The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of the—
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that the question on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 be put again immediately.
The Senate divided. [12:58]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the question on the motion to disallow the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Narcotic Drugs) Regulation 2016 be put again immediately.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [13:04]
(The President—Senator Parry)
The Senate/committee divided. [13:10]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
… to suggest that “the greens are puppet masters pulling the strings and we’re somehow puppets” was wildly off the mark and disrespectful to the many families opposing the mine, including his.
… must be done with care as the failure to get it right will permit the property rights and interests of particular families and clans to be extinguished or impaired without their consent.
I encourage the members of federal parliament to take a deep breath, and come to terms with the fact that the property rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all over Australia will be affected by the proposed amendment to s 24CD of the Native Title Act. This amendment should not be rushed in order to appease some other agenda.
Adani can put on whatever song and dance they like but the reality is that we have never consented to Adani's mine being constructed on our land.
The only force more ruthless and cynical than the business of big politics is the politics of big business.
There are no grounds for opposition to the schools funding bill in principle, and every reason to work collaboratively towards its successful implementation and further refinement in the years ahead.
For the first time, the available funding would be distributed on a sector-blind needs-based principle, using a common assessment tool for individual schools nationally.
Right now, we couldn't do it worse if we tried. We're making everything worse. We're making prices higher, reliability more unreliable, and we're not delivering the emissions we're required to deliver.
If you want to get a picture of the state of the Australian economy, look at the major indicators. Look at the economic growth.
Major Bank Levy Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017
That
(a) the provisions of the Major Bank Levy Bill 2017 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Major Bank Levy) Bill 2017, be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2017; and
(b) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017 be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2017.
That the reporting date of part (b) of the motion moved by Senator Brandis be changed to 9 August 2017.
To take note of the answers provided by Senator Brandis to questions asked by myself and Senator O'Neill.
Will the Turnbull government commit to using the Finkel review to end the policy uncertainty that is delivering higher bills, higher emissions and less secure power and deliver a coherent plan for Australia's energy sector?
Right now, we couldn't do it worse if we tried. We're making everything worse. We're making prices higher, reliability more unreliable, and we're not delivering the emissions we're required to deliver.
Canberra here I come for another exciting week in the Senate. I love the front row for Libs infighting. I hope everyone's week will be as exciting as mine.
Right now, we couldn't do it worse if we tried. We're making everything worse. We're making prices higher, reliability more unreliable, and we're not delivering the emissions we're required to deliver.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice relating to the revelations outlined in recent Four Corners and Fairfax investigations that sparked the government into action on donations reform.
That the Senate:
(a) congratulates the federal Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and the Queensland state Premier for their leadership in bringing the Adani Carmichael coalmine in Queensland's Galilee Basin another step closer to being a reality;
(b) recognises that the much-needed boost to employment in North Queensland generally and in the resources sector specifically that the Adani Carmichael coalmine will deliver;
(c) welcomes the positioning of Adani's regional headquarters in Townsville; and
(d) notes that the road, rail and port infrastructure upgrades directly resulting from Adani's investment in the Galilee Basin will provide benefits to businesses and communities across Northern Australia.
That the order of the Senate of 9 May 2017 relating to Senator Georgiou's first speech be amended as follows:
Omit ''Wednesday, 14 June 2017'', substitute ''Wednesday, 16 August 2017''.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 15 June 2017 under consideration of private senators' bills:
No. 45 Banking and Financial Services Commission of Inquiry Bill 2017
Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 (subject to introduction).
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Fierravanti-Wells for today on account of ministerial business.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: Senator McAllister for today for personal reasons; Senator Bilyk from 13 to 22 June for personal reasons; and Senator Wong for 14 to 15 June for parliamentary reasons.
That the following matters be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2017:
(a) the participation of Australians in online poker;
(b) the nature and extent of any personal or social harms and benefits arising from participating in online poker; and
(c) whether the current regulatory approach, in particular, the recently amended Interactive Gambling Act 2001, is a reasonable and proportionate response to those harms and benefits.
The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That, in response to the neglect and abuse in aged care exposed by the Makk and McLeay Aged Mental Health Care Service at Oakden in South Australia, which has led to its closure, the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 February 2018:
(a) the effectiveness of the Aged Care Quality Assessment and accreditation framework for protecting residents from abuse and poor practices, and ensuring proper clinical and medical care standards are maintained and practised;
(b) the adequacy and effectiveness of complaints handling processes at a state and federal level, including consumer awareness and appropriate use of the available complaints mechanisms;
(c) concerns regarding standards of care reported to aged care providers and government agencies by staff and contract workers, medical officers, volunteers, family members and other healthcare or aged care providers receiving transferred patients, and the adequacy of responses and feedback arrangements;
(d) the adequacy of medication handling practices and drug administration methods specific to aged care delivered at Oakden;
(e) the adequacy of injury prevention, monitoring and reporting mechanisms and the need for mandatory reporting and data collection for serious injury and mortality incidents;
(f) the division of responsibility and accountability between residents (and their families), agency and permanent staff, aged care providers, and the state and the federal governments for reporting on and acting on adverse incidents; and
(g) any related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 February 2018:
Australia's trade and investment relationships with the countries of Africa, with particular reference to:
(a) existing trade and investment relationships;
(b) emerging and possible future trends;
(c) barriers and impediments to trade and investment;
(d) opportunities to expand trade and investment;
(e) the role of government in identifying opportunities and assisting Australian companies to access existing and new markets;
(f) the role of Australian based companies in sustainable development outcomes, and lessons that can be applied to other developing nations;
(g) the role of Australian based companies in promoting the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals; and
(h) any related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Professor David Cooper on being awarded the James Cook Medal in recognition of his outstanding contribution to both science and human welfare;
(b) notes that the James Cook Medal is awarded periodically by the Royal Society of New South Wales for outstanding contributions to science and human welfare in and for the southern hemisphere;
(c) acknowledges the significant contribution Professor Cooper has made over many years in the research and treatment of HIV and AIDS, including in the areas of antiretroviral therapy, HIV pathogenesis and complications of HIV treatment;
(d) notes the important role that Professor Cooper continues to play in the fight against HIV and AIDS in the developing world, in particular, his work in co-founding HIV-NAT, a clinical research and trials collaboration based at the Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre in Bangkok; and
(e) notes that Professor Cooper joins other respected recipients of the James Cook Medal, including Sir Frank M Burnet, Sir Ian Clunies Ross, Sir Marcus Oliphant, Sir Gustav Nossal and Professor Brien Holden.
That the Senate:
(a) congratulates the Honourable Michael Kirby, AC, CMG on receiving the high honour of being awarded the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Star, by the Emperor of Japan in recognition of his contribution to promoting international understanding of the situation of human rights in North Korea, including the issue of the abduction of Japanese nationals;
(b) notes the outstanding contribution Mr Kirby has made in promoting the significance of human rights worldwide through his work, including but not limited to his appointments as Special Representative of the Secretary‑General for human rights in Cambodia and a member of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' Judicial Reference Group; and
(c) notes the exceptional effort Mr Kirby has made to address the HIV and AIDS epidemic globally, through his service on international bodies, including the World Health Organisation's Global Commission on AIDS, UNAIDS Reference Group on HIV and Human Rights, and UNDP Global Commission of HIV and the Law.
Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017
That the following bill be introduced: A bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for other purposes—Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 (the bill) will make sure that the Australian Government cannot hand out $1 billion to Adani for their coal railway via the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) by creating a broad "suitable person" test under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 (the Act).
This test would examine investigations and findings against members of the Adani corporate group for fraud, money laundering, tax minimisation and corruption. This test would involve mandatory consultation with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC).
The bill would also strengthen our national environment laws (the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 or EPBC Act) to make sure environmental history must be considered when approvals are given.
Finally, it would trigger an automatic review of Adani's existing approvals focusing on the group's environmental history, including approvals for the Carmichael mine, coal railway and the Abbot Point coal port in light of the damning evidence that has emerged since those approvals were first given in 2014 and 2015.
This bill is the next step in the movement to stop Adani.
This is a dodgy company, pushing an environmentally and economically destructive project.
The Adani mine is the best, and most appalling example of the way big parties are working for big business, not for ordinary people.
Australians know our political system is broken and our economic system is rigged against everyday people. The same system that lets greedy bankers rip off everyday people with the full protection of politicians, is the one that lets Adani take unlimited groundwater from Queensland where nearly 90 per cent of the State is in drought.
The same system that lets property developers steamroll over local residents with insider deals is the one that looks set to hand over $1 billion in public money to a multinational mining company.
That system lets political donations buy influence and outcomes, and locks out the community.
Adani, the banks, insurance companies and the big end of town have made the donations and have got the well-paid lobbyists and the well-connected former politicians. All we've got is people power. Despite that, when ordinary people stand up, we can win!
The Wangan and Jagalingou traditional owners have been standing strong against this dangerous mine. They've told Adani time and again—no means no.
Despite that opposition, and the groundswell of support across Australia for the Stop Adani movement, the Liberals and Labor refuse to stop this mine.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is set to take money away from battling families and give a $1 billion handout to a tax dodging, environmentally ruinous, mining company under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility.
Queensland Labor has the power to block the handover of public funds but won't do it. Instead they encourage Adani to export its environmental vandalism here, granting it special legal status and dodgy deals like a 60-year unlimited groundwater licence.
Queensland Labor can block the $1 billion loan to Adani under federal law, but they're refusing to honour their word at the last election.
Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, could stop this dangerous mine tomorrow—all he needs to do is announce his Government would review their environmental approvals on the basis of the avalanche of evidence of environmental destruction, corruption investigations, money laundering allegations, fraud investigations, the coal ship sinking and the worker exploitation that's happened in India.
Coal kills people, destroys livelihoods and drives global warming that is killing the Great Barrier Reef, and if this mine goes ahead, 2.3 billion tonnes of coal will be dug up and burned.
For the first time in its ancient history, the Great Barrier Reef has suffered two successive years of mass coral bleaching, and the scientists attribute that to climate change. This World Heritage icon and underwater paradise teems with biodiversity and attracts tourists which support over 60,000 jobs—all are put at risk by the emissions from the coal from this mine.
Overseas, Adani is under investigation for money laundering, fraud and corruption, including allegedly bribing public officials.
If the Adani mine goes ahead, it's been reported that $3 billion will be funnelled directly to the Adani family via a company based in the tax haven of the Cayman Islands.
Adani have ignored environmental laws causing irreversible damage. Their shocking environmental track record has recently been summarised in The Mani Brief released recently by Environmental Justice Australia and Earthjustice.
Under the NAIF Act, there currently is nothing to stop a company with such an awful track record from being given public money. There is no suitable person test at all. Our bill would fix that.
Our bill would also fix the disgraceful situation where the Environment Minister can simply chose to ignore the shocking overseas track record of a company, just because breaches occurred overseas.
Right now, some of the most shocking revelations about Adani's track record cannot be considered under Australian law, because the incidents concerned occurred under the watch of another member of the Adani corporate group. As it stands, the EPBC Act only contemplates the environmental history of a parent or subsidiary company. Our bill would fix that by expanding the test to include any associated entity as defined in the Corporations Act 2001.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Leader of the Opposition Mr Bill Shorten have a choice: support our bill, or back the mining billionaires.
