The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
We call on all people and nations to recognise the serious and potentially irreversible impacts of global warming caused by the anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants …
An instinctive resort to populist tactics is contrary to all the party stands for.
THERE is no established practice in Australian national politics for plebiscites to determine policy issues for the obvious reason they are a bad idea.
The plebiscite on the carbon tax proposed by Tony Abbott is not smart politics.
It does not assist Abbott's cause or his standing. It suggests the Coalition needs stunts, not sound argument, to buttress its case.
It is a mistake for the Liberal Party to propose 'government by plebiscite'. This violates the practice and philosophy espoused by its former leader, John Howard.
It defies the principles of representative democracy that have served Australia well. There is one certainty: the notion is inconsistent with the principles of conservatism that Abbott is supposed to uphold.
Plebiscites are the road to bad policy in the name of people power. Consider. Should we have had a referendum to launch the post-war immigration program, to abolish the White Australia Policy, to remove the tariff, to move away from centralised wage fixation, to deregulate interest rates, to introduce the Higher Education Contribution Scheme, to float the dollar, to embrace a native title system, to introduce a GST and to accept Indo-Chinese refugees in the 1980s? Each of these 10 policies has been instrumental in improving our society and economy. It is likely none of them would have passed a plebiscite at the time.
The policy plebiscite—
The policy plebiscite undercuts the high practice of Westminster politics Australia-style where politicians govern for a three-year term, make their decisions for better or worse, and accept the public's judgment at the next poll.
When outgoing senator Steve Fielding, after meeting the Opposition Leader and hearing his case, repudiates it as a "stunt", then Abbott is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
While Abbott said his intent was to "let the people decide", he refused to agree he would abandon his own opposition to the tax if any carbon tax plebiscite was carried. In short, he doesn't take his own proposal seriously. It may have been mildly interesting if Abbott had said he was ready to fall into line with the result. No such concession.
He—
did, however, demand from Labor the standard he refused to apply to himself—that Gillard act on the vote.
This highlights another defect: a plebiscite is non-binding.
It is a government-sponsored and paid for national opinion poll whose authority derives from that fact. If parliament passed Abbott's bill then Gillard would be obliged to hold the plebiscite that Labor voted against. But Gillard would have no legal obligation to implement the outcome of the vote.
It's important that people get it right and we have a measured and patient debate about it—
and not a hysterical debate that (Opposition Leader) Tony Abbott wants.
The question to be submitted to electors in accordance with section 5 is “Do you support the Government’s plan to introduce a price on carbon to deal with climate change?”.
It may well be, as you say, that most Australian economists think that the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go.
Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists rather than on the merits of the argument.
If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax? ... Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate ... It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly ... raise the price on carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden.
I think that the science is far from settled but on the insurance principle you are prepared to take reasonable precautions against significant potential risks, and that's I think why it makes sense to have an ETS.
Well, obviously if the people have their say and their say is conclusive one way or another that should settle the matter.
… my position on carbon tax is that I am against it in opposition and I will rescind it in government.
Everyone gets it has to happen, that is a trading scheme. I sometimes struggle with where this sits in the priorities in Australia at the moment. It has to be done, I think it is right we do do it. If the benefit case includes that we are going to create a green tech sector in Australia that gives leadership ... then let's get moving.
I would put a price on carbon and I would move to an emissions trading scheme. Absolutely Julia Gillard is going in the right direction and she needs to have the courage of her convictions not to negotiate away too much.
... while much concern has focussed on carbon pricing, energy prices are going up significantly with or without it. Some of those cost drivers could be reduced by a well-designed carbon price. This could eliminate the policy uncertainty that is damaging investment in new electricity generation ...
I also think that if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?
Why not ask motorists to pay more?
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate of a carbon tax you've paid.
Fundamental to tackling climate change and reducing greenhouse gas—
A senator shall acknowledge the chair on entering or leaving the chamber.
… unless you resort to a method of having plebiscites or referendums on each individual issue. And I think the Australian public will get very angry and tired about that. They would say: what's wrong with you fellas, we elected you for three years, you go away and take all the decisions you want to on individual issues and then when those decisions have been taken at the end of your three year period if we don't like you we'll vote you out. I don't think you can run it any other way.
I support action on climate change; I support a price on carbon emissions. As a community we should give the earth the benefit of the doubt.
Labour market reform is too important to be left in the Liberal political closet.
Even though I have spent many years as an activist promoting labour market reform, I promised Opposition Leader Tony Abbott I would suspend my interest in this if I became federal president of the Liberal Party. I thought that was the best way I could support Abbott and the team and quietly encourage great policy.
It was good that Abbott publicly called for the business community to make the case for reform. I hope he means it.
If the arguments for a carbon tax are as clear and as convincing as members of this government say, let's have a vote. Let's put them to the people.
Let's bring it on …
There are plenty of young Australians, for instance, who believe they can extract more useful information—and possibly more "truth"—from an episode of Neighbours than from a news bulletin or a current affairs program. The soap, they say, is about a lot of people telling it like it is, whereas politics seems to be about a lot of people telling it like it isn't.
With trust in the political process being eroded with every bent principle, every broken promise and every policy backflip, the level of cynicism has reached breaking point for many Australians.
