breeder's rights. We asked the Commission to make recommendations to ensure that the IP system continues to provide incentives for innovation and investment. The IP system should do so without unreasonably impeding competition and access to goods and services.
The Australian Government responded to the Commission's recommendations on 25 August 2017, and within a year the first tranche of reforms received Royal Assent. These changes were supported by the opposition, and updated the trade mark and the plant breeder's rights systems.
This second tranche of reforms updates the patent system. The Productivity Commission stated that its proposed reforms are intended to rebalance the patent system to take more account of the benefits to the broader community and ensure that all Australians benefit from the system.
These reforms have been complex to develop, so the government has taken additional time to consult extensively, giving stakeholders several opportunities to provide feedback and express their views. The government has listened and is confident that the amendments strike the right balance between the needs of inventors, users of technology and the general public.
Schedule one to this Bill will amend the Patents Act. It gives effect to the recommendations made by the Commission, by introducing a statement of the objectives of the Patents Act and phasing out Australia's second-tier patent.
Part one introduces an objects clause into the Patents Act. The objects clause provides a general statement of principle about the purpose of the Act. This will make it clear what Australians want from their patent system, specifically a system that promotes economic wellbeing through technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology. This will ensure that the patent system remains adaptable and fit-for-purpose as new technologies are developed in the future.
Part two begins the phasing out of the innovation patent system. This second-tier patent was intended to incentivise small to medium-sized Australian businesses to invest in research when it was introduced in 2001.
However, in the 18 years since then, it has become clear that the second-tier patent has been more harmful than helpful for SMEs. There is widespread agreement among stakeholders that the system is not fit-for-purpose. Some people argue that the second-tier patent should be reformed, but there is no agreement on a workable alternative.
Both the Productivity Commission and the former Advisory Council on IP recommended that the innovation patent system be abolished. Both found there is no evidence that the second-tier patent stimulates innovation or research in Australia. What it does do, according to both bodies, is lead to uncertainty, confusion and a higher regulatory burden, particularly for our Australian SMEs.
The Bill will amend the Patents Act to prevent the filing of new applications for innovation patents. The amendments ensure that existing rights, filed before commencement, are maintained and protected, ensuring a balanced phasing out.
Schedules two, three and four implement recommendations made by the Commission in its 2013 report into the compulsory licensing of patents. These changes will improve the balance between the rights of IP owners and the interests of the public, bringing greater clarity and certainty to the legislation.
Schedule two improves the transparency and accountability for Crown use of patented technology. There is some uncertainty about when Crown use can be invoked at the present, and this Bill makes it clear that while it is rarely used, it can be invoked when any Australian Federal, State or Territory government has the primary responsibility for providing or funding a service. This ensures that Crown use can cover the full range of services that the public expects our Government to provide.
Schedule two also protects the rights of patent holders, by improving accountability for Crown use as well as providing more guidance for determining the remuneration to be paid to the patent owner. Government agencies will be required to seek to negotiate with the patent owner and to obtain the authorisation of the relevant Minister before invoking Crown use. At the Commonwealth level, the relevant Minister is the Minister responsible for administering the Patents Act, and at the State and Territory level, it is the Attorney-General. This will ensure that Crown use is only used in appropriate circumstances.
Schedule three will make the same amendments to the Crown use provisions in the Designs Act. Crown use will then operate in the same way for both patents and designs.
Schedule four improves the clarity and certainty for compulsory licensing of patents. It requires the courts to consider whether it is in the public interest to grant a compulsory licence. There was concern that the previous test had the potential to protect the interests of a particular industry, at a net cost to the broader community. The new test will ensure that compulsory licences are only granted when there will be an overall net benefit to the Australian community.
Schedule four will also clarify the process for compulsory licensing of inventions that build and improve on a previous patent.
The remaining schedules to the Bill make minor technical amendments that will streamline procedures and improve the efficiency of the IP system, ensuring the system is fit for purpose and keeps up with today's accelerated pace of technological change.
I am very pleased to introduce this Bill, which builds on a broad consultation and enhances Australia's IP system, supporting innovation, creativity and business growth in this country.
TERTIARY EDUCATION QUALITY AND STANDARDS AGENCY AMENDMENT BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
The Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act) to give effect to the Government's decision to implement recommendations arising from theReview of the impact of the TEQSA Act on the higher education sector.
