The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Banking Laws Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2015
It's actually surprisingly easy to misplace money, through a simple mistake like forgetting to update your address when you move.
It's likely that some proportion of that windfall belongs to people living in Melbourne's western suburbs, and my electorate of Maribyrnong.
It is important to get the balance right, …
… … …
… what we are debating here is the correct duration after which unclaimed money should be moved into ASIC.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) 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.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PRIMARY TELEVISION BROADCASTING SERVICE) BILL 2015
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Primary Television Broadcasting Service) Bill 2015 provides the national and commercial free-to-air broadcasters with the flexibility to deliver programming on their primary television services in either standard definition or high definition formats. Broadcasters' primary television services include ABC1, SBS ONE, 7, Prime7, Nine, WIN and Ten, and these services are subject to particular obligations regarding Australian content, captioning and anti‑siphoning.
At present, free-to-air broadcasters are required to provide their primary television service in standard definition. This is a relic of the analog era, introduced at the start of the digital television switchover process to ensure that viewers would have access to at least one digital channel per broadcaster. At the time not all televisions and set‑top boxes were capable of receiving high definition content.
This Government is committed to removing unnecessary and outdated regulations that hamper industry from providing services that respond to audience preferences.
The Government has implemented a range of initiatives to remove red tape through its deregulation work program, which was initiated in the Communications portfolio with the release of the Deregulation Roadmap in May 2014.
This Roadmap committed the Government to undertake a review of the free-to-air digital television regulatory framework to ensure it is fit-for-purpose for the next wave of innovation in the media sector.
The first stage of that review involved the identification of provisions that were redundant or spent following the completion of Australia's switch to digital-only television.
The second stage began in January this year, when the Department of Communications released a consultation paper seeking the views of the public and industry on future arrangements for digital television regulation.
The proposal to allow broadcasters to provide their primary service in either standard or high definition received strong support from the general public and free-to-air broadcasters.
High definition television equipment is now virtually ubiquitous in Australian homes. A Newspoll survey conducted in February 2014 after the completion of the digital switchover process found that 96 per cent of all households had a main television set or set-top box that was capable of receiving high definition content. It is expected that this figure has grown, with high definition capability generally standard in televisions and set-top boxes currently on the market.
Moreover, with the completion of digital switchover and the availability of a range of new television services, many Australians now expect premium free-to-air programming to be provided in high definition – especially events such as live sports.
The Bill responds to these developments and amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to allow the primary service to be provided in either standard or high definition. It does not change any other existing arrangements regarding the primary service such as captioning, Australian content or anti‑siphoning requirements.
The anti-siphoning scheme requires any listed events to be televised first on a broadcaster's primary service. The Bill will allow broadcasters to meet this obligation while also having the option of providing anti‑siphoning events in high definition.
Indeed, the Bill is being introduced now to provide broadcasters with the flexibility to broadcast upcoming events such as this year's AFL and NRL Grand Finals in high definition, should they chose to do so.
The Government is committed to reducing the regulatory burden for business, including the media industry. This Bill will provide free-to-air broadcasters with greater flexibility to innovate and evolve to incorporate new technologies, ensuring they continue to remain relevant in a changing media environment.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Suppose that you are a young person and you have got work. You have felt reasonably confident, so you have got rental of some sort or you are sharing a house with someone; you are paying rent or you have your own tenancy. Then you lose your job. In that situation you are only one or two weeks pay away from disaster. And if you have to wait five weeks to get benefits then that is when there is a real risk of falling into homelessness if you do not have the back-up support of your family or somewhere else to go and stay. That is the same for the adult population but in this case we are talking about also reducing the Newstart Allowance down to the Youth Allowance (other) level—
so they are already getting a reduction in payment. That is where the risk comes in.
Youth unemployment is at a 13-year high in Australia. Failure to acknowledge the complex and varied reasons for this fundamentally distorts the policy debate towards an individualised view of unemployment, rather than one that considers the broader social and structural reasons, such as job shortages, skills mismatch, over-qualification, increased levels of competition, geographic and socioeconomic inequity, employer prejudices and inexperience … Fifteen per cent of Australian graduates are working in jobs for which they are over-skilled within three years of graduating and 25 per cent are not using their university degrees in their employment at all, which represents 790 million hours or $15.6 billion in lost economic productivity to Australia. It is in this light that any policy addressing the youth unemployment problem must be viewed.
This proposal shifts the risk of financial hardship arising from unemployment from government to the individuals affected, implying that they are personally at fault for an economic policy problem governments have struggled to fix.
The unspoken assumption behind this policy, that youth unemployment is mainly caused by a lack of willingness to seek employment, is flawed and unproven. As Professor Jeff Borland argues following a careful examination of the unemployment statistics, the current rate of youth unemployment can be fully explained by inadequate demand for labour since the Global Financial Crisis.
The extension of the age for Youth Allowance (Other) also risks potential adverse consequences for disadvantaged young people's capacity to transition into adulthood.
Particularly, our concern is how it will affect the ability of those young jobseekers who lack family financial support as they struggle into self-reliance.
Well, if that's the only way that people are going to get money, then they're going to do it, you know?
