The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) AMENDMENT (DATA RETENTION) BILL
The Bill contains a package of reforms to prevent the further degradation of the investigative capabilities of Australia's law enforcement and national security agencies. The Bill will require companies providing telecommunications services in Australia, carriers and internet service providers to keep a limited, prescribed set of telecommunications data for two years. The Bill amends the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979 (Interception Act), and theTelecommunications Act1997 (Telecommunications Act).
Modern communication technologies have revolutionised the abilities of people to communicate, collaborate and express themselves. Sadly, however, these same technologies are routinely misused and exploited by criminals, including those who threaten our national security.
Historically, telephone companies have kept call records showing the numbers of both the A and B parties, time of call, duration of call and often the location of the parties. These records have been kept for long periods and were used for billing purposes. Under existing and long-standing legislation, a range of law enforcement and other agencies have had the ability to access this information without a warrant.
The type of data referred to in the Bill as telecommunications data, more often described as metadata, is information about a communication but not its content. So, in the telephone world, it reveals that one number belonging to a particular account was connected to another number at a time and for a duration, but does not reveal what they discussed. In the IP world it reveals that a particular IP address, which may have been observed to have been engaged in some unlawful activity, had been at the relevant time allocated to a particular account. In the context of messaging—email, for example—it reveals the sender, recipient, time and date, but again not the content. Access to the content of communications requires a warrant.
Access to metadata plays a central role in almost every counterterrorism, counterespionage, cybersecurity and organised crime investigation. It is also used in almost all serious criminal investigations, including investigations into murder, serious sexual assaults, drug trafficking and kidnapping. The use of this kind of metadata, therefore, is not new.
However, as the business models of service providers are changing with technology they are keeping fewer records. And they are keeping those records for shorter periods of time because they do not need them any longer, in many cases, for billing. Many of the records that are still kept are kept because of legacy systems put in place years ago. In June 2013, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security concluded that this diminution in the retention of metadata is harming law enforcement and national security capabilities, and that these changes are accelerating.
Existing powers and laws are not adequate to respond to this challenge. Preservation notices under the Interception Act can require carriers to 'quick freeze' records that they hold, but these notices cannot create records that have never been kept, and cannot bring back records that carriers have deleted days, weeks or months before a crime is brought to an agency's attention.
Simply put, because of businesses' changing practices investigations are failing.
For example, in a current major child exploitation investigation, the AFP has been unable to identify 156 out of 463 potential suspects, because certain internet service providers do not retain the necessary IP address allocation records to enable the resolution of the IP address to the particular account number the person in question was using. These records are critical to link criminal activity online back to a real world suspect.
These impacts are not limited to law enforcement agencies in Australia. During a recent Europol child exploitation investigation, child exploitation investigations relied heavily on access to telecommunications data as perpetrators primarily shared information online, meaning that physical evidence was rarely available. Three hundred and seventy-one suspects were believed to be in the United Kingdom. Using retained telecommunications data, UK authorities were able to positively identify 240 suspects, leading to 121 arrests and convictions. In contrast, of the 377 suspects believed to be in Germany, which does not have a data retention regime in force, German authorities were only able to identify seven and were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to arrest or convict a single person.
I can also give a clear example of how a simple business decision can undermine the national interest. In 2013, a major Australian ISP reduced the period for which it keeps IP address allocation records from many years to three months. In the 12 months prior to that decision, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) obtained these records in relation to at least 10 national security investigations, including counter-terrorism and cybersecurity investigations. If those investigations took place today, vital intelligence and evidence would simply not exist.
No responsible government can sit by while those who protect our community lose access to the tools they need to do the job. In the current threat environment in particular, we cannot let this problem get worse.
Data retention
As such, this Bill will allow regulations to prescribe a consistent, minimum set of records that service providers who provide services in Australia must keep for two years.
A two-year retention period is based on the advice of our law enforcement and security agencies, as well as the experience of a number of foreign jurisdictions. While many cases are solved within a few months, investigations into serious and complex crimes and threats to security often span many years, requiring access to older records.
The Government recognises that data retention raises genuine concerns about privacy. We are committed to addressing those concerns.
The dataset that has been endorsed by the PJCIS, and inserted into the bill as recommended by that Committee, is strictly limited. For example:
1. service providers will not be required to retain the content or substance of any communication, including subject lines of emails or posts on social media sites
2. the Act will expressly exclude a person's web-browsing history, and
3. providers will not be required to keep detailed location records that could allow a person's movements to be tracked, akin to a surveillance device.
There has also been a great deal of conjecture about how much data retention may cost. I can advise the Senate that the cost, both up front and ongoing, of data retention in its first ten years will average out to $73 million per year. This is a remarkably small impost on an industry that generates over $42 billion in revenue each year. It is in fact well under 0.1% of the industry's revenue.
That low cost must be measured against the immeasurable benefit to the victims of crime who will be much better protected by our agencies than without data retention.
