Kimberley Kitching's recent appearances (OpenAustralia.org)
Corporations Amendment (Meetings and Documents) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Thank you, Senator McKim. Are you planning on moving your amendments in committee?
Economics References Committee; Report | Committees | Senate debates
I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the tabling of the Senate Economics References Committee's report into the Australian...
I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the tabling of the Senate Economics References Committee's report into the Australian manufacturing industry. I want to thank my colleague Senator Chisholm, the chair of the committee, and the other members of the committee for the work that has gone into this report. I also want to thank Mr Mark Fitt, the committee secretary, and other members of the secretariat for the support they have given to the committee's work. This is a timely report, as we are nearing the end of this parliament and the voters will soon have an opportunity to decide our country's course for the next three years. Among, I think, the many issues that will be before the voters will be industry policy; and, as the majority and minority reports that are now before the Senate make clear, the voters will have a choice because the policy approaches from the coalition and from the Labor opposition are different. This report documents the sharp decline in Australia's manufacturing capacity over the last 30 years. As a share of the total economy, manufacturing has fallen from about 16 per cent in 1986 to seven per cent today. Over the past 20 years, employment in manufacturing has fallen by 100,000, while employment in the services sector has correspondingly risen. Australia has shifted from a manufacturing economy to a services economy. This seismic shift in the Australian economy has been the direct result of the economic reforms of the Hawke and Keating governments between 1983 and 1996, particularly the demolition of the tariff wall that had sheltered Australia's inefficient and non-competitive manufacturing industry since Federation. I don't make any apologies for those reforms. I'm glad of them and I'm glad of the consequences of them. Despite the cost to Australia in terms of manufacturing employment, the Hawke-Keating reforms have been of huge overall benefit to Australia. One of the reasons that we have had 30 years of almost uninterrupted growth and prosperity is that inflation has been held down by waves of very cheap consumer goods from Asian countries, which means that wage gains achieved through higher productivity have not been eroded by inflation as they were before 1983. But we have to acknowledge that the world of 2022 is not the world of 1983. Under Deng Xiaoping and his successors, the People's Republic of China seemed to be heading towards becoming a genuine market economy, towards integration into the global rules-based trading system represented by the World Trade Organization and towards becoming a reliable and responsible trading partner for Australia. Instead, under President Xi Jinping, China has reverted to a state directed economy, in a quest for regional hegemony in both the economic and political spheres, and to a trade policy which rewards subservience to the Chinese Communist Party's agenda and punishes countries, such as Australia, which defy Beijing's diktats. This development has exposed the perils of overreliance on a single trading partner, a single market for our exports and a single source of imported manufactured goods, particularly high-tech goods. We find ourselves dangerously exposed here. Remember, we haven't had enough PPE in the last couple of years. Indeed, Labor's trade and resources shadow minister, Madeleine King—who, may I say, would serve excellently in these roles in government—has called for a diversification of Australia's trade profile. She has argued, as have I, that we should be doing much more to engage with India and especially our neighbour to the north, Indonesia, which has a fast-growing middle class, as well as other regional ASEAN nations. Our dilemma has further been cruelly exposed by the supply crisis brought on by the COVID pandemic, unfortunately now entering its third year. As I've said, we've faced successive shortages of masks, personal protective equipment, respirators, vaccines and, more recently, rapid antigen tests. It must be acknowledged that a contributory factor has been the difficulty in securing these products at a time of universal demand for them, not least in the source country. We must face up to the fact that Australia's manufacturing policy settings are no longer fit for purpose. We cannot go on with an economy that relies on bulk exports of raw materials such as iron ore and coal to pay for a stream of manufactured goods from China and other Asian countries. No-one, certainly not I, is suggesting that we should return to the high-tariff regime of the decades before 1983. As the US under President Trump discovered to its cost, erecting tariff barriers just invites retaliation from trading partners, starting a trade war which finishes up harming both sides. But Australia does need to take serious measures to stimulate a revival of manufacturing in this country, both for reasons of national security and so that we are never again caught short by a supply crisis of essential manufactured goods as we have been over the past two years. The Labor members of the Senate Economics References Committee have made a series of carefully considered and economically responsible recommendations which will, if implemented by an incoming Labor government, send our manufacturing industry policy in a new direction. They include measures to facilitate both public and private investment in manufacturing both for export and for the domestic market. They propose measures to increase the level of superannuation fund investment in manufacturing industries. They propose significant increases in support for research and development to improve and stimulate the development of self-sustaining manufacturing. Most importantly, they urge the revival of Australia's vocational education sector, particularly by ensuring that vocational courses in occupations with current or forecast skills shortages are accessible and affordable. Only by doing this can we restore the skills base needed both for a viable defence manufacturing sector and for high-tech medical and scientific production, which we obviously need much more of. Labor state governments, such as the Andrews government in my home state of Victoria, have begun this process by reviving the TAFE system after it was allowed to be run down so dangerously by previous governments, but I think this requires national leadership, and that must come from a Labor federal government. I'd also like to note that Senator Patrick has supported the position taken by the Labor members of the committee. I would say that Senator Patrick has shown his usual good judgement. In his additional comments, aptly titled 'Stop just exporting rocks', Senator Patrick makes the point that, as important as the resources sector is to the wealth and prosperity of our nation, we cannot be content with just being a quarry. No-one is suggesting that we should abandon our resources sector. A rush to do this would leave a huge revenue gap, not to mention the social devastation. Indeed, what