Logic is, okay, so I can be homeless or maybe I can try and get something illegally, and then if I do get caught, well then at least I'll still have a roof over my head and getting fed in jail.
... a period of four weeks without income support continues to have potential for harsh unintended consequences that will be borne hardest by those young jobseekers who do not have financial support of their families.
… increase in family tensions, family breakdown, increased isolation, deterioration in physical and mental wellbeing, homelessness and/or housing insecurity, increased barriers to looking for work and social and economic participation.
We recommend that the committee seek documented evidence from the government that demonstrates why it believes there will be benefits from the tightening of exceptions for people to serve waiting periods, and demonstrates how this measure will result in more positive outcomes for individuals facing hardship. UnitingCare is not aware of any evidence that these measures will do anything other than lower the living standards, and increase the risk of harm, for an already vulnerable group of people.
The impact of such a change has the potential to leave young people without the ability to meet their basic needs at a time when they should be focused on finding and securing employment, and to increase their risk of experiencing homelessness and mental health difficulties. Such changes would also impact disproportionately on those most vulnerable young people, who are unable to rely on family or other social connections for financial or housing support in times of crisis.
When we talk to employers about trying to recruit for lower skilled vacancies—
28 per cent of them say they have trouble filling those vacancies. These are jobs such as labourers, sales assistants and waiters. Employers are struggling to get suitable candidates presenting for those jobs and those who do present are not suitable. Those are some of the indicators that suggest to us that we need to work with the group of more job ready job seekers in employment services to act as quickly as possible to get them into work.
The measures contained in this Bill are harsh, draconian and unfair, and very little different to those proposed (and rejected by the Senate) last year.
Factors leading to poverty such as lack of money for accommodation, subsistence food, clothing suitable to attend job interviews or insufficient funds for transport all interfere with people’s ability to actually look for work.
We … think that the current measures before the committee are a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut …
We are concerned, however, that the current budget measures before us risk taking a punitive approach to young people in the current labour market, where there is only one job available for every six job seekers. Youth unemployment has remained stubbornly high since the global financial crisis, and in some areas where we work it is as high as 30 per cent.
This is clearly is not a path to self-sufficiency; it is a one-way street to poverty, an impact on long-term unemployment, poor health, depression and homelessness. This is borne out by the government allocating $8.1 million to help pay the people made destitute by this very policy. The simple reclassification of people and grant them interventions, if their situation deteriorates during the four-week waiting period, should be enough to be convince the public that this is a bad idea, poor social policy and should be rejected.
… we believe these changes are unlikely to encourage greater workforce and education participation, but rather have the potential to impact negatively on the mental health and wellbeing of all young Australians and disproportionately on those already disadvantaged due to factors such as mental health difficulties, poverty, social isolation or disengagement from family.
A person on the minimum wage would find it difficult to survive a few weeks without any regular income. So why are we cutting payments for young people who live on at most a Youth Allowance of just $213 a week, which is only 32 per cent of the minimum wage?
The measures in this bill have brought us to a tipping point with regards to inter-generational equity in this country. History will judge us poorly if we do not give Generation Y the hand up that they need. Our youth should not have to carry the burden of the labour market's structural failings. We need to avoid scarring tens of thousands of young people each and every year with a raft of harsh and punitive social security policies that basically blame them for the failures of the labour market to provide sufficient jobs for all those that want them.
The time for adopting an Australian Military Covenant has now arrived. It flows from an understanding of the unique nature of military service, a concept now widely accepted in the wider community and universally by all sides of politics.
'Unions were on the front lines in the fights for the minimum wage, for social security, for Medicare and for the Voting Rights Act … Corporations and billionaires already had a powerful voice in this country. Unions made sure working people had a strong voice, too.'
Normal people can't afford life without penalty rates.
I like to spoil my grandchildren and give them things their parents can't afford—those things would have to go if penalty rates were cut.
If I lose my penalty rates I lose the ability to pay for my daughter's ballet.
I think I speak for my generation when I say that the example and continuity provided by the Queen is not only very rare among leaders but a great source of pride and reassurance. Time and again, quietly and modestly, the Queen has shown us all that we can confidently embrace the future without compromising the things that are important.
… there is absolutely no possibility of placing any foreigner in an Australian job without labour market testing.
… neither party shall … require labour market testing.
The measures will be implemented in a manner consistent with Australia's relevant international trade obligations.
… there is absolutely no possibility of placing any foreigner in an Australian job without labour market testing.
I don't see what is wrong with suggesting that if we're going to bring in—
… electricians who might go into your roof, what we want to make sure of is that their skills, and training and safety knowledge are up to Australian standards.
… the union-led campaign has caused some bewilderment among Chinese officials.
… … …
If the anti-FTA campaign continues, whatever the outcome, many Chinese will draw the connection with the White Australia policy more than a century ago, and some will probably have difficulty seeing differences.
It is not clear to me that education cuts of this magnitude will make the future of the next generation more secure …
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion relating to Australian forces in Syria.
… effective counterterrorism is much more about strong international cooperation on intelligence and policing, and winning relevant community support at home for tough measures.
