The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
It is appropriate that basic archival rules apply … and that in 30 years time the basic ground rules for Commonwealth documentation generally apply, subject to such exemptions as apply to this sort of material, which can properly be administered by the Presiding Officers.
Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017
… only reform—the creation of new institutions, the recasting of those already existing, the revitalisation of the moral and social imperatives which lend them vigour.
Economics had moved—more than economists would like to think—from being a scientific discipline into becoming free market capitalism's biggest cheerleader.
Economic liberalisation is a social compact. In exchange for rising incomes to help them look after their local needs, people are asked to accept an ever-changing economy with industries that rise and fall with the tide of global progress.
After a decade of phenomenal income growth, built on the back of a deregulated economy that reaped the benefits of increased global trade, business investment has now slowed and wages growth has fallen flat.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2017
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 7.23 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2017 (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 11 September 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 September 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the provisions of the Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2017 (see appendices 5 and 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2017 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 September 2017 (see appendices 8 and 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2017 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(h) the Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 September 2017 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Amendment (Rates of Charge) Bill 2017
5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017
Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017.
(David Bushby)
Chair
22 June 2017
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian citizenship and other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Determine whether the changes to citizenship requirements will improve national security. Consideration of human rights implications and discriminatory nature of the measures to people of non-english speaking backgrounds.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Human rights Commission
Australian Law Council
Migration Solutions
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
11 August 2017
Possible reporting date:
11 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Kakoschke-Moore
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian citizenship and other Measures) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The complexity of the Bill means it needs investigation.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
16 August 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Bill addresses a deficiency in corporate governance.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Brett Stevenson
Alex Malley (CPA Australia)
Governance Institute of Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
August 2017
Possible reporting date:
September 2018
(signed)
Senator Kakoschke-Moore
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Mid-July
Possible reporting date:
13 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Regional I nvestment Corporation Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
State and Territory Governments; Department of Agriculture; the Department of Finance.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
4 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Regional Investment Corporation Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Due consideration and scrutiny of the bill and the implications of the ANAD audit.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Agriculture
State Governments
NFF and state farmer peak bodies
ANAO (re: their Administration of Concessional Loans Programs report)
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
8-10th August (if necessary)
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday 15th of August 2017
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Not required
Possible reporting date:
7 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
7 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Implications for pensioners, families
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ACOSS, NSSRN, Anglicare Australia, UnitingCare Australia, Catholic Social Services
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Senator Siewert
APPENDIX 1 0
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee
Possible reporting date:
4 September 2017
(signed)
Senator Urquhart
APPENDIX 1 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Raises important health and personal choice issues.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Can provide extensive list based on Select Committee inquiries on Nanny State and also Red Tape.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
No preferences
Possible reporting date:
By 13 September
(signed)
Senator Leyonhjelm
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Competition and Consumer) Bill 2017 and the Telecommunications (Regional Broadband Scheme) Charge Bill 2017, the provisions of the bills be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2017".
It is in the … committee] room that careful, calm consideration can be brought to bear upon a subject, and [senators] can work harmoniously in spite of party differences.
That—
(a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) Bill 2017 be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of that bill and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion No. 380 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher relating to wages; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That the Red Tape Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 22 June 2017 is the 40th anniversary of the service of inauguration of the Uniting Church in Australia;
(b) observes this day when members of the Congregational Union of Australia, the Methodist Church of Australasia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia entered into union in 1977;
(c) congratulates the Uniting Church on attaining this significant milestone;
(d) recognises the contribution of the Uniting Church, its agencies and its members have made to Australian society since its founding;
(e) acknowledges that the Uniting Church has chosen togetherness in faith to be of utmost importance, with members committed to living as one diverse community, despite often differing views; and
(f) expresses its hope that the Uniting Church continues to experience renewal in faith and its mission of unity as it celebrates 40 years as a uniquely Australian church.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the damage caused to the Macquarie Harbour World Heritage Area, including the threat to the endangered Maugean Skate, as a result of the overstocking of salmon farms in the harbour,
(ii) the proceedings brought by Huon Aquaculture in the Federal Court and the Tasmanian Supreme Court against the Tasmanian Government for failing to properly regulate salmon farming by Tassal in Macquarie Harbour,
(iii) that the Commonwealth is investigating whether conditions imposed as part of the 2012 expansion of salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour have been breached,
(iv) the decision of the Hodgman Government to grant permission to Tassal to establish an 800 000 fish salmon farm in Okehampton Bay on Tasmania's pristine east coast, and
(v) concerns from a wide cross-section of the community over the proposed Okehampton Bay salmon farm, including the concerns expressed by around 1 000 people who attended FloatMo in Hobart on 18 June 2017; and
(b) calls on the Hodgman Government to withdraw permission for a salmon farm in Okehampton Bay given the record of atrocious mismanagement and poor regulation of Tasmania's aquaculture industry.
The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)
That the Senate—
(a) welcomes the Prime Minister, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, and the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and their strong and decisive action in putting downward pressure on power prices by:
(i) finalising tough new regulation in the gas sector, putting Australians first with priority access to gas supply before it is exported,
(ii) strengthening the Australian Energy Regulator by providing it with an additional $67.4 million to stop energy network companies gaming the system and overturning rulings in the courts, and
(iii) asking the Australian Energy Market Operator how to ensure that new continuous dispatchable power is provided, including what support is needed to promote new investment; and
(b) notes that the national interest is best served by calling on states to unlock their domestic supplies of conventional gas.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it has been more than 18 months since the Economics References Committee tabled its report entitled Third party certification of food , and
(ii) in a response to question on notice no. 438, asked on 29 March 2017, the Government has:
(A) acknowledged that it understood the importance of the recommendations of the inquiry, and
(B) admitted that it has given serious consideration to the inquiry's recommendations and has committed to responding to these recommendations in due course; and
(b) calls on the Government to finalise its serious considerations and expedite implementation of the important recommendations in the report of the Economics References Committee on the inquiry into Australian food certification schemes and certifiers.
(a) notes the:
(i) obligation for parties to the Paris Agreement to consider the 'right to health' in the national climate change response, and
(ii) substantial and growing body of evidence highlighting the public health risks posed by climate change;
(b) recognises the:
(i) need to protect the health and wellbeing of present and future Australians from the health impacts of climate change,
(ii) economic and health co-benefits from climate change mitigation and adaptation actions, including reduced air pollution and cases of related cardiovascular and respiratory disease and reduced exposure to extreme weather events, and
(iii) release of the Framework for a National Strategy on Climate, Health and Well-being; and
(c) calls on the Government to implement policies that will simultaneously protect the health and well-being of Australians and combat the health impacts of climate change on the health of the Australian community.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the 39 worthy Western Australians who were recipients of the 2017 Queen's Birthday Honours for their outstanding achievement and service; and
(b) particularly notes the following recipients:
(i) Professor Svend Peter Klinken, AC—for eminent service to medical research and biochemistry through seminal contributions to understanding the genetics of major diseases, and to the people of Western Australia through promoting the importance of science and innovation,
(ii) Mr Malcolm Charles Wauchope, AO—for distinguished service to public administration in Western Australia through leadership and advisory roles, to improved governance, public sector management and policy reform, and to the community,
(iii) Ms Elizabeth Jessie Carr, AM—for significant service to the community through voluntary contributions to the health, aged care, education and social services sectors,
(iv) Mrs Janice Ethel Pavlinovich, OAM—for service to people with a disability,
(v) Mr Geoffrey Alexander Hay, PSM—for outstanding public service in Western Australia, particularly in the areas of executive governance and community safety, and
(vi) Australian Police Medal recipients: Sergeant George Ross Adam, Senior Constable Anthony John Cools, Detective Inspector Mark Wayne Fyfe, Sergeant Jeffrey Bevan Taylor, and Superintendent Kathryn Laura Taylor.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) more than five million Australians listen to community radio in an average week,
(ii) the community radio audience comes from a diverse range of backgrounds and maintains a diverse range of interests,
(iii) community radio listeners are disproportionately more likely to identify as Indigenous, religious, LGBTIQ, from a culturally or linguistically-diverse background, or as living with a disability,
(iv) these interests are not adequately served by commercial radio, and
(v) the diverse range of voices that contribute to community radio are even more critical in a commercial environment, where diversity is impacted by increasingly consolidated media ownership structures; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) increase funding targeted for community digital radio, taking the Commonwealth contribution to $4.5 million per annum in 2018-19, and
(ii) commit to funding community radio at that level, indexed, on an ongoing basis.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the findings of the Queensland Parliament's recent report, Black lung, white lies , detailing 'catastrophic failings' in public administration, including the detection of coal workers pneumoconiosis, or Black Lung disease, in 21 coal workers since 2015;
(b) condemns the failings across government and industry identified in the report;
(c) urges all stakeholders to adopt the 68 recommendations of the report to avoid further diagnoses of Black Lung disease in the future;
(d) recognises the strong advocacy of the CFMEU in relation to Black Lung in Queensland;
(e) notes that occupational lung diseases are estimated to kill 3 000 Australians every year, extending far beyond asbestosis, mesothelioma and Black Lung disease, often originating in non-unionised workplaces, such as stone-cutting and nail salons;
(f) notes the serious concerns raised by the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and Lung Foundation Australia with respect to the prevalence and management of occupationally-acquired lung disease, not only Black Lung, and the lack of a nationally coordinated system for reporting; and
(g) calls for the establishment of a national register for occupationally-acquired lung disease.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 3) 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.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (2017 MEASURES NO. 3) BILL 2017
This Bill is an administrative technical amendment to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and theCorporations Act 2001 . The Bill eliminates potential legal risks that have recently become apparent by validating certain past agreements that were made to employ or engage a small proportion of ASIC staff before the end of 9 March 2017.
From the commencement of this Bill, the validation of the agreements means that those affected staff will be taken to have always been valid staff members who were effectively delegated ASIC's functions and powers.