would we replace this with in the short term? What services would need to be cut? What is clear, though, is that we need to couple this with more diversity in our economy. We rested on the economic windfalls that came in year after year in the lead-up to the GFC, and now we're behind the eight ball when it comes to diversification. Part of the problem is that we lack complexity in our economy. We haven't invested enough in research and development or upstream value-added industries, and we heard quite a lot of this in the evidence on one of the hearing days. According to the Harvard Atlas of Economic Complexity, a index that measures the sophistication, diversity and opportunities of various nations, Australia ranks 86th in the world on the list, behind Iran, which is at 80, Albania, at 83, and Paraguay, at 85. While in many ways this is a simplistic measure, it does point to a problem. In contrast, Singapore, a country that has almost no natural resources and has to import both water and sand, ranks at No. 5 on the index. Since gaining independence in 1965, Singapore has invested heavily in research and development to become a world leader in numerous industries, notably in fintech and pharmaceuticals. There is no reason Australia cannot do something similar if we put our minds to it. Of course, we also have the great example of Israel. Ensuring Australians are better educated, better trained for work and reskilled has never been more important. If we don't do this, our economy is going to go backwards. We won't remain at 86; we'll be out of the Atlas of Economic Complexity. Productivity growth should be front and centre on our list of policy priorities. From flight recorders to electronic pacemakers, Google Maps, penicillin, the bionic ear, plastic lenses, Gardasil, wi-fi and even the Hills hoist, Australian brains have provided countless inventions for the betterment of humanity. But we've stopped inventing things and making things, and these success stories belie the fact that today we have the same export profile as Uzbekistan. We all watched with horror as the former Treasurer, in the other place, goaded the local car industry to leave Australia. That was unacceptable and unforgivable. The men and women who worked in this industry and their families and loved ones have not forgotten. When it comes to manufacturing in this country, we must have reformers and thinkers. There is a dissenting report, which I presume Senator Scarr will speak to. But there was a lot of interest, I think, from all committee members.
It being 1.30 pm, we will move to two-minute statements.
Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
My understanding is that there was an amendment circulated but that's not proceeding.
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill contains necessary measures to ensure that...
I rise today to speak on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Annual Disclosure Equality) Bill 2021. Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill contains necessary measures to ensure that members and senators are covered by our political funding and disclosure laws. In 2018 this parliament agreed to important reforms to enhance transparency and protect our democracy. It was Labor that successfully fought for a ban on foreign donations to be included in the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. We knew that we had to act to protect our democracy from foreign interference, but this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into banning foreign donations. It took two years for them to act after Labor introduced our own bill to protect democracy. Because of the reforms Labor achieved in 2018, registered political parties, candidates, Senate groups and political campaigners are unable to accept donations over $100 from foreign sources if they are intended to be used for electoral expenditure or any foreign donation at all over $1,000. However, there is an inconsistency in the way the funding and disclosure framework operates with respect to parliamentarians once they are elected. This bill will extend the ban on foreign donations that applies to parties, candidates and political campaigners to senators and members of the House of Representatives. It will also align the donations disclosure obligations of serving parliamentarians with those that apply to candidates and to political parties. While candidates for an election are unable to accept foreign donations and are required to submit a return to the Australian Electoral Commission which details their donations and electoral expenditure, this obligation ceases 30 days after the return of the writs. That means that anyone in this place who receives donations personally during their term in parliament is not required to disclose them. It also means that there is a loophole which would allow serving parliamentarians to accept donations from foreign sources. This bill will close that loophole. Now, given the prohibition on parties and candidates accepting foreign donations, it would be surprising if anyone in this place were taking gifts from foreign citizens or entities. That would be going against the spirit of the donations reforms that were enacted in 2018. But the ban should of course be extended to elected members of this place. It's illogical for it to cease 30 days after a candidate is elected. The ban will apply to gifts received by sitting parliamentarians from the commencement of the act. The other change the bill makes in relation to foreign donations is to prohibit candidates from accepting them from six months prior to either the date of their nomination or the date that they announce their candidacy, whichever is earlier. This will enhance the integrity of our democratic processes and put candidates on a level playing field with elected representatives. This bill will further align the obligations of parliamentarians with those of political parties by requiring them to provide an annual return to the Australian Electoral Commission detailing political donations they personally receive which are over the disclosure threshold. Most donations received by parliamentarians who belong to a political party would be received on their behalf by the political party. The political party must then disclose the detail of those donations each year to the AEC. However, there is currently no obligation on parliamentarians to disclose donations personally received. That means that donations received by parliamentarians who are not members of political parties are not required to be disclosed. That is not right and will be corrected by this bill. Parliamentarians who do not personally receive donations will not be required to provide a return to the AEC. Annual returns will need to include the total value of all gifts received by the parliamentarian during the year; the total number of persons who made the gifts; for each gift over the disclosure threshold, which is currently $14,500, the value of each gift; the date on which each gift was made; and the name and address of each donor. A parliamentarian's return must be provided within 20 weeks of the end of the financial year. The bill requires parliamentarians to provide an annual return in relation to each financial year from 2020-21 whether the gifts were made before or on or after the commencement of the act—that is, the bill will have retrospective