The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
The Senate divided. [09:43]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
The committee divided. [09:55]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
It seems to me a warrant is a traditional way by which we say drastic powers ought to be exercised so as to breach what would be otherwise be ordinary personal privacy only when somebody outside the agency, usually a judge or a magistrate, is satisfied that sufficient cause is shown to justify that reversal of what we expect.
And if we don't have a warrant system, we don't have that independent umpire to check in the usual way of warrants, making a very formal record, which can be produced later in a court if there's litigation about it. If we don't have that, I fear that there will be an understandable suspicion, hostility, about the operation of agencies, which I stress, we need to be doing a good job.
(22) Schedule 1, item 1C, page 23 (line 26), omit "journalist information warrants", substitute "data authorisation warrants".
(23) Schedule 1, item 1C, page 23 (line 28), omit "journalist information warrants", substitute "data authorisation warrants".
(24) Schedule 1, item 5, page 28 (before line 32), before the definition of Defence Minister , insert:
data authorisation warrant means a warrant issued under Division 4C of Part 4‑1.
(26) Schedule 1, item 5, page 29 (lines 9 and 10), omit the definition of journalist information warrant .
(28) Schedule 1, item 6E, page 31 (lines 23 to 30), omit paragraph 176(5)(b), substitute:
(b) unless it is revoked earlier, ends at the time specified in the authorisation, which must be a time that is no later than the end of the period specified under section 180N as the period for which the warrant is to remain in force.
(29) Schedule 1, item 6F, page 32 (lines 7 to 13), omit paragraph 176(6)(b), substitute:
(b) either:
(i) the warrant is revoked under subsection 180N(1); or
(ii) the Director‑General of Security has informed the Minister under section 180P that the Director‑General is satisfied that the grounds on which the warrant was issued have ceased to exist.
(30) Schedule 1, item 6G, page 32 (lines 17 to 24), omit paragraph 180(6)(b), substitute:
(b) unless it is revoked earlier, ends at the time specified in the authorisation, which must be a time that the end of the period specified under subsection 180U(3) as the period for which the warrant is to remain in force.
(31) Schedule 1, item 6H, page 33 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph 180(7)(b), substitute:
(b) the warrant is revoked under subsection 180W(1).
(32) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 33 (line 23) to page 43 (line 28), omit the item, substitute:
6L After Division 4B of Part 4 ‑1
Insert:
Division 4C—Data authorisation warrant
Subdivision A—The requirement for data authorisation warrant
180G The Organisation
An eligible person (within the meaning of subsection 175(2) or 176(2), as the case requires) must not make an authorisation under Division 3 that would authorise the disclosure of information or documents relating to a particular person unless a data authorisation warrant is in force in relation to that particular person.
180H Enforcement agencies
(1) An authorised officer of an enforcement agency must not make an authorisation under section 178, 178A or 180 that would authorise the disclosure of information or documents relating to a particular person unless a data authorisation warrant is in force, in relation to that particular person, under which authorised officers of the agency may make authorisations under that section.
(2) An authorised officer of the Australian Federal Police must not make an authorisation under Division 4A that would authorise the disclosure of information or documents relating to a particular person unless a data authorisation warrant is in force, in relation to that particular person, under which authorised officers of the agency may make authorisations under that Division.
Subdivision B—Issuing data authorisation warrants to the Organisation
180J Requesting a data authorisation warrant
(1) The Director‑General of Security may request the Minister to issue a data authorisation warrant in relation to a particular person.
(2) The request must specify the facts and other grounds on which the Director‑General considers it necessary that the warrant be issued.
180K Further information
(1) The Minister may require the Director‑General of Security to give to the Minister, within the period specified in the requirement, further information in connection with a request under this Subdivision.
(2) If the Director‑General breaches the requirement, the Minister may:
(a) refuse to consider the request; or
(b) refuse to take any action, or any further action, in relation to the request.
180L Issuing a data authorisation warrant
(1) After considering a request under section 180J, the Minister must:
(a) issue a data authorisation warrant that authorises the making of authorisations under Division 3 in relation to the particular person to which the request relates; or
(b) refuse to issue a data authorisation warrant.
(2) The Minister must not issue a data authorisation warrant unless the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) the Organisation's functions would extend to the making of authorisations under Division 3 in relation to the particular person; and
(b) the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting privacy, having regard to:
(i) the extent to which the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by the disclosure of information or documents under authorisations that are likely to be made under the authority of the warrant; and
(ii) the gravity of the matter in relation to which the warrant is sought; and
(iii) the extent to which that information or those documents would be likely to assist in the performance of the Organisation's functions; and
(iv) whether reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information or documents by other means; and
(v) any submissions made by a Public Interest Advocate under section 180X; and
(vi) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.
(3) A data authorisation warrant issued under this section may specify conditions or restrictions relating to making authorisations under the authority of the warrant.
180M Issuing a data authorisation warrant in an emergency
(1) The Director‑General of Security may issue a data authorisation warrant in relation to a particular person if:
(a) a request under section 180J has been made for the issue of a data authorisation warrant in relation to the particular person; and
(b) the Minister has not, to the knowledge of the Director‑General, made a decision under section 180L in relation to the request; and
(c) within the preceding period of 3 months:
(i) the Minister has not refused to issue a data authorisation warrant in relation to the particular person; and
(ii) the Director‑General has not issued such a data authorisation warrant; and
(d) the Director‑General is satisfied that, security will be, or is likely to be, seriously prejudiced if the access to which the request relates does not begin before a data authorisation warrant can be issued and made available by the Minister; and
(e) either:
(i) the issuing of the warrant is authorised under subsection (3); or
(ii) the Director‑General is satisfied that none of the Ministers specified in subsection (4) is readily available or contactable.
(2) The Director‑General must not issue a data authorisation warrant unless the Director‑General is satisfied as to the matters set out in paragraphs 180L(2)(a) and (b).
Authorisation to issue a warrant under this section
(3) A Minister specified in subsection (4) may, if he or she is satisfied as to the matter set out in paragraphs 180L(2)(a) and (b), orally give an authorisation under this subsection for the Director‑General to issue the warrant under this section.
(4) The Ministers who may orally give an authorisation are:
(a) the Minister; or
(b) if the Director‑General is satisfied that the Minister is not readily available or contactable—any of the following Ministers:
(i) the Prime Minister;
(ii) the Defence Minister;
(iii) the Foreign Affairs Minister.
(5) The authorisation may specify conditions or restrictions relating to issuing the warrant.
(6) The Director‑General must ensure that a written record of an authorisation given under subsection (3) is made as soon as practicable (but no later than 48 hours) after the authorisation is given.
Duration of a warrant under this section
(7) A data authorisation warrant under this section must specify the period (not exceeding 48 hours) for which it is to remain in force. The Minister may revoke the warrant at any time before the end of the specified period.
Copies of warrant and other documents
(8) Immediately after issuing a data authorisation warrant under this section, the Director‑General must give the Minister:
(a) a copy of the warrant; and
(b) a statement of the grounds on which the warrant was issued; and
(c) either:
(i) a copy of the record made under subsection (6); or
(ii) if the Director‑General was satisfied as mentioned in subparagraph (1)(e)(ii)—a summary of the facts of the case justifying issuing the warrant.
(9) Within 3 business days after issuing a data authorisation warrant under this section, the Director‑General must give the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security:
(a) a copy of the warrant; and
(b) either:
(i) a copy of the record made under subsection (6); or
(ii) if the Director‑General was satisfied as mentioned in subparagraph (1)(e)(ii)—a summary of the facts of the case justifying issuing the warrant.
(10) Subsection (9) has effect despite subsection 185D(1).
180N Duration of a data authorisation warrant
A data authorisation warrant issued under section 180L must specify the period (not exceeding 6 months) for which it is to remain in force. The Minister may revoke the warrant at any time before the end of the specified period.
180P Discontinuance of authorisations before expiry of a data authorisation warrant
If, before a data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision ceases to be in force, the Director‑General of Security is satisfied that the grounds on which the warrant was issued have ceased to exist, he or she must:
(a) forthwith inform the Minister accordingly; and
(b) takes such steps as are necessary to ensure that the making of authorisations under the authority of the warrant is discontinued.
Subdivision C—Issuing data authorisation warrants to enforcement agencies
180Q Enforcement agency may apply for a data authorisation warrant
(1) An enforcement agency may apply to a Part 4‑1 issuing authority for a data authorisation warrant in relation to a particular person.
(2) The application must be made on the agency's behalf by:
(a) if the agency is referred to in subsection 39(2)—a person referred to in that subsection in relation to that agency; or
(b) otherwise:
(i) the chief officer of the agency; or
(ii) an officer of the agency (by whatever name called) who holds, or is acting in, an office or position in the agency nominated under subsection (3).
(3) The chief officer of the agency may, in writing, nominate for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(b)(ii) an office or position in the agency that is involved in the management of the agency.
(4) A nomination under subsection (3) is not a legislative instrument.
(5) The application may be made in writing or in any other form.
Note: The Electronic Transactions Act 1999 deals with giving information in writing by means of an electronic communication.
180R Further information
(1) The Part 4‑1 issuing authority may require:
(a) in any case—the chief officer of the agency; or
(b) if the application is made, on the agency's behalf, by a person other than the chief officer—that other person;
to give to the Part 4‑1 issuing authority, within the period and in the form specified in the requirement, further information in connection with the application.
(2) If the chief officer or other person breaches the requirement, the Part 4‑1 issuing authority may:
(a) refuse to consider the application; or
(b) refuse to take any action, or any further action, in relation to the application.
180S Oaths and affirmations
(1) Information given to the Part 4‑1 issuing authority in connection with the application must be verified on oath or affirmation.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the Part 4‑1 issuing authority may:
(a) administer an oath or affirmation; or
(b) authorise another person to administer an oath or affirmation.
The oath or affirmation may be administered in person, or by telephone, video call, video link or audio link.
180T Issuing a data authorisation warrant
(1) After considering an application under section 180Q, the Part 4‑1 issuing authority must:
(a) issue a data authorisation warrant that authorises the making of authorisations under one or more of sections 178, 178A and 180, or Division 4A, in relation to the particular person to which the application relates; or
(b) refuse to issue a data authorisation warrant.