This review was conducted in line with section 203 of the TEQSA Act, which required that the Minister, before 1 January 2016, cause a review to be started of the impact on the higher education sector of the TEQSA Act.
In December 2015, terms of reference for the review were determined, with Deloitte Access Economics engaged to undertake the review between July 2016 and March 2017. The review was a substantial body of work: 36 written submissions were received, 33 stakeholders were interviewed, and the TEQSA Act was extensively analysed.
Overall, the review was positive about the establishment of TEQSA as the national regulator in 2012, noting that the TEQSA Act is broadly operating effectively and as intended.
The review noted that the higher education sector's views regarding the regulatory system established by the Act, and TEQSA as the regulator, are positive.
The sector sees in TEQSA a regulator that is seeking to reduce the burden imposed by its activities, tailoring its requirements to meet individual features of providers and engaging more fully with the sector. The review therefore did not recommend changes that would significantly alter the regulatory framework or the role of TEQSA as the independent national higher education regulator.
The recommendations made by the review are largely technical in nature. They are designed to place TEQSA and the regulatory and quality assurance system established by the act on a stronger footing. This Bill gives effect to the review recommendations that require amendments to the TEQSA Act.
The measures contained in this Bill will improve the already effective and efficient higher education regulatory system, enabling the sector to continue its focus on delivering the highest quality teaching, learning and research, maximising the quality of educational outcomes for students and protecting Australia's international higher education reputation.
The Bill simplifies the legislative framing of the Higher Education Standards Framework by removing references from the TEQSA Act to specific categories of non-threshold standards that have never been made and are not needed. The capacity to make additional standards will be retained, however, if the need ever arises.
The Bill requires that TEQSA inform the minister and the Higher Education
Standards Panel before it undertakes quality assessment under section 60 of the TEQSA Act that engages the majority of higher education providers. This will ensure that the resource implications of any such activity and the regulatory burden it would create for providers are appropriately considered before undertaking such an assessment. This amendment will remove the need for the current tougher restriction placed on such assessments by Ministerial Direction No. 2 of 2013, which the Government will repeal once the TEQSA Amendment Act commences.
There are amendments made in relation to the Higher Education Standards Panel. The Bill will expand the skill set that the minister must ensure is encompassed by panel members so that, collectively, the panel has contemporary experience in the provision of higher education by both university and non-university providers. This amendment is important for the panel's oversight and advisory roles, ensuring its advice is balanced and reflects a collective understanding of issues relevant to different provider types.
The Bill also expands the functions of the panel to more appropriately reflect its role to provide oversight of TEQSA's strategic and operational planning and approaches to deregulation, which were functions of the former TEQSA Advisory Council.
A new provision will allow TEQSA to disclose higher education information about a regulated entity to a person who has lodged a complaint where TEQSA is satisfied that the information to be disclosed relates to the subject matter of the complaint. Currently TEQSA can publish such information but cannot disclose the information to individual complainant students. This amendment will improve TEQSA's capacity to respond appropriately to complainants, facilitating better engagement between TEQSA and students of higher education providers.
Finally, the Bill provides for a number of technical amendments, mainly suggested by TEQSA during the review, including minor adjustments to the capacity to disclose both higher education and personal information to the Department of Education and the Minister, to facilitate the disclosure of information for research purposes with appropriate safeguards and to clarify quorum provisions for meetings of the TEQSA commissioners.
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME AMENDMENT (STREAMLINED GOVERNANCE) BILL 2019
SECOND READING SPEECH
This Bill amends the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 to introduce streamlined governance arrangements that will simplify rule-making and decision-making under the NDIS Act.
The Bill makes important provisions that will give the Commonwealth Minister responsible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) increased certainty about timing of decisions under the Act requiring state and territory agreement, including appointments and terminations to the Board of the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and the NDIS Independent Advisory Council, and the making or amending of some NDIS Rules. The Bill also ensures the states and territories will continue to have an essential and strong role in the stewardship of the Scheme.
These administrative amendments will ensure the governance arrangements that underpin the NDIS are efficient and effective, building on the recommendations from an independent review of the Act in 2015, the Productivity Commission inquiry into NDIS costs in 2017 and intergovernmental agreements supported by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).
The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australia's history.
