The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
… to review the administration and expenditure of ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD and ONA, including the annual financial statements …
… to review any matter in relation to ASIO, ASIS, AGO, DIO, ASD or ONA referred to the Committee by:
(i) the responsible Minister; or
(ii) a resolution of either House of the Parliament
… monitor and to review the performance by the AFP of its functions under Part 5.3 of the Criminal Code —
Just as the advice that officials provide to ministers is not disclosed in Senate Legislation Committee hearings, the judgments of assessment agencies should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Opening assessments to scrutiny by parliament would also weaken the instinct amongst assessors to provide forthright advice for government, which is vital for good assessment.
… creates uncertainty as to what may be published about the activities of ASIO without fear of prosecution. The so-called chilling effect of that uncertainty is exacerbated because it also applies in relation to disclosures made to editors for the purpose of discussion before publication.
Journalists are prohibited from publishing anywhere at any time any information relating to an SIO—
regardless of whether it has any, or any continuing, operational significance and even if it discloses reprehensible conduct by ASIO insiders.
The basic problem with section 35P is that it does not distinguish between journalists and others (outsiders) and ASIO insiders. The application in this manner of broad secrecy prohibitions to outsiders is not satisfactorily justified, including by precedents in Australia or elsewhere.
Section 35P is arguably invalid on the basis that it infringes the constitutional protection of freedom of political communication. Section 35P is also arguably inconsistent with article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and so not in accordance with Australia's international obligations.
Parliament must strike a balance between our security imperatives and our liberties and freedoms. (The) Key to achieving this balance is strong and effective accountability. Enhanced powers demand enhanced safeguards. Public trust and confidence in our security and intelligence agencies can only be assured through strong and rigorous oversight and scrutiny.
Under section 102.1A of the Criminal Code, the Committee may also review any regulations made for the listing (or re-listing) of a "terrorist organisation" and report the Committee's comments and recommendations to each House of the Parliament before the end of the applicable disallowance period—a period of 15 sitting days after the regulation was laid before that House.
Further, the Committee may review and report on the declaration of any terrorist organisation for the purposes of section 35AA of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.
The Committee is otherwise not authorised to initiate its own references, but may resolve to request the responsible Minister refer a particular matter to it for review.
Section 31 of the IS Act requires the Committee to prepare and table an Annual Report as soon as practicable after each year ending 30 June.
Just as the advice that officials provide to ministers is not disclosed in Senate Legislation Committee hearings, the judgments of assessment agencies should not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Opening assessments to scrutiny by parliament would also weaken the instinct amongst assessors to provide forthright advice for government, which is vital for good assessment.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2016
13 October 2016
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Senator David Bushby (Government Whip, Chair)
Senator Anne Urquhart (Opposition Whip)
Senator Brian Burston (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip)
Senator Derryn Hinch (Derryn Hinch's Justice Party Whip)
Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore (Nick Xenophon Team Whip)
Senator Rachel Siewert (Australian Greens Whip)
Senator John Williams (The Nationals Whip)
Senator Catryna Bilyk
Senator David Fawcett
Senator Katy Gallagher
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Secretary: Chris Reid
6277 3020
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2016
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 October 2016 at 7.34 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 November 2016 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2016 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day March 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016, the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016 and the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016 bereferred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2016 (see appendices 4, 5 and 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2016 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 November 2016 (see appendices 8 and 9 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(g) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the VET Student Loans Bill 2016, the VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016 and the VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016 bereferred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2016 (see appendices 10, 11 and 12 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Television and Radio Licence Fees) Bill 2016
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2015
Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016
Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2016
Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016
Guardian for Unaccompanied Children Bill 2014
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (Improved Oversight and Resourcing) Bill 2014
Migration Amendment (Free the Children) Bill 2016
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016
Private Health Insurance Amendment (GP Services) Bill 2014
Register of Foreign Ownership of Agricultural Land Amendment (Water) Bill 2016
Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Australian Centre for Social Cohesion Bill 2015
Automotive Transformation Scheme Amendment (Securing the Automotive Component Industry) Bill 2015
Charter of Budget Honesty Amendment (Intergenerational Report) Bill 2015
Corporations Amendment (Life Insurance Remuneration Arrangements) Bill 2016
Customs Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016
Customs Tariff Amendment (2017 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2016
End Cruel Cosmetics Bill 2014
Freedom to Marry Bill 2016
Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
Mining Subsidies Legislation Amendment (Raising Revenue) Bill 2014
Motor Vehicle Standards (Cheaper Transport) Bill 2014
Narcotic Drugs Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Narcotic Drugs (Licence Charges) Bill 2016
National Integrity Commission Bill 2013
Privacy Amendment (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016
Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016
Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016
Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014
Regulatory Powers (Standardisation Reform) Bill 2016
Seafarers and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016
Seafarers Safety and Compensation Levies Bill 2016
Seafarers Safety and Compensation Levies Collection Bill 2016
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 2) Bill 2016
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016.
(David Bushby)
Chair
13 October 2016
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Crime Commission Amendment (Criminology Research) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Since an earlier version of this Bill was introduced into the 44th Parliament in 2015, there have been significant changes made to the Explanatory Memorandum that should be examined.
There has also been a significant change in the composition of the Senate and it would be appropriate to allow the new Senators the opportunity to engage with this legislation.
Very limited submissions were received by the previous inquiry into the 2015 Bill and a further referral would provide another opportunity for submissions from stakeholders.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Institute of Criminology
Academics with specialisation in law, criminology and crime statistics.
Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
Crime Statistics Agency Victoria
Australian Psychological Society
Crime and Corruption Commission Queensland
South Australian Office of Crime Statistics & Research
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:
21 November 2016.
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 2
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
This is legislation which proposes changes to the criminal law. The criminal law has a significant impact on the rights and obligations of the Australian people, including potentially the ability to see them deprived of their liberty.
It is appropriate and responsible for the Senate to properly examine the impact of proposed criminal laws, including in light of recent developments.
There has also been a significant change in the composition of the Senate and it would be appropriate to allow the new Senators the opportunity to engage with this legislation.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department
Australian Strategic Policy Institute
State and Territory Bar Associations (e.g. NSW Bar Association)
The Commonwealth Magistrates' and Judges' Association
The Law Society of New South Wales
Law Council of Australia
Australian Human Rights Commission
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
State and Territory Police (e.g. Victoria Police)
Australian Federal Police
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:
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 3
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Great Australian Bight Environment Protection Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Although BP pulled out yesterday the risk remains – 6 companies currently have expressed an intention to drill in the Bight.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Environmental Groups, small business owners, Aboriginal TOs, NOPSEMA.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
December, January, February
Possible reporting date:
March, April
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 4
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislative Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee.