application in relation to gifts received personally by parliamentarians during the 2020-21 financial year. Returns for the 2020-21 financial year will need to be provided within 30 days of the act's commencement, and annual returns will be published on the AEC's website. Candidates will also be required to disclose donations they personally receive during the period of six months prior to the date of their nomination or six months prior to the date of them announcing their candidacy, whichever is earlier. A similar provision will apply to Senate groups, who will be taken to be a group in an election from six months before the day members apply to be grouped on the Senate ballot paper until 30 days after polling day. These changes will substantially improve transparency and, along with the ban on foreign donations, will put candidates and elected representatives on a level playing field. There is so much more to be done. If this government really wanted to improve transparency, it would be supporting Labor's proposals to lower the donations disclosure threshold from the current $14,500 to a fixed $1,000 and require donations to be disclosed within seven days. These simple changes would mean that voters have this information when they go to cast their ballot and not have to wait up to 18 months to find out who is funding political parties, as is currently the case. There are other reforms that would enhance our democracy which the government should be committing to. The government should be providing more resources to the AEC to increase enrolment and turn out. There should be reform of electoral expenditure laws. The government should be establishing a powerful and independent national anticorruption commission—a three-year-old promise left languishing. It should be addressing the spread of dangerous misinformation and disinformation and making laws to prevent governments from pork-barrelling in marginally held seats, and the Prime Minister should be requiring members to disclose secret donations that can't be hidden by a blind trust. Despite Labor's ongoing calls for increased transparency, the government has not taken any action on real-time disclosure or on lower donation disclosure thresholds or on any other measures. Instead, in the final two sitting weeks of the year, possibly the last of this parliamentary term, the government has finally decided to pursue some form of electoral reform. Labor will support this bill, despite it being a late and imperfect attempt at increased transparency.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
In terms of ADF personnel and the strengthening of the cyberbullying offence, is that consistent with the new legislation that has been announced by the Prime Minister in relation to online trolling?
In terms of ADF members who are subject to defence discipline and the amendment, is training given to members of the ADF? What kind of training is given? Do most ADF personnel find it to be adequate?
In the minister's initial response to the human rights committee, did he not support the original form of the offence, effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Did he not assert that the...
In the minister's initial response to the human rights committee, did he not support the original form of the offence, effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Did he not assert that the original provision was suitable, necessary and adequate in its balance?
Didn't this support the original form of the offence that was effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Perhaps I should explain that better. The support of the original form of the...
Didn't this support the original form of the offence that was effectively refuting any subsequent amendment? Perhaps I should explain that better. The support of the original form of the offence—was that effectively refuting any subsequent amendment?
The minister's initial response to the human rights committee was found to be not sufficient?
On the amendment, why was the interpretive guidance that was provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this...
On the amendment, why was the interpretive guidance that was provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this offence not sufficient?
Do you have a list of what the typical summary discipline matters were?
The 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use and that summary discipline matters were taking too...
The 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use and that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve. What were the typical summary discipline matters that were taking too long to resolve?
Labor knows that the government has proposed an amendment to the new cyberbullying offence in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, set out at new section 48A. The...
Labor knows that the government has proposed an amendment to the new cyberbullying offence in the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, set out at new section 48A. The effect of this would be that cyberbullying offences would apply when a defence member has used a social media service or relevant electronic service in a way that a reasonable person would regard in all the circumstances as threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating another person, but would not necessarily regard as offensive. The government says this is a response to concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Labor will be opposing the amendment. In terms of the substance, we are concerned that the amendment narrows and weakens the proposed cyberbullying offence. Indeed, the government's own supplementary explanatory memorandum to the amendment acknowledges as much. We understand the issue that the minister is trying to address here but we are broadly satisfied with the interpretive guidance that has been provided in response to the questions from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights about proportionality in relation to this new offence. Labor will not be supporting the amendment because we do not think that removing the word 'offensive' will have the desired overall effect of reflecting the reality of cyberbullying—that is, that a lot of it does come down to offence, or content that is considered offensive. The amendment appears to rely on a libertarian freedom of expression or free speech argument that we believe is inconsistent with the need to maintain a strong system of military discipline, which is the objective of the overall bill. Labor may be open to retaining the words 'in all the circumstances as threatening, intimidating, harassing or humiliating', but we think it's essential to retain the word 'offensive'. Otherwise, this risks watering down the offence. In terms of process and consultation, we are also disappointed that the government has tried to ram this amendment through at the eleventh hour. This amendment was known about for some time, but the government provided us with it and the supplementary explanatory memorandum only yesterday, potentially only an hour or so before the bill could have been debated. This is not simply a minor or technical amendment, so this was not enough time to consider properly the proposed change.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, which was introduced into the parliament in August and passed the House of Representatives on 1 September....