As has been previously stated, the government is committed to ongoing, good faith consultation with industry and will make a substantial contribution to the cost of implementing the scheme. In terms of the ongoing costs, it is important to recognise that providers will be able to recover from law enforcement and security agencies the financial cost incurred in providing requested data. Those ongoing costs will be recoverable on a no-profit/no-loss basis. These cost recovery arrangements already apply to agency requests for telecommunications data collected by industry for its own purposes. This practice will not change.
I can say that, to date, our consultation with industry has been very productive. For example, based on industry advice, the Bill allows individual service providers to develop an implementation plan that provides a pathway to compliance over up to 18 months. These plans will allow industry and government to prioritise the retention of data that is most critical to investigations, while allowing service providers to significantly reduce their implementation costs by aligning any systems changes with their internal business cycles.
The PJCIS Report into the Bill
I draw to the Senate's attention the concluding remarks of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its inquiry into this Bill:
Through the process of this inquiry, the Committee has considered the current utility of telecommunications data to law enforcement and national security investigations. The Committee has noted the inconsistency and degradation of current retained telecommunications data, possible future reductions in retained data and the serious impact this may have on national security and public safety.
Accordingly, the Committee considered carefully the rationale for a mandatory data retention scheme, and has concluded that such a regime is justified as a necessary, effective and proportionate response. The Committee therefore supports the intention of the Bill.
The Committee's support is subject to thirty-eight recommendations. Twenty-six of these recommendations relate to amendments to the Bill or Explanatory Memorandum.
A further eleven recommendations relate to additional administrative measures (including additional resourcing for the Committee and Commonwealth Ombudsman), reviews, and further reform (including telecommunications sector security reform and data breach notification).
The PJCIS also recommended that the proposed two-year retention period be maintained.
The Government supports all of the recommendations to amend the Bill and so moved amendments to implement them. The other place has passed the Bill with those amendments.
Access arrangements
This Bill does not provide agencies with new powers to access communications data; the Bill simply ensures that data will continue to be available to agencies as a part of legitimate investigations, subject to strict limits that currently apply and additional safeguards.
In fact, the Bill will significantly reduce the range of enforcement agencies permitted to access telecommunications metadata without a warrant.
The Bill will allow what we might call 'traditional' law enforcement agencies, such as the police, Customs, crime commissions and anticorruption bodies, to access this information.
The Bill will also grant the Attorney-General the power to temporarily declare, via legislative instrument subject to parliamentary oversight, additional agencies. Before making such a declaration, the Attorney-General of the day will be required to consider a range of strict criteria, including whether the agency is subject to a binding privacy scheme. Any permanent additions to the list of agencies with these powers will require an Act of Parliament.
Safeguards
The Bill will introduce a range of new and enhanced safeguards. In particular, it:
The Government has also committed to reforms to strengthen the security and integrity of Australia's telecommunication infrastructure by establishing a security framework for the telecommunications sector. This will provide better protection for information held by industry in accordance with the data retention scheme.
Concluding remarks
This Bill is critical to prevent the capabilities of Australia's law enforcement and national security agencies being further degraded. It does not expand the range of telecommunications metadata which is currently being accessed by law enforcement agencies. It simply ensures that metadata is retained for a period of two years.
More broadly, this Bill demonstrates the Government's commitment to ensuring that access to sensitive and personal information by these agencies is strictly controlled through robust accountability processes.
… governed by someone else's sovereign legislative system.
… metadata is extraordinarily intrusive. As an analyst, I'd prefer to be looking at metadata rather than content because it's quicker and it's easier and it doesn't lie.
If you have enough metadata, you don't really need content.
We kill people based on metadata …
We Believe:
In the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative
Leaving aside the central issue of the right to privacy, there are formidable practical objections. The carriers, including Telstra, have argued that the cost of complying with the new data retention regime would be very considerable with the consequence of higher charges for their customers.
They propose that the bill be withdrawn, amended and released as exposure draft legislation for public consultation.
Any system with the capacity to go after confidential sources has a chilling effect on journalism because it targets whistleblowers who seek to expose wrongdoing, illegality, dishonesty, fraud, waste and corruption. If you are going after sources, then you are going after journalism.
If [you were] that way inclined as a hacker, you would go for that system because it would give you the pot of gold, as opposed to working your way through our multitude of systems today to try and extract some data.
We note that the Government has variously indicated it will make a "reasonable" or "substantial" contribution to these costs—
which might exceed $300 million—
according to estimates provided by the consultants commissioned by the Government.
Our request to you is, we believe, relatively simple and reasonable.
It is that the Government provide to industry, the Parliament and the wider community a degree of certainty as to the size of the Government's planned contribution—
At the end of the motion, add :
and, noting concerns about a lack of clarification from the Government about costs associated with this bill as strongly addressed in a letter to the Government signed by the chief executives of Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, iiNet and a number of other major telecommunications companies, further consideration of the bill should be made an order of the day for the day after the Government tables its response to the industry's concerns on cost.