(2) The Part 4‑1 issuing authority must not issue a data authorisation warrant unless the Part 4‑1 issuing authority is satisfied that:
(a) the warrant is reasonably necessary for whichever of the following purposes are applicable:
(i) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 178—for the enforcement of a serious contravention;
(ii) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 178A—finding a person who the Australian Federal Police, or a Police Force of a State, has been notified is missing;
(iii) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 180—the investigation of an offence of a kind referred to in subsection 180(4);
(iv) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under Division 4A—the investigation of a serious foreign contravention; and
(b) the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting privacy, having regard to:
(i) the extent to which the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by the disclosure of information or documents under authorisations that are likely to be made under the authority of the warrant; and
(ii) the gravity of the matter in relation to which the warrant is sought; and
(iii) the extent to which that information or those documents would be likely to assist in relation to that matter; and
(iv) whether reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information or documents by other means; and
(v) any submissions made by a Public Interest Advocate under section 180X; and
(vi) any other matters the Part 4‑1 issuing authority considers relevant.
180U Form and content of a data authorisation warrant
(1) A data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision must be in accordance with the prescribed form and must be signed by the Part 4‑1 issuing authority who issues it.
(2) A data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision may specify conditions or restrictions relating to making authorisations under the authority of the warrant.
(3) A data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision must specify, as the period for which it is to be in force, a period of up to 90 days.
(4) A Part 4‑1 issuing authority must not vary a data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision by extending the period for which it is to be in force.
(5) Neither of subsections (3) and (4) prevents the issue of a further warrant under this Act in relation to a person, in relation to which a warrant under this Act has, or warrants under this Act have, previously been issued.
180V Entry into force of a data authorisation warrant
A data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision comes into force when it is issued.
180W Revocation of a data authorisation warrant by chief officer
(1) The chief officer of an enforcement agency:
(a) may, at any time, by signed writing, revoke a data authorisation warrant issued under this Subdivision to the agency; and
(b) must do so, if he or she is satisfied that the grounds on which the warrant was issued to the agency have ceased to exist.
(2) The chief officer of an enforcement agency may delegate his or her power under paragraph (1)(a) to a certifying officer of the agency.
Subdivision D—Miscellaneous
180X Public Interest Advocates
(1) The Prime Minister shall declare, in writing, one or more persons to be Public Interest Advocates.
(2) A Public Interest Advocate may make submissions:
(a) to the Minister about matters relevant to:
(i) a decision to issue, or refuse to issue, a data authorisation warrant under section 180L; or
(ii) a decision about the conditions or restrictions (if any) that are to be specified in such a warrant; or
(b) to a Part 4‑1 issuing authority about matters relevant to:
(i) a decision to issue, or refuse to issue, the warrant under section 180T; or
(ii) a decision about the conditions or restrictions (if any) that are to be specified in such a warrant; or
(3) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the performance of the role of a Public Interest Advocate.
(4) A declaration under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
(33) Schedule 1, item 6V, page 46 (line 11) to page 47 (line 29), omit the item, substitute:
6V At the end of Division 6 of Part 4 ‑1
Add:
182A Disclosure/use offences: data authorisation warrants
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses information; and
(b) the information is about any of the following:
(i) whether a data authorisation warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section 178A) has been, or is being, requested or applied for;
(ii) the making of such a warrant;
(iii) the existence or non‑existence of such a warrant;
(iv) the revocation of such a warrant.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses a document; and
(b) the document consists (wholly or partly) of any of the following:
(i) a data authorisation warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section 178A);
(ii) the revocation of such a warrant.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
182B Permitted disclosure or use: data authorisation warrants
Paragraphs 182A(1)(a) and (2)(a) do not apply to a disclosure or use of information or a document if:
(a) the disclosure or use is for the purposes of the warrant, revocation or notification concerned; or
(b) the disclosure or use is reasonably necessary:
(i) to enable the making of submissions under section 180X; or
(ii) to enable a person to comply with his or her obligations under section 185D or 185E; or
(iii) to enable the Organisation to perform its functions; or
(iv) to enforce the criminal law; or
(v) to enforce a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(vi) to protect the public revenue; or
(c) in the case of a disclosure—the disclosure is:
(i) to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 ; or
(ii) by an IGIS official in connection with the IGIS official exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under that Act; or
(d) in the case of a use—the use is by an IGIS official in connection with the IGIS official exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 .
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this section (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(34) Schedule 1, item 6X, page 48 (line 1) to page 49 (line 36), omit section 185D, substitute:
185D Notification etc. of authorisations
The Organisation
(1) If:
(a) a data authorisation warrant is issued under Subdivision B of Division 4C of Part 4‑1; and
(b) the warrant relates to a person who:
(i) is a journalist; or
(ii) is an employer of a journalist;
then:
(b) the Director‑General of Security must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the warrant to the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security; and
(c) the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to be notified of the issuing of the warrant.
(2) If an authorisation under Division 3 of Part 4‑1 is made under the authority of the warrant, the Director‑General of Security must, as soon as practicable after the expiry of the warrant, give a copy of the authorisation to the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security.
(3) If:
(a) the Inspector‑General gives to the Minister a report under section 22 or 25A of the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 ; and
(b) the report relates (wholly or partly) to one or both of the following:
(i) a data authorisation warrant issued to the Organisation in relation to a person who is a journalist, or an employer of a journalist;
(ii) one or more authorisations referred to in subsection (2) of this section;
the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause a copy of the report to be given to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
(4) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing from the Inspector‑General on:
(a) a data authorisation warrant; or
(b) an authorisation or authorisations;
to which a report referred to in paragraph (3)(b) of this section relates.
Enforcement agencies
(5) If:
(a) a data authorisation warrant is issued to an enforcement agency; and
(b) the warrant relates to a person who:
(i) is a journalist; or
(ii) is an employer of a journalist;
then:
(a) if the agency was the Australian Federal Police:
(i) the Commissioner of Police must, as soon as practicable, give copies of the warrant to the Minister and the Ombudsman; and
(ii) the Minister must, as soon as practicable after receiving a copy, cause the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to be notified of the issuing of the warrant; and
(b) otherwise—the chief officer of the agency must, as soon as practicable, give a copy of the warrant to the Ombudsman.
(6) If an authorisation under Division 4 of Part 4‑1 is made under the authority of the warrant, the chief officer of the agency must, as soon as practicable after the expiry of the warrant, give a copy of the authorisation to the Ombudsman.
(7) If:
(a) the Ombudsman gives to the Minister a report under section 186J of this Act; and
(b) the report relates (wholly or partly) to one or both of the following:
(i) a data authorisation warrant issued to the Australian Federal Police in relation to a person who is a journalist, or an employer of a journalist;
(ii) one or more authorisations, referred to in subsection (6) of this section, that were made by one or more authorised officers of the Australian Federal Police;
the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause a copy of the report to be given to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
(8) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may request a briefing from the Ombudsman on:
(a) a data authorisation warrant; or
(b) an authorisation or authorisations;
to which a report referred to in paragraph (7)(b) of this section relates.
(35) Schedule 1, item 6Y, page 51 (lines 16 to 21), omit paragraphs 186(1)(i) and (j), substitute:
The committee divided. [10:45]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Bernardi)
(12) Schedule 1, item 5, page 28 (before line 32), before the definition of Defence Minister , insert:
content , in relation to a communication, includes the following:
(a) any speech, music or other sound that forms part of a telephone conversation;
(b) the body of an email;
(c) a short text message sent from one telecommunications device to another;
(d) a website address;
(e) any other user‑generated content.
content , in relation to a communication, includes the following:
(a) any speech, music or other sound that forms part of a telephone conversation;
(b) the body of an email;
(c) a short text message sent from one telecommunications device to another;
(d) a website address;
(e) any other user-generated content.
The Committee accepts the evidence provided by industry representatives that content can be reliably separated from data for the purpose of data retention. The Committee notes that, currently, service providers are required by law to separate content from data when complying with historic and prospective data authorisations made under Chapter 4 of the TIA Act.
(25) Schedule 1, item 5, page 29 (after line 8), after the definition of infrastructure, insert:
journalist means a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by a source in the expectation that the information may be disseminated in the form of:
(a) news, current affairs or a documentary; or
(b) commentary, observations or opinion on, or analysis of, news, current affairs or a documentary.
(27) Schedule 1, item 5, page 29 (lines 26 to 29) omit paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of source , substitute:
(a) to another journalist; and
(b) in the normal course of the other person's work as a journalist.
… journalist means a person who is engaged and active in the publication of news and who may be given information by an informant in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium.
news medium means any medium for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observations on news.
(1) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 34 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraph 180G(1)(b), substitute:
(b) a purpose, effect or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify another person whom the eligible person knows or reasonably believes may be a source;
(2) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 34 (lines 26 to 28), omit paragraph 180H(1)(b), substitute:
(b) a purpose, effect or likely effect of making the authorisation would be to identify another person whom the authorised officer knows or reasonably believes may be a source;
(3) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 35 (after line 28), at the end of section 180K, add:
Note: If further information is required, a Public Interest Advocate must be notified, see section 180X.
(7) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 40 (after line 23), at the end of section 180R, add:
Note: If further information is required, a Public Interest Advocate must be notified, see section 180X.
(1) The Minister may require the Director-General of Security to give 20 to the Minister, within the period specified in the requirement, 21 further information in connection with a request under this 22 Subdivision. 23
(2) If the Director-General breaches the requirement, the Minister 24 may: 25
(a) refuse to consider the request; or 26
(b) refuse to take any action, or any further action, in relation to 27 the request.
(4) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 36 (lines 5 to 28), omit subsection 180L(2), substitute:
(2) The Minister must not issue a journalist information warrant unless:
(a) the Minister has given the Public Interest Advocate reasonable notice of the request for the warrant in accordance with section 180X; and
(b) the Minister has:
(i) given the person to whom the warrant request relates reasonable notice, in writing, of the request for the warrant; and
(ii) invited the person to make a submission on the request; and
(c) the Minister is satisfied that:
(i) the Organisation's functions would extend to the making of authorisations under Division 3 in relation to the particular person; and
(ii) the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the source in connection with whom authorisations would be made under the authority of the warrant, having regard to the matters in subsection (2B).
