The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Tabling
The Clerk: I table documents pursuant to statute. The list is available from the Table Office or the chamber attendants.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today ' s Hansard.
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Two construction workers killed at Brisbane's Eagle Farm racecourse managed to escape one falling concrete wall only to be killed by a second, police have alleged, after the builder in charge of the site was arrested at the international airport.
Claudio D'Alessandro, 58, appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Wednesday on two counts of manslaughter, after being charged on Tuesday.
D'Alessandro was arrested at Brisbane international airport, where he was embarking on a spur-of-the moment, four-day holiday to the Philippines.
The court was told the men were helping to install a four-walled "foul water settling tank" consisting of four individual walls, each about four square metres and weighing about 10 tonnes.
The walls were lowered individually onto the floor with a crane, with the first three walls, once in place, being "tied" to each other across the top corner by use of adjustable temporary bracing.
…
A police affidavit stated that the men were working in a "pit" under D'Alessandro's instructions trying to lower the concrete walls when they began to collapse.
The pair managed to "ride down" one concrete slab as it fell but were crushed after the wall's failure caused a second slab to topple forward.
The bill proposes expanding the definition of building work to cover transport and supply to building sites. This is a necessary and desirable measure because as history has shown the Construction, Forestry, Manufacturing and Energy Union (CFMEU) has often pursued suppliers and transport companies to put commercial pressure on the builder. By choking off its supply line and pressuring innocent third parties, the CFMEU's tactic is to cause a collapse in the builder's resistance in enterprise agreement negotiations.
How any member of parliament could think that a provision dealing with this deliberate behaviour is a bad thing defies belief.
…that the CFMEU's "record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious. That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement ... quite obviously over the years the CFMEU has shown a strong disinclination to modify its business model in order to comply with the law."
These are very strong words for a judge and in the clearest terms possible he is making out the case for higher penalties. Quite simply the current regime of penalties, set by the former Labor government, is no deterrent at all to the CFMEU. Breaking the laws of this land has simply been priced by the CFMEU as the cost of doing business. Given that the penalties are obviously no deterrent they need to be increased to a level where observance of the law becomes the more desirable alternative.
Federal Circuit Court Judge Burnett has said the actions of CFMEU officials Kane Pearson, Joseph Myles and Shane Treadaway on a Brisbane construction site represented a 'gross failure of corporate governance on the part of the CFMEU and its affiliates'.
In February this year, Judge Burnett penalised the CFMEU and the three men a total $38,500 for hindering, obstructing and acting in an improper manner on a Brisbane construction site on 11 February, 2010.
… let me give you some good Victorian examples. There are 270,000 Victorians working in the construction industry. There are 22 Victorian CFMEU representatives before the courts for breaching of industrial law. In Victoria over the last decade the CFMEU has been fined $4.3 million – to the highest level in any state. And they have been found to breach the law on building sites in Victoria on including a project for 58 schools, road and rail projects, Mitcham and Rooks Road rail separation, Southern Link upgrade, the Florey Neuro Science Institute at Heidelberg, the Simpson Army Barracks, Melbourne Institute of Technology.
I mean the CFMEU's lawlessness in Victoria is so well known. Now, if we can get the rule of law reimposed, restored in the building sector, that will increase productivity, it'll increase the ability of people to work in the industry because they won't have to get past the union, being able to dictate which subcontractor, which tiling contractor for example can get a start and of course it will, by reducing that industrial lawlessness, you'll reduce the cost of these union jobs.
… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.
That litigation threatens to consume more time and resources of this State, judicial and otherwise, with no prospect of resolution in the short term.
This Government is not prepared to allow the continuation of a third or possibly fourth, decade of expensive Bell litigation consuming the judicial and government resources of this State.
Therefore the Government has introduced the Bell Group Companies (Finalisation of Matters and Distribution of Proceeds) Bill 2015. This Bill ensures a fair and expeditious end to the Bell litigation, providing for an equitable distribution of funds held by the liquidator …
… … …
This Bill provides a framework for the dissolution of those Bell Group companies registered in Western Australia, and the administration and distribution of the Bell litigation proceeds to avoid the perpetual litigation that appears to be inevitable on any issue associated with these companies
That the Senate take note of the statement.