Seriously, why should we waste $80 million on a glorified opinion poll just because Tony has got a problem?
… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 of 2011
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 at 7.23 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the Bankruptcy Amendment (Exceptional Circumstances Exit Package) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2011 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Fees) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2011 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Government Advertising (Accountability) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2011 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Public Service Amendment (Payments in Special Circumstances) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 August 2011 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on Schedule 3 of the bill by 15 September 2011 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(f) the provisions of the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 August 2011 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee considered the Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011 and noted that, pursuant to the resolution of appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, the bill had been referred to that committee for inquiry and report.
5. The committee considered the Migration Amendment (Declared Countries) Bill 2011 and noted that the bill was discharged from the Notice Paper on 5 July 2011.
6. The committee considered the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011 and noted that the bill had been passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 6 July 2011.
7. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Anne McEwen
Chair
7 July 2011
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Bankruptcy Amendment (Exceptional Circumstances Exit Package) Bill 2011
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Farmers Federation
South Australian Farmers Federation
NSW Farmers Federation
Mr Dean Brown - South Australian Government's special adviser on drought * Mr Chris Byrne - Riverland Winegrape Growers Association
The Hon Mr Robert Brokenshire IVILC
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Committee to which Bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
August / September 2011
Possible reporting date:
21 September 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Fees) Bill 2011
Possible submissions or evidence from:
ANZ
Commonwealth Bank
Westpac
National Australia Bank
St George
CHOICE
Mortgage and Finance Association of Australia Mortgage Choice
Aussie Home Loans
Consumer Credit Legal Centre (NSW) Inc Credit Union Australia
Abacus - Australian Mutuals Limited ME Bank
Yellow Brick Road Wealth Management Heritage Building Society
Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Finance Brokers Association of Australia Australian Bankers Association
Bank of Cyprus
RaboDirect
Committee to which Bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July/ August 2011
Possible reporting date:
September 14 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMIT T EE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Government Advertising (Accountability) Bill 2011
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Finance and Deregulation
Auditor-General, Mr Ian McPhee
Mr Graeme Orr - Senior Lecturer, Griffith University
Professor Charles Sampford - Director, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Griffith University
Centre for Democratic Institutions, ANU * The Democratic Project
Committee to which Bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s): August / September 2011
Possible reporting date: 21 September 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Public Service Amendment (Payments in Special Circumstances) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The lack of proper compensation scheme for claimants who have been disadvantaged as a result of administrative errors by Government agencies not included under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA)
2. The recommendations of the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the Ombudsman's Report No 4 of 2010 in relation to discretionary payments of compensation
3. The losses caused to claimants because of administrative errors within Government agencies not covered by the CDDA scheme
4. The limited ability for claimants to seek compensation if the Government agency in question is not covered by the CDDA scheme
5. The limitations of discretionary payments in the Public Service Act 1999
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Comcare
Department of Finance and Deregulation
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Mr Barry Crush
Mr Peter Allen of Allen & Associates, Barristers and Solicitors Australian Public Service Commission
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
June/July 2011
Possible reporting date:
16 August 2011
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Review Schedule 3 - DSP Impairment tables
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Centrelink
Department of Veterans Affairs
Review of Impairment Tables advisory committee - Jenny Pearson
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations - Graham Douglas-Meyer National Disability Services - Ken Baker
Mental Health Council of Australia - Frank Quinlan
Australian Council of Social Services - Peter Davidson
Royal Australasian College of Physicians - Peter Wilkins
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists - Dr Martin Nothling
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
TBC
Possible reporting date:
Thursday 15 September
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 6
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Work Health and Safety Bill 2011
Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The Work Health Safety Bill 2011 and Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 give effect to the Government's obligations under the 2008 COAG Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in OHS (IGA) to implement nationally harmonised OHS laws.
The Bills make important reforms to the regulation of occupational health and safety in the Commonwealth. Specifically, they will repeal the current Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 and replace it with model provisions developed by Safe Work Australia and agreed by Workplace Relations Ministers' Council. There will also be provisions specific to the Commonwealth to ensure that the legislation interacts appropriately with existing Commonwealth laws.
The Bills have been subject to extensive consultation at a national level, including with employer and employee organisations and state and territory governments. They are informed by the outcomes of an independent expert review which concluded in 2008 and also reflect the stakeholder comments made on an exposure draft released in May 2011 for a three week period.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Interested stakeholders would include entities to be covered by the proposed legislation, as well as workers and their representatives.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July/ August
Possible reporting date:
26 August 2011.
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
That government business be interrupted at 1 pm to allow consideration of the following government business orders of the day till not later than 2 pm today:
No. 3 Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Bill 2011.
No. 4 Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011.
No. 5 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 21 (Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2010 [No. 2]); and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.45 pm.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on the following days be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make their first speeches without any question before the chair, as follows:
(a) Tuesday, 16 August 2011—Senators Singh and Di Natale;
(b) Wednesday, 17 August 2011—Senators Gallacher and Wright;
(c) Thursday, 18 August 2011—Senator Thistlethwaite;
(d) Monday, 22 August 2011—Senator Fawcett;
(e) Tuesday, 23 August 2011—Senators Urquhart and Waters;
(f) Wednesday, 24 August 2011—Senator Rhiannon; and
(g) Thursday, 25 August 2011—Senators Edwards, McKenzie and Madigan.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests on the development of a draft code of conduct for senators be extended to 28 November 2011.