These amendments address various administrative oversights including one that occurred in 1999. At that time, legislative changes shifted the power to employ or engage staff outside of the Public Service Act from ASIC itself to ASIC's Chairperson. However, relevant delegation instruments were not updated to reflect this change.
ASIC only recently became aware of this oversight. Successive previous governments have not been aware of it. The irregularities only potentially affect a small proportion of ASIC staff employed outside of the Public Service Act.
The passage of this Bill ensures that previous actions taken by those ASIC staff will be effective. In turn this will remove any doubt about the validity of any sanctions that have otherwise been legitimately imposed on people; and any doubt about the effectiveness of the relief that ASIC has provided.
The amendments will have no impact on any current or former ASIC staff members beyond ensuring the validity of their employment and actions. The legislation maintains the status-quo, under which the Chairperson of ASIC has the ongoing ability to employ or engage staff members and for ASIC to delegate its powers and functions to them.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
The report reminds us how wicked it is to taunt, to embarrass, to abuse, to humiliate young people because of their sexuality, and that is one of many of the areas which still need to be urgently addressed …
In the 50 years we have been dealing with governments, we have never had a government not engage with us on major changes to policy.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Polley today relating to workplace relations.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, to my question without notice today relating to Mrs Margaret Court.
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 21 June 2017, of Concetto Antonio (Con) Sciacca AO, a former Member of the House of Representatives for the division of Bowen and Minister for Veterans' Affairs, among other portfolios, places on record its gratitude for his service to the Parliament and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Many of them are descended … from poor farming families. Their families, like mine, came to Australia with no knowledge of our language and, in fact, often unable to read or write even their own language. Their only material possessions were the clothes on their backs, but they brought with them the most valuable asset of all—a vision and a dream that through hard work, determination and tenacity they would succeed. Included in this dream was their firm belief that they could achieve for their children and for their grandchildren that which was not available to them in their own country, namely, equal opportunity—the same equal opportunity that Australians often take for granted.
He was a senior at St Joseph's Nudgee College and came home one day with a sore back. Seven months later, he was gone. I'm dedicating my award to my late son. Without him, I never would have got it.
Mr Sciacca said the award was particularly significant for him because he had been born in a wartime enemy country, Italy, and had arrived in Australia as a four-year-old immigrant. "In my culture we revere old people and when I got the opportunity to do something to recognise the contribution of this generation I jumped at it. This was a great generation of Australians and we had to tell them how much we appreciate them. I was fair dinkum about that and I think they can tell when someone is fair dinkum," he said.
"They're not booing you, Minister," the president whispered.
"That's the ninth division's battle cry. They reserve it for their generals."
… but, in usual style, offered some "friendly advice" to his former leader.
Mr Sciacca warned Mark Latham not to become a victim of factions and not to allow the party to move towards the left.
"Do not let the Labor Party lurch or have a perception of it lurching to the left," Mr Sciacca said. "A left-leaning Labor Party, in my view, in modern-day politics in Australia is not electable. You should always try to keep that middle of the road."
Australia has come a long way from the days of its White Australia policy. This policy was effectively traded in for a multicultural Australia for unashamedly practical reasons after the Second World War. Only the most narrow-minded person would now deny the success of multiculturalism and the contribution made to Australia, both economically and culturally, by migrants of all nationalities.
I'm 57—hardly an old man, I suppose … I got defeated in 1998 and I came back in 2001. But there'll be no comebacks this time. I'm exiting, if you like, very gracefully out of political life.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Smith
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Farrell
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rice to replace Senator Xenophon for the committee's inquiry into toll roads
Participating member: Senator Xenophon
Education and Employment References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into penalty rates and the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017
Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members: Senators Dodson and McCarthy to replace Senators Kitching and Singh for the committee's inquiry into the Community Development Program
Participating members: Senators Kitching and Singh
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Smith
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator McKenzie
Participating member: Senator Back
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator McKenzie
Participating member: Senator Back
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Dodson
Participating member: Senator Kitching
Appointed—Senator Kitching
Participating member: Senator Dodson
Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator Smith
Appointed—Senator Smith
Participating member: Senator Back
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Reynolds
Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Williams
Publications—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Bushby
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Senators Duniam, Moore and Siewert
Participating members: Senators Di Natale, Hanson-Young, Ludlam, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Waters and Whish-Wilson
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Bushby
Participating member: Senator Back
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Hume
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Bushby
That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the interim report to extend the time for the presentation of the report of the committee to 7 December 2017.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) 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.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BROADCASTING REFORM) BILL 2017
Australian media organisations play a pivotal role in our society, reflecting and representing Australian culture, informing local communities, and supporting our democratic processes. We've come to expect a lot of our media outlets, and the mastheads and networks we've grown up with are ingrained in our daily lives: at work, at home, and on the go.
But these organisations are under real pressure. Broadcasters and publishers are operating in an increasingly challenging environment, with intense competition for audiences and advertising revenue from other media companies, including online and on-demand operators and foreign technology companies.
The regulations governing our media companies don't allow them to meet these challenges on a level playing field. Figuratively speaking, they are in a fight with one hand tied behind their backs. Reform is essential if these companies are to have a future, and the Government is committed to implementing the necessary change.
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 contains a number of key elements of the Government's Broadcasting and Content Reform Package, which was announced on 6 May 2017. The Package represents an integrated set of reforms intended to modernise media regulation and help position the Australian media industry to deal with existing and future challenges more effectively.
The Package has the unanimous support of all sectors of the media industry and they consider it to be vital to their longevity and viability. It upholds important policy objectives, including protecting children from exposure to gambling advertising, supporting the creation of high quality Australian content and ensuring that the value of spectrum – an important public resource – is realised. However, it also removes regulatory barriers and burdens that achieve little from a public policy perspective and undermine the sustainability of Australian media organisations.
The Bill is being introduced today alongside the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017, which will introduce a tax on the use of broadcasting spectrum. The commencement of the Tax Bill will be contingent upon the enactment of this Bill to ensure that these important reforms are implemented as a cohesive package.
A number of other measures forming part of the Package will be implemented through their own legislation and processes, including further restrictions on gambling advertising in live sporting events across all platforms, a comprehensive review of Australian and children's content and funding to support the broadcasting of under-represented, niche and women's sports. They are nonetheless an important part of the Government's overall reform agenda being put before the Parliament today with this Bill.
I now turn to the substantive measures in the Bill.
Broadcasting licence fees are a relic of an era of analogue media regulation. They were introduced when commercial broadcasters were in a privileged position to provide media content and there was limited demand for spectrum.
Today the opposite is true. Commercial television and radio broadcasters compete with a range of subscription and digital providers for audiences and advertising dollars.
Broadcasting revenues are flat or declining in real terms as online and on-demand services draw audiences away from traditional broadcast content. Simultaneously, costs are rising, and the capacity of broadcasters to contain further cost growth will be limited given the need to invest in programming and technology across multiple media platforms.
Licence fees and datacasting charges have no place in a modern regulatory framework for our media. The Bill will repeal these unwarranted taxes, starting with the payments that would otherwise be due in December 2017. In their place, the Government will introduce a transmitter licence tax for the spectrum in the broadcasting services bands to better reflect its use through the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017.
The introduction of a transmitter licence tax and the abolition of broadcasting licence fees and datacasting charges will result in the vast majority of broadcasters paying considerably less in terms of their overall fee and tax burden. This relief will enable broadcasters to better compete with online competitors, invest in their businesses and produce Australian content.
However, a small number of broadcasters will face a net increase in overall charges. The Government will support these broadcasters to ensure that they are no worse off by providing a five year transitional support package.
The five year transitional support package will provide financial relief up to 30 June 2022. It supports 19 individual commercial broadcasters to transition to the new spectrum tax model and help optimise their business structures and support growth over the medium to long term.
Funding for the transitional support package has been set aside in the Budget. The proposed legislation identifies these particular broadcasters and establishes an annual entitlement to payment of a set amount subject to straightforward spend and reporting conditions and the company not having opted out. Identifying these broadcasters provides certainty of the support. The support package totals $4.6 million per year.
As a part of this package, the legislation will require the ACMA after 30 June 2019 to undertake a review and report on whether the new tax law should be repealed or amended on or before 1 July 2022. The ACMA will consult on the review, enabling broadcasters to input into the development of future tax arrangements. The report would be tabled in Parliament.
This review will be a valuable input into future spectrum taxing arrangements. In the meantime, the Government's policy is that broadcast spectrum taxes remain stable for the next five years to provide certainty. The Government acknowledges industry's desire for certainty beyond this period. While the broader spectrum management framework may change, this Government does not expect large increases in taxes for broadcast spectrum.
As I mentioned previously, it is important for all of the Government's media reforms to progress as a unified package. Only together can these reforms provide greater freedom and flexibility to the Australian media, so that they can configure their businesses in ways that support their ongoing viability. That is why this Bill includes the changes to the media control and ownership rules that are currently before the Senate in the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Reform) Bill 2016.
Our media ownership laws are outdated and need to be reformed in order to unshackle Australia's media industry and enable it to respond to intensifying competition. The Bill will repeal two control and ownership rules that no longer make sense in the digital media environment: the '75 per cent audience reach rule' and the '2 out of 3 cross-media control rule'.
The '75 per cent audience reach' rule prohibits a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, from being in a position to exercise control of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined reach exceeds 75 per cent of the Australian population. The rule is redundant and does little to support media diversity. Audiences across the country receive essentially the same broadcast content due to affiliation agreements between the metropolitan and regional networks, and all three metropolitan television broadcasters and ABC stream some or all of their channels online to 100 per cent of the population. A merger between a metropolitan and regional commercial television network would effectively result in the replacement of one media 'voice' with another, with no diminution of diversity in these areas.
The Bill also abolishes the '2 out of 3 cross-media control rule' that prevents a person being in a position to exercise control of more than two of the three regulated traditional platforms in any one commercial radio licence area.