If they don't back this bill, it's proof they work for their political donor mates not ordinary Australians.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the return of 82 young women held captive for three years by Islamist militants in Nigeria, and
(ii) that in April 2014, as part of a world-wide campaign calling for the release of the group of 270 schoolgirls captured from their high school, women from across the Australian Parliament, gathered in the forecourt to show their support for the 'Bring Them Home' project;
(b) acknowledges the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Swiss and Nigerian governments to negotiate appropriate settlement to ensure the safety and the return of these young women;
(c) supports continuing efforts to complete the return of the many young women still believed held by Boko Haram; and
(d) condemns the actions of the militants in the region.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the unanimous findings of the Environment and Communications References Committee report, Game on: more than playing around – The future of Australia ' s video game development industry , received on 29 April 2016, and
(ii) the absence of any government response to the findings of this inquiry; and
(b) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister for Communications, by no later than 3.00 pm on 14 May 2017, a copy of the government response to this report.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Government's deeply disappointing decision to once again cut funding to aid in the 2017-18 Federal Budget by $300.3 million across the forward estimates,
(ii) Australia's Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) is currently at a record low as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI), and will now plunge even further to 0.2 per cent of GNI by 2020, and
(iii) this decision comes as there are 60 million displaced people in the world, famines in parts of Africa and the Middle East, and increasing threats to prosperity as a result of climate change, amongst other global concerns; and
(b) calls on the Government to reverse these cuts, and as soon as possible identify a year by which Australia's ODA will reach the target of 0.7 per cent of GNI, as is our commitment to the United Nations, and as other comparable nations such as the United Kingdom have already achieved.
Omit paragraph (b) and substitute:
(b) calls on the Government to reverse these cuts, and as soon as possible make a commitment to a gross national income (GNI) growth target for Australia's official development assistance (ODA).
(a) recognises the infrastructure projects, including inland rail construction, that the Federal Government committed to delivering in the 2017-18 Federal Budget;
(b) acknowledges that the steel producing communities of Whyalla in regional South Australia and the Illawarra in New South Wales are struggling with high unemployment and low job security; and
(c) calls on the Turnbull Government to guarantee that they will support Australian jobs by committing to a local procurement policy, mandating the use of Australian steel in infrastructure projects committed to in the 2017-18 Federal Budget.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The need to introduce a debt ceiling on how much the Australian government could borrow.
Since 2008, when the Rudd Government put Australia back into deficit, more than 75 per cent of our gross debt, or around $370 billion, has been raised to pay for everyday expenditure in welfare, health and education.
From 2018-19, ten years after Labor put us on that track, we are getting off it and will no longer be putting every day expenses on the credit card. That is what living within your means is all about.
Under Labor they accumulated deficits of just under $240 billion in six years or 16.9 per cent of GDP. Under the Coalition, over six years from our first budget in 2014-15, our deficits are $70 billion or around 30 per cent less.
The other key difference is Labor inherited the Liberal gift of a structural surplus and we inherited the Labor curse of baked in spending and a structural deficit.
Net debt is projected to peak in 2018-19 at $375 billion or 19.8 per cent of GDP, before declining to 8.5 per cent of GDP over the medium term. The increase in gross debt reflects the Government's borrowing to support infrastructure and defence capability and borrowing over the medium term to avoid drawing down on the Future Fund to pay for unfunded superannuation liabilities—
that will save a century of taxpayers from having to meet these costs.
Under the Coalition we have cut the growth in our Gross Debt by two thirds—from over 34 per cent under Labor to less than ten percent in this budget.
Is the Prime Minister aware that under the so-called National Rail Program not a single dollar is available in this entire term of parliament? There is nothing this year, nothing next year and nothing the year after that. Isn't the National Rail Program in fact the new NAIF—the 'No Actual Infrastructure Fund'?
Andrew Bolt: Why is peak gross debt a secret? Why can't you tell us how much the debt will go to? I mean, this is very important. You were the guy that was very strong on debt and deficit, I would like to know what the figure is.
Senator Cormann: What I am telling you is that the debt number that actually matters is Government net debt and it will peak at $375 billion in 2018-19. It will peak at 29.8 per cent as a share of GDP.
Andrew Bolt: I got that. I am just asking that the debt ceiling is $600 billion, when will you go above that? You are the ones that talked about the debt ceiling yesterday. I want to know is it going to be broken?
Senator Cormann: Actually I have not talked about the debt ceiling. The Treasurer has made a decision to ensure that the operations of Government can continue in an orderly fashion and he has made an administrative decision which is on the public record …
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian government response to the Senate Economics References Committee Report: Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry
May 2017
Economics References Committee
Insolvency in the Construction Industry
Government r esponse
Recommendation 1 • The committee recommends that ASIC conduct a review of administrators' and liquidators' reporting requirements and the range and extent of information it requires to be reported and, where necessary, make changes that will ensure the regulator is able to fully inform itself, the parliament and the public with complete, relevant and up-to-date data on insolvencies.
– the amendment of Form EX01 in December 2014, through which external administrators report to ASIC on potential insolvent trading; and
– the promotion of the electronic lodgement of relevant information through providing functionality for external administrators to lodge receipts and payments information in 'structured data'.
Recommendation 2 • The committee recommends that the government provide an additional budget appropriation to ASIC in the 2016–17 budget and over the forward estimates, if required, which is sufficient to ensure that ASIC has the capacity to conduct analysis and provide a wide range of relevant, up-to-date insolvency data.
Recommendation 3 • The committee recommends that ASIC require all external administrators' reports to be lodged electronically in the schedule B format.
Recommendation 4 • The committee recommends that ASIC make better use of external administrators' reports and other intelligence in order to improve the standard of publicly available information, provide early warning to industry participants about repeat and concerning insolvent practices and lead to a more effective market.
Recommendation 5 • The committee recommends that the ATO and ASIC increase their formal cooperation with superannuation funds to coordinate measures around early detection of non-payment of superannuation guarantee.
– about the operation and viability of participants in the superannuation guarantee system;
– relevant to identifying and addressing superannuation guarantee non‑compliance; and
– to better target activities by government agencies to address superannuation guarantee non‑compliance by employers.
Recommendation 6 • The committee recommends that privacy provisions which may inhibit information flows between the ATO and APRA regulated superannuation funds be reviewed and that the ATO seek advice from the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner as to the extent to which protection of public revenue exemptions in the Australian Privacy Principles might facilitate improved information sharing.
Recommendation 7 • The committee recommends that the ATO continue to actively monitor the tax liabilities of businesses in the construction industry in order to ensure that debts owed to the Commonwealth are paid.
Recommendation 8 • The committee recommends that if necessary, the government make an additional budget appropriation to the ATO in the 2016–2017 budget for the purpose of enabling the ATO to recover the outstanding tax liabilities of construction industry businesses.
– Data and analytics (MYEFO 2015-16): this enables the ATO to use data more effectively, including data they receive as part of the reportable taxable payments measure.
: The government will provide $61.9 million over four years (including capital of $12.2 million) to the ATO to upgrade its data analytics capability.
: This measure will enable the ATO to improve taxpayer compliance and reduce compliance burdens by pre‑populating additional information in their returns.
: Improved data analysis capability will help the ATO in better detecting and deterring non‑compliance. Compliance activities enabled by improved analytics are estimated to raise additional revenue of $222 million over the forward estimates period.
Recommendation 9 • The committee recommends that construction industry participants, particularly those representing the interests of subcontractors, develop partnerships with mental health support organisations to provide ready access to support, counselling and treatment for people in the industry who may suffer from the adverse mental health effects of the financial distress caused by contractual disputes and insolvency in the construction industry.
– The MATES in Construction (MIC) programme targets the male dominated building and construction industries using a community development model to create self-sustaining suicide prevention structures on site, and to de-stigmatise mental health and wellbeing issues, while encouraging workers in the industry to seek help for a range of issues. The MIC model focuses on making better and more useful connections between workers in the industry and external professionals; and
– The OzHelp Foundation seeks to build the capacity of workers in the building, construction and mining industries to recognise warning signs of mental health issues and suicide, and to facilitate access to support services and improve referral pathways for mental health and suicide prevention services.
Recommendation 10 • The committee recommends that the government fund an independent analysis of the effects of the high rate of insolvency and related issues on productivity and innovation in the construction industry.
Recommendation 11 • The committee recommends that ASIC, in consultation with ARITA, work out a method whereby external administrators can indicate clearly in their statutory reports whether they suspect phoenix activity has occurred. For example, to serve as a red flag to ASIC, include a box in the reporting form that external administrators would tick if they suspected phoenix activity.
– the period over which the company traded while insolvent;
– the extent of alleged insolvent trading;
– the grounds upon which they believe the director suspected that the company was insolvent at the time debts were incurred; and
– the evidence available to support the allegation of insolvent trading.
Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that consideration be given to amending confidentiality requirements in statutory frameworks of agencies participating in the Phoenix Taskforce to permit dissemination of relevant information to the ATO.
Recommendation 13 • The committee recommends that more resources, including specific purpose budget appropriations be directed to whole–of–government strategies aimed at preventing, detecting and prosecuting instances of illegal phoenix activity.
Recommendation 15 • The committee recommends that licensing regulators should undertake random financial health spot–checks throughout the life of a licence-holder's licence. Where a business fails to meet the standards required, it should be required to show cause as to why its licence should not be conditioned, downgraded, suspended or cancelled, depending on the extent to which the business has not met required standards.
Recommendation 16 • The committee reiterates Recommendation 17 of the Economics References Committee’s June 2014 report of its inquiry into the performance of ASIC in these terms: 'The committee recommends that ASIC, in collaboration with the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association and accounting bodies, develop a self-rating system, or similar mechanism, for statutory reports lodged by insolvency practitioners and auditors under the Corporations Act to assist ASIC identify reports that require the most urgent attention and investigation'.
Recommendation 17 • The committee recommends that ASIC look closely at its record on enforcement and identify if there is scope for improvement, and if legislative changes are required to advise government.
Recommendation 18 • The committee recommends that the government ensure that ASIC is adequately resourced to carry out its investigation and enforcement functions effectively.
Recommendation 19 • The committee recommends that the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations give consideration to recommending amendments to the Corporations Act to ensure that the Director Penalty Regime covers GST liabilities.
Recommendation 20 • The committee recommends that section 596AB of the Corporations Act 2001 be amended to: – remove the requirement to prove subjective intention in relation to phoenixing offences; – introduce a parallel civil penalty contravention in similar terms; and – extend the application of the section to all forms of external administration, not merely liquidation.
Recommendation 21 • The committee recommends that ASIC and the ATO continue to develop and implement programs designed to monitor the integrity of the payment system, with the aim of referring relevant matters to relevant law enforcement agencies.
– comply with all applicable laws and other requirements relating to the security of payments;
– ensure payments are made in a timely manner and are not unreasonably withheld;
– have a documented dispute settlement process that details how disputes about payments to subcontractors will be resolved and must comply with that process; and
– ensure that disputes are resolved in a reasonable, timely and cooperative way;
Recommendation 22 • The committee recommends that state and territory government departments and agencies responsible for administering their security of payment legislation closely scrutinise the practice of providing false statutory declarations and where necessary, launch prosecutions as a practical deterrent. Recommendation 23 • The committee recommends that each state and territory government department or agency responsible for the relevant security of payments act should follow the example in Queensland and publish publicly available, identified information concerning the outcome of payment disputes. Recommendation 24 • The committee recommends that it be made a statutory offence to intimidate, coerce or threaten a participant in the building industry in relation to the participant's access to remedies available to it under security of payments legislation. Recommendation 25 • The committee recommends that state government departments and agencies responsible for the relevant security of payments act provide education, awareness and support for industry participants who may wish to access remedies available to them under the relevant legislation.
– examine security of payment legislation of all jurisdictions to identify areas of best practice for the construction industry;
– take into account any reviews and inquiries that have recently been conducted in relation to security of payments, including the December 2015 report by the Senate Economic References Committee on Insolvency in the Australian Construction Industry and the draft legislation developed by the 2003 Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry; and
– consider how to prevent various types of contractual clauses that restrict contractors in the construction industry from obtaining payments for work that has been completed.
Recommendation 26 • The committee recommends that industry groups should also be proactive in educating and training members on the relevant payment systems. This should include streamlining complaints and dedicated help lines.
Recommendation 27 • The committee recommends that adjudicators of payment disputes under the relevant security of payments act should be required by law to be independent and impartial.