The understanding was that the commonwealth would not use the powers under the Corporations Act with the regulations null and void and it would not take an action to the High Court on the ATO and tax issues. In the end the ATO and the commonwealth Solicitor-General did join the action and they were successful in throwing the issue out.
Despite Senator Brandis’ instruction, the ATO's written submission to the High Court — authored by Mr Gleeson — used the precise legal argument that the Attorney-General had assured his State counterpart Michael Mischin would be avoided by the Commonwealth.
Mr Mischin was infuriated by the ATO's move, not only because its argument in the High Court was on a basis the Commonwealth had promised not to advance, but because he thought the tone of the agency’s submission professed WA's ignorance of the Constitution.
In fact, the Commonwealth was kept well abreast of the State’s intentions, with WA openly discussing the constitutional issues concerning its legislation and even sharing early drafts.
WA Treasurer Mike Nahan had received personal and written assurances early last year from then Federal counterpart Joe Hockey that the Commonwealth would not oppose the State Governments move.
… … …
… five days after the High Court had heard the case, Mr Mischin and Senator Brandis had what witnesses say was a ''blazing row'' when the two attorneys-general met in Perth. Mr Mischin told Senator Brandis he was unhappy that the Commonwealth intervened in the case on the grounds pursued in court.
On May 4, Senator Brandis issued a directive that any department or agency seeking legal opinion from the Solicitor-General must first get Attorney-General approval.
A senior Federal source told the West Australian that Attorney-General Brandis verbally instructed Mr Gleeson earlier this year, as counsel for the A-G, not to run a particular argument in the High Court when a Bell creditor and its liquidator challenged the constitutionality of WA's attempt to take control of the group's $1.8 billion.
The West Australian understands Senator Brandis told Mr Gleeson and understanding had been reached between the Federal and WA governments to finally end more than two decades of litigation stemming from the group's collapse.
The basic problem is that the drafter of the Bell Act has either forgotten the existence of the Tax Legislation, or decided to proceed blithely in disregard of its existence. No mechanism has been provided for in the Bell Act to allow for the continued operation or paramountcy of the Tax Legislation.
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
At the end of the motion, add:
", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to establish a national independent broad based anti-corruption body that has wide ranging powers, including the power to investigate politicians, and that this bill should not come into effect until such legislation has been passed by the Senate.".
I regard Upton’s conduct as deplorable particularly so for someone acting in his official capacity …
The language used as well as being repeatedly obscene, had a particularly nasty racist overtone.
The CFMEU has a significant record of noncompliance with the provision of industrial legislation … There is a history over a number of years of contraventions on industrial law by CFMEU officials, for whom the CFMEU is responsible, and which have involved those officials, variously, in using obscene and threatening language, making threats of assaults and in some cases involving scuffles and physical altercation.
… an industry which departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy. They mark the industry as singular.
… marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct. Fear, intimidation and coercion are commonplace. Contractors, subcontractors and workers face this culture continuously. At the centre of this culture and much of the unlawful and inappropriate conduct is—
the CFMEU.
The CFMEU exercises a position of dominance and power often disproportionate to its on-site presence, in terms of the number of workers on-site who are members of the CFMEU.
… one of the options I considered … was that the ATO should not intervene in the proceedings.
I was also of the view, at that stage, that it was not necessary for the Commonwealth to intervene …
In a tight fiscal environment, prudent spending decisions are vital.
Australian spending on school education increased over the last decade, but student outcomes did not improve. Whatever we did, it didn't work. And doing the same again is likely to have the same outcome.
More money alone will not guarantee better student outcomes. It is not enough to target money to the most disadvantaged schools; each school must then use that money wisely.
Effective teaching is known to have the largest impact on student outcomes outside of the home …
Building relationships is key to Australia's success in these emerging markets over coming years. This trade mission presents a meaningful reconnaissance opportunity that sets a strong foundation for reciprocal business and cultural outcomes.
The Federal Government's commitment to funding SOUNDS AUSTRALIA for the next four years is fantastic news, and will be welcomed by thousands of current and future exporting artists and music businesses. The support from the local and international music industries has been overwhelming - a testament to the work of the SOUNDS AUSTRALIA team, Millie Millgate, Glenn Dickie and Esti Zilber!