The rule has little impact in terms of supporting diversity in regional and remote markets as there is no associated newspaper operating in the majority of these areas, and many cross media transactions would be prevented by the '5/4 rule'. This rule provides that at least five independent media groups must at all times be present in metropolitan commercial licence areas and four such groups in regional commercial radio licence areas, and will not be altered by this Bill. Any consolidation that may arise from the removal of the '2 out of 3 rule' would therefore be limited to the metropolitan and larger regional markets, where diversity issues are unlikely to arise given the greater numbers of media outlets in operation.
It needs to be remembered that online media is no longer viewed as something distinct from the more traditional media platforms. Audiences in Australia and overseas now discover and access news from multiple sources across a range of media platforms, including online, social media, television, radio and newspapers. It is no longer appropriate that commercial television, commercial radio and associated newspapers be restricted by this rule when unregulated platforms are free to consolidate and adapt their businesses as much as they see fit, subject to wider considerations like competition rules.
Removing these rules will enable media companies to consolidate and build integrated media companies on a larger scale. This reality is widely acknowledged across the media industry and the Bill has been developed following extensive consultations with these parties, including regional and metropolitan broadcasters who strongly support the package.
The remaining media control rules: the 5/4 rule, and the one-to-a-market rule and two-to-a-market rules (which provide that a person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, must not be in a position to exercise control of more than one commercial television licence in a licence area, or more than two commercial radio licences in a licence area), will be retained. Media transactions will also continue to be subject to scrutiny under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and theForeign Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1975 .
These two ownership and control rules are working as handbrakes on the ability of Australian media companies to remain viable and competitive. A failure by the Parliament to support their repeal would leave our local media companies hamstrung by redundant rules from a pre-internet era.
The Bill also includes a range of measures to ensure the availability of local content in regional areas and strengthen links between local content and the communities it is broadcast to. In the absence of regulation, the high costs of local content production and the structural changes underway in the media more broadly will create incentives for broadcasters to achieve efficiencies, placing pressure on the continued supply of local programming at current levels.
Currently, the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 requires regional commercial television licensees in certain types of markets to provide local content – termed material of local significance in the Act – within specified areas. Under the current arrangements, regional commercial television licensees in aggregated markets and Tasmania are required to provide approximately 120 points of material of local significance per week to local areas within the licence areas.
Material of local significance is material that is broadcast to a local area and relates directly to either the local area or the licence area. The aggregated markets comprise Northern New South Wales, Southern New South Wales, Regional Victoria and Regional Queensland.
The Bills will extend and increase local content obligations for regional commercial television licensees where there is a 'trigger event'. The new obligations will apply to regional commercial television broadcasting licences which, as a result of a change in control, become part of a group of commercial television broadcasting licences whose combined licence area populations exceed 75 per cent of the Australian population. The additional local content obligations will commence six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The requirement for the licensee to be part of a commercial television group that reaches over 75 per cent of the population ensures that the additional local content obligations are only 'triggered' after the licensee is in a position to benefit from the additional scale and efficiency that the media reforms will allow.
Under the Broadcasting Services Act and Broadcasting Services (Additional Television Licence Condition) Notice 2014 , local programming targets are currently expressed as 'points' where each minute of material of local significance is worth one point, and each minute of news that relates directly to the local area is worth two points.
Where a trigger event takes place the Bill will:
The additional obligations are aimed at ensuring that there is a local content obligation in nearly all regional licence areas following a change in control, including those where there is none currently. Where there is no trigger event, existing local content obligations for aggregated markets will continue to apply.
Anti-siphoning
The effects of Australia's outdated legislative framework for media extend to the regulation of broadcasting through the anti-siphoning scheme. The anti-siphoning scheme was established in 1994, and regulates the acquisition of broadcast rights for sporting and other events of cultural significance or national importance.
It seeks to ensure that events on the 'anti-siphoning list' remain freely available to Australian viewers. While the Government continues to support the principle that nationally significant events should be available on free-to-air television, the anti-siphoning scheme is outdated and needs reform to better reflect today's media environment.
The Bills will remove the 'multichannelling rule', which prevents free-to-air broadcasters from televising events first, or exclusively, on their digital multichannels. The rationale behind the introduction of the rule in 2006 was to prevent consumers who had yet to make the switch to digital television, or those living in areas where digital television was yet to be rolled out, from being disenfranchised by events being televised on digital-only channels which they were unable to receive.
With the completion of digital switchover in 2013, this rule is now redundant. Repealing the multichannelling rule will provide flexibility for free-to-air television broadcasters to optimise television coverage of listed events to the benefit of audiences across the country.
The period from which events are automatically removed – or delisted – from the anti-siphoning list will be extended from 12 to 26 weeks. This will ensure the automatic delisting period is better aligned with the commercial reality of rights acquisition, where the bulk of major sports rights contracts are settled between six months and two years from the commencement of the first event to be played as part of a competition or tournament.
This will still ensure that free-to-air broadcasters retain the opportunity to acquire sports rights first, while providing greater opportunities for subscription broadcasters to acquire rights where free-to-air broadcasters don't intend to do so.
The Bill will also rationalise the number of events contained in the current anti-siphoning list through amendments to the Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010 .
The current list is excessively long, encompassing between 1,200 and 1,300 events per year. The Bills will remove those events where the history of right's acquisition by broadcasters and audience viewing patterns no longer warrant their inclusion on the list.
Most of those events coming off the list are those which are no longer broadcast on free-to-air television, garner small audiences, or are events where the relationship to Australia is remote or non-existent (i.e. FA Cup Final and the US Masters golf).
Iconic events such as the Olympics, the Commonwealth Games, all AFL and NRL Premiership matches (including finals), the Bledisloe Cup, international cricket matches played in Australia along with Ashes test cricket matches, the Australian Formula One Grand Prix, the Australian Open tennis, the Melbourne Cup, the semi-finals and finals of the Netball World Cup involving the senior Australian representative team and the Bathurst 1000, will remain on the list.
Importantly, this does not mean that events that are not on the list will necessarily end up on subscription television. There are currently events that are broadcast on free-to-air television that are not, and have never been, on the anti-siphoning list.
The suite of changes to the anti-siphoning scheme will enable it to operate more effectively in a digital media environment while ensuring that events of national and cultural significance continue to be available on free-to-air television.
As I've already alluded, the Australian media industry is at a crossroad. It is incumbent upon the Parliament to ensure the industry isn't tethered to an outdated analogue regulatory framework that no longer serves a policy purpose and does nothing other than hold this important Australian industry back.
The measures contained in this Bill represent a comprehensive set of reforms. They give our traditional media operators the flexibility to grow and adapt in the changing media landscape, invest in their businesses and in Australian content, and better compete with online providers.
These reforms have the unanimous support of industry and are the end result of extensive consultation with the sector. It is a package that is unabashedly and unashamedly pro-Australian media.
The Government has done its part by taking media reform out of the long grass and bringing forward a comprehensive and holistic package. The industry has done its part by engaging constructively and in good faith to help shape this package. Each part of the industry has shown leadership by putting their own legitimate commercial self-interest to one side to come together in recognition that this package as a whole delivers substantial and important benefits to the entire sector.
It is now time for the Parliament to do its part. To put an Australian industry and Australian jobs above partisanship and politics. To secure a strong and viable future for an industry that not only makes an important economic and cultural contribution, but serves as a vital underpinning of our democracy. To seize this historic opportunity to deliver comprehensive and holistic reform for the Australian media industry to ensure that those strong Australian voices continue.
I commend the Bill to the Chamber.
COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING (TAX) BILL 2017
The Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 implements a key component of the Government's Broadcasting and Content Reform Package – the introduction of tax on the use of broadcasting spectrum. Along with the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 (the Broadcasting Reform Bill), this Bill will help to modernise media regulation and position the Australian media industry to deal with existing and future challenges more effectively.
With the abolition of broadcasting licence fees and datacasting charges contained in the Broadcasting Reform Bill, the new taxation arrangements in this Bill will provide significant overall fee relief for broadcasters as part of an integrated package of reforms. This relief will enable broadcasters to better compete with online competitors, invest in their businesses and produce Australian content.
The Bill recognises that spectrum is a valuable resource, essential to a digitally networked economy and a critical enabler of services. Like all scarce public resources, it needs to be managed and its commercial value recognised. The Bill balances industry concern about remaining competitive, the obligations placed on them by government, and the need to value spectrum appropriately. These tax arrangements complement the longer term reform to the spectrum management framework the Government committed to in the 2015 Spectrum Review.
Importantly, the Government Broadcasting and Content Reform package – including the new spectrum tax – has the unanimous support of all sectors of the media industry. To ensure these important reforms are implemented as a cohesive package, the commencement of this Bill will be contingent upon the enactment of the Broadcasting Reform Bill.
I now turn to the substantive measures in this Bill.
Spectrum tax
The new tax structure set out in this Bill is intended to provide certainty to broadcasters while the Government implements longer-term reform to the spectrum management framework. The Bill is intended to implement key reforms in the overall media package. As such, the tax, as proposed under this Bill, would come into legal operation on 1 July 2017, but only if the Broadcasting Reform Bill is also passed and receives the Royal Assent. In the event the Bill is not enacted by 1 July 2017, the tax will come into effect from that date on a retrospective basis. The retrospectivity of the tax in that event ensures that it is payable from the commencement of the 2017-18 financial year and is consistent with the removal of the existing apparatus tax imposed on broadcasters and the abolition of broadcasting licence fees and datacasting charges, as proposed by the Broadcasting Reform Bill. This is intended to provide for a clean switchover from the old fee and tax arrangements to the new tax structure.
The Bill sets out upper caps for the tax which are based on classes of transmitters, and also includes a ministerial determination power to set lower tax amounts and provide for rebates.
The new spectrum tax for television and radio is expected to raise a total of around $40 million in revenue per annum. Unlike the antiquated broadcasting licence fees, the spectrum tax is not based on revenue. Rather, the amount takes account of the power level of the transmitter, the particular band of spectrum used and amount of spectrum used. The use of parameters to determine a tax is a similar approach to that which applies to a number of other spectrum users, such as land mobile operators.