Recommendation 28 • The committee recommends that following completion of the steps recommended in chapter 10 in relation to Project Bank Accounts on construction projects where Commonwealth funding exceeds $10 million, the Commonwealth enact national legislation providing for security of payment and access to adjudication processes in the commercial construction industry. Recommendation 29 • The committee recommends that commencing as soon as practicable, but no later than 1 July 2016, the government undertake a two year trial of Project Bank Accounts (PBAs) on no less than twenty construction projects where the Commonwealth’s funding for the project exceed $10 million. Recommendation 30 • The committee recommends that after the trial has concluded, a timely evaluation of the trial of PBAs on Commonwealth funded projects be conducted with a view to making the use of PBAs compulsory on all future Commonwealth funded projects and mandating extending the use of PBAs to private sector construction projects. Recommendation 31 • The committee recommends that, while the Commonwealth trial of Project Bank Accounts is underway, the Attorney-General refer to the Australian Law Reform Commission for inquiry and report a reference on statutory trusts for the construction industry. This inquiry should recommend what statutory model trust account should be adopted for the construction industry as a whole, including whether it should apply to both public and private sector construction work.
Recommendation 32 • The committee recommends that the Council for the Australian Federation and state and territory regulators continue to develop external equivalence for licences in the building and construction industry Recommendation 33 The committee recommends that each state and territory licensing regime contain three key requirements: 1. that licence holders demonstrate that they hold adequate financial backing for the scale of their intended project. This capital backing requirement should be graduated, with increased levels of proof required for more significant projects; 2. that on registration, licence holders provide evidence they have completed an agreed level of financial and business training program(s), including principles of commercial contract law, developed in consultation with industry bodies; and 3. that licence holders demonstrate that they are a fit and proper person to hold a licence.
Recommendation 34 • The committee recommends that automated cross-agency data sharing should trigger an alert when an individual: declares bankruptcy; is convicted of fraud; is disqualified as a director; or liquidates a company. This alert should require the relevant state or territory regulator to satisfy itself that the licence holder remains a fit and proper person.
Recommendation 35 • The committee recommends that the government, through the work of the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations establish a beneficial owners' register.
Recommendation 36 • The committee recommends that section 117 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) be amended to require that, at the time of company registration, directors must also provide a Director Identification Number. Recommendation 37 • The committee recommends that a Director Identification Number should be obtained from ASIC after an individual proves their identity in line with the National Identity Proofing Guidelines.
Recommendation 38 • The committee recommends that the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth) be amended to require ASIC to verify company information.
Recommendation 39 • The committee recommends that ASIC and Australian Financial Security Authority company records be available online without payment of a fee.
Recommendation 40 • The committee recommends that ASIC focus enforcement action on business advisors specialising in pre-insolvency advice who advise firms to restructure in order to avoid paying their debts and obligations. Recommendation 41 • The committee recommends that ASIC publish a regulatory guide in relation to the nature and scope of pre-appointment advice given or taken by companies.
Recommendation 42 • The committee recommends that the Corporations Act 2001 be amended to align with section 64ZB(8) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966. Recommendation 43 • The committee recommends that firms who provide business advice be prohibited by way of an amendment to the Corporations Act from buying into the companies they are advising via debt acquisitions.
Recommendation 44 • The committee recommends that the government, through the work of the Legislative and Governance Forum for Corporations, give serious consideration to extending the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia to include corporate insolvencies under the Corporations Act.
Australian Government response to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia report:
Scaling up—Inquiry into opportunities for expanding aquaculture in Northern Australia
June 2017
Preamble
The Australian government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia titled Scaling u p: Inquiry into o pportunities for e xpanding a quaculture in Northern Australia , published in February 2016.
The report examines the aquaculture industry in Northern Australia and highlights issues such as the obstacles to import production replacement by local producers and areas where the industry is placed to benefit from increased demand for seafood and products derived through aquaculture.
Several of the issues considered in the report are not new and activities, including research, revision of existing legislation and provision of financial and technical support, are already underway to address several of the recommendations identified in the report.
The Australian Animal Health Laboratory works with veterinary and human health agencies globally to ensure Australia's biosecurity infrastructure remains strong and Australia's multi-billion dollar livestock and aquaculture industries, as well as the general public are protected from emerging infectious disease threats.
Through its Infrastructure Investment Program, the Australian government is providing significant investment in infrastructure development and improvements across Western Australia and the Northern Territory. At a broad level, the program seeks safety, economic and social improvements for all Australians through the support of local and national infrastructure.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provides the legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places. Based on the guiding principles of ecologically sustainable development, the act aims to balance the protection of these crucial environmental and cultural values with economic and social needs.
The Commonwealth Marine Reserves, declared in November 2012 and currently under transitional arrangements, are intended to provide biodiversity conservation while allowing for ecologically sustainable use. Potential aquaculture activities in Commonwealth marine reserves are considered when consistent with reserve zoning, management prescriptions and the acceptability of impacts on reserve values.
The Australian government is keen to support further exploration of opportunities for development in Northern Australia, which ensure the waters and land of Northern Australia remain healthy, abundant with native species and a resource for generations to come.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends the establishment of an Australian Pearling Industry Recovery Taskforce to fund a research program focussed on identifying the causative agent of the oyster oedema disease and possible remedial actions to reduce the incidence, and mitigate the impacts of the disease.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government partly agrees to this recommendation.
The Australian government has invested in research to understand oyster oedema diseases through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, which has in turn invested in oyster oedema research through its Pearl Industry Partnership Agreement and the Aquatic Animal Health and Biosecurity Subprogram. The pearling industry also contributes significantly to this work through direct and indirect contributions.
More broadly, there are past and current projects addressing this disease. An example of which is a current project using molecular techniques to identify pathogens that may be associated with the disease, and to develop diagnostic tests to facilitate early detection and management. The project commenced in July 2013 and is due for completion in late 2016.
Further research on oyster oedema could be supported through existing mechanisms, including through the Pearl Producers Association, the Pearling Industry Partnership Agreement and the Aquatic Animal Health and Biosecurity Subprogram, if considered to be a high priority for investment of available resources. Once the cause of oyster oedema is determined further research can be undertaken to identify ways to mitigate the impacts of the disease.
Additionally, the Australian government recently announced a $3 million investment in a Future Oysters Cooperative Research Centres Project. The project commenced in July 2016 and aims to improve disease management for Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome. Findings may have future applications in managing other oyster-related diseases, like oedema.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment, in collaboration with the Queensland Government, fund a program to review and expand the science relating to the environmental impact of aquaculture in areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. The review should include research organisations with recognised expertise in this area including, but not limited to: the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and James Cook University.
The research should be an examination of:
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
Integrating science into decision-making is a key principle of good environmental policy. The research identified in the recommendation will be important prior to any large scale expansion of aquaculture adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
The Reef 2050 Plan is based on the best available science and guides the management and protection of the reef for the next three and a half decades. This plan was developed following comprehensive consultation with scientists, communities, traditional owners, industry and non-government organisations. Implementation of the plan continues to be informed by advice from two specially established advisory committees. These are the Independent Expert Panel, chaired by the former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb and the Reef Advisory Committee, chaired by the Chairman of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Honourable Penelope Wensley.
Any decision to fund a dedicated program to review and expand the science relating to the environmental impact of aquaculture in areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef would require reallocation of existing resources. No aquaculture research is currently being undertaken, nor planned to be undertaken by the National Environmental Science Program Tropical Water Quality Hub. This has not been raised as a priority for the Tropical Water Quality Hub through the previous two calls for research priorities.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority support the Queensland government in determining the need for and the positioning of special aquaculture development zones. These zones should be identified using criteria, considering:
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation and recognises the establishment of aquaculture development zones on land and in state waters is a matter for state and territory governments. The Australian government supports the development of aquaculture industries.
Under the Reef 2050 Plan, the Australian and Queensland governments work closely and jointly to deliver the best possible outcomes for the future protection and management of the Great Barrier Reef. This relationship is formalised through the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement and reflects the shared vision as outlined in the Reef 2050 Plan. The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum, which includes Australian and Queensland government ministers, facilitates and oversees implementation of the objectives of the agreement.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in accordance with the planned actionsoutlined in its Regulatory Plan 2014-2015, revoke the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000 (Cwlth).
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government agrees to this recommendation.
The Australian government is in the process of revoking the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Aquaculture) Regulations 2000.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Department of the Environment ensures the framework for developing offsets in the Great Barrier Reef is comprehensive, transparent and accessible for potential aquaculture investors. The framework should allow potential investors to accurately estimate:
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government agrees to this recommendation.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Department of the Environment and Energy and the Queensland government are working collaboratively to develop offset guidance specific to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Work is underway through the Reef Trust and the National Environmental Science Program Tropical Water Quality Hub to develop an offsets calculator for proponents seeking to deliver offsets through the Reef Trust. Policy and research efforts will ensure that there is a high degree of transparency and consistency in the science underpinning the use of such tools.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Queensland government conduct a survey of crocodile egg numbers in Northern Queensland to determine the sustainability of crocodile egg harvesting.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
Saltwater crocodiles are protected internationally under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). To access international markets, any harvest of crocodiles and eggs must be assessed as ecologically sustainable under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The Queensland government has a Saltwater Crocodile Wildlife Trade Management Plan to December 2017 approved under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The plan allows for the export of crocodile products from Queensland for commercial purposes. The plan provides that juvenile crocodiles (hatchlings) and eggs are sourced from interstate to supply the crocodile farms in Queensland.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation should consider introducing a 'northern node' as an avenue for providing funding research relevant to Northern Australia.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
The Australian government has regional structures in place to provide funding for research and guiding investment in Northern Australia through the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. The corporation supports a network of Research Advisory Committees, including one in the Northern Territory. The corporation supports sector specific development in northern Australia through Industry Partnership Agreements such as the Australian Prawn Farmers' Association, the Australian Barramundi Farmers' Association and the Pearling Industry Partnership Agreement. The sectors, through the Industry Partnership Agreements have provided their support to invest a portion of the corporation's funds in a future northern cooperative research centre to address cross sector barriers to aquaculture development.
The corporation has established subprograms and advisory groups such as the Aquatic Animal Health and Biosecurity Subprogram, the Indigenous Fishing Subprogram and the New and Emerging Aquaculture Opportunities Subprogram to provide appropriate avenues to direct research funds to deliver cross sector Research Development and Extension relevant to Northern Australia.
A National Fishing and Aquaculture Research Development and Extension Strategy was developed by the Australian Government, state and Northern Territory governments, CSIRO and various rural research and development corporations. The Agriculture Senior Official Committee has oversight of the Strategy. It sets the future direction to improve the focus, efficiency and effectiveness of research development and extension to support Australia's fishing and aquaculture industry.
The Northern Research Partnership has been established between several government research agencies steering fisheries and aquaculture research in northern Australia. It targets cross-jurisdictional research needs drawing expertise from northern based research organisations and universities, and will assist in the implementation of the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research Development and Extension Strategy.
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources is developing a National Aquaculture Strategy that will identify common priorities for both industry and government in Northern Australia and actions that can be undertaken to achieve those priorities. These priorities are stand-alone actions that will involve both the Australian government and state and territory governments. The strategy is due to be released in late 2016.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Australian government provide funding assistance for developing road and port infrastructure to service the Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone and Project Sea Dragon subject to establishing a positive cost-benefit analysis.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation. The Australian government is committed to improving the safety and productivity of Australia's road network. Through the Infrastructure Investment Program, the Australian government is investing significant funds over the forward estimates period to 2019–20 to build infrastructure in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
Under the Infrastructure Investment Program, all funding available to Western Australia and the Northern Territory has been allocated to specific key projects as agreed with the respective state and territory governments. Funding for any new projects, such as the development of road and port infrastructure to service the Kimberley Aquaculture Development Zone, could be considered in the future with the necessary support of the Western Australian government and, potentially, the Shire of Broome.
The Australian government has granted major project facilitation status to Project Sea Dragon and will continue to work with the Northern Territory government to improve land transport infrastructure in the Northern Territory to support current and future demand. This includes a commitment under the Northern Australia Roads Program to upgrade the Keep River Road.
Recommendation 9
The committee strongly recommends that the Australian government provide funding assistance for the establishment of a pest and disease diagnosis facility in Northern Queensland.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
The Australian government agrees effective disease management in aquaculture systems is critically reliant on rapid diagnosis and availability of local specialist knowledge.