I'm pleased to speak on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Discipline Reform) Bill 2021, which was introduced into the parliament in August and passed the House of Representatives on 1 September. The bill is aimed at reforming the system of military discipline for those who serve in our Defence Force, by improving the way discipline officers and summary authorities operate under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. Our military discipline system provides the Australian Defence Force with an Australian legal framework that is able to be applied on operations anywhere in the world. However, the system of discipline in the Australian military has become slow and unresponsive under the weight of administration required to address minor breaches of discipline. Reform is required to modernise our current system that predates modern warfare, technologies and tactical requirements and the way our Defence Force is organised. On this basis, Labor will be supporting this legislation. To defend Australia and our national interests we must maintain an operationally capable Defence Force that demonstrates high levels of discipline, professionalism, competence and commitment. The women and men who join the Australian Defence Force are subject to military law—in addition to civilian law—which has its own discipline system and capacity to impose punishments and orders under the Defence Force Discipline Act. The act provides a comprehensive system of military discipline that must be trusted by the Australian people—and, most importantly, by those who serve in our Defence Force—to be applied fairly and effectively in all circumstances. The system of discipline administered by the ADF must encourage the men and women of our Defence Force to be accountable for their actions and, importantly, to learn and grow from their mistakes. Because the people in our Defence Force work and live with one another and within teams, they have a perfectly reasonable expectation that any wrongdoing or breach of discipline will be dealt with quickly and fairly. Failure to do so may put the lives of others at risk, erode morale and adversely affect unit cohesion and fighting capability. Military service and the need to maintain discipline place constraints and responsibilities on the people of our Defence Force. These challenges are unique and are experienced by few of their fellow Australians. A separate system of military discipline is, therefore, essential to enable the Defence Force to deal with matters that relate directly to its discipline, morale and operational capability. It is in this context of a disciplined fighting force that in some cases breaches of military discipline by the people in our Defence Force are dealt with more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in similar conduct. The military discipline system operates in Australia and overseas in times of peace, conflict and war. Enforcing military discipline is essential at all times, both in training for operations and during conflict in often difficult and dangerous circumstances. Those in the ADF are legally bound to follow all lawful commands, including orders that involve considerable risk to their own life and the lives of others or that require them to use lethal force against an enemy. The military discipline system administered under the Defence Force Discipline Act has three tiers. At the lowest level is a disciplinary infringement scheme. This enables minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with by the issue of an infringement notice. A person can choose to admit the breach of discipline and be dealt with by a discipline officer, who may impose a low-level punishment, such as a fine or reprimand. This has some similarity to being issued a speeding ticket by the police—you can accept the ticket and pay the fine or you may choose to contest the matter in court. The second tier is the summary system. This comprises subordinate summary authorities, commanding officers and superior summary authorities. These proceedings are adversarial in nature, with criminal-law-like procedures within the disciplinary infringement scheme, and are not administered by legally trained personnel. At the highest level are superior tribunals. These comprise Defence Force magistrates and restricted and general courts martial, which deal with more serious matters and apply criminal law procedures. As early as 1989 the Defence Force Discipline Legislation Board of Review, chaired by the Hon. Xavier Connor AO, QC, reviewed the operation of the newly enacted Defence Force Discipline Act on behalf of the parliament. He observed: 'For the most part, service discipline, particularly as administered by summary authorities, has to do with matters which do not contain any element of criminality and which would not constitute an "offence" under civil law. Many of them are of quite a minor nature and probably in more than 90 per cent of these the facts are not in dispute.' These matters referred to by the review board range from actions such as those relating to operations against an enemy force to not attending duty on time to the unauthorised discharge of a weapon to having dirty boots on parade. Discipline lies at the heart of service in any defence force. In 2005 the Senate committee commenting on change within the Australian Defence Force military discipline system noted: Military command is in many ways defined by obedience and conformity. Discipline is, along with leadership, a crucial underpinning of command. In fact, it was the then Labor opposition that initiated this inquiry in 2003 to hear evidence from ADF personnel and their families about the military justice system. The broader context for this bill is that Australian Defence Force commanders have a duty of care to all people under their command, whether at home in Australia or deployed overseas. The priority is not just about maintaining discipline. Equally important is the welfare of our sailors, soldiers and aviators who serve in the Australian Defence Force. By simplifying the disciplinary processes, the time required to resolve commonly occurring minor breaches of