(2A) In making his or her decision to issue or refuse a journalist information warrant, the Minister must give greatest weight to the matter mentioned in paragraph (2B)(a).
(2B) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(ii), the matters are the following:
(a) the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by a free media, and, accordingly in the ability of the media to access sources of facts on the basis that confidentiality of the identity of the source will be protected;
(b) the extent to which the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by the disclosure of information or documents under authorisations that are likely to be made under the authority of the warrant;
(c) the gravity of the matter in relation to which the warrant is sought;
(d) the extent to which that information or those documents would be likely to assist in the performance of the Organisation's functions;
(e) whether reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information or documents by other means;
(f) any submissions made by a Public Interest Advocate under section 180X;
(g) any submissions made by the person to whom the warrant request relates;
(h) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.
(5) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 37 (line 26), omit "paragraphs 180L(2)(a) and (b)", substitute "subparagraphs 180L(2)(c)(i) and (ii)".
(6) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 37 (line 29), omit "paragraphs 180L(2)(a) and (b)", substitute "subparagraphs 180L(2)(c)(i) and (ii)".
(8) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 41 (line 9) to page 42 (line 10), omit subsection 180T(2), substitute:
(2) The Part 4‑1 issuing authority must not issue a journalist information warrant unless:
(a) the Part 4‑1 issuing authority has given the Public Interest Advocate reasonable notice of the application for the warrant in accordance with section 180X; and
(b) the Part 4‑1 issuing authority has:
(i) given the person to whom the warrant application relates reasonable notice, in writing, of the application for the warrant; and
(ii) invited the person to make a submission on the application; and
(c) the Part 4‑1 issuing authority is satisfied that:
(i) the warrant is reasonably necessary for whichever of the purposes set out in subsection (4) is applicable; and
(ii) the public interest in issuing the warrant outweighs the public interest in protecting the confidentiality of the identity of the source in connection with whom authorisations would be made under the authority of the warrant, having regard to the matters set out in subsection (5).
(3) In making a decision to issue or refuse to issue a journalist information warrant, the Part 4‑1 issuing authority must give greatest weight to the matter mentioned in paragraph (5)(a).
(4) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(i), the purposes are the following:
(a) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 178—for the enforcement of the criminal law;
(b) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 178A—finding a person who the Australian Federal Police, or a Police Force of a State, has been notified is missing;
(c) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 179—the enforcement of a law imposing a pecuniary penalty or for the protection of the public revenue;
(d) if the warrant would authorise the making of authorisations under section 180—the investigation of an offence of a kind referred to in subsection 180(4).
(5) For the purposes of subparagraph (2)(c)(ii), the matters are the following:
(a) the public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by a free media, and, accordingly in the ability of the media to access sources of facts on the basis that confidentiality of the identity of the source will be protected;
(b) the extent to which the privacy of any person or persons would be likely to be interfered with by the disclosure of information or documents under authorisations that are likely to be made under the authority of the warrant;
(c) the gravity of the matter in relation to which the warrant is sought;
(d) the extent to which that information or those documents would be likely to assist in relation to that matter;
(e) whether reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information or documents by other means;
(f) any submissions made by a Public Interest Advocate under section 180X;
(g) any submissions made by the person to whom the warrant application relates;
(h) any other matters the Part 4‑1 issuing authority considers relevant.
(9) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 43 (lines 12 to 28), omit section 180X, substitute:
180X Public Interest Advocates
(1) The Prime Minister shall declare, in writing, one or more persons to be Public Interest Advocates.
Notice to be given to Public Interest Advocates
(2) If a notice is given to a Public Interest Advocate under section 180L in relation to a request for a journalist information warrant, or under 180T in relation to an application for a journalist information warrant, the notice must:
(a) be in writing; and
(b) include:
(i) the information and material that was provided with the request or application, as the case may be; and
(ii) the additional information or material (if any) that is prescribed by the regulations.
Further notice if additional information provided
(3) If:
(a) the Minister requires the Director‑General of Security to give further information under section 180K in connection with a request; and
(b) the Director‑General gives the further information or refuses to give the further information;
then the Minister must notify the Public Interest Advocate, in writing, of the further information or the refusal as soon as practicable.
(4) If:
(a) the Part 4‑1 issuing authority requires the chief officer of an enforcement agency, or a person other than the chief of the agency, to give further information under section 180R in connection with an application; and
(b) the chief officer, or the other person, gives the further information or refuses to give the further information;
then the Part 4‑1 issuing authority must notify the Public Interest Advocate, in writing, of the further information or the refusal as soon as practicable.
Submissions
(5) A Public Interest Advocate may make submissions:
(a) to the Minister about matters relevant to:
(i) a decision to issue, or refuse to issue, a journalist information warrant under section 180L; or
(ii) a decision about the conditions or restrictions (if any) that are to be specified in such a warrant; or
(b) to a Part 4‑1 issuing authority about matters relevant to:
(i) a decision to issue, or refuse to issue, the warrant under section 180T; or
(ii) a decision about the conditions or restrictions (if any) that are to be specified in such a warrant.
(6) In making a submission under subsection (5), a Public Interest Advocate must have particular regard to protecting the public interest and the need to act as a contradictor to the person requesting, or applying for, the journalist information warrant.
Regulations
(7) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the performance of the role of a Public Interest Advocate.
Declaration not legislative instrument
(8) A declaration under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
The first and most significant policy change would be to reverse and expand the presumption concerning notice to, and negotiations with, affected members of the news media whenever Department attorneys seek access to their records related to newsgathering activities.
The presumption will ensure notice in all but the most exceptional cases.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 4 OF 2015
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 7.23 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend:
That—
(a) the provisions of the Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2015 (see appendices 1, 2 and 3 for statements of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2015 (see appendices 4 and 5 for statements of reasons for referral);
(c) the Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2015 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2015 (see appendices 7, 8 and 9 for statements of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2015 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) contingent upon its introduction in the Senate, the Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 May 2015 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the provisions of the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 May 2015 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(h) the International Aid (Promoting Gender Equality) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2015 (see appendix 13 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(i) the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2015 (see appendix 14 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(j) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 June 2015 (see appendices 15 and 16 for statements of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend:
That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Norfolk Island Reforms) Bill 2015
A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge Fringe Benefits) Amendment Bill 2015
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015
Health Insurance (Approved Pathology Specimen Collection Centres) Tax Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015
Health Insurance (Pathology)(Fees) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015 Aged Care (Accommodation Payment Security) Levy Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment (Norfolk Island) Bill 2015
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(David Bushby)
Chair
26 March 2015
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Pr oposal to refer a bill to a com mittee
Name of bill:
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This bill has the potential to drastically increase the amount of advertising carried by one of Australia's two public broadcasters, SBS. This will have a significantly detrimental impact upon the commercial broadcasting sector and has also been strenuously objected to by consumer groups.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Seven, Nine and Ten television stations, FreeTV, Save our SBS, SBS, the ABC, the Department of Communications.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications.
Possible hearing date(s):
May and June 2015
Possible reporting date:
August 11, 2015
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 2
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Communications Legislation Amendment (585 Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bi/1 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow consideration of proposed changes to allow greater flexibility for SBS in relation to advertising.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
SBS
FreeTV
Department of Communications
Federation of Ethic Community Council
Advertising Agencies
Save Our SBS
Screen Producer Australia (independent producers' especially documentary makers)
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
8 May 2015
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider the impact on the Australian broadcasting industry, in particular commercial television networks.
To assess the impact on the budget of the Special Broadcasting Service
To assess the impact of advertising changes on the ability of the SBS to fulfil its charter obligations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Communications
SBS
Free TV Australia
Save our SBS inc.
Free-to-air Network (Seven, Nine, Ten)
Advertising companies
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible reporting date:
8 May 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider the potential food safety and regulatory impacts of the bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACCC, food safety authorities, consumer protection organisations and experts, industry representatives.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Determined by committee
Possible reporting date:
13 May 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a com mittee
Name of bill:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Deregulatory and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
It is not clear that the current requirements to report some types of food related deaths, injury and illnesses (events) to the ACCC are duplicative of other requirements, or whether the reporting to the ACCC is the only reporting of such events and/or the only national data collection of such events.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)
Choice
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
29 May 2015
Possible reporting date:
13 May 2015
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Construction Industry Amendment {Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To ensure a thorough and complete assessment of the potential impact of the bill on workers' rights
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions, employers, academics, civil libertarians, Department of Employment
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible reporting date:
8 May 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
It is anticipate that this bill will detail highly controversial measures relating to the ability of the entertainment industry to apply for court orders to force Internet service providers to block overseas file-sharing websites, in order to stop copyright infringement.
It is anticipated that there will be strongly divergent views from different industry sectors, civil society and consumer groups over this legislation, and so the Senate should inquire into the legislation in detail.
In addition, the Government has stated that this legislation is closely linked to a telecommunications industry code currently being considered by industry self-regulatory body the Communications Alliance. The Communications Alliance has published a draft of this code. It is requested that the terms of reference for this bill inquiry include consideration of this industry code, as it is explicitly linked with the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 and they are planned to work in tandem.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Telcos such as Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Vodafone and TPG, film and TV industry associations and studios, television stations such as Seven, Nine, Ten, SBS and the ABC, Electronic Frontiers Australia, Choice, ACCAN, other consumer organisations, civil liberties groups, search giants and social networking companies such as Google and Facebook and the AIMIA Digital Policy Group.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Possible hearing date(s):
May and June 2015
Possible reporting date:
September 8, 2015
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Adequacy of proposed measures to prevent online copyright infringement;
Adequacy of proposed measures to ensure that injunctions will not apply to non infringing online locations.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Communications Alliance
Australian Digital Alliance
ARIA
APRA
Australian Federation against Copyright Theft
Australian Consumers Association
AIMIA
AHEDA
Australian Publishers Association
Australian Society of Authors
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
12 May 2015
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To scrutinise detail of proposed injunction scheme and consider effectiveness and any unintended consequences.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department, Department of Communications, telcos, digital companies, education sector, entertainment industry, the arts community.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
13 May 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 10
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To explore the purpose and effect of Schedule 5 and 6, and to hear from relevant stakeholders regarding their view of the implications of these matters
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney General's Department
Law Council of Australia
State Attorney's General
Bar Council
Rob Hulls (Centre for Innovative Justice)
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
13 may 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 11
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The previous inquiry into the labelling of seafood and seafood products by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee;
2. The need for consumers to have access to accurate country of origin labelling for food provided for immediate consumption;
3. The need to support Australian products and producers, and how country of origin labelling can assist in this aim;
4. The current fish country of origin labelling requirements in the Northern Territory; and
5. Any related matters
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Northern Territory Seafood Council
Wildcatch SA
Australian Barramundi Farmers Association
Australian Prawn Farmers Association
Restaurant and Catering Australia
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
April 2015
Possible reporting date:
12 May 2015
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 12
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider the impact of this Bill on the employment conditions and future employment opportunities within the Australian Public Service (APS) of ComSuper employees who will be impacted by the provisions of bill
Possible submissions or evidence from:
CSC
ComSuper
CPSU
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee
Possible reporting date:
7 May 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 13
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
International Aid (Promoting Gender Equality) Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Two of the Millennium Development Goals (3 and 5) state the importance of gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls. Our Foreign Minister has stated a recognition that the empowerment of women and girls is fundamental to promoting economic growth and stronger aid-recipient communities.