Through the CSIRO Australian Animal Health Laboratory, the Australian government provides national diagnostic service for exotic and emerging disease diagnosis. The Australian Animal Health Laboratory's fish diseases laboratory provides diagnostic services nationally, including for north Queensland. In 2015–16 the Australian government provided $7,928,000 for its operating costs.
The Queensland government is responsible for managing aquatic animal health within its borders, including the provision of aquatic animal disease diagnostic services. The Queensland government closed the Oonoonba Veterinary Laboratory in Townsville in early 2013 and consolidated animal health laboratory services to the Biosecurity Sciences Laboratory facilities in Brisbane.
There may be scope for government assistance for diagnostic capability in northern Queensland through the Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper, supporting commitments in the Developing Northern Australia white paper. Support for a diagnostic facility in northern Queensland would be contingent upon the Queensland government or another organisation being the principal funder and operator of facilities.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that the Australian government, through COAG, remove the exemption from country of origin labelling requirements under Standard 1.2.11 of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code for cooked or pre-prepared seafood sold by the food services industry.
Australian g overnment response
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
Country-of-origin labelling provisions will be removed from the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code with effect from 1 July 2018, consistent with the 29 August 2016 decision by Australia and New Zealand Ministerial Forum on Food Regulation.
The Forum's decision follows the introduction of a new food labelling Information Standard under the Australian Consumer Law. The new information standard commenced on 1 July 2016 with a two year transition period, and will become mandatory for food labelled after 30 June 2018.
The new information standard is part of a package of reforms agreed by Commonwealth, state and territory ministers through the Legislative and Governance Forum on Consumer Affairs on 31 March 2016. Extending mandatory country-of-origin labelling to the food services sector was outside the scope of these reforms.
While the new information standard introduces clearer labels for foods of most importance to consumers, it maintains the overall scope of mandatory country-of-origin labelling. Cooked or pre‑prepared seafood sold by the food services industry continues to be exempt from these requirements. However, businesses can adopt the new labels required by the information standard on a voluntary basis to highlight the Australian origin of their seafood.
On 28 November 2016, the then Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Hon. Greg Hunt MP, proposed that a working group of stakeholders be formed to consider the issue of country of origin labelling for seafood sold in the food services sector. The working group will be chaired by the Assistant Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, the Hon. Craig Laundy MP, and is expected to report to parliament within 12 months.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring that consumers continue to have access to sufficient information to make informed choices about the foods they purchase. Any reforms to country of origin labelling need to strike a balance between providing comprehensive information to consumers and minimising the regulatory burden for businesses, particularly small businesses that predominate in the food industry.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Department of Industry reports within 12 months on the feasibility of introducing country of origin labelling for aquaculture products such as pearls and crocodile teeth.
The Australian government notes this recommendation.
Existing protections in the national Australian Consumer Law prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations, including representations about the origin of goods. The Australian Consumer Law is enforced by state and territory consumer regulators and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report: Report 167
Nuclear Cooperation - Ukraine
[June 2017]
Government r esponse to r eport 167 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Nuclear Cooperation —U kraine
The government thanks the committee for its consideration of the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, done at Washington DC on 31 March 2016 ("the Agreement"), which was tabled on 12 September 2016. The government provides the following response to the committee's recommendation.
Recommendation 1
The c ommittee supports the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy and recommends that binding treaty action be taken providing the Australian g overnment undertakes a proper assessment of risks, and develops and maintains a suitable contingency plan for the removal of Australian nuclear material if the material is at risk of a loss of regulatory control.
The government welcomes the support of the committee for binding treaty action and will take such action at an early opportunity.
Risk assessment
The government agrees with the committee on the importance of the matters raised in this recommendation. The government has already carried out a thorough risk assessment as part of the process leading to negotiating and signing the agreement. This included a comprehensive assessment of the security risks faced by Ukraine. The government will continue to re-evaluate risks, including security risks, throughout the life of the agreement. Various government agencies monitor the security risks faced by Ukraine and regularly update the Prime Minister, foreign minister and other national security ministers with assessments.
In response to the security situation, the government negotiated explicit provisions in the agreement designed to ensure high standards of nuclear security and to minimise any security concerns involving Australian obligated nuclear material (AONM) transferred to Ukraine. In addition to including assurances (common in all of Australia's nuclear cooperation agreements) that internationally approved standards of physical protection will apply (Article VI), the agreement also allows Australia to review physical protection measures (Article VI.3) and the right to approve the facilities where AONM can be processed, used or stored in Ukraine (Article VIII, commonly referred to as a 'facility list'). Facility lists are an uncommon feature in Australia's nuclear cooperation agreements with non-nuclear weapons states; when included in an agreement a facility list provides added control over where AONM can be transferred and used. The combination of Articles VI.3 and VIII provides stronger mechanisms for reviewing security and limiting facilities than most of Australia's other nuclear cooperation agreements.
Contingency plan for the removal of AONM material
While the likelihood of a situation where AONM falls outside of regulatory control is considered low, contingency planning regarding the associated risks is an ongoing activity.
In the short term, any AONM in Ukraine will likely be provided in the form of Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) fuel assemblies. That means that AONM would be processed, enriched and fabricated into fuel assemblies in a range of other countries before being transferred to and used in Ukraine. Therefore any AONM in Ukraine affected by a loss of regulatory control would also likely carry multiple obligations from the country or countries in which processing, enriching and fabrication occurred, such as the United States, or the member states of Euratom. Australia would need to coordinate with these countries when determining how to respond to a loss of regulatory control.
The type of responses Australia, other countries involved in supplying nuclear fuel to Ukraine, and the wider international community would deploy in response to a loss of regulatory control would need to be both appropriate to the situation and proportionate to the risks being posed. There are a wide range of situation specific considerations to be taken into account. A loss of regulatory control due to internal Ukrainian government failures is quite different to a security incident occurring near a nuclear plant due to the acts of other state or non-state actors. Each different situation has a different suite of mitigating activities that could be implemented by Australia and the international community when responding. Possible mitigations range from providing additional assistance and training—to prevent a loss of regulatory control—through to the removal of nuclear material.
The Australian government negotiated a range of mitigation options into the agreement designed to provide scope to resolve any incidents that pose unacceptable security risks:
- where unacceptable security risks also constitute material non-compliance with the agreement, Article XVI of the agreement provides the Australian government with a range of responses, including negotiated corrective steps, suspension or cancellation of supply, and the right to have AONM returned; or
- where unacceptable security risks do not otherwise constitute material non-compliance with the agreement, the Australian government can use the facility list to limit the use of AONM to facilities where it is confident of Ukrainian government control. The agreement does not oblige Australia to provide nuclear material to Ukraine, and does not preclude the removal of AONM from a facility should a facility be removed from the facility list.
In recognition of the current situation, and to guard against some of the possible risks posed by a future loss of regulatory control due to a loss of physical control over the material, the international community has been working with Ukraine in an ongoing program to upgrade physical protection and security measures. Ukraine reports they have been directing significant efforts at strengthening physical protection, defence and practical training focused on anti-terrorism and anti-sabotage measures at its nuclear power plants. In particular the United States has been providing assistance under the auspices of the G-7 "Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction".
In the event of a security incident near a facility holding nuclear material, prudent security practices would dictate Ukraine take further steps to increase the level of physical protection and control. Additional assistance from the international community in the form of training, nuclear‑related identification and surveillance equipment and transport logistics would also be amongst the possible responses should this occur.
In the unlikely event of another state taking effective control of a nuclear reactor on the facility list, the Government expects that state would likely want to account for, control and secure any nuclear material over which it has assumed control, in an attempt to not jeopardise its own nuclear industry.
In the unlikely event it became necessary to exercise the right to remove AONM from Ukraine, Australia would work closely with other countries involved in the supply of nuclear fuel to Ukraine to find a suitable destination for removing nuclear material. In exercising a contingency plan for removal, Australia would also consider:
- the status and form of the material (e.g. un-irradiated fuel, fresh spent fuel, cooled spent fuel);
o noting the movement to any jurisdiction of fuel that has recently been in the reactor core would be very difficult; however, the fuel would have a high degree of "self-protection" against theft or sabotage due to high radiation levels;
- the practicalities and risks of transferring the material compared to the risks posed by securing the material in its current location;
- any third party obligations which require consent for removal from that third party;
- the country to which the AONM will be removed, which could be any one of several suppliers;
- if the AONM returned to Australia, any permissions required pursuant to relevant Australian laws.
Government r esponse to a dditional c omments — Australian Greens
Recommendation 1
No binding treaty action be taken regarding the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
The government does not accept this recommendation. The agreement includes the essential elements of Australia's policy for the control of nuclear materials, including stringent nuclear safeguards, safety, security, and accountability conditions. The government considers that the agreement will provide a number of benefits to Australia and is firmly in the national interest.
The Services have designated 276 deficiencies in combat performance as "critical to correct" in Block 3F …
Deficiencies continue to be discovered at a rate of about 20 per month …
That the Senate take note of the report.
No binding treaty action be taken regarding the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Ukraine on Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.
… the repatriation provision in the Agreement is not in the Committee's view sufficient to ensure Australian nuclear material can be safely removed from Ukraine in the event that regulatory control is threatened.
… war, civil unrest and corruption are not mitigated by safeguards, inspections and security agreements.
Given the current state of warfare, I cannot say what could be done to completely protect installations from attack, except to build them on Mars.
For time out of mind, for more than 50,000 years, your people and your culture have shaped and been shaped by, cared for and been cared by, defined and been defined by this land, our land, Australia.
Your culture, our culture, is old and new, as dynamic as it is connected—on the highest tree top the new flower of the morning draws its being from deep and ancient roots.
Now it is up to us, together and united, to draw from the wisdom and the example of those we honour today and, so inspired, bring new heights and brighter blooms to that tree of reconciliation which protects and enriches us all.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
… the common law of Australia rejects the notion that, when the Crown acquired sovereignty over territory which is now part of Australia it thereby acquired the absolute beneficial ownership of the land therein, and accepts that the antecedent rights and interests in land possessed by the indigenous inhabitants of the territory survived the change in sovereignty. Those antecedent rights and interests thus constitute a burden on the radical title of the Crown.
That Senator Bushby be appointed as a member of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings.
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
This bill continues to deliver on the Government's commitment to strengthen the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and better protect Australian consumers.
The financial system touches the lives of every Australian family and business and the Turnbull Government recognises that our financial institutions have not always lived up to community standards.
That is why we are working every day to ensure that our regulators are tough cops on the beat, with the resources and powers that they need to proactively address misconduct and to prosecute those that do the wrong thing.
Introducing an industry funding model for ASIC will make industry more accountable for its behaviour and make ASIC a stronger regulator. It is a critical component of our plan to improve outcomes in the financial services sector and builds on other Government measures including:
Industry funding of ASIC will more closely align ASIC's funding model with that of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's (APRA's), as well as a number of international financial sector regulators including the Financial Conduct Authority in the United Kingdom and the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States.
It will also have significant benefits for all Australians. It will:
Let me now go through these benefits in detail.
Improve Equity in Tax Collection
Industry funding of ASIC will mean that, from 1 July 2017, those entities that create the need for that regulation will pay for it, as opposed to Australian taxpayers, who too often bear the cost of financial sector misconduct.
Further, because each regulated subsector will only ever pay an amount equal to its costs of supervision, industry funding will promote equity between different regulated entities. This is because certain industry subsectors will no longer cross-subsidise the costs of the regulation of other sectors.
Create a culture of compliance
In addition to enhancing equity, industry funding will also help to embed a culture of compliance within Australia's corporate and financial services sectors.
By creating clear and transparent price signals, industry funding will provide regulated entities with an incentive to improve their conduct. This is because industry sectors with a record of good behaviour require fewer ASIC resources and will face lower annual charges than those sectors that continue to pose unacceptable risks to Australian consumers.
