|
senate vote 2018-06-28#13
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-07-13 12:54:16
|
Title
Bills — Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018; Third Reading- Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018 and another - Third Reading - Pass the bills
Description
<p class="speaker">Zed Seselja</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That these bills be now read a third time.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-06-28.387.1) to pass the bills. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to read the bills [for a third time](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/making-a-law.html).
- ### What do these bills do?
- These bills were introduced to target foreign influence in Australia by creating a new transparency scheme and introducing a series of new offences targeting things like sabotage, treason and espionage.
- #### Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2018
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6018) was introduced to establish the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme to, which will:
- * require registration by certain people undertaking certain activities on behalf of a foreign principal;
- * require registrants to disclose information about the nature of their relationship with the foreign principal and activities undertaken pursuant to that relationship;
- * place additional disclosure requirements on registrants during elections and other voting periods;
- * establish a register of scheme information and provide for certain information to be made publicly available;
- * provide the secretary with powers to obtain information and documents; and
- * establish various penalties for non-compliance with the scheme.
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd087).
- #### National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2018
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6022) was introduced to:
- * amend existing, and introduce new, espionage offences relating to a broad range of dealings with information, including solicitation and preparation and planning offences;
- * introduce new offences relating to foreign interference with Australia’s political, governmental or democratic processes;
- * replace the existing sabotage offence with new sabotage offences relating to conduct causing damage to a broad range of critical infrastructure that could prejudice Australia’s national security;
- * introduce a new offence relating to theft of trade secrets on behalf of a foreign government;
- * amend existing, and introduce new, offences relating to treason and other threats to national security, such as interference with Australian democratic or political rights by conduct involving the use of force, violence or intimidation; and
- * introduce a new aggravated offence where a person provides false or misleading information relating to an application for, or maintenance of, an Australian Government security clearance.
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd134).
<p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p><p>I will be brief, because I recognise it's reasonably unusual to speak on the third reading.</p><p>This is a sad day for Australia. We've taken giant steps today down a dangerous path for our country. It's a pathway towards a police state and authoritarianism, and, ultimately, towards a totalitarian state. This bill will significantly curtail freedom of political expression. It will have a chilling effect on media freedom and democratic action in this country.</p><p>It's entirely reasonable for this government and this parliament to want to protect Australia against malicious foreign influence and foreign interference. That is an entirely reasonable aim. But you don't protect democracy by smothering it. And that is what this legislation does. It risks curtailing press freedom by placing journalists and media outlets in a difficult, and, at times, almost impossible position. It will dissuade journalists from publishing stories that are clearly in the public interest because they are too scared that they may be charged and face years, decades or their whole lives in prison.</p><p>I will confidently predict now that if this legislation ends up before the High Court it will be found to be unconstitutional. And the minister's assurances that the government is confident that it is a piece of legislation that is in line with the Constitution and that it does not breach the implied freedom of political communication in our Constitution offer no comfort whatsoever. Remember, the Prime Minister decided to give the High Court a lecture one day around a section 44 case when he said, infamously, on the floor of the House of Representatives: 'And the High Court shall so rule.' Well, you know what? The High Court did not rule in that way. Presumably, the Prime Minister was receiving advice from the same place that Minister Seselja received advice or the government received advice on this legislation. The place where that advice came from—overwhelmingly likely to be the office of the Solicitor-General—was wrong on section 44. The High Court did not so rule, and I confidently predict that the High Court will not so rule that this legislation is in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>This is a sad day for our country. It's sad because of the sheer weight of numbers in this place and in the House of Representatives that are supporting this legislation: every single one of the old political parties in this state, the parties of command and control, the parties that don't support transparency, the parties that are made ever more uncomfortable by freedom of speech, the parties that, together in lock step, support the indefinite detention of thousands of innocent people on Manus Island and Nauru. These are sad, sad days for our democracy.</p><p>These two bills will collectively chill freedom of public expression and place an unfair regulatory burden on many organisations that work to expose government abuses of human rights and government destruction of our environment and hold government to account. It's a sad day for the NGO sector—organisations that work every day to try to protect our environment and try to stand up for human rights; organisations that work every day to hold governments to account. Environmental NGOs, human rights NGOs and media outlets are the big losers today. The big winners are the people who already have the levers of power in this country—the big corporations, the big religions, big government and big politics. Those are the winners today; and it's the Australian people, the environment, the media and human rights that will pay the price.</p> <p class="speaker">Chris Ketter</p><p>The question is that the bills be read a third time.</p>
|