military discipline could be significantly reduced. This would ease the strain on those involved with a disciplinary process. A 2017 review directed by the Chief of the Defence Force found that aspects of the current system were overly complex and difficult to use. The review found, in particular, that summary discipline matters were taking too long to resolve and adversely impacting the people accused of wrongdoing. Delays in resolving breaches of military discipline also adversely affects the morale and, potentially, the safety of other people. This is particularly so in circumstances where the people in our Defence Force live, work and operate closely together. The current adversarial court-like summary disciplinary system has not been serving our defence personnel as best it might. Many senior non-commissioned officers and junior officers are reluctant to use it. There has been a lack of confidence in applying and understanding the complex court-like requirements of the adversarial summary proceedings. As a consequence, use of the summary discipline system has been in constant and consistent decline. The operation of the summary discipline system has proved problematic in recent conflicts and the nature of modern warfare has changed significantly since the act commenced in 1985. Our Defence Force personnel have been deployed in smaller Australian formations, often either as independent units or embedded with our allies, frequently far from administrative support. The complexities of the summary discipline system, particularly given the frequency, nature and length of overseas operations, has often resulted in unacceptable delays in resolving or finalising breaches of military discipline. Given this feedback, Labor acknowledges that the reforms in this bill would build on and are consistent with the Defence values of service, courage, respect, integrity and excellence. But we question why it has taken four years to bring the bill on. The reforms will provide Australian Defence Force commanders and the men and women who serve under their command with a system of discipline that allows for minor breaches of discipline to be dealt with quickly and fairly. We note more serious offending would continue to be dealt with by a superior military tribunal or referred to civilian authorities as appropriate. The bill will reform the discipline system in three ways. Schedule 1 will expand the operation of the highly regarded and effective disciplinary infringement scheme. The changes will allow a greater range of minor breaches of military discipline to be dealt with more quickly and fairly and with less formality within the disciplinary infringement scheme, rather than by the more complex and adversarial service tribunal processes. This bill introduces a new senior discipline officer position, creating a two-tier disciplinary infringement scheme. Labor welcomes additional safeguards included in the bill to ensure the scheme continues to be operated fairly. In particular, this reform to military discipline preserves the right of anyone facing a disciplinary infringement to make an informed decision, whether to choose to have their matter dealt with under the disciplinary infringement scheme and appear before a discipline officer or a senior discipline officer in a non-adversarial process. Schedule 2 would modernise the discipline system structure. It reduces its complexity by removing the subordinate summary authority. It would realign the rank and punishment jurisdiction of summary authorities, ensuring a logical progression in terms of the rank of the accused person, the seriousness of the breach of military discipline, the level of punishment that may be imposed and the seniority of the summary authority. Schedule 3 would further reform the military discipline system by introducing several new service offences. These relate to cyberbullying, receipt of a benefit or allowance and failure to perform a duty or activity. Cyberbullying conduct is corrosive to discipline and can have an extremely adverse effect on the mental wellbeing of its victims. The new cyberbullying service offence would send a very strong message to those in our Defence Force that the use of social media to cyberbully another person is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the ADF. The intention of this new service offence is to enable Defence to protect victims of cyberbullying through early intervention and by putting a stop to the cyberbullying behaviour before it gets out of hand. It would protect the people who choose to serve in our Defence Force. Current safeguards for persons accused of breaching military discipline will remain. Crucially, under the disciplinary infringement scheme, a person must choose to be dealt with by a discipline officer or senior discipline officer. Additional safeguards included in the bill are: the requirement for any reasonable excuse to be considered before issuing a disciplinary infringement notice; the ability of a discipline officer or senior discipline officer to dismiss an infringement if the officer considers the person has a reasonable excuse for committing the infringement; punishments imposed by a senior discipline officer must be reviewed by a commanding officer. On review, a commanding officer will have the power to confirm a punishment decision; substitute a punishment decision with a reduced punishment; or decide that no punishment be imposed, or that the discipline infringement be dismissed with no punishment imposed. On the surface, these proposed changes would appear to have a positive effect on improving the administration of discipline for all those who serve in our Defence Force. However, it was not clear to us whether the changes were strictly necessary and there had been little consultation with legal experts in the wider defence community prior to the introduction of the bill. At the same time, it is important to ensure that we get the balance right between administrative efficiency on the one hand and fairness, the preservation of legal rights and access to justice for ADF members on the other. In particular, the minister had not provided a compelling explanation or