The tax methodology also supports regional broadcasters with the use of the power parameter. Generally, lower powered transmitters are situated in regional Australia, as distinct from high powered transmitters in metropolitan areas. Given there is less demand for spectrum in regional Australia, use of this spectrum attracts a significantly lower fee. For example, a broadcaster in regional Queensland would pay 99% lower taxes for their use of the same amount of spectrum than a broadcaster in Brisbane.
Overall, the vast majority of broadcasters will pay considerably less in spectrum tax than they currently pay in broadcasting licence fees and charges. This fee relief will enable broadcasters to better manage their business operations and compete in this rapidly evolving market.
However, a small number of broadcasters will face a net increase in overall charges. Through the Broadcasting Reform Bill, the Government will support these broadcasters to ensure that they are no worse off by providing a five year transitional support package ending 30 June 2022.
This Bill is an essential plank in the Government's overall media reform package, unabashedly designed to support the Australian media industry. The Government has also kept its eye on the long‑game, making sure spectrum is recognised as a valuable resource. As technology advances we will no doubt draw more heavily on this resource.
Changing taxation arrangements is rarely an easy path, yet industry has done its part by engaging constructively and in good faith to help shape this package. These reforms have the unanimous support of industry and are the end result of extensive consultation with the sector. The package provides certainty for five years on the taxation arrangements and beyond that, this Government does not expect large increases in taxes for broadcast spectrum.
Together with the Broadcasting Reform Bill, this Bill will secure a strong and viable future for the media industry in Australia. Parliament has before it an historic opportunity to deliver comprehensive and holistic reform for the Australian media to ensure that strong Australian voices continue to be heard.
I commend this Bill to the Chamber.
That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour.
Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) 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.
FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (REPEAL OF 4 YEARLY REVIEWS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2017
The Government is introducing the Fair Work Amendment (Repeal of 4 Yearly Reviews and Other Measures) Bill 2017 because we are committed to continually improving Australia's workplace relations system.
This Bill will respond to a number of sensible recommendations made by the Productivity Commission inquiry into the workplace relations framework, as well as by the report of inquiry into matters concerning former Vice-President Michael Lawler of the Fair Work Commission, conducted by former Federal Court judge, the Hon. Peter Heerey AM QC. The Bill will:
With this Bill, the Government is continuing to implement common sense reforms to the workplace relations system to reduce complexity and costs.
There is broad support for reforms to repeal four-yearly reviews. In November 2016, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Council of Trade Unions jointly wrote to the Minister for Employment, asking the Government to abolish these reviews.
Abolishing the reviews is also consistent with recommendation 8.1 of the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the workplace relations system. The commission found that the reviews are 'hugely resource intensive for all involved'.
Employee groups, employer groups and the Fair Work Commission spend an enormous amount of time and money in undertaking these reviews. Their abolition will save employers and unions about $87 million over the next 10 years. This amount represents a significant regulatory burden.
To ensure an appropriate transition period, the Bill will allow the current four-yearly review to conclude in a timely manner under the existing framework. Importantly, it will remove the requirement for a new review to commence in January 2018.
In addition to this important change, the Bill also responds to Productivity Commission recommendation 20.1, by amending the Fair Work Act to allow the Fair Work Commission the discretion to overlook minor procedural or technical errors when approving an enterprise agreement, as long as it is satisfied that the employees were not likely to have been disadvantaged by the error.
Currently, the Fair Work Commission is handcuffed. Proscriptive, inflexible rules set out in the Fair Work Act mean that inconsequential procedural or technical errors made during bargaining prevent it from approving an enterprise agreement. This means that fundamentally sound enterprise agreements which have received broad support from employees are being knocked back because undue emphasis has been placed on procedural requirements set out in the Fair Work Act.
The Productivity Commission's report highlighted an infamous case where an agreement was rejected because the employer stapled additional pages to the Notice of Employee Representational Rights form. This was considered to be a deviation from the prescribed notice and the additional stapled content invalidated the entire bargaining process.
This overly strict approach to the procedural requirements in enterprise bargaining has resulted in some ridiculous outcomes. For example, the Fair Work Commission has rejected enterprise agreements where an employer printed the notice onto a piece of paper with the company letterhead on it and inadvertently provided the incorrect telephone number for the Fair Work Commission infoline.
The Government is therefore proposing to introduce a common sense reform to give the Fair Work Commission the capacity to approve enterprise agreements despite minor procedural or technical errors made during enterprise bargaining, as long as the errors were not likely to have disadvantaged employees. This amendment certainly will not give carte blanche to employers to ignore the proper processes. What it will do is ensure that minor procedural or technical mistakes in bargaining do not unduly prevent the approval of enterprise agreements that employers and employees have genuinely agreed to. This is a win for everyone.
The Bill will also implement the sensible reforms suggested by Mr Heerey following his inquiry into complaints about former Fair Work Commission Vice-President Michael Lawler. The saga of former Vice-President Lawler revealed that there is no formal mechanism to inform the parliament's consideration of allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity against Fair Work Commission members.
Mr Heerey also noted that there is some doubt about whether the complaint-handling powers of the minister and the Fair Work Commission president in the Fair Work Act apply to Fair Work Commission members who formerly held office in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
The Bill will clarify that the complaint-handling powers of the Minister for Employment and the President of the Fair Work Commission apply to all Fair Work Commission members. The Bill will also apply the Judicial Misbehaviour and Incapacity (Parliamentary Commissions) Act 2012 in relation to allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity concerning Fair Work Commission members, so that the parliament can quickly establish an inquiry into such allegations and be well informed of any case for asking the Governor-General to terminate their appointment.
The Government has also listened to the concerns raised by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee and amended the Bill accordingly by:
I thank the Honourable Senators for their consideration.
The Bill is sensible, fair and broadly supported.
That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
(1) Amendment (7), item 106, after subsection 128(7), insert:
(7A) A review may also address the following:
(a) whether the Commonwealth, a State, a Territory or an approved authority has:
(i) not distributed funding on a needs basis; or
(ii) funded a school below its share for a year; or
(iii) funded a school above its share for a year;
(b) measuring improved educational outcomes for students against the rate of school funding.
Schools are already planning for next year. They are working out how many classes they'll have, how many teachers they need, what sort of special programs they can offer. Except, these schools have no funding certainty. They don't know how much they will have to spend next year.
… whatever the motive, the impact is that a large, non-government school system—and the Catholic system is the only large one—gets a significant advantage from using the system weighted average. It's currently worth about $80 million extra a year …
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), after "year", insert "for the school".
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert:
1A Section 6
Insert:
6 ‑year transitioning school means a transitioning school whose starting Commonwealth share is less than its final Commonwealth share.
(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), before item 2, insert:
1B Section 6
Insert:
final Commonwealth share has the meaning given by subsection 35B(6).
(4) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 23), after item 5, insert:
5A Section 6
Insert:
starting Commonwealth share has the meaning given by subsection 35B(2).
(5) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (line 4), omit the definition of transition year , substitute:
transition year means:
(a) for a school other than a 6‑year transitioning school—a year from 2018 to 2027 (inclusive); or
(b) for a 6‑year transitioning school—a year from 2018 to 2023 (inclusive).
(6) Schedule 1, item 16, page 6 (line 24), after "year", insert "for the school".
(7) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 9), after " transition rate ", insert "for a school other than a 6‑year transitioning school".
(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (after line 12), after subsection 35B(7), insert:
(7A) Unless the regulations otherwise provide, the transition rate for a 6‑year transitioning school:
(a) for the transition year 2018 is 16.67%; and
(b) for each transition year from 2019 to 2022 (inclusive) is the transition rate for the previous year increased by 16.67 percentage points; and
(c) for the transition year 2023 is 100%.
(9) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 13), after "transition year", insert "for a school".
(10) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 16), after "subsection (7)", insert "or (7A)".
(11) Schedule 1, item 40, page 13 (line 1), omit "transition year", substitute "year from 2018 to 2027 (inclusive)".
(12) Schedule 1, item 47, page 17 (line 21), omit "10 transition", substitute "6 to 10".
(13) Schedule 1, item 47, page 17 (line 29), omit "transition", substitute "6 to 10".
(14) Schedule 1, item 71, page 22 (line 6), omit "10 transition", substitute "6 to 10".
(15) Schedule 1, item 82, page 24 (line 26), omit "transition years", substitute "the years 2018 to 2027".
The committee divided. [18:30]
(1) Schedule 1, page 18 (after line 23), after item 49, insert:
49A Section 6
Insert:
school education reform agreement has the meaning given by subsection 22A(6).
State ‑Territory contribution amount has the meaning given by subsection 22A(2).
(2) Schedule 1, item 60, page 20 (lines 17 to 22), omit section 22A, substitute:
22A Conditions of financial assistance—State ‑Territory contributions
(1) A payment of financial assistance under this Act to a State or Territory is subject to the following conditions:
(a) the total amount of funding provided by the State or Territory for a year for government schools located in the State or Territory must equal or exceed the State‑Territory contribution amount for government schools in the State or Territory for the year;
(b) the total amount of funding provided by the State or Territory for a year for non‑government schools located in the State or Territory must equal or exceed the State‑Territory contribution amount for non‑government schools in the State or Territory for the year.
(2) The State ‑Territory contribution amount for government schools or non‑government schools in a State or Territory for a year is the amount worked out using the following formula:
State-Territory share for the State or Territory x Total SRS amount for the State or Territory
(3) Unless the State or Territory's school education reform agreement specifies otherwise, the State ‑Territory share for the State or Territory for a year from 2018 to 2023 (inclusive) is the percentage worked out using the following formula:
where:
final State ‑Territory share means the State‑Territory share (within the meaning of subsection (4)) for government schools or non‑government schools, as the case requires, for the State or Territory for a year after 2023.
starting State ‑Territory share means the percentage prescribed by the regulations for the year for government schools or non‑government schools, as the case requires, in the State or Territory.
transition rate means:
(a) for 2018—0%; and
(b) for each later year—the transition rate for the previous year increased by 20 percentage points.
