THE Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has received detailed new evidence to its Inquiry into the impact of the exercise of law enforcement and intelligence powers on the freedom of the press which has necessitated a further extension to its reporting timeframe.

Australia’s Right to Know (ARTK) coalition of media companies tendered a supplementary submission to the PJCIS’s inquiry on Tuesday, one week before the Committee intended to deliver its report. This submission and its attachments contain detailed proposed amendments to fundamental parts of Commonwealth law enforcement and intelligence legislation.

The Committee also expects to soon receive a further submission from the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Federal Police.

The chair, Andrew Hastie MP, said, "The Committee has been working to thoroughly consider the issues presented to it since July. This late submission from ARTK provides additional detailed evidence on the position of the major media stakeholders to this inquiry.

"The Committee also expects to receive a further submission from relevant Government agencies. The Committee will therefore not report next week but will wait to properly consider these new submissions."

The deputy chair, Anthony Byrne MP, said, "The complexity of the issues being considered in this inquiry has challenged the Committee’s ability to deliver a report in the timelines it was provided, and even within the timelines it has set for itself.

"In order for the Committee to consider this new detailed evidence and test government and societal opinion for the proposals put forward, the Committee will have to extend its inquiry timeline into next year."

Mr Hastie added, "The Committee will consider this new evidence and expects to report early in the new year."

Further information on the inquiry can be obtained from the Committee’s website.

ends

THE Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman Kate Carnell is recommending a suite of reforms to the administration of the Research and Development Tax Incentive (R&DTI), as part of a comprehensive report released today.

The report makes 24 detailed recommendations in relation to the following key themes:

Ø  where compliance examinations or audits are necessary, they should take place as close as possible to the first year of registration of a project; 

Ø  guidance material needs to be comprehensive, clearer and up-to-date and developed in consultation with small business;

Ø  agency record keeping requirements be simplified and take into account commercial practicality for a small business;

Ø  small business must be assisted to help identify and retain professional and responsible R&D consultants.

“It is clear from our investigation that many small and family businesses rely on the R&DTI to help fund innovation,” Ms Carnell said.

“That’s why it is vital to have a transparent and predictable system that works for those businesses conducting research and development.

“We found many small and family businesses were subjected to examination and audit by the two agencies responsible for the delivery of the program – the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (AusIndustry) and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).

“In all cases, this compliance activity was retrospective and commenced several years after the relevant R&D was undertaken and the R&DTI refund received and spent.

“Often these affected businesses were required by the ATO to repay the R&DTI in full, with a severe penalty applied," Ms Carnell said.

“This has had a devastating impact on the businesses involved, with some saying they face financial ruin. Others have discontinued or scaled down their R&D efforts in Australia and reduced their R&D staff.

“Most of these small and family businesses were genuine in their belief they were undertaking R&D; their claims were totally justified and they had already invested the money back into the business.

“Small and family businesses my office spoke to reported inconsistent treatment, while R&D consultants expressed concerns about the uncertainty of the R&DTI program and the changing goalposts in the way it is administered.

“Our report found there has been a shift in the interpretation of the R&DTI legislation, narrowing the focus and leading to more claims being rejected, particularly in the area of software innovation," Ms Carnell said.

“Both the ATO and AusIndustry have heard these concerns and have pledged to update their approach to R&DTI compliance checks to ensure better communication guidance and education.

“This needs to be embedded consistently across both agencies’ networks and the ATO and AusIndustry should apply this updated approach retrospectively to the businesses that are in the midst of an audit or examination.

“The purpose of the R&DTI is to incentivise businesses to invest in research and development.

“For Australian small businesses to continue to thrive, it’s critical they are supported in their R&D endeavours to drive innovation and growth.”

www.asbfeo.gov.au

ends

A PARLIAMENTARY committee has released a report into nuclear energy that puts the Australian people at the centre of any approval process for a future nuclear plant.

“Nuclear energy should be on the table for consideration as part of our future energy mix”, said Member for Fairfax Ted O’Brien, who chairs the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy.

“Australia should say a definite ‘No’ to old nuclear technologies but a conditional ‘Yes’ to new and emerging technologies such as small modular reactors.

“And most importantly,” said Mr O’Brien, “the Australian people should be at the centre of any approval process."

The report - entitled Not without your approval - follows a parliamentary inquiry that saw the Committee travel across Australia over recent months taking evidence and assessing over 300 submissions on the prerequisites for nuclear energy in Australia. 

“If we’re serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we can’t simply ignore this zero-emissions baseload technology,” Mr O’Brien said. 

“But we also need to be humble enough to learn lessons from other countries who have gone down this path,” Mr O’Brien said. “It’s as much about getting the technology right as it is about maintaining a social licence based on trust and transparency.”

The report recommends the Australian Government undertake a body of work to deepen the understanding of nuclear technology which would include economic, technological and readiness assessments and also a two-way public engagement program.

The report recommends a partial-lift of the current moratorium on nuclear energy, urging the government to keep its moratorium on Generations I, II and III reactors while lifting it for reactors in Generations III+ and IV, so only the newest and best be considered.

Furthermore, the report recommends that the partial-lift of the moratorium be subject to a technology assessment and a commitment to community consent as a condition of approval for any nuclear power or nuclear waste disposal facility.

The committee was asked by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, to undertake the inquiry and to report back to government by the end of the year. The report is the product of the inquiry and it has been presented to the government today, on behalf of the Australian Parliament, for the government’s consideration.  

ends

THE ANNOUNCEMENT of another fresh legal case against the CFMMEU and two of its officials is a further example of why the Parliament needs to support proposed Ensuring Integrity laws, according to Master Builders Australia. 

The ABCC has confirmed it is taking action based on allegations that the CFMMEU attempted to force a builder to stop using a company because its employees were members of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and who operated under an AWU enterprise agreement. 

It is alleged that the CFMMEU threatened that concrete would not be delivered to the site, unless they engaged a company who was on their 'list of preferred contractors' and used workers who were CFMMEU members. 

Master Builders Australia CEO Denita Wawn said the allegations, involving threatened delays for construction of a new hospital, represented new lows. 

"While disappointing, these allegations come of no surprise given the long history of bullying behaviour deployed by some organisations and their officials,” Ms Wawn said. 

"But we've reached a new low when allegations involve the construction of a new community hospital.

"If proven, this case will show that building unions are willing to deny the entire community a new hospital just because some workers on site have joined a rival union. That's just wrong,” Ms Wawn said. 

"And this is on top of denying a business and its workers their lawful right to earn a living.

“The community would be outraged to know that if proven, the officials involved face a maximum fine of $12,600. 

"Building unions have been called out by Judges for considering penalties and fines as nothing more than a mere 'cost of doing business' and $12,600 wouldn't even be seen as a light slap on the wrist,” she said. 

"This is why we need the Ensuring Integrity laws – so there are consequences for those who deliberately and repeatedly do the wrong thing,” Ms Wawn said.

ends