The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
(e) any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project that discusses Australian Industry Capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
Tenderers should be aware that the Commonwealth has selected the Tenderers on the basis of their Reference Ship Designs and their ability to undertake the design and build of the Ships. As such, the Commonwealth’s expectation is that the core design work relating to the Ships and the management and supervision of build activities will be undertaken by the successful Tenderer (or its Related Bodies Corporate) and not subcontracted to a third party entity. In particular, while the successful Tenderer may decide to engage a Subcontractor to provide shipbuilding labour resources, the Commonwealth expects the successful Tenderer (or its Related Bodies Corporate) to personally and directly manage and supervise the workforce and, in particular, the shipbuilding activities.
The Air Warfare Destroyer Program has achieved Australian contract expenditure in the order of 50% across the whole Program. While the Commonwealth acknowledges there are significant differences between the Air Warfare Destroyer Program and this Project, the Commonwealth expects that this Project will achieve the same or higher level of Australian contract expenditure.
The Commonwealth may amend this RFT upon giving Tenderers timely written notice of an amendment. If the Commonwealth amends this RFT under this clause 1.4.1 after tenders have been submitted, it may seek amended tenders.
That the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, have precedence over all government business until determined.
That the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2017L01170].
I've actually seen more kids go to school with uniforms. I've had grandparents say that they're happy the cards are there because now their children have food in the fridge, the kids are clothed and they're all going to school. We're living with the changes, albeit it took 18 months to see the changes happening. They are actually happening.
The committee acknowledges concerns that the bill may limit a participant's human rights. However, the committee is satisfied that the bill only limits those rights to the extent required to realise the objective of the card to reduce the social harm caused by the excessive use of alcohol, drugs and gambling.
Even aspects of the experiment that were meant to support people on the CDC were poorly applied.
The types of services funded were limited in scope, focusing on treating assumed vices such as drug and alcohol addiction, and an inability to manage finances. This narrow focus overlooked funding for community development initiatives already on tight budgets, which may have more relevance to people on social benefits. The ORIMA final evaluation acknowledged the poor implementation of service funding:
Overall, the evaluation found that the support services funded through the Trial had not been implemented in a timely manner.
Most notable, however, is the limited reported use of these services by people on the CDC. The ORIMA (2017b) final evaluation found that only 12% of people they interviewed on the card reported using drug and alcohol services, and 10% used financial and family support services. This suggests that the assumption that people on welfare had vices to be serviced by drug and alcohol programs, and money management programs was not justified. As well, for people wanting to use the services, the services were not available in time.
The trial of the CDC in the East Kimberley is perverse contemporary Indigenous policy. Not only did the trial, by limiting the amount of cash, bring material hardship, it furthered the disempowerment of those marginalised by relational poverty. The terms 'community' and 'consultation' were used by government and advocates of the card as a tactic to give the impression that the diverse populations in Kununurra and Wyndham were unified in approval of the card. They do not reflect the substantive opposition to the card from many people living in the study site; indeed, the White Card—
has become a symbol for disempowerment and neocolonial government control.
Use by the Australian Government of bespoke 'evidence' to tell only the story that the government wants to be heard is disturbing. It has two purposes: to continue the trial and expand the program in other regions—
and to obfuscate the reality that the CDC's logic is deeply flawed and reliant on jobs that do not exist. The card cannot achieve the aims it seeks, as the framing is perverse and disconnected from the lives of those on the card.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
Since the introduction of the cashless card in Kununurra there has been an increase in crime, an increase around elder abuse, an increase around soliciting and black market trades happening with service providers that can trade off the card for cash. So it hasn't dealt with the contentious issues that were identified; it has actually caused a major influx around other issues.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 7.21 pm.
2. The committee recommends that—
(a) the provisions of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(c) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018
Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018
Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018.
(David Bushby)
Chair
8 February 2018
That at the end of the motion, add:
"and, in respect of the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, the bill be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2018."