There is no apparent public policy basis for recognising the need to safeguard confidential journalists' sources, while not also protecting confidential and privileged information between lawyers and their clients.
… what would happen if a whistle-blower seeks legal advice prior to, or during communication with a journalist? Under the proposed amendments, the journalist's communication may be confidential, but what of the communications between a journalist or the journalist's source and the lawyer?
Data could allow inferences to be drawn from whether a lawyer has been contacted; the identity and location of the client, lawyer and witnesses; the number of communications and type of communications between a lawyer and a client, witnesses and the duration of these communications.
The great end of men's entering into society, being the enjoyment of their properties in peace and safety, and the great instrument and means of that being the laws established in that society …
Do we keep evolving this multi-billion dollar industry on-shore, or not?
The answer is, of course, unequivocally we can’t afford not to.
I support the Premier's view about this.
There are still some obscurantists in the Labor party …
Mike Baird's proposal for a partial privatisation is moderate, sensible and the right thing to do.
As a former federal minister for energy, as a former union official—and as a long-serving member of the Australian Labor Party—I am proud to stand here before you today to lend my strong support to the restructure and sale of the NSW and Queensland electricity grids.
There is no fat on the bone for us to cut without cutting frontline services, and that's where the impact is really going to hit.
I'm scared that there's going to be one type of justice for people who live in metropolitan Sydney and another type of justice for people who live in remote communities and remote NSW.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Assistant Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Singh and O’Neill today relating to funding for foreign aid and disability education.
… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school ...
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to a financial transactions tax.
The European Commission have advocated for a 0.1 per cent tax on the transfer of shares, bonds and financial instruments, and a 0.001 percent tax on derivatives. A European Union-wide special financial transactions tax is set to be introduced on January 1, 2016. Both Italy and France are using revenue from the tax to pay down national debt.
The idea to introduce FTTs goes back to John Maynard Keynes in 1936. Writing during the Great Depression, Keynes proposed a securities transaction tax to reduce destabilising speculation in equity markets. The idea received renewed interest when economist James Tobin suggested in 1972 introducing a tax on international foreign exchange transactions. Tobin saw the tax acting like soft capital controls by throwing 'grains of sand in the wheels of the market' thereby enhancing the policy space for national fiscal and monetary policy.
In August 2009, Lord Turner, chair of the UK Financial Services Authority, canvassed the possibility of imposing a FTT on all financial transactions to promote an efficient financial sector, particularly more stable financial markets.
A general FTT has come to be seen as a way of reducing financial market volatility and excessive speculation in these markets as a safeguard against future financial crises.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the dearth on 23 March 2015 of Lee Kuan Yew, GCMG, CH, former Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore, places on record its acknowledgement of his role in the development of modern Singapore and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
That, in accordance with Section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the Senate approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the Senate on 24 March 2015 namely: Parliament House Security Upgrade Works – Perimeter Security Enhancements.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 August 2015:
The regulation of the fin fish aquaculture industry in Tasmania, with particular regard to:
(a) the adequacy and availability of data on waterway health;
(b) the impact on waterway health, including to threatened and endangered species;
(c) the adequacy of current environmental planning and regulatory mechanisms;
(d) the interaction of state and federal laws and regulation; and
(e) any other relevant matters.
(1) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report:
The proposed China Australia Free Trade Agreement, with particular reference to the impact of the agreement on Australia’s:
(a) economy and trade;
(b) domestic labour market testing obligations and laws regarding wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders;
(c) investment; and
(d) social, cultural and environmental policies.
(2) That, in conducting the inquiry, the committee shall review the agreement to ensure it is in Australia’s national interest, and have regard to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the proposed agreement.
(3) That the committee report within one month of the tabling of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the proposed agreement.
