Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Minister for Regional Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Airports Amendment Bill 2018 and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

We all recognise the 22 Australian federal leased airports are critical infrastructure assets to our nation's productivity and economic growth.

The Government regulates planning and development on our airport sites through the Airports Act 1996. Under the Airports Act, all federal leased airports (except Mount Isa and Tenant Creek) are required to prepare a master plan every five years to establish a strategic direction for efficient and economic development at the airport as well as prepare major development plans for specific major on-airport developments.

The Airports Act sets out the required content of each plan and prescribes the public consultation process an airport lessee company must undertake prior to the plan being submitted for Ministerial consideration. On average, the current legislative process requires an airport lessee company to expend significant resources and it can take the company two years on average to develop each plan.

Certain aspects of these processes are generating inefficient outcomes for industry as well as imposing unnecessary and onerous administrative and compliance costs. I also recognise on-airport developments are not immune to fluctuations in the marketplace and the economic climate.

The measures contained in this Airports Amendment Bill 2018 will fine-tune existing regulation and streamline policy intentions; it will not significantly shift policy or regulatory oversight. It reinforces the Government's commitment to implement measures consistent with its deregulation and productivity agendas. The Bill offers a more proportionate and efficiency-based regulatory approach that reduces administrative and compliance costs for operators. It also creates regulatory certainty for industry and maintains appropriate and effective regulatory oversight.

This Bill can be considered in three parts.

Part one proposes two key changes to the existing master plan process, the first of which is to implement a differential master plan cycle to enable federal leased airports, other than the major airports; Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), to submit a master plan every eight years instead of every five years.

All federal leased airports are currently required to prepare a new master plan every five years irrespective of the operational, administrative, resourcing and financial capacity of individual airports or the level of impact their operations have on the community. Implementing an eight year master plan cycle for secondary and general aviation airports, will minimise the impacts of these factors.

I also recognise that implementation timeframes of various components of the master plan, including key airport infrastructure projects and other aviation and non-aviation developments, the ground transport plan and environment strategy, generally extend beyond the current five year submission cycle. Therefore, this amendment aims to enable longer-term planning at these secondary and general aviation airports.

Please note, this amendment will not change the current situation for Sydney West Airport; it will maintain a five year cycle along with the other four major federal leased airports, once the airport is operational.

The second change is to mandate the inclusion of a new Australian Noise Exposure Forecast in each new master plan. While the Airports Act currently requires an Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be included in a master plan, it does not specify the Australian Noise Exposure Forecast must be renewed for each new plan.

The Australian Noise Exposure Forecast is a computer generated descriptor of aircraft noise widely used by State, Territory, Local Governments and land use planning agencies for long-term planning and development arrangements around airport sites.

Therefore, the Government maintains it is essential each new master plan contain the most up-to-date information to facilitate integrated, balanced and coherent planning outcomes and to inform incompatible and sensitive land uses from encroaching too close to airports.

Part two of the Bill relates specifically to the monetary trigger for a major development plan.

Major development plans are required for each major airport development at federal leased airports, excluding Tennant Creek and Mount Isa. The Airports Act prescribes the circumstances which trigger a major development plan, including a monetary trigger, for certain development where the cost of construction exceeds $20 million.

In 2007 the Airports Act was amended to increase the monetary threshold from $10 million to $20 million due to ongoing increases in building costs since the Act came into effect. Further increases to the construction activity costs and inflation since 2007 have resulted in an increased number of on-airport developments unnecessarily triggering the requirement for a major development plan.

The Bill proposes to increase the current $20 million monetary trigger for a major development plan to $25 million. The monetary threshold will be reviewed and revised via legislative instrument every three years; having regard to changes in construction activity costs and associated indexations to ensure the monetary trigger accurately reflects and keeps pace with economic and marketplace conditions.

The Bill further proposes an additional legislative instrument to clarify the type of construction activities that should and should not be included when calculating if a project triggers the monetary threshold for a major development plan. For example, airports must include costs for base building fitout in its calculations. Base building fitout includes the internal cladding to finish off the base building prior to tenancy fitout. However, the airport is not required to include tenant specific fitout costs and tenant supplied items. This instrument will remove any confusion for industry and ensure a consistent costing application across all federal leased airports.

Part three of the Bill relates specifically to major development plan processes.

The first amendment imposes a new 15 business day statutory decision timeframe within which the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport must consider applications from airport lessee companies for reduced consultation periods for major development plans, with such applications deemed refused if there is no Ministerial decision within this timeframe.

This amendment will not impact the prescribed requirements for public consultation, however it will provide industry with certainty about the Ministerial decision timeframe, which could then be accounted for in the airport's planning process.

The final amendments proposed in this Bill relate to substantial completion of an approved major development plan.

The Airports Act currently requires an approved major development plan to be substantially completed, unless otherwise specified in the approval, within a maximum of five years with only one option for the Minister to extend the period by up to a further two years.

While the majority of approved major development plans are completed in the prescribed timeframe, on rare occasions some larger or more complex developments, such as a new runway, may be subject to unforeseen delays and exceptional circumstances beyond airports' control. As a result, achieving a substantially complete status may require more than the standard seven year timeframe.

Where an airport is committed to substantially completing an approved major development plan, the airport should be given the opportunity to do so without the threat of legislative penalty. Therefore, the Bill proposes to remove the restriction on the number of times the Minister may extend the timeframe for substantial completion.

In rare circumstances a project with an approved major development plan may become unviable due to exceptional and unforeseen circumstances beyond airports' control. For such instances, where the project has not commenced, the Bill proposes the airport can notify the Minister of its intentions to not proceed with the approved major development plan without the threat of legislative penalty.

These amendments recognise that airports would have already expended significant financial and administrative resources to have a major development plan approved. Therefore, these amendments will minimise regulatory uncertainty for airports and industry and ensure an efficient and streamlined process.

The Bill also includes:

On a final note, I would like to acknowledge our airports are nationally significant infrastructure assets that keep us connected to each other and connect Australia to the world. They continue to play a major role in driving the economic development of Australia as enablers of commerce and trade, and the social and economic benefits they provide to all Australians should not be understated.

This Bill is yet another example of this Government consulting with and responding to the needs of industry to achieve better regulatory outcomes for all.

I commend the Bill.

The Legislation Amendment (Sunsetting Review and Other Measures) Bill 2018 seeks to improve and streamline the operation of legislative frameworks for Commonwealth Acts and Instruments by making amendments to various Acts, primarily the Legislation Act 2003 and Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

The key purpose of the Bill is to implement those recommendations of the Report on the Operation of the Sunsetting Provisions in the Legislation Act 2003 that can only be addressed by legislative action.

Last year, a review of the sunsetting provisions in the Legislation Act was conducted by a committee comprised of three senior Commonwealth public servants.

The sunsetting provisions provide that a legislative instrument is automatically repealed approximately 10 years after commencement. Sunsetting ensures that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for so long as they are needed.

The committee found that the sunsetting framework is, in general, fulfilling its stated purpose. As at 1 October 2017, over 2,000 legislative instruments have appeared on sunsetting lists tabled in Parliament under section 52 of the Legislation Act. Of those instruments, approximately 20% were allowed to sunset, 19% were actively repealed, and 24% were replaced (comprising approximately 63% of the listed instruments in total). These statistics indicate that the sunsetting framework has substantially contributed to keeping the statute book up-to-date.

The sunsetting of older legislative instruments is also an important mechanism for the Australian Government to reduce red tape, deliver clearer laws and align existing legislation with current government policy.

The Attorney-General's Department has made enhancements to administrative processes and internal guidance to assist Commonwealth rule-makers and agencies to manage the sunsetting of their legislative instruments efficiently, effectively and in accordance with the law.

However, some legislative action is necessary to further streamline and improve the operation of the scheme.

This Bill seeks to include more flexibility in the sunsetting framework by broadening the scope of the Attorney-General's power to issue certificates of deferral of sunsetting and declarations of alignment of sunsetting. It also provides for greater parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of these powers.

The time restriction on the Parliament's power to roll over the sunsetting date of a legislative instrument will also be removed.

The Bill will provide that rules made by each of the federal courts are not subject to the sunsetting framework, as there are already numerous mechanisms in place to ensure that rules of court remain fit-for-purpose, relevant and required.

Further, this Bill provides a definition of 'sitting day' as it applies to the disallowance provisions of the Legislation Act. This definition is consistent with current practice, but will provide greater legal certainty about the status of legislative instruments in circumstances where the Parliament has sat on an unscheduled sitting day.

This Bill will also make minor changes to a number of provisions to clarify their operation, in particular the interaction between the disallowance, tabling and automatic repeal provisions of the Legislation Act.

In addition to the amendments resulting from the recommendations of the committee, this Bill will make other minor and technical amendments to the Legislation Act and the Acts Interpretation Act to clarify their operation, resolve inconsistencies between provisions and simplify language.

In particular, it will clarify that a provision in the Legislation Act allowing a legislative or notifiable instrument to commence before the instrument is registered operates despite any rule or principle of common law. Any retrospective commencement of a legislative or notifiable instrument, however, is displaced to the extent that the retrospective commencement adversely affects the rights or liabilities of a person other than the Commonwealth. This provides a protection against retrospectivity for adversely affected individuals without rendering an entire instrument or provision of an instrument ineffective in relation to all people both prospectively and retrospectively.

It will also clarify the limits of the First Parliamentary Counsel's power to rectify an error on the Federal Register of Legislation. This error correction power ensures that administrative errors, such as lodgement of the incorrect version of an instrument or compilation for publication on the Register, can be rectified without requiring the rule-maker to repeal and remake the instrument.

Finally, this Bill will clarify that, where an Act refers to a provision of another Act or State or Territory law, and that provision is repealed and re-enacted, a reference to the repealed provision extends to the re-enacted provision even if it is differently numbered.

This Bill provides an opportunity to improve and streamline the legislative frameworks for Commonwealth Acts and delegated legislation that ensure Commonwealth laws are up-to-date, clear and align existing legislation with current government policy.