Improve ASIC's Resource Prioritisation
These reforms, however, go beyond the mere introduction of levies and charges. Critically, the passage of these bills will help make ASIC a stronger regulator.
These bills will provide ASIC with new powers to collect more granular data from regulated entities on the services that they provide—such as the actual amount of credit provided—to support the calculation of the levies payable by each institution.
The benefits of this data, however, will extend well beyond ensuring that ASIC's costs are allocated correctly. This new, rich, dataset—made possible by the $61.1 million that the Government has invested in enhancing ASIC's data analytics and surveillance capabilities—will also allow ASIC to better identify emerging risks, better prioritise its resources and better ensure compliance with regulatory requirements.
This will make ASIC a more agile and adaptable regulator and drive better outcomes for Australian consumers.
The Government recognises, however, that these benefits must be balanced against additional red-tape costs for industry. For that reason, this bill provides checks and balances to ensure that requests for data are reasonable and proportionate.
Enhanced Transparency
Industry funding will also dramatically increase ASIC's transparency. From 2017-18, ASIC will be required to annually explain its regulatory priorities, outline its plan to address them, and provide a detailed account of how well it delivered on its objectives—including justification for the money that it spent and the regulatory tools that it elected to use.
These new reporting requirements will significantly enhance ASIC's accountability to the entities that it regulates. This will force ASIC to ensure that its expenditure is as efficient as possible and will encourage a greater investment in the ongoing assessment of its performance, as recommended by the ASIC Capability Review. This is an important outcome and a key driver behind the Government's decision to adopt an industry funding model.
Ensuring Compliance with Industry Funding
The success of the industry funding model relies on industry having confidence that everyone is paying their fair share.
That is why, in addition to outlining the broad framework for ASIC's industry funding model, this bill includes a number of measures to ensure that regulated entities do not shirk their responsibilities to the Australian public.
ASIC will be empowered to collect all supervisory levies that would have been payable from any entity that is caught operating without the appropriate license or authorisation. This will be in addition to any other enforcement action that ASIC deems appropriate.
For those entities that simply try to avoid paying their dues, ASIC will be permitted to impose a late payment penalty of 20 per cent per annum on any amounts outstanding. To ensure compliance, this financial penalty will be supplemented by the threat of ASIC administrative action including, in severe cases, the suspension or cancellation of an entity's license.
The Government is confident that these measures will provide industry with the certainty it needs to build further support for the industry funding model.
Consultation and Next Steps
Developing this legislation, and the industry funding model more broadly, has benefited from the input of many stakeholders.
Across two separate consultation periods the Government received more than 300 submissions and met with nearly 50 organisations. And we're not done yet.
On behalf of the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone that made a submission for their contribution so far and to assure industry that the Government will soon be releasing a draft version of the regulations for comment. These regulations will outline the specific levy mechanisms, and I encourage all interested parties to make a submission.
Closing
This bill delivers on the Government's promise to strengthen ASIC and better protect Australian consumers.
This bill is further evidence of the Turnbull Government's utmost commitment to holding the corporate and financial sectors to account for their behaviour and will result in a fairer system, will further incentivise good conduct, and will create a more efficient, agile, and innovative ASIC.
Full details about this bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to introduce an industry funding model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
To ensure that the industry funding model is equitable, this bill requires all entities regulated by ASIC to pay a levy to offset their regulatory costs.
These levies are to be paid after the end of the relevant financial year and any unpaid levy attracts penalty interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum.
To ensure that ASIC's costs are distributed appropriately, this bill also requires all ASIC regulated entities to report to ASIC on their actual activities throughout the financial year. This will also assist ASIC to better identify financial sector risks and prioritise its resources to best protect Australian consumers.
To buttress this reporting obligation, failing to report when required will be an offence. Further, a failure to report honestly will result in a shortfall penalty equal to two-times the levy avoided being imposed.
These measures are necessary to ensure ongoing confidence in the ASIC industry funding model.
Full details of the measure and the ASIC industry funding model are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017.
The ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 forms part of a package of bills to introduce an industry funding model for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
To provide industry with confidence that ASIC is an efficient regulator, the bill requires ASIC to publish information on all of its regulatory costs for the previous financial year as soon as practicable after 31 October each year.
To provide industry with confidence that everyone is paying their fair share, this bill empowers ASIC to take administrative actions against entities that have failed to pay their levy, late payment penalty, or shortfall penalty within a year.
To simplify existing funding arrangements and ensure that no industry pays more than their regulatory costs, this bill also abolishes the existing market supervision cost recovery regime. From 1 July 2017, ASIC's costs in this sector will be recovered under the new industry funding model.
Full details of the measure and the ASIC industry funding model are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017.
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
On 2 May, the Turnbull Government announced an extra $18.6 billion in recurrent schools funding on top of already record and growing funding for Australian schools over the next 10 calendar years. This will bring our total 10 year investment to a record $242.3 billion from 2018 to 2027.
The Government is committed to ensuring that this additional school funding is allocated fairly between states, sectors and schools and is based on the needs of students.
Quality Schools Package
We will truly implement the Gonski needs-based approach, delivering the Schooling Resource Standard that provides a base amount plus six loadings for disadvantage.
We will move to a truly needs based approach that means that the same student with the same need attracts the same amount of Commonwealth funding in each state, territory and school sector.
By 2027, all schools will be funded on the same basis by the Commonwealth and attract consistent shares of the Schooling Resource Standard. The share funded by the Commonwealth will increase across Australia bringing it to 20 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for the government sector and 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard for each
non-government sector approved authority. This reflects our historic role as the minority public funder of the government sector and the primary funder of the non-government sector.
To support our increased investment, we have established a Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools which will be led by Mr David Gonski AC, to provide advice on how the extra Commonwealth funding should be invested to improve Australian schools' performance, and grow student achievement.
The Review will contribute to the evidence base needed to ensure funding on the ground is used in ways that make a difference to student outcomes. The Review will not rehash funding calculations and distribution, but focus on practical measures that work, from Australia and around the world, to improve results for Australia's children.
Current Arrangements
As the Australian Education Act 2013 currently stands, Commonwealth recurrent funding varies considerably depending on negotiated arrangements by the former Labor Government with state and territory governments. This means students with the same need in the same sector are treated differently because of the state in which they live.
The Australian Education Act 2013 commenced on 1 January 2014. It is the principal legislation by which the Australian Government provides financial assistance to approved authorities for government and non‑government schools.
If the current legislation continued without amendment, the transition to any form of more consistent needs‑based funding isn't guaranteed, not even within decades, or even within 150 years in some instances.
Detail of the bill
The amendments contained in this bill are necessary and important. This bill realigns our legislative framework to support a funding model that is fair, transparent and needs-based. It ties funding to reforms that will improve student outcomes and provides strengthened accountability mechanisms.
By aligning our legislative framework with our national policy objectives, this bill provides a strong foundation for achieving our long term vision for Australia's schools.
An updated and streamlined legislative framework will also help guide a new national, collaborative approach to schools reforms, based on clear objectives and targets for performance.
To this end, a number of changes are required to the act.
The bill is presented in a single schedule divided into three parts.
Part 1. Improvements to the calculation of Commonwealth funding for schools
The amendments are intended to commence on 1 January 2018 in line with the school year.
The bill delivers a robust, needs-based system addressing the unfairness in the current funding model by removing the special deals made by the former Government, that have resulted in students with the same need within the same sector being treated differently just because of the state in which they live.
The amendments will enshrine a faster and fairer 10 year transition period to ensure that by 2027, all government schools and all non-government schools will be funded on the same basis by the Commonwealth and attract a consistent share of the Schooling Resource Standard.
From 2017, the Commonwealth share of the Schooling Resource Standard will grow for government schools from an average of 17 per cent to 20 per cent in 2027. And for the
non-government sector, grow from an average of 77 per cent in 2017 to 80 per cent in 2027.
Only 353 non-government schools are estimated to be over the entitlement of 80 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard in 2017. However, most of these will still experience positive growth in funding, just at a slower rate than indexation. Less than one per cent of schools will have negative growth over the next 4 years and the transition adjustment fund will provide support to assist vulnerable schools.
The bill updates the per-student base funding amounts for 2018 with more recent data.
An indexation rate of 3.56 per cent will be set in regulation for the first three years to honour our 2016 Budget commitment and give education authorities certainty. From 2021, indexation of the Schooling Resource Standard will be based on whichever is the higher of three per cent or a floating indexation rate based on economy wide measures to provide a minimum base and certainty for schools while ensuring that funding reflects real changes in wages and inflation costs.
As the Commonwealth will be increasing its share of the standard over the next ten years, overall funding will grow over and above enrolment growth and indexation. This means that the Commonwealth will be providing $4.4 billion more over 2018 to 2021 than if funding just grew in line with movements in CPI.
2. Key policy amendments relating to reform and accountability
The bill also introduces a requirement for states and territories to maintain their real per student funding levels as a condition of Commonwealth funding. This will prevent cost-shifting to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth does not own or operate a single school so it should not be the case that state and territory contributions to school funding decline while Commonwealth funding grows.
In addition to changes to the school funding model, the Commonwealth is seeking to strengthen the link between Commonwealth financial assistance and the implementation of evidence based reforms to improve student outcomes. We have been clear that the delivery of reforms will be a condition of funding for states.
The bill stipulates that states and territories will be required to be party to a new national agreement to receive Commonwealth funding. This is to avoid a situation like we have now with this notion of 'participating' and non-participating' states with differences in entitlements and expectations for achieving national goals.
A new agreement will set out a shared vision for the development and learning of young Australians and reinforce the importance of progressing evidence based reforms that improve student outcomes.
The Commonwealth will work cooperatively with state and territory governments to set out a relevant and ambitious long-term vision for our schools.
3. Miscellaneous and technical amendments
There are also a number of consequential and technical changes required to the act. These changes will reduce the level of Commonwealth control over the way schools are operated and the way funding is used by education authorities with the removal of requirements for implementation and school improvement plans.
Implementing and administering the act since 2014 has also shown some aspects to be ambiguous, unnecessary or otherwise administratively cumbersome so minor amendments are being made to address this.
Regulation Changes
Amendments will also be required to the Australian Education Regulation 2013 to give effect to the new funding and reform arrangements. We will be providing a summary of our proposed approach to these changes to stakeholders as part of our consultations on the implementation of the Quality Schools package and to assist with the consideration of this amendment bill.
The Amendments to the Regulation will cover how the new students with disability loading should be implemented to support students with the highest needs and proposed eligibility criteria for our transition adjustment fund.
We will also consult on the best way to deal with some unintended consequences in current arrangements, for instance the treatment of Year 7 students in South Australian schools, where because the government sector classifies Year 7 students as primary school students, students who are in Year 7 at non-government secondary schools are still being funded as primary school students. We will fix this and a range of other issues through our regulatory amendments once this bill is passed.
Closing
This bill supports all Australian schools by taking action to strengthen the legislative framework that underpins the Australian Government's significant investment in education and by updating the Act to ensure effective and efficient administration. I commend this bill.
Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Accelerated Depreciation For Small Business Entities) Bill 2017
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills now be read a second time.
FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (CORRUPTING BENEFITS) BILL 2017
I move that this Bill now be read a second time.
This Bill bans corrupt and secret payments made between employers and unions. It also requires disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits they stand to gain as a result of an enterprise agreement before employees vote on the agreement.
The role of union leaders is to put their members' interests first. Indeed, they are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly trust will be the first priority of their union.
Any union leader who accepts corrupt or secret payments from the employers of their members is placing themselves in a highly compromising position.
A business that makes such payments is also seriously compromised. As the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found: " Corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment. "
Yet successive Royal Commissions have uncovered millions of dollars of payments secretly transferred between employers and unions.
These deals were never revealed to the union's own members or the employer's own workforce.
Some payments involve union leaders obtaining kickbacks for their own personal benefit, like the officials who obtained free renovations on their homes.
Other payments involve deals to bolster the status and power of union leaders, particularly within the Labor Party. These deals involve employers making payments accompanied by lists of employee names which are used to secretly sign employees up to the union.