(4) Unless the State or Territory's school education reform agreement specifies otherwise, the State ‑Territory share for the State or Territory for a year after 2023:
(a) for government schools is:
(i) if the starting State‑Territory share (within the meaning of subsection (3)) for the State or Territory for government schools is 75% or less—75%; or
(ii) if the starting State‑Territory share for the State or Territory for government schools is more than 75% but less than 80%—the starting State‑Territory share; or
(iii) if the starting State‑Territory share for the State or Territory for government schools is 80% or more—80%; and
(b) for non‑government schools is:
(i) if the starting State‑Territory share for the State or Territory for non‑government schools is 15% or less—15%; or
(ii) if the starting State‑Territory share for the State or Territory for non‑government schools is more than 15% but less than 20%—the starting State‑Territory share; or
(iii) if the starting State‑Territory share for the State or Territory for non‑government schools is 20% or more—20%.
(5) The total SRS amount for the State or Territory is:
(a) for government schools—the sum of the amounts worked out under Division 2 of Part 3 for the year for each government school located in the State or Territory, as if the Commonwealth share for the year were 100%; and
(b) for non‑government schools—the sum of the amounts worked out under Division 2 of Part 3 for the year for each non‑government school located in the State or Territory, as if the Commonwealth share for the year were 100%.
(6) The school education reform agreement for a State or Territory is the agreement between the State or Territory and the Commonwealth relating to implementation by the State or Territory of school education reform mentioned in paragraph 22(2) (b).
Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit "176", substitute "181".
Schedule 1, page 37 (after line 26), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 4—Limiting commitments
177 Subsections 67(2) and 69A(1) (note 2)
Repeal the note.
178 Subsections 112(3) to (5)
Omit "section 126", substitute "subsection 126(1)".
179 Section 126
Before "The Consolidated Revenue Fund", insert "(1)".
180 Section 126
After "for a year", insert "commencing before 1 January 2022".
181 At the end of section 126
Add:
(2) Payments of financial assistance under this Act to a State or Territory for a year commencing on or after 1 January 2022 are to be made out of money appropriated by the Parliament by another Act.
The committee divided. [19:36]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Whish-Wilson)
(16) Schedule 1 , item 46 , page 16 (lines 8 to 21) , omit the item, substitute:
46 After paragraph 3(1) (c)
Insert:
(ca) to ensure that, as the Commonwealth increases its school funding, the States and Territories also increase their school funding so that each Australian school receives, from the Commonwealth and the State or Territory in which the school is located, recurrent funding equal to at least 95% of the total of the base amount for the school for the year and the school' s total loading for the year, for each year commencing on or after:
(i) if the school is located in Victoria—1 January 2022; or
(ii) if the school is located in another State or Territory—1 January 2019;
46A Subsections 3(2) and (8) (note)
Repeal the note.
(18) Schedule 1 , item 48 , page 18 (line 10) , omit paragraph ( c ).
(15) Schedule 1 , item 45 , page 15 (line 3) to page 16 (line 7) , to be opposed .
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
(1) Schedule 1 , item 1 , page 3 (lines 4 to 10) , omit the item.
(3) Schedule 1 , page 3 (after line 13) , after item 2, insert:
2A Section 6
Insert:
overall funding , for a school for a year, is the total of:
(a) the school' s total entitlement for the year; and
(b) any recurrent funding for the school for the year from a State or Territory, other than:
(i) financial assistance provided to the State or Territory for the school under this Act; or
(ii) capital funding.
(5) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 15) to page 8 (line 18) , omit the item.
(11) Schedule 1 , page 13 (after line 27) , after item 42 , insert:
42A After subsection 130(5)
Insert:
Regulations prescribing Commonwealth share
(6) Before the Governor-General makes a regulation for the purposes of the definition of Commonwealth share in section 6 in relation to:
(a) a school located in Victoria in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2022; or
(b) a school located in another State or Territory in relation to a year commencing on or after 1 January 2019;
the Minister must be satisfied, having regard to the combined contributions of the Commonwealth and the State or Territory, that the regulation has the effect that the overall funding for the school for the year is at least 95% of the total of:
(c) the base amount for the school for the year; and
(d) the school' s total loading for the year.
(17) Schedule 1 , item 47 , page 17 (lines 19 to 21) , omit "Not all schools will attract the final Commonwealth share immediately. Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".
(19) Schedule 1 , item 71 , page 22 (lines 5 and 6) , omit "Most schools (called transitioning schools) will move to that share over a period of 10 transition years.".
-------
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (3) and (11)
Amendments (3) and (11) are framed as requests because together these amendments would be likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 from 1 January 2019.
Amendment (3) inserts in section 6 of the Act a definition of “overall funding” for a school year as the total of both the school’s “total entitlement” under the Act and the recurrent funding from a State or Territory.
Amendment (11) would constrain an existing regulation-making power, to set the “Commonwealth share” of funding, to circumstances where the Minister is satisfied that the purpose of the regulation will be to ensure that “overall funding” for a school for the year is at least 95% of both the base funding amount and the school’s total loading for the year.
From 2019 onwards (or 2022 for Victorian schools), this requirement is likely to increase the amount of Commonwealth funding under the standing appropriation in order to attain this funding target. As a result, the amendments are likely to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013.
Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)
Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) are consequential on amendments (3) and (11). Amendments (1) and (5) omit provisions proposed by the Bill which would alter the method for calculating the “Commonwealth share” of funding to schools. Amendments (17) and (19) omit references to schools transitioning to the final Commonwealth share of funding over 10 years, as schools will likely transition to this share from 2019 ( or 2022 for Victorian schools) . Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19) should therefore be moved as requests.
-------
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
Amendments (3) and (11)
If the effect of amendments (3) and (11) is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 126 of the Australian Education Act 2013 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that those amendments be moved as requests.
Amendments (1), (5), (17) and (19)
These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments purely consequential on amendments framed as requests may also be framed as requests.
The committee divided. [20:13]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(13) Schedule 1 , item 43 , page 13 (line 29) , omit " sections 52 and 53 ", substitute " section 52 ".
(14) Schedule 1 , item 43 , page 13 (line 33) , omit " subsection 52(1) ", substitute " section 52 ".
(4) Schedule 1 , item 3 , page 3 (lines 14 and 15) , to be opposed.
(8) Schedule 1 , item 41 , page 13 (lines 24 and 25) , to be opposed.
(10) Schedule 1 , item 42 , page 13 (lines 26 and 27) , to be opposed.
When Catholic education first raised concerns with the Turnbull Government's Quality Schools funding package, Minister Birmingham said there was 'a lot of exaggeration' about the impact that it would have on schools …
What's already apparent is that the government's new 'capacity to pay formula'—
will force fee rises of over $1000 for a very significant number—at least 78—of the Catholic primary schools in Sydney alone. For some areas of Sydney fees could more than double. Modelling in other states has found the same.
The committee divided. [20:51]
(Chair—Senator Lines)
The committee divided. [20:55]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (line 23), omit ", or prescribed under,".
[SRS indexation factor set by Act]
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 18 to 21), omit subsection 11A(1), substitute:
(1) The SRS indexation factor for a year is the number worked out under subsection (2) for the year.
[No minimum SRS indexation factor]
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 22) to page 5 (line 7), omit subsection 11A(2), substitute:
(2) The number is worked out using the following formula:
where:
base quarter means the June quarter in the previous year.
consumer index number , for a quarter, means the All Groups Consumer Price Index number (being the weighted average of the 8 capital cities) published by the Australian Statistician for that quarter.
reference quarter means the June quarter in the year.
(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 19 to 22), omit subsections 11A(5) and (6).
(5) Schedule 1, item 38, page 12 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed.
The committee divided. [21:06]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(11) Schedule 1 , page 24 (after line 27) , after item 82 , insert:
82A Subsections 67(2) and 69A(1) (note 2)
Omit "' section 126"' , substitute "' subsection 126(1)"' .
(14) Schedule 1 , page 26 (after line 21) , after item 98 , insert:
98A Subsections 112(3) to (5)
Omit "' section 126"' , substitute "' subsection 126(1)"' .
(15) Schedule 1 , page 27 (after line 2) , after item 101 , insert:
101A Section 126
Before "' The Consolidated Revenue Fund"' , insert "' (1)"' .
(16) Schedule 1 , page 27 (after line 5) , after item 102 , insert:
102A At the end of section 126
Add:
(2) It is the Parliament' s intention to, by another Act, establish a fund of at least $300 million to meet the needs of students with disability.
Students with disability frequently experience discrimination, including denial of enrolment, imposed part time attendance and exclusion. Further, schools often lack the required expertise in developing educational programs for students with disability. Limited monitoring and accountability for the learning outcomes of students with disability is also a significant issue. Finally, experiences of bullying and abuse, including restraint and seclusion, are now shamefully common for students with disability in education settings.
It is the experience of CYDA that it is rare for students with disability to be provided with a truly inclusive education experience.
The committee divided. [21:28]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(6) Schedule 1 , page 19 (after line 14) , after item 56 , insert:
56A Section 20
Omit "' requiring States and Territories to implement national policy initiatives for school education, as well as"' .
(7) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 19 (lines 22 and 23) , omit the heading to section 22 , substitute:
22 Conditions of financial assistance—agreements relating to school education
(8) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 19 (line 24) to page 20 (line 3) , omit subsection 22 ( 1 ).
(9) Schedule 1 , item 59 , page 20 (line 5) , omit "' also "' .