… there is no UN cover for that particular operation.
I believe that will give them a strong indication that it would be illegal.
… Islamic State has prompted a response that combines all the ingredients necessary to make it stronger: Western over-the-horizon military intervention; a regional arms race as a variety of countries rush to provide money and weapons to improvised proxies (whose factional and sometimes sectarian agendas further degrade decaying state institutions and exacerbate social fault lines); and growing repression of civil liberties and empowerment of backward-looking (but formally secular) power structures.
The Senate divided. [15:39]
(The Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Small Business (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator O'Neill today relating to competition policy.
And you would have read, I am sure in recent days, I am getting smacked around by trying to get the competition rules right.
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 Di Natale today relating to Syria
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senator Cormann for 9 September and 10 September 2015, on account of ministerial business; and
(b) Senator Edwards for 10 September 2015, for personal reasons.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) September is Dementia Awareness Month,
(ii) the theme for 2015 is 'Creating a Dementia Friendly Nation', and
(iii) over 342 800 people and their families are living with dementia; and
(b) urges the Federal , state, territory and local governments to show leadership in encouraging Australians to become dementia aware, to develop a better understanding of what it is like for a person to live with dementia, and to create communities where people with dementia are supported to live a high quality of life with meaning, purpose and value.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 9 September 2015 is the day on which Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, becomes the longest reigning Sovereign in history, and
(ii) the vital and enduring role that Her Majesty has played in Australia's remarkable democratic and constitutional stability during the years of her reign; and
(b) extends to Her Majesty its continuing appreciation for the gracious manner in which she continues to fulfil her duties as Queen of Australia, which provides an inspiring example of dedication to service that unites all Australians.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 8 September 2015 marked the 8th anniversary of the death of Mr Peter Brock AM, and
(ii) Peter Brock AM:
(A) was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1980 for his services to motor racing,
(B) also known as 'The King of the Mountain', still holds the record for the most number of Bathurst 1000 wins, amongst other accolades, and
(C) was a strong advocate for road safety as well as motor sport; and
(b) acknowledges this anniversary and the many achievements of Peter Brock AM.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the rising cost of electricity for consumers across Australia, and the resultant financial pressures being placed on Australian households and businesses;
(b) acknowledges That the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) is currently negotiating with power network companies to determine electricity pricing for the next 5 years in Queensland and South Australia;
(c) expresses concern at the suggestion that electricity costs may double in Queensland, and rise significantly in other states, in response to attempts by power network companies to exaggerate financing, operating and investment costs at the expense of households, small business, irrigators and industry;
(d) calls on the Government to review the role of the AER in regulating Australian energy markets and networks and the extent to which the AER is promoting outcomes that are in the short and long term interests of consumers; and
(e) urges the Government to proactively ensure That the AER has the appropriate resources, authority and charter to negotiate electricity arrangements, which appropriately and fairly take into account the interests of consumers.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Human Services, no later than noon on 14 September 2015, all documents produced by the office of the Minister for Human Services and the Department of Human Services containing information pertaining to the Centrepay Policy and Terms which came into force on 1 July 2015.
That the Senate notes:
(a) the success of the New South Wales Custodial Notifications Service (CNS) in dramatically reducing Aboriginal deaths in custody in that state;
(b) the delay of the Abbott Government to ensure ongoing funding of the successful CNS, and a lack of progress on implementation of a CNS in Western Australia; and
(c) the commitment given by Western Australia Labor at their recent State Conference to fund and implement a CNS to ensure Aboriginal people who are taken into custody have immediate access to appropriate legal assistance.
That the Senate notes:
(a) the important role that Australian service men and women play in humanitarian, disaster relief, peacekeeping and aid provision throughout our region;
(b) that the Australian military’s success on operations is founded in excellence in training and preparation—a large part of this is regular exercises that test our military’s ability to respond to various situations; and
(c) that unlawful disruption of the ongoing training and preparation of our military with exercises that test the crisis-action planning and contingency response capacity of our armed forces, such as Exercise Talisman Sabre and Exercise Hamel, jeopardises the ability of our service men and women to prepare for the challenges they confront in representing our national interests.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Newcastle City Council recently passed an update to its investment policies that notes the Council's preference for environmentally and socially responsible investment, and notes reports that this policy will see the Council shift its investments away from coal and fossil fuels,
(ii) the decision has been heavily criticised by the Minister for Industry and Science (Mr Macfarlane), despite warnings from scientists that Australia must act to stave off catastrophic climate change, and
(iii) an opinion poll conducted after the Council's decision found that only one in four Newcastle residents think investing in coal is financially safe; and
(b) congratulates the Newcastle City Council on updating its investment policy and joining councils across New South Wales, such as Lake Macquarie City Council, Willoughby Council, the City of Sydney, Marrickville Council, Leichhardt Council and Lismore City Council, in adopting policies regarding environmentally and socially responsible investment.
The Senate divided. [16:28]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Twenty-Seventh Report of the 44th Parliament.
The committee's report examines the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations. This report considers bills introduced into the Parliament from 17 to 20 August 2015 and legislative instruments received from 7 to 13 August 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of a response to a matter raised in a previous report.