Shockingly, there are also payments that are used to encourage unions to sell out their members – the very members they are paid to represent.
A repeat offender when it comes to these payments was the AWU Victoria under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition.
In fact, the AWU Victoria received hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments from employers at the same time as its members were facing lower pay or redundancies.
For example, the AWU received half a million dollars from a glass manufacturer that was laying off workers at its factory in western Melbourne. In return for the payments, the employer undertook these redundancies without any agitation by the union.
The AWU also received $24,000 from a mushroom picking company that was casualising its workforce. Again, the employer avoided union agitation as it was undertaking redundancies and employing labour hire workers in their place. The deal saved the company millions of dollars.
The AWU also received $75,000 from a cleaning company in exchange for maintaining a workplace deal that paid cleaners well-below award rates and stripped them of penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings. This deal saved the company about $2 million each year.
These deals have the potential to corrupt union leaders, corrupt employers, and seriously disadvantage workers. On any measure they are morally wrong. They need to be outlawed, and that is exactly what this Bill will do.
Today the Government is introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 because we are committed to ending these secret deals between unions and employers, and because we are committed to putting the interests of workers first.
We are committed to ending the dodgy arrangements which ensure millions of dollars in financial benefits flow into union coffers from insurance, training and superannuation schemes, with employees none the wiser.
The Bill therefore criminalises benefits given or received with the intention of corrupting officers of registered organisations.
The Bill also outlaws payments or other benefits transferred from employers to unions or their officers. Certain legitimate categories of payments will be allowed, such as payments at market value for genuine services that are actually provided by a union, or genuine payment of membership fees.
Criminal penalties will apply equally to an employer and a union. The party that makes or offers the payment will be penalised in the same way as the party that solicits or receives the payment.
Criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual, or $4.5 million for companies.
Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be 2 years in prison or $90,000 for an individual, or $450,000 for companies.
The Bill also requires full disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits they stand to gain under an enterprise agreement before employees vote on the agreement.
If money changes hands between an employer and a union then both parties have an obligation to honestly declare these payments to their employees and members.
Employees have a right to know about any deals derived by their employer or the union before they vote on an agreement.
The Government is committed to restoring integrity and fairness to workplaces. This starts with requiring employers and unions to act with integrity and fairness in negotiations.
All parties in this Parliament who believe in fairness, honesty and transparency in workplaces should now support this vital reform to outlaw corrupting benefits.
If you believe in stopping corruption, and believe that unions and employers must put workers first, then this Bill must be supported.
FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (PROTECTING VULNERABLE WORKERS) BILL 2017
I rise to introduce the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill. This delivers on the final element of the Government's election commitment to protect vulnerable workers.
We know that the majority of employers do the right thing, but it is also apparent that there are some cases of widespread underpayment or coercion of workers, such as the well-publicised exploitation of workers by some 7-Eleven franchisees. These are the instances this Bill seeks to address.
The Bill introduces higher penalties for 'serious contraventions' of payment-related workplace laws, which will apply where the underpayments or other breaches are deliberate and systematic. The penalties for these contraventions will be ten times higher than usual. This will not apply to genuine mistakes, but only deliberate and systematic breaches.
The Bill also prohibits employers asking for 'cash back' from their employees. It is of concern to this Government that instances have occurred such as young workers being led from their workplace to the nearest ATM, and forced to hand back part of their wages in cash. Our amendments will make it clear that this type of practice is unlawful, and employees can get their wages back.
The Bill will also clarify the accessorial liability provisions to make them more effective. These changes will ensure that franchisors and holding companies that exercise significant control over their franchisees or subsidiaries will be responsible for underpayments where they turned a blind eye or were complicit in such a breach.
Where the franchisor or holding company should have known of the breach, or a similar breach, but did not take reasonable steps to try to prevent it then they may be liable for the underpayments.
We also recognise that not all franchise networks are the same and not all franchisors will be in a position to influence or control the employment practices of their franchisees. That is why the Bill does not mandate a particular requirement for companies who do exercise this control. What is appropriate in any particular case will depend on the size, resources and control exercised by a particular business and what steps they are already taking to encourage compliance with the law within their corporate networks. In many cases, existing measures will be sufficient and there will be no need to take any further measures.
The Fair Work Ombudsman will provide advice for businesses seeking further information about these provisions.
The Bill will not absolve franchisees or subsidiaries of their responsibility under workplace laws. These employers will remain liable for any breach of the Fair Work Act under existing laws. A franchisor or holding company that is required to rectify underpayments will also be given a statutory right to recover any amounts paid from the franchisee or subsidiary, ensuring that the direct employer continues to be liable for the breach, or can use contractual arrangements to recover in the case of a settlement.
These changes will not hold companies liable for mistakes. The Fair Work Ombudsman is required to act as a model litigant and will pursue prosecution only in cases where penalties are appropriate.
Finally, the Bill strengthens the Fair Work Ombudsman's evidence gathering powers to ensure that deliberate and systematic contraventions of workplace laws can be effectively investigated—even if there is no paper trail.
The Bill provides the Fair Work Ombudsman with powers similar to those held by other regulators such as ASIC and ACCC. These powers will allow the Ombudsman to compel a person to provide information or answer questions if all other avenues of investigation fail. These powers will be accompanied by safeguards to ensure they are used appropriately and consistently.
The Bill also expressly prohibits anyone from hindering or obstructing an investigator, or giving the Fair Work Ombudsman false or misleading information or documents.
Combined with the $20.1 million in funding the Government has restored to the Fair Work Ombudsman, after Labor ripped away 17 per cent of its funding when in Government, our workplace regulator will now be well placed to identify worker exploitation.
The regulator will also be in a position to support businesses, especially franchisors, franchisees and small businesses, to understand these changes and take any necessary simple steps to ensure that their networks are aware of their obligations under the Fair Work Act.
The development of this Bill has been informed by evidence from numerous reports and inquiries as well as extensive consultation with community, employer and employee representatives.
I trust that all those in this place who share the Government's commitment to stamping out worker exploitation will support our amendments and respect the decision of the Australian community to endorse our policy at the 2016 Federal Election.
SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ENERGY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT AND PENSIONER CONCESSION CARD) BILL 2017
This Bill provides for a one-off Energy Assistance Payment to welfare recipients who have a limited ability to earn additional income; and reinstates the Pensioner Concession Card to more than 92,000 former pensioners that ceased being eligible for a pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test.
Energy Assistance Payment
This bill provides for a one-off Energy Assistance Payment to recipients of the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Parenting Payment Single and Veterans and their partners paid the Service Pension, the Income Support Supplement and relevant compensation payments who are eligible for payment and residing in Australia on 20 June 2017 (the test date) to assist them with their energy costs.
The Energy Assistance Payment will be $75 for singles and $62.50 for each member of a couple, providing additional assistance to around 3.8 million Australians, including:
To be eligible you must be in receipt of one of the qualifying payments and be residing in Australia on 20 June 2017. Those qualified will automatically receive the payment through Centrelink or the Department of Veterans' Affairs – they will not need to take any action, and no claim is necessary. The payment will not be taxed and will not reduce their rate of income support.
Those people who have made a claim for payment on or before the test date and subsequently have that claim granted, will also be paid the one-off payment.
Legislation ensures that a person cannot receive more than one entitlement and no payment would be made to non-Australian residents. People who are not in receipt of payment because they are suspended on the test date will not be eligible. This may include people who are in gaol on the test date.
Qualifying veterans will include those receiving Disability Pension and War Widow(er)'s Pension under the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 , Permanent Impairment compensation, Special Rate Disability Pension or Wholly Dependent Partner payments under theMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 or Permanent Impairment compensation under theSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 on the test date.
Pensioner Concession Card
This Bill will also reinstate the Pensioner Concession Card to around 92,300 former pension recipients. Former pensioners who lost entitlement to the Pensioner Concession Card when they ceased being eligible for the pension on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pension assets test will once again be eligible for this card.
This consists of 88,700 former pensioners paid by the Department of Social Services and 3,600 former pensioners paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
From 1 January 2017, these people were all issued with a Health Care Card, and those over Age Pension qualification age were also issued with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. From the Commonwealth perspective, these cards provide the same benefits to the card holder in terms of access to cheaper medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the lower Extended Medicare Safety Net. These cards did not, however, provide access to free hearing services provided by the Department of Health or a range of concessions and benefits provided by states and territories, and/or private providers, which are available to Pensioner Concession Card holders.
The Government has decided to reinstate the Pensioner Concession Card to maximise concessions to this cohort.
While eligibility criteria for concession cards are set by the Commonwealth Government, the decision to use certain Commonwealth Government concession cards as a vehicle for targeting state and territory concessions is a choice made by state and territory governments, and other private providers.
State concessions on rates, utilities, motor vehicle registrations and public transport are all determined by the type of card you hold. Due to the decisions of state and territory governments, and/or private providers, some concessions available to Pensioner Concession Card holders are not available to holders of other types of concession cards, including a Health Care Card and a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. Reissuing the Pensioner Concession Card will help overcome this anomaly, and help facilitate people to again access these discounts and concessions.
It will cost $3.1 million over two years to reinstate the Pensioner Concession Card to this cohort of former pensioner recipients whose pension was cancelled due to the rebalancing assets test measure. This is a small expense to the Government, but will go a long way to assist this group in managing their daily budgets.
Consistent with the Health Care Card and Commonwealth Seniors Health Card they have now, the Pensioner Concession Card will be automatically reissued from 9 October 2017 with an ongoing income and assets test exemption.
To maintain their current Commonwealth benefits, those former pensioners issued with a Commonwealth Seniors Health Card will also retain that card. As the Pensioner Concession Card provides all the benefits the Health Care Card does, the Health Care Card would become redundant and would be deactivated for those former pensioners issued with a Health Care Card on 1 January 2017 due to the rebalancing of the pensions assets test.
The eligibility requirements ensure that these former pensioners will maintain ongoing eligibility to the stand alone Pensioner Concession Card, but still have to meet some of the conditions in place for usual Pensioner Concession Card holders. These conditions include portability requirements where cardholders will have their card suspended after being overseas for 6 weeks. The card will be reactivated on return to Australia. The Pensioner Concession Card will also be cancelled if the cardholder is in gaol. This bill acts on the Government's commitments outlined in the 2017-18 Budget.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION FOR SMALL BUSINESS ENTITIES) BILL 2017
Today I rise to introduce a Bill which backs small business.
We know small businesses employ almost half of our country's workforce.
We know our economy grows when the small business sector is strong.
And we know every small business starts as the spark of someone's idea, with hard work and dedication to see it become a reality.
So, if you're an Australian in small business, this is our Bill to back you.
This Bill amends the tax law to help small businesses to invest and grow. It builds on the plan for jobs, for growth and for opportunities through small business tax cuts and other support as part of the past two Budgets.
On any day, 5.6 million Australians are at work in small business, earning a wage from one of our 3.2 million small businesses.
Small businesses make up 99 per cent of all Australian businesses and annually contribute $380 billion to the economy.
This means a strong small business sector means more jobs for Australians and more opportunities to build vibrant local communities across the country.
The Government is committed to cutting small business taxes and helping them invest and grow.
The measure this Bill enacts today was delivered as part of the 2017-18 Budget, delivered to Parliament a little over two weeks ago.
On that day – 9 May – this Government kicked its biggest goal yet for small business: a cut in the company tax rate.
Thanks to laws passed in this Parliament that day, the tax rate for small business is now at its lowest level in many, many decades and small businesses have more money to invest in themselves today.
That change in the law also means more than 90,000 additional businesses can access to tax concessions as a result of redefining small business to those turning over $10 million per annum.
The 2017 Budget continues the Government's plan to back small business.
Whether it's the local small business owner in Western Sydney, the mature aged worker in Noosa or the young job seeker looking to start their career in Gympie – this Budget is full of opportunities.
In the 2015-16 Budget the Government increased the small business immediate deductibility threshold from $1,000 to $20,000 from 12 May 2015 until 30 June 2017.