Difficulties with the current governance arrangements have been consistently The Scheme is continuing to grow at a rapid pace as it rolls out across the country. Over 300,000 Australians are currently receiving support through the NDIS and around 100,000 of these people are receiving support for the very first time. The vision of the NDIS, to enable every Australian with a significant and permanent disability to access the reasonable and necessary support they need to participate fully in their communities, is progressively being realised.
Since 1 July 2019, the NDIS has been available across the continent. The Scheme will continue to grow at a rapid pace over the next few years — with around 500,000 participants estimated to benefit from the NDIS over the next five years.
This government has been fully committed to the NDIS from day one. We are bringing forward this Bill to establish streamlined governance arrangements to ensure the governance structure that underpins the NDIS is effective, efficient and adaptive.
The NDIS is a significantly complex reform, with governance shared between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments. The current NDIS governance structure includes a legislative framework, the NDIA Board, the NDIS Independent Advisory Council and the COAG Disability Reform Council (DRC). Each body plays an important role in assuring that the NDIS remains true to its objectives.
Under current legislative and governance settings, the states and territories have significant roles and responsibilities in NDIS policy and funding arrangements. Setting and amending NDIS Rules, the giving of directions to the CEO and NDIA Board as well as making appointments and terminations, generally requires unanimous agreement from all jurisdictions. This has resulted in a governance structure that is complex, with decision-making processes being more time-consuming and less efficient than required for such a significant reform.
identified during the NDIS trial and transition periods. Past experience of the requirement to obtain unanimous agreement from all states and territories has meant NDIS Rules, or amendment to Rules, which have agreement at the officials' level, have taken up to ten months to be formally agreed before they could be registered.
Unnecessary delays in decision-making was recognised as a critical issue by the Productivity Commission in its 2017 Review of NDIS Costs. In the PC's final report, handed down in October 2017, while acknowledging the complexity of shared governance arrangements and the valuable knowledge and expertise of all governments for designing and refining the Scheme, the PC concluded that " such timeframes for decision making could pose significant operational difficulties for the NDIA " .
The shared governance arrangement requiring unanimous agreement from states and territories to progress a large range of critical issues is indeed cumbersome and complicated. This reduces the Commonwealth's ability to respond rapidly and flexibly to emerging issues.
This government, along with states and territories, has therefore reached the view that better arrangements are required as the NDIS approaches full scheme. Changes will improve the effectiveness of governance arrangements to provide an agile and responsive legislative environment.
This is good news for Australians living with significant and permanent disability, their families and carers who are set to benefit from the NDIS. These changes will simplify what is a complicated and inefficient system of decision-making.
The changes proposed by this government include introducing a 28 day consultation process with state and territory disability ministers on matters under the NDIS Act that require agreement. If they do not respond after 28 days, they will be taken to have agreed. All state and territory disability ministers have been consulted and have been voluntarily following the 28 day convention since November 2017. Formalising this commitment in law provides the right incentives for all governments to manage the NDIS efficiently.
The changes proposed by this government also establish arrangements for the Commonwealth Minister to be able to appoint members to the NDIA Board based on majority agreement of the states and territories, instead of under the current requirement for unanimous agreement.
The NDIA Board is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the NDIS and its long-term sustainability. The Board manages the financial and delivery risk of the scheme, including maintaining an actuarial and insurance approach to decision making. The Board develops the NDIA's business strategies, manages risks to the organisation and the NDIS, and through its Chief Executive Officer, handles the day-to-day management of the NDIA.
The NDIA Board is a national board, not a representative board. Members are appointed to the Board if they have the right skills and expertise to carefully mange the significant scale, cost and potential risk in delivering the NDIS without regard to where they live.
Allowing the Minister to appoint Board members based on majority agreement will ensure that the best and majority supported candidates are appointed in instances where there is not unanimous agreement.
The changes proposed by this government also establish arrangements for the Commonwealth Minister to be able to appoint members to the NDIS Independent Advisory Council, based on consultation with states and territories.
The function of the Advisory Council is to provide the Board with independent advice, which the Board must consider when performing its duties, having regard to the role of families, carers and other significant persons in the lives of people with disability.