(12) Schedule 1 , item 85 , page 25 (lines 10 to 15) , omit paragraph 77 ( 2A ) ( a ), substitute:
(a) the approved authority cooperates with the States and Territories in which the schools are located in implementing the agreements mentioned in paragraphs 22(2) (a) and (b); and
(17) Schedule 1 , item 175 , page 37 (lines 8 to 10) , omit subparagraph 130 ( 5 ) ( a ) ( i ).
That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:
(1) Schedule 1 , item 6 , page 4 (line 4) , omit "' 2027 "' , substitute "' 2023 "' .
(3) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 8 (lines 9 to 12) , omit subsection 35B ( 7 ), substitute:
(7) Unless the regulations otherwise provide, the transition rate for a transition year is the rate set out in the following table for the year.
(5) Schedule 1 , item 47 , page 17 (line 21) , omit "' 10 transition years "' , substitute "' 6 transition years "' .
(10) Schedule 1 , item 71 , page 22 (line 6) , omit "' 10 transition years "' , substitute "' 6 transition years "' .
(2) Schedule 1 , item 16 , page 6 (line 20) , omit "' 20% "' , substitute "' 24% "' .
The committee divided. [21:50]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
The committee divided. [21:58]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Public policy should be directed towards promoting diversity and preventing any further concentration of media power.
The result might be some arguable economic inefficiencies around the edges, but the Australian polity will be healthier. The principal objective has to be diversity. And the only way to get it is competition. That alone.
… … …
The cross-media rules have never been an end in themselves, however. They were intended not to preserve a static media environment but to promote diversification; to facilitate dynamic change.
… the most significant reforms to our media laws in a generation …
… seek to recover some of the value inherent in commercial broadcasting licences from commercial broadcasters and provide a return to the public for their use of scarce radiofrequency spectrum.
This happened after shareholders Lachlan Murdoch (7.7%) and Bruce Gordon (15%) refused to guarantee a new finance package—one that does not become due until December. There is no problem with liquidity at Ten—it has good cashflow and is paying all of its bills as they become due. In short, it is not insolvent.
Nevertheless, this voluntary administration, made during the second last sitting week of Parliament before the long winter recess, did allow Communications Minister Mitch Fifield to yesterday stand in front of the cameras and solemnly urge the Parliament to pass his new media "reform" laws.
This is the most unusual administration that I've ever seen, where a company that is doing a whole bunch of things to fix itself and doesn't have to pay its debts back for another six months, and has only borrowed one third of the total amount that it can borrow from its banks, has pulled the plug and handed over the business to administrators. So it's very puzzling.
The takeaway from this sideshow is a profound sense that Australia is a media policy backwater. The time-honoured political and media-owner manoeuvrings are a substitute for smart, citizen-focused policymaking.
… make a significant contribution to media diversity through their provision of television, radio and online services. This is particularly so for the ABC, the reach and depth of whose media outlets compare favourably to its commercial counterparts in most areas of Australia.
Many people in rural and remote Australia are socially isolated, with less face-to-face contact with family, friends and other support networks. This can lead to loneliness and depression, and can contribute to suicidal behaviour. Stimulation provided by shortwave radio to those doing important jobs in isolated areas is critical.
In the middle of 2015, it was widely predicted by many insiders that media reform was "off the table". Yet as the new year opens, the government is entering the final phase of deliberations that may bring an end to the redundant "reach rule" and possibly the death of another out-of-date media ownership rule, colloquially known as "two out of three".
With virtually all players conceding the reach rule - which restricts competition and choice in regional media markets - is past its use by date, the debate is now focused on how best to safeguard local content Resolution on this point is closer than many realise, with the views of the key parties broadly aligned.
Importantly, this includes regionally focused Liberal and Nationals MPs, who are setting their minds to a plan that will both preserve media coverage and choice in regional communities, while at the same time enable regional broadcasters to reverse their challenging financial experiences of recent years.
Removing these outdated media laws—
Surely, the evidence is clear. The case has been made. We doubt there is a politician in Canberra who wants to say they presided over an outdated regulatory regime that held back regional media.
We doubt there is a politician in Canberra who wants to say they presided over an outdated regulatory regime that held back regional media.
A person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, must not be able to exercise control of more than one commercial television broadcasting licence in a licence area.
A person, either in their own right or as a director of one or more companies, must not be able to exercise control of more than two commercial radio broadcasting licences in the same licence area.
The traditional media companies, including publications like us, originally had two main sources of revenue. One was classified advertising and one was display advertising. As we know, over-the-top players have come into the market—such as REA, SEEK and Carsales—and taken that classified component which, for Fairfax, was probably 60 per cent to 70 per cent of our revenue. About another 25 per cent to 30 per cent was display advertising. Most that is now going to Google and Facebook.
… we are attempting to invest in Australian media and we are attempting to provide jobs for journalists, which provides the transparency that is so valuable to this community, on a smaller and smaller amount of money.
Over 70 per cent of Australians exclusively rely on free-to-air television for their news, their sport and their entertainment content.
While it is the case that many people, especially younger people, now obtain their content—including news and current affairs—online, much of that is parasitic on the mainstream media and is recycling content which others have invested in the production and distribution of.
If you go online to any site, you do not know whether it is a dissident in Beirut or somebody in Glasgow pretending to be a dissident in Beirut—you take your chances. But we need to have confidence in a regulated mainstream. That is why I connect these two issues intimately.
That the debate be now adjourned.
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [01:02]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Over the past two years the implementation of the First Principles Review has helped create a Defence organisation that is far more strategic, far more efficient, and far more effective than the one we inherited when we were elected in 2013.
The First Principles Review was commissioned in August 2014 by my predecessor, David Johnston, to ensure Defence was fit for purpose, able to respond to future challenges and was able to deliver against the Government' s strategy with the minimum resources necessary.
The First Principles Review team, as initially constituted, was chaired by Mr David Peever who was formerly the Managing Director of Rio Tinto. He is also a Non-Executive Director of the Australian Foundation Investment Company and Chairman of Cricket Australia. Other team members included Professor Robert Hill, a former Minister for Defence, Mr Lindsay Tanner, a former Minister for Finance, Professor Peter Leahy, a former Chief of the Army, and Mr Jim McDowell, the Chancellor of the University of South Australia and former Chief Executive of BAE Systems Australia.
When we announced the Review there was much scepticism about another review of Defence; and for good reason. There have been 35 major reviews of Defence since the early 1970s. However because of the frequency of those reviews many of the recommendations were never able to be implemented before the next review was initiated.
This is why the First Principles Review is so important. It is an end-to-end review of Defence that considered structures, systems and processes. Nothing on this scale had been attempted since the creation of the Department in 1976, which involved the amalgamation of the previously separate three armed services with the civilian department.
As the Review stated, while Defence had a strong and proud history of delivering military capability for Australia, the Defence organisation structure at the time was resulting in processes that were complicated, slow and inefficient. The Review did was highly focused in its criticism of Defence:
"Waste, inefficiency and rework are palpable. Defence is suffering from a proliferation of structures, processes and systems with unclear accountabilities. These in turn cause institutionalised waste, delayed decisions, flawed execution, duplication, a change-resistant bureaucracy, over-escalation of issues for decision and low engagement levels amongst employees.1"
When we came to office in 2013 the challenges for Defence were clear. Defence was faced with delivering "a significant capability modernisation program against a backdrop of strategic uncertainty including, but not limited to: rapid technological change; budget uncertainty; substantial economic growth in our region; and increasing demand for military responses to various regional and expeditionary crises.2"
In the period since those words were written none of those challenges identified by the First Principles Review team have diminished. If anything, they have only become more pressing.
With the release of the Defence White paper in February last year the Turnbull Government set out its responsible and long-term plan for securing Australia' s national security.
We set out our plans to increase Defence spending to 2 per cent of GDP by 2020-2021 and set out a fully-costed ten year integrated investment program that will create a more capable, agile and potent Australian Defence Force.
This is the capability modernisation program foreshadowed by the First Principles review. These projects must be carefully planned and they require resources – unique skills and expertise – to ensure we are able to deliver the capability our ADF needs to retain its capability edge. That is why we said in the White Paper that successful implementation of the First Principles Review would be critical to realising our plans.
Regionally our strategic environment has become more uncertain over the past four years.
As only one example, weeks of fighting in Marawi in the southern Philippines have highlighted the risk the region faces from violent extremists who claim allegiance to the toxic ideology of Daesh.
Concurrently the rapid advances in technology and rise in prosperity across our region have continued unabated.
The First Principles Review, released on 1 April 2015, recommended that Defence needed to become a single, integrated system, not a federation of separate parts. This is One Defence.
There are four key features of the One Defence approach:
o The strategic centre comprises key senior leadership positions with clear roles and responsibilities that strengthen accountability and top-level decision making
Given its strong criticism of the Defence organisation it may have been expected that there would be some resistance to the recommendations contained in the review.
It is very important to note that to the credit of the Defence leadership, in particular the then Secretary Dennis Richardson AO and Chief of the Defence Force Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin AC, the organisation has worked assiduously to implement the recommendations of the Review.
The review team were subsequently invited to form an Oversight Board, which was supplemented with the addition of Ms Erica Smyth, the Deputy Chair of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and were tasked with overseeing implementation of the recommendations that we agreed should commence immediately. An Implementation Office was also established within the Department to support the Board, as was an Implementation Committee that has met weekly, chaired by the Secretary.
We have now reached the end of the two year implementation period and very significant progress has been made in delivering on the reforms.
As of today we have implemented 63 of the 75 recommendations of the review. I will focus on some of the detail to illustrate just how these reforms have created a leaner, stronger, more efficient Defence organisation.
A fundamental of the review was to deliver on Government decisions by creating the Capability Life Cycle. The cycle links the early capability concept all the way to its delivery and to its disposal, and greatly simplifies and reduces the time taken for capability decision making. We now have arm' s length contestability, alignment with strategic direction, earlier and better interaction with external stakeholders, and increased accountability for Capability managers.
A key enabler of the new Capability Life Cycle was the review recommendation to bring the former Defence Materiel Organisation back into Defence, which we did, with the creation of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group.