That the Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 7 July 2011.
That the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 7 July 2011, from 4.45 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into biosecurity and quarantine arrangements.
That the Senate notes:
(a) the release by the World Health Organization's cancer research report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which states that radio frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile phones are 'possibly carcinogenic to humans' and asserts that heavy usage could lead to a possible increased risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer;
(b) the warnings of Dr Charlie Teo, one of Australia's leading brain surgeons and former Australian of the Year finalist, that 'there is an increasing body of evidence that there is an association between brain tumours and mobile phones';
(c) that the Australian Government, though the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), welcomes the report and considers that the classification by IARC corresponds to the current ARPANSA advice, including its advice on practical ways in which people can reduce their exposure to the electromagnetic fields produced by wireless telephones;
(d) that the methods to reduce exposure include:
(i) limiting call time,
(ii) preferring the use of landline phones,
(iii) using hands-free or speaker options,
(iv) texting instead of making voice calls, and
(v) using phones in good signal areas which reduce power levels for communications; and
(e) that ARPANSA has also recommended parents encourage their children to use these methods of reducing exposure.
That the Senate—
(a) expresses its condolence for the death on 2 July 2011 of Dr Itamar Franco, a former President of Brazil from 1992 to 1995;
(b) notes the contribution of Dr Franco in helping set his country on its current economic trajectory, in particular, the reforms he instituted in 1993 that enabled Brazil to overcome rampant hyperinflation; and
(c) acknowledges Dr Franco's achievement in Brazilian public and political life, where he was elected a national senator for the Socialist People's Party in 2010, and his legacy of integrity, courage and hard work.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 9 July 2011 two new nations will emerge, the nations of South Sudan and Sudan, following an overwhelming vote for independence by voters in South Sudan's referendum for independence on 9 January 2011,
(ii) the two new nations futures are interdependent and their stability has broader regional security implications for north and east Africa,
(iii) the emerging picture confronting both new nations is dire and with significant political, humanitarian and developmental challenges as the overall security situation in Sudan is deteriorating at an alarming rate, with severe humanitarian consequences with millions of civilians in both Sudan and southern Sudan in need of protection and critical humanitarian assistance,
(iv) Sudan, after Zimbabwe, is the second largest recipient of Australia's humanitarian and development assistance and that since 2004, the Australian Government has provided $136 million to Sudan,
(v) the North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005 ended more than two decades of civil war, however recent violence and outstanding issues such as border demarcation, oil sharing revenue, currency and citizenship status, are undermining prospects for peace and stability,
(vi) Sudan has the highest level overall of people remaining internally displaced according to the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the highest number of people newly displaced by conflict and as a result the plight of internally displaced persons and Sudanese refugees will therefore continue to be a shared legacy of decades of conflict;
(b) expresses deep concern at the protracted nature of the conflict and displacement in Darfur, now in its eighth year;
(c) notes that:
(i) the UN estimates that 300 000 people have been killed as a result of violence, malnutrition and starvation and 4 million people are in desperate need of aid, representing nearly two-thirds of the entire estimated Darfur population of 6.5 million, and an estimated 2.5 million people live in refugee camps in Darfur and neighbouring Chad, while others struggle to survive in remote villages, and
(ii) humanitarian relief efforts to provide assistance to vulnerable populations are being hampered by limited humanitarian access in some of the most affected conflict areas, including in Southern Kordofan and Darfur, and that insecurity and inaccessibility remains one of the biggest challenges facing the delivery of assistance by humanitarian agencies to vulnerable populations;
(d) urges the Governments of South Sudan and Sudan to reaffirm their commitment to peace, conflict prevention, the inclusion of the peripheral regions and ethnic minorities in political representation and decision making, and the recognition of cultural and ethnic diversity through durable political solutions; and
(e) encourages the Australian Government to continue assistance to address humanitarian and development needs in Sudan and South Sudan.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has embarked on a tour of Burma,
(ii) Kyaw Win, the second highest-ranking diplomat at the Burmese Embassy in Washington DC, has defected because of the Burmese Government's human rights violations and sham elections, adding that the current threats against Daw Suu's life 'must be taken seriously'; and
(b) requests the Government to:
(i) monitor Daw Suu's safety and welfare,
(ii) communicate to the regime that threats of harm or incarceration of her or her entourage are unacceptable,
(iii) pledge its continued support for genuine democracy and human rights in Burma,
(iv) call for national reconciliation and dialogue in Burma, involving all stakeholders, including Daw Suu, and
(v) call for the release of all political prisoners in Burma.
That the Senate—
Calls on the Government to:
(a) monitor Aung San Suu Kyi’s safety and welfare;
(b) communicate to the regime that threats of harm or incarceration to her or her entourage are unacceptable;
(c) continue to support calls for genuine democracy and human rights in Burma; and
(d) call for the release of all political prisoners in Burma.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Sri Lanka's 'killing fields', which aired on Four Corners on Monday, 4 July 2011, contained further shocking images of alleged war crimes committed during the civil conflict in Sri Lanka, and
(ii) that British Prime Minister, Mr David Cameron, said in response to the program on 15 June 2011 that, 'the Sri Lankan Government needs that to be investigated, and the UN needs it to be investigated. We need to make sure that we get to the bottom of what happened, and that lessons are learned';
(b) calls for allegations of war crimes committed by the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam to be investigated and verified;
(c) urges the Australian Government to press the Government of Sri Lanka to take steps for meaningful accountability in Sri Lanka for alleged violations of international human rights and humanitarian law; and
(d) calls on the United Nations Human Rights Council to review its 2009 resolution on Sri Lanka.