Of the 11 bills examined in this report, seven are assessed as not raising human rights concerns and four raise matters in relation to which the committee will seek a response from the legislation proponents. The committee has concluded its examination of one bill, has deferred its consideration of one bill and continues to defer a number of instruments.
This report follows the committee's usual scrutiny approach to assessing whether a bill or instrument is compatible with human rights, as set out in the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.
Most human rights are able to be limited if there is a proper justification for doing so. The committee's analytical framework therefore focuses primarily on identifying if a proposed measure might have the effect of limiting the enjoyment of a specific right and, second, whether any such limitation may be regarded as permissible or justified.
The vast majority of bills and instruments considered by the committee do not raise human rights concerns because they either do not engage any human rights or in fact promote rights.
Of the legislation that may or does limit human rights, the committee is often able to assess the limitation as justifiable under international human rights law. In these cases, the committee generally reports on the legislation simply by identifying it as not giving rise to human rights concerns.
The committee's approach thus focuses on those bills and instruments which raise human rights concerns and which have not been adequately addressed in the statement of compatibility.
These remarks I hope draw attention to the great importance of ensuring that statements of compatibility for bills and instruments provide considered and evidence-based assessments of how any potential limitations of human rights may regarded as justified.
Indeed, in most cases that the committee determines it is necessary to write to a legislation proponent, it is invariably because the statement of compatibility accompanying the legislation does not provide the committee with sufficient information for it to fully assess the human rights compatibility of the legislation.
For the benefit of those charged with the task of preparing statements of compatibility, I would emphasise the importance of clearly setting out the objective of the legislation and the manner in which human rights have been considered when framing the legislation. This is crucial when, in order to achieve a particular objective, certain rights are to be limited.
The committee expects that where rights are limited the statement of compatibility will demonstrate that the limitation is rationally connected to, which is to say will be effective to achieve, its stated objective, and explain whether the limitation is proportionate to that objective. The statement should also set out any safeguards that will be applied to ensure that any limitations on human rights are implemented in the least restrictive form.
With this context, I note that some of the statements of compatibility accompanying the bills considered in this report have fallen short of the committee's expectations. In particular, a number of these provide simple assertions with no supporting evidence. As one example, the statement of compatibility for the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Debit Card Trial) Bill 2015 provided no empirical evidence of how the proposed measures are likely to be effective in achieving their objective. This is necessary due to the fact that income management schemes, while clearly well-intended, necessarily involve limitations on a number of human rights, such as the right to a private life and the right to equality and non-discrimination.
As in all cases, the committee will request, in a spirit of constructive dialogue, further information from the sponsor of the legislation that supports their assessment that the measures propose only justifiable limitations on human rights.
As always, I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Twenty-seventh Report of the 44th Parliament to the House.
Restricting how a person can access, and where they can spend, their social security benefits, interferes with the person's right to personal autonomy and therefore their right to a private life. In addition, being able to only access 20 per cent of welfare payments in cash could have serious restrictions on what a person is able to do in their private life. There are many instances where a person would only be able to use cash to purchase goods or services, such as at markets, for public transport, to give to family members, services which require cash payments, buying second-hand goods and at stores that have minimum purchase requirements. For those on the single rate of Newstart, restricting the cash availability of the allowance to 20 per cent would mean that just over $50 is available per week to be spent in cash. This restriction undoubtedly impacts on how a person is able to conduct their private life and represents the extension of government regulation into the private and family lives of the persons affected by these trials.
As the UN Special Rapporteurs on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights and Rights of Indigenous Peoples have said in relation to the provision of social security benefits:
'When States impose excessive requirements and conditions on access to public services and social benefits, and severe sanctions for noncompliance, such measures threaten welfare beneficiaries' enjoyment of a number of human rights, including the right to … be free from arbitrary or unlawful State interference in their privacy, family, home or correspondence.'
… … …
It is noted that the measure, in quarantining a person's welfare payments and restricting where that quarantined payment can be spent, is very similar to the existing program of income management.
Rather than promoting independence and building skills and capabilities, it appears to have 'encouraged increasing dependence upon the welfare system', and there is no evidence to indicate its effectiveness at the community level or that it facilitates long-term behaviour change.
The committee's assessment of the restrictions on welfare payments against article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to a private life) raises questions as to whether this measure is justifiable.
The committee therefore seeks the advice of the Minister for Social Services as to:
The committee also seeks the minister's advice on these questions regarding the right to social security and the right to equality and nondiscrimination set out below …
The statement of compatibility—
states that the cashless welfare arrangements trial will not be applied on the basis of race or cultural factors. Rather, trial locations 'will be chosen based on objective criteria—
such as high levels of welfare dependence and community harm, as well as the outcomes of comprehensive consultation with prospective communities.' As such, the statement of compatibility says that the trial is not targeted at people of a particular race. It also states that the trial will not detract from the eligibility of a person to receive welfare, nor will it reduce the amount of a person's social security entitlement. The statement of compatibility makes no reference to whether the measure may impact disproportionately on women or people with a disability.