… move each of their fisheries to an individual transferable quota management system unless it is demonstrated that this is technically impractical or not cost effective. If individual transferable quotas are not used, fisheries should be managed using individual transferable effort systems.
… had representations made to them by the Western Australian government, as I recall, and they made inquiries of us.
That the Senate take note of the answers to questions to Senator Brandis asked by the opposition.
… one of the options I considered … was that the ATO should not intervene in the proceedings.
Did the Attorney-General discuss his view with anyone other than Mr Mills and Ms O'Dwyer? If so, who?
Given the significant nature of the proposed course of action, I urge the Western Australian government to ensure that the utmost probity is evidenced throughout the process so as to ensure that Australia remains and continues to be seen as an attractive destination for foreign investment.
We always knew it was a fairly high-risk strategy, but we needed to have a go and we were relying on the Federal Government to be supportive, which they were, but then the ATO went their own way …
That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senator Brandis to questions asked by Senator Siewert today relating to legal aid and DSP.
That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 8 of standing order 111 not apply to the Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill 2016, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2016 SPRING SITTINGS
CIVIL NUCLEAR TRANSFERS TO INDIA BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill will clarify for Australian Government decision‑makers the legal basis for the transfer of nuclear material and nuclear-related items to India and provide guidance on the exercise of their powers to approve such transfers.
Reasons for Urgency
The bill is required urgently to provide certainty to Australian industry and to Australian Government decision-makers on Australia's international legal obligations in respect of exports of uranium (or other nuclear material and nuclear-related items) to India. Exports of uranium are expected to commence in the coming months.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Polley for today and tomorrow, 28 to 29 November, for personal reasons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne from 28 November to 1 December 2016 for personal reasons.
That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report by 14 August 2017:
(a) the implications of the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including in relation to electronic surveillance and metadata domestic preservation notices, on the privileges and immunities of members of Parliament;
(b) whether current oversight and reporting regimes on the use of intrusive powers are adequate to protect the capacity of members of Parliament to carry out their functions, including whether the requirements of parliamentary privilege are sufficiently acknowledged;
(c) the need for specific protocols to be developed on any or all of the following matters:
(i) access by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to information held by parliamentary departments or departments of state (or portfolio agencies) in relation to members of Parliament or their staff,
(ii) access in accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to metadata or other electronic material in relation to members of Parliament or their staff, held by carriers or carriage service providers, and
(iii) activities of intelligence agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff (with reference to the agreement between the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service); and
(d) any related matters.
That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report by 14 August 2017:
(aa) whether protocols for the execution of search warrants in the premises of members of Parliament, or where parliamentary privilege may be raised, sufficiently protect the capacity of members to carry out their functions without improper interference;
(a) the implications of the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including telecommunications interception, electronic surveillance and metadata domestic preservation orders, on the privileges and immunities of members of Parliament;
(b) whether current oversight and reporting regimes on the use of intrusive powers are adequate to protect the capacity of members of Parliament to carry out their functions, including whether the requirements of parliamentary privilege are sufficiently acknowledged;
(c) whether specific protocols should be developed on any or all of the following:
(i) access by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to information held by parliamentary departments, departments of state (or portfolio agencies) or private agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff,
(ii) access in accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to metadata or other electronic material in relation to members of Parliament or their staff, held by carriers or carriage service providers, and
(iii) activities of intelligence agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff (with reference to the agreement between the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service); and
(d) any related matters, including competing public interest considerations.
The Senate divided. [15:46]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Transparency) Bill 2016
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to improve donation transparency and accountability, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which demonstrates the commitment by the Australian Labor Party to vital reforms in the area of political donations, disclosure, and election funding. On behalf of the Opposition, I have presented these changes to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and reform Australia's electoral laws in line with clear and unambiguous public expectation.
The measures contained in the presented Bill seek to deal with four key issues surrounding the conduct of electoral fundraising and expenditure.
Primarily, the Bill seeks to address the intricate issue of receipt of gifts and donations from foreign entities. This has been an issue that has attracted widespread public attention, and it is clear the public want this Parliament to act. The amendments presented in this Bill seek to make it unlawful for candidates, registered political parties, and members of Senate groups to accept donations or gifts identified as foreign property.