That there be laid on the table and presented to the President under standing order 166, no later than noon on Monday, 18 July 2011, non-commercial aspects of all reports and briefings prepared by the assessment panel for Australia Network tenders, as well as all correspondence between the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and their respective departments, regarding the tender process, potential or actual tenderers, the tenders received and any changes proposed or actual to the tender process.
Procedures for dealing with formal motions
The committee has considered the operation of standing order 66 on numerous occasions. Standing order 66(3) provides that a formal motion shall be put and determined without amendment or debate.
Current difficulties are largely attributable to senators seeking leave to depart from these rules and the Senate granting leave, almost as a matter of course. In particular, the number of statements being made by leave in relation to complex motions leads to a de facto debate on those motions, contrary to standing order 66. This is because senators, instead of making statements, assert views in the nature of debate by mounting arguments and responding to positions expressed by others.
... it urges senators to pay more heed to the existing restrictions. For example, if a senator wishes to amend a notice of motion, then generally, as a courtesy to the Senate, that notice should be postponed till the next day of sitting to enable the senator to use the procedures under standing order 77 to amend the notice in writing and for the notice to appear in its amended form in the next day's Notice Paper. Secondly, the committee encourages parties to use internal means to limit the number of senators seeking leave to make statements on motions to one from each group (Government, Opposition, Australian Greens).
That the motion (Senator Birmingham's) be agreed to.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) OIE [World Organisation for Animal Health] guidelines do not require stunning before slaughter of cattle,
(ii) without stunning, cattle can exhibit indicators of possible consciousness for up to 2 minutes after the throat is cut, leading to a slow and painful death, and
(iii) statements by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) on 21 June 2011, that Australia does not have the power to require Indonesia to stun cattle before slaughter; and
(b) calls on the Government immediately to end the live export trade of all animals given that the welfare standards which are acceptable to the Australian public and farmers cannot be guaranteed in overseas markets.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) poor kidney health is a serious and growing problem for Aboriginal people in central Australia,
(ii) the Central Australian Renal Study was commissioned as a response to the growing demand for dialysis services in central Australia, the strain on health services, the alarming health outcomes faced by Aboriginal people and the constant conflict between state, territory and federal governments over funding responsibilities,
(iii) the report of the study published on 27 June 2011 is substantially different from the draft report that the George Institute for Global Health had submitted to the Federal Government 5 months earlier,
(iv) the majority of recommendations included in the draft report do not appear in the published report, and
(v) the detailed 'action plan' featured in the draft report does not appear in the published report which includes, instead a drastically-reduced 'potential implementation scenario'; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to show leadership and dedicate resources to implement the Central Australian Renal Services Action Plan, as presented in the draft report, including:
(i) securing agreement and assurance from all jurisdictions regarding patient flow across state and territory borders and the recognition that many patients from the central Australian region will transfer to Alice Springs in accordance with the principle of being able to obtain treatment as close to home as possible,
(ii) implementing a hub and spokes model, with a regional hub service located in Alice Springs,
(iii) identifying sites during 2011 that are suitable for conversion to in-community haemodialysis,
(iv) assessing, during 2011, the suitability of the Substance Misuse Centre in Amata and the Ngaanyatjarra Health Service renal ready room for conversion to in-community haemodialysis facilities,
(v) bringing 15 new satellite chairs online by the end of 2012, along with the phased roll-out of nurse-supported dialysis in communities, with a rigorous assessment of its efficacy, cost-effectiveness and sustainability,
(vi) establishing a chronic kidney disease registry for the cross-border region, and
(vii) developing a renal care package to provide home and community care, similar to the Extended Assistance for Care in the Home package.
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) investigate the direct or indirect ramifications for Australia of the criminal matters affecting the United Kingdom operations of News International Limited and report back to the Senate.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee––4 volumes
Economics Legislation Committee––2 volumes
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee––1 volume
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee––1 volume
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––3 volumes
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––1 volume
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee––1 volume
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee has also proposed a relationship between ACLEI and non-law enforcement related Commonwealth agencies that capitalises on ACLEI's unique experience and understanding of corruption issues. This includes continued collaboration, with the potential, in certain circumstances, for any agency to request ACLEI's assistance in a corruption investigation. In making these recommendations, the committee has not alleged the existence of widespread or serious corruption in second-tier agencies or the broader Public Service. Commonwealth agencies take their governance and accountability requirements very seriously. However, the potential for corruption suggests the need for, at the very least, a limited relationship with ACLEI. The committee has endorsed an integrity approach that understands that, where incentives for corrupt behaviour exist, the potential for corruption cannot be ignored. For this reason, the committee continues to emphasise the need for enhanced corruption detection and prevention measures.