And finally, the changes proposed by this government also establish new arrangements for consultation with states and territories relating to any proposed changes to some NDIS rules — namely, those Rules that relate to the payment of NDIS amounts and the NDIA CEO's power to disclose information. These are consequential amendments that will have no impact on the Scheme's purpose or design, people's access to the NDIS, the determination of participant's reasonable and necessary supports, or the content of their plans.
The NDIS, and its beneficiaries, deserve the best and most efficient governance arrangements possible. The changes proposed in this Bill will help us deliver this world-leading reform.
The Morrison Government is committed to working with states and territories and the NDIA to deliver a fully funded, high quality NDIS. This bill represents a significant step forward, cutting red tape, and ensuring governance arrangements for the NDIS enable responsive delivery and agile decision-making as we move into full Scheme.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2019
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to protect the Great Australian Bight, 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.
GREAT AUSTRALIAN BIGHT ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION BILL 2019
When I first introduced a bill to protect the Great Australian Bight back in 2016, the company that wanted to drill for oil in the Great Australian Bight was BP. Then it was Chevron. Now it is the Norwegian company Equinor, formerly known as Statoil.
The Great Australian Bight is one of the world's great wilderness areas. It is home to a huge array of marine and bird life, marine plants and invertebrates. Eighty-five percent of species found in the Bight are endemic, found only in the Bight. It is an essential calving sanctuary for southern right whales, and a feeding ground for threatened sea lions, sharks, tuna and migratory sperm whales.
In May the UN released its latest biodiversity report. This warned that a million species face the threat of extinction. The official modelling from Big Oil companies who want to drill in the Bight indicate that a spill would impact many matters of national environmental significance. This would include up to 177 marine species, 47 species classified as vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered, and 50 coastal wetlands. Thirty-eight marine reserves would be covered in sludge, resulting in the mortality of hundreds of thousands of seabirds and thousands of marine animals, including endangered southern right whales, blue whales, killer whales, dolphins, and endemic and endangered Australian sea lions. Hundreds of sea turtles would be dead. Hundreds—potentially thousands—of kilometres of shoreline would be covered in oil, causing extreme harm to both the birds that live on the coast and those that visit nearby.
This is disastrous in itself, but it would have knock-on effects. The Bight plays host to over ten thousand fishing and tourism jobs. These industries would be decimated and may never recover. That is why, all along the coast, local councils have voted against drilling in the Bight. We know traditional owners are also opposed, horrified that their special place is under threat. And they are backed by more than two-thirds of South Australians who oppose drilling in the Great Australian Bight.
But this is not just a South Australian problem; the same spill modelling shows oil could stretch from Port Macquarie in New South Wales to Albany, Western Australia. And, in a time of climate breakdown, what happens in the Bight affects us all.
If we are to keep temperature rise to two degrees—and we've been told by scientists that we have to do more than that—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report says we have to phase out fossil fuels. We cannot keep playing games with our environment and the climate. It is time to get serious about what needs to be done. We have to reduce our carbon emissions, and we have to stop the further extraction of fossil fuels that are only going to make climate change worse and more dangerous. If we are to do what the scientists say is required—keeping temperature rise to 1.5 degrees or below—there is absolutely no way we can allow the extraction of fossil fuels from the Great Australian Bight. At the volumes being proposed, we would never arrest climate change: not here in Australia and not around the rest of the world. Just a fraction of the estimated oil reserves in the Great Australian Bight would amount to three gigatonnes of CO2. This is almost equivalent to one-third of our entire carbon budget between now and 2050.
Many people—many in government—will tell you that Australia is a small player, and that we would be exporting that oil so it wouldn't affect our totals. To them I say: we are already seeing the effects of climate change and we are the last generation of policymakers and decision-makers who can do anything about it. It is up to us to make the hard decisions to reduce dangerous carbon pollution. And the more we twiddle our thumbs, and the more we deny this, the worse the problem becomes.
The good people in the Bight Alliance and hardworking Australians from all walks of life have turned away BP and Chevron and are, right this moment, working to send Equinor packing. But this shouldn't be a one by one approach. The people have spoken. They do not want Big Oil, or any oil, in the Great Australian Bight. It is time for us to do our job and find a permanent way to protect this precious, important ecosystem and the climate we all depend on.
This bill does just that. During the election we saw the two major parties sit up and take notice of the Fight for the Bight. They promised 'reviews.' The time for reviews has passed; today I offer this Bill as a way to listen to the Australian people, do what is right and protect the Great Australian Bight and the future of us all.