An inquiry offers the chance to investigate the following:
Australia's official development and humanitarian assistance does not recognise that simply increasing economic activity in the recipient country fails to address the specific historical and cultural bases for gender inequality.
There is no legislated requirement that gender equality be considered in the delivery of aid programs, regardless of any stated intention.
In some cases, projects with a simple aim of increasing economic activity may indeed exacerbate these problems.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Aidwatch, International Women's Development Agency, Care Australia, Action Aid, Micah Challenge, Scarlett Alliance, Aidwatch, Plan International, The Oaktree Foundation, APHEDA, Results International, ACFID, Oxfam, World Vision, Global Poverty Project, ActNowPNG, Save the Children, Jubilee Australia, Medicin sans Frontiere Sydney.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Lee to participate or sub)
Possible hearing date(s):
Post budget, June/August
Possible reporting date:
Post budget, August.
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 14
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment {Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill
2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To ensure a thorough and complete assessment of its potential impact on workers' compensation rights and entitlements, occupational health and safety coverage for workers, and to examine any unforeseen consequences arising from the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Unions, employers, academics, Comcare, Department of Employment
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible reporting date:
16 June 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 15
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To better scrutinise the purpose and effects of the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Social Services
Patrick McGee, Aboriginal Disability Justice Campaign
ACOSS
Uniting Care
Frank Quinlan, Mental Health Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible reporting date:
15th June 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 16
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Denying people in incarceration {but not sentenced to a crime) social security may have a serious impact on their ability to maintain a basic standard of living as they transition out of secure facilities. It may also be a violation of human rights under Australia's international commitments. These issues should be considered
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Lawyers for Human Rights Northern Territory
Blake Dawson Legal Firm of Sydney
Brain Injury Australia
Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service
Darwin Community Legal Centre
First People's Disability Network Australia
Maurice Blackburn Legal Firm of Melbourne
National Council of Intellectual Disability
Northern Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency
Northern Territory Council of Social Services
Northern Territory Legal Aid
Northern Territory Public Guardian (Alice Springs Office)
NSW Council for Intellectual Disability
People with Disability Australia
Synapse of Queensland
Patrick McGee, Guardian, ADJC Coordinator
Professor Eileen Baldry, University of New South Wales and President of the New South Wales Council of Social Services
The Honourable Mr Alistair Nicholson, retired Chief Justice of the Family Court
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
19 May
Possible reporting date:
June 18th 2015
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That consideration of general business order of the day No. 48 for consideration of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014, under standing order 57(1)(d)(xi) shall not be proceeded with today.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for today:
(a) Senators Cormann on account of ministerial business;
(b) Senator Day on account of personal reasons; and
(c) Senator Smith on account of personal reasons.
That leave of absence for personal reasons be granted to Senator Peris for today.
That the remaining items listed at items 10, 11 and 12 on today's order of business be called on immediately till not later than 2 pm.
That the Senate notes that:
1. 25 April 2015 marks the 100 th anniversary of the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli in Turkey;
2. the landing marked the beginning of a nine-month long campaign which cost 8,709 Australian lives;
3. thousands of Australian personnel were wounded during the Gallipoli campaign;
4. Australians fought together with forces from New Zealand, Britain, Ireland, India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Canada and France; and
5.communities across Australia will mark the 100 th anniversary of the landing with commemorative ceremonies across the nation marking Anzac Day, our national day of commemoration, reflection and remembrance;
and that the Senate
6.calls on all Australians to participate in Anzac Day commemorations on 25 April this year to reflect, remember and commemorate the service and sacrifice of all Australians who have served in the Australian Defence Force from the First World War until the present day, particular the more than 102,000 who have made the supreme sacrifice in all wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations over more than a century of service
Judiciary Amendment Bill 2015
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to consolidate the Australian Government Solicitor into the Attorney-General‘s Department, and for related purposes. Judiciary Amendment 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.
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposal for work within the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the Senate on 24 March 2015, namely: Parliament House Security Upgrade Works—Perimeter Security Enhancements.
That the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 12 May 2015;
(b) Tuesday, 16 June 2015; and
(c) Tuesday, 23 June 2015.
That the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 12 May 2015;
(b) Tuesday, 16 June 2015; and
(c) Tuesday, 23 June 2015.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 May 2015:
The proposed Parliament House security upgrade works, including perimeter fencing, internal infrastructure changes and CCTV cameras, with particular reference to:
(a) security and safety considerations;
(b) project management;
(c) value for money;
(d) design integrity;
(e) heritage impact;
(f) moral rights;
(g) impacts on building occupants and visitors; and
(h) any related matters.
Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) Bill 2015
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide for the accurate labelling of the country of origin for fish, and for related purposes. Food Standards Amendment (Fish Labelling) 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.
FOOD STANDARDS AMENDMENT (FISH LABELLING) BILL 2015
The introduction of this Bill is timely, given the recent increased awareness of the need for clear and concise country of origin labelling on food. Sadly, this awareness has come as Australians have fallen ill with Hepatitis A as the result of contaminated frozen berries imported from China. It is a great tragedy that people have had to suffer for the Government to take action on food labelling, despite the fact that both the previous and current governments have been made well aware of the need for improved standards.
The measures in this Bill directly implement the recommendation from the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry into the current requirements for labelling of seafood and seafood products, which reported on 18 December 2014.
Under the current Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, country of origin labelling is required for fish, including fish that has been mixed or coated with one or more other foods. This requirement also applies to fish that has been processed in some way, either by cutting or filleting, smoking, curing, pickling or cooking. It is also important to note that in the context of the Code, fish is considered to be "any of the cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates and aquatic invertebrates including shellfish, but does not include amphibians and reptiles"1.
This Standard, however, includes an exemption for food that is offered for immediate consumption by restaurants, canteens, schools, caterers or self-catering institutions, prisons, hospitals, or other venues listed in the Table accompanying the Standard.
Following its inquiry, the Committee recommended that this exemption be removed, and that country of origin labelling should apply to fish provided for immediate consumption; for example, for fish sold in restaurants, bars and fish and chip shops.
This recommendation follows the removal of the exemption in the Northern Territory, where fish from overseas provided for immediate consumption is required to be labelled as 'imported'. The aim of this is to provide consumers with greater choice and information, and the Committee inquiry found that these measures had high support both from consumers and the food services sector.
The provisions in this Bill will require Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) to develop and implement a Standard within 12 months to require country of origin labelling to apply to fish offered for immediate consumption in the food services sector in Australia. The exemption applies to a broad class; however, the Bill defines the food services sector to ensure that the requirements do not have a negative impact on venues where consumers are unlikely to be able to choose between products. For example, the definition in the Bill does not include hospitals, schools, prisons and so on, but does include restaurants, bars and takeaway shops. It also allows the Standard to be applied to other entities if required.
The Bill also exempts the first Standard developed under the Bill from the usual processes that must be adhered to by FSANZ, as the legislation already sets out many of the matters to be included in the Standard that would otherwise need to be determined by these processes. This exemption does not, however, apply to any subsequent Standard developed under these provisions.
Ultimately, this Bill is not just about increasing consumer knowledge and capacity for exercising choice. It is also about supporting Australian produce, and by extension Australian producers, and fostering Australian industry and jobs.
1 Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 2.2.3 - Fish and Fish Products, available online: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2011C00569.
That the Senate—
(a) supports the Australian and Queensland Governments' release of the Reef 2050 Long Term Sustainability Plan for the Great Barrier Reef, including the additional $100 million investment to protect the reef;
(b) notes that opposition to this plan is now blatantly focused on stopping coal mines 500 kilometres inland from the reef, not protecting the reef per se; and
(c) supports the Australian and Queensland Governments' investment and campaign against the 'in danger' listing of the reef by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization given that government efforts have now addressed the key areas of concern raised by the World Heritage Committee, and that such a listing would cause great harm to tourism industries.