This one change eliminated the administrative burden of having to manually process 72,000 financial transactions between Defence and the DMO every year.
Defence has also drastically simplified its commercial policies and practices. For example, the Defence Procurement Policy Manual has been reduced from 450 pages to 60 pages.
The number of mandatory procurement requirements we ask of suppliers has been reduced from 290 to 53.
We have also implemented the new Smart Buyer framework for all projects in Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group, while the Chief Information Officer Group and Estate and Infrastructure are now piloting the program.
This approach enables the tailoring of each project by the accountable Capability Manager to ensure that they are delivered with the optimum risk balance between capability, cost and schedule. Industry best practice tools and techniques are used to execute projects in a way that strikes the optimum balance between performance, time and cost. Importantly, industry is now involved much earlier in the process, recognising the key role it plays as a partner in the delivery of Defence capability.
Not only is this simplification making it easier and more efficient for industry to engage with Defence, but it is also making it much simpler for Government.
Prior to the FPR the average submission to government totalled 70 pages, took 16 weeks to move through the cabinet preparation process and took an average of 46 months – that is almost four years – to move from first pass initiation to second pass approval.
Implementation of the First Principles Review recommendations has resulted in the average government submission reducing to less than 20 pages, taking 6 weeks for the cabinet preparation process and in some instances taking less than 12 months to progress from first to second pass.
This of course strongly reflects the Government' s unequivocal commitment to our Defence White Paper, Integrated Investment Program and Defence Industry Policy Statement initiatives across air, land and sea platforms, across the enablers and in fact across Defence.
It would have been impossible without the FPR reforms that we have delivered.
These changes have enabled Defence to progress far more submissions than it has previously, resulting in more efficient delivery of capability. This enables us to deliver the hardware our personnel need to carry out their mission effectively.
Improving the delivery and management of capability acquisition is only one part of the reforms of Defence this Government has driven.
We have created a much stronger strategic centre for Defence and strengthened accountability in support of more effective and efficient enterprise-level decision-making.
We have done this by clarifying the roles and responsibilities at the most senior levels of the Department
- Legislative changes were made to the Defence Act 1903 to formally identify the role of the Chief of the Defence Force and Vice Chief of the Defence Force.
- The individual and joint responsibilities of the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force were clearly described in a ministerial joint directive.
- The role of Service Chiefs as capability managers was strengthened, clarifying their responsibility for identifying, developing and delivering Defence' s capability needs.
- Role charters for all members of the senior leadership group have been established, setting out individual and shared accountability, decision rights and agreed leadership behaviours.
These clearer responsibilities have meant the number of committees chaired by senior members of defence has been slashed from 72 to 35, ensuring the Defence executive spends less time meeting, and more time doing.
Another key feature of creating a stronger strategic centre has been the formation of the new integrated Australian Defence Force Headquarters. The stand-up of the headquarters began in April this year, and the model establishes a strategy-led and integrated approach to the development of advice and managing the ADF. To mitigate any single service approaches to ADF capabilities, VCDF has been appointed as the Joint Force Authority, and a new Chief of Joint Capabilities will be established in the next fortnight. The new headquarters is ultimately improving the quality of advice and decision making in Defence.
The review also focussed on improving accountability via specific behaviours. Based on the implementation of several related recommendations Defence has established a culture of personal accountability to drive high performance, foster talent, and effectively manage underperformance.
We have amended Senior Executive Service performance agreements, which now measure individual performance by both outcomes achieved and the demonstration of One Defence Leadership Behaviours in the delivery of those outcomes. Defence is also providing stronger support and coaching to managers and supervisors. A key element of this is having a formal definition of ' good people management' in the context of the One Defence Leadership behaviours, which is embedded in occupational profiles and recruitment processes.
These changes have resulted in a common understanding of performance and behavioural standards, and what is expected when managing people. This ultimately increases accountability, fosters a strong performance culture and enhances productivity.
These are just some examples from many reforms of the Defence organisation made as part of the FPR over the past two years.
The future of the First Principles Review
Implementing the Review has been one of the largest organisational change programs in the country and has both national and international significance.
The process followed to deliver the change serves as a valuable example of successfully managing a large scale reform program.
While significant reform has been achieved since implementation began in mid 2015, critical work remains to ensure the full extent of change is realised.
The challenge for Defence and Government now is to ensure we embed the cultural change so that it is routine business and to ensure that the organisation does not revert to its old systems and behaviours. We need to pass the point of no return.
To ensure these changes are fully realised the government will extend the oversight board for another year to provide the necessary guidance and expertise to Defence and Government.
The remaining work will require perseverance and strong leadership, but I am confident given the commitment I have seen from all involved – from the Prime Minister, the oversight board to the senior leadership in Defence – that the One Defence model will be embedded for the future.
Conclusion
Over the past two years we have laid the necessary foundations to enable Defence to continually improve towards the One Defence model.
The Defence organisation of 2017 is a significantly more agile and efficient organisation than the one of 2015, that is better able to support Government decision making and deliver on its operational requirements.
This has not happened by chance. It is the result of the Coalition government recognising a clear problem, initiating a comprehensive review and then driving that change with the clear support of the Oversight board and Defence leadership.
I thank the strong leadership within the department, led by the former Secretary, Dennis Richardson, the Acting Secretary, Brendan Sargeant, and the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin.
Their unwavering and steadfast leadership has been essential in delivering these reforms. I also acknowledge and thank David Peever and the Oversight Board for ensuring Defence remained on track in implementing the First Principles Review the way it was intended.
Finally, I would like to thank the personnel, uniformed and APS, within Defence who have worked tirelessly to deliver these reforms on a day to day basis.
The Turnbull Government has helped deliver a Defence organisation that is more strategic, more efficient and more engaged; that can create the future ADF that we envisaged in the 2016 Defence White Paper and respond to a dynamic strategic environment.
Leadbeater's Possum
Defence Properties
Live Animal Exports
Australian Education Amendment Bill 2017
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Smith
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Farrell
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rice to replace Senator Xenophon for the committee's inquiry into toll roads
Participating member: Senator Xenophon
Education and Employment References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into penalty rates and the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Pay Protection) Bill 2017
Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young
Finance and Public Administration References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members: Senators Dodson and McCarthy to replace Senators Kitching and Singh for the committee's inquiry into the Community Development Program
Participating members: Senators Kitching and Singh
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Smith
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator McKenzie
Participating member: Senator Back
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Appointed—Senator McKenzie
Participating member: Senator Back
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Discharged—Senator Dodson
Participating member: Senator Kitching
Appointed—Senator Kitching
Participating member: Senator Dodson
Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator Smith
Appointed—Senator Smith
Participating member: Senator Back
Migration—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Reynolds
Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Williams
Publications—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Bushby
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Senators Duniam, Moore and Siewert
Participating members: Senators Di Natale, Hanson-Young, Ludlam, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Waters and Whish-Wilson
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Back
Participating member: Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Bushby
Participating member: Senator Back
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bushby
Appointed—Senator Hume
Treaties—Joint Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Back
Appointed—Senator Bushby
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) 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 National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017 establishes the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission for full scheme NDIS. The Commission will deliver on the Government's commitment to establish nationally consistent quality assurance mechanisms and safeguards for NDIS participants.
The Bill also makes administrative amendments to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the NDIS, resulting from an independent review of the Act in 2015, as required by the Act and supported by COAG.
The NDIS is one of the largest social and economic policy reforms in Australian history. At full scheme, an estimated 460,000 participants will receive supports from thousands of NDIS providers.
The NDIS represents a dramatic shift from services delivered under largely block-funded contractual relationships between providers and primarily state and territory governments, to one where people with a disability purchase and consume services from providers.
The Government has been fully committed to the NDIS from day one. We are bringing forward this Bill to establish a new Commission to oversee quality and safeguards at full implementation of the NDIS. The Commission will:
The Bill seeks to balance appropriate protections that meet governments' duty of care obligations, with enabling participants to take reasonable risks in pursuit of their goals. The Commission will support a strong and viable market for disability services that offers people with disability genuine choice and control.
In February 2017, the Disability Reform Council released the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework. The Framework was developed in consultation with people with disability, carers, providers and peak bodies over a three-year period. It outlines the ongoing commitment of all jurisdictions to quality and safeguards for people with disability.
A series of recent inquiries and reports have documented the weaknesses of the current safeguarding arrangements for disability services, many of which result from a disconnection between quality assurance and oversight regulatory functions. These inquiries include the Senate Inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with a disability in institutional and residential settings, Victorian government inquiries, and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These inquiries found failures to uncover, report and respond to abuse, and inadequate national screening of workers. They called for nationally consistent provider accreditation and the use of positive behaviour support strategies to reduce challenging behaviours instead of using restrictive practices.
This Bill establishes the Commonwealth's regulatory responsibilities under the NDIS Quality and Safeguarding Framework and in large part forms the basis of the Government's response to the Senate Inquiry.
The new arrangements replace a complex and fragmented system of quality and safeguards in each state and territory, delivering a nationally consistent approach.
The Commission will uphold the rights of people with disability, as part of Australia's commitment to the UN Convention, through the exercise of its registration and regulatory functions. Article 11 of the UN Convention provides that all necessary measures must be taken to ensure the protection and safety of people with disability in situations of risk. Article 16 requires that people with disability be protected from exploitation, violence and abuse.
The Commission will be led by a Commissioner who will be a statutory office holder and staffed by members of the Australian Public Service. The Commission will operate with up to 300 staff, at a total cost of $209 million over four years.
The Bill establishes the Commission in the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (the Act). The existing objects and principles of the Act will underpin and inform the Commission's regulatory activities. An additional object has been included to provide the specific focus required of this Commission — "to protect and prevent people with disability from experiencing harm arising from poor or unsafe supports or services under the NDIS".
In support of the Commission's registration functions, the Bill provides the power to mandate types of supports considered higher risk which can only be delivered by a registered NDIS provider.