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
No. 5 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017
No. 6 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017
No. 7 Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business orders of the day:
No. 62 Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
No. 54 Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015; and
(b) orders of the day relating to documents.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the passing, on 5 February 2018, of Dr Hugh Wirth, AM,
(ii) that Dr Wirth was a highly-respected veterinarian, including as the resident vet on ABC Radio Melbourne's Saturday morning show,
(iii) that he was President of RSPCA Victoria's Board from 1972 to 2015, and served on the Board of RSPCA Australia for 35 years,
(iv) that he made an outstanding contribution to animal welfare and became the first non-European President of World Animal Protection,
(v) that he was deeply-respected amongst his fellow colleagues and the wider public, was made a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in 1985, and, in 1997, was named Victorian of the Year, and
(vi) that he will be missed as a passionate and tenacious advocate for animal welfare; and
(b) expresses its condolences to his family, and may he rest in peace.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 30 October 2017, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) draft report for the Communications Sector Market Study recommended that "the Government consider whether NBN Co should continue to be obliged to recover its full cost of investment through its prices", and that other options should be examined, including direct budget funding,
(ii) the requirement on NBN Co to make a commercial return is compromising its ability to deliver a fast, reliable, affordable, and future-proof network to all Australians,
(iii) the connectivity virtual circuit (CVC) charge, levied by NBN Co on Retail Service Providers (RSPs), is necessitating that RSPs choose between quality (reliability, speed and congestion) and affordability of available services, and
(iv) on 16 January 2018, the Government released its response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, in which it reaffirmed its commitment to rollout the Multi Technology Mix with the existing business model; and
(b) calls on the Government to accept the ACCC's recommendations to:
(i) reconsider whether NBN Co should be obliged to recover its full cost of investment through its prices, in light of the impact that this obligation is having on quality of internet services being delivered to Australians, and
(ii) examine other options for funding the NBN, including direct budget funding.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) on 26 January 2018, tens of thousands of Australians around the country marched in solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples calling on Governments to change the date of Australia Day, and
(ii) 26 January is a day of mourning for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, as it represents the beginning of colonisation, the theft of their land, the decimation of their culture and the start of ongoing genocide; and
(b) calls on federal, state and territory governments to change the date of Australia Day so that everyone can participate in celebrating this national day.
The Senate divided. [11:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Australian Government's plans to make Australia one of the top ten weapons manufacturers globally, raising us from the 20th to the 10th spot, and
(ii) the dangerous and destructive effects of the global arms trade in fuelling conflicts;
(b) re-affirms the comments of World Vision CEO, Mr Tim Costello, that Australia will be "exporting death and profiting from bloodshed";
(c) condemns the fact that the Government plans to loan $3 billion to arms manufacturers, which is equal to Australia's entire foreign aid budget, which has suffered $11 billion in cuts since 2014, and follows attempts by the Government to cut $2 billion from higher education; and
(d) calls on the Government to cease immediately this plan to turn Australia into a mercenary nation of arms dealers, and instead use the funds to revitalise our manufacturing industry around renewable energy, electric cars, advanced medical technology and education services.
The Senate divided. [12:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes, with concern, that the Adani Group (Adani) is on the record blatantly misrepresenting the number of jobs its polluting Carmichael coal mine would create;
(b) condemns Adani's deception in inflating its jobs figures sevenfold, until it was forced under oath to reveal that the true figure is in fact 1,464 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the project, rather than the 10 000 claimed;
(c) further notes that the carbon pollution from Adani's mine would significantly contribute to dangerous global warming, further endangering the Great Barrier Reef and the 70 000 jobs that rely on it; and
(d) asserts that, rather than relying on a polluting, deceitful company to provide jobs for Queenslanders, federal and state Governments should invest in renewable energy, service industries and manufacturing as the best drivers of Queensland jobs.
The Senate divided. [12:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) according to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU), since 1990, more than 40 000 jobs in Australian meat processing have been lost to live exports,
(ii) according to the AMIEU, independent research shows that a sheep processed in Australia is worth 20 per cent more to the economy than one sent for live export, and
(iii) the live export industry has been plagued by horrific animal cruelty; and
(b) calls on the Turnbull Government to:
(i) support the development of new meat processing facilities in northern Australia,
(ii) work with industry to end subsidies and tariffs which favour the live export trade,
(iii) provide assistance to expand the boxed meat export trade, and
(iv) work with farmers and industry to develop a smooth and successful transition away from live export by assisting to build new abattoirs, all-weather roads and developing other ways to reduce production costs.