In enhancing the operation of the LEIC Act, the committee has also recommended that the definition of corruption be further developed so as to provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of potential corrupt conduct for the purposes of the act. The committee considers that further definition of the term would provide greater clarity to the anti-corruption work conducted by ACLEI, while serving to more effectively delineate corruption issues from issues better handled by other agencies.
Finally, the committee considered the large amount of evidence provided in relation to broader issues of Commonwealth-wide integrity, including suggestions for greater coordination of existing integrity agencies and the possible establishment of a Commonwealth integrity commission. While the current efforts of agencies including the APSC, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the ANAO and ACLEI contribute to Commonwealth integrity, the committee has been left with the impression that more needs to be done.
In conducting the inquiry, the committee received evidence that suggested the need for anti-corruption measures that extend beyond narrowly defined law enforcement functions to all public sector agencies and actors. The committee has therefore recommended that the government conduct a review of the Commonwealth integrity system, with particular examination of the merits of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission. The committee is mindful of the need to retain ACLEI's dedicated law enforcement role in any future arrangements.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (NEW ZEALAND RULES OF ORIGIN) BILL 2011
The Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011 implements changes to Article 3 of the Australia – New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, commonly referred to as the ANZCERTA.
The ANZCERTA has been a remarkable success. It is Australia’s longest standing bilateral free trade agreement, having been in force since 1983. It is a wide ranging agreement that provides Australia and New Zealand with liberal access to each other’s goods and services markets. The World Trade Organization recognised it as “one of the world’s most comprehensive, effective and multilaterally-compatible free trade agreements”.
Australia and New Zealand provide duty free access to each other’s goods that meet the rules of origin requirements in the ANZCERTA. On 1 January 2007, the ANZCERTA rules of origin provisions underwent significant change to allow both the ‘change in tariff classification’ and the ‘regional value content’ methods to determine origin of goods. As part of the 2007 amendments to the ANZCERTA, both countries also agreed to conduct a review of the new rules of origin within three years of these new rules taking effect. This review, commenced in late 2008 and completed in March 2010, resulted in changes to the text of ANZCERTA Article 3 ‘Rules of Origin’ and the related Product Specific Rules in Annex G to the ANZCERTA. Amendments to the Customs (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Regulations 2006 will implement the changes to Annex G.
The changes to the ANZCERTA, implemented domestically through this Bill and amendments to the Customs (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Regulations 2006, will reduce the administrative burden on businesses, facilitate the eligibility for duty free entry of goods into both markets, and provide greater consistency between the ANZCERTA Rules of Origin and those of other trade agreements negotiated by Australia.
INDIGENOUS EDUCATION (TARGETED ASSISTANCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2011
The Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2011 makes amendments to the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000.
The Bill amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to extend the existing funding arrangements, including indexation arrangements, for the 2013 calendar year.
The Government is conducting a Review of Funding for Schooling due to report in 2011. While the Review is focused on the mainstream, there may be implications for the design and operation of the closely complementary programs run under the Act. This extension will allow sufficient time for the Government to implement any changes arising from the Review, while also meeting its responsibilities around proper planning, engagement, consultation and change management with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, communities and funded organisations.
The Bill confirms the Australian Government’s commitment to review all funding arrangements for schooling, including in relation to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-education-focused programs which are run under the Act.
The Australian Government is committed to Closing the Gap on Indigenous disadvantage, this extension will facilitate consideration of the findings of the Review and the best way to utilise the funding under the Act to support improved educational achievement for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
The Bill will also formalise a number of previous decisions of Government, in relation to the mechanisms for the delivery of a number of initiatives related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE (REGISTRATION FEES) AMENDMENT BILL 2001
This Bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Registration Fees) Act 2006 (the Registration Fees Act).
The amendments are consequential to the amendments in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 (National Regulator Bill).
The National Regulator Bill establishes a National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) to administer titles and to advise the Joint Authorities on key petroleum title decisions. NOPTA will replace the seven Designated Authorities as the titles administrator for Commonwealth waters.
This Bill will replace references to the Designated Authority in the Registration Fees Act with references to the Titles Administrator.
The National Regulator Bill makes provision for the registration fees collected under this Act to be retained to recover the costs of establishing NOPTA and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA). Following the recovery of these establishment costs, expected in 2013, the 1.5 per cent registration fee will be scrapped and replaced with a cost recovery fee which reflects the actual cost of administration with the required expertise. This will create significant savings for the industry.
OFFSHORE RESOURCES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURITIES) BILL 2011
This Bill excludes application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994.
The Personal Property Securities Act 2009 establishes a single national Personal Property Security Register which, while yet to commence operation, is to become the primary register of personal property security interests throughout Australia. Commonwealth legislation, including the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994, is not automatically affected by the Personal Property Securities Act 2009. However, it is stated Commonwealth policy that, in order to remove duplication and increase clarity, existing approval and registration requirements for personal property securities, and dealings in these securities, are either removed from Commonwealth Acts so that Personal Property Securities Act 2009 registration requirements only will apply, or that the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 is expressly excluded from application to personal property under relevant Commonwealth Acts dealing with personal property and interests in personal property.
Chapters 4 and 5 of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 relate to registration of transfers of, and dealings in, petroleum titles and greenhouse gas titles respectively. Chapter 3 of the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 relates to registration and dealings for offshore minerals titles.