Possible reporting date:
Monday 7 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 5
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2016
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To scrutinize the proposed changes of the backpacker tax and passenger movement charge and the impact they will have on agricultural and tourism dependent communities.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Tourism and Transport Forum Australia.
Australian Federation of Travel Agents
Tourism Australia
AusVeg
WAFarmers
Department of Agriculture
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics References Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Wednesday 9 November
Possible reporting date:
Monday 21 November
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 6
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Effect on the backpacker sector and the tourism sector and associated sectors.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Farmers Federation
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
31 October 2016
Possible reporting date:
7 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore
APPENDIX 7
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Concern of the impact of the bill on young people
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Welfare Rights Network, ACOSS, Catholic Social Services, National Union of Students
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
November 2016
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 8
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Disability advocacy groups – ACOSS, AFDO, DANA, NDS, Queensland Advocacy Incorporated, People with Disabilities WA, Children and Young People with Disability Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
21 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
APPENDIX 9
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Concern of the impact of the bill of people with a disability
Possible submissions or evidence from:
People with Disability Australia, Women with Disabilities Australia, First Peoples Disability Network, National Ethnic Disability Alliance, National Welfare Rights Network, ACOSS, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
28 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 10
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
VET Student Loans Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
An opportunity for stakeholders to provide feedback on the proposed arrangements
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Industry/employer groups
Training organization representative bodies/providers
Students/Student representatives
Unions
States and Territory Governments
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
7 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Mitch Fifield
APPENDIX 11
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
VET Student Loans Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Involved serious and wide-spread changes, industry and stake-holder concerns, Bills require consideration and examination.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Education providers, unions
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment
Possible hearing date(s):
Week of 14th November
Possible reporting date:
Monday 28 November 2016
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
APPENDIX 12
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
VET Student Loans Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016
VET Student Loans (Charges) Bill 2016
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Scrutiny of major changes to VET student loans – opportunity for stakeholder scrutiny
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Council of Private Education and Training
TAFE Directors Association
Consumer Action Law Centre
Australian Education Union
Department of Education and Training
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Employment and Education Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be agreed
Possible reporting date:
7 November 2016 (as agreed with Senator Birmingham)
(signed)
Senator Anne Urquhart
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add, "and,
(1) in respect of the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Firearms Trafficking) Bill 2016, the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 7 November 2016."
At the end of the motion, add, "and,
(1) in respect of the Criminal Code Amendment (War Crimes) Bill 2016 the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by first sitting day of 2017."
That:
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016
Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia)
Bill 2016
No. 4 Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 84 standing in the name of Senator Burston relating to firefighting foam contamination; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That Senator Waters be granted leave of absence for today for personal reasons.
That the Economics Legislation Committee and the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33, subsection (1), during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.30 pm.
That the order of the Senate of 21 March 2002 restricting photography in the Senate chamber ceases to have effect on and from 28 November 2016.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and interim report by 28 November 2016 and final report by 1 February 2017:
(a) the experience of closures of electricity generators and other large industrial assets on workers and communities, both in Australia and overseas;
(b) the role that alternative mechanisms can play in alleviating and minimising the economic, social and community costs of large electricity generation and other industrial asset closures, drawing on experiences in Australia and overseas;
(c) policy mechanisms to encourage retirement of coal-fired power stations from the National Electricity Market, having regard to:
(i) the 'Paris Agreement' to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, and ideally below 1.5 degrees Celsius,
(ii) the state and expected life span of Australia's coal-fired power plants,
(iii) the increasing amount of electricity generated by renewable energy and likely future electricity demand,
(iv) maintenance of electricity supply, affordability and security, and
(v) any other relevant matters;
(d) policy mechanisms to give effect to a just transition for affected workers and communities likely impacted by generator closures, as agreed in the 'Paris Agreement', including:
(i) mechanisms to ensure minimal community and individual impact from closures, and
(ii) mechanisms to attract new investment and jobs in affected regions and communities;
(e) the appropriate role for the Federal Government in respect of the above; and
(f) any other relevant matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2016:
The impact of the Government's Workplace Bargaining Policy and approach to Commonwealth public sector bargaining, with particular reference to:
(a) the failure of the Government to conclude workplace bargaining across the Australian Public Service almost three years after the process began – a process that has impacted on more than 150,000 staff nationally and 115 agencies during this time;
(b) the impact of the protracted dispute on service provision, particularly in regional Australia, and for vulnerable and elderly people;
(c) the impact on Australia's tourism industry and international reputation as a result of ongoing international port and airport strikes;
(d) the impact on agency productivity and staff morale of the delay in resolving enterprise agreements across the Australian Public Service;
(e) the effect of the implementation of the Government's Workplace Bargaining Policy on workplace relations in the Commonwealth public sector;
(f) the effect of the implementation of the Government's Workplace Bargaining Policy on the working conditions and industrial rights of Commonwealth public sector employees;
(g) the extent to which the implementation of the Workplace Bargaining Policy impacts on employee access to workplace flexibility, and with particular regard to flexibility for employees with family or caring responsibilities;
(h) whether the Workplace Bargaining Policy and changes or reductions in employees' working conditions and industrial rights, including access to enforceable domestic and family violence leave, are a factor in the protracted delay in resolving enterprise agreements;
(i) the effect of an expanded role for the responsible Minister in the Government's Workplace Bargaining Policy; and
(j) any other related matter.
Notice of motion altered on 12 October 2016 pursuant to standing order 77.