That the Senate notes:
(a) the important economic and social contributions to Australia's regional and rural communities made by small and medium family owned primary production enterprises; and
(b) the contribution this cohort of the sector makes to providing employment opportunities within rural and regional Australia.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Thursday, 14 May 2015, from 10.30 am;
(b) Thursday, 18 June 2015, from 10.30 am, followed by a public meeting; and
(c) Thursday, 25 June 2015, from 10.30 am, followed by a public meeting.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) followed by public meetings, during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Monday, 15 June 2015; and
(b) Monday, 22 June 2015.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 24 March 2015 is World Tuberculosis Day,
(ii) World Tuberculosis Day is an annual event that marks the anniversary of German Nobel Laureate, Dr Robert Koch's 1882 discovery of the bacterium that causes tuberculosis (TB),
(iii) TB is contagious and airborne,
(iv) TB ranks as the world's second leading cause of death from a single infectious agent – people ill with TB disease can infect up to 10 to 15 people every year,
(v) the theme for World Tuberculosis Day in 2015 is 'Reach, Treat, Cure Everyone',
(vi) in 2013, 1.5 million people died from TB worldwide with 40 per cent of deaths occurring in countries in the Indo Pacific region,
(vii) TB is a disease linked to poverty and failing health systems, and an important health security threat in our region,
(viii) Papua New Guinea (PNG) has the highest rate of TB infection in the Pacific, with an estimated 39 000 total cases and 25 000 infections each year,
(ix) cases of multi drug resistant TB continue to increase worldwide, rising from 450 000 cases in 2012 to 480 000 cases in 2013, and in Port Moresby, the capital of PNG, almost 5 per cent of new TB diagnosis and 25 per cent of relapse cases are multi-drug resistant,
(x) TB is the leading cause of death among HIV positive people, given that HIV weakens the immune system and in combination with TB is lethal, each contributing to the other's progress, and
(xi) TB is considered to be a preventable and treatable disease, however current treatment tools, drugs, diagnostics and vaccines are outdated and ineffective; and
(b) recognises:
(i) Australia's resolve to continue to work towards combatting the challenge of TB in the region by working with partner countries to build strong and sustainable health systems, and by supporting the discovery, development and rapid uptake of new tools, interventions and strategies as recognized in the World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy,
(ii) That the WHO End TB Strategy was endorsed by all member states at the 2014 World Health Assembly and aims to end the TB epidemic by 2035,
(iii) That the Australian Government funding of health and medical research is helping to bring new medicines, diagnostic tests and vaccines to market for TB and other neglected diseases,
(iv) That the development of new, simple and affordable treatment tools for TB and multi drug resistant TB is essential if the End TB Strategy goal to diagnose and treat all multi drug resistant TB patients is to be met, and
(v) the importance of building robust and sustainable health systems which ensure that new treatments and medical technologies reach patients, particularly those in greatest need.
(1) That the following matters be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2015:
The impact of Australia’s temporary work visa programs on the Australian labour market and on the temporary work visa holders, with particular reference to:
(a) the wages, conditions, safety and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders, including:
(i) whether the programs ‘carve out’ groups of employees from Australian labour and safety laws and, if so, to what extent this threatens the integrity of such laws,
(ii) the employment opportunities for Australians, including:
(A) the effectiveness of the labour market testing provisions (the provisions) of the Migration Act 1958 in protecting employment opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents, and
(B) whether the provisions need to be strengthened to improve the protection of employment opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents and, if so, how this could be achieved,
(iii) the adequacy of publicly available information about the operation of the provisions, and
(iv) the nature of current exemptions from the provisions and what effect these exemptions have on the reach and coverage of labour market testing obligations and laws regarding wages, conditions and entitlements of Australian workers and temporary work visa holders;
(b) the impact of Australia’s temporary work visa programs on training and skills development in Australia, including:
(i) the adequacy of current obligations on 457 visa sponsoring employers to provide training opportunities for Australian citizens and permanent residents,
(ii) how these obligations could be strengthened and improved, and
(iii) the effect on the skills base of the permanent Australian workforce;
(c) whether temporary work visa holders receive the same wages, conditions, safety and other entitlements as their Australian counterparts or in accordance with the law, including:
(i) the extent of any exploitation and mistreatment of temporary work visa holders, such as sham contracting or debt bondage with exorbitant interest rate payments,
(ii) the role of recruitment agents, and
(iii) the adequacy of information provided to temporary work visa holders on their rights and obligations in their workplace and community, and how it can be improved;
(d) whether temporary work visa holders have access to the same benefits and entitlements available to Australian citizens and permanent residents, and whether any differences are justified and consistent with international conventions relating to migrant workers;
(e) the adequacy of the monitoring and enforcement of the temporary work visa programs and their integrity, including:
(i) the wages, conditions and entitlements of temporary work visa holders, and
(ii) cases of 457 visa fraud, such as workers performing duties outside or below the job classification of the visa;
(f) the role and effect of English language requirements in limited and temporary work visa programs;
(g) whether the provisions and concessions made for designated area migration agreements, enterprise migration agreements, and labour agreements affect the integrity of the 457 visa program, or affect any other matter covered in these terms of reference;
(h) the relationship between the temporary 457 visa and other temporary visa types with work rights attached to them; and
(i) any related matter.
(2) That in conducting the inquiry, the committee shall review the findings and recommendations of previous inquiries into such matters, including the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee’s report, Framework and operation of subclass 457 visas, Enterprise Migration Agreements and Regional Migration Agreements.
The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes That the Abbott Government has allocated $14.6 million in public funding to advertise its failed higher education changes; and
(b) calls on the Abbott Government to:
(i) direct the Federal Liberal Party to return the $14.6 million of public money allocated to its higher education advertising campaign, and
(ii) shut down its publicly funded highered.gov.au site, which was designed to advertise the failed changes.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the commitment made by the current Minister for Education and Training (Mr Pyne) in the 2013 federal election to introduce a needs based disability loading under the Gonski school funding reforms by 2015;
(b) recognises that more than 100 000 students with a disability do not receive any funded support at school; and
(c) calls on the Government to keep its election promise to properly resource disability education, and include necessary funding for a needs based disability loading in the upcoming federal budget.