Under these registration requirements in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, the regulator has the ability to refuse to approve a dealing in relation to a petroleum title, and the responsible Commonwealth Minister has the ability to refuse to approve a dealing in relation to a greenhouse gas title. This ability to refuse approval and registration of an interest underpins the purpose of the registration requirement, to enable the Australian Government to ensure the suitability of the entities that potentially are able to exercise control over the exploitation of Australia’s offshore petroleum resources. There is no such approval mechanism contained in the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 as a precursor to registering an interest on the Personal Property Security Register. By not excluding the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 from the Personal Property Securities Act 2009, the situation could conceivably arise whereby a dealing refused under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 could in fact be registered in the Personal Property Security Register – which could lead to legal confusion over the standing of the security interest.
Further to this, State and Northern Territory governments have advised the Commonwealth that they are electing to opt out of or exclude the operation of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 for their onshore mining schemes.
Therefore excluding application of the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and the Offshore Minerals Act 1994 is important to ensure consistency between the onshore and offshore mining regimes, and minimise a potential regulatory burden and costs to the mining industry and its investors in complying with different registration requirements, potentially skewing investment between onshore and offshore, and having to keep abreast of developments.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE REGULATORY LEVIES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2011 MEASURES NO. 2) BILL 2011
This Bill will ensure that the Australian community does not bear the cost of regulating the offshore oil and gas activities while reducing unnecessary regulatory burden and cost on industry.
This Bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Act 2003 to provide for the imposition of two new types of levies:
Through these levies the new National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator (NOPTA) and the expanded National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) will recover their operating costs from industry respectively.
This Bill is complementary to National Regulator Bill which I spoke to earlier, and is also consistent with the first Regulatory Levies Measures No.1 Bill of 2011 which enabled NOPSA to recover the costs of regulating offshore wells and well operations.
NOPSEMA and NOPTA are to be funded on a full cost recovery basis with levies raised from the offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage industries. The level of these fees will be subject to a full cost recovery impact statement, to ensure they are consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines and provide increased transparency and the true cost of regulating the offshore oil and gas industry.
The fees to recover the establishment and expansion costs for NOPTA and NOPSEMA have already undergone a cost recovery impact statement process including stakeholder consultation in April and May 2011. A further cost recovery impact statement process will be undertaken in the second half of 2011 to determine NOPTA’s and NOPSEMA’s ongoing operating costs in regulating after 1 January 2012.
This reform will ensure that relevant regulatory expertise is available in offshore areas on a cost recovery basis from industry. In addition, industry will have transparency in how its cost recovery fees and levies are calculated and used.
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 15), after subsection 15(1B), insert:
(1C) Any information provided to a person as a result of a delegation by the Registrar under subsection (1B) must be retained, processed and stored in Australia at all times and must not in any way be transmitted outside Australia.
[retention of information in Australia]
That this bill be now read a third time.
(1) Schedule 8, page 10 (after line 3), before item 1, insert:
1A At the end of section 31
Add:
(4) A corporate plan developed under this section after the commencement of this subsection must outline the strategies of the Corporation to monitor and prevent the counterfeiting of Australian wines within and outside Australia.
1B At the end of section 31F
Add:
(4) An annual operational plan developed under this section after the commencement of this subsection must set out particulars of the action that the Corporation intends to take in order to give effect to or further, during that year, the monitoring and prevention of counterfeiting of Australian wines within and outside Australia.
[monitoring and prevention of counterfeiting of Australian wines]
(a) to promote and control the export of grape products from Australia; and
(b) to promote and control the sale and distribution, after export, of Australian grape products;
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
… it’s about 10 times faster than the existing satellite service.
The internet connection we’ve had in the past was so frustrating that we didn’t even bother to use it … Our download speed … wasn’t even good enough to do emails
… has blown out to about $4 billion over four years …
Most of the extra costs come upfront, from implementing the scheme.
That the Senate take note of the document.
… I would not wait a day longer than I had to before lifting the suspension.
We had been able to reach agreement with industry about how international standards would be operationalised.
… we have put in place strict regulatory controls.
… we had advice that Indonesia was prepared to issue import permits for the importation of live cattle.
Last Thursday, 30 June, while in Darwin, the Prime Minister addressed industry saying—
"The best thing we can do for the sustained strong future of this industry is get the animal welfare issues right."
We have put in place a framework which allows this to occur, and these standards will be public documents.
Following the provision of the footage—
the Government moved to suspend supply of Australian livestock to the featured abattoirs …
... independent assessment by competent people to review the welfare and management standards in Indonesian abattoirs, including those processing Australian cattle ...
PRESIDENT'S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
AS AT 6 JULY 2011
PREFACE
This document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.
The practice of presenting this list to the Senate is in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the incoming government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 [tabled 5 Nov 1991] the government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The government affirmed this commitment in June 1996 to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of presentation. The current government indicated on 26 June and 4 December 2008 that it is committed to providing timely responses to parliamentary committee reports 1 .
Although, on 29 September 2010, the House agreed to a resolution which places a six month response time on House and joint committee reports tabled in the House 2 , the Senate has not agreed to a similar resolution. Therefore, this list is prepared on the basis of a three month reporting requirement for Senate and joint committee reports tabled in the Senate.