That the following matters be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 August 2017:
The incidence of, and trends in, corporate avoidance of the Fair Work Act 2009 , with particular reference to:
(a) the use of labour hire and/or contracting arrangements that affect workers' pay and conditions;
(b) voting cohorts to approve agreements with a broad scope that affect workers' pay and conditions;
(c) the use of agreement termination that affect workers' pay and conditions;
(d) the effectiveness of transfer of business provisions in protecting workers' pay and conditions;
(e) the avoidance of redundancy entitlements by labour hire companies;
(f) the effectiveness of any protections afforded to labour hire employees from unfair dismissal;
(g) the approval of enterprise agreements by workers not yet residing in Australia that affect workers' pay and conditions;
(h) the extent to which companies avoid their obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 by engaging workers on visas;
(i) whether the National Employment Standards and modern awards act as an effective 'floor' for wages and conditions and the extent to which companies enter into arrangements that avoid those obligations;
(j) legacy issues relating to WorkChoices and Australian Workplace Agreements;
(k) the economic and fiscal impact of reducing wages and conditions across the economy; and
(l) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2017:
(a) current and future regulatory requirements that impact on the safe commercial and recreational use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and associated systems, including consideration of:
(i) Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 101,
(ii) local design and manufacture of RPAS and associated systems,
(iii) importation of RPAS and associated systems,
(iv) state and local government regulation, and
(v) overseas developments, including work by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and overseas aviation regulatory jurisdictions;
(b) the existing industry and likely future social and economic impact of RPAS technology;
(c) the international regulatory/governance environment for RPAS technology and its comparison to Australian regulation;
(d) current and future options for improving regulatory compliance, public safety and national security through education, professional standards, training, insurance and enforcement;
(e) the relationship between aviation safety and other regulation of RPAS for example, regulation by state and local government agencies on public safety, security and privacy grounds;
(f) the potential recreational and commercial uses of RPAS, including agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research;
(g) insurance requirements of both private and commercial users/operators, including consideration of the suitability of existing data protection, liability and insurance regimes, and whether these are sufficient to meet growing use of RPAS;
(h) the use of current and emerging RPAS and other aviation technologies to enhance aviation safety; and
(i) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) recently called for Geraldton man, Mr Marlon Noble, to have the conditions of his release lifted after serving more than ten years in prison without a conviction;
(b) acknowledges that people with cognitive impairment or intellectual disability are being incarcerated for an indefinite period without conviction; and
(c) calls on the Western Australian Government to commit to implementing the CRPD recommendation to lift the conditions on Mr Marlon Noble's release.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the death, on 28 September 2016, of Mr Shimon Peres, a founding father, staunch defender, former Prime Minister and former President of Israel;
(b) extends its appreciation for Mr Peres' extraordinary lifetime of service to his own nation, and to advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East, which was internationally recognised through his receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994; and
(c) expresses its deepest sympathies to the family of Mr Peres and to the people of Israel at the loss of this extraordinary statesman.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) National Carers Week 2016 runs from Sunday, 16 October to Saturday, 22 October, and
(ii) during National Carers Week, Australians are encouraged to show their appreciation for unpaid carers and learn about caring in Australia; and
(b) recognises that:
(i) an estimated 2.8 million Australians provide unpaid care and support for people who have a disability, mental illness, chronic condition, terminal illness or who are aged,
(ii) these carers make an extraordinary contribution to our communities as well as our national economy,
(iii) the replacement cost of this informal care is valued at $60.3 billion over the course of a year, and
(iv) any one at any time can become a carer.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) September 2016 Interim Economic Outlook which states that all countries have room to restructure their spending and tax policies by increasing infrastructure spending and using fiscal measures to support structural reforms,
(ii) the International Monetary Fund (IMF) April 2016 World Economic Outlook which states that infrastructure investment is needed across a range of countries and that countries with fiscal space should not wait to take advantage of low interest rates, and
(iii) the August 2016 and final speech of the former Reserve Bank Governor, Mr Glenn Stevens, in which he drew a distinction between borrowing to invest in the right investment assets – long-lived assets that yield an economic return – as opposed to borrowing to pay pensions, welfare and routine government expenses; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) distinguish between 'good' debt used to fund investment in transformative and productivity enhancing infrastructure, and 'bad' debt used to fund recurrent spending, and
(ii) from the next budget update onwards, distinguish between borrowing for recurrent purposes from borrowing for capital, and increase borrowing to invest in public infrastructure that would help provide a more sustainable economic future and create jobs.
The Senate divided. [12:35]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That senators be discharged from and appointed to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee as follows:
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Ludlam for the committee's inquiry into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement
Participating member: Senator Ludlam.
Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016
National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016
National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2016
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of this bill is to give force of law to the new Australia-Germany Double Taxation Agreement.
Key benefits for Australia would include implementation of the G20/Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project recommended tax treaty integrity rules, access to reduced rates of withholding tax on dividends, interest and royalties, and new clauses allowing arbitration for unresolved tax disputes and mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.
Reasons for Urgency
This treaty contains new rules applying to specified pension payments commencing from 1 January 2017. It is therefore desirable that the new treaty is in force before that date.
In addition, Germany expects to complete its domestic implementation processes in September 2016 to allow the new treaty to take effect in Germany from 1 January 2017.
If the bill is not passed in the 2016 Spring sittings, the treaty will not take effect for withholding tax and German income tax purposes until 1 January 2018, delaying taxpayer access to the treaty benefits for a further year.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill will amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the new tax treaty signed by Australia and Germany on 12 November 2015. The tax treaty is known as theAgreement between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion and Avoidance, and itsProtocol (the new Agreement).
The Bill will further enhance the already strong economic relations between Australia and Germany.
It will encourage trade and investment between Australia and Germany that will support Australian firms and our economy.
International trade and investment creates opportunities for Australia through the provision of goods and services and the injection of foreign capital.
As our economy transitions to broad based growth it is important that we continue to attract foreign investment. But we need the right policy environment for trade and investment in order to take advantage of these opportunities.
The Government has therefore modernised its existing bilateral tax treaty with Germany to reflect changes arising from international developments.
Australians are increasingly concerned about the actions of multinational companies and high wealth individuals who avoid paying their fair share of tax. This new Agreement replaces the old Agreement which was signed in 1972, bringing bilateral tax arrangements into the twenty-first century.
Importantly, the new Agreement is Australia's first tax treaty that has incorporated the integrity provisions of the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, known as BEPS. These provisions are designed to minimise tax avoidance opportunities and ensure that multinational corporations pay the right amount of tax.
This new Agreement includes the BEPS minimum standards for protecting against treaty shopping, to counter the channelling of investments through conduit companies to exploit treaty protections with a view to avoiding Australian tax.
This is an important landmark in the fight against multinational tax avoidance and strengthens the Government's already tough tax anti-avoidance laws. In relation to fiscal evasion, the new Agreement will:
The new Agreement will also improve tax certainty for business by introducing new anti-discrimination and arbitration rules, as well as a range of rules to prevent potential double taxation.
From a trade perspective, the new Agreement will create new opportunities for Australian businesses by reducing withholding tax rates, helping to create a more favourable bilateral investment environment and making it cheaper for Australian business to access German capital and technology.
The new Agreement will also expand treaty benefits for income received by Australian managed investment trusts and certain German collective investment vehicles, and establish source country taxation of pensions in limited circumstances.
The new Agreement will enter into force following the enactment of this Bill.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Industry Research and Development Amendment (Innovation and Science Australia) Bill 2016
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT (INNOVATION AND SCIENCE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2016
SECOND READING SPEECH
A national conversation about innovation has been going on since this Government's launch of the National Innovation and Science Agenda back in December last year.
For us, innovation is a serious, long-term plan to secure Australia's future economic prosperity.
Australia is now in its 26th year of uninterrupted economic growth against a background of major structural reforms and global shocks, including the GFC.
Despite this growth, our productivity performance has been lagging for almost a decade. We need to be serious about our productivity because productivity growth is what will keep us competitive and maintain our standards of living into the future.
Innovation is a major driving force for productivity growth and it's why we're resolute in our commitment to it.
We're in an economy which, for decades, has been continually changing to be more specialised, more flexible, more service orientated, more in tune with the needs of customers.