That, on Tuesday, 24 March 2015:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm, and 7 pm to 10.40 pm;
(b) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;
(c) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable valedictory statements to be made relating to Senator Lundy;
(d) the routine of business from not later than 7 pm shall be:
(i) the government business order of the day relating to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014, and
(ii) other government business orders of the day; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes That the Healthy Welfare Card is a paternalistic approach to social security, and that income management has not resulted in any significant improvements for the communities that it has been trialled in;
(b) condemns the Government for spending money on another unproven program, while cutting millions of dollars from much needed social services; and
(c) calls on the Government to abandon the healthy welfare card proposal, and instead to work directly with affected communities to develop cooperative programs that address local need.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That consideration of the report be made a Business of the Senate order of the day for the next day of sitting.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee Report:
The Role of Public Transport in Delivering Productivity Outcomes
March 2015
Government Response
Role of Public Transport in Delivering Productivity Outcomes
Report of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
The Australian Government welcomes the Committee's report and its continued focus on the productivity of Australia's transport systems.
The Australian Government supports investment in productivity-enhancing infrastructure. The Government's infrastructure reform agenda, such as reforms to Infrastructure Australia and the Government's ongoing commitment to improve the robustness and consistency of Benefit Cost Analysis in project appraisals, is directly designed at better identifying and selecting the infrastructure projects that best enhance national productivity.
Efficient and productive transport infrastructure services are important for both sustained economic growth and for delivering continued improvements to our quality of life. With all levels of government in Australia facing substantial fiscal constraints, governments will need to work collaboratively to deliver the infrastructure that Australia needs.
The Australian Government has committed to delivering over $50 billion of funding toward major productivity-enhancing infrastructure projects, designed to support more than $125 billion in new and upgraded infrastructure. In turn, this contribution is freeing up state and territory governments to invest in state and local priorities.
The Government's infrastructure policy settings are designed to enable all levels of government to focus on, and deliver, their core responsibilities in infrastructure investment. This is supported by the Asset Recycling Initiative, which provides incentives for jurisdictions to transfer mature infrastructure assets to the private sector and invest in productivity enhancing projects that address their local infrastructures priorities—including public transport.
The Australian Government also plays a leading role in the coordination of integrated national approaches to transport and infrastructure planning, through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) and the Transport Infrastructure Council. This includes driving national reforms to the way infrastructure projects are planned, assessed and selected.
The Government's independent advisory body, Infrastructure Australia, is considering nationally significant infrastructure priorities across of all types of economic infrastructure, as part of the national Infrastructure Audit and the development of a 15-year Infrastructure Plan. This long-term approach will ensure that the necessary infrastructure is delivered at the right time, without placing undue financial pressure on future generations.
Getting the planning, selection and investment in transport infrastructure right is crucial for Australia's future productivity, both in our major cities and across our regional areas. The Australian Government is committed to working with jurisdictions to collectively deliver the infrastructure that Australia needs.
Response to recommendations
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.
The Australian Government considers nationally significant transport infrastructure to include all major infrastructure assets in which investment would help materially improve national productivity. The Government recognises that public transport infrastructure forms an important element in supporting Australia's economic activity and productivity, particularly within Australia's major urban centres.
Infrastructure Australia, the Government's independent advisory body on infrastructure, is expected to consider infrastructure it deems to be nationally significant transport infrastructure as part of:
In particular, the significance of public transport infrastructure is expected to be acknowledged in Infrastructure Australia's soon to be released audit of nationally significant infrastructure. It is anticipated that the audit, which measures the capacity, utilisation and economic contribution of Australia's nationally significant infrastructure, will detail the important contribution that public transport infrastructure makes in the national context.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.
The Government considers Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) to be the most appropriate tool for determining the merits of infrastructure projects. The Commonwealth expects that all land transport infrastructure projects seeking Commonwealth funding are subject to a CBA. Appropriate consideration of wider economic costs and benefits during the assessment of project proposals can complement the CBAs by providing a richer understanding of the project's impacts.
The National Guidelines for Transport System Management (NGTSM) provide a comprehensive framework for strategic-level transport planning and analytical approaches to transport assessment. The current edition of the NGTSM, released in 2006, is under review. Once updated, it is anticipated that Infrastructure Australia will consider the methodologies recommended in the NGTSM as part of its method for evaluating infrastructure projects.
As part of the Government's Response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry into Public Infrastructure , the Government agreed to the development and publication of a national best practice framework for evaluating projects. The framework will update the methodology for using CBA to assess infrastructure projects, as well as provide guidance on how best to incorporate wider economic impacts in project assessments.