It is difficult to say whether this measure will have a disproportionate impact on people of a particular race as the locations for the trial are not set out in the bill but are to be established by a legislative instrument. However, as the statement of compatibility acknowledges, these amendments are in response to a key recommendation made by Mr Andrew Forrest's Review of Indigenous Jobs and Training. This review examined options to help 'end the disparity between Indigenous Australians and other Australians'.
… … …
In addition, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister's Second Reading speech stated that Ceduna in South Australia will be the first site under the trial to commence, and that advanced discussions were under way with leaders in the East Kimberly region to trial the arrangement. A high proportion of the population of Ceduna and the East Kimberley region are Indigenous, many of whom are receiving social security benefits. It therefore appears likely that the measures may disproportionately impact on Indigenous persons, and as such may be indirectly discriminatory unless this disproportionate effect is demonstrated to be justifiable. This has not been explored in the statement of compatibility.
Report 151: Treaty tabled on 28 October 2014
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
For tabling on 8 September 2015
Mr President, today I present Report 151 for the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.
Mr President, Report 151 deals with the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of India on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy .
The Agreement offers the potential for Australia to become one of the world leaders in supplying fuel for low-carbon emission electrical power in expanding economies.
While there are considerable benefits for Australia and India, the Agreement is not without risk. The Committee has taken the time to consider those risks carefully, and has made a number of recommendations.
But first, Mr President, I will discuss the benefits. The Agreement has the potential to double the size of the Australian uranium mining industry, adding $1.75bn to the Australian economy and doubling employment in uranium mining and export.
These benefits will occur mostly in rural and regional areas of Australia.
For India, the Agreement will help with the goal of growing electricity generation from a base of 408kWh per capita per year in 2001 to 5,300kWh per capita per year in 2052.
It will also provide a reliable supply of fuel, which is important to India's energy security.
Mr President, India is one of a small number of nuclear armed countries that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This is a barrier to nuclear cooperation, as the NPT has effectively limited nuclear proliferation.
However, given India's strategic situation, it is not realistic to expect India to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.
The Agreement represents a new, and not uncontroversial, approach to non-proliferation - treating India as if it were a party to the NPT. That is, India can obtain uranium if it meets the nuclear safety and security standards expected of other nuclear armed states.
Mr President, the Committee heard in evidence that many NPT countries object to this new approach.
If the new approach is going to work, India needs to make concrete non-proliferation advances to calm the fears of NPT countries.
To that end, the Committee recommends that Australia commit significant diplomatic resources to encouraging India to become a party to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiate a fissile material cut-off treaty.
The Committee also recommends the Australian Government consider facilitating the negotiation of a nuclear arms limitation treaty for the Indian subcontinent region.
Mr President, the Committee is concerned about flaws in India's nuclear regulatory arrangements identified by the Indian Auditor General and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The regulatory flaws are enough of a concern to the Committee for it to recommend that no Australian nuclear fuel be sold to India until they are addressed.
Mr President, the Committee also examined a number of concerns with the Agreement itself.
Many inquiry participants are concerned that Australian nuclear material in India may not be properly accounted for.
The accounting mechanisms for exported Australian nuclear materials are part of confidential Administrative Arrangements.
To ensure proper accounting of Australian nuclear material in India, the Committee held a private briefing with the Director-General of the Australian Safety and Non-Proliferation Office to discuss the matter.
The Director-General was able to say that the Administrative Arrangement negotiated with India would allow him to report the disposition of Australian nuclear material in India, as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act of 1987 .
Based on this advice, the Committee trusts that Australian nuclear material can be tracked and accounted for.
Finally, experienced legal practitioners who participated in the inquiry appear to have differing interpretations of a couple of aspects of the Agreement, leaving the Committee unable to determine which interpretation was correct.
The Committee has recommended in each case that the Australian Government outline the legal advice it has received.
Mr President, having regard to these recommendations, the Committee considers that binding treaty action can be taken.
Mr President, I would like to thank the Australian Government for its patience while the Committee undertook the inquiry, and I would also like to thank the engaged and experienced participants to this inquiry.
Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Report to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senator Urquhart replace Senator Lines on the Education and Employment Legislation Committee from 19 to 23 October 2015, and Senator Lines be appointed as a participating member.
Water 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.
WATER AMENDMENT BILL 2015
The Water Amendment Bill continues and strengthens the Abbott Government's commitment to Murray-Darling Basin communities, businesses and the environment. The Coalition has always understood that sound water management, and the required water reforms, are critical in the Australian climate and they continue to be a high priority today, as the Bureau of Meteorology is forecasting a drier El Nino period ahead.
The Howard Government developed and drove the implementation of the National Water Initiative from 2004. A decade on, under the Abbott Government, we continue these endeavours and we seek to enshrine these reforms well into the future.
Our vision for water reform in Australia is very clearly founded in a triple bottom line outcome. We understand that the focus must be on the social, economic and environmental benefits equally. We will not achieve optimal outcomes through the Basin Plan without this triple bottom line focus.