This list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works or the following Senate Standing Committees: Appropriations and Staffing, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances, Scrutiny of Bills, Selection of Bills and Senators ' Interests. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions in the House of Representatives for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. However, responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an executive minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an executive minute within six months of the tabling of a report. The committee monitors the provision of such responses.
An entry on this list for a report of the JCPAA containing only administrative recommendations is annotated to indicate that the response is to be provided in the form of an executive minute. Consequently, any other government response is not required. However, any reports containing policy recommendations are included in this report as requiring a government response.
Senate committees report on bills and the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be addressed during the consideration of the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by committees on estimates or scrutiny of annual reports, unless recommendations are made that require a response.
—————
A guide to the legend used in the ' Date response presented/made to the Senate ' column
* See document tabled in the Senate on 6 July 2011, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports–Response to the schedule tabled by the President of the Senate on 9 February 2011 for Government interim/final response.
** Report contains administrative recommendation – any response to those recommendations is to be provided to the JCPAA committee in the form of an executive minute.
—————
1See House of Representatives Hansard , 26 June 2008, p6131 and 4 December 2008, p1263, andJournals of the Senate , 4 December 2008, p1447
2See House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings , 29 September 2010, p44
Report of the independent review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 and Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002
Documents relating to travel:
That the Senate take note of the document.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––
Discharged––Senator Kroger
Appointed––
Senator Edwards
Participating member: Senator Kroger
Finance and Public Administration References Committee––
Discharged––Senator Kroger
Appointed––
Senator Edwards
Participating member: Senator Kroger
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee––
Discharged––Senator Kroger
Appointed––
Senator Eggleston
Participating member: Senator Kroger
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee––
Discharged––Senator Edwards
Appointed––
Senator Eggleston
Participating member: Senator Edwards
Treaties––Joint Standing Committee––
Discharged––Senator Cash.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 , the Senate appoints Senator Marshall as a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust on and from today.
… while wholeheartedly supporting debate in Parliament on any anticipated, proposed or actual deployment to overseas warlike operations—
the committee cannot endorse this proposed legislation. … the bill leaves too many critical questions unanswered … while well intended—
the bill may have unforseen and unfortunate consequences that need to be identified and resolved before further consideration could be given to proposed legislation.
... it seems like a good idea and there is a provision in case of an emergency. Examples from other democratic countries considered.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that, as far as is constitutionally and practically possible, Australian Defence Force personnel are not sent overseas to engage in warlike actions without the approval of both Houses of the Parliament.
It is of the view that the bill leaves too many critical questions unanswered to be considered a credible piece of legislation. It believes that, while well intended, the bill may have unforeseen and unfortunate consequences that need to be identified and resolved before further consideration could be given to proposed legislation.
The committee has identified a number of deficiencies in the bill that need to be attended to by those who are interested in this debate if the bill is going to be brought forward this time or some time in the future for passage.
… for forward-deploying Australian troops to a potential theatre of war with Iraq in the absence of any United Nations authorisation and without revealing to the Australian people the commitments on which that deployment was based;
… declares its opposition to a unilateral military attack on Iraq by the United States—
that it has no confidence in the Prime Minister's handling of this grave matter for the nation.
The purpose of this Bill is to place the responsibility for the decision to send Australian troops overseas with both Houses of Federal Parliament subject to exceptions covering the movement of personnel in the normal course of their peacetime activities and the need to take swift action in an emergency.
For example, it noted that in some cases parliamentary approval may be needed to declare war but not to deploy troops and certain military service may not require approval.
… the UK Government recognised that the main challenge was to formulate a process that would be 'sufficiently adaptable to be able to respond quickly and flexibly to the variety of situations that could arise'.
It pointed to difficult issues that needed to be resolved such as allowing for exceptional circumstances, the need for urgent deployment, potential dangers of a retrospective approval process, security implications from the release of information, the timing of the vote and definitional issues—
such as 'armed conflict'.
… situations may develop where there is a need to determine measures to be taken without the publicity associated with debate in the Parliament; situations where public knowledge could limit our strategic options and indeed put our forces at risk.
He argued that a decision to commit troops could be made 'only in the full knowledge of all the circumstances—
knowing the diplomatic circumstances that are involved, the strategic involvement and all the military and economic factors'. In his view, these must, 'be weighed up in the light of a careful assessment of all the options that are open to the government of the day. That simply cannot be done in open debate in any chamber of this parliament'.
Representing both major parties, they argued that the executive is the only body that has 'full and proper knowledge of military and strategic decisions and the one-on-one contact with Australian allies' to be able to make a considered and well informed decision. In their view, Parliament does not have access to all available intelligence and the complete range of advice from the Public Service.
There will often be cases where information simply cannot be made public. If it were to be made public it could very much undermine our strategic position when we are about to embark on a war. This could not even be overcome by holding a secret session of parliament, or something of the like, because that is contrary to our system of government and it would not be the proper manner in which to do this.
For the major parties, the problems were serious—the inability of Parliament to have access to all the information needed to make critical decisions—
concerning the deployment of Australian ADF members or disclosing information that could jeopardise the safety and success of a military operation.
These deficiencies relate to the uncertainty and confusion about the use and application of terms such as war and non-warlike service and assumptions made about their application. The committee is also concerned about the nature of the resolution to be agreed to by both Houses of Parliament and about the extent to which it could impose conditions on deployment.