In November 2014, the Government released an Overview of Project Appraisal for Land Transport which explored these issues. ThisOverview is informing ongoing work to update project assessment methodologies within the NGTSM, including the consideration of the consistent application of CBA and wider economic impacts. Initial draft sections of the updated NGTSM were released for public comment between December 2014 and February 2015, including discussion papers on how wider economic benefits should be measured and considered within the assessment of transport infrastructure projects. The review is currently considering the outcomes of this consultation.
The Overview of Project Appraisal for Land Transport is available on the website of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development at: <http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2014/overview-project-appraisal.aspx >.
Further information about the review of the NGSTM is available on the review website at < http://ngtsmguidelines.com/about/ >.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation, noting that it is also a matter for state, territory and local government.
The Australian Government agrees that reducing congestion on our transport networks will be a key factor in increasing national productivity into the future.
The Australian Government's $50 billion investment in land transport infrastructure will deliver major road and freight rail projects that are necessary for improving the productivity of Australia's transport network. These include upgrades to major freight routes and improved access to ports, airports and intermodal facilities, reducing congestion at key transport bottlenecks.
This approach is also freeing up state and territory governments to invest in infrastructure where they have particular expertise and responsibility, such as public transport. Since late 2013, state and territory governments have committed to a record more than $36 billion in new infrastructure projects. This includes commitments such as:
The Australian Government's investment is also addressing upgrades to major shared use road corridors, including supporting more efficient bus movements. In 2013, buses accounted for over 690 million passenger journeys in Australia's capital cities. This was more than heavy rail (around 660 million journeys)1.
The Government is also supporting jurisdictions' effort to reduce major city congestion through the Asset Recycling Initiative, which rewards jurisdictions for unlocking capital from mature assets and reinvesting in state infrastructure priorities which return net positive benefits. For example, on 19 February 2015 the Government signed the first bilateral agreement under this initiative with the ACT Government, under which the ACT Government will sell mature assets to help deliver the ACT Capital Metro project.
Collectively, investment at all levels of government is providing additional transport capacity, across modes, which is reducing congestion and its impact on productivity.
The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.
The Australian Government agrees that proposed solutions to congestion and other transport problems should be considered with regard to alternative options.
Proposals for funding under the Infrastructure Investment (National Land Transport) Programme are expected to consider:
As outlined in the Australian Government's response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into public infrastructure , the Australian Government expects that all land transport infrastructure projects seeking Commonwealth funding are subject to cost benefit analysis. In addition, all infrastructure projects seeking $100 million or more in Commonwealth funding are required to provide a proposal to Infrastructure Australia for evaluation, including a cost benefit analysis. Infrastructure Australia will publish summaries of all proposals evaluated on its website at least quarterly.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.
The Australian Government supports investment in projects that more efficiently address identified infrastructure priorities. To this end, the Government has put in place more robust project assessment and selection mechanisms, designed to ensure that Commonwealth-funded infrastructure projects have undergone appropriate planning works, including, where appropriate, options analyses.
In particular, and as already indicated, the Australian Government requires all major economic infrastructure projects seeking $100 million or more in Commonwealth funding to be reviewed by Infrastructure Australia, including consideration of the proposal's CBA. Infrastructure Australia is required to publish summaries of all evaluated proposals on its website.
In addition, as part of the Government's Response to the Productivity Commission's Inquiry into Public Infrastructure , the Government agreed to give preference for funding under its major economic infrastructure funding programmes to projects that, amongst other things:
In addition, the Government funds a number of programmes that support maintenance and other minor works to ensure the ongoing safe and efficient use of existing road infrastructure.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
All levels of government in Australia are facing fiscal constraints that impede investment in infrastructure. To this end, it is imperative that governments work together to achieve Australia's infrastructure priorities.
The Australian Government's infrastructure policy is designed to support all levels of government in focusing on their core infrastructure responsibilities. This involves targeting Commonwealth funding towards national priorities, allowing state and territory governments to focus on delivering state and local priorities.
To this end, the Australian Government's $50 billion investment in transport infrastructure is targeting the interstate road and rail freight networks and those urban corridors which will support the delivery of national objectives including improved economic and productivity growth. This includes reintroducing, where appropriate, an 80:20 funding split for new projects on the national network outside major metropolitan centres, reflecting the importance of these links to the national economy.
In delivering its significant investment in interstate and export freight networks, the Australian Government works closely with state and territory governments to identify the best solution to meet the identified infrastructure needs. This includes consideration of road and rail options, determined on a case by case basis, with due consideration of the costs and benefits of each option.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation, noting that the state, territory and local governments have primary responsibility for implementation of urban policy.
The Australian Government works with state and territory governments, through COAG and its supporting bodies, to implement agreed reforms and to drive best practice across infrastructure planning, procurement and delivery. Governments are working together to develop coordinated approaches to infrastructure planning, including the protection of transport corridors for future infrastructure requirements. This work will also be informed by Infrastructure Australia's national infrastructure audit and 15-year infrastructure plan.
In its recent response to the Productivity Commission's inquiry into public infrastructure , the Australian Government outlined its plans to encourage state and territory governments to undertake early planning for major infrastructure projects. These included aligning future funding for planning activities under the Infrastructure Investment Programme with the priorities identified in IA's 15 year Infrastructure Plan.
The Australian Greens ' Additional Recommendations
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation, noting that it is also a matter for state, territory and local government.
The Government's response to this recommendation is incorporated within the response to Report Recommendation 3, above.
The Australian Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.
The Government's response to this recommendation is incorporated within the response to Report Recommendation 4, above.
The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.
The Government's response to this recommendation is partially incorporated within the response to Report Recommendation 5, above.
The Australian Government also supports modal choice for the travelling public and supports safe road environments for all road users, including cyclists and pedestrians. This is reflected in the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020, which aims to reduce serious road casualties by at least 30 per cent by 2020; and the National Cycling Strategy 2011–2016, which aims to double the number of people cycling by 2016.
The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.
Consistent with the Report Recommendations, the Australian Government supports a merit based approach to project assessment.
The Government recognises the need for adequate investment in infrastructure to support the economic growth and deliver improvements to Australian's quality of life. This includes efficient, functioning transport systems in our major urban centres. However, the Government also recognises the fiscal constraints facing all levels of government.
To this end, the Australian Government's policy is to target its transport infrastructure investment into projects that meet national priorities, including strengthening interstate freight connections and unlocking national productivity growth through improved national competitiveness.
In comparison, the state and territory governments are better placed to determine state and local infrastructure priorities. The Australian Government's approach has freed up state and territory funding towards such priorities, including improved connectivity within our major urban centres. For example, since late 2013 state and territory governments have announced over $36 billion in new and upgraded public transport projects.
In addition, the Australian Government is delivering the Asset Recycling Initiative. Under this $5 billion Initiative, the Government will provide incentive payments to states and territories that transfer government-owned assets to the private sector and invest the proceeds in infrastructure projects that deliver clear positive net benefits. This Initiative encourages state and territory governments to unlock capital in their balance sheet to fund local infrastructure priorities, including public transport.
1 2013 figures, as reported in the Bureau of Infrastructure and Regional Development's Long-Term Trends in Urban Public Transport Information Sheet, published September 2014.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Cameron to replace Senator Carr for the committee's inquiry into insolvency in the construction industry
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Lines to replace Senator Collins for the committee's inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition (Sunset Extension) Bill 2015
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2014
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment (Designated Coastal Waters) Bill 2014
Excess Exploration Credit Tax Bill 2014
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Direct Lending and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Corporations Legislation Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 7) Bill 2014
Broadcasting and Other Legislation Amendment (Deregulation) Bill 2015
Succession to the Crown Bill 2015
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
In September 1984, at 16 years of age, I found myself employed in an industry largely unexplored by women. No, I am not talking about the parliament; I am talking about the building and construction industry.
Information and how it is communicated are major determinants of power in our society …
By the year 2000 the information sector will be the world’s second largest industry.
… I am not yet convinced that we have sufficiently analysed and discussed the societal and community effects of this shift in our economic base.
…steered through the most significant changes to the Australian Government's funding of high performance sport since the Australian Institute of Sport was established in 1981.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
Mobile operators have long been loath to monetize that information for fear of running afoul of privacy regulations. But they are starting to soften their stance as their financial fortunes flounder and they regard their data as a potential source of income. In 2012, the large Spanish and international operators Telefonica went so far as to create a separate company, called Telefonica Digital Insights, to sell anonymous and aggregated subscriber-location data to retailers and others.
The Australian Parliament’s … must ensure our intelligence and security agencies have the necessary powers and resources to protect Australian citizens and Australian interests. However, these powers can impinge on the values and freedoms on which our democracy is founded … which Australian citizens rightly expect Parliament to protect.
So Parliament must strike a balance between our security imperatives and our liberties and freedoms.
Key to achieving this balance is strong and effective accountability.
We should be trying to develop for Australia, particularly for government and industry, the ability to manage national data on a national basis, with international hook-ups of course, but then it can be subject to national law, which can be privacy law and national security considerations.
Our ability to use metadata is just as important in eliminating people from suspicion as it is from incriminating them.
It is not acceptable for ASIO, the AFP, police forces and other agencies to be able to access the extensive metadata of citizens on their own internal authorisation. The bill allows them to do just this—albeit within some parameters. Legal experts and organisations, civil liberties, privacy and human rights groups among others, argued the need for a warrant system—a longstanding safeguard within our legal system. The intelligence and security agencies argued—successfully it seems—that any form of warrant system would impose too great a logistical and bureaucratic operational constraint.
It would seem the self-serve system is to continue and long standing safeguards to be sacrificed.
This is a mistake and will lead to misuse, abuse and overuse of this data. The post-hoc safeguards proposed will not be adequate to protect against these outcomes.