The Public Sector Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2018 includes four key changes relating to the superannuation arrangements for parliamentarians, judges and civilian employees of the Commonwealth.

The first key change concerns a measure announced in the 2012-13 Budget relating to a reduction in the tax concessions on superannuation contributions of very high income earners, which is known as the Division 293 tax.

In 2013, the legislation for several Commonwealth superannuation schemes was amended to allow a person to request that they be paid a lump sum amount from their scheme to meet their Division 293 tax liability. This is done using a Division 293 tax release authority.

The Judges' Pensions Act 1968 was not amended as judges are exempt from the Division 293 tax for constitutional reasons. However, there are a small number of non judges that have been granted the same status as judges for the purpose of membership of the Judges' Pensions Scheme. These non-judge members, and any future non-judge members, are subject to the Division 293 tax.

The Bill therefore includes amendments to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 that are similar to those made to the legislation for other Commonwealth superannuation schemes.

The second key change included in the Bill is to amend the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to ensure that in all circumstances in the future that the calculation of any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety-net benefit payable to an estate is enough to ensure the Superannuation Guarantee requirements are met.

The actuary for the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme has advised that, in certain limited circumstances, in the future, the current calculation method would not produce a benefit that would meet the statutory minimum Superannuation Guarantee requirements.

Under the current provisions of the scheme, this could potentially occur in the future, where a scheme member dies who had retired after age 65; had very long service; who had converted a significant proportion of their pension into a lump sum; and has no spouse.

The Bill therefore includes amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 to change the calculation method to ensure that any lump sum superannuation guarantee safety-net benefit payable to an estate will meet the statutory minimum Superannuation Guarantee requirements. The amendments do not increase any parliamentary pension entitlements for any individual members.

The third key change included in the Bill concerns reversionary superannuation benefits payable to or in respect of children. The Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Judges' Pensions Act 1968, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922 provide for benefits to be payable to, or in respect of, a person who is the child of a deceased member of one of the schemes established by those Acts.

Generally, the requirement is that the child must prove that from the age of 16 and above, they remain in formal full time education to be eligible for a reversionary benefit. In addition, in some schemes where the child is between age 16 and 25 the child must also not be ordinarily in employment.

The amendments increase the minimum age that a child will have to meet the test of being in full time education from age 16 to age 18 and remove the requirement for an eligible child to not be ordinarily in employment.

This reflects that the majority of current children do not leave formal education until at least the age of 18 and that part-time and casual employment is common.

These changes are consistent with those that have already been made to the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme.

The fourth key change included in the Bill is in relation to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board. Under the changes, the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation Board will be reduced from eleven to nine directors.

The Bill also includes two minor amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948. The first provides the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust with the flexibility to pass a resolution without a meeting. However, this flexibility is subject to the Trust first determining in writing that it may make decisions without a meeting and setting out the way in which trustees are to indicate agreement with proposed decisions. The second allows an actuary other than only the Australian Government Actuary to provide advice in relation to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Scheme.

The Bill also corrects a misdescribed amendment relating to the Judges' Pensions Act 1968.

This Bill represents another important step in demonstrating the Government's ongoing commitment to tackling multinational tax avoidance.

The Multilateral Convention to Implement Tax Treaty Related Measures to Prevent Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, commonly referred to as the Multilateral Instrument, is a key element of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project, which identified fifteen specific areas in which countries should take action to address multinational tax evasion. The Multilateral Instrument is the output of BEPS Action 15.

Under this Government Australia has been a strong supporter of the BEPS project, and remains at the forefront of global efforts to ensure that multinationals' profits are taxed in the jurisdiction where economic value is added or created. Since coming to office, the Government has implemented a comprehensive suite of integrity measures designed to prevent multinationals from shifting untaxed Australian profits offshore.

The Multinational Instrument is a multilateral treaty that will modify the majority of Australia's bilateral tax treaties to include new integrity rules that will help prevent those treaties from being exploited for tax avoidance purposes. More specifically, and from an Australian perspective, it will include rules designed to:

The Multilateral Instrument will also improve the effectiveness of tax treaty-based dispute resolution mechanisms, including by allowing taxpayers to refer unresolved disputes to independent and binding arbitration (where Australia's treaty partners agree to adopt these optional arbitration rules). These features will provide greater certainty to taxpayers in relation to tax treaty-related disputes.

To date, 78 jurisdictions have signed the Multilateral Instrument. Australia signed it on 7 June 2017.

Pending its ratification by other jurisdictions, the Multilateral Instrument will modify the application of 31 of Australia's 44 bilateral tax treaties; that is Australia's tax treaties with Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, Finland, France, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

This innovative multilateral approach will generate significant time and cost savings for Australia, by avoiding the need to bilaterally renegotiate each of these treaties individually to achieve similar outcomes, a process that could take decades.

Effective international cooperation is critical to maintaining the integrity of the international tax system and the Multilateral Instrument clearly demonstrates the results that such cooperation can produce.

The Government is committed to continuing this cooperation and to working actively with the OECD and the G20, and bilaterally with Australia's tax treaty partners, to ensure that Australia's tax system remains fair and open, and keeps pace with international best practice.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.