That the Senate—
(a) recalls its resolution of 13 May 2009, moved by Senator Cormann, setting out the process to be followed by public sector witnesses who believe that they have grounds for withholding information from Senate committees;
(b) concurs with the statement of Senator Cormann during debate on the motion, in which he said, 'At the end of the day, the final decision on whether to claim a public interest ground for not disclosing information should be made by a minister, with a statement of the ground, and ultimately only the Senate itself can determine whether the claim is accepted';
(c) acknowledges a letter tabled by Senator Cormann on 17 March 2015 in response to an order for the production of documents agreed to by the Senate on the same day, relating to the Automotive Transformation Scheme;
(d) does not recognise That the act of marking documents as 'Protected for reasons of Cabinet confidentiality' is an appropriate basis for making a claim of public interest immunity;
(e) does not accept Senator Cormann's claim of public interest immunity on the grounds that to produce the documents ordered would disclose the substance of Cabinet deliberations which would give rise to harm to the public interest; and
(f) insists that Senator Cormann table the correspondence requested in the order for production of documents agreed to by the Senate on 17 March 2015 by 3.30 pm on 12 May 2015.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that former Senator John Faulkner resigned his place as a Senator for the State of New South Wales by letter to the President of the Senate on 6 February 2015;
(b) notes that the vacancy in the representation of New South Wales arising from the resignation of Senator Faulkner was notified to the Governor of New South Wales by the President of the Senate in accordance with section 21 of the Constitution on 9 February 2015;
(c) reaffirms its resolution of 3 June 1992 (reaffirmed on 7 May 1997) in which the Senate:
(i) expressed the view that casual vacancies in the Senate should be filled as expeditiously as possible, so that no state is without its full representation in the Senate for any time longer than is necessary;
(ii) recognised that under section 15 of the Constitution an appointment to a vacancy in the Senate may be delayed because the Houses of the Parliament of the relevant state are adjourned but have not been prorogued, which, on a strict construction of this section, prevents the Governor of the state making the appointment; and
(iii) recommended that all state parliaments adopt procedures for casual vacancies to be filled expeditiously within 14 days after notification of the vacancy, including by recall if necessary;
(d) notes That the New South Wales Houses were prorogued on 2 March 2015, the Legislative Council until 5 May 2015 and the Legislative Assembly until 6 March 2015 on which day it expired prior to an election to be held on 28 March 2015; and
(e) calls on the Government and the Parliament of New South Wales to take all necessary steps to ensure That the people of that state are not denied full representation in the Senate for any time longer than is strictly necessary.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the reports That the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS) may have to cut the specialist news program on its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander channel NITV;
(b) recognises the importance of Indigenous news media and the role that NITV reports play in covering a range of breaking news stories that are in the interest of, or from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; and
(c) calls on the Government to work with SBS to ensure that this important service is retained.
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru, be established to inquire into and report by 15 June 2015 on the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Government in connection with the management and operation of the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru (the Centre), with particular reference to:
(a) how the Commonwealth Government is fulfilling its obligations under the Memorandum of Understanding between The Republic of Nauru and the Commonwealth of Australia relating to the transfer to and assessment of persons in Nauru, cost and related issues;
(b) the performance of the Commonwealth Government in connection with the Centre, including the conduct and behaviour of the staff employed at the Centre, to the extent That the Commonwealth Government is responsible;
(c) the Commonwealth Government's duty of care obligations and responsibilities with respect to the Centre;
(d) the circumstances that precipitated the Moss Review, including allegations made regarding conditions and circumstances at the centre and the conduct and behaviour of staff employed by contracted service providers, the timing of the Commonwealth Government's knowledge of the allegations, and the appropriateness of the response of the Commonwealth Government to these allegations;
(e) factors relating to the timing of the release of the Moss Review;
(f) the response of the Commonwealth Government to the recommendations of the Moss Review, including timelines for implementation; and
(g) any related matters.
(2) That the committee consist of 5 senators, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate.
(3) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(4) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.
(5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and as deputy chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
The Senate divided. [12:32]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 November 2015:
The future of Australian forest management, including:
(a) an assessment of past and current management of native forests, including assessment of Regional Forest Agreements in achieving their objectives and those of the National Forest Policy Statement, and other land management mechanisms and programs;
(b) assessment of the economic, environmental and social value of native forests for regional and rural communities, including for recreation and tourism;
(c) assessment of the challenges and opportunities for protecting the environmental values of native forests, including, but not limited to, biodiversity, protections for threatened species, water and bushfires;
(d) the impacts of climate change on native forests and plantations, and the role of native forests and forest management in mitigating the effects of climate change on people and the environment;
(e) assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the forestry industry, and assessment of actions required to support competitiveness and employment, including but not restricted to innovation and investment, research and development, and the sustainability and management of the plantation forest estate;
(f) assessment of the workforce profile of the Australian forestry and forest products industry and the impacts of forest management regimes, such as Regional Forest Agreements, on employment;
(g) assessment of the most effective mechanisms for ensuring the social, environmental, and economic values of forests are effectively protected and managed for future generations; and
(h) any other related matter.
The Senate divided. [12:37]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the concern expressed by regional communities about the impacts on food security and water resources from coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas, and
(ii) That the Federal Government has power to regulate the conduct of constitutional corporations, including corporations involved in coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas mining; and
(b) agrees that:
(i) food security and water resources should be prioritised over coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas mining, and
(ii) the Federal Government should use its constitutional powers to regulate the conduct of corporations undertaking coal seam gas, shale gas and tight gas mining.
The Senate divided. [12:44]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Public Governance and Resources Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015
In its submission the Clean Energy Regulator stated that it had been consulted on the proposed amendments to its enabling legislation and 'fully supports them'.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014
… it seems entirely appropriate for a senior representative of the AFP to be included as a fourth member of the SMB.
… would put beyond doubt that the Board can and should examine matters related to the operation of Parliament House Security.
… shall consider the administration and funding of security measures affecting the Senate and advise the President and the Senate as appropriate.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the effects of Commonwealth funding uncertainty on the legal assistance sector, including the possible closure of community legal centres, staff loss, a reduction in services to clients and declining staff morale;
(b) acknowledges that, unless this uncertainty is addressed and funding restored, critical services directed at family violence, child protection, disability and mental health and services to regional, remote and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities may be irrevocably compromised;
(c) accepts the findings of the Productivity Commission's 2014 report on access to justice, which recommended an additional $200 million in Commonwealth, state and territory funding be provided for civil legal assistance services to address urgent need; and
(d) calls on the Federal Government to immediately address the funding uncertainty and include increased funding for the legal assistance sector in the 2015-16 Federal Budget.
The Senate divided. [13:18]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Malaysian Government:
(i) is undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of the impact of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (the Agreement) to inform its cabinet and parliamentary decision making processes prior to signing any deal, and
(ii) is stating that they will not sign the Agreement unless it proves to be in Malaysia's interest to do so; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to request that the Productivity Commission undertake a comprehensive socio-economic cost-benefit inquiry into the impact of the TPP on Australia; and
(c) reiterates the order of the Senate agreed of 11 December 2013 requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Trade to table the full text of the Agreement at least 14 days before signing.
The Senate divided. [13:26]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that science and research are crucial to Australia's wellbeing and economy, but that funding for science, research and innovation is currently at a 30 year low; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) put funding for research and science on a secure footing, with long-term legislated funding guarantees that last longer than the yearly budget cycle or the 3-year political cycle,
(ii) reverse the decision not to proceed with funding for the Future Fellowship program and guarantee that funding of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS) will not come at the expense of other areas of the research and education budget, and
(iii) commit to an increase in science and research funding in the budget.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the findings of the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) performance audit into the Administration of the $15 billion Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement (the Agreement); and
(b) That the ANAO found:
(i) expected net savings under the Agreement are not clearly documented,
(ii) there is no straightforward means for the Parliament and other stakeholders to know the expected or actual cost of key components of the Agreement,
(iii) there were persistent shortcomings in record keeping by the Department of Health (the department) in that:
(A) it failed to keep a record of its meetings with the Pharmacy Guild,
(B) it failed to take minutes of those meetings, and
(C) it did not prepare agreed notes of what had been discussed,
(iv) the decision by the department not to prepare an official record of discussions over a $15 billion funding agreement is not consistent with sound practice,
(v) the department reallocated funds without prior ministerial approval, including to a $5.8 million communication strategy to be delivered by the Pharmacy Guild,
(vi) the department did not secure ministerial approval before reallocating funding of $7.3 million originally approved by ministers,
(vii) that department records indicate that in its preparations for the Agreement negotiations and implementation, the department did not:
(A) develop a risk management plan,
(B) develop a probity plan or consult with a probity advisor,
(C) complete specific conflict of interest declarations for members of its negotiation team, or
(D) develop a strategic implementation plan,
(viii) it would be of benefit for the department, in consultation with the Department of Finance, to clarify the basis on which it treated the Pharmacy Guild as the sole recipient of grants of Commonwealth financial assistance intended to be distributed by the Pharmacy Guild to pharmacy owners, and That the department was unable to provide evidence That the relevant funds were authorised by ministers as grants to the Pharmacy Guild, and
(ix) that including patient co-payments in cost estimates had the effect of significantly overstating the cost to government of the Agreement by approximately $2.2 billion.
That the Senate notes that:
(a) there has been a successful start to the Victorian duck hunting season, with hunters demonstrating their commitment to conserving wetlands and observing game and firearms laws;
(b) the Victorian Game Management Authority has observed increased involvement of family groups;
(c) more than 20 000 licensed duck hunters contribute substantially to the Victorian economy and community each year; and
(d) a study commissioned by the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries estimated that hunting by game licence holders contributed $439 million to the Victorian economy in 2013, and had a total employment impact of 2 382 jobs.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Abbott Government’s Budget Cuts—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Economics Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Senator Gallagher
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Health—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Wright for the purposes of the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015
Senator Ludlam to replace Senator Wright for the purposes of the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015
Senator Moore to replace Senator Collins for the consideration of the 2014‑15 additional estimates on 27 March 2015
Participating members: Senators Gallagher and Wright
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
National Broadband Network—Select Committee—
Appointed—Senator McEwen
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Gallagher
Northern Australia—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher
Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating member [for the purposes of the committee’s inquiry into the 2013 election]: Senator Gallagher
National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Gallagher
Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Gallagher
Recent Allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru—Select Committee —
Appointed—
Senators Carr, Gallacher and Hanson-Young
Participating members: Senators Bilyk, Brown, Bullock, Cameron, Collins, Conroy, Dastyari, Gallagher, Ketter, Lines, Ludwig, Marshall, McEwen, McLucas, Moore, O’Neill, Peris, Polley, Singh, Sterle, Urquhart and Wong
Wind Turbines—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Gallagher.
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014
Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014
Enhancing Online Safety for Children Bill 2014
Enhancing Online Safety for Children (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2014
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
This is the basic law that makes it a crime to leak any government information – from the highest cabinet secrets or the number of paperclips used in a local Centrelink office.
The committee divided. [13:49]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator O'Neill)
(1) Schedule 1, item 6L, page 43 (after line 28), at the end of Subdivision D, add:
180Y Notification of access by Organisation
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a journalist information warrant has been issued in relation to a person under Subdivision B; and
(b) an authorisation was made, under section 175 or 176, under the warrant.