(1) That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that Mr John Ryan AM, and Ms Barbara Bennett PSM, are recognised for their long and distinguished public service careers,
(ii) that however, as key decision makers of public service institutions which will be the subject of investigation and examination during the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, they have significant and unmanageable conflicts of interest which are highly likely to jeopardise the integrity of the Royal Commission,
(iii) that over 60 disability organisations have called for the resignation and removal of these two individuals as commissioners for the Royal Commission,
(iv) that these organisations have created a set of six criteria to guide the government in the appointment of replacement commissioners,
(v) the 1500 individuals who have signed a petition calling for both Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett to step down—many individuals and advocates from the disability community, including former People with Disability Australia President, Mr Craig Wallace, have said they will not give evidence to the Royal Commission should these individuals remain, and
(vi) that it is essential that disabled people, their families, and their organisations have confidence in the processes and recommendations of the Royal Commission; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to immediately remove Mr Ryan and Ms Bennett as Commissioners, and replace them with individuals who meet the positive criteria set out by the disability community.
(2) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
The Senate divided. [12:52]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 14 to 17), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister may make", substitute:
An issuing authority, on application by the Minister, may make an order (called a temporary exclusion order) that prevents a person from entering Australia for a specified period, which may be up to 2 years. An order cannot be made unless certain criteria are met, and it can be revoked.
(2) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 18 to 22), omit the paragraph beginning "The Minister must refer".
(3) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), omit "and is satisfied of specified matters", substitute ", is satisfied of specified matters and an issuing authority has approved the conditions".
(4) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 19), after the definition of Australian travel document , insert:
interim temporary exclusion order means an order made under subsection 12A(1).
issuing authority means a person appointed under section 23.
(5) Clause 4, page 3 (line 23), omit the definition of reviewing authority .
(6) Clause 4, page 3 (line 25), omit "subsection 10(1)", substitute "subsection 10(2)".
(7) Clause 8, page 5 (line 6), before "A person", insert "(1)".
(8) Clause 8, page 5 (after line 10), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) The fault element for paragraph (1) (a) is knowledge.
(9) Heading to clause 10, page 6 (line 4), omit "Making", substitute "Applying for, and making,".
(10) Clause 10, page 6 (line 5) to page 7 (line 21), omit subclauses 10(1) to (5), substitute:
(1) The Minister may apply to an issuing authority for a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person only if:
(a) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the Minister meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (5A).
(2) An issuing authority may make a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person only if:
(a) subsection (3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the issuing authority meets the requirements of subsections (4), (5) and (5A).
(3) This subsection applies to a person if:
(a) the person is located outside Australia; and
(b) the person is an Australian citizen; and
(c) the person is at least 14 years of age; and
(d) a return permit is not in force in relation to the person.
(4) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that making the order would substantially assist in one or more of the following:
(a) preventing a terrorist act;
(b) preventing training from being provided to, received from or participated in with a listed terrorist organisation;
(c) preventing the provision of support for, or the facilitation of, a terrorist act;
(d) preventing the provision of support or resources to an organisation that would help the organisation engage in an activity described in paragraph (a) of the definition of terrorist organisation in subsection 102.1(1) of theCriminal Code .
(5) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority is satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the person has:
(a) committed, prepared to commit or instigated a terrorist act; or
(b) facilitated the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act; or
(c) given encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of a terrorist act; or
(d) given support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the person to be involved in conduct falling within paragraph (5) (a).
(5A) The Minister or issuing authority meets the requirements of this subsection if the Minister or issuing authority, before applying for, or making, a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person, has regard to the following:
(a) in a case where the person is 14 to 17 years of age:
(i) the protection of the community as the paramount consideration; and
(ii) the best interests of the person as a primary consideration;
(b) in every case:
(i) whether the person has a lawful right to remain, or to enter and remain, in a country other than Australia during that period; and
(ii) if the person has no lawful right to remain, or to enter and remain, in a country other than Australia during that period—the likelihood of the person being detained, mistreated or harmed if the person cannot enter Australia until the end of that period.