The amendments presented in this Bill also make it unlawful for persons or entities to receive overseas or foreign gifts that are used solely or substantially to incur political expenditure. In addition, this Bill seeks to extend the prohibition on anonymous gifts to associated entities and third parties, with the intent of ensuring disclosure is not avoided through such entities.
This Bill seeks to ensure the source of all political donations which could affect political decision-making are clearly identified, the public in turn can scrutinise the receipt of such donations and any possible effect on decision-making, and the Australian Electoral Commission has authority and jurisdiction over all such matters.
Secondly, this Bill addresses the long overdue need to reduce the amount of donations where the identity of the donor remains anonymous from a threshold of "more than $10,000" (indexed annually to CPI) just down to $1,000. The Opposition believe that once an organisation is paying more than $1,000 their identity should no longer remain anonymous.
Thirdly, this Bill seeks to close a loophole in the current Electoral Act, where entities may be avoiding disclosure regulations by making donations to various branches and divisions of the same political party in an effort to remain under the disclosure threshold for each donation. This Bill would ensure those branches and divisions are considered as the same political entity for the purpose of the disclosure requirements.
The fourth and final key issue addressed in this Bill is the prevention of the current possibility of candidates and groups obtaining windfall payments of electoral funding as a result of standing for election or political office. The intention of these measures is to link the payment of electoral funding to the political expenditure incurred by that party, candidate, or group. This therefore would seek to ensure that election funding is used for its intended purpose of communicating with the public and the Australian electorate.
To ensure that these four issues can be addressed to the satisfaction and confidence of the public, this Bill seeks to extend penalties and offences under the Electoral Act to encourage compliance. This reflects the need to demonstrate to the public and political entities the very serious nature of political integrity, and to inspire faith and confidence in our democratic institutions.
The Labor Opposition is committed to ensuring transparency and accountability throughout our political system, and the measures outlined in this Bill address those matters which undermine public confidence in our great democracy.
I commend the Bill.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 3.30 pm on Tuesday, 29 November 2016, the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee entitled, Extent of i ncome inequality in Australia— Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia .
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The policy position of the Australian Government towards the continuing robust health of the Great Barrier Reef and the threat of environmental alarmism.
Given Coral originated 540 million years ago, has survived numerous catastrophic extinction events such as the Permian-Triassic Extinction, which killed around 96 % of all marine species, and has effortlessly survived hundreds of millions of years of abrupt natural changes in global temperature, I would suggest the burden of proof—
to demonstrate why a few degrees gentle anthropogenic warming is such a threat … if … warming actually occurs.
This is one of the saddest days of my life. This great organism, the size of Germany and arguably the most diverse place on earth, is dying before our eyes.
Having watched my father die two years ago, I know what the signs of slipping away are. This is death, which ever-rising temperatures will allow no recovery from unless we act now.
"This is a frightening enough story with the facts, you don't need to dress them up. We don't want to be seen as saying there is no problem out there but we do want people to understand there is a lot of reef that is unscathed."
Dr Reichelt said there had been widespread misinterpretation of how much of the reef had died.
"We've seen headlines stating that 93 per cent of the reef is practically dead."
"We've also seen reports that 35 per cent, or even 50 per cent, of the entire reef is now gone."
"However, based on our combined results so far, the overall mortality rate is 22 per cent — and about 85 per cent of that die-off has occurred in the far north between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island, 250km north of Cairns. Seventy-five per cent of the reef will come out in a few months time as recovered."
… his prognosis, although of concern, was "speculative".
For example, in the area of water quality, we are working with farmers to reduce nitrogen and sediment run off into the Reef. Adopting a market-based, competitive tender process, farmers are being financially incentivised to develop their own nitrogen targets and implement them.
In just the last year, trials in the wet tropics have prevented 86 tonnes of nitrogen from otherwise flowing into the Reef and this is just the start, as the goal is to reduce nitrogen run off by 80 per cent in the catchment area by 2025.
Reducing this run-off is important because the crown of thorns starfish, a coral-eating predator, has been breeding in rapid numbers as increased nitrogen flows into the water. During spawning, large females can produce up to 65 million eggs each as plankton blooms from more nutrients in the water, providing food for the starfish.
Indeed, the Institute of Marine Science documented how more than half the cover on coral reefs has been lost to crown of thorns outbreaks. While additional efforts have been taken to tackle the crown of thorns, including the commissioning of a new vessel staffed with indigenous rangers, minimising nitrogen run off is also key.