Notification
(2) If the Director‑General of Security is satisfied that the disclosure under the authorisation is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was made, the Director‑General must, as soon as practicable, notify the person:
(a) that a journalist information warrant was issued in relation to the person; and
(b) that an authorisation was made under section 175 or 176; and
(c) whether any information or documents were disclosed in accordance with the authorisation.
180Z Notification of access by enforcement agency
Scope
(1) This section applies if:
(a) a journalist information warrant has been issued in relation to a person under Subdivision C; and
(b) an authorisation was made, under section 178, 178A, 179 or 180, under the warrant.
Notification
(2) If the Part 4‑1 issuing authority is satisfied that the disclosure is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was made, the Part 4‑1 issuing authority must, as soon as practicable, notify the person:
(a) that a journalist information warrant was issued in relation to the person; and
(b) that an authorisation was made under section 178, 178A, 179 or 180; and
(c) whether any information or documents were disclosed in accordance with the authorisation.
... a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent … is a pretty good result looking around the world …
Often the costs are three to five times the value of the goods that are being rented…
That the Senate take note of answers to all questions asked by the opposition.
Debt as a percentage of GDP, which would have been 120 per cent under the policies of the former government, is about 60 per cent under the policies of this government.
Now, that's too high. We want to get it in a much, much better situation than that.
We'd like over time to achieve this green line, but a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60 per cent is a pretty good result—
—looking around the world, 120 per cent is a dire result and that's what we were going to have under the policies of the former government.
… too high. We want to get it in a much, much better situation than that—
Now, that's too high. We want to get it in a much, much better situation than that.
… a ratio of debt to GDP at about 50 or 60% is a pretty good result …
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to financial assistance for coal plants in developing countries.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senate
Tabling Statement
Report 147:
Treaties tabled on 18 June, 24 November, 2 December 2014 and 25
February 2015
Senator Fawcett
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Mr President, today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 147.
The Report contains the Committee's views on three proposed treaties: the World Trade Organization Protocol Amending the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO and including the Agreement on Trade Facilitation, the First Protocol to Amend the Agreement Establishing the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, and the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between Australia and Vietnam.
Mr President, the WTO Agreement on Trade Facilitation is an important step forward in developing a multilateral trade system. It is a significant milestone; the first major agreement concluded since the WTO was established in 1995. The aim of the agreement is to increase transparency and remove red tape relating to customs regulations and procedures across international boundaries. It is estimated that, if the agreement is fully implemented, it could add $USI trillion to the world economy and create 21 million jobs by cutting trade costs. Mr President, it is vitally important for Australian businesses and industry to benefit from this global economy.
Despite the hard work being done to remove tariff barriers, it is often the behind-the-scenes non-tariff barriers that discourage trade participation. Mr President, complex paper-work or the fear that perishable goods will be held up in foreign ports can stop an Australian business from taking advantage of the opportunities provided by trade agreements. This agreement will make a difference in this regard.
Mr President, the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area is Australia's largest free trade agreement, accounting for 18 per cent of our total trade in goods and services and worth $121.6 billion in 2013-14. With a combined population of 650 million people, the parties to this agreement account for $4.1 billion of global GDP. It is important that Australian businesses and industry can make full use of the agreement.
The amendments to the agreement are designed to simplify and harmonise administrative requirements. Again the paper-work will become simpler, easier to fill out and comply with. By making trade easier for Australian exporters and importers, the amendments are expected to encourage better use of the agreement.
Mr President, mutual assistance treaties develop and strengthen Australia's capacity to fight international crime. Currently Australia is party to 29 such agreements. The treaty on mutual legal assistance between Australia and Vietnam provides for the two countries to exchange information and evidence for investigating or prosecuting serious crimes. It will make sure that criminals cannot evade justice solely because evidence of their criminal activity is located in another country.
Mr President, Vietnam is already a valuable Australian partner in the fight against transnational crime in our region and this agreement will strengthen that relationship. This agreement will complement existing treaties between the two countries on extradition and transfer of sentenced persons.
Mr President, the Committee supports the ratification of these three treaties.
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Report to the Senate.
I rise to update the House on the Government's policy priorities in regards to the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
Water reform in our nation has progressed over many years and I speak on this matter today as one of many, from both sides of the House, who have been given the responsibility of managing this nationally important issue.
I acknowledge the work by former Prime Minister John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull as the Minister for Water and their courage to continue on the path of bold reforms in the water sector, building on the COAG reforms of the mid-1990s and the National Water Initiative and Living Murray Program from the early 2000s.
On a continent such as ours, with such variable climatic conditions, managing water resources sensibly, equitably and sustainably, is the most important aspect of Commonwealth's role in leading the nation's water reform agenda.
The making of the Basin Plan in 2012 by the then Minister for Water Tony Burke, with the bipartisan support of the Coalition, represented the culmination of twenty years of substantial water reform.
Under Prime Minister Abbott, each state has now signed up to the Intergovernmental Agreement for Implementing Water Reform in the Murray Darling Basin , a historic achievement that all members of this parliament and state Parliaments can be proud of.
This Plan is the epitome of bipartisanship, recognition of the dire situation highlighted by the millennium drought and shows what can be achieved through Federal and state collaboration, negotiation and cooperation.
I have only been in this portfolio a short time, but I immediately commenced travelling throughout the regions of the Murray-Darling Basin listening to and observing the concerns of all sectors of the community.
I have travelled the length of the Murray, I have visited parts of the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee Rivers, and I have travelled to Menindee Lakes to see the dire situation with their water shortage, with water now only remaining in Copi Hollow. I look forward to continuing my travels down the Darling with the Members for Parkes and Maranoa after Easter.
No matter where I go, it is clear to me are two key issues facing communities in the Basin; the first is the policy fatigue that has set in after more than twenty years of water reform and secondly the sense of urgency for certainty regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan.
The communities of the Murray-Darling Basin understand the need for the reforms that have gone ahead, but they – rightly – want assurances that the implementation of these water reforms will achieve a win-win-win that delivers good outcomes for the environment and a good outcome for the farmers and irrigators, as well as the communities and businesses in the Basin.
I want to make it abundantly clear that the Coalition Government is committed to delivering the Basin Plan, in full and on time. The Coalition is completing the water reforms that we started. It is what we pledged and we are delivering.
However, we recognise the concerns and challenges that the plan creates for some communities and we must, and we will, find a way to deliver the best possible outcome for Basin communities and the environment.
It is our responsibility to ensure the long term environmental and business sustainability for our communities to prosper.
The Coalition is cognisant of the need for certainty for all businesses to enable them to invest in the future of their community and industry. This is true from the north of the Basin to the south, as it is from the east to the west of the Basin.
We are listening to environmentalists, to townspeople, to farmers, to irrigators, to businesses, tourism operators, to industry and to fishermen alike. Every person and every group in the Basin matters and they must all be considered. This is why we are aiming to implement the Basin Plan to achieve a win-win outcome and provide a level of certainty that has been missing.
This is why we are now moving to legislate the 1500 giglitre cap on water buybacks in the Basin, to place a ceiling on the amount of water recovery that can be achieved through water purchase, in line with the Coalition's Water Recovery strategy released in June 2014.
To date, 1162 gigalitres has been recovered through water purchase, 607 gigalitres recovered through investment in infrastructure projects and a further 182 gigalitres through other state recovery actions. That's 1951 gigalitres – 71 per cent of the water recovery required under the plan.
There is still more to be done, but it needs to be done with the least detrimental impact on all sectors of the community.
For the remaining water recovery efforts, we have prioritised the remainder of the Basin Plan funding for investment in infrastructure, particularly through more efficient on- and off-farm irrigation systems, and environmental works and measures, to achieve the outcomes of the Basin Plan to the full extent.
People often talk about the Snowy Hydro Scheme as the biggest infrastructure project that rural Australia has ever seen. While the project is an impressive hydrological engineering feat, let me tell you the $820 million Governments spent over 25 years, pales in comparison to the $13 billion that will be spent implementing the Basin Plan reforms.
From now until 30 June 2019 the Australian Government will spend $2 million per day, investing in infrastructure right across the Basin, investing in the future of sustainable farming and irrigated agriculture, and investing in our environmental sustainability as well as community sustainability, all with a level of certainty.
That is $2 million per day invested into our regional communities.
We will do this working in partnership with our state counterparts who are key and critical to delivering the Murray Darling Basin reforms.
Throughout my travels with local members I have seen the positives of this investment by the Commonwealth Government.
With Sharman Stone, Member for Murray, I visited the diary farm of Nick and Nicole Ryan who have upgraded their farm with laser leveling and automated, pressurised pipe and riser irrigation technology. Irrigating paddocks through automation reduces watering time and delivers water to the soil more efficiently and effectively, reducing the volume of water required to maintain healthy pastures and reducing salinity impacts. These infrastructure works increase farm productivity and reduce the labour demands of farming, all the while delivering water savings for the environment.
I also visited Deniliquin with Sussan Ley, Member for Farrer, where I saw infrastructure investment in new remote controlled regulators and metering and met with the Wragge family, a father and son rice growing team. Again they are benefiting from on-farm laser levelling, which is reducing the amount of water needed, but also increasing crop yield.
Innovation is the Australian way and this rice farmer is looking for further means to increase his yield per hectare – he is doing this by putting fresh water eels into the flooded paddocks, which is achieving the dual benefit of eel production for market, but also improving their environmental footprint through bug control, as the eels feed on the insects, reducing pesticide and input costs.
I encountered similar stories of efficiency and effectiveness in the electorate of Tony Pasin, Member for Barker visiting grape and citrus growers who are achieving similar feats of increased efficiency and productivity.
While in Renmark, I also visited the Chowilla Regulator, which is an impressive example of the types of works we can develop to achieve better environmental outcomes through the more effective control and delivery of water and, just like irrigators, achieve a more efficient use of water.
This project is part of the $1 billion for the Living Murray works developed for environmental icon sites in the Murray system; the regulator will allow for regular inundation of up to 50 per cent of the 17,750 hectares of wetlands.
I also saw the fish ladders and gates in action, which now span the entire length of the Murray River restricting the passage of non native carp which destroy our river system, whilst providing safe passage for our native species, an environmental engineering feat in itself.