Our Government has committed, since 2012, to support and implement the Basin Plan in full and on time, recovering water for the environment to maintain a healthy river system, while enabling our agricultural sectors to be robust and productive, helping to develop and maintain viable rural communities.
As I've travelled through the Basin, the issue that has been raised most often is the need for greater certainty for communities and farmers, certainty for their businesses and certainty for the environment. Our investment in the future of a sustainable agricultural sector underpins our commitment to the Basin Plan environmental outcomes and to farming communities.
The Abbott Government is committed to delivering the Basin Pan.
We are delivering on the environmental needs and as I have said in this place before, our Government is investing over $2.5 million per day to 2019 in the future sustainability of irrigated agriculture. This is our commitment to our environment and communities in the Basin.
I go on about this point at length because the biggest issue we face in implementing the Basin Plan is to ensure that it achieves win-win outcomes – all members in this place have an obligation to get this right.
The Basin Plan represents the culmination of more than two decades of water reform, two decades of bipartisanship. To ensure the prosperous future of our communities we need to ensure that the health of the environment is sustainable for the long term and we need to provide certainty to all community sectors in the Basin, for generations to come.
To achieve this aim, we have made a commitment to cap water purchases to "bridge the gap" under the Basin Plan to 1500 gigalitres across the Murray-Darling Basin. Our focus for the remaining water recovery task is focused on infrastructure upgrades, efficiency projects and environmental works and measures.
This will ensure enduring benefits for both the environment and our rural and irrigation communities. It is the hard-working men and women and their families and businesses in the Basin that we have listened to and consulted with when coming to this decision. The Basin itself is a precious resource, as are the many who live and work in it.
I have spent the past five months travelling almost the full length of the Basin, meeting a wide range of people, who all hold a wide range of views on how we best manage the needs of the Basin.
However, it doesn't matter whether they are farmers, environmentalists, indigenous elders, fishermen, the local car dealer, bank manager or cafe owner or tourism operators, the common message is that they want to live in a healthy environment and they also want certainty for their community.
While the Basin Plan deals with the high level environmental targets, each individual and each community is doing what they can to improve the health of the environment that they live in. There are environmental groups who continue to advocate for an improved environment and who I have seen working with Catchment Management organisations to improve riverine and wetland vegetation, which in turn provides important habitats for fish and wildlife.
There are committed and engaged indigenous groups that want to see outcomes for their communities that deliver on their responsibilities as traditional land managers. They continue to work with the MDBA and the CEWH to achieve better environmental outcomes that align with their cultural heritage.
And in many in cases it's the farmers and irrigators themselves who are undertaking revegetation works on their farms as part of the on-farm modernisation project.
In most part, what we see are community-based organisations who have come together to deliver local outcomes for the environment, who have pride in their native flora and fauna.
However, we must remember that these communities have emerged over the past 100 years on the back of a strong agricultural sector; they understand the need for a change in agricultural water management, but ask that we support them in this transition to improved overall management of our Basin resources.
I've visited dairy farmers in Shepparton and rice farmers in Deniliquin and Leeton. I've seen cotton growers in Dirranbandi, Goodiwindi and Griffith, citrus growers in Renmark and grape growers in Mildura, all the way down to the Lower Lakes, where I met a local fisherman. In all of these places there is a common message – they want certainty for their community and their environment.
What I've seen in the places I've visited in the Basin is how our investment in water infrastructure projects is having positive long-term outcomes for rural communities and their businesses.
Through improved irrigation delivery infrastructure, we are seeing more opportunities for Basin farmers to get water to their farms with fewer losses along the way. Once water gets to the farm gate, the benefits of Commonwealth investment in on-farm efficiency programs has changed the nature of irrigation farming substantially, to a precise and highly technical business.
Farmers aren't using the same practices they employed in the 1950s. The technological advances and improvements that are now commonplace are innovative and outstanding, and a credit to the adaptability and ingenuity of the Australian farmer. Increased efficiency for water delivery and a strong understanding of the best way to apply water to a crop at the optimal time, is reducing the water required per hectare, while continuing to increase productivity. As a nation we should be proud.
During my discussions with local farmers in southern NSW, I saw how investment in laser levelling of land has increased crop yield and resulted in the more efficient use of water. Farmers are able to control their watering systems by remote control, rather than getting up throughout the night to turn the water on and off. This is a huge benefit for families and for overall community health. It's the perfect example of a triple bottom line outcome.
In line with community support for infrastructure programs we know that completed projects have demonstrated improved productivity benefits such as increased crop rotation and diversification, water use efficiencies, reduced maintenance and improved soil and weed control management. Some projects have achieved greater than anticipated water savings, with these benefits retained by irrigators to improve their farm productivity further.
Not only is farm productivity and well-being improved from these projects, but with the increased efficiency, water savings are able to be recovered for the environment to deliver water to wetlands and environmental assets throughout the Basin.
We are also focusing our infrastructure investment to our environmental assets and applying the principles of efficient water use to maximise environmental outcomes and our environmental water managers are achieving real benefits for environmental health.
Additionally, the broader community is also benefitting from these projects, as much of the construction work is involving local contractors and regional business, spreading the benefits of the investment through the Basin.