This Bill extends that measure by 12 months so small businesses with turnover less than $10 million can immediately deduct purchases of eligible assets each costing less than $20,000 first used or installed ready for use by 30 June 2018.
This continues the Government's strong record of backing small business to grow and deliver more and better paying jobs by helping them replace or upgrade their machinery and equipment.
This measure will improve cash flow for small business, providing a boost to small business activity for another year, helping them to reinvest in their business.
Improved cash flow will also give businesses the flexibility to hire more employees and pay staff more.
Business tools and equipment can be expensive and the rules around depreciating them can be time consuming to understand.
Under the extended immediate deductibility measure, small businesses can write-off each and every item under $20,000 that is purchased until 30 June 2018.
In the process, small businesses support other small businesses and by purchasing new or second hand equipment they're spending money locally which has a flow on and multiplier effect.
The result: more efficiency, greater productivity, more consumers and a boost to small business morale. This impact is beneficial for our regional towns and communities.
This Government understand the daily demands and constraints facing small businesses. Small business people are time poor.
Under this measure, the business does not have to keep track of the item records and can use the extra cash-flow to reinvest in the business.
Assets valued at $20,000 or more can continue to be placed together into the small business simplified depreciation pool and depreciated at 15 per cent in the first income year and 30 per cent each income year thereafter.
Once assets are placed in the pool, there is no requirement to track each item's depreciation over multiple income years.
This reduces paperwork and allows small business to get on with doing what they do best.
The pool itself may also be immediately deducted if its value falls below $20,000 at the end of the financial year, providing an additional cash flow benefit to small businesses.
The law previously included 'lock-out rules' that stop small businesses that elect out of the simplified depreciation regime from re-entering for five years.
These rules were relaxed when the threshold was increased to $20,000 and will continue to be suspended until 30 June 2018 to allow all small business entities to access this measure.
The small number of assets not eligible for accelerated depreciation, such as capital works, will continue to be excluded under this measure, consistent with the current law.
On 1 July 2018, the thresholds for immediate deductibility of individual assets and the value of the pool will revert to $1,000.
The instant asset write-off has proved to be one of the most popular small business incentives and encourages Australia's 3.2 million small businesses to invest in their business and create more jobs.
That's why we made the decision to continue to back small business in this year's Budget. Extending the instant asset write-off is the highlight in the Budget for small business and part of our plan to increase business confidence.
Small businesses, industry groups and business leaders have been vocal in their calls for an extension to the program. The response from business and stakeholders has been well received.
Since Budget night, the support from small business welcoming the extension of this program and the Government's ongoing commitment to small business has been overwhelming.
Peter Strong, CEO of the Council of Small Business of Australia said:
" … the Federal Government has demonstrated a genuine commitment to small business. "
" The Australian Government is clearly walking the talk when it comes to supporting Australia ' s … small businesses. "
On Budget night two weeks ago James Pearson, CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the " extension of the instant asset write-off is terrific. "
" This Budget will encourage restaurants to buy more kitchen equipment, landscape gardeners to buy more lawn mowers and tech companies to buy more hardware through the extension and expansion of the instant asset write-off. This is good for small business and good for jobs. "
Denita Wawn the CEO of the Master Builders Association who looks after the interests of 32,000 members in the building and construction industry responded to the Budget saying:
" The Budget ' s small business measures will particularly benefit the building and construction industry which is 98% made up of small businesses. The building industry is a big winner from the extension of the accelerated depreciation measures by one year and to businesses turning over up to $10 million. "
This Government stands up for more small businesses being able to take advantage of the instant asset write-off, to be able to invest in their capital equipment and in their businesses, and to be able to employ more Australians.
We are extending the instant asset write-off to hardworking small businesses to ensure they can continue to get ahead, to progress, to employ more people.
Small business deserves the confidence this Bill proposes and I encourage all Senators to get on board and back small business. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET MEASURES) BILL 2017
I am pleased to present the Veterans ' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017 (Budget Measures Bill.)
The Budget Measures Bill would implement three of the Government's 2017 Budget announcements for the veteran community.
As the Prime Minister has said, we best honour the diggers of a century ago by supporting the servicemen and women, the veterans and their families of today. This budget will do just that.
The Government has invested an additional $350 million in this year's budget to support veterans. I am very pleased to say that there was a strong focus on two issues that are raised regularly by veterans: mental health support and reform of the Department's processes and systems.
The Government is expanding our program of free and immediate mental health support to current and former Australian Defence Force Members. This treatment is currently available for five specified mental health conditions.
The Government is expanding our Non-Liability Health Care programme so that it will be available for any mental health condition, including phobias, adjustment disorder and bi-polar disorder.
It is important that this House notes the significance of this programme for veterans and their families.
Just over twelve months ago, anyone who has served one day in the full-time Australian Defence Forces had to prove that any mental health condition was linked to their service.
Already suffering from these conditions, they would have to wait to have their eligibility and claim approved from the Department. It meant wait times which would see their mental health either deteriorate or not receive support that they desperately needed.
Last year, this Government provided a new approach – free and immediate treatment for depression, anxiety, PTSD, alcohol abuse and substance abuse without the need to prove the condition was service related.
In this budget, the Government has gone even further. Now, we will commit to provide this for all mental health conditions.
It will mean that from now on, veterans and defence personnel can get free and immediate treatment without a burden of proof and without the need for a bureaucratic barrier.
This Government has delivered this barrier-free support for the first time in Australia because we know that the earlier intervention and support is provided, the better the outcome for the individual.
Most importantly, this policy is completely uncapped. If there is a need, it will be funded.
As part of our veterans' mental health initiatives, the Government is also expanding eligibility for the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS).
VVCS is a vital service that saves lives. The Government understands that partners, families and former partners of our veterans are an important part of the ex-service community and that they too are affected by military service.
In recognition of this, the Budget provides extra funding so that any partner, dependant or immediate family member will have access to VVCS, and former partners of ADF personnel will also be able to access VVCS up to five years after a couple separates, or while co-parenting a child under the age of 18.
In addition to this, this Budget begins the Government's response to the complex problem of veteran and defence suicide.
The Government has received a report from the National Mental Health Commission on services provided to defence personnel and veterans and a preliminary report on suicide rates from the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.
Suicide prevention is a complex issue and as the reports have shown, there is no simple solution. It requires a multi-faceted response.
This Budget will provide $9.8 million to pilot new approaches to suicide prevention and improve care and support available to veterans.
We know that some of our most vulnerable veterans are those who have just been discharged from hospital care.
The Mental Health Clinical Management Pilot will assess the benefits of providing intensive clinical management immediately after hospital discharge to help meet a veteran's complex mental health and social needs.
The second part to this Budget for veterans is the investment it will make in improving the services and systems of the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
As part of the Veteran Centric Reform, the Government has committed $166.6 million towards making DVA a 21st century Department with a 21st century service.
This includes a significant investment in the upgrading of the Department's computer systems and processes. We can only have a better service from DVA if they have the tools to do the job. Claims and wait times will be cut by this investment, something that is long overdue.
Finally, the Government is further supporting veterans' employment opportunities through funding to support the Prime Minister's Veterans' Employment Programme. As many of you would be aware, this initiative is aimed at raising awareness with employers, both in the private and public sectors, of the enormous value and unique experience that veterans possess.
These measures will not require legislative change.
In regards to the Budget initiatives contained in this Bill, I am pleased to advise of three measures that will be effective from the 1st of July as long as this Bill passes.
Schedule 1 – improved health care for Australian participants of the British Nuclear Tests and Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force
Schedule 1 of the Budget Measures Bill would amend the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to provide Australian British Nuclear Test Participants already covered under that Act and civilians present at a nuclear test area during a relevant period, as well as Australian veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Force with full medical treatment and support.
Participation in the British and Commonwealth Occupation Forces marked the first time that Australians were involved in the military occupation of a sovereign nation which it had defeated in war. The primary objective of BCOF was to enforce the terms of the unconditional surrender that had ended the war.
BCOF was required to maintain military control and to supervise the demilitarisation and disposal of the remnants of Japan's war-making capacity. Warlike materials were destroyed and other military equipment was converted for civilian use under the supervision of BCOF personnel.
The entire BCOF force totalled 45,000, from Britain, India, New Zealand, and Australia. For two-thirds of the period of occupation the Commonwealth was represented solely by Australians, and throughout its existence, BCOF was always commanded by an Australian officer.
In recognition of the possible exposure to ionising radiation experienced by both Australian veterans of BCOF and the BNT veterans, the Government has decided to provide a Gold Card to these veterans which will enable them to access medical treatment for all conditions.
This programme will also provide health care coverage for pastoralists, indigenous people and other civilians determined to be within the same vicinity as the participants of the British Nuclear Tests.
From 1 July 2017, it is expected that 2,800 people will be able to access this expansion of services.
The Government has committed $133.1 million over the forward estimates to this measure.
Schedule 2 - Work test for intermediate or special rate of pension
The amendments in this Schedule would amend the current outdated work history restrictions for Special and Intermediate Rates of Disability Pension provided in the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 to better reflect modern working arrangements.
The Special Rate of pension was designed for severely disabled veterans of a relatively young age who could never go back to work and could never hope to support themselves or their families or put away money for their retirement. The Intermediate Rate of pension was designed for veterans who, due to a service-related disability, can only work part-time or intermittently because of the disability.
The eligibility criteria for the Special Rate of Disability Pension is provided in the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 . In addition to the standard requirements for Special Rate Pension, a veteran over 65 must satisfy a work test. Applicants must demonstrate an intention to work beyond the normal retirement age of 65, and be unable to work as a result of their war-caused injury or disease.
The changes would remove the current requirement for claimants to have worked for 10 years with the same employer, and for self‑employed clients to have worked a minimum of 10 years in the same profession, trade, vocation or calling.
In the modern workforce, these expectations are unrealistic and the Government recognises this.
Instead, the work history requirement for Special and Intermediate Rates of Disability Pension would just require a period of 10 continuous years of work in any field or vocation, with potentially multiple employers prior to applying for the Special or Intermediate Rates of Disability Pension.
Schedule 3 - Rehabilitation programs
Schedule 3 of the Budget Measures Bill would insert instrument making powers into the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (SRCA) and theMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA), enabling the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to determine a class of persons eligible to participate in an early access to rehabilitation pilot programme.
Currently, veterans and ADF members with eligibility under the SRCA or the MRCA have to wait until their initial liability claim is accepted before they can access rehabilitation services. Assessing a claim typically takes around four months, and for complex cases it can take even longer.
Early access to rehabilitation facilitates participation in economic activities with all of the ensuing benefits of work and recovery, assists in minimising the ongoing effects of injury and illness and promotes recovery and wellbeing.
A six month pilot programme providing early access to rehabilitation assessments to a group of 100 participants will be undertaken in the 2017-18 financial year.
If a person's liability claim is subsequently rejected, Government funding for the early access to rehabilitation pilot programme would cease. In those circumstances, the person's rehabilitation programme would be transitioned from a government provider to a community‑based provider. The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission would not seek to recover the costs of the rehabilitation services provided to the person.
In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the Government's support to our veteran community. These are only some of the measures that the Government will deliver for veterans and their families in this budget.
It is a budget that will honour those who have served by looking after our current and former serving men and women.
I commend this Bill.
That the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017
Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017
Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
Personal Property Securities Amendment (PPS Leases) Bill 2017
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Polar Code) Bill 2017
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget Measures) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016
Superannuation (Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Bill 2016
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016
Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017
… have also turned their back on the indigenous peoples of Queensland by this decision, because this mine in the Galilee Basin is supported by the Wangan and Jagalingou peoples.
He said:
They met last year and voted on the mine, they voted on the mine 294 to one in support of it, yet that’s not good enough for Westpac.
Adani didn’t ‘negotiate’ and achieve the free prior informed consent of the W&J people. The meeting, that all these barrackers for Adani’s mine cite, that seemingly voting 294 to 1, is only ‘a vote for the mine’ if it’s a true expression of the W&J traditional owners. But it’s not.