Similarly, the Koondrook Pericoota forest works on the New South Wales side of the Murray, which covers 32,000 hectares of floodplain and is home to a significant bird, fish and native flora populations, including the iconic river red gums and black box colonies.
Over $100 million invested through the Living Murray initiative is finally delivering water to the wetland and I have seen the success of the recent environmental watering – with trees, the bush scrub and wildlife responding slowly, but positively.
Andrew Broad, Member for Mallee, and Michael McCormack, Member for Riverina, who despite the distance between their electorates, have good examples of the positives from Government investment in off-farm irrigation delivery infrastructure.
In the Sunraysia, Lower Murray Water are converting their channel system to pipe, which reduces water losses during delivery and improves water quality to the farmer, through $103 million in Federal Government investment.
In the Murrumbidgee I saw the innovation and drive from Coleambally Irrigation, to deliver world's best practice farming techniques and water management. They also highlighted increased investment in the region due to more efficient water delivery and certainty of access through these irrigation networks.
In a sign of confidence in the future of irrigated agriculture, six local cotton farmers have banded together, investing $24 million to build a cotton gin – I was so impressed at the enthusiasm in this small, but dynamic community.
I met with Leeton Mayor Paul Maytom who was upbeat about the investment the reforms were delivering to his community; however, when meeting with him and local businesses such as Sunrice, Walnuts Australia and JBS Meat, they highlighted the need for certainty from Government – the need for the 1500 gigalitre cap to be legislated.
At the end of the day, all of the above projects are investment into agriculture that are delivering improvements for our farmers and water for the environment.
We recognise the challenges for all groups, from townspeople, to farmers, to irrigators, and environmentalists, to businesses, tourism operators, and industry, and to fishermen alike, indeed everyone. That is why we are determined to deliver a triple bottom line outcome; the Basin as a whole depends on it.
As I said, delivering the Plan it is not without challenges or issues that we must address, but we will work with the states to finesse and deliver a Plan that meets this aim, and we will make sure it is effective.
From my visits to the Basin, I can see and understand the emotions, but I can only address the facts, and I will address the facts.
I have clearly heard the concerns surrounding the Constraints Management Strategy and the delivery of environmental water.
I thank those groups on the Edward and Murrumbidgee Rivers that showed me around their farms and highlighted the issues in some of the modelling and what the models mean for those on the ground.
It is clear this is an area that states need to examine more thoroughly as part of the development of the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism.
I have listened to the calls for improved transparency and greater community engagement. I have directed the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the Department of the Environment and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to address this with a level of urgency.
There will be challenging times as we again go through dry periods as we did with the millennium drought, as much as we will go through challenging times during excessive wet periods as we did in 2010, 2011 and 2012.
As Dorothea McKeller wrote those immortal words in the poem My Country on the deck of Torryburn House, near Gresford in my electorate of Paterson, this is a land of sweeping plains, of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.
We, and I mean all of us, need to take people on the journey with us, we need to provide greater certainty, so that communities can understand where the journey in these reforms will take them, from now to 2019 and of course beyond.
We need to work together in a bipartisan way, to provide a level certainty, to address the challenges together, with our Basin communities, not against them. Communities have a need and right to know what the plan will deliver and what their future holds.
We need to build a strong future in the Murray-Darling Basin and this is why the next step to legislate the 1500 gigalitre cap is so important as means of providing confidence and certainty to Basin communities as a whole, they deserve nothing less.
Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2014
The Private Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2014 implements a part of the 2014-15 budget measure "Smaller Government—additional reductions in the number of Australian Government bodies" by transferring the functions of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman from 1 July 2015. The consolidation of these functions will reduce duplication, improve coordination and increase efficiency in delivering the Ombudsman's services to the community.
It is important to note that there is expected to be no impact upon the services provided to policy holders. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will continue to provide education and advice services to consumers as well as assist in resolving private health insurance complaints. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will also keep its consumer website which will continue to be managed by Private Health Insurance Ombudsman staff transferring to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The transfer of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman will result in direct savings to industry. As the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman operates on a cost recovered basis, all savings made will be directly reflected in reduced levies payable by the private health insurance industry.
As part of the transfer of functions, the opportunity has been taken to streamline some of the investigative procedures of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman with those of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. This deregulation of the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will lessen the administrative burden placed upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman by aligning complaints handling and investigation processes between the agencies. These administrative efficiencies are expected to enhance the flexibility and responsiveness of complaints handling, and ensure that consumer complaints are resolved expediently and satisfactorily, helping patients get the best value from their insurance.
Further, under the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 , the only statutory process available to the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman to gather information was to make a formal written request for information or records to the subject of a complaint. However, consistent with information gathering powers in theOmbudsman Act 1976 , the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman will now be able to either request information and documents from a person, or formally require the production of information or records by written notice. This will allow for a more graduated information gathering approach, which will in turn provide for increased consumer protection and an expedited complaints resolution process.
Finally, this Bill will make a minor amendment to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to remove references to the "Base Premium" which were intended to be removed by thePrivate Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Act 2014 passed by the parliament earlier this year. Unfortunately, due to an unintended delay in the granting of Royal Assent these references were not removed.
The removal of remaining references to the concept of a base premium will not affect how the current premiums reduction scheme is applied for insurers and relevant policy holders and the simplified calculation of the Australian Government Rebate on private health insurance will remain in place.
This Government has long acknowledged the important role that private health insurance plays throughout the Australian healthcare system, and is committed to supporting Private Health Insurance now and into the future.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
The committee divided. [16:02]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Bernardi)
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015
(10) Schedule 1, item 6V, page 46 (lines 13 to 31), omit section 182A, substitute:
182A Disclosure/use offences: journalist information warrants
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses information; and
(b) the information is about any of the following:
(i) whether a journalist information warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section 178A) has been, or is being, requested or applied for;
(ii) the making of such a warrant;
(iii) the existence or non‑existence of such a warrant;
(iv) the revocation of such a warrant; and
(c) the person knows that the information is about a warrant as set out in paragraph (b); and
(d) at the time of the disclosure or use, the matter to which the warrant relates is ongoing.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses or uses a document; and
(b) the document consists (wholly or partly) of any of the following:
(i) a journalist information warrant (other than such a warrant that relates only to section 178A);
(ii) the revocation of such a warrant; and
(c) the person knows that the document consists (wholly or partly) of the warrant or the revocation of the warrant; and
(d) at the time of the disclosure or use, the matter to which the warrant relates is ongoing.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.
(11) Schedule 1, item 6V, page 47 (before line 4), before paragraph 182B(a), insert:
(aa) both:
(i) the disclosure or use is by a person working in a professional capacity as a journalist; and
(ii) the information or document is disclosed or used in that capacity for the purpose of disseminating information on a matter of public interest; or
(12) Schedule 1, item 6X, page 48 (before line 1), before section 185D, insert:
185CA Evidentiary certificate relating to ongoing Ombudsman matter
(1) The Director‑General of Security or the Deputy Director‑General of Security may issue a written certificate signed by him or her setting out:
(a) whether a matter involving the grounds on which a journalist information warrant was issued is ongoing; and
(b) whether the matter was ongoing on a specified date.
(2) A document purporting to be a certificate issued under subsection (1) by the Director‑General of Security or the Deputy Director‑General of Security and to be signed by him or her:
(a) is to be received in evidence in an exempt proceeding without further proof; and
(b) is, in an exempt proceeding, prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the document.
Note: An evidentiary certificate issued under this section relates to an offence under section 182A.
185CB Evidentiary certificate relating to ongoing enforcement agency matter
(1) A certifying offer of an enforcement agency may issue a written certificate signed by him or her setting out:
(a) whether a matter involving the grounds on which a journalist information warrant was issued is ongoing; and
(b) whether the matter was ongoing on a specified date.
(2) A document purporting to be a certificate issued under subsection (1) by a certifying officer of an enforcement agency and to be signed by him or her:
(a) is to be received in evidence in an exempt proceeding without further proof; and
(b) is, in an exempt proceeding, prima facie evidence of the matters stated in the document.
Note: An evidentiary certificate issued under this section relates to an offence under section 182A.
153. Section 182A makes it an offence for a person to use or disclose information about whether a journalist information warrant, has been, or is being requested or applied for, the making of such warrant, the existence or non-existence of such a warrant and the revocation of such a warrant. The maximum penalty for this offence is 2 years imprisonment. Section 182A is consistent with equivalent offence provisions already in place in relation to other warrants, including telecommunications interception warrants and stored communications warrants. These provisions create a "need-to-know" within an agency to protect the privacy of the person who is the subject of a TIA Act warrant.
(36) Schedule 2, items 3 and 4, page 56 (line 12) to page 62 (line 4), to be opposed.
(37) Schedule 2, item 6, page 63 (lines 6 to 10), omit the item, substitute:
6 Subsection 5(1) (definition of criminal law ‑enforcement agency )
Omit "paragraphs (a) to (k)", substitute "paragraphs (a) to (l)".
(38) Schedule 2, item 7, page 63 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:
7 Subsection 5(1) (definition of enforcement agency )
Repeal the definition, substitute:
enforcement agency means:
(a) the Australian Federal Police; or
(b) a Police Force of a State; or
(c) the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity; or
(d) the ACC; or
(e) the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; or
(f) the Crime Commission; or
(g) the Independent Commission Against Corruption; or
(h) the Police Integrity Commission; or
(i) the IBAC; or
(j) the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland; or
(k) the Corruption and Crime Commission; or
(l) the Independent Commissioner Against Corruption; or
(m) a body or organisation responsible to the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management‑Police; or
(n) the CrimTrac Agency; or
(o) any body whose functions include:
(i) administering a law imposing a pecuniary penalty; or
(ii) administering a law relating to the protection of the public revenue.
(39) Schedule 2, item 8, page 63 (lines 14 to 24), to be opposed.
… in the two years to November 2014 ASIC used telecoms data in more than 80 per cent of our insider trading cases.
Changes to the TIA Act do not give law enforcement agencies any new powers but aim to ensure crucial existing powers retain their utility and are not eroded because of profit-driven changes in commercial practices.
Telecoms data is crucial in combating corporate crime.