The Senate divided. [12:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 7 December 2017, the Senate passed a motion for an order for the production of documents (OPD) relating to correspondence between the Commonwealth and its Australian contractors on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island, and
(ii) the OPD related to parts of contracts, correspondence, reports, memos or photographs relating to accommodation and services being delivered at West Lorengau;
(b) further notes that:
(i) the documents were sought following concerns expressed by advocates and eyewitnesses regarding the standards of accommodation at West Lorengau, including incomplete fencing and plumbing, intermittent power and water, and the sufficiency of the health and other services being delivered, particularly as compared to previous services delivered at the Manus Island regional processing centre,
(ii) according to the UNHCR's fact sheet on Manus Island, updated on 21 January 2018, many of these concerns are ongoing,
(iii) on 17 January 2018, the then-Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Senator Birmingham) released a two-page response from the Minster for Home Affairs (Mr Dutton), but no documents were returned, and
(iv) the response stated that the release of the documents would be contrary to the public interest, and "should be done on the grounds that the disclosure could be reasonably expected to cause damage to Australia's international relations with PNG";
(c) acknowledges the question of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of damage to international relations has been the subject of proceedings in the Federal Court, specifically in Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Paul Whittaker (2005), where the court stated that "Damage to international relations might reasonably be expected where the disclosure of a document may disclose sensitive information so as to cause, or reasonably be expected to cause, actual and significant damage...the test is not whether there is a risk of damage to international relations; the test requires a higher degree of certainty of damage";
(d) does not accept that the order for the production of documents made on 7 December 2017 has been adequately dealt with, insofar as the material requested would, by necessity, include a range of information that has no bearing on Australia's relationship with Papua New Guinea;
(e) does not accept that public interest immunity has been appropriately advanced, and calls on the Minister to review the nature of the documents ordered on 7 December 2017, and apply a higher test of real risk rather than hypothesised risk; and
(f) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 9 am on 19 March 2018, any correspondence requested on 7 December 2017 which meets the proper test.
The Senate divided. [12:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018:
Work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry, with particular reference to:
(a) the scope and necessity for amending and updating any legislative inconsistencies in the relevant work health and safety scheme, including:
(i) any provisions in the legislation which need to be updated,
(ii) providing for appropriate consistency between the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act),
(iii) legislative changes required to the OPGGS Act to provide for appropriate consistency with the model work health and safety laws (as revised in June 2011), and
(iv) legislative changes which recognise that the work is undertaken in remote locations;
(b) the effectiveness of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) and equivalent state and territory offshore petroleum regulators (the regulators) in promoting the work health and safety of persons engaged in offshore petroleum operations;
(c) the accountability framework to which NOPSEMA is subject with respect to work health and safety matters, and whether this needs to be strengthened;
(d) the role and structure of the NOPSEMA Board and options for improving the effectiveness of their stakeholder engagement;
(e) the workings of NOPSEMA's collaboration, and working relationships, with other work health and safety regulators and bodies, including Safe Work Australia;
(f) challenges in attracting and retaining health and safety representatives;
(g) the adequacy of the protections afforded to health and safety representatives performing their functions under the relevant legislation;
(h) policies and practices which could be adopted by NOPSEMA to better support health and safety representatives;
(i) factors impacting on the work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry;
(j) Government policies at the state, territory and Commonwealth level which have a significant impact on the work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry;
(k) relevant parallels or strategies in an international context;
(l) the role of Government in providing a coordinated strategic approach to health and safety outcomes in the offshore petroleum industry; and
(m) any other related matters.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into cyberbullying
Participating member: Senator McKim
Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017
Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) 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.
IMPORTED FOOD CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
Australia has a world-class food safety management system. Our exported food is highly sought after internationally due to our world-class food safety reputation. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high quality safe food. It is essential that we ensure food being brought into Australia is safe. As globalisation changes how food is traded around the world, we need to strengthen our laws to meet the changing landscape.
Australia imports food for a variety of reasons. In 2015-16, we imported $16 billion worth of food. In the same period, Australia exported $40 billion worth of food. Some food is imported into Australia as ingredients to be used in manufacturing of food, some of which is consumed in Australia and some is exported, contributing to our prosperity. For both our economic prosperity through exports, and for the safety of Australians, ensuring all food brought into Australia is safe is a must.
The hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 linked to imported frozen berries highlighted the limitations in our imported food safety management system in identifying and responding to new food safety risks and ensuring importers are accountable for importing safe food across their supply chain. This Bill will address these limitations to modernise the system ensuring we continue to have a robust world-class food safety management system.
Food safety management systems are based on science. Some food risks you can't see. We know for some food, such as raw milk cheese, scientific testing alone of the final product does not guarantee the food is safe to eat. As our farmers know, ensuring every step of the production process, from the grass the cow eats, to the water the cow drinks, to the cleanliness of the dairy, the conditions the cheese is made in, to finally the way the cheese is packaged and transported are all critical. To address these concerns for food where at-border testing alone is insufficient to assure safety, this Bill will introduce a requirement that for certain ready to eat or minimally processed foods, importers will need an internationally recognised food safety management certificate that assures the food's production has been managed safely.
