DOCSLIB.ORG

Economics Legislation Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee Provisions of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 March 2004 © Commonwealth of Australia 2004 ISBN 0 642 71378 2 Printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. SENATE ECONOMICS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE CORE MEMBERS Senator George Brandis, Chair (Queensland, LP) Senator Ursula Stephens, Deputy Chair (New South Wales, CL) Senator Grant Chapman (South Australia, LP) Senator Andrew Murray (Western Australia, AD) Senator John Watson (Tasmania, LP) Senator Ruth Webber (Western Australia, ALP) SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS Senator Allison to replace Senator Murray for matters relating to the Resources portfolio Senator O'Brien to replace Senator Webber for matters relating to tourism Senator Ridgeway to replace Senator Murray for the committee’s consideration of the provisions of the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Professional Standards) Bill 2003 Senator Stott Despoja to replace Senator Murray for the committee's consideration of the provisions of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 PARTICIPATING MEMBERS Senator the Hon Eric Abetz (Tasmania, LP) Senator the Hon Ronald Boswell (Queensland, NPA) Senator Bob Brown (Tasmania, AG) Senator Geoffrey Buckland (South Australia, ALP) Senator George Campbell (New South Wales, ALP) Senator Kim Carr (Victoria, ALP) Senator John Cherry (Queensland, AD) Senator Stephen Conroy (Victoria, ALP) Senator the Hon Peter Cook (Western Australia, ALP) Senator the Hon Helen Coonan (New South Wales, LP) Senator Alan Eggleston (Western Australia, LP) Senator Christopher Evans (Western Australia, ALP) Senator the Hon John Faulkner (New South Wales, ALP) Senator Alan Ferguson (South Australia, LP) Senator Jeannie Ferris (South Australia, LP) Senator Michael Forshaw (New South Wales, ALP) Senator Brian Harradine (Tasmania, Ind) Senator Leonard Harris (Queensland, PHON) Senator Linda Kirk (South Australia, ALP) Senator Susan Knowles (Western Australia, LP) Senator Meg Lees (South Australia, Ind) Senator Ross Lightfoot (Western Australia, LP) Senator Joseph Ludwig (Queensland, ALP) Senator Kate Lundy (Australian Capital Territory, ALP) iii PARTICIPATING MEMBERS (Continued) Senator Sue Mackay (Tasmania, ALP) Senator Gavin Marshall (Victoria, ALP) Senator Brett Mason (Queensland, LP) Senator Julian McGauran (Victoria, NPA) Senator Shayne Murphy (Tasmania, Ind) Senator Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, ALP) Senator Marise Payne (New South Wales, LP) Senator Aden Ridgeway (New South Wales, AD) Senator the Hon Nick Sherry (Tasmania, ALP) Senator Natasha Stott Despoja (South Australia, AD) Senator Tsebin Tchen (Victoria, LP) Senator John Tierney (New South Wales, LP) Senator Penny Wong (South Australia, ALP) SECRETARIAT Dr Sarah Bachelard, Secretary Dr Anthony Marinac, Principal Research Officer Ms Stephanie Holden, Senior Research Officer Mr Matthew Lemm, Research Officer Ms Barbara Rogers, Executive Assistant Suite SG.64 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Ph: 02 6277 3540 Fax: 02 6277 5719 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/index.htm iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Membership of Committee iii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Purpose of the bills 1 Reference of the bills 2 Submissions 2 Hearings and evidence 2 Acknowledgment 2 CHAPTER 2 THE BILL 3 Background to the bills 3 Principles underlying the Greater Sunrise bill 4 Changes made by the bills 4 CHAPTER 3 EVIDENCE TO THE INQUIRY 7 Question of good faith 7 Trust or escrow 9 Customs amendment 10 Conclusion 11 Recommendation 11 DISSENTNG REPORT – AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATS 13 DISSENTING REPORT – AUSTRALIAN GREENS 19 APPENDIX 1 SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED 21 APPENDIX 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND WITNESSES 23 v vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background 1.1 The Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 were introduced into the House of Representatives on 10 March 2004 by the Hon Ian Macfarlane MP, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. On the same day, the bills were introduced into the Senate by Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for Local Government, Territories and Roads. Purpose of the bills 1.2 The Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004, together with the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004, puts in place the framework necessary to give effect to the Agreement between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste relating to the unitisation of the Sunrise and Troubadour (Greater Sunrise) petroleum fields.1 1.3 The Agreement, signed in Dili on 6 March 2003, governs the unitisation of the Greater Sunrise petroleum resource. Where a petroleum resource, whether comprised of one or more pools, straddles a boundary between administrative systems, sound resource management often requires the resource to be developed as a single unit. This is known as the unitisation of a petroleum resource. Without unitisation, production from one part of the resource could adversely affect the resource as a whole or the interests of those with an interest in the resource on the other side of the boundary.2 1.4 The Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 puts into place the administrative arrangements for the unit development of the Greater Sunrise petroleum resource.3 The Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 gives effect to Article 22 of the Agreement, which provides for the duty-free entry into the Greater Sunrise unitisation area of all goods and equipment required for petroleum activities.4 1 Explanatory Memorandum, Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill [Greater Sunrise Bill] 2004, p.1. In the report, the names Timor-Leste and East Timor are used interchangeably. 2 Explanatory Memorandum, Greater Sunrise Bill, p.1. 3 Second Reading Speech, Greater Sunrise Bill, p.1. 4 Second Reading Speech, Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004, p.1. Page 2 Reference of the bills 1.5 On 10 March 2004, the Senate adopted the Selection of Bills Committee Report No.4 of 2004 and referred the provisions of the bills to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for consideration and report by 23 March 2004. Submissions 1.6 The Committee advertised its inquiry into the provisions of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 on the internet. In addition the Committee contacted a number of organisations alerting them to the inquiry. A list of submissions received appears at Appendix 1. Hearings and evidence 1.7 The Committee held one public hearing at Parliament House, Canberra, on Monday, 22 March 2004. 1.8 Witnesses who appeared before the Committee at that hearing are listed in Appendix 2. 1.9 Copies of the Hansard transcript are tabled for the information of the Senate. They are also available through the internet at http://aph.gov.au/hansard. Acknowledgment 1.10 The Committee wishes to thank all those who assisted with its inquiry. CHAPTER 2 THE BILL Background to the bills 2.1 The Greater Sunrise petroleum resource comprises the Sunrise and Troubadour deposits and lies in the Timor Sea, approximately 500 kilometres north-west of Darwin.1 2.2 The field straddles the border of the Joint Petroleum Development Area, which is the area of shared jurisdiction between Australia and East Timor established by the Timor Sea Treaty, and an area of sole Australian jurisdiction located within the Northern Territory adjacent area.2 The former area is labelled in the bill as the Western Greater Sunrise area, the latter as the Eastern Greater Sunrise area. 2.3 In June 2003, Mr John Hartwell, Head, Resources Division, Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources, described the resource to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as 'a world-class petroleum resource containing an estimated 8.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 295 million barrels of condensate. It is estimated that 20.1 per cent of these resources lie within the JPDA – the Joint Petroleum Development Area – and 79.9 per cent outside it'.3 2.4 On 6 March 2003, Australia and East Timor agreed to the unitisation of the Greater Sunrise petroleum resource.4 Under the unitisation agreement, East Timor's share of the Greater Sunrise field is calculated by reference to the agreed formula that applies to the sharing of the JPDA, where East Timor has title to 90% of the petroleum resource. This means that East Timor receives 90% of the 20.1% of the Greater Sunrise field that lies within the Joint Petroleum Development Area. Australia's share is the 10% remainder of the 20.1% from the JPDA, and the 79.9% of the Greater Sunrise field outside the JPDA. 'Allowing for the calculations involved, Australia's actual share of the Greater Sunrise gas field is some 82%'.5 2.5 The Financial Impact Statement in the Explanatory Memorandum to the bill states that the development of the Greater Sunrise resource is expected to yield $8.5 billion in revenue to Australia over the life of the project. 1 Transcript of Evidence, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 23 June 2003, Hartwell, p.72. 2 Explanatory Memorandum, Greater Sunrise Bill, p.1. 3 Transcript of Evidence, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, 23 June 2003, Hartwell, p.72. 4 Explanatory Memorandum, Greater Sunrise Bill, p.1. 5 Draft Bills Digest, Greater Sunrise Unitisation
Recommended publications
  • Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission

    Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission

    Submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee into The Needs of Urban* Dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples By the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission October 2000 * Population centres of more than 1000 people and includes peoples living in or near country towns of this size. Contents Executive Summary 3 Involvement in Decision Making 11 Maintenance of Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights 20 Education, Training, Employment & Opportunities for 26 Economic Independence Indigenous Health Needs 40 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Youth 52 Mainland Torres Strait Islander Issues 69 The Role of Other Agencies & Spheres of Government 75 ATSIC Programs & Services 110 Statistical Overview 189 Acronyms & Abbreviations 204 References & Bibliography 207 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The role of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission was established in 1990 to be the main Commonwealth agency in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. Our Act gives us a variety of functions including the responsibility to: • develop policy proposals to meet national, State, Territory and regional needs and priorities, • advise the Minister on legislation, and coordination of activities of other Commonwealth bodies, • protect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural material and information, and • formulate and implement programs. In exercising these responsibilities ATSIC has given Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders a stronger political voice. On the one hand, the most prominent Indigenous agency, ATSIC is often blamed for the fact that our people remain gravely disadvantaged. On the other hand it is not widely understood that ATSIC’s budget is meant to supplement the funding provided by the Government to other Commonwealth, State, Territory and Local Government agencies.
  • The Australian Democrats Andrew Bartlett*

    The Australian Democrats Andrew Bartlett*

    Australian Cultural History Vol. 27, No.2, October 2009, 187-193 The Australian Democrats Andrew Bartlett* The Australian Democrats had maintained a presence in the Senate since 1977, but the 2007 election threatened to end their representation for good. Their efforts to retain seats proved to be in vain. Keywords: 2007 election; Australian Democrats; Senate Following on from the 2004 election, where the Australian Democrats lost four seats (including the Democrat seat Meg Lees had taken with her when she resigned from the party in 2002), plus official parliamentary status and balance of power in the Senate, the Party faced a very difficult task in the 2007 election trying to keep its four remaining Senate seats. Right throughout John Howard's fourth term, opinion polls showed public support for the Democrats consistently scraping along rock bottom levels of 1 or 2 per cent, as they had ever since the Lees resignation and the related public implosion of Natasha Stott Despoja's leadership in 2002. Even though the removal of the Democrats from the balance of power after the 2004 poll led directly to the Coalition government gaining control of the Senate, where it frequently used its majority to stifle scrutiny and bulldoze through some controversial legislation, the Democrats were unable to use this situation to build public support for returning the Party to its traditional Senate watchdog position. The Party had avoided going into debt in its 2004 campaign, so there were sufficient funds to run a basic campaign in priority areas for the 2007 election. However, serious use of paid advertising was not feasible.
  • 1 Heat Treatment This Is a List of Greenhouse Gas Emitting

    1 Heat Treatment This Is a List of Greenhouse Gas Emitting

    Heat treatment This is a list of greenhouse gas emitting companies and peak industry bodies and the firms they employ to lobby government. It is based on data from the federal and state lobbying registers.* Client Industry Lobby Company AGL Energy Oil and Gas Enhance Corporate Lobbyists registered with Enhance Lobbyist Background Limited Pty Ltd Corporate Pty Ltd* James (Jim) Peter Elder Former Labor Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development and Trade (Queensland) Kirsten Wishart - Michael Todd Former adviser to Queensland Premier Peter Beattie Mike Smith Policy adviser to the Queensland Minister for Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, LHMU industrial officer, state secretary to the NT Labor party. Nicholas James Park Former staffer to Federal Coalition MPs and Senators in the portfolios of: Energy and Resources, Land and Property Development, IT and Telecommunications, Gaming and Tourism. Samuel Sydney Doumany Former Queensland Liberal Attorney General and Minister for Justice Terence John Kempnich Former political adviser in the Queensland Labor and ACT Governments AGL Energy Oil and Gas Government Relations Lobbyists registered with Government Lobbyist Background Limited Australia advisory Pty Relations Australia advisory Pty Ltd* Ltd Damian Francis O’Connor Former assistant General Secretary within the NSW Australian Labor Party Elizabeth Waterland Ian Armstrong - Jacqueline Pace - * All lobbyists registered with individual firms do not necessarily work for all of that firm’s clients. Lobby lists are updated regularly. This
  • Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Seventeen

    Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Seventeen

    Upholding the Australian Constitution Volume Seventeen Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference of The Samuel Griffith Society Greenmount Beach Resort, Hill Street, Coolangatta © Copyright 2005 by The Samuel Griffith Society. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Foreword John Stone Dinner Address Hon Chief Justice Paul de Jersey, AC Evolution of the Judicial Function: Undesirable Blurring? Introductory Remarks John Stone Chapter One Kevin Lindeberg The Heiner Affair Chapter Two Professor Suri Ratnapala Constitutional Vandalism under Green Cover Chapter Three Bruce Grundy The Missing Constitutional Ingredient: An Upper House Chapter Four John Nethercote Senate Vacancies: Casual or Contrived? Chapter Five Sir David Smith, KCVO, AO The Governor-General is our Head of State Chapter Six Professor Andrew Fraser Monarchs and Miracles Chapter Seven Dr John Forbes Native Title Today Chapter Eight Bob Bottom, OAM Frauding the Vote in Queensland i Chapter Nine Bryan Pape The Use and Abuse of the Commonwealth Finance Power Chapter Ten Dr Dominic Katter Australia’s International Legal Obligations: Maritime Zones and Christmas Island Chapter Eleven Professor Gregory Rose The United Nations as a Source of International Legal Authority Appendix I John Stone Tribute to the late Sir Harry Gibbs Appendix II Rt Hon Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE Australia Day Messages, 2001-2005 Appendix III Contributors ii Foreword John Stone Important though the periodic Conferences of The Samuel Griffith Society are, the Proceedings of our 17th Conference, held at Coolangatta on 8-10 April last, which are recorded in this volume of our series Upholding the Australian Constitution, pale into insignificance compared with the subsequent death of our President, the Right Honourable Sir Harry Gibbs, GCMG, AC, KBE.
  • Report to the Senate

    Report to the Senate

    SENATE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE Consideration of Legislation Referred to the Committee HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION (REFORM AND SEPARATION OF FUNCTIONS) BILL 1997 SEPTEMBER 1997 © Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia 1997 ISSN 1038-2755 Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Secretariat Mr Elton Humphery Secretary The Senate Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: 02 6277 3515 Fax: 02 6277 5829 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate This document was produced from camera-ready copy prepared by the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Secretariat and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra MEMBERSHIP OF THE COMMITTEE Members Senator Sue Knowles, Chairman LP, Western Australia Senator Meg Lees, Deputy Chair AD, South Australia Senator Kay Denman ALP, Tasmania Senator Alan Eggleston LP, Western Australia Senator Michael Forshaw ALP, New South Wales Senator Karen Synon LP, Victoria Participating Members Senator Eric Abetz LP, Tasmania Senator Bob Brown Greens, Tasmania Senator the Hon Bob Collins ALP, Northern Territory Senator Mal Colston Ind, Queensland Senator Barney Cooney ALP, Victoria Senator the Hon Rosemary Crowley ALP, South Australia Senator Chris Evans ALP, Western Australia Senator the Hon John Faulkner ALP, New South Wales Senator Brenda Gibbs ALP, Queensland Senator Brian Harradine Ind, Tasmania Senator Sue Mackay ALP, Tasmania Senator Dee Margetts GWA, Western Australia Senator Shayne Murphy ALP, Tasmania Senator
  • Capital Punishment and Australian Foreign Policy

    Capital Punishment and Australian Foreign Policy

    POLICY BRIEF August 2006 DR MICHAEL FULLILOVE Capital Punishment and Program Director Global Issues Australian Foreign Policy Tel: +61 2 8238 9040 [email protected] W h a t i s t h e p r o b l e m ? Australia is an abolitionist country. Both the Australian Government and the Opposition are opposed to capital punishment. Australia engages in modest advocacy against the death penalty but most of Canberra’s efforts are directed toward cases involving Australian citizens. These are likely to continue to occur: our closest Asian neighbours retain the death penalty, and Australian nationals will probably continue to commit criminal acts carrying this penalty. Situations involving Australians often do violence to bilateral relations. For example, the looming execution of Van Tuong Nguyen last year led to calls from Australian commentators for trade and business sanctions against Singapore, and charges of hypocrisy being levelled against Australia in the regional press. The problem, then, is twofold: Australian diplomacy is making little progress toward universal abolition, a bipartisan national policy; and our bilateral relationships are being damaged because of our perceived hypocrisy on the issue. W h a t s h o u l d b e d o n e ? Australia is an effective advocate for our nationals on death row. However, we should accelerate our efforts on comprehensive abolition, in two ways: • Australian political leaders should bring some consistency to their rhetoric on the death penalty; and • Australia should initiate a regional coalition against capital punishment. In the past decade five Asian states have done away with the death penalty.
  • Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department

    Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department

    Australia: Professor Marian Simms Head, Political Studies Department University of Otago Paper prepared for presentation at the joint ANU/UBA ‘John Fogarty Seminar’, Buenos Aires, Argentina 26-27 April 2007 Please note this paper is a draft version and is not for citation at this stage 1 Overview: Australian has been characterized variously as ‘The Lucky Country’ (Donald Horne), ‘A Small Rich Industrial Country’ (Heinz Arndt), and as suffering from ‘The Tyranny of Distance’ (Geoffrey Blainey). These distinguished authors have all mentioned negatives alongside positives; for example, political commentator Donald Horne’s famous comment was meant to be ironic – Australia’s affluence, and hence stability, were founded on good luck via rich mineral resources. For Blainey, the historian, geography mattered, both in terms of the vast distances from Europe and in terms of the vast size of the country.1 For economic historian Arndt, size was a double-edged sword – Australia had done well in spite of its small population. Those commentatories were all published in the 1970s. Since then much has happened globally, namely the stock market crash of the eighties, the collapse of communism in the late eighties and early nineties, the emergence of the Asian tigers in the nineties, and the attack on New York’s twin towers in 2001. All were profound events. It is the argument of this paper that in spite of these and other challenges, Australia’s institutional fabric has incorporated economic, social and political change. This is not to say that it has solved all of its social and economic problems, especially those dealing with minority groups such as the indigenous community, disaffected youth and some immigrant groups.
  • Inquiry Into Government Advertising and Accountability with Amendments to Term of Reference (A)

    Inquiry Into Government Advertising and Accountability with Amendments to Term of Reference (A)

    The Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee Government advertising and accountability December 2005 © Commonwealth of Australia 2005 ISBN 0 642 71593 9 This document is prepared by the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. Members of the Committee Senator Michael Forshaw (Chair) ALP, NSW Senator John Watson (Deputy Chair) LP, TAS Senator Carol Brown ALP, TAS Senator Mitch Fifield LP, NSW Senator Claire Moore ALP, QLD Senator Andrew Murray AD, WA Substitute member for this inquiry Senator Kim Carr ALP, VIC (replaced Senator Claire Moore from 22 June 2005) Former substitute member for this inquiry Senator Andrew Murray AD, WA (replaced Senator Aden Ridgeway 30 November 2004 to 30 June 2005) Former members Senator George Campbell (discharged 1 July 2005) Senator the Hon William Heffernan (discharged 1 July 2005) Senator Aden Ridgeway (until 30 June 2005) Senator Ursula Stephens (1 July to 13 September 2005) Participating members Senators Abetz, Bartlett, Bishop, Boswell, Brandis, Bob Brown, Carr, Chapman, Colbeck, Conroy, Coonan, Crossin, Eggleston, Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson, Ferris, Fielding, Fierravanti-Wells, Joyce, Ludwig, Lundy, Sandy Macdonald, Mason, McGauran, McLucas, Milne, Moore, O'Brien, Parry, Payne, Ray, Sherry, Siewert, Stephens, Trood and Webber. Secretariat Alistair Sands Committee Secretary Sarah Bachelard Principal Research Officer Matt Keele Research Officer Alex Hodgson Executive Assistant Committee address Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee SG.60 Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Tel: 02 6277 3530 Fax: 02 6277 5809 Email: [email protected] Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate_fpa iii iv Terms of Reference On 18 November 2004, the Senate referred the following matter to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2005.
  • Sir Walter Murdoch Memorial Lecture (1999)

    Sir Walter Murdoch Memorial Lecture (1999)

    Sir Walter Murdoch Memorial Lecture (1999) Millennium Dreaming: Indigenous Peoples in Australia in the era of Reconciliation Lecture delivered by: Senator Aden Ridgeway, 17 November 1999 This is the University’s premier Lecture, inaugurated in 1974, to mark the centenary of the birth of Sir Walter Murdoch, after whom the University was named. Sir Walter was the foundation Professor of English at the University of Western Australia from 1913 to 1939, and a prolific journalist whose newspaper columns were known for their shrewdness, for their clarity of thought and writing, and their propensity to deflate pomposity and humbug. He was a man who eschewed cant, a man of immense principle, and I think he would have been proud of tonight’s speaker. In the past few months, Senator Aden Ridgeway’s name has become one of the best–known in the nation. It has been said to me that he had burst onto the national political scene like a comet. But he won’t be ephemeral like a comet. There is too much substance, too much determination and commitment for him to fade away. It is given to very few Parliamentarians to play a pivotal role in a matter as weighty as reconciliation within weeks of being entering the Parliament, and to even fewer to achieve this from the upper house as a member of a minority party. But the style and strength of purpose which Senator Ridgeway displayed in persuading the Prime Minister to a point which few thought could be reached, speaks clearly for his ability and bodes well for his longevity in politics.
  • Truth Telling Symposium Report

    Truth Telling Symposium Report

    TRUTH TELLING SYMPOSIUM REPORT 5-6 OCTOBER 2018 After a shared understanding of our history, Australia looks more harmonious. It looks more cohesive. There is more love between people. There is less hatred and racism. It looks safe for our young people. It looks encouraging for our young people and the future looks bright. Karlie Stewart, The Healing Foundation Youth Advisory Group Contents Acknowledgements 3 Executive Summary 4 Background 6 Symposium launch dinner: Recognising place and restorying 8 Opening the Truth Telling Symposium 11 Session 1: The truth of the matter 12 The importance of truth telling at a national level 12 Truth telling, social justice, and reconciliation 13 Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission 14 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 16 Facilitated discussion: Why is truth telling important? 18 Understanding our complete national narrative 18 Not repeating the wrongs of the past 18 Restorying, being heard, healing, and changing 18 Taking ownership 19 Facilitated discussion: What truths need to be told? 19 Session 2: Reclaiming, remembering, and knowing 20 Reclaiming – repatriation 20 Remembering – looking to local leadership and advocacy on truth telling 21 Facilitated discussion: What are the important truth telling activities? 21 Session 3: Truth telling and healing 22 Facilitated discussion: What principles should guide truth telling in Australia? 23 Closing statement 24 Appendix A – Symposium Launch and Dinner program 25 Appendix B – Truth Telling Symposium program 27 Appendix C – Truth Telling Symposium Launch and Dinner attendees and Truth Telling Symposium participants 31 2 Acknowledgements The Healing Foundation and Reconciliation Australia acknowledge and pay respect to the past, present and future Traditional Custodians and Elders of this nation and the continuation of cultural, spiritual and educational practices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
  • Report of the Senate Environment, Communications

    Report of the Senate Environment, Communications

    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation Report of the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee May 2001 ii © Commonwealth of Australia 2001 ISBN 0 642 71126 7 This document is produced from camera-ready copy prepared by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee Secretariat, and printed by the Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. iii TERMS OF REFERENCE On 8 December 1999 the Senate referred the following matters to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry (to commence not before 31 March 2000) and report by 31 October 2000 (subsequently extended to 4 May 2001): (a) an examination of the allocation of funding from the Commonwealth’s $4.5 million fund for electro-magnetic radiation research and public information; (b) a review of current Australian and international research into electro-magnetic radiation and its effects as it applies to telecommunications equipment, including but not limited to, mobile telephones; (c) an examination of the current Australian Interim Standard [AS/NZS 2772.1 (Int): 1998], as it applies to telecommunications; (d) an examination of efforts to set an Australian Standard dealing with electro- magnetic emissions; (e) an examination of the merits of the transfer of the responsibility for setting a new Australian standard for electro-magnetic emissions to the Australian Radiation Protection
  • Dedicated Indigenous Representation in the Australian Parliament

    Dedicated Indigenous Representation in the Australian Parliament

    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services Parliamentary Library Information, analysis and advice for the Parliament RESEARCH PAPER www.aph.gov.au/library 18 March 2009, no. 23, 2008–09, ISSN 1834-9854 Dedicated Indigenous representation in the Australian Parliament Brian Lloyd Politics and Public Administration Section Executive summary There are comparatively high levels of Indigenous representation in Australian state and territory parliaments, but none in the current federal parliament. The proposed National Indigenous Representative Body is unlikely to change this situation. A possible response is to consider dedicated Indigenous representation in Parliament. This has been a feature of the New Zealand parliament for close to 150 years, but in Australia it has remained a matter for discussion. This paper: • describes current levels of Indigenous parliamentary representation in Australia • compares levels of parliamentary representation for Indigenous people in Australia with those of Maori representation in New Zealand • details arrangements that have increased levels of Maori representation in New Zealand, including dedicated seats • canvasses arguments for and against dedicated seats • identifies obstacles to the creation of dedicated seats in Australia, and • considers future possibilities for Indigenous parliamentary representation in Australia. Proposals for dedicated seats in Australia are subject to both compelling arguments and considerable obstacles. The experience in New Zealand shows that dedicated seats do more than equalise the ‗amount‘ of parliamentary representation. Rather, they are a concrete expression of a formal relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous constituencies. In Australia, where such a relationship is yet to be defined, dedicated seats could play a key role in the development of such a relationship.