Telecoms data is crucial in combating corporate crime. This sort of information is commonly the first source of important information for further investigations and is frequently used to identify suspected offenders or verify preliminary suspicions. Without this data many offences and offenders would never be detected …
(40) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 68 (after line 12), at the end of the Part, add:
47A At the end of Division 6 of Part 4 ‑1
Add:
Division 7—Destruction of information or documents
182C Destruction of information or documents obtained under authorisation
Authorisations under Division 3 by the Organisation
(1) If:
(a) information, or a document, that was obtained by the Organisation in accordance with an authorisation under Division 3 is in the Organisation's possession; and
(b) the Director‑General of Security is satisfied that the information or document is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was given;
the Director‑General of Security must cause the information or document, including any copies of the information or document, to be destroyed as soon as practicable.
Authorisations under Division 4 by an enforcement agency
(2) If:
(a) information, or a document, that was obtained by an enforcement agency in accordance with an authorisation under Division 4 is in an enforcement agency's possession; and
(b) the head (however described) of the agency is satisfied that the information or document is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was given;
the head (however described) of the enforcement agency must cause the information or document, including any copies of the information or document, to be destroyed as soon as practicable.
Authorisations under Division 4A by the Australian Federal Police
(3) If:
(a) information, or a document, that was obtained by the Australian Federal Police in accordance with an authorisation under Division 4A is in the Australian Federal Police's possession; and
(b) the Commissioner of Police is satisfied that the information or document is no longer required, and is not likely to be required, in connection with the purpose for which the authorisation was given;
the Commissioner of Police must cause the information or document, including any copies of the information or document, to be destroyed as soon as practicable.
(43) Schedule 3, item 7, page 77 (after line 29), after subsection 186B(1), insert:
(1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), the Ombudsman must inspect the records of each enforcement agency at least once every 6 months in relation to authorisations under Division 3, 4 or 4A of Part 4‑1.
Under subsection 186B(2), the Ombudsman is not restricted in the frequency with which the Ombudsman may inspect the records of an agency. For example, the Ombudsman could choose inspection cycles of twelve months, six months, three months or some other period to inspect the records of any particular agency. This flexibility is intended to cater for the significant differences in the size, structure, functions, and internal systems and procedures of the various criminal law-enforcement agencies, the variable nature and flow of investigations and to ensure the new inspection regime is sufficiently responsive to differing contingencies encountered during an inspection. Depending on the circumstances, this may necessitate other adaptive approaches, including, for example, staged or rolling inspection programs, a quarter-sized inspection four times a year, or inspecting different field offices at different times if that was more convenient for the agency from an operational perspective or logistically more feasible.
(13) Page 84 (after line 31), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 4—Disclosure by journalists
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979
1 Subsections 35P(1), (2) and (3)
Repeal the subsections, substitute:
Unauthorised disclosure of information
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses information; and
(b) the information relates to a special intelligence operation; and
(c) the person knows that the information relates to a special intelligence operation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
Unauthorised disclosure of information—endangering safety, etc.
(2) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person discloses information; and
(b) the information relates to a special intelligence operation; and
(c) the person knows that the information relates to a special intelligence operation; and
(d) the person intends the disclosure of information to endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.
Exceptions
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply if:
(a) the disclosure was in connection with the administration or execution of this Division; or
(b) the disclosure was for the purposes of any legal proceedings arising out of or otherwise related to this Division or of any report of any such proceedings; or
(c) the disclosure was in accordance with any requirement imposed by law; or
(d) the disclosure was in connection with the performance of functions or duties, or the exercise of powers, of the Organisation; or
(e) the disclosure was for the purpose of obtaining legal advice in relation to the special intelligence operation; or
(f) the disclosure was to an IGIS official for the purpose of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under the Inspector ‑General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 ; or
(g) the disclosure was by an IGIS official in connection with the IGIS official exercising powers, or performing functions or duties, under that Act; or
(h) the disclosure was:
(i) by a person who was working in a professional capacity as a journalist, or an employer of such a person; and
(ii) published in good faith in a report or commentary about a matter of public interest; and
(iii) the report was not likely to enable an ASIO employee, ASIO affiliate, a staff member of ASOS or an IGIS official to be identified.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection—see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(3A) Without limiting paragraph (3)(h), a disclosure is about a matter of public interest if it relates to one or more of the following:
(a) a matter that increases the ability of the public to scrutinise and debate issues of national security;
(b) a matter that would promote the integrity and accountability of the Organisation, ASIS or the Inspector‑General of Intelligence and Security in relation to national security and other related issues;
(c) conduct that:
(i) contravenes a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(ii) contravenes a law of a foreign country; or
(iii) is engaged in for the purpose of perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice; or
(iv) is engaged in for the purpose of corruption; or
(v) constitutes maladministration; or
(vi) constitutes an abuse of public trust; or
(vii) involves an official of a public agency abusing his or her position as an official of that agency; or
(viii) could, if proved, give reasonable grounds for disciplinary action against an official of a public agency.
Crimes Act 1914
2 At the end of subsection 3ZZHA(2)
Add:
; (g) the disclosure is:
(i) made by a person who is working in a professional capacity as a journalist, or an employer of such a person; and
(ii) published in good faith in a report or commentary about a matter of public interest; and
(iii) the report or commentary is not likely to enable an officer of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, a staff member of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, or a staff member of the Inspector‑General of Intelligence Services to be identified.
3 At the end of section 3ZZHA
Add:
(3) Without limiting paragraph (3)(h), a disclosure is about a matter of public interest if it relates to one or more of the following:
(a) a matter that increases the ability of the public to scrutinise and debate issues of national security;
(b) a matter that would promote the integrity and accountability of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Secret Intelligence Service or the Inspector‑General of Intelligence Services in relation to national security and other related issues;
(c) conduct that:
(i) contravenes a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(ii) contravenes a law of a foreign country; or
(iii) is engaged in for the purpose of perverting, or attempting to pervert, the course of justice; or
(iv) is engaged in for the purpose of corruption; or
(v) constitutes maladministration; or
(vi) constitutes an abuse of public trust; or
(vii) involves an official of a public agency abusing his or her position as an official of that agency; or
(viii) could, if proved, give reasonable grounds for disciplinary action against an official of a public agency.
Criminal Code Act 1995
4 Paragraph 119.7(2)(b) of the Criminal Code
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(b) the person publishes the advertisement or item of news intending to encourage the recruitment of persons to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country.
5 After paragraph 119.7(3)(b) of the Criminal Code
Insert:
; (c) the publication of the advertisement or item of news was not in the public interest.
As former independent national security legislation monitor Bret Walker has argued, in its most extreme form 35P could stop the reporting of a citizen being killed during a botched special intelligence operation. I have no doubt that is not the intention of the government, or any in the near future. But that shouldn't mollify critics.
(i) the person intends to endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation; or
(ii) the disclosure of the information will endanger the health or safety of any person or prejudice the effective conduct of a special intelligence operation.
… will have a chilling effect on reporting of security matters in an environment in which parliamentary oversight provisions are extremely weak.
The legislation will sit on the statute books like a rotting carcass.
… Australians will know less than they deserve to about what is happening inside security agencies at a time when they are larger and more powerful than ever before.
The committee divided. [17:59]
(The Chairman—Senator Marshall)
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Australian people must be satisfied that in seeking to defend ourselves from crime and terrorism we do not trample upon the very rights and freedoms that characterise Australia as a free and open democracy. The Abbott government has failed this test.
…of course you now have the ability by using over-the-top applications. It might just be something straightforward like Whatsapp. It might be a more encrypted over-the-top application to avoid leaving a trail.
If you have a device, you know, a phone or a smartphone, and if I call you through the mobile phone network there will be a record. Say my phone’s with Telstra, there’ll be a record with Telstra that I’ve called your number. If on the other hand—
I communicate with you via Skype for a voice call or Viber, send you a message on WhatsApp or Wickr or Threema or Signal or Telegrammer—there’s a gazillion of them—or, indeed, if you make a FaceTime call, then all that the telco can see, insofar as it can see anything, is that my device has had a connection with the Skype server or the WhatsApp server; it doesn’t see anything happening with you.
How To Leak
1. This might seem obvious, but think about it, don’t leak information only you have access to. If you’re the only one that has the information then it’s pretty bloody easy to figure out who leaked the info. Find or create a situation in which you can have plausible deniability that someone else accessed the data
2. Don’t leak data from your home computer, from your personal devices or anywhere at home or at work. You will get caught, and if there are legal ramifications of the leak they will rain down on you like fire.
3. Don’t leak data from personal accounts or accounts linked to family or friends or that can in any way be traced back to you. Create a hushmail or a gmail account, don’t put in your phone number and create this account on a computer you do not normally use, say an internet cafe.
4. Don’t provide any personal information in the stuff you leak. Redact as you need to.
5. Don’t store copies of leaked information on personal devices or home devices.
6. If you use a USB device or something similar to access or copy data, be aware of corporate policies or monitoring. If you’re copying from your office computer, logged in under your account to a device, corporate IT systems can easily track you down and figure out who copied what and when.
7. Destroy any items or devices you use to transit the information to be leaked to a third party area. Dispose of them, again, somewhere you wouldn’t normally dispose of items so someone going through your rubbish can’t find them.
8. Only leak to places that have SecureDrop, like the Guardian.
9. DON’T TELL ANYONE WHAT YOU DID. DO NOT TELL A SINGLE SOUL WHAT YOU DID.
… be satisfied on reasonable grounds that any interference with the privacy of any person or persons that may result from the disclosure or use is justifiable and proportionate.
… have regard to whether any interference with the privacy of any person or persons that may result from the disclosure or use is justifiable …
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Substitute members:
Senator Ludlam to replace Senator Waters for the purpose of the committee's inquiry into the provisions of Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015.
Participating member: Senator Waters.
Select Committee on the recent allegations relating to Conditions and Circumstances at the Regional Processing Centre in Nauru
Appointed—
Senator Bernardi
Senator Reynolds
Participating members: Senators Back, Bushby, Canavan, Edwards, Fawcett, Heffernan, Lambie, Lazarus, Macdonald, McGrath, McKenzie, Muir, O'Sullivan, Ruston, Seselja, Smith and Williams.
That the Senate at its rising adjourn till Monday, 11 May 2015 at 10am, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.