The Bill also has provisions for expanding the range of efficiency programs available under the Water for the Environment Special Account, which provides for an additional 450 gigalitres of water for the environment, to include investment in upgrading irrigation delivery networks and other off-farm infrastructure, enabling the Commonwealth to deliver future, strategic investment in the Basin and additional environmental water and improved environmental outcomes.
The certainty this 1500 gigalitre cap will provide will work in harmony with our investment in infrastructure. We have already seen very good results from both off-farm and on-farm infrastructure projects.
More than 10,000 individual irrigators across the Basin are benefitting from infrastructure renewal and upgrades and the returns have already exceeded the expected savings of 600 gigalitres towards the task of bridging the gap.
Since its release in June last year, this Government's Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin has provided a framework for water recovery to bridge the gap to the Sustainable Diversion Limits set out in the Basin Plan. It provides an overview of the Murray-Darling Basin reform process and the key steps to be undertaken to reach major milestones for Basin Plan implementation between 2014 and 2024.
It's been two and a half years since the Basin Plan became law and the Australian governments have secured over 1,961 gigalitres in long term average annual yield of surface water in the Basin.
This represents more than two thirds of the 2,750 gigalitres of the surface water recovery target set out in the Basin Plan to bridge the gap to the Sustainable Diversion Limits, more commonly referred to as SDLs.
To bridge the remaining gap however will not be a simple task and we understand the challenges in recovering the remaining water. With our focus on infrastructure investment programs, water purchases will progress at a significantly slower pace than in the past, and the focus on strategic water purchase opportunities will help bridge the gap to surface water SDLs to 2019.
Through the Water Recovery Strategy, we have outlined our focus on infrastructure and efficiency projects, but we have also continued to pursue strategic and targeted purchase opportunities. We know that to achieve the full implementation of the Basin Plan a number of water recovery methods will be required.
I want to state on the record that this Bill in no way diminishes the Abbott Government's commitment to implementing the Basin Plan. I have heard some concerns that this cap will impede water recovery efforts and prevent the achievement of the maximum environmental outcomes.
Our commitment to the 1500 gigalitre cap was first announced in 2012 when the Basin Plan was made, a commitment we made to the communities of the Basin; our continued support of the 1500 gigalitre cap was given effect in the Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin, released in June 2014.
I was pleased to announce with my Ministerial colleagues, Ministers Hunt and Joyce on March 16 this year that we would move to legislate the cap and deliver the commitment we had made to achieve a triple bottom line outcome for the Basin Plan. The introduction of this Bill is the culmination of this journey, which enshrines the 1500 gigalitre limit on surface water purchases by the Commonwealth in legislation, through an amendment to the Water Act.
The state Government's in the Murray-Darling Basin also play an important role in delivering the Basin Plan and we will continue to work with them to deliver water recovery projects, environmental works and measures and the outcomes of the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism.
We have a good history of working together in the Basin to deliver environmental water reforms; the Living Murray Program is a substantial group of projects that are evidence of a shared commitment to delivering environmental outcomes. We will continue to work with all Parties to ensure that the triple bottom line continues to address all three aspects – social, economic and environmental.
The cap on water purchases complements the focus on water recovery for the environment through on-farm and off-farm infrastructure investment and efficiency projects. The Coalition Government is investing $2.5 million per day to 2019 into the future sustainability of irrigated agriculture, while delivering on the important outcomes for the environment and Murray-Darling Basin communities and we continue to work with the states to achieve this.
Our commitment is to bridge the gap in a careful and measured way; ensuring practical steps are taken to deliver a sustainable outcome for the economy, for Basin communities and for the environment. We believe that healthy rivers and healthy communities should be complementary, not contradictory.
I will now turn to the details of the Bill.
Put simply, the Bill will establish a new Part in the Water Act to give effect to the 1500 gigalitre limit on all surface water purchases within the Murray-Darling Basin that contribute to bridging the gap.
The intent is to capture water purchased directly by the Commonwealth, which occurs predominately through open tender purchase rounds, and not water recovered through irrigation infrastructure efficiency upgrades, water sales by states or those programs which are the result of irrigation network rationalisation and reconfiguration projects funded or partly funded, by the Commonwealth.
In addition, it does not include purchases made by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, or those made using funds from the Water for the Environment Special Account, as these purchases are different from the intent of the water purchasing programme.
This 1500 gigalitre limit on water purchasing is aligned with the recovery of water to bridge the gap in line with the implementation of the Basin Plan and will remain in place until the Basin Plan is next reviewed.
This will provide confidence to the Basin irrigation industry and communities that the cap will be in place for the term of the Basin Plan, delivering the certainty that is very much needed by the communities of the Basin and also ensures that the benefits from ongoing investment in infrastructure-based water recovery are continued and realised.
The Department will ensure that all water recovery is very clearly, publicly and regularly reported, providing transparency on the purchases contributing to the 1500 gigalitre limit.
The Bill will also amend the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 (the Basin Plan) to provide increased flexibility and opportunities to deliver the recovery of 450 gigalitres of water through efficiency measures funded under the Water for the Environment Special Account.