(5B) In determining what is in the best interests of a person for the purposes of subparagraph (5A) (a) (ii), the Minister or issuing authority must take into account the following matters:
(a) the age, maturity, sex and background (including lifestyle, culture and traditions) of the person;
(b) the physical and mental health of the person;
(c) the benefit to the person of having a meaningful relationship with his or her family and friends;
(d) the right of the person to receive an education;
(e) the right of the person to practise his or her religion;
(f) any other matter the Minister or issuing authority considers relevant.
(11) Clause 10, page 7 (line 22), omit "the Minister", substitute "the issuing authority".
(12) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 9 and 10), omit paragraph 10(6) (i), substitute:
(i) state the judicial review rights in relation to the decision to make the order and any related return permit; and
(j) state the grounds for deciding that the criteria in subsection (2) for the making of the order have been met (excluding any information that is likely to prejudice national security).
(13) Clause 10, page 8 (lines 14 and 15), omit "the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are, in the opinion of the Minister,", substitute "the issuing authority must provide a copy of the order to the Minister and the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are".
(14) Page 8 (after line 21), after clause 10, insert:
10A Contents of applications for a temporary exclusion order
An application by the Minister under subsection 10(1) for a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person must:
(a) be made either:
(i) in writing (other than writing by means of an electronic communication); or
(ii) if the Minister considers it necessary because of urgent circumstances, orally in person or by telephone, or by fax, email or other electronic means of communication; and
(b) set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers the temporary exclusion order should be made; and
(c) specify the period for which the temporary exclusion order should remain in force and set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers that the order should remain in force for that period; and
(d) set out the information that the Minister has about the person's age; and
(e) set out the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications for temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(f) set out the outcomes and particulars of all previous applications for variations of temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(g) set out the outcomes of all previous applications for revocations of temporary exclusion orders made in relation to the person; and
(h) set out any other matter the Minister considers relevant.
(15) Clause 11, page 8 (line 23), after "The Minister", insert "or an issuing authority".
(16) Clause 11, page 8 (line 25), after "the Minister's", insert "or the issuing authority's".
(17) Clause 11, page 8 (after line 29), after subclause 11(2), insert:
(2A) If an issuing authority revokes a temporary exclusion order under subsection (1), the issuing authority must notify the Minister as soon as practicable after revoking the order.
(18) Clause 11, page 8 (line 31) to page 9 (line 1), omit "the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are, in the opinion of the Minister,", substitute "or being notified of the revocation of a temporary exclusion order under subsection (2A), the Minister must cause such steps to be taken as are".
(19) Clause 11, page 9 (line 9), after "the Minister", insert "or issuing authority".
(20) Clause 12, page 9 (after line 19), after subclause 12(1), insert:
(1A) As soon as practicable after an application is made under subsection (1), the Minister or Department must provide a copy of the application to the issuing authority who made the temporary exclusion order, or if the issuing authority is unavailable, another issuing authority.
(1B) If the Minister or Department gives a copy of the application to another issuing authority, the Minister or Department must cause such steps to be taken as are necessary to ensure that the other issuing authority has all the information that the issuing authority who issued the temporary exclusion order had when the order was issued.
(21) Page 10 (after line 15), after clause 12, insert:
12A Interim temporary exclusion orders
(1) If the Minister is satisfied that, because of urgent circumstances, it is necessary that a temporary exclusion order in relation to a person comes into force immediately, the Minister may make an order (an interim temporary exclusion order ) under this subsection.
(2) The Minister must not make an interim temporary exclusion order under subsection (1) in relation to a person unless:
(a) subsection 10(3) applies in relation to the person; and
(b) the Minister meets the requirements of subsections 10(4), (5) and (5A).
(3) If the Minister makes an interim temporary exclusion order, the Minister must, as soon as practicable, apply for a temporary exclusion order in relation to the person under subsection 10(1).
(4) For the purposes of applying the other provisions of this Act in relation to an interim temporary exclusion order until a decision is made on the related application under subsection (3) of this section:
(a) the interim temporary exclusion order is taken to be a temporary exclusion order made under subsection 10(2); and
(b) any reference to an issuing authority is taken to be a reference to the Minister.
(22) Clause 13, page 10 (line 16) to page 11 (line 5), omit clause 13, substitute:
13 Period for which a temporary exclusion order etc. is in force
(1) A temporary exclusion order in relation to a person comes into force immediately after an issuing authority makes the temporary exclusion order in relation to the person.