… 22 per cent of coral on the Reef died due to the worst mass bleaching event on record.
Eighty-five per cent of this mortality occurred in the 600 kilometre stretch between the tip of Cape York and just north of Lizard Island.
Overall, the area south of Cairns escaped significant mortality.
Even with the recent management initiatives to reduce threats and improve resilience, the overall outlook for the Great Barrier Reef is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future. Greater reductions of all threats at all levels, Reef-wide, regional and local, are required to prevent the projected declines in the Great Barrier Reef and to improve its capacity to recover.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of document No. 12 on page 6 of the Order of Business —the Australian Public Service Commission's State of the Service Report 2015-16.
Civil Nuclear Transfers to India 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.
India is the world's largest democracy, an emerging Asian superpower, an influential regional power and a strategic partner for Australia. Australia's growing collaboration with India on energy security and trade is an investment in the future of both countries.
Links between the Australian and Indian people have never been stronger, with over 450,000 people of Indian origin living in Australia. The 2011 census indicated Punjabi was the fastest growing language in Australia. The Indian diaspora in Australia remains engaged in developments in India, shown by the reception Prime Minister Modi received when he visited Australia in November 2014. The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement has delivered on a key priority for both our governments and, I know is an important symbol to the Indian origin community here reflecting the great strides made in our bilateral relationship.
Nuclear power is an important part of India's energy mix. It will help India reduce its carbon emissions and provide it with the secure supply of power it needs to underpin its ongoing economic development. The opportunity for Australia to supply uranium to India and to help to fuel that development is a significant one. Uranium mining companies in Australia are already negotiating the first contracts for what promises to be a significant trade.
As the fastest growing major economy in the world, with GDP growth rates consistently above seven per cent, India has a substantial and growing need for energy to sustain its development, and nuclear power will play a key role. Around 300 million Indians live without access to power. By 2050, when India's population is expected to reach 1.7 billion, India aims to provide 25% of its energy from nuclear power. Completion of the reactors already under construction will add substantially to India's existing nuclear power generation capacity. To fuel that capacity, India will need up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium each year.
Negotiations on a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement, to enable uranium sales to India, began under Labor in 2013 and were brought to a conclusion by the Coalition the following year. In 2015, members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties from across the Parliament indicated their support for bringing the bilateral agreement into force.
The Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement is underpinned by a robust safeguards regime applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA). IAEA safeguards apply to the civil part of India's fuel cycle, where Australian uranium and any nuclear material derived from it will exclusively remain. The measures in place to prevent the diversion of Australian uranium from the civil part of India's fuel cycle are at least as strong as those in place for other export destinations. These include explicit commitments by India in a binding bilateral agreement with Australia, and robust inspection and accounting procedures enforced by the IAEA.
Successive Australian Governments have pursued a nuclear cooperation agreement with India with attention to the fact that it is not a Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT), including how the special case of India relates to Australia's commitments under that treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Thus, when I introduced the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to this House in October 2014, I noted that trade in uranium with India had only become possible in light of changes to international guidelines on nuclear supply to India in 2008, agreed by the 48 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (the NSG), including Australia. The NSG includes all of the major nuclear supplier countries and others that are active in non-proliferation efforts. The National Interest Analysis document that I tabled alongside the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement noted that "in light of the unique framework within which nuclear cooperation with India is proposed, the Government is considering legislation to clarify the legal basis for uranium transfers to India". The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill is the result of that consideration.
The Bill provides that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken not to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations relating to nuclear safeguards under the NPT and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, if particular conditions are met. Those conditions relate to the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the IAEA as well as the Australia-India Agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.
Although it remains outside the NPT, bringing India into the non-proliferation mainstream has cemented its commitment to key non-proliferation initiatives. It has also paved the way for India to deepen its strategic relationship with the US, Australia and other Indo-Pacific democracies. An India, keen to work closely with likeminded countries, is clearly in Australia's security and economic interests.