Efficiency measures improve the environmental outcomes under the Basin Plan by enabling the recovery of additional water for the environment, in line with the requirement to achieve neutral or improved social and economic outcomes.
This amendment provides for the participation of consumptive water users in projects that recover water through works to improve water use efficiency off‑farm. There is strong support within industry for further investment is such measures. This amendment also delivers on the Government's commitment to deliver the Basin Plan to the full extent, with a predominate focus on infrastructure investment.
This legislation delivers triple bottom line outcomes for Basin communities. The Abbott Government is listening to all stakeholders and there is now an opportunity for the opposition to work with us and support this Bill to ensure our Basin communities get the win-win outcomes to ensure environmental and community sustainability. We will continue to work with all states to deliver the outcomes of the Basin Plan to the fullest extent possible.
The Abbott Government is strongly committed to the Basin Plan and the substantial water reform agenda and we will implement the plan in a manner that ensures we can have healthy communities and productive farms working alongside a healthy river system.
This Bill delivers on our commitment to deliver a Basin Plan that addresses the social, economic and environmental needs of the Basin.
I want to thank the opposition, in particular Shadow Minister for the Environment Mark Butler, for the good faith in which they have entered into discussion on the Bill.
This Bill is being introduced today to provide certainty to the community but, as a sign of this good faith, we will allow this bill to remain in this place to allow for discussion and consultation with states, stakeholders and members of this Parliament.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015
The Senate divided. [16:57]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Water Amendment Bill 2015
… the Federal Parliament will be trusted with Federal questions of the gravity involved in the use of the waters of the Murray.
We ought to give the federal parliament which we propose to call into existence; the power—when it deems fit, to legislate on this question in order to remove this fertile source of conflict and friction between the colonies.
By placing additional costs and restraints on the Commonwealth’s ability to recover water for the environment, the Bill will severely hamper its ability to meet Water Act objects…
Our primary concern with the Bill is that the cap will be in the Water Act itself. Since the Water Act takes precedence as a legal instrument over the Basin Plan, honouring the cap will take precedence over honouring the SDLs.
… there is no definition of what this means or how it is to be calculated, over what period of time.
Constraints on the purchase of water for the environment through the market will reduce demand and therefore market prices, reducing the potential for financially viable investments.
At the end of the motion, add:
But the Senate is of the opinion that water purchases managed under the Act should be driven by an evidence based approach premised on the latest climate and hydrological science.
It undermines the very Act it seeks to amend by overriding the Commonwealth's obligations to achieve the Sustainable Diversion Limits mandated in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan by limiting how much water it may buy back from willing sellers.
It risks substantial expenditure of public monies on projects that may further reduce the net amount of water available to groundwater or downstream water users across the Basin.
The water licensees who wish to sell water entitlements surplus to their requirements need the certainty of a guaranteed buyer in the Commonwealth, especially when times are tough.
Only willing water entitlement sellers will sell their licenses. Indeed the unbundling of water from land has created a new asset that many irrigators have chosen to sell to create new wealth.
(b) to give effect to relevant international agreements …
(c) in giving effect to those agreements, to promote the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes …
The South Australian and Victorian governments had opposed the 1,500GL cap, which threatened the fate of the Water Amendment Bill 2015 introduced into parliament in late May.
But the two states shifted position this week after the Parliamentary Secretary to the Environment Minister Bob Baldwin released an independent stocktake report on the progress of the environmental water flow targets—
Mr Baldwin—
said the report showed that more than 500GL less water was needed to meet the plan's target, and it was reasonable to achieve up to 650 GL less water to meet the plan's 2750GL baseline target.
We want to see certainty for communities and businesses in the (state's) north and environmental outcomes.
Parliamentary institutions, with their free speech and respect for the rights of minorities, and the inspiration of a broad tolerance in thought and expression—all this we conceive to be a precious part of our way of life and outlook.
During recent centuries, this message has been sustained and invigorated by the immense contribution, in language, literature and action, of the nations of our Commonwealth overseas. It gives expression, as I pray it always will, to living principles, as sacred to the Crown and Monarchy as to its many Parliaments and Peoples. I ask you now to cherish them—and practise them too; then we can go forward together in peace, seeking justice and freedom for all men.
...forge within the Commonwealth a unity of purpose and a concentration of influence that could write a chapter...worthy to rank with the bravest chapters of the past.
It is therefore a joy for me, today, to address you not as a Queen from far away, but as your Queen and as a part of your Parliament. In a real sense, you are here as my colleagues, friends and advisers.
They have, in this century, survived the greatest trials of war and economic hardship.
We are concerned, however, that the current budget measures before us risk taking a punitive approach to young people in the current labour market, where there is only one job available for every six job seekers. Youth unemployment has remained stubbornly high since the global financial crisis, and in some areas where we work it is as high as 30 per cent.
Six ways Australia's education system is failing our kids
1. Australian teens are falling behind, as others race ahead.
2. Declining participation in science and maths.
3. Australian education is monolingual.
4. International and migrant students are actually raising standards, not lowering them.
5. You can't have quality education without quality teachers.
6. Early learning participation is amongst the lowest in the developed world.