The Bill includes a power to issue NDIS Practice Standards benchmarking expectations relating to the quality of support delivery, participants' rights, the management of organisational and operational risk, continuous improvement, legal obligations and workforce management. The registration system requires providers delivering higher risk supports to obtain third-party quality certification against the Practice Standards and providers delivering lower-risk supports to undergo a 'lighter touch' verification process.
Registered NDIS providers will be required to notify the Commission of certain reportable incidents, and comply with all registration conditions and the NDIS Code of Conduct. Establishing the expectations and obligations for NDIS providers will contribute to fostering high-quality and safe supports and services.
The Bill requires registered NDIS providers to maintain complaints and incident management systems in accordance with requirements to be detailed in the rules. It further establishes the Commission's complaints function, which will receive, manage and respond to complaints about NDIS providers and workers. The Commission will provide information about the complaints process to people with disability and also provide information to providers, on best practice complaints handling. The Commission will support people with disability to be heard and provide protections from victimisation should they make a complaint.
The Commission will have extensive compliance and enforcement powers under this Bill, commensurate to the vulnerability of some participants within the NDIS. Monitoring and investigation powers will allow matters to be pursued whether they originate from suspected breaches of registration conditions, the NDIS Code of Conduct, reportable incidents or complaints. Operating as an independent statutory body with integrated functions and powers, the Commission will be a fit-for-purpose, evidence-based, responsive regulator.
Integral to responsive regulation is the ability to monitor changes in the market using data it collects in the course of its regulatory activities. The Bill establishes a market oversight function which will draw on information gathered across the Commission's functions. It will identify provider practice indicating emerging risk and that may contribute to provider failure and unplanned service withdrawal.
Information gathering and sharing provisions within the Bill will support the Commission to work with other regulators and state and territory governments to identify and collect regulatory intelligence.
The Bill provides the Commission with a broad policy design responsibility, including determining scope, information to be considered and a decision-making framework. The states and territories will be responsible for operating worker screening for the NDIS.
The Bill sets out the role of the Commission in providing national oversight and policy settings in relation to promoting strategies to reduce challenging behaviours, and monitoring the use of restrictive practices within the NDIS.
Under the Commission a restrictive practice will only be used as a last resort. It must form part of a behaviour support plan which includes positive behaviour support strategies and which has been developed by a registered behaviour support practitioner. Restrictive practices must also be authorised by the state or territory in which the participant resides.
The Bill provides for the orderly transfer of providers from existing state and territory regulatory environments as each jurisdiction reaches full scheme. The Commission will be established in early 2018 and commence operations in New South Wales and South Australia in July 2018; and in remaining states and territories, except Western Australia, in July 2019. In Western Australia, it
will operate from 2020, subject to final negotiations. NDIS participants will continue to be covered by state and territory quality and safeguards systems until the new Commission is in place at full scheme.
This Bill also amends the NDIS Act in response to an independent review of the operation of the Act. The review, required by section 208 of the Act, considered the operation of the Act in supporting the scheme, and whether any changes were necessary for that purpose. The amendments in Schedule 2 to this Bill were recommended by the review and are supported by COAG in its response to the review recommendations. The amendments are administrative and focus on ensuring the effective operation of the legislation.
For example, the amendments expand on the general supports which can be provided to people with disability under the scheme, to support the implementation of the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building element of the scheme.
The amendments provide clarification of some elements of Act, for example how the disability requirements apply to people with chronic health conditions; how a person with lived experience of disability can become a member of the NDIA Board; and how the NDIA gathers information on people who may be eligible for support under the NDIS.
The Turnbull Government will continue to work with NDIS participants and the disability sector to deliver a fully-funded, high-quality NDIS. This Bill represents a significant step forward in protections for people with disability, their families and carers. We will continue to consult with stakeholders to establish nationally consistent expectations for the conduct of providers, the training and screening of their workers and the quality of supports and services that they deliver under the NDIS.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) 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 7 December 2015, the Government announced a package of measures designed to incentivise and reward innovation as part of its National Innovation and Science Agenda, which is driving the smart ideas that create business growth, local jobs and global success.
The measures in this Bill are part of that agenda.
These measures will improve the tax system for businesses, so that they can grow and create jobs. The measures in this Bill support businesses by:
The introduction of these measures follows legislation already introduced to provide tax incentives for angel investors and provide new arrangements for venture capital investment. These measures continue the delivery of the National Innovation and Science Agenda announced in the 2015-16 MYEFO.
With these measures we are better aligning the corporate tax system with a culture of business investment and development to allow Australian businesses to grow and become more productive.
I will now turn to the specifics of the Bill.
Schedule 1 to this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and theIncome Tax Assessment Act 1936 to more readily allow companies and some trusts with past year losses to use these losses as a tax deduction against current year profits.
Under current law, where a company has had a majority change in ownership, tax losses made in previous years cannot be claimed as a deduction against current year profits unless the company is conducting the 'same business'.
Under the 'same business test', these deductions are denied if the company has entered into any new transactions, or earned any income from new business activities.
Second reading speech I Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017
Interpretation of this test has been strict. Very minimal change in business operations is allowed before these valuable past year loss deductions are lost to the entity. This can stifle innovation and entrepreneurship.
It can have particularly severe impacts on start-up companies. In the start-up phase, when developing new processes, products or technologies, it is common for businesses to make losses through expenditure on research and development.
Following that development stage, in order to fully commercialise these new technologies, equity investors are often needed to provide extra equity funding to ensure the viability of the business. This may necessitate a change in ownership.
These entities may discover that there are new and innovative uses for their technologies that they had not previously considered. The strict operation of the same business test can constrain these businesses from exploiting these opportunities, for fear that they would lose access to what would be very substantial deductions.
In other circumstances, for businesses which are not performing well, and are consistently making losses, the same business test can deter them from making the changes to their business which could return them to profitability.
The new 'similar business test' introduced by this Bill will address these concerns, and support entrepreneurship and innovation.
This 'similar' test will be an easier test to meet, allowing businesses to make some changes to their businesses and operations to take advantage of emerging opportunities and create more efficient structures.
In addition, the removal of the tests which prevent businesses earning income from new activities and operations will give entities much greater freedom to explore innovative uses of their products and to adapt to changes in the business environment.
In this way, this measure strongly supports an innovative culture, encouraging agile, adaptable businesses in the modern economy.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Schedule 2 of this Bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide taxpayers with the choice to self-assess the effective life of intellectual property, and other depreciating intangible assets they start to hold, on or after 1 July 2016.
The intangible assets to which this choice applies are:
Second reading speech I Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 1) Bill 2017
In keeping with the treatment of tangible assets, the new law also allows the taxpayer to re-calculate the effective life in later income years if the effective life the taxpayer has been using is no longer accurate because of changed circumstances relating to the nature of the asset's use.
The taxpayer must re-calculate the effective life of the asset if the cost of the asset increases by at least 10 per cent in a later income year.
In the income year that the taxpayer begins to hold the asset, the taxpayer must recalculate the effective life of the asset if the taxpayer is using an effective life because of the associate or same user rule and the asset's cost increased after the taxpayer started to hold it by at least 10 per cent.
Currently, the law mandates the effective life to be used in calculating the decline in value for depreciating intangible assets. This statutory effective life may not reflect the period of time that the assets provide economic benefits to the taxpayer.
By introducing self-assessment, this measure will better align the taxation treatment of those assets with the actual period of time that the assets provide economic benefits.
This better alignment of the economic life and the taxation life will decrease the cost of acquisition of these assets, encouraging their transfer between businesses to better exploit and commercialise them.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) 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.
This Bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to improve Australia's corporate insolvency system.
Firstly, it will create a 'safe harbour' for honest and diligent company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if they are pursuing a restructure outside formal insolvency.
Secondly, 'ipso facto' clauses, which may allow the termination or variation of contracts based on a company's financial position or the commencement of certain insolvency proceedings, will become unenforceable during and after certain formal insolvency procedures.
Our current insolvent trading laws put too much focus on stigmatising and penalising failure. As part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda, these reforms aim to promote entrepreneurship and innovation to drive business growth, local jobs and global success.
The threat of Australia's insolvent trading laws, combined with uncertainty over the precise moment a company becomes insolvent have long been criticised as driving directors to seek voluntary administration even in circumstances where the company may be viable in the longer term. Concerns over inadvertent breaches of insolvent trading laws are frequently cited as a reason that early stage (angel) investors and professional directors are reluctant to become involved in a start-up.
Broadly, the safe harbour and ipso facto measures encourage Australians to take a risk, leave behind the fear of failure and be more innovative and ambitious. More often than not, entrepreneurs will fail several times before they experience success and will generally learn valuable lessons during the process. Helping these entrepreneurs to succeed requires a cultural shift.
The amendments in Part 1 of this Bill create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency. This will drive cultural change among company directors by encouraging them to keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company's recovery instead of simply placing the company prematurely into voluntary administration or liquidation.
An 'ipso facto' clause is a provision that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event, regardless of otherwise continued performance of the counterparty. The operation of these clauses can reduce the scope for a successful restructure or prevent the sale of the business as a going concern.
The amendments in Part 2 of this Bill will make certain contractual rights unenforceable while a company is restructuring under certain formal insolvency processes.
This reform is aimed at enabling businesses to continue to trade in order to recover from an insolvency event instead of these clauses preventing their successful rehabilitation.
Together, these amendments will reduce instances of a company proceeding to a formal insolvency process prematurely. Where companies do enter into particular formal insolvency procedures, they will have a better chance of being turned around or of preserving value for creditors and shareholders
This in turn will promote the preservation of enterprise value for companies, their employees and creditors, reduce the stigma of failure associated with insolvency and encourage a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Interactive Gambling Amendment Bill 2016
Health Insurance Amendment (National Rural Health Commissioner) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2017
ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Energy Assistance Payment and Pensioner Concession Card) Bill 2017
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 8 August 2017, at 12.30 pm, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.