The evolution of international policies to enable nuclear cooperation with India and to draw it more fully into the non-proliferation mainstream was led by the United States between 2005 and 2008 with the support of Australia, and other countries. In 2008, the NSG accepted that, on the basis of commitments and actions by India in support of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear trade with India would be possible. As part of that deal, the NSG recognised that there is no practical way for IAEA safeguards to apply comprehensively to nuclear activities in India while India retains nuclear weapons. Rather, India would negotiate a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA to apply safeguards to India's civilian nuclear facilities, including those fuelled with imported uranium.
The NSG decision recognised India's commitments to support international non-proliferation efforts, including continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, to separate its civil and military nuclear activities and to accept IAEA safeguards on the former. In the years since 2008, India has met these commitments. India has brought its Additional Protocol with the IAEA into force. India has maintained its moratorium on nuclear testing and it is working with Australia and others to promote negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. As part of its separation of civil and military activities, India committed to designate 22 civil facilities for the application of safeguards by the IAEA. All 22 are now under safeguards.
The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill reflects Australia's decision to supply uranium to India on the basis of the NSG decision and the safeguards that India and the IAEA have put in place to implement it, as well as the conditions in the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This will give legal and commercial certainty to uranium mining companies in Australia so that they may fulfil contracts to supply Australian uranium to India with confidence that exports would not be hindered by domestic legal action relating to the scope of the nuclear safeguards that the IAEA applies in India.
Australia has a hard won reputation as a reliable, cost-effective supplier of energy and India is a large and growing market. A number of Australian uranium companies are actively pursuing the new market opportunity that India presents.
Given that nuclear energy is a zero-emissions source of baseload power, I said in October 2014 that I expected support for the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement from across the political divide. Trade under that agreement, together with the growing dialogue we have with India on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, will further reinforce the non-proliferation commitments that India has made in recent years, and will help Australia and India to build an enduring bilateral relationship.
Income Tax Rates Amendment (Working Holiday Maker Reform) Bill 2016
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.
The ABCC Bills relate to one of the largest sectors of our economy, which employs over a million Australians and is responsible for around 8 per cent of GDP. The re-establishment of the ABCC aims to improve productivity in this crucial sector, protecting and promoting employment.
That the debate be adjourned.
The Senate divided. [17:34]
The President—Senator Parry
That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour.
The Senate divided. [19:38]
(The President—Senator Parry)
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 to provide that a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today and tomorrow may be moved immediately and determined without amendment.
The Senate divided. [20:16]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That a motion relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today and tomorrow may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [20:20]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate divided. [20:23]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That—
(1) On, Monday, 28 November 2016—
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b) government business order of the day no. 1 (Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill
2013 and a related bill) be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business; and
(c) the Senate shall adjourn after the question on the motion that the bills be now read a second time is put, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier;
(2) On, Tuesday, 29 November 2016—
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to midnight;
(b) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm to midnight shall be government business only;
(c) the government business order of the day relating to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and a related bill shall be considered; and
(d) the Senate shall adjourn without debate at midnight.
The Senate divided. [20:28]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
We need advocacy, not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people.
I am satisfied there is still such a level of industrial unlawfulness in the building and construction industry, especially in Victoria and Western Australia, that it would be inadvisable not to empower the BCD—
to undertake compulsory interrogation. The reality is that, without such a power, some types of contravention would be almost impossible to prove.
The government understand that the industry contains unique challenges for both employees and employers. As a result, we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all participants and a strong set of compliance arrangements for the building industry.
We know the industry can be difficult. Because of the unique challenges faced by the industry, it is important to make sure everyone applies the right conduct and continues to be lawful. As is so often the case in industrial relations, that is a tough balancing act—but this is a decision we are not afraid to make.
The government believes that the safeguards in the bill for the coercive examination powers achieve the balance required to ensure compliance with the law and the fair treatment of individuals. Law-abiding industry participants who have nothing to fear from the existence of these strong laws will be so accorded. Ultimately, whether or not the powers are used remains in the hands of all building industry participants.
The best known among them … was a pig named Squealer, with very round cheeks, twinkling eyes, nimble movement, and a shrill voice. He was a brilliant talker and, when he was arguing some difficult point, he had a way of skipping from side to side and whisking his tail which was somehow very persuasive. The others said of Squealer that he could turn black into white.
The ABCC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.
A number of features of the Bill are contrary to rule of law principles and traditional common law rights and privileges such as those relating to the burden of proof, the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to silence, freedom from retrospective laws and the delegation of law-making power to the executive.