(2) A temporary exclusion order in relation to a person remains in force until the earlier of the following occurs:
(a) the period specified for the purposes of paragraph 10(6) (d) ends;
(b) the order is revoked under section 11.
(3) An interim temporary exclusion order comes into force immediately after the Minister makes the interim temporary exclusion order in relation to the person.
(4) An interim temporary exclusion order in relation to a person remains in force until the earlier of the following occurs:
(a) an issuing authority makes a decision on the related application made by the Minister under subsection 12A(3);
(b) the Minister issues a return permit to the person under subsection 15(1).
(24) Clause 15, page 14 (line 10), omit the note, substitute:
Note 1: See section 18 for how an application for a return permit can be made.
Note 2: There are judicial review rights in relation to decisions under this subsection.
(25) Clause 15, page 14 (lines 19 to 25), omit "within a reasonable period" (wherever occurring), substitute "as soon as practicable".
(26) Clause 16, page 17 (lines 7 to 10), omit subclause 16(7).
(27) Clause 16, page 17 (line 14), omit "(to the extent known to the Minister)".
(28) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 22), after subclause 16(8), insert:
(8A) Before the Minister imposes a condition mentioned in subsection (9) or (10) on a return permit, the Minister must request, in writing, the approval of an issuing authority to impose the condition.
(8B) A request under subsection (8A) must set out the facts and other grounds on which the Minister considers the condition should be imposed on the return permit.
(8C) In considering whether to approve the condition, subsections (3) to (8) are taken to apply to the issuing authority in the same way as those subsections apply in relation to the Minister.
(8D) To avoid doubt, the Minister must not impose the condition if the issuing authority does not approve the condition.
(29) Clause 17, page 20 (lines 18 and 19), omit ", in the opinion of the Minister,".
(30) Clause 17, page 20 (after line 24), at the end of the clause, add:
(7) Subsections 16(3) to (8D) are taken to apply to a decision under subparagraph (1) (a) (i) of this section to vary the period during which the permit is in force in the same way as those subsections apply to a condition imposed on a permit under that section.
(31) Clause 20, page 22 (after line 32), at the end of clause 20, add:
(3) The fault element for paragraph (1) (a) is knowledge.
(32) Heading to clause 23, page 25 (line 3), omit "Reviewing authority", substitute "Issuing authority".
(33) Clause 23, page 25 (line 5) to page 26 (line 2), omit "a reviewing authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "an issuing authority".
(34) Clause 23, page 26 (lines 3 to 8), omit "reviewing authority" (wherever occurring), substitute "issuing authority".
(35) Clause 23, page 26 (line 10), omit "A reviewing authority", substitute "An issuing authority".
(36) Heading to clause 24, page 26 (line 14), omit "a reviewing authority", substitute "an issuing authority".
(37) Clause 24, page 26 (line 16), omit "a reviewing authority", substitute "an issuing authority".
(38) Clause 25, page 27 (line 13), omit "making", substitute "applying for".
(40) Clause 31, page 29 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraphs 31(2) (c) and (d).
… reasonably suspects that
The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to clarify that a person may seek judicial review of a decision of the Minister to grant or refuse an application for a return permit.
… if the person is to be, or is being, deported or extradited to Australia.
… so that, in any prosecution for a breach of an offence provision under the Bill, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the existence of the temporary exclusion order or of the relevant return permit condition (as applicable).
The committee divided. [13:27]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The committee divided. [13:35]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 9), after item 1, insert:
1A At the end of Part 4
Add:
30A Certain reports and briefings
(1) If:
(a) a report by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor referred to in subsection 29(1) or 30(1) relates to a review of the Counter ‑Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Act 2019 , or a report relating to that Act is otherwise prepared in the course of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor carrying out the functions in subsection 6(1); and
(b) the Committee on Intelligence and Security requests, in writing given to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, a copy of the report;
the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor must give the Committee a copy of the report, or a copy of extracts from the report that deal with that Act.
(2) If the Committee on Intelligence and Security requests a briefing in relation to the report or extracts, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor must give the Committee such a briefing.