any concrete evidence as to how exactly the amendments in the bill would enhance the ADF's operational effectiveness. In addition, Labor was concerned that, under the proposed changes, ADF members would have to choose to be dealt with under the infringement scheme. Further, the adversarial procedures, simplified rules of evidence and Criminal Code Act 1995 provisions that apply to summary authority proceedings will not apply to the new disciplinary infringement scheme. Labor's view was that any changes should not remove rights and should be broadly consistent with what applies at the upper levels of the military justice system and in civilian courts. We do not want to stand in the way of genuine reform. However, we want to ensure that the military justice system competently balances the following twin objectives. First, it must ensure that the ADF's operational needs for effective and efficient discipline are met. Second, it must uphold objective and independent standards of justice that the public has confidence in and that protect the rights of ADF personnel and ensure fair treatment. These are the principles that would guide an Albanese Labor government and we would look to continue the process of reform to ensure military justice is fair and effective. Labor agreed to support the bill in the House but refer it to a Senate inquiry and to reserve our final position in the Senate subject to that. To that end, Labor moved to refer the bill to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for an inquiry to ensure proper scrutiny and stakeholder consultation and to help clarify the consequences of the amendment. The committee introduced a short inquiry on the papers and this provided an opportunity for defence community stakeholders, like the Australian Defence Association, the Defence Force Welfare Association and legal experts, like the ANU Centre for Military Security and Law, to examine and comment on the bill. Submissions to the inquiry were very supportive of the bill. Most stakeholders supported removing the subordinate summary authority and expanding the disciplinary infringement scheme to improve its effectiveness to deal with minor breaches of discipline. This should allow for early intervention and reduce delays thereby improving operational effectiveness. Submitters also broadly endorsed the proposed restructure of summary authorities to realign the jurisdiction of discipline officers and summary authorities in terms of the types of breach, rank of individual and available punishments. Most also agreed with the introduction of new service offences to better manage breaches of discipline in the modern ADF. We note some submissions raised concerns about aspects of the proposed reform of the disciplinary infringement scheme and the new service offences, notably the new cyberbullying offence. However, the committee was satisfied with the need for this offence and the protections available for ADF members dealt with under the offence. The committee reported back on 14 October recommending the bill be passed without amendment. Based on the committee's recommendation, on balance, Labor will now be supporting the bill in the Senate in its current form. We note that some submitters to the inquiry suggested that changes may need to be reviewed down the track to see if they're operating as intended and that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We think that this is a sensible proposal. In addition, as some submitters noted, the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide is likely to examine the role of the military justice system and issues of abuse, mistreatment and bullying in the ADF. So it's possible that further reforms to the military justice system may be required in the near future, based on its findings and recommendations. (Time expired)
Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021; Second Reading | Bills | Senate debates
Thank you, Senator Abetz. He was, of course, when he said those words, referring to the Soviet Union, and look at it today—plus ca change. I'm not saying that democracies are always right....
Thank you, Senator Abetz. He was, of course, when he said those words, referring to the Soviet Union, and look at it today—plus ca change. I'm not saying that democracies are always right. After all, it was from his jail cell in Birmingham, Alabama, that Martin Luther King Jr wrote these words, which should still ring in our ears—and they certainly ring in mine very often. He wrote: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. But it is democracies where there is sunlight and transparency, that have a rule of law, that respect the rights of minorities, that believe in free and fair elections, that believe in the freedom of the press and that believe in human rights. It is they that are the promised land for those who suffer at the mean and ugly hands of authoritarian regimes. Democracies need to grow, not to contract. For those of us in this parliament and around the world who do not hold out an appeasing hand to those who commit human rights abuses, who do not hold out a slippery hand to those who engage in large-scale corruption; for those of us who tell these evil people, 'No, we will not look away while you do wrong,' but rather look them straight in the eye and say, 'We shall make pariahs of you all'; for those of us who choose to fight for the best world we can have; for those of us who will fight for justice and righteousness, we have made the only choice there is to make. I was recently in one of the oldest centres of democracy on this earth, Westminster, for an awards ceremony. I am honoured and humbled that I received an award for outstanding contribution to Magnitsky legislation. An honourable senator: Congratulations. Thank you. I will never forget some of the people I met there and had an opportunity to become better acquainted with in meetings concerning Magnitsky legislation. They included people whose hands have been permanently affected by the poison that agents of the Russian state had administered. Their hands are red and disfigured, the veins distorted. They have had to learn to walk again because they were so badly affected by the poison. They included people who were not able to come at all, because they are imprisoned with no due process or no process at all. They included journalists who have been threatened because they have written about despots and the money trails of their corruption and who are still being threatened years after their books and columns were published. Their publishers have been threatened, through both legal and extrajudicial means, and their families have been threatened. Maybe today is the day that they, or one of their children, put their hand on a doorknob at their home and that doorknob has been coated in poison. That's happened to people. Whether it be the Republic of Conscience, as imagined by Seamus Heaney, which makes clear that we are self-aware beings capable of self-examination, or whether we are guided by the Bible, the Torah, the Koran or the Vedas in the Bhagavad Gita, or whether it is what we see in our daily dealings with other human beings, we learn to distinguish what is right and what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral and, indeed, what is good and what is evil. If we don't call out evil where it lurks, and if we don't fight back when given the opportunity to diminish and defeat evil, then who are we? What are we doing in this place? It is for that reason—the lack of respect for the rights of their fellow human beings—that we observe the phenomenon of those who have gamed the authoritarian system by stealing or by engaging in the most heinous human rights abuses and corruption and then seeking the safety of the free world's jurisdictions. They seek to protect themselves and their ill-gotten gains with the very protections they deny to the victims of their regimes. Our system of land title gives you as close to absolute certainty that no-one can steal your property from you. In the authoritarian world, there is no such safety. If someone with power wants to take, he or she can do just that. There might be the occasional fig leaf of pretend process, but the outcome is the same. That brings us to this bill. This bill is inspired by Sergei Magnitsky, an employee of hedge fund manager Bill Browder. Sergei Magnitsky was murdered by Russian crooks connected to the highest levels of the current Russian regime. He died in a Russian prison after being tortured. He was murdered because he had uncovered what were successful attempts to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from the Russian state. Mr Browder, the employer of Sergei Magnitsky, is a prosperous man, and I spent a quite a lot of time with him in London recently. He could have continued with a quiet and comfortable life, but he was so outraged and saddened that he has dedicated his life to what are now called Magnitsky laws. Prior to the introduction of the bill we are speaking on today, local proposals to do the same have been driven by many in this place. I want to talk about Michael Danby, who was the first person I talked to about Magnitsky legislation, having seen Bill Browder interviewed on 7.30. But I also want to acknowledge Senator Payne and her office, as Senator Rice has said. I want to acknowledge Senator Rice, and I want to acknowledge Senator James Paterson—another Victorian, so maybe Victoria really is where the good people are. I want to acknowledge Mr Hastie, in the other place, the Hon. Kevin Andrews and Mr Chris Hayes. And I want to acknowledge Senator Abetz and Senator Fierravanti-Wells. Although this was done in the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, the Senate standing committee was equally committed to this legislation, so I appreciate the work of my fellow committee members. On 3 December 2019, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Women, Senator the Hon. Marise Payne, asked the Human Rights Subcommittee of the joint standing committee to inquire into the use of targeted sanctions. In that committee, we heard from a number of expert witnesses, both local and international. These included Bill Browder and prominent international lawyers Geoffrey Robertson QC and Amal Clooney, as well as former Canadian Attorney-General Professor Irwin Cotler. I met all of these people in London, and they have been, and remain, very generous with their time. I want to say thank you to them—they were amazing sounding-boards. I'd also like to also acknowledge again the members of the joint standing committee, particularly those on the Human Rights Subcommittee. I think it's also important—and this will be the last point I make—to synchronise our local response, through the passing of this bill, with the responses of like-minded democracies, which is why I'm so pleased Labor will be moving an amendment to put 'Magnitsky' into the title of this bill. In a world of growing authoritarianism, the harmonisation of this type of legislation becomes a weapon for democratic pushback. I'm in regular contact with New Zealand and Japanese legislators, and they hope to enact their own Magnitsky legislation. I think this will be very important for our region. A strong and clear message will be sent to lower-ranking officials and criminal thugs that their crimes, whether on behalf of or protected by their superiors, will not be immune from international consequences. This legislation says to them: 'Your stolen money is no good here. No matter how you steal from your people, there will be no shopping trips to Paris, no harbourfront mansions in Sydney, no skiing in Aspen and no nest egg in a Western bank.' Like King Midas, they will have lots of gold but no way to enjoy it. It will also say: 'You are beneath contempt. You are so loathsome that we have judged you and we will say so in public—we will name you. Australia will not be a fence for stolen goods nor a hollow log for stolen money.' This legislation is important. We are a democracy and as a democracy we should stand with other democracies and other like-minded people around the world and say no to the evil that we also see in our world.
I am pleased today to rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. The world is at a tipping point in the struggle against creeping or, in some places,...
I am pleased today to rise to speak on the Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Thematic Sanctions) Bill 2021. The world is at a tipping point in the struggle against creeping or, in some places, marching, authoritarianism. In Australia, we live with the benefits of a stable and prosperous democracy. Its superiority over any other model of political and economic organisation may seem self-evident, but this is actually not the case for many people in many parts of the world. Democracy and personal liberty cannot be taken for granted anywhere or at any time. They must be defended and, if I may put it this way, they must be defended aggressively in all of our countries. The practical application of human freedom through political participation in democracy as a universal idea is central to our humanity, and so are human rights and the protection of human rights. While these notions had their origins in Europe and North America, they are not Western in essence. They are universal, and just as applicable in the developing world as they are in the developed world. As the United States Declaration of Independence expresses it: WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness— … And the Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen de 1789 contains a very similar principle Art. 1er. Les hommes naissent et demeurent libres et egaux en droits. Les distinctions sociales ne peuvent etre fondees que sur l'utilite commune. We must remind ourselves that these are quite radical ideals. Throughout history they have not been the norm. For evidence of how fragile democracy is, we need only look at certain parts of the world where, in recent years, we have seen a slide back to authoritarian governments. In that context, the fault lines are there for all of us to see. Many of the great democracies, the 'free world', if you like—and I'm sorry that that has become a controversial expression, but it's the free world of which I'm very proud—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, India, Japan, New Zealand and, of course, our great alliance partner the United States of America, respect human rights, the rule of law, the protection of private property rights and the right to speak out about political issues without fear of a knock on the door at midnight. Just imagine what that's like to live with—someone coming to knock on your door to take you away. Of course, democracies don't always do this perfectly. The Declaration of Independence, which I quoted earlier, has not always guaranteed that the United States is free from error or the oppression and dispossession of its own citizens. And yet its ideals have lit the way to freedom. One only has to look at the T-shirts of those marching for freedom recently in Cuba or Hong Kong; those T-shirts were adorned with the American flag, the Stars and Stripes. However, no less a figure than Dr Martin Luther King Jr invoked that very phrase, 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal,' in the struggle for civil rights that led his nation to a more perfect union. And therein lies the genius of democracy: our willingness to accept imperfection, to own up to our mistakes, and then to use them as an example of how to be better and how to do better. The authoritarian world—I won't name individual countries—does not respect anything other than the maintenance and projection of power. It has ever been thus. Without the protections and due processes of democracy, even the most prosperous businesspeople can lose everything overnight, and we've seen this quite recently in a country in our region. The most innocent citizen can be jailed without cause. The most seemingly powerful official can be sent straight to jail, after a show trial, if she or he falls foul of their authoritarian ruler. In the authoritarian world, the average citizen lives looking over their shoulder, watched by facial recognition cameras, judged by a police state, randomly punished in the most brutal prisons imaginable, all while these abuses are aided, abetted and covered up by a controlled media. As democratic senator for New York Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said: 'If the newspapers of a country are filled with good news, the jails of that country will be filled with good people.' It is not wrong to say that one side, for all of our faults—which are many—is good and to say, equally, that to deny basic human rights and due process to any person is evil. 'Evil' is a word that some are uncomfortable with in our modern age. It is a word without which we cannot do, and I am idealistic enough to believe that you support good and you oppose evil, even if it costs you, even if it hurts you. History will judge us for this. Future generations will judge us for this. In this modern age, there are regimes run by the dregs of humanity, who, because they are so inhumane, torture and jail and murder their own citizens, and break their spirits; delight in causing fear; take away hope and humanity; place their citizens in concentration camps; steal from their compatriots; and enforce slavery and arbitrary detention. If you understand the beauty that it is to be a human being, of being alive and vital; if you believe in the dignity of human beings, then you can't really allow such evil to go unchallenged. And, if you do believe in the beauty of human life, then, for every person who lives under such regimes and cannot stand in the light but is shoved into the dark, you understand why Magnitsky legislation is necessary and you also understand why democracies must be supreme. President Kennedy said in his inaugural address that 'the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God'.
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment (Economic Empowerment) Bill 2021; In Committee | Bills | Senate debates
Labor supports this amendment, which would require the minister to request progress reports on the NTAI Corporation's strategic investment plan. We note that this was a recommendation of the...
Labor supports this amendment, which would require the minister to request progress reports on the NTAI Corporation's strategic investment plan. We note that this was a recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. It is appropriate and consistent with principles of transparency that progress reports should be open to parliamentary scrutiny. There are various options available to the minister to allow for the removal or confidentiality of any genuinely sensitive material.
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. The bill already provides for the new corporation to have an Aboriginal controlled board and an appropriately timed statutory review. The new...
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. The bill already provides for the new corporation to have an Aboriginal controlled board and an appropriately timed statutory review. The new corporation should be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate success from its strategic investments. A review in just three years time would not provide adequate time and risks setting the new corporation up to fail, thus undermining rather than supporting increased Aboriginal control over the funds of the ABA. There will be opportunities to scrutinise the corporation's strategic investment plan and progress reports, which Labor supports being tabled in parliament. We intend to make full use of these opportunities to ensure that the corporation is operating appropriately. The CHAIR: We are dealing with amendments (1) to (7) on sheet 1449, revised, and moved by leave by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. Question negatived.
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the bill has been designed to transfer responsibility for making beneficial payments under the land rights...
Labor will not be supporting these amendments. As stated in the explanatory memorandum, the bill has been designed to transfer responsibility for making beneficial payments under the land rights act from the minister to the NTAI Corporation. Conferring an advisory role on the NTAI Corporation could potentially undermine this intention and give rise to confusion about its function. The CHAIR (18:54): The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1454, as moved by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to. Question negatived.