The challenge the Government is focused on is making sure the policy environment is right for existing and new businesses to succeed as this continues, in a world where knowledge and innovation are becoming the main sources of competitive advantage.
In 2016–17, we are on track to provide $10.1 billion to support research and experimental development. This includes support through the R&D Tax Incentive, direct funding such as National Health and Medical Research Council and Australian Research Council grants, and support through the Higher Education system. This is an increase of 3.55 per cent on the Budget Estimate of $9.7 billion in 2015–16.
Over the last ten years we have seen a 52 per cent increase in Australian Government support for R&D—from over $6.6 billion to over $10.1 billion.
Our challenge is to turn this investment into real benefits for Australians.
Innovation matters to all Australians because it is about job creation. It is about new and improved opportunities to do business, and it underpins a healthy economy.
Innovation is about new or improved goods or services, new processes or new business models.
Innovation is not just about tech start-ups. And it is not about existing firms losing business and jobs to new firms. It is also about established businesses doing things better to stay competitive.
Innovation is happening on the factory floor, on our farms, at the supermarket checkout and in the office, in addition to the leading-edge research occurring in our science laboratories. It's all about turning ideas into a commercial opportunity—to create jobs and better the quality of our lives.
The word may have a renewed popularity around the world, but the idea resonates with our history.
From the stump jump plough and the Hills Hoist to the Cervical Cancer Vaccine, Australians have developed a reputation for identifying problems and applying insight, intellect and determination to solve them.
We can't afford to be complacent, particularly as our competitors drive their own innovation agendas. We must be responsive and forward looking.
Australia needs to remain competitive globally. While the Australian economy has shown resilience, there are increasing risks to the economic outlook.
We have fallen in our ranking on the latest Global Innovation Index. Although this still leaves us in the 'Innovation Leaders' group we can and must do better.
Leading innovative countries like the UK and Sweden have established institutions like Innovate UK and VINNOVA that manage coherent, coordinated, national strategies for innovation. These institutions support high levels of public sector research translation for economic and social benefit. In many of these leading countries, the delivery of national innovation strategies is the responsibility of an independent agency, which operates at arm's length from government.
This Bill creates a new Innovation and Science Australia board.
The new board will replace the current Innovation Australia board and redefine the activities of that board. It will continue to be chaired by Mr Bill Ferris, an active and persuasive advocate for innovation to successive Australian governments. The Bill also creates a new board position of Deputy Chair, which will be filled by Dr Alan Finkel during his term as Australia's Chief Scientist.
Innovation and Science Australia will help us complete the first wave of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, pursue a second wave based on investment attraction and its 2030 Strategic Plan will guide our third wave.
Beyond that, it will work across the government—providing guidance around our $10.1 billion annual investment in Innovation, Science and Research—and will directly engage international, business and community sectors to improve the national innovation system's overall performance.
It's about bang for buck, about fostering an innovation ecosystem, and about linking our investment and our programmes together to create something more.
The composition of the membership of Innovation Australia will continue for Innovation and Science Australia. The members include some of the best minds in innovation and science in Australia today. The talent on this board represents innovators and entrepreneurs with proven records of success.
Innovation and Science Australia will continue the good work of Innovation Australia but will gain more strategic advisory responsibilities. Innovation and Science Australia has an ambitious work plan for the first 12 months of its operation and this legislation will help them to take it forward.
The work of Innovation and Science Australia will involve undertaking periodic audits of Australia's science, research and innovation system to assess and make recommendations on alignment with Government priorities. The board will identify gaps and better understand the activity in the science, research and innovation system and the impact of whole of Government investment.
A further key activity for the new board will be to develop, for the Government's consideration, a long-term, 2030 Strategic Plan, to be informed by the audit I have just mentioned. This plan will identify science, research and innovation investment priorities and specific areas for policy and programme reform.
Innovation and Science Australia will review the adequacy, capacity and condition of Australia's innovation system on a regular basis. These reviews will inform any updates to the Strategic Plan and improve government policies and programmes.
As part of promoting public discussion, Innovation and Science Australia will be able to commission and publish research, including publishing the board's advice to government when the board wishes to do so.
Innovation and Science Australia will also promote investment in industry, innovation, science and research in Australia including showcasing successful innovators, entrepreneurs and researchers. To make this happen the board, through its membership, will establish strong and extensive business and community links.
Similar to other Commonwealth statutory bodies, the board will develop a Statement of Intent in response to the Government's Statement of Expectations. It is government practice for Ministers to issue a Statement of Expectations to a statutory body to provide greater clarity about the government policies and priorities it is expected to observe in conducting its operations. The Statement of Expectations and the Statement of Intent recognise the independence of Innovation and Science Australia's statutory functions.
This Bill will mean that Innovation and Science Australia will have the flexibility, capability and capacity to provide strategic advice on all industry, innovation, science and research matters. It will improve the outcomes of the Australian Government's substantial investment in science, research and innovation. All Australians stand to benefit if we can deliver on our potential.
Aside from establishing Innovation and Science Australia, the Bill also provides a transparent and accountable mechanism for implementing Commonwealth spending decisions on industry, innovation, science and research activities through legislative instruments. This mechanism has been structured to support collaboration across the whole of government on these activities, which is a key concern being addressed by the National Innovation and Science Agenda.
The ability for the Commonwealth to prescribe programs and identify operational elements of spending activities in subordinate legislation in this way provides a level of flexibility for the government to be agile and meet changing demands whilst ensuring its activities and programs are effective, robust , sustainable, and subject to parliamentary oversight.
To conclude, the story of Australia has been a story of innovation.
We've shown we're a nation that can harness its ingenuity to create opportunity and prosperity.
Our future prosperity depends on our ability to innovate. The Government will continue to play its part, getting the settings right to encourage existing firms to grow and new firms to start, creating new opportunities and driving jobs and prosperity. We can boost Australia's innovation capacity by better coordinating our investment in innovation, science and research activities.
This Bill lets us bring Australia's leading minds to bear—from business, commercialisation and research—to make our investments perform better for all Australians. It will point the way for turning today's investments to tomorrow's innovations, to the jobs of the future.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Statute Law Revision (Spring 2016) Bill 2016
That this bill be now read a third time.
National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016
National Cancer Screening Register (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2016
Division required. [13:18]
(The President—Senator Parry)
At the end of the motion, add:
", but, to enable individuals whose personal information has been compromised in a data breach to take remedial steps to avoid potential adverse consequences, the Senate calls on the Government to introduce by the end of the 2016 sittings a bill consistent with the Privacy Amendment (Notification of Serious Data Breaches) Bill 2015 Exposure Draft.".