… to request a briefing from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (the Monitor), to ask the Monitor to provide the PJCIS with a report on matters referred by the PJCIS, and for the Monitor to provide the PJCIS with the outcome of the Monitor's inquiries into existing legislation at the same time as the Monitor provides such reports to the responsible Minister …
The committee divided. [13:57]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
I also think it's worthwhile for the government … to examine the wisdom of increasing the compulsory superannuation contribution from 9.5 per cent to 12 per cent.
I would change direction. Super should be made voluntary for Australians earning under $50,000.
… I would be inclined to make the whole scheme voluntary.
… establish an independent Just Transition Authority to help plan for and coordinate the response to the eventual closure of coal-fired power stations …
… I've been shown evidence that Minister Taylor was asked to make representation on behalf of some constituents.
… continued public ownership of a business operation can place the Government in a conflicted position, as both regulator and provider of services.
… an exemplary case of privatisation done well …
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Marielle Smith today relating to superannuation.
We have the fourth-largest private pension pool in the world with only 25 million people. It remains a strange but huge experiment.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to a question asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Newstart allowance.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to questions without notice asked by Senator Steele-John today in relation to the appointment of Commissioners Ryan and Bennett to the disability abuse royal commission.
That—
(1) The routine of business for the remainder of the day be consideration of government business only.
(2) Divisions may take place after 4.30 pm.
(3) The Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has completed consideration of the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 and a related bill, including any message from the House of Representatives, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
If section 14 is not a valid law of the Commonwealth—
(a) it is Parliament’s intention that this Act operate as if that 26 section had never been enacted; …
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after the heading specifying Intelligence Services Act 2001 , insert:
1B Paragraph 29(1 ) ( a)
After "to review the", insert "activities,".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 19), at the end of the Schedule, add:
3 Subsection 29(3)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(3) The functions of the Committee do not include:
(a) reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; or
(b) conducting inquiries into individual complaints about the activities of ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD, ONI, AFP or the Immigration and Border Protection Department.
4 After section 29
Insert:
29A Ceasing or suspending review of agency activities
(1) If:
(a) the Committee undertakes a review under section 29 of an activity by ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD or ONI; and
(b) the relevant responsible Minister is of the opinion that:
(i) the activity is an ongoing operation; and
(ii) the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister may give to the Committee a certificate in relation to the matter stating the Minister's opinion and the reasons for it.
(2) A decision of the Minister under subsection (1) must not be questioned in any court or tribunal.
(3) Where the Minister gives a certificate under subsection (1) in relation to a review, the Committee must cease or suspend the review.
(4) If the Minister:
(a) becomes aware that the activity is no longer ongoing; or
(b) is no longer of the opinion that the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia's national security or the conduct of Australia's foreign relations;
the Minister must, within 28 days after becoming aware of the fact or forming the view:
(c) revoke the certificate; and
(d) inform the Committee in writing.
(5) If the Minister revokes a certificate in accordance with subsection (4), the Committee may proceed with the review, or commence a new review into the activity.
… any activity carried out by a department that relates to national security or intelligence, unless the activity is an ongoing operation and the appropriate Minister determines that the review would be injurious to national security; …
(2) If the appropriate Minister determines that a review would be injurious to national security, he or she must inform the Committee of his or her determination and the reasons for it.
Review no longer injurious
(3) If the appropriate Minister determines that the review would no longer be injurious to national security or if the appropriate Minister is informed that the activity is no longer ongoing, he or she must inform the Committee that the review may be conducted.
… reviewing information provided by, or by an agency of, a foreign government where that government does not consent to the disclosure of the information; …
(4) If the Minister:
(a) becomes aware that the activity is no longer ongoing; or
(b) is no longer of the opinion that the review would interfere with the proper performance by the relevant body of its functions or otherwise prejudice Australia’s national security or the conduct of Australia’s foreign relations;
the Minister must, within 28 days after becoming aware of the fact or forming the view:
(c) revoke the certificate; …
The committee divided. [16:19]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Askew)
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 11), before item 2, insert:
2A Subsection 28(2)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(2) The Committee is to consist of 11 members, 5 of whom must be the following:
(a) a Government member of the House of Representatives;
(b) an Opposition member of the House of Representatives;
(c) a Government Senator;
(d) an Opposition Senator;
(e) a Senator who is not a Government or Opposition Senator.
(2A) The other Committee members may be either Senators or members of the House of Representatives.
The Committee divided. [16:28]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Askew)
That these bills be now read a third time.