Over 220 of that meeting’s attendees are people who have never been involved in the W&J claim or decision making, and who are identified with other nations and claims, or didn’t identify an apical decent line.
They were bussed in and paid for at Adani’s considerable expense. The ‘natural majority’ of the claim group, who have three times rejected an ILUA with Adani, refused to participate in this stitch up of a meeting. They stayed away.
The amendment of the Native Title Act requires a detailed and nuanced approach that protects rather than undermines the property rights of the various clans and families that make up each native title claim area. This must be done with care as the failure to get it right will permit the property rights and interests of particular families and clans to be extinguished or impaired without their consent.
I encourage the members of federal parliament to take a deep breath, and come to terms with the fact that the property rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people all over Australia will be affected by the proposed amendment to s 24CD of the Native Title Act. This amendment should not be rushed in order to appease some other agenda.
Small business in the towns that I mentioned in my home state of Queensland are desperate to see the Adani mine go ahead, and the only thing holding it up at the moment is the uncertainty on the native title issue …
I rise to speak on the Native Title Amendment (Indigenous Land Use Agreements) Bill 2017, which is also known as the bill to ram through the Adani coalmine against the wishes of the local Wangan and Jagalingou people. It is known as the bill to give certainty to big miners whilst subjugating the rights of our First Australians.
There are fundamental issues with the bill. We know we need to consider it in proper detail. Instead, all the government gives a damn about is giving a free pass to the mega coal company Adani. It is not even an Australian company.
The Green movement extremists and the media have misrepresented this very important, but mainly technical issue, in order to bolster their campaign against the Adani project.
We strongly oppose both nominating representatives, as well as the simple majority requirement in the proposed amendment to s24CD(2)(a). No Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person should have their native title rights violated by an ILUA they do not agree to.
Allowing in ILUAs—
where a potentially large proportion of the native title claim group disagrees is unjust and compromises our native title rights.
In considering the appropriateness of the amendments, it is important to note the nature and effect of Area Agreements.
… … …
… upon registration, it is possible that people who hold native title rights and interests can be bound by an agreement that they have not had actual notice of, have not had legal advice in relation to, and were not a party to.
… … …
The types of matters which may be the subject of an Area Agreement are not trivial.
It is not clear whether this will result in the automatic deregistration of registered ILUAs that are affected, however legal action to test whether such ILUAs can remain on the register has already been intimated. To avoid a period of protracted litigation and uncertainty, this situation is also in need of remedy and the validity of currently registered ILUAs needs to be put beyond doubt.
The Senate divided. [19:21]
(The President—Senator Parry)
At the end of the motion, add:
', and the bill be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for further inquiry and report by 8 August 2017.'
The Senate divided [19:26]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Ministers and Assistant Ministers … must act in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of integrity and propriety—
… Ministers are to regard the skills and abilities of public servants as a public resource, and are expected to ensure that public servants are deployed only for appropriate public purposes.
Sailed their boats
Up to our shores
Aimed their guns
And made their laws
No man’s land
Was what they said
Did not want to count
One single head
As flora and fauna
We were seen
Did not have a say
In our own dreams
British subjects
Was the term they used?
Wasn’t even asked
For our important views
Alien citizens
On our own sand
Treated as foreigners
By treacherous hands
Our rights were shunned
Our lives controlled
We watched in sadness
Saw it all unfold
Then came a sound
Like a rushing tide
Throughout the land
It rolled far and wide
And one by one
The voices all rose
In an almighty crescendo
We watched them grow
A referendum
A deciding vote
To take count of us
Bring healing and hope
Set the wheels in motion
And opened the door
"The Aboriginal question"
The changing of laws
The scars run deep
Within our lives
But we will fight on
For justice with pride
And hope one day soon
We will stand hand in hand
As we press for equality
In our Great Australian Land
The anniversary presents an opportunity to reset—to secure sustainable support to help reduce the impact of trauma. This report makes three key recommendations:
1. A comprehensive assessment of the contemporary and emerging needs of Stolen Generations members, including needs-based funding and a financial redress scheme.
2. A national study into intergenerational trauma to ensure that there is real change for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the future.
3. An appropriate policy response that is based on the principles underlying the 1997 Bringing Them Home report.
In particular, the lack of family support services means there is limited scope for at-risk parents to get the support they need to build safe and resilient families for their children.
There is no way of knowing what the contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander world would look like had there been a concerted effort to implement the Bringing Them Home vision for the future.
Mothers still live in fear that their children are going to be taken from them.
The laws of those times are still impacting on our people today ... it is time to finish this business
Kai Hao, an innocent man, treated almost like collateral damage after Brighton terror attack.
Notice scant regard for woman held hostage by Brighton killer. Is that because she was a prostitute? Appalling lapse by our leaders.
I had become aware of an elderly lady who had to travel from Wyong to the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for radiotherapy treatment each day for six weeks.
She travelled by bus and train, and what torture that must have been for her.
Silly or not, I was left with a feeling of guilt knowing that this much older lady was having to struggle to travel for treatment while I could be driven for mine without any effort on my part.
Good mental health begins in early childhood. When a baby has the opportunity to form a secure bond with their parent or caregiver, this can support their potential and ability to form healthy relationships throughout life.
That's not just a backdoor—that's more like a giant sinkhole that your backdoor fell into. It's a gaping, cavernous hole in the architecture of the internet and that's a big problem for a number of reasons.
My wife, my two children and I have worked hard to contribute to this society … Over the past 5 years we have considered ourselves as an Australian in every daily activity and looked forward to our children to carry on this legacy as Australian citizens, promoting the benefits of this society at home & abroad. The new proposed policy runs counter to the open, multicultural melting pot that we were drawn to. The new proposed policy asks my family, and others like us, to spend 4 more years to "prove" that we are worthy of becoming citizens, despite paying taxes, helping our neighbours, supporting the economy, hiring other Australians into my organization and encouraging my children to proudly claim Australia as their home.
I chose Australia due to it being multicultural, and ease of communication with local community because I can't speak German and am quite fluent in English. But the main reason of choosing Australia was to get settled here because in my home country you don't get the freedom to openly express your views. Why do I need Australian citizenship? One reason is to feel secure and the ability to speak freely and another reason is to avoid a situation where I have felt quite helpless or people taking advantage of me just because I am not an Australian citizen.
I was granted permanent residency 1 year ago. It was a great day. For two days last month I was eligible to apply for citizenship and had planned to complete my application the following weekend. Unfortunately, the next day I became ineligible due to the government's new regulations to qualify for citizenship. I now have to wait another three years.
I have committed to a life here. I have a job I love, great friends, a life full of sport and socialising, and I can't help but take it personally that the Australian government has moved the goal posts without warning. It really does make me question the values of the country that I so want to make my home. Living on different visas for nearly six years creates a life of uncertainty, a feeling that disappeared when I became a permanent resident.
I'm an Australian-born citizen but my husband has been here for the past eight years, working, studying, paying taxes, buying property and speaking English better than me! He was due for citizenship in three weeks however that's been pushed to three years under the new laws. We are appalled and upset as we had our lives planned.
I was due for my citizenship on March 7th. I started my application on the 18th of March but did not get to finish and send it off until 20th of April when this shock announcement came out, as I have just had a baby. I am married to an Australian. My son is also Australian, I have many Australian friends, I join in with Australian celebrations and memorials. How can the LNP just rip my citizenship from me when I have done everything asked of me? I will be here nine years before I get citizenship now.
The occupation denies us any sense of normalcy or dignity. We are shaped by our experiences as children standing at a checkpoint and not fully comprehending why a soldier with a gun won’t let us pass; and to learn later in life that it was simply because we were Palestinian.
Without a Palestinian state, Israel has a majority Arab population living under unequal laws and denied a right to vote.
1. Council request an urgent meeting with the New South Wales Minister for Planning to discuss council's concerns in relation to the draft Sydenham to Bankstown Urban Renewal Strategy Corridor.
2. The minister and the department be advised that
Council opposes the Draft Strategy in its present form
Council request the immediate release of all supporting studies and reports in the department's possession relating to the Strategy
Council again requests that the exhibition period for the Strategy be extended…
As we face discrimination, I plan to work on implementing laws that serve to uplift women.
It’s the day after the London attacks, and I am sitting in a dingy bar, too tired to be there, but too tired to move. It’s only busy this Sunday afternoon because it’s the bar that sits directly opposite the police perimeter fence holding back the media circus that has descended on the Borough Market. Less than a few hundred metres from where at least seven people were murdered the night before. I’m here with Richard, who isn’t tired at all, just defiant.
“Screw them if they think they are going to stop me drinking with my friends, flirting with handsome men and befriending powerful women,” he tells me as we order another round of drinks. “Screw them!” I’ve heard him use the same line several times, minus the obscenities, with differing media outlets.
“Yeah,” I say. “Screw them.” But mine sounds superficial given the energy in Richard’s voice. Neither of us has slept, though it is clear that Richard is handling the situation better than I am. “Screw them,” I say again, even less convincingly, deciding that what I actually need is more drinks. Which, if I’m to be honest, is the last thing I need.
Richard Angell is one of those gregarious people who always has energy and who always is remarkably well tanned for a man living in London. He is one of my closest friends. I’ve travelled from Sydney to spend a week with him and give him a hand on the Labour campaign trail. It is five days out from the British general election.
Richard swallows a mouthful of his drink and looks at me. “What do you think happened to the guy holding his throat?” he asks.
What he is asking about is “that guy holding the blood coming out of his throat who ran past us last night”. (He was one of the seven already confirmed attack victims.)
I don’t like to think about these things, so I change the topic. “I hate the term ‘working-class pub’,” I tell Richard. It’s the best segue I have. “I mean, there is something so patronising about the term. It’s just a euphemism for ‘shit bar’, as if working-class people can’t enjoy nice things.” Richard can see what I’m doing, but doesn’t go with me. He just goes back to his drink. The conversation goes silent and he starts playing with his phone. Richard won’t fritter away his energy on topics other than those concerning his city being attacked again.
The night before, he had dragged me out of his spare bed at 8 pm to join him and another two friends, Andy Bagnall and Jo Milligan, for dinner. After all, it was a night in London where the weather was in the 20s, which (I’m reliably told) is about as good as it gets here. I didn’t need much convincing.
The rest is written elsewhere. The restaurant we were at, Arabica, was adjacent to an establishment where three assailants had rushed in and started stabbing. Some reports say they were slitting the throats of anyone who crossed their paths.
In our venue, events became a blur but the images didn’t. I remember watching a woman running down the street covered in blood; panic as the screams engulfed the street; 37 patrons hiding in the small kitchen and upstairs of the restaurant while the London police swept the area; the sound of gunfire; the decision by Richard, Andy and Jo to not let the restaurant open the emergency fire escape. I reflected later that it was probably a move that helped save the lives of those we were holed up with. The exit would have led everyone directly to where the assailants were and where one was shot dead minutes after the attack started.
I want to go home. I’m exhausted and I want to go back to Sydney where my wife, Helen, and my two daughters are. I want to go back to parliament in Canberra where we can pretend that the big ugly world is a far distant place separated by a sea and a long plane ride. I want to go home and sleep in my own bed. I want to try to forget last night.
I’ve spent the day following Richard as he goes from one interview to the next, defiantly talking up London to the assembled media crowds, all desperate for … the articulate London boy prepared to have a go. It’s a good distraction. Make sure his phone is charged. Make sure he has water. Monitor his statements on internet and watch them go viral. In the space of an hour he has done interviews ranging as wide as CNN and Iranian national TV, all of them with the same message: “They never win if we don’t let them.” Reminding the world that in times of adversity communities come together. That last night in London both the best and worst of people were on display. Violence broke the peace of a warm evening—but it didn’t break the spirit of the city or the courage of its people.
I’m tired but … I’m not going to be able to sleep anyway. I know that thoughts and images can’t be easily dismissed and ignored. Considering I’ve decided to stick it out with Richard, I have nowhere else I actually want to be. So I sit with Richard, and order another drink.