DOCSLIB.ORG

Provisions of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Provisions of the Greater Sunrise Unitisation Agreement Implementation Bill 2004 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Greater Sunrise) Bill 2004 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
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Natasha Stott Despoja AO
    Natasha Stott Despoja AO Politician, Diplomat, Advocate & Keynote Speaker Natasha Stott Despoja is an Australian politician, diplomat, advocate and author who has had an extraordinary influence on the education and role of women in Australia and worldwide. The youngest woman to sit in the Parliament of Australia and the longest serving Australian Democrats Senator, since leaving politics she has thrown her support behind several not for profit organisations that work to support people who are disadvantaged or at risk. Natasha is the founding Chair of Our Watch (the Foundation to Prevent Violence Against Women and their Children) and she was Australia’s Global Ambassador for Women and Girls (2013-2016), responsible for the promotion of women’s economic empowerment, women’s leadership and the reduction of violence against women and girls. In May 2018, she was named one of the Top 100 Global Influencers on Gender Policy. In 2019, she was made an Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of her international work. Natasha is a keynote speaker who draws on her diverse experiences to deliver presentations with passion, conviction that provide insights into issues facing contemporary society. More about Natasha Stott Despoja: Natasha graduated with a BA from the University of Adelaide in 1991. She was involved in student representation at school (founding the State’s first State-wide student representative council) and at University. Natasha was President of the University of Adelaide Students’ Association in 1991. She has worked as an adviser for Democrat Senators including for Leaders, Senators John Coulter and Cheryl Kernot. Celebrity Speakers Australia Inspirational speakers, Telephone +61 2 9251 1333 ABN 36 884 606 155 History entertainers and hosts for your [email protected] House, 133 Macquarie St conference or event.
    [Show full text]
  • The Australian Ballet Welcomes South Australian Board Members
    For immediate release: Friday 20 December 2019 The Australian Ballet welcomes South Australian board members The chair of The Australian Ballet’s board, Craig Dunn, girl and attending The Australian Ballet’s performances today announced the appointment of Natasha Stott from a young age, I have always found beauty, Despoja AO to the company’s board of directors, inspiration and escape in ballet. It is an honour to join replacing long-serving South Australian Director John this board and be part of such an esteemed arts Ellice-Flint, who retires from the board in February organisation that I admire so much.” 2020. Dunn also announced the appointment of well- known South Australian Jane McLachlan to the Natasha Stott Despoja is the founding chair of Our Australian Ballet Foundation Board. Watch (the Foundation to Prevent Violence Against Women and their Children) and was Australia’s Global Thanking John Ellice-Flint for his ten years of service Ambassador for Women and Girls (2013 – 2016). She as a director, Dunn commented, “John has been a is a former Senator for South Australia (1995 – 2008) passionate supporter of The Australian Ballet and its and a former leader of the Australian Democrats. She dancers over many years and provided his expertise is an Honorary Visiting Research Fellow of The as well as an important connection to the South University of Adelaide, a member of the Australian Australian Government and that state’s ballet-loving National University Council, a member of Board audience. As well as serving as a board director, John Agenda 50:50 by 2030 Advisory Group and a member brought his financial skills to our Audit and Risk and of the FIFA 2023 Women’s World Cup Steering Investment Committees over many years.
    [Show full text]
  • PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of Political Party Regulation in Australia
    PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia PARTY RULES? Dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia Edited by Anika Gauja and Marian Sawer Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Title: Party rules? : dilemmas of political party regulation in Australia / editors: Anika Gauja, Marian Sawer. ISBN: 9781760460761 (paperback) 9781760460778 (ebook) Subjects: Political parties--Australia. Political parties--Law and legislation--Australia. Political participation--Australia. Australia--Politics and government. Other Creators/Contributors: Gauja, Anika, editor. Sawer, Marian, 1946- editor. Dewey Number: 324.2994 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press. This edition © 2016 ANU Press Contents Figures . vii Tables . ix Abbreviations . xi Acknowledgements . xiii Contributors . xv 1 . Party rules: Promises and pitfalls . 1 Marian Sawer and Anika Gauja 2 . Resisting legal recognition and regulation: Australian parties as rational actors? . 37 Sarah John 3 . Party registration and political participation: Regulating small and ‘micro’ parties . .73 Norm Kelly 4 . Who gets what, when and how: The politics of resource allocation to parliamentary parties . 101 Yvonne Murphy 5 . Putting the cartel before the house? Public funding of parties in Queensland . 123 Graeme Orr 6 . More regulated, more level? Assessing the impact of spending and donation caps on Australian State elections .