There must be an exceptionally powerful argument for introducing such draconian laws in a pluralist, democratic society such as our own.
Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. The rest is public relations.
The Senate divided. [20:43]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [20:46]
(The President—Senator Parry)
It is not difficult to envisage situations where client/lawyer telecommunications data would reveal a range of information that could compromise confidentiality and even legal professional privilege.
For example, what would happen if a whistle-blower seeks legal advice prior to, or during communication with a journalist? Under the proposed amendments, the journalist’s communication may be confidential, but what of the communications between a journalist or the journalist’s source and the lawyer?
Data could allow inferences to be drawn from whether a lawyer has been contacted; the identity and location of the client, lawyer and witnesses; the number of communications and type of communications between a lawyer and a client, witnesses and the duration of these communications …
The Law Council’s position is simple—lawyer communications deserve the same level of protection to that afforded to journalists …
The Committee recommends that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 be amended to provide that the Committee may inquire into any matter raised in the annual report prepared under proposed section 187P, including where this goes to a review of operational matters.
Legislative change to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 should be implemented to reflect this changed function.
The Committee further recommends that the Commonwealth Ombudsman and Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security provide notice to the Committee should either of them hold serious concerns about the purpose for, or the manner in which, retained data is being accessed.
The Government considers there is benefit in conferring an appropriate function on the Committee for the purposes of establishing a further oversight mechanism for the operation of the data retention scheme.
Consistent with the focus of the PJCIS on non-operational matters concerning security and intelligence, the new function would enable the PJCIS to inquire into the effectiveness of the operation of the data retention scheme, with respect to the purpose and manner of access by ASIO and AFP (to the extent those agencies are the subject of PJCIS oversight).
Constance has already met with Chinese power firm State Grid Corp late last year regarding the sale of the state's multi-billion electricity infrastructure.
… it could take more than 100 years to complete essential building of homes, schools and health facilities in Gaza unless the Israeli blockade is lifted …
Less than 0.25 percent of the truckloads of essential construction materials needed have entered Gaza in the past three months. Six months since the end of the conflict, the situation in Gaza is becoming increasingly desperate. Oxfam is calling for an urgent end to the blockade of Gaza, which has now been in place for nearly eight years.
I meet Salma’s mother, Mirvat, and 14 members of her extended family in the very place, indeed the room, where Salma slept during her last night at home. They still live there in Beit Hanoun, northern Gaza, in a tiny three-room wooden structure, covered with plastic. When I see it from the road, I assume it houses animals. The door is a blanket which flaps in the biting wind. It is raining. Water flows in. Mirvat pulls back the sodden carpet that serves as flooring and scoops the wet sand below. Memories of Salma’s death on 9 January are painfully fresh.
“The night she died the storm was strong. We were all soaking wet, but some of us managed to sleep. The rain came and in and drenched Salma’s blankets. I found her shaking. Her tiny body was frozen like ice-cream. We took her to hospital, but later the doctor called. Salma was dead. My beautiful girl weighed 3.1kg at birth. She was healthy and would be alive today if we had not been bombed out of our home in the war and reduced to living like this.”
During the Gaza conflict last summer, Mirvat, her husband and four children lived in a complex of five simple buildings with their 40-member extended family, just one kilometre from the barrier between Gaza and Israel. Her father-in-law, Jibril, knew that life on the frontline was unsustainable.
“There was a smell of death in the air. The children were traumatised and couldn’t sleep,” he tells me. “After a week of fighting we fled as the bombs fell around us, terrified for our lives. We went to my brother’s house, but that became too dangerous, so we took refuge in a hospital. After an hour, that was hit, so we ran to the shelter of an UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency] school. There were thousands of us living in a school built for one thousand students. So after the war we came here.”
After the conference in Cairo last October at which donors pledged $5.4bn to rebuild Gaza, we created a $720m project. With the generous pledges at Cairo we were certain the funds would be there. Or so we thought. With this money, we aimed to give rental subsidies to people whose homes were uninhabitable. We hoped to give cash so people could repair and rebuild their houses. But the billions pledged did not materialise and the programme was left with a shortfall of nearly $600m.
The day after we announced suspension of the cash assistance, anger boiled over. The office in Gaza of the UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process was attacked. The threat of violence remains. You can feel it in the air, just like last summer.
As UN agencies and international NGOs operating in Gaza, we are alarmed by the limited progress in rebuilding the lives of those affected and tackling the root causes of the conflict.
Israel, as the occupying power, is the main duty bearer and must comply with its obligations under international law.
In particular, it must fully lift the blockade, within the framework of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 (2009).
Going back to the status quo ante won't solve the problem, it will only defer it for another day.
It will not stop the bloodshed, it will make it even worse the next time the cycle rolls over the people of Gaza and plagues the people of Israel.
Gaza is an open wound and Band Aids won't help.
There must be a plan after the aftermath that allows Gaza to breathe and heal.
For most people … a debt-free home is as important a part of retirement security as superannuation income.