At the end of the motion, add:
", and the Senate requests the Auditor-General to conduct, within the next 12 months, a performance audit under the Auditor-General Act 1997 to assess:
(a) whether the Department of Health appropriately managed the procurement of services relating to the Register; and
(b) whether the processes adopted for the procurement of services met the requirements of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules including consideration and achievement of value for money.".
(1) Clause 26, page 26 (line 16), omit "The Minister ", substitute "(1) The Minister ".
(2) Clause 26, page 26 (lines 16 and 17), omit "a person ", substitute "a permitted entity ".
(3) Clause 26, page 26 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add:
(3) In this section: permitted entity means:
(a) a Department of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(b) a body (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a public purpose by a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(c) a person in the service or employment of a Department mentioned in paragraph (a) or a body mentioned in paragraph (b); or
(d) a person who holds or performs the duties of an office or position established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(e) an entity (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a charitable purpose.
(4) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in the acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
RACGP would be far more comfortable with it being operated by a government, tertiary institution or a not-for-profit entity that has little interest in how the data in the registry might otherwise be used for pecuniary reasons.
The committee divided. [13:42]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ketter)
(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 21 and 22), omit the definition of contracted service provider.
(2 ) Clause 4, page 6 (line 10), definition of protected information, 'after "personal information ", insert ", key information ".
(3) Clause 18, page 19 (line 13), omit "120 penalty units ", substitute "600 penalty units ".
(4)Clause 22A, page 20 (line 24) to page 23 (line 31), omit the clause, substitute:
22A Data breaches
(1) This section applies to an entity if:
(a) the entity is:
(i) the Commonwealth, the Minister or the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer, performing functions under this Act; or
(ii) engaged by the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to perform services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth in connection with functions of the Commonwealth, the Minister or the Commonwealth Chief Medical Officer under this Act; or
(iii) any other person performing work relating to the purposes of the register; and
(b) the entity becomes aware that:
(i) a person has, or may have, contravened this Act in a manner involving an unauthorised collection, recording, disclosure or other use of information about an individual; or
(ii) an event has, or may have, occurred (whether or not involving a contravention of this Act) that compromises, may compromise, has compromised or may have compromised, the security or integrity of the register; or
(iii) circumstances have, or may have, arisen (whether or not involving a contravention of this Act) that compromise, may compromise, have compromised or may have compromised, the security or integrity of the register; and
(c) the contravention, event or circumstances directly involved, may have involved or may involve the entity.
Note: This section applies to an entity when the entity becomes aware of a matter referred to in paragraph (b) regardless of when that matter arose or occurred or if the matter is ongoing at the time the entity became aware of the matter.
Notifying the Information Commissioner
(2) The entity must, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the contravention, event or circumstances, notify the Information Commissioner of the contravention, event or circumstances.
Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.
(3) If an entity has given notice under subsection (2) on becoming aware that a contravention, event or circumstances may have occurred or arisen then, despite subsection (2), the entity need not give notice again on becoming aware that the contravention, event or circumstances has occurred or arisen.
Steps to be taken if contravention, event or circumstances may have occurred or arisen
(4) The entity must, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the contravention, event or circumstances may have occurred or arisen, do the following things:
(a) so far as is reasonably practicable contain the potential contravention, event or circumstances;
(b) evaluate any risks that, if the contravention, event or circumstances has occurred or arisen, may be related to or arise out of the contravention, event or circumstances;
(c) if there is a reasonable likelihood that the contravention, event or circumstance has occurred or arisen and the effects of the contravention, event or circumstances might be serious for at least one individual—notify all individuals who would be affected.
Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.
Steps to be taken if contravention or event has occurred or the circumstances have arisen
(5) The entity must, as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the contravention or
event has occurred or the circumstances have arisen, do the following things:
(a) so far as is reasonably practicable, contain the contravention, event or circumstances and undertake a preliminary assessment of the causes;
(b) evaluate any risks that may be related to or arise out of the contravention, event or circumstances;
(c) notify all affected individuals;
(d) if a significant number of individuals are affected—notify the general public;
(e) take steps to prevent or mitigate the effects of further contraventions, events or circumstances described in paragraphs (1) (b).
Civil penalty: 600 penalty units.
(6) If an entity has given notice under paragraph (4) (c), then despite paragraph (5) (c), the entity need not give notice under paragraph (5) (c).
(5) Clause 22B, page 24 (lines 2 and 3), omit "section 18 or subsection 22A(1), (2), (4), (5) or (6) ", substitute "this Act in connection with personal information or key information about an individual included on the register ".
(6) Clause 26, page 26 (line 16), omit "The Minister ", substitute "(1) The Minister ".
(7) Clause 26, page 26, after subclause (1), insert:
(2) Ownership of information included in the register or otherwise obtained under, or in accordance with, this Act is retained by the Commonwealth despite any agreement under subsection (1).
(8) Clause 27, page 27 (lines 1 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:
(2) The Secretary may, in writing, delegate his or her functions or powers under
paragraph 17(3) (g) (about disclosing information) to an SES employee, or an acting SES employee, in the Department.
(d) a person who holds or performs the duties of an office or position established by or under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or
(e) an entity (whether incorporated or unincorporated) established for a charitable purpose.
(4) This section has no effect to the extent (if any) to which its operation would result in the acquisition of property (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution) otherwise than on just terms (within the meaning of that paragraph).
Although the bill does not address issues of ownership or custodianship of information, the Commonwealth will be custodian of data in the register.
The Senate divided. [13:57]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ketter)
That this bill be now read a third time.
… ultra vires and of no effect as a lawful direction …
… that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government, higher than advice from the Australian Government Solicitor or from the private bar. Nevertheless, he would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues:
Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again.
Because, despite the fact that I say the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still …
And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome.
Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister.
… despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that.
The Law Officers Act might be better to be repealed rather than the Office demeaned to this level …
The image of a dog on a lead comes to mind.
… appears to be a legal difference of opinion between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General.
I was always on that side of the debate which said that unions are public bodies so they are accountable to members …
… … …
I wouldn’t allow this sort of industrial behaviour and the extravagant payments and expenditures to officials. Unions have to take their responsibility to members very seriously—
South Australia is a leader in clean energy generation, also benefits from our programs which support renewable including of course the RET.
Each of the policy credible pathways considered already includes a carbon price imposed on the electricity sector.
1 Response to Question without notice from Senator Hanson — Monday 10 October:
The Australian Government's decision has been to regulate medicinal cannabis products as therapeutic goods. There are constitutional limits to the extent that the Commonwealth can regulate therapeutic goods. All therapeutic goods are subject to both Commonwealth and state/territory legislation.
In the case of medicinal cannabis products, some states, such as Queensland and Victoria, have decided to introduce or enact new legislation to facilitate access to these products. Other states have determined that there is no need to change their legislation.