    [Show full text]
  • Representation of Women in Australian Parliaments
    Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services BACKGROUND NOTE 7 March 2012 Representation of women in Australian parliaments Dr Joy McCann and Janet Wilson Politics and Public Administration Section Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 How does Australia rate? ......................................................................................................................... 2 Parliamentarians ................................................................................................................................. 2 Parliamentary leaders and presiding officers ..................................................................................... 3 Ministers and parliamentary secretaries ............................................................................................ 4 Women chairing parliamentary committees ...................................................................................... 6 Women candidates in Commonwealth elections ............................................................................... 7 Historical overview................................................................................................................................. 10 First women in parliament ................................................................................................................ 10 Commonwealth ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adelaidean April 2008
    FREE Publication April 2008 | Volume 17 | Number 2 inside this issue 4 $1 million scholarships attract best students 9 Unlocking Anzac spirit needs to be nurtured deadly mysteries 13 Drug program targets of the mind Vietnam HIV epidemic 17 Neuroscience “These new areas of research For the fi rst time, the Centre for are exciting for staff and students Neurological Diseases will begin From pioneer to in the Centre for Neurological studies of brain tumours focusing page-turner: Dame New research at the University of Roma’s life in print Diseases – even more so when you on two specifi c research questions. Adelaide will delve into some of the consider that the Neurosurgical “The fi rst is concerned with the crucial issues surrounding death by Research Foundation (NRF) is this swelling, or oedema, caused in brain tumours and stroke. year celebrating 45 years of funding neural tissue by tumours, which The research, to be conducted in lifesaving research,” he said. is the main determinant of patient the joint University/IMVS Centre for “To be able to add two new areas outcome,” Professor Vink said. Neurological Diseases, will aim to of research is great news for our “We know that the cerebral blood fi nd links between chemical signals work, and it promises even better vessels in the vicinity of the tumour in the brain and the reasons news for people’s health in the become ‘leaky’, and this is what why brain tumours or strokes future.” underlies the development of the become fatal. swelling. However, the mechanism “There are still many mysteries Brain tumour research that causes this change in vascular around how the brain works, and Brain tumours account for permeability is unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the Senate in Improving Legislation and Government Performance
    A Case for the Upper House: The Role of the Senate in Improving Legislation and Government Performance The two most often quoted purposes of the Senate have been that it acts as a house of review, and that it should act as a states’ house. Such purposes were clearly envisaged in the writing of the Constitution: The Senate was given equal power over all legislation, with the exception that it was prohibited from introducing financial legislation (Section 53), and the requirement that each state elect the same number of Senators, regardless of its population (Section 7) should, in theory at least have protected the smaller states from domination by the larger ones that, by dint of their greater population, hold the numbers in the House of Representatives. Early developments in the political system put paid to the latter idea: the Senate quickly developed into a party house just as much as the House of Representatives had. The requirement that all Labor members vote with the majority decision of their caucus meant it was impossible for them to vote against a measure that might have harmed their state. There was more potential for senators from the conservative parties to take a state party position against a national party line, but there have been very few examples of this happening. The party-based nature of the Senate, together with the electoral system used to elect Senators in the early days (the preferential block majority system) meant that the Senate very rarely acted as a house of review. For the first ten years of federation, an uneasy three-way tussle took place in which none of the three largest parties (Protectionist, Free Trade and Labor) had a majority in either house, so negotiation was the order of the day in both chambers.
    [Show full text]
  • Citation for Natasha Stott Despoja
    Citation for Natasha Stott Despoja Citation for Natasha Jessica Stott Despoja AM, BA Thursday 18 April, 2019 at 10:30am Officiator: Ms Pauline Carr, Chancellor Award being conferred: Doctor of the University (DUniv) Citation delivered by: Professor Joanne Cys, Pro Vice Chancellor Division of Education, Arts and Social Sciences. __________________________________________________________________ Chancellor, the University of South Australia awards the Honorary Degree of Doctor of the University to a person of eminence who has made a distinguished contribution to public service, or a field of academic endeavour or artistic pursuit. It is my pleasure to present Natasha Jessica Stott Despoja AM for the honorary degree of Doctor of the University, in recognition of her distinguished service to the community. Natasha Stott Despoja is the founding Chair of Our Watch, the national foundation to prevent violence against women and their children. She is the author of On Violence, published by Melbourne University Press. Ms Stott Despoja is the former Ambassador for Women and Girls (2013-2016). As the Ambassador, she travelled extensively throughout the Indo-Pacific region to promote women's economic empowerment, leadership and an end to violence against women and girls internationally. Ms Stott Despoja was a World Bank Gender Advisory Council member from2015 to 2017 and served on the 2017 United Nations High Level Working Group on the Health and Human Rights of Women, Children and Adolescents. In 2001 she was made a Global Leader for Tomorrow by the World Economic Forum. In 2018, she was named one of the Top 100 Global Influencers on Gender Policy. Ms Stott Despoja has represented and led delegations for Australia at international meetings such as the UN Commission on the Status of Women, the APEC Women and the Economy Forum, the Global Summit on Ending Sexual Violence in Conflict, the G(irls) 20 Summit and the ASEAN Commission on the Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Women and Children.
    [Show full text]
  • Within China's Orbit? Chapter Three: Foreign Policy and 'Identity Stuff': Hu Jintao Addresses the Australian Parliament
    Chapter Three: Foreign Policy and ‘Identity Stuff’: Hu Jintao Addresses the Australian Parliament Chinese President Hu Jintao‘s address to a joint meeting of the Australian Parliament in October 2003 was a landmark event in the history of Australia–China relations. A moment of great ceremonial and symbolic significance, it represented a highpoint in the Howard Government‘s engagement with China. This chapter examines President Hu‘s address to the Australian Parliament from a range of perspectives. It begins by giving consideration to the history of parliamentary addresses by foreign heads of state, before turning to examine the addresses of President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Howard. Having provided an account of the way that these addresses came to offer some unexpected insights into the complexities that underscore the Australia–China relationship, it places the two addresses within the context of John Howard‘s regional diplomacy. Prior to October 2003, only two foreign heads of state had addressed a joint meeting of the Australian Parliament: United States President George Bush senior (January 1992) and United States President Bill Clinton (November 1996). On each occasion, the parliamentary setting had been chosen to honour the shared traditions of representative government and parliamentary democracy. When Parliament was recalled in late October 2003, in what Prime Minister John Howard referred to as ‗an unprecedented sequencing of speeches‘, Parliament would be addressed on consecutive days by the United States President, George W. Bush, and the President of the People‘s Republic of China, Hu Jintao.1 The British House of Commons and the United States Congress have contrasting positions on inviting guests to address their legislative assemblies.
    [Show full text]