One or two times a year there are circumstances where we strongly suspect a problem with an imported food but the scientists are still working out what tests will best show if the problem exists in that particular batch. This was the case with the frozen berries, and we were able to work with the importer to voluntarily hold the food. However, this is reliant on the importer being cooperative. This Bill addresses that weakness by introducing new capacity to hold food at the border until the scientific testing approach is being finalised or the extent of the problem is understood. This capacity will only be utilised for a short period until the scientific testing approach is finalised, then we will use the existing provisions.
Under the current system, if we have some information about an emerging risk but the scientific evidence is incomplete, the system is unable to increase the surveillance of that food. This Bill introduces the ability to increase the level of surveillance to monitor the risk for a limited period and gather scientific evidence to conduct a reassessment of that food. This will enable us to better respond to emerging risks proactively before a food safety incident occurs.
Australia is a big exporter of food. Our agricultural exports contributed $38.3 billion to the Australian economy in 2015-16. This government has worked tirelessly to develop new markets for our exports. As part of this work we have identified foreign countries who have food safety management systems that are equivalent to our own. Where there are equivalent food safety management systems between Australia and another country, this Bill introduces the capacity to recognise the systems and to reduce intervention at the border. This will benefit both countries, enabling the easier flow of trade between Australia and that country.
We are serious about ensuring Australia continues to have a world-class food safety management system. Part of ensuring this is having the necessary tools in place for when somebody tries to break the rules. This Bill brings the enforcement tools available to the department up to modern standards and introduces new penalties to make sure when somebody breaks the law they are dealt with appropriately. That's why we're introducing a full range of penalties, ranging from strict liability offences to up to ten years in gaol and fines greater than $100,000.
The Australian Government only has regulatory responsibility for food as it comes over our border. We need to make sure the expectation we have on Australian Businesses is the same as expectations on importers. Australian food businesses have excellent systems in place to be able to trace food, which is essential if a recall is required. To make sure importers are able to do the same, this Bill introduces requirements for importers to be able to quickly identify who they bought food from and who they sold it to in Australia. This will strengthen our ability to respond to a food incident.
The food safety management system in Australia is a cooperative system where the states, territories, local governments and Australian Government have shared responsibilities. To enable information to be used easily within Australia for food regulation, we have improved our information sharing abilities with the states and territories. The states, territories and local governments play an essential part in Australia's domestic food safety management system, and the Australian Government will be able to share information to support jurisdictions to effectively perform their role in food safety management.
Another limitation with current imported food safety management practices is how foods can be specified. Despite the knowledge in 2015 that only berries from a specific location were of concern in relation to that incident, all frozen berries were required to be tested under current legislation. This Bill introduces the flexibility to specify food in a detailed way. For example, we will be able to narrow holding orders to specific foods from specific locations or even specific factories. This will reduce the burden on importers at the border as we will be able to target the specific food causing concern, and not all food of that type.
The changing global marketplace of food supply presents new challenges for managing the risks associated with imported food. As the world's population grows, ensuring a safe food supply is critical. This Bill introduces the ability of Australia to share information with our international trading partners about any food safety issues identified in food arriving at Australia's border. This will a enable safer food supply chain worldwide.
Australia enjoys a world-class food safety management system. Through these changes we will strengthen our system, enabling Australians to continue to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high quality and safe food, which is highly sought after internationally. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high-quality safe food.
A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT (PROHIBITING ITEMS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES) BILL 2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
In 2013, 99 per cent of people in immigration detention were Illegal Maritime Arrivals. Our immigration detention facilities were flooded by the 50,000 people who arrived on 800 boats under Labor.
Since coming to Government, the Coalition has been able to get people out of detention, including every child, and we have been able to close 17 detention centres.
At the same time we have strengthened section 501 of the Migration Act to better protect the Australian community from foreign nationals who commit serious crimes. These changes have allowed us to cancel the visas of more than 2,800 foreign nationals who thought they could flout our laws and commit crimes against Australians.
Since these changes were enacted, we have cancelled the visas of 54 murderers, 223 child sex offenders and 150 organised crime figures. This action has resulted in a significant increase in criminals in our immigration detention facilities.
Immigration detention is necessary for strong border control. Foreign nationals who present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community will have their visas cancelled and they will be detained while their status is resolved, or they are removed from the country.
Today, around 50 per cent of the detention population are non-citizens who have had their visas cancelled. And while IMAs now only make up around 25 per cent of the detention population, this cohort is complex and includes people with criminal histories or other security concerns which present a risk to the Australian community.
This means that more than half of the detainee population consists of high-risk cohorts. These cohorts have significant criminal histories, like child sex offences or links to criminal gangs, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs and other organised crime groups, or represent an unacceptable risk to the Australian community otherwise.
These criminals often have serious behavioural issues and pose a critical threat to the health, safety, security and order of the detention network.
I will not tolerate behaviour that is illegal, or that threatens the stability of detention facilities, placing my officers, visitors or detainees at risk.
At the moment, the existing arrangements are inadequate to manage the increasing risk of contraband in detention, such as narcotic drugs and the use of mobile phones for the commission of criminal activity.
Mobile phones in detention are enabling criminal behaviour. Examples of their use include:
drug distribution within detention facilities
maintenance of criminal enterprises in and out of detention facilities
commodity of exchange or currency – currently, Illegal Maritime Arrival detainees are not permitted mobile phones, but all other detainees are – so mobile phones are now being used as a type of currency in the facilities
owners of mobile phones are also being subjected to stand-over tactics (including theft of the phone)
facilitation of threats between detainees
accessing child pornography
The Australian Border Force Commissioner advised in Budget Estimates that one detainee arranged a contract killing on another detainee while in immigration detention. Thankfully, my officers prevented this heinous crime from occurring but I will not stand by and allow this behaviour to continue.
We have also seen the use of mobile phones to coordinate internal disturbances and escapes. Two coordinated disturbances, one on Christmas Island and one at Yongah Hill, resulted in riots. This synchronised effort of disruption is threatening the order of the detention facilities and is placing all those who work or reside there at risk.
The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 enables the Department to provide a safe and secure environment for people accommodated at, visiting or working at an immigration detention facility.
The Bill will strengthen search and seizure powers, including the use of detector dogs, in order for authorised officers to restrict things from immigration detention facilities that might pose a risk. These things include mobile phones, SIM cards, narcotic drugs and child pornography.
Specifically, the Bill amends the Act to insert new definitions under subsection 5(1), to define detention centres and alternative places of detention, collectively as 'immigration detention facilities', and to define a 'prohibited thing'.
A new section, 251A will be inserted to enable the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, things to be prohibited, in relation to persons in detention and immigration detention facilities.
These things will include illegal things, specifically narcotic drugs and child pornography, and things that might be a risk within immigration detention facilities, such as mobile phones and SIM cards.
The Government is also proposing amendments to the search and seizure provisions in the Act, specifically sections 252, 252AA, 252A, 252B, 252BA, 252BB, 252C, 252CA and 252G, in order to ensure that we are able to effectively deal with such items.
In addition, the Government is proposing to add the ability to use a detector dog to screen for some of these items under sections 252AA, 252BA and 252G of the Act.
Even with the removal of mobile phones from detention facilities, detainees will continue to have reasonable access to communication avenues. This includes landline phones, internet access and visitors, in order to maintain contact with their support networks. Migration Agents or legal representatives will also continue to be able to contact their clients.
This Bill will ensure our officers can carry out their responsibilities properly, minimising unacceptable risks to the health, safety and security of persons in immigration detention facilities, and to the order of these facilities.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BANKING MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2017
SECOND READING SPEECH
In this year's Budget, the Government announced a series of measures that will deliver a stronger, safer financial system, with better competition and consumer outcomes for Australians.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 continues the work of implementing these commitments by further strengthening our financial system.
Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill provide APRA with a new reserve power to make rules in relation to non-bank lenders, called 'non-ADI lenders'. This will provide APRA the necessary flexibility to address risks to financial stability if they emerge. This measure also enhances APRA's ability to gather data to monitor non-ADI lenders.
Importantly, this new rule making power is not a new 'peacetime' regulation of non-ADI lenders. These lenders are a vital source of competition in the lending market, and they do not rely on ordinary Australian depositors for their funding. Given non-ADI lenders have no depositors to protect, it is appropriate that they continue to run their businesses without being subject to ongoing prudential supervision by APRA.
The Government supports this important sector and the competition it provides for customers.
However, international experience has demonstrated that risks can emerge from the non-ADI lender sector that threatens the stability of the financial system. It is appropriate for APRA to have the power to move decisively to curb these risks should they ever arise.
Having such rules in place should strengthen the non-ADI lender sector, by signalling to market that the sector is well regulated and stable.
The Government has often spoken of the need to approach financial stability risks with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw – these powers will provide APRA a new scalpel to deal with risks to financial stability that are specific to non-ADI lenders.
Schedule 3 of the Bill lifts the prohibition on the use of the term 'bank', so that all banking businesses with an ADI licence can now use the term.
This will encourage competition in the sector by allowing all ADIs to enjoy the benefit of describing themselves as a bank when they offer banking services to Australian customers.
This will prompt innovation in the sector by opening the door to new banking entrants who will no longer be subject to the systemic barrier to entry of not being able to call themselves a bank when offering banking services.
Schedule 4 of the Bill seeks to modernise the Banking Act by incorporating a reference to the importance of APRA considering 'geographic and sectoral' considerations where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to take account of these considerations - in line with its prudential mandate - beyond doubt.
Schedule 5 of the Bill implements a package of reforms to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market.
Too many Australians are burdened with excessive credit card debt and incur substantial credit card interest. More than 30 per cent of credit card holders in the lowest income quartile carry interest-bearing debt from period to period. For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to real hardship.
Schedule 5 of the Bill implements reforms to ensure consumers can afford credit card contracts, to reduce the barriers consumers face when switching credit cards, and to align the calculation of credit card interest with consumers' expectations.
I will now provide more detail on these measures.
Since December 2014, APRA has taken a series of steps to address emerging financial stability risks by reinforcing the lending practices of banks and other ADIs, particularly in relation to residential home loans.
While these measures are effective in mitigating financial stability risks, the tightening of credit from ADIs creates room for non-ADI lenders to fill in the gap.
Although their current share of lending is relatively small, these non-ADI lenders may expand rapidly and their lending activities could potentially pose material risks to financial stability – risks that ultimately fall on the broader Australian community.
The global financial crisis showed us how costly these risks can be when left unaddressed.
However, APRA does not have power over these lending activities, even where they materially contribute to financial stability risks.
Schedule 1 to the Bill will provide APRA with these powers.
APRA will be able to make rules relating to lending practices of non-ADI lenders, where it considers that their lending activities materially contribute to financial stability risks.
These new rules will be backed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms. If a non-ADI lender fails to comply with a rule, it can be compelled by APRA to comply. If it ignores an APRA direction, the non-ADI lender will face appropriate penalties.
Schedule 2 to the Bill enhances APRA's ability to collect data from non-ADI lenders, so it can better monitor the non-ADI lender sector and determine if and when to use its new rulemaking power.
In making this determination, APRA will use its independent judgement. However, it is likely APRA will consider a number of factors including: the size of the sector; the nature of activities of non-ADI lenders; and the impact of non-ADI lenders on ADIs.
Before it makes a rule, APRA must consult ASIC, and will also ordinarily consult with the other members of the Council of Financial Regulators.
The rulemaking power is a reserve power that would only be used when APRA considers that the lending activities of non-ADI lenders are materially contributing to risks of financial instability. In other words, the Government is providing APRA with a new 'tool on the shelf' – rather than requiring the day to day operations of these entities to be regulated by APRA.
The Government believes that non-ADI lenders are not currently materially contributing to financial stability risks and therefore the Government does not expect APRA to use these powers on day one.
Schedule 3 helps innovative new banking entrants bring new product offerings into the Australian banking system. New entrants to the Australian banking market currently face a significant obstacle – the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank'.
At present, only ADIs with at least $50 million in capital are permitted to use the term 'bank'.
This has two undesirable effects:
- it discourages innovative new players from entering the sector, because they are unable to benefit from the advantages of being able to use the term 'bank' in the critical early phase of their development; and
- it may lead the public to mistakenly believe that small ADIs differ from larger players in terms of regulatory protection.
In fact, all ADIs are subject to APRA's prudential framework.
And deposits at all ADIs are protected by the Government's Financial Claims Scheme guarantee.
By lifting the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank', Schedule 2 to this Bill will allow the advantages associated with the term 'bank' to flow to all banking businesses with an ADI licence, especially new Fintech entrants.
It breaks the vicious cycle for new entrants, where currently they need $50m to describe themselves as a bank, but must describe themselves as a bank in order to grow.
Nothing improves the customer experience like robust competition in a market, particularly from innovative new entrants.
Competition in banking drives down interest rates for borrowers, drives down fees, increases interest rates for savers, and leads to advancements in the overall customer experience.
This measure will also ensure that there are no misconceptions about the regulatory safeguards that apply to all ADIs in Australia's financial system.
Schedule 3 will also reinforce APRA's discretion over whether or not to permit the use of 'bank' outside of the ADI sector, ensuring that this term is limited to APRA regulated entities except in very unusual cases.
Schedule 4 modernises the Banking Act by inserting an 'objects' provision. This clarifies APRA's mandate under the Act, clearly setting out APRA's objectives to protect financial stability and depositors. It also makes clear that APRA can consider geographic and sectoral sources of system risks issues as appropriate and respond appropriately.
Recent conditions have highlighted the fact that the Australian economy differs considerably from region to region. APRA has broad and flexible powers, but there is no clear statement in the Banking Act that APRA has a responsibility to take account of geographic or sectoral issues where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to address these issues - in line with its prudential mandate - beyond doubt.
Schedule 5 of the Bill implements a number of reforms to the credit card market to improve competition in the credit card market and protect vulnerable consumers from building up unsustainable credit card debts.
There are many benefits to the use of credit cards for consumers. However, for some consumers very high interest rates and a pattern of over-borrowing and under-repayment can cause them to incur persistently high credit card interest charges. These consumers are often in households with low levels of income, with the lowest income households having credit card debt equal to four per cent of their annual disposable income, compared to two per cent for those in the highest income category.
For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to substantial hardship.
Currently, credit card providers are only required to assess a credit card contract as unsuitable if the borrower cannot repay the loan without substantial hardship. This means that some credit card providers only assess whether a consumer can meet the minimum repayments when determining if a consumer can afford a credit limit. As a result, consumers can be granted excessive credit limits which can lead to cycles of debt.
In addition, the calculation of credit card interest can be overly complex and often does not match consumers' expectations or understanding.
Consumers can also face substantial barriers to switching credit cards or lowering credit limits due to onerous processes imposed by banks. These barriers have a substantial impact on competition in the credit card market.
Schedule 5 of this Bill addresses these problems by implementing a reform package to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market.
This is consistent with the Government's commitment to implementing the first phase of reforms outlined in the Government's response to the Senate Inquiry into the credit card market.
Firstly, Schedule 5 will tighten responsible lending obligations for credit card providers by requiring affordability assessments to be based on whether a consumer can repay the full credit limit within a reasonable period. The Bill will provide the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with the power to determine that reasonable period by legislative instrument.
This reform is not intended to unduly reduce consumers' access to credit. As such, ASIC is required to balance the need to prevent consumers from being in unsuitable credit card contracts with the need to ensure that reasonable access to credit is maintained when determining the reasonable period.
Secondly, Schedule 5 will prohibit all unsolicited credit limit increase invitations including where a consumer has previously opted in to receiving these invitations.
The definition of a credit limit increase invitation has also been expanded to include all forms of communication (rather than only written communication) to prevent credit card providers from circumventing the law and making unsolicited offers by phone or over an online portal.
Schedule 5 will also put an end to the unfair and complex way that interest is calculated on credit cards and make it easier for consumers to understand and compare how credit card interest is calculated.
Credit card providers will no longer be able to charge backdated interest or interest on the balance that has already been repaid if a consumer does not fully repay their outstanding balance.
Finally, Schedule 5 will require credit card providers to have online options for consumers to initiate a credit card cancellation or lower a credit limit. Consumers can face substantial barriers when trying to cancel a credit card and this reduces competition and limits how consumers can manage their credit card debt.
Schedule 5 requires credit card providers to facilitate any requests to cancel a credit card or lower a credit limit and prevents them from employing tactics to dissuade or impede consumers from cancelling a credit card or lowering a credit limit.
These reforms are a necessary and important step in reducing the incidence of consumers building up unmanageable credit card debts and improving competition in the credit card market.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
That items 1, 3 to 8, 11 to 13, 16 to 19, 21 to 25, 28 to 30, and 33 to 36 of Schedule 1 of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulation 2017, made under the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, be disallowed [F2017L01338].
The intention is that an importer may not use a timber legality framework to assure themselves of the legality of a product if there is information known to them that would otherwise call into question the legality of that product.
… lead to situations where a business will import or process a 'certified' product, despite information or circumstances suggesting that it is likely to contain timber that has been illegally harvested.
… is heightened by several factors, including the propensity for corruption in some high-risk nations—
the possibility of fraudulent documents being provided—
… misleading claims being made; and the inherent complexity of such systems, which can be confusing or prone to misunderstanding.
It is also worthwhile noting that while both third-party certification systems (FSC and PEFC) have comprehensive systems that are backed up by third-party audit, they have not deliberately been designed to provide guarantees of legality. There have also been reports suggesting that these systems are vulnerable to deliberate fraud.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017
Strengthen requirements for the appointment and termination of members by: specifying the general skills required; limiting the number of consecutive terms served by an individual member; providing for termination of members by the Governor-General for underperformance—
… advise and make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the care and development of the Marine Park … zoning plans and plans of management …
The legislated size of the Authority and background requirements of the … members limited the capacity to provide local, national and international perspectives and diversity of expertise required …
That this bill be now read a third time.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a third time.
Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a third time.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017
… must get the engagement on this right. Not preconceived policies that are imposed, rather than respectfully discussed and collectively decided.
Tasmania's share of the GST could fall by … $168 million.
… what the report in the ABC failed to point out, about that memo, was that memo to me said that the Secretary of Immigration had already written to the Director General of ASIO. It wasn't seeking my approval. They were simply implementing government policy which was what we took to the election. We said, permanent visas would not be given to people who came to Australia illegally by boat, the Department was acting in accordance with Government policy that had just been confirmed thumpingly in a federal election so - headline – public official implement government policy approved by the Australian people.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to questions without notice asked by Senators Singh and Urquhart today relating to the distribution of GST revenue and to funding for biosecurity measures in Tasmania.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to the processing of applications of people seeking asylum.
… increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them.
I have not disguised my concern of attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself.
That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in her name for today, proposing the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), be postponed till the next day of sitting.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee.
That the Senate take note of the report.
PARTICULARS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE 2017-18—
ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE FOR 2017-18—
PORTFOLIO ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES STATEMENTS—
PORTFOLIOS AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS—DOCUMENTS
That the documents I have just tabled, together with the final budget outcome 2016-17, tabled on 16 October 2017 be referred to committees for examination and report.
2017-18 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES)
Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio.
Attorney-General's portfolio.
Communications and the Arts portfolio.
Defence portfolio.
Department of Human Services.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
Department of Jobs and Small Business.
Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Education and Training portfolio.
Environment and Energy portfolio.
Finance portfolio.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Health portfolio.
Home Affairs portfolio.
Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Social Services portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
… these estimates may overstate the overall cost of compliance for importers. In practice, a sizable number of product lines, once their initial due diligence process has been completed and they have been determined to be low risk, are likely to require only minimal intervention by an importer.
The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate adopt recommendation 5 of the report of the Publications Committee of the inquiry into printing standards for documents presented to Parliament.
Recommendation 5
5.6 That the Senate and House of Representatives pass the following resolution:
That unless otherwise ordered, and provided that they conform to the printing standards, the following documents shall be made Parliamentary Papers upon their presentation to the Senate/House of Representatives:
substantive reports of parliamentary committees;
annual reports of Commonwealth entities;
a report of a royal commission;
a report of the Productivity Commission;
a report of the Auditor-General;
a report of the Australian Human Rights Commission;
a report of the Australia Law Reform Commission;
a report of the Australian Electoral Commission on the redistribution of electoral division boundaries;
Australian Government white papers;
a report in a series that has previously been included in the Parliamentary Papers Series on the recommendation of a Publications Committee; and
budget papers and ministerial statements presented following the presentation of the appropriation bills.
Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017
The intention of the RFAs was to provide long-term forest management to protect these complex ecosystems.
I recognise that there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories.
I applaud Dr Grandin … I admire her work—
in the field of humane animal slaughter.
Protecting animal welfare and boosting agricultural profitability aren’t competing aims—they support one another.
The growing demand for high quality food produced in an ethical way means Australia’s agricultural producers must embrace the highest animal welfare standards to stay internationally competitive.
We try in our submission to outline the reasons why we think it is not a simple as that.
There is certainly a tension between welfare and profitability, but in our experience, if you improve animal welfare outcomes, you have increased productivity and you have improved competitiveness – for us, particularly, as we are a high cost producer and increasingly our markets are demanding good outcomes, whether it is sustainability in an environmental sense or good animal welfare practice or good supply chain management to ensure the quality and healthiness of our food products that we export. That is one of the keys: good animal welfare practice is a key to improve competitiveness.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
Over recent decades, judgements in this area have relied heavily on the conclusion that the capabilities required for a serious assault on Australia simply didn’t exist in our region. In contrast, in the years ahead, the level of capability able to be brought to bear against Australia will increase, so judgements relating to contingencies and the associated warning time will need to rely less on evidence of capability and more on assessments of motive and intent.
Second Pass approval is formal approval by Government of a specific capability solution to an identified capability development need. Second pass provides Government approval and acknowledgment of:
… … …
e. budgetary provision for acquisition and operation of the capability solution, including all relevant FIC aspects and NPOC—