This is a matter for state governments to decide. In Queensland, access to medicinal cannabis products was absolutely prohibited until December 2015, regardless of any decisions at the Commonwealth level. In December 2015, the Queensland government made changes to their regulations to enable, for the first time, access to medicinal cannabis products.
The Commonwealth has no power to directly intercede and overrule the state governments and so is working with them to ensure, as much as possible, a harmonised approach.
The recent decision by the Therapeutic Goods Administration to schedule medicinal cannabis products to schedule 8 of the Poisons Standard under certain circumstances is intended to facilitate state/territory laws around medicinal cannabis products. However, this decision has no legal effect unless adopted by the states and territories. Our understanding is that the states either intend to adopt the decision or to do something equivalent.
The Bill that the Queensland government is debating is about providing a pathway for access to medicinal cannabis products, which are whole plant extracts. This is different to 'synthetic cannabis' that is sometimes sold on the black market for recreational use and there is no evidence that these whole plant extracts are in any way detrimental to patient welfare.
The legislation passed unanimously by the Parliament in February this year is aimed at facilitating the cultivation of cannabis for manufacture into medicinal cannabis products that are standardised, safe and of appropriate quality, specifically to protect patients from the risks associated with black market cannabis, which has unknown quantities of cannabinoids and the potential for contamination with bacteria, funguses, heavy metals and other material that represent a risk to the health of the patient.
In the case of medicinal cannabis products, some states (Victoria and Queensland) have decided that special medicinal cannabis legislation would make access easier for patients. However, in all states, access to medicinal cannabis products will be subject to state and territory drugs and poison legislation, just as every other medicine used in Australia is.
Although the Poisons Standard provides a classification of drugs and poisons into Schedules it is a recommendation to states and territories. Scheduling of drugs and poisons, and hence access, is implemented through relevant state and territory legislation. Examples of controlled drugs where there are separate state/territory controls on access include:
In relation to medicinal cannabis please note this is an unapproved drug whereas the examples just given relate to drugs that have gone through a full approval process with TGA.
Response to Question without notice from Senator Siewert — Monday 10 October:
Funding for the Partners in Recovery (PIR) and Day to Day Living (D2DL) programs is transitioning to the NDIS between 1 July 2016 and 30 June 2019.
To ensure service continuity and NDIS rollout, PIR and D2DL have been extended for a transition phase of three years, with an initial funding extension of 12 months to 30 June 2017.
Partners in Recovery and Day to Day Living clients are being progressively transitioned to NDIS in line with regional timeframes detailed in Bilateral Agreements with the relevant state and territory governments (noting that a bilateral agreement with Western Australia is still under negotiation).
PIR and D2DL services continue to be available to existing clients, including where a region has not commenced rollout, where a client is ineligible for NDIS (for example if they do not meet age requirements), or if they have not yet applied for NDIS in a region that has commenced rollout.
When NDIS rollout commences in a region, PIR and D2DL Organisations will be required to assist NDIS-eligible clients to apply, and will be provided with an in-kind allocation in their budget which reflects the level of NDIS service delivery required to support NDIS rollout.
The Council of Australian Government has made a commitment that existing program clients will not be disadvantaged through the transition to the NDIS. Existing program clients found not eligible for the NDIS will receive support under Continuity of Support (CoS) arrangements.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Solicitor-General.
…that Attorney-General Senator George Brandis has been 'opinion shopping' for legal advice goes to the heart of concerns about the failure of Senator Brandis to work with Australia's second law officer …
The job of the Solicitor-General is to provide legal advice to the government, to government ministers and to Heads of Department. Senator Brandis has clearly hobbled the ability of the Solicitor-General to do his job …
Senator Brandis' failure to consult the Solicitor-General breaks a century-long tradition of Attorneys-General and Solicitors-General working together on Commonwealth legal matters.
…why he is not seeking the advice of the Solicitor-General on issues of public importance.…Senator Brandis has failed to consult the one person that he is expected to consult for legal advice.
Some former Attorneys-General indicated that they were willing to seek alternative legal opinions where they disagreed with the Solicitor-General's advice …
Similarly, Mark Dreyfus indicated that the Solicitor-General's advice was given a high status within government … Nonetheless, he—
would, occasionally, seek another legal opinion. He explained that he might seek another opinion on particularly important political issues—
"Or two. Or three. Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again …"
Perhaps I might feel I needed two to outweigh the Solicitor-General's advice, and I would go and get very senior advice. And I've done that. And I would do it again. Because, despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that.
A government of integrity should not shirk from obtaining disinterested peak advice of integrity from its SG. It should not shop around, or even refrain from obtaining the second law officer’s advice on matters where is suspects the advice may be contra the government’s preferences.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to policies to mitigate the risk of shark attacks.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The document read as follows—
Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report:
Use of smoke alarms to prevent smoke and fire related deaths.
BACKGROUND
On 25 June 2015, the Senate referred the following matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry:
The use of smoke alarms to prevent smoke and fire related deaths, with particular reference to:
a) the incidence of smoke and fire related injuries and deaths and associated damage to property;
b) the immediate and long term effects of such injuries and deaths;
c) how the use, type and installation set-ups of smoke alarms could affect such injuries and deaths;
d) what smoke alarms are in use in owner-occupied and rented dwellings and the installation set-ups;
e) how the provisions of the Australian Building Code relating to smoke alarm type, installation and use can be improved;
f) whether there are any other legislative or regulatory measures which would minimise such injuries and deaths; and
g) any related matter.
The Committee received 29 submissions and held three public hearings in Brisbane (29 October 2015) and Canberra (4 December 2015 and 22 February 2016).
On 20 April 2016, the Committee tabled its report which included seven recommendations.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The Australian Government (Government) has an indirect role in relation to the use of smoke alarms and wider building and construction matters.
The Department of Industry, Innovation and Science represents the Commonwealth on the Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB). The ABCB is the standards writing body responsible for the National Construction Code (NCC) which comprises the Building Code of Australia and the Plumbing Code of Australia. The Commonwealth is one of ten government members (including local government) on the ABCB, there are also five industry representative members.
The NCC provides the states and territories with model regulation that is fully or partially adopted through their respective legislation, for which they remain responsible for implementing.
As set out in the ABCB's submission to the Committee, 'some level of building regulation is considered necessary by all governments to protect the health and safety of building occupants, provide for buildings that have an acceptable level of amenity and sustainable design, contribute to consumer confidence and reduce the potential for downstream costs arising out of poor construction' (ABCB, Submission 21, August 2015, p. 4).
The NCC sets out the minimum performance requirements for smoke alarms for new buildings and new building works. This includes referencing Australian Standard 3786, which the two mainstream smoke alarm technologies, ionisation and photoelectric, may satisfy. It also requires connection to mains power and interconnection where more than one smoke alarm is required. Further, the NCC points to the importance of location and maintenance of any device.
The Government considers that based on evidence submitted to the Committee and the Committee's findings, it is appropriate for both ionisation and photoelectric smoke alarms to be permitted, noting that states and territories can determine if any restrictions should apply. The Northern Territory for example only permit photoelectric alarms in residential properties.
The Government does not agree that either ionisation or photoelectric smoke alarms should be given preference unless there is further evidence available to make a compelling case for favouring one technology over the other.
The Government agrees with the Committee that there are gaps in data relating to smoke and fire-related incidents.
The Government notes that the ABCB is continuing to review and analyse evidence relating to different smoke alarm technologies, including a project in collaboration with Fire and Rescue NSW. It will be important to consider additional data arising from these studies before consideration is given to potential amendments to the NCC.
The Government notes the regulation of smoke alarms is a matter for consideration by the states and territories. While all jurisdictions work through the ABCB to try to achieve a nationally consistent code for new residential buildings, states and territories still have the ability, through their own legislation, to apply the use of smoke alarms in new and existing building as they see necessary. To assist jurisdictions, the Minister for Industry, Innovation
and Science will write to state and territory building ministers to provide the Committee inquiry report and this Government response.
A response to each of the Committee's seven recommendations is provided below. Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that Australian governments collaboratively establish a national database of residential fire incidents and that state and territory fire and emergency services are adequately resourced to collect and report data to that national database.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
States and territories are responsible for collecting and reporting information on residential fire incidents. The resourcing of these activities, including potentially sharing such information in one form or another, is therefore a matter for their consideration.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that Australian governments consider establishing a national residential fire reporting and recording mechanism to capture statistics of currently unreported residential fire incidents.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
States and territories are responsible for collecting and reporting information on residential fire incidents. The resourcing of these activities, including any options for capturing unreported residential fire incidents is therefore a matter for their consideration.
Regarding the establishment of a national residential fire reporting and recording mechanism, the Government would not support any proposal to create a new mechanism that detracts resources from the states and territories developing fire-prevention practices and managing fire incidents.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the NCC is amended to require the installation of
interconnected, and preferably mains powered, photoelectric smoke alarms, supplemented where appropriate by ionisation smoke alarms, in every residential property and specify the type of smoke alarm to be used at different locations within each residential property, taking into account the different smoke detection properties of photoelectric and ionisation smoke alarms.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
A requirement for interconnected, mains powered smoke alarms for new residential buildings is already included in the NCC, along with location requirements and a further requirement that smoke alarms meet Australian Standard 3786, which enables the use of any technology that satisfies the minimum time deemed necessary to alert occupants to the risk of a fire and evacuate the building.
The Government also notes the committee's view in relation to ionisation smoke alarms:
" However, the committee does not agree that ionisation smoke alarms should be banned: photoelectric and ionisation smoke alarms detect different fires in different ways and are therefore fit for purpose in particular locations ." (Committee Report page 33).
As the regulation of smoke alarms is a matter for consideration by the states and territories, any proposed amendments in relation to smoke alarms in the NCC should be considered by states and territories through the ABCB.
Any proposed amendments should also take account of additional evidence that may be available through the ongoing investigations being undertaken by the ABCB in collaboration with Fire and Rescue NSW.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends, to give effect to Recommendation 3, that all state and territory governments adopt the amended NCC and agree to apply it to all residential properties, irrespective of the age of a property.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The regulation of smoke alarms is a matter for consideration by the states and territories. The Government notes that while the NCC is not intended to apply retrospectively for existing residential properties, unless significant alterations and/or additions are being undertaken, states and territories have the ability, through their own legislation, to apply the use of smoke alarms as they see necessary.
It should be noted, however, that the cost of states and territories requiring smoke alarms to be installed in all residential properties, irrespective of the age of a property, as per Recommendation 3, would be significant.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that all states and territories implement mandatory compliance checks of smoke alarms in residential properties whenever a property is sold, tenanted or hired.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The regulation of smoke alarms is the responsibility of state and territory governments. This issue is therefore a matter for their consideration.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, state and territory governments develop and implement a package of measures, including but not limited to a website and resources for key stakeholders, to educate Australians about:
Response
The Government notes this recommendation and agrees in principle with its intent.
The regulation of smoke alarms is the responsibility of state and territory governments. Any public awareness and education measures in relation to smoke alarms should be considered and led by the states and territories, including through the ABCB where appropriate.
It is noted that some of the recommended measures are already the subject of public awareness material produced by state and territory government fire service authorities and product manufacturers' specifications. Such material should emphasise both the effectiveness of smoke alarms and the importance of installing and using them correctly.
Recommendation 7
In the event Australian governments are unwilling to amend the NCC and apply it to all building stock irrespective of classification and age, the committee recommends that they consider implementing a nationwide smoke alarm household installation scheme that includes consultation with:
Response
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The appropriate mechanism for the regulation of smoke alarms already exists via the ABCB and the NCC, which is supported by the Australian Government and all state and territory governments.
The Government therefore supports a more targeted approach to addressing the use of smoke alarms by the states and territories via the ABCB and through the NCC.
That the Senate take note of the report.
National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
… is actually not on a path towards success, but instead on a path towards failing to deliver the full Block 3F capabilities, for which the department is paying almost USD400 billion …
That the Senate—
(a) supports the efforts of the Department of Defence and other Commonwealth and state government agencies responding to environmental and health issues arising out of firefighting foam contamination at RAAF Base Williamtown in New South Wales and Army Aviation Centre Oakey in Queensland, including engaging the University of Newcastle Family Action Centre (UNFAC) to develop and deliver mental health awareness and stress management activities in the Williamtown area;
(b) notes that:
(i) some landholders in the immediate vicinity of Williamtown Air Base and Oakey Army Aviation Centre are reporting difficulties accessing equity, property value impacts and difficulty selling their land,
(ii) the Department of Defence has met with a number of lending institutions and the Australian Property Institute to discuss property lending policies and practices and how valuations are conducted in the Williamtown area, and
(iii) the Department of Defence has committed to review the issue of property acquisition once detailed environmental investigations at RAAF Base Williamtown and Army Aviation Centre Oakey have been concluded; and
(c) calls on the Government to expedite environmental investigations of the impact of firefighting foam contamination at Williamtown and Oakey to enable landholders to address the dilemma of land remediation or relocation, and move on with their lives and deal with issues of mental health and stress management.
In addition to environmental harm, such obvious pollution incidents have the potential to seriously damage Defence's reputation as an environmental manager and good corporate citizen.
Defence currently uses—
AFFF product that contains non-biodegradable … (PFOS/PFOA) that are environmentally persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic to animals and humans.
PFOS is acutely toxic to frogs and honey bees. Both PFOS and PFOA have been implicated with a variety of cancers and toxic health effects in humans that have had long term exposure to products containing PFOS/PFOA.
In 2002 the US EPA forced products containing PFOS/PFOA off the market.
The repeated uncontrolled or poorly managed use of AFFF products that contain PFOS/PFOA is cause for major environmental and health concern. There is the risk that poor AFFF management practices across some of Defence’s facilities may have resulted in PFOS/PFOA contaminating of soil, surface water and groundwater, both on and off base. Furthermore, the biodegradable part of AFFF consumes a lot of oxygen as it breaks down. The consumption of oxygen may influence the biological/chemical/geological conditions of groundwater and surface waters by driving anaerobic systems and causing the asphyxiation of aquatic fauna.
The main issues associated with fire fighting foam waste-water management are based around how it is collected, contained and disposed of…. there are no regulatory actions that specifically encompass the use and disposal of products containing PFOS/PFOA.
Most reports distinctly state that fire fighting foam waste-water should not be disposed of into watercourses, soils, or foul stormwater drains …
Best management practice for AFFF waste-water, as indicated by reports and literature, include the appropriate collection and containment of AFFF waste-water, and disposal via a sewage treatment plant or by incineration.
There has been some issues with AFFF waste-water affecting the oil separation process, with many separators requiring constant repairs or replacement.
In many cases across Defence the AFFF waste-water is being released into the environment … with the potential of AFFF pollutants … contaminating soil and groundwater on Defence bases as well as contaminating surrounding farm land and surface waters.
Defence should consider undertaking site testing … to determine if its facilities are contaminated by PFOS/PFOA and the extent of the contamination, and also consider establishing monitoring wells in areas where AFFF is repeatedly used and released …
Defence should consider restricting the use of AFFF across its facilities in accordance to NICNAS recommendations.
Defence should consider facilitating industry partnerships into researching the behaviour of AFFF mixtures and waste-water as they may occur in the Australian environment.
AFFF waste-water management system should be designed to contain the most probable worst case AFFF discharge, to minimise the risk of any AFFF waste-water reaching watercourses, soil, or stormwater drains.
The management of AFFF across Defence should meet the best practice methods used by others, as indicated in reports (manufacturer recommendations, US Defense, UK Defence, consultants’ reports) and in scientific literature.
If open ponds are used to store AFFF waste-water they should be managed to restrict access by fauna (e.g. using netting or synthetic liners).
It is imperative to contact the local waste authority to determine suitable waste disposal methods and if any pre-treatment or dilution is required.
I do not think there is any pathology that that person should expect, or can expect—
I think that person should live as healthy a life as somebody that has eight nanograms per millilitre. We do not have any evidence that says a person with 350 has a different life expectancy. I am not saying that there are no health effects, but we do not know that there are health effects. As long as we do not know … we should not concern anybody about health effects when we do not know them.
EPA launched the PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006 because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and long-chain PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence, presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 13 October 2016 relating to photography in the chamber be amended by omitting '28 November 2016' and substituting '7 November 2016'.
The annual hospitals budget, from New South Wales, is about $20 billion. That is one year's salary, effectively … You can close the system for a year or you can fund to meet demand … $18.3 billion so it is, virtually, a year's New South Wales hospital budget worth of cuts.
I think we will get more sick patients if the primary health care is not attended to. I mentioned some patients, like asthma patients and patients with a chronic disease like emphysema, who have been better managed because there are good strategies and care plans in place for them. Any budget cuts in that area will only reflect to us getting them at a sicker state. There will be a higher burden on the presentations in the health system.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator the Hon Marise Payne
Minister for Defence
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Dear Minister
We present the Defence Annual Report 2014–15 for the year ended 30 June 2015. The report has been prepared in accordance with section 63 of thePublic Service Act 1999 . Subsection 63(1) of the Act requires that our report to you be tabled in Parliament.
Consistent with section 10 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Rule 2014, we certify that we are satisfied that Defence has prepared fraud risk assessments and fraud control plans and has in place appropriate fraud prevention, detection, investigation, recording and reporting mechanisms that meet the specific needs of the department, and that Defence has taken all reasonable measures to appropriately deal with fraud relating to the department.
Yours sincerely
Dennis Richardson
Secretary
Mark Binskin, AC
Air Chief Marshal
Defence has not exercised adequate central control over the issuing or use of Fastcards or eTickets. Defence has no system in place and little capacity to routinely monitor and manage the risks it has identified in its use of Cabcharge eTickets. Defence could have used an available IT system to help it manage risks but did not do so.
Defence advised the ANAO that it proposes to begin using an appropriate system.
4.6 On 9 July 2015, in the course of the audit—
Defence cancelled 31 of the 34 Fastcards mentioned above but left active each of those it had provided to the then Minister for Defence, Assistant Minister for Defence and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. Defence had previously advised Parliament in February 2015 that it ‘does not issue corporate credit cards to the Minister or ministerial office staff'. Defence informed the ANAO that it was in the process of correcting this statement.
The ANAO identified records of 261,158 taxi trips paid by eTicket at a total cost of over $16.28 million—
Some 17 905 different taxis (by recorded taxi number) were involved in making 261 158 trips over the period January 2012 to July 2015, a mean of just under 15 trips per taxi—
Some taxis were much more fortunate than others in winning Defence eTicket business. Whereas 16 800 taxis each undertook 50 or fewer of these trips for Defence, some 12 taxis each took 500 or more such trips, with three of these taxis each taking more than 1000 trips. One particular taxi took 2160 trips using eTickets, an average of over 4.5 trips a day, at a total cost of $174 621. On its busiest day, it did 15 trips, costing $1162 in fares. The same taxi earned fares of over $1000 on each of seven separate days. Three taxis each earned over $100 000 in fares … in the period.
… taxi trips paid for by eTicket and timed between 1.00am and 4.00am. This is a period when little work-related travel might be expected to take place, with the possible exception of trips to or from an airport or shift work. After excluding airport-related trips, the analysis indicated there had been 1263 such taxi trips—
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee's inquiry into Commonwealth funding of Indigenous Tasmanians
Participating member: Senator Rhiannon
Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senators Hanson-Young and Roberts
Participating members: Senators Di Natale, Ludlam, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Siewert, Waters and Whish-Wilson
If it’s $1 that leaves Canberra, what is it that hits Fitzroy Crossing—10c, 20c?
They probably need to have a look at how their policies are working and they need to have indicators on how those funds are rolled out …
Vast swathes of funding are absorbed by the red tape of administration within the government bureaucracy, and on the ‘middlemen’ between government and Indigenous people.
Evidence to the committee reiterates what has been found in previous inquiries: the funding for legal assistance services is inadequate.
This should not be about who cares the most in family violence. This should be about how we can harness the hearts of all Australians and, indeed, the leaders at the highest levels to acknowledge the scourge of something that impacts on many families across Australia, not just Indigenous families.