… members of the Defence Force may not serve beyond the territorial limits of Australia except in accordance with a resolution, which is in effect and agreed to by each House of the Parliament, authorising the service.
The committee is not in any way against the involvement of both Houses of Parliament in open and public debates about the deployment of Australian service personnel to warlike operations or potential hostilities. It agrees with the views of most submitters that the Australian people, through their elected representatives, have a right to be informed and heard on these important matters.
In that circumstance, a proclamation is to cease to have effect seven days after it is made.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
No man can say that, even burdened with disunion, Australia will not have ... prosperity. No man can say that every state ... will not share it. But ... all that prosperity will be as nothing to the prosperity that will come from union.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Australia's Food Proce ssing Sector––Select Committee—
Appointed––Senators Madigan and Xenophon
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Communit y Affairs References Committee—
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Corporations and Financial Services––Joint Statutory Committee —
Discharged––Senator Milne
Ec onomics Legislation Committee —
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Economics References Committee —
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee —
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee —
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee —
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Madigan
Environment and Communications References Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member:
Senator Bob Brown to replace Senator Waters for the committee's inquiry into the status, health and sustainability of the koala population
Participating members: Senators Madigan and Waters
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member:
Senator Wright to replace Senator Di Natale for the committee's inquiry into the exposure drafts of Australian privacy amendment legislation
Participating members: Senators Di Natale and Madigan
Finance and Public Administration References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Madigan
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member:
Senator Wright to replace Senator Ludlam for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011
Participating members: Senators Ludlam and Madigan
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Madigan
Intelligence and Security — Joint Statutory Committee —
Appointed––Senator Stephens, pursuant to the Intelligence Services Act 2001
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Siewert to replace Senator Wright for the committee's inquiry into the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010
Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Wright for the committee's inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Detention Reform and Procedural Fairness) Bill 2010
Senator Siewert to replace Senator Wright for the committee's inquiry into the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2011
Senator Siewert to replace Senator Wright for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Participating members: Senators Madigan and Wright
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Madigan
Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —
Discharged—Senator Milne
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Madigan
Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Madigan
Scrutiny of New Taxes––Select Committee —
Appointed––Senator Madigan.
That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 16 August 2011, at 12.30 pm, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator.
That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets.
(1) The Fair work Ombudsman is not aware that any of its Fair Work Inspectors are former Maritime Union of Australia officials. Nor does the Agency retain records of Fair Work Inspectors' prior union membership. The Fair Work Ombudsman is committed to respecting staff members' privacy. The Fair Work Ombudsman does not collect and record personal information unless the personal information is collected for a lawful purpose that is directly related to a function or activity of the Fair Work Ombudsman and the collection of that personal information is necessary for, or directly related to, that purpose.
(2) No.
With reference to the article 'Heroin a hit in migrant centres' on page 3 of The Sunday Telegraph , dated 29 May 2011, in which it is claimed that 'Heroin addicts are being held in immigration detention centres and provided with methadone':
(1) Who provides medical services to detainees in Australia's detention network.
(2) How many detainees in the detention network have a drug related problem.
(3) How many detainees in the detention network are addicted to heroin.
(4) How many detainees are currently receiving methadone.
(5) What has been the total cost of the methadone program at Sydney's Villawood detention centre and Victoria's Maribyrnong facility for each of the following financial years
(a) 2007-08;
(b) 2008-09;
(c) 2009-10; and
(d) 2010-11 to date.
(6) Have any detainees in the detention network developed drug dependency since they entered the detention network; if so, how many and where are they located.
(7) Can details be provided of the total cost for providing health related services to detainees in the detention network for each of the following financial years:
(a) 2007-08;
(b) 2008-09;
(c) 2009-10; and
(d) 2010-11 to date.
(8) Given that the article in The Sunday Telegraph states that 'Each detainee is racking up a medical bill on average of almost $8000 during their stay', is this correct; if not, what is the average medical bill incurred by a detainee during their time in detention.
(9) For each of the following financial years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 to date:
(a) on how many occasions have illegal substances been found in detention centres; and
(b) what were these illegal substances.
(1) Medical services to persons detained at immigration detention facilities are provided by the Department's contracted Health Services Provider, International Health and Medical Services (IHMS).
(2) Some people in immigration detention may have pre-existing drug related problems or drug dependencies. The actual number is unknown, as random drug testing of clients is not undertaken.
(3) The Department is aware of one client being addicted to heroin within the detention network.
(4) Two clients currently receive methadone treatments. One is for addiction (as indicated above) and the other is for pain management.
(5) Separate costing for the Methadone programs run in the Villawood and Maribyrnong Immigration Detention Facilities are not available. These programs are included in the IHMS contract and are not distinguished separately.
(6) The Department is not aware of any client developing a drug addiction problem while in immigration detention.
(7) The total cost for detention health and related services is as follows:
(8) The Department's immigration detention network consists of a range of facilities of differing structure, location and capacity. Costs are not captured on a per person per day basis as each facility has different cost drivers where costs fluctuate depending on the number of people in that facility and the services that each individual might require.
(9) No substances confirmed as being illegal have been found in immigration detention centres. Occasionally, unidentified substances are found and are handed to local Police. Below is a record of such occurrences for the periods requested: