The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Conroy moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to vary the routine of business today.
The Senate divided. [9:44]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Ludlam)
That a motion to vary the routine of business for today may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.
The Senate divided. [9:47]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Ludlam)
That—
(a) consideration of general business private senators’ bills under temporary order 57(1)(d)(ia) shall not be proceeded with; and
(b) government business shall have precedence from 9.30 am for 2 hours and 20 minutes.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 2, the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Bill 2012.
This is a bad bill with no redeeming features. It is a hypocritical and illogical bill. If it is passed today, it will be a stain on our national character ... If it is passed, it will be repealed by an incoming Labor government.
The bill is shameful and xenophobic.
… … …
It is a bill that should be opposed.
This bill is wrong in principle and it is wrong in motivation.
… … …
This bill is a disgraceful shirking of responsibility by Australia and it must be rejected.
… … …
I reject the bill as being fundamentally abhorrent to everything I believe in …
… … …
It has been a test of the Australian Labor Party and we have risen to the occasion, and that is why we are rejecting this legislation.
… arrival anywhere on Australia by irregular maritime means will not provide individuals with a different lawful status than those who arrive in an excised offshore place.
The Panel considers that all possible measures should be implemented to avoid creating an incentive for IMAs taking even greater risks with their lives by seeking to reach the Australian mainland. As a complement to facilities in Nauru and PNG, the Panel recommends the Government bring forward legislative amendments to the Migration Act 1958 so that arrival on the Australian mainland by irregular maritime means does not provide individuals with a different lawful status than those who enter at an excised offshore place, such as Christmas Island.
… the committee supports the intent of the Bill, subject to one important amendment.
The Senate divided. [10:42]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bernardi)
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 28), after item 18, insert:
18A After subsection 198AB(6)
Add:
(6A) If the Minister designates a country or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the Minister must:
(a) ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide the Australian Human Rights Commissioner with access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held;
(b) ensure that the country provides assurances that the Commissioner's access to such places will be equivalent to the access that the Commissioner would have if the person was detained, housed or otherwise held in a place located in Australia.
(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after item 60, insert:
60A Application provision—subsection 198AB(6A)
Subsection 198AB(6A) of the Migration Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a designation that is made before or after commencement.
(Temporary Chairman—Senator Boyce)
The committee divided [11:06]
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 28), after item 18, insert:
18B After subsection 198AB(6)
Add:
(6B) If the Minister designates a country or has previously designated a country under subsection (1), the Minister must:
(a) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held; and
(b) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to interview and speak with a person (being a person who consents to be interviewed) who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act; and
(c) enter into a media access protocol with the country that allows accredited media representatives to enter a place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival is detained, housed or otherwise held for the purposes of:
(i) general reporting on the facilities operation and status (including for the purpose of taking photographs, recordings and other footage); and
(ii) interviewing and speaking with a person (being a person who consents to be interviewed) who is detained or otherwise held at the place; and
(d) make publicly available the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c).
(2) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 14), after item 60, insert:
60B Application provision—subsection 198AB(6B)
Subsection 198AB(6B) of the Migration Act, as inserted by this Schedule, applies in relation to a designation that is made before or after commencement.
(a) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to any place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival for the purposes of this Act is detained, housed or otherwise held; and
(b) subject to the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c), ensure that the country provides assurances that it will provide accredited media representatives with reasonable access to interview and speak with a person …
(c) enter into a media access protocol with the country that allows accredited media representatives to enter a place where a person who is an unauthorised maritime arrival is detained … for the purposes of:
(i) general reporting on the facilities operation and status (including for the purpose of taking photographs, recordings and other footage); and
(ii) interviewing and speaking with a person (… who consents to be interviewed) who is detained or otherwise held at the place; and
(d) make publicly available the media access protocol referred to in paragraph (c).
The committee divided. [11:28]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Boyce)
(1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 4), after item 19, insert:
19A Subsection 198AD(1)
Omit "and 198AG", substitute ", 198AG and 198AJ".
(2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 15), after item 47A, insert:
47B At the end of Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 2
Add:
198AJ Vulnerable persons
(1) Section 198AD does not apply to an unauthorised maritime arrival if the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection (2).
(2) A person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of this subsection if:
(a) the person is aged less than 18 years; or
(b) the person is aged 18 years or over and is the parent or guardian (or other family member) of a person covered by paragraph (a).
(3) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:
61A Application provision—section 198AJ
(1) The amendments in items 19A and 47B apply from 13 August 2012.
(2) Subitem (3) applies to a person if:
(a) the person was an unauthorised maritime arrival at any time on or after 13 August 2012; and
(b) the person was taken from Australia to a regional processing country pursuant to subsection 198AD(2) of the Migration Act 1958 ; and
(c) the person was a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection 198AJ(2) at the time the person was taken to the regional processing country; and
(d) the person is a vulnerable person for the purpose of subsection 198AJ(2) at the date the Migration Amendment (Unauthorised Maritime Arrivals and Other Measures) Act 2013 receives the Royal Assent.
(3) Subject to subitem (4), an officer must, as soon as reasonably practicable, take an offshore entry person to whom this subitem applies, from the regional processing country to a place located in Australia.
(4) Page 14 (after line 21), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 3—Further contingent amendments
Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946
1 Section 4 (definition of regional processing country )
Repeal the definition.
2 Paragraph 6(2)(b)
Repeal the paragraph.
3 Paragraph 8(3)(b)
Repeal the paragraph.
The committee divided. [12:02]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
(1) Schedule 1, item 47A, page 10 (after line 15), after section 198AI, insert:
198AJ Reports about unauthorised maritime arrivals
(1) The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament, within 15 sitting days of that House after the end of a financial year, a report on the following:
(a) arrangements made by regional processing countries during the financial year for unauthorised maritime arrivals who make claims for protection under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol, including arrangements for:
(i) assessing those claims in those countries; and
(ii) the accommodation, health care and education of those unauthorised maritime arrivals in those countries;
(b) the number of those claims assessed in those countries in the financial year;
(c) the number of unauthorised maritime arrivals determined in those countries in the financial year to be covered by the definition of refugee in Article 1A of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
(2) However, a report under this section need deal with a particular regional processing country in accordance with subsection (1) only so far as information provided by the country makes it reasonably practicable for the report to do so.
(3) A report under this section must not include:
(a) the name of a person who is or was an unauthorised maritime arrival; or
(b) any information that may identify such a person; or
(c) the name of any other person connected in any way with any person covered by paragraph (a); or
(d) any information that may identify that other person.
(2) Schedule 1, heading to Part 2, page 12 (line 1), after "Application", insert ", transitional".
(3) Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 19), after item 61, insert:
61A Transitional provision—section 198AJ of the Migration Act
Section 198AJ of the Migration Act applies to the period beginning on 13 August 2012 and ending on the first 30 June after commencement as if that period were a financial year.
(2) However, a report under this section need deal with a particular regional processing country in accordance with subsection (1) only so far as information provided by the country makes it reasonably practicable for the report to do so.
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 at 7.40pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Australian Jobs Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013 that was considered at meeting 2 of 2012 on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 and not referred, was reconsidered. The committee recommends that notwithstanding its previous decision, that the bill be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);and
(d) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report 3 June 2013 (see appendix 4 for statements of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Customs and AusCheck Legislation Amendment (Organised Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2013
DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013
Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
The committee considered the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Amendment Bill 2013 and, noting that the bill had passed the Senate on 15 May 2013, resolved to recommend that the bill not be referred to a committee.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
16 May 2013
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Australian Jobs Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Submissions previously received by the Senate Economics Committee on the Exposure Draft raised issues for examination that have not been addressed in the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Businesses and/or industry groups.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
May/June 2013
Possible reporting date:
(Late) June 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The consultation process with industry and other stakeholders;
2. The possible impact on exporters, particularly small exporters; and
3. The structure of the 'fit and proper person' test.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade AusTrade
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Export Council of Australia
Association of Australina Convention Bureaux Export Consultants Group
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
May/June 2013
Possible reporting date:
17 June 2013
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consider consequences for the Australian health system.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Private Healthcare Australia
Australian Private Hospitals Association Australian Medical Association
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by the committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013
The Bill proposes to reform the financial framework for Commonwealth agencies and has a whole of government impact.
Bill has been through an extensive process that has involved briefings to the Finance and Public Administration Committee.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The Department of Finance and Deregulation
Other Government Departments and agencies
The Auditor General or another member of the Australian National Audit Office
Academics and interested stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be agreed with the Committee at their discretion.
Possible reporting date:
3 June 2013
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That the report be adopted.
That government business orders of the day, as shown in the list circulated in the chamber, are to be considered from 12.45 pm today, and that government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered not until later than 2 pm today.
That the order for general business for consideration today be as follows: (a) general business notices of motions No. 1, 2, 4 and 5, standing in the name of Senator Di Natale relating to sport betting law reform; and (b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 July 2013:
The ownership arrangements of grain handling, with particular reference to:
(a) whether such arrangements are in the interest of:
(i) Australia’s farmers, and
(ii) Australia’s long term food security interest;
(b) whether the potential impacts on competing grain traders’ access to grain handling facilities, ports, silos and transport infrastructure;
(c) whether there are potential impacts for grain traders, and a competitive marketplace, of access to warehoused grain stock information;
(d) whether there is potential for conflict between the responsibility to shareholders and the best interests of Australian producers and consumers; and
(f) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 June 2013:
The practice of sports science in Australia with regard to:
(a) the current scope of practice, accreditation and regulation arrangements for the profession;
(b) the role of boards and management in the oversight of sports scientists inside sporting organisations;
(c) the duty of care of sports scientists to athletes, and the ethical obligations of sports scientists in relation to protecting and promoting the spirit of sport;
(d) avenues for reform or enhanced regulation of the profession; and
(e) any other related matter.
That standing order 110 be suspended to enable the third reading of a constitution alteration bill relating to local government to be passed without a roll call.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013
Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
4 No. 145—16 May 2013
Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013
Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
INTERACTIVE GAMBLING AMENDMENT (VIRTUAL CREDITS) BILL 2013
This bill aims to address a serious and significant loophole in our current online gambling laws. Online gambling is developing at a rapid pace; it now goes beyond sports betting and online poker to a myriad of different games played through Facebook, on iPhones and internet gaming.
Currently, the definition of 'gambling service' in the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 reads:
(a) a service for the placing, making, receiving or acceptance of bets; or
(b) a service the sole or dominant purpose of which is to introduce individuals who wish to make or place bets to individuals who are willing to receive or accept those bets; or
(c) a service for the conduct of a lottery; or
(d) a service for the supply of lottery tickets; or
(e) a service for the conduct of a game, where:
(i ) the game is played for money or anything else of value; and
(i i) the game is a game of chance or of mixed chance and skill; and
(i ii) a customer of the service gives or agrees to give consideration to play or enter the game; or
(f) a gambling service (within the ordinary meaning of that expression) that is not covered by any of the above paragraphs.
Currently, under the law, virtual items purchased within a game or in relation to a game are not considered 'items of value' under this definition. That means that many of the games currently operating, which any reasonable person would consider to be gambling, do not come under the regulations set out in the Act.
I was first made aware of this issue when a constituent of mine approached me. He had been playing a game called DoubleDown Casino through Facebook. At the start, players used free virtual chips to gamble on roulette and blackjack. However, as the game progressed, players – including my constituent – had to purchase additional virtual chips with real cash.
The problem came when my constituent tried to cash out his winnings, and couldn't. Despite the fact he had paid real money to gamble, the game would not allow him to exchange the virtual chips he had won for hard currency. He was only able to cash out his winnings for more virtual chips.
At the time, I wrote to the Australian Media and Communications Authority, asking them to investigate the operator for breaches of the Interactive Gambling Act. My belief was that this was a clear example of a gambling service, and therefore prohibited under the Act.
However, ACMA responded that because the chips were virtual and gamblers were therefore not technically playing for real money, DoubleDown was not covered by the definition of 'gambling service' and therefore not subject to the provisions in the Act.
In short, there was nothing ACMA could do.
I also wrote to Minister Conroy, who responded that this matter would be considered as part of his Department's review of the Act. However, no changes were suggested or implemented on this matter once the review was concluded.
This is a clear loophole in relation to online gambling regulation. It is a simple matter of consumer protection, and the fact that this definition in the Act has failed to keep pace with technology, and it doesn't take into account the way many of these sites operate. The current legislation is 12 years old. Given the rapid take-up of online gambling and the expansion of the industry, it needs to be overhauled.
DoubleDown is not a one-off example. On a similar front, Zynga Poker is an online gambling game where players also use virtual items or credits to bet. However, Zynga goes one step further and sells 'gift cards;' in supermarkets and toy stores, which can be used to purchase items within the game. These cards can be purchased, using real money, by children as young as thirteen – or even younger, if that restriction is not enforced at the point of sale.
Zynga, like DoubleDown, does not allow these virtual credits to be cashed out.
Dr Charles Livingstone of Monash University is an expert in gambling behaviours, and has previously spoken out about his concerns with these kinds of online games and the access children have to them.
Earlier this year, speaking to the ABC he said:
" They are in a sense preparing kids to find gambling, particularly slot machine or poker machine gambling, an attractive form… It ' s hard for governments to act when these things emerge but I do think that it is an important priority that they act to ensure that young people do not have access to games which mimic existing gambling opportunities and which have the potential to create a whole new generation of gambling-dependent young folk. "
We have seen multiple examples of games played through social media or online gaming where buying virtual items with real cash is commonplace. These virtual items become a de facto currency for the game and take on an intrinsic value.
There have even been court cases overseas where people have been charged and penalised for the theft of virtual items.
We are lagging seriously behind in consumer protection measures on this front. These games are genuine gambling activities and involve the loss of real money; in fact, they cannot truly be called 'games' at all.
They need to be appropriately regulated and controlled so that consumers, including children, are protected.
This bill amends the definition of 'gambling service' to specify that 'items of value' include virtual tokens, credits, coins, objects or any similar thing that is purchased within, or as part of, or in relation to, the game.
This will ensure that sites such as DoubleDown and Zynga have to come clean about their activities, and that consumers will know whether they are participating in gambling activities or not.
It will also ensure that these sites are not available to children.
This measure is straightforward and necessary, and it will significantly improve consumer protection and online gambling regulation in Australia.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to recognise same-sex marriages solemnised in a foreign country, and for related purposes
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT (RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN MARRIAGES FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES) BILL 2013
This Bill amends the Marriage Act 1961 so that same-sex marriages that were validly entered into in foreign countries can be recognised in Australia.
Under current Australian law, international marriages of different-sex couples are legally recognised but same-sex international marriages are barred from recognition through an explicit prohibition in the Marriage Act.
This bill removes that prohibition and inserts new clauses that make it abundantly clear that all marriages, regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the couple, will have full legal status and recognition upon the married couple's return to Australia.
It is worth noting that this Bill has been introduced shortly after our neighbours in New Zealand became the fourteenth country to bring in full marriage equality.
Last month Australians watched on with joy and envy as the New Zealand Parliament secured the fantastic achievement of marriage equality and was cheered on by supporters around the world.
There are already thousands of Australian couples planning to marry in New Zealand from late 2013 onwards. There is no residency requirement in the New Zealand Marriage Act so Australian same-sex couples will be free to marry there.
Those couples will join the many Australians who have been travelling the world over the past decade to get married, only to come back home to the country that they love to find their marriage is not recognised. Despite being legally married in the foreign country, in their homeland they step off the plane and have to leave their marriage at the customs gate.
This is not in the spirit of what Australians really want to see in this country. Public support for marriage equality is the same in New Zealand as in Australia, which is that a 65% majority of people want to see marriage equality happen. But as long as we do not have full marriage equality here in Australia, we should at least recognise the marriages of all couples – lesbian, gay and straight – who have legally married overseas.
This bill offers a modest and practical step forward to marriage equality and it is consistent with the foundational Australian ideal of equality before the law.
The marriages that are the subject of this Bill have been entered into by the parties with sincerity and commitment and are valid marriages under the law of the county where it was solemnised. The couples have gone to the effort and emotional investment of organising a wedding in a foreign country, often at great expense and involving family and friends from Australia, and they have made vows that would be life-long if they were to remain in the country where the wedding was held. The solemnity of the vows that these couples made overseas should be recognised by Australia's parliament and people.
There a number of countries that recognise international same sex marriages without having domestic laws to perform same-sex marriages, including Israel, Slovenia, Japan and the Netherlands.
Couples from those countries can marry in one of the fourteen countries which have marriage equality, such as Argentina, the Netherlands, France or New Zealand, and then return to have their marriage recognised under the laws of their homeland.
It makes legal and moral sense for Australians to have the same privilege. These married couples are not the legal strangers that our laws say they are. Rather, they are two committed, loving, validly married people under the laws of a foreign nation and they should be recognised under Australian as such.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to competition and consumers and food labelling, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
COMPETITION AND CONSUMER AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN FOOD LABELLING) BILL 2013
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Competition and Consumer Act to create specific provisions for country of origin labelling requirements for food.
In doing so it responds to key recommendations from the Independent Blewett Review of food labelling in Australia in his report "Labelling Logic".
At the heart of these recommendations is the contention that that country of origin labelling for food should be treated differently from other goods because, as Blewett noted "food is ingested unlike other consumer goods that are just used". However, it should be addressed through consumer law rather than food safety standards, as ultimately it is a matter of truth and accuracy in labelling.
This bill responds to these recommendations by creating a specific provision in the Competition and Consumer Act for the treatment of country of origin claims for food with some proportion of Australian content, separate from other goods.
To assist with the well-documented confusion arising from current country of origin labelling practises, this bill sets out to create a simple three-tier standard of labelling for food with any form of Australian origin or processing.
In the first instance, it retains the well-established premium of 'Product of Australia', where all the significant ingredients and processing must have occurred in Australia to make this claim.
For fresh unpackaged food, it also allows the use of 'Grown in Australia' as this is a clear and now well-established and understood claim.
Secondly, for food that has been manufactured in Australia, that is substantially transformed, it requires such packaged food to be labelled 'Manufactured in Australia'. This term is specified to replace 'Made in Australia' because consumer research has shown that people confuse the term 'Made in', thinking it denotes the origin of the food, not just where it was processed.
This amendment will achieve two important improvements: it will clarify for consumers that the label is about where the food has been processed, not where the ingredients are from; provide a strong label identifying local manufacture to help Australians support local jobs in food processing; and it will help prevent imported food from masquerading as Australian content by making it clear that this label only speaks to the processing, not the ingredients.
A further reform in this bill is that it provides for the creation of a regulation to provide clear guidance on the meaning of 'substantial transformation' in relation to food processing. It is clear from the evidence that understanding what qualifies as food manufacturing – that is substantial transformation – is a grey area, and some companies push the envelope in their claims.
It must be remembered that the purpose of the substantial transformation test is to reward significant investment and jobs in local food manufacturing. The system breaks down if manufacturing claims are made for much lesser and often more transient investments.
Therefore this bill recommends that a regulation on the definition of substantial transformation provide a list of processes that do not qualify. This would significantly increase the clarity and transparency of 'Manufactured in Australia' claims, and support local food processing jobs.
It is worth noting too, that historically the companies investing in genuine food manufacturing in Australia are the most likely to also be sourcing local food for their products. To further encourage clear labelling of Australian ingredients, this bill allows for the voluntary highlighting of local content that comprise significant ingredients – for example a chocolate might therefore be labelled "Manufactured in Australia from Australian milk".
This allows for the fact that there are some foods manufactured in Australia that don't use all local ingredients for the simple reason that Australia does not produce it in sufficient quantity for it to be possible – cocoa beans for making chocolate being a good example. But it does allow for local significant ingredients to be differentiated, which in turn means that consumers can reward local content and greater transparency at the cash register.
Finally the bill establishes a third tier of labelling to deal with packaged food that does not have sufficient Australian content or processing to qualify for the other claims. At the moment these products use the least understood – by as little as 3% of Australians in fact – and most frustrating current country of origin claims, those known as 'qualified claims' – terms such as 'Made from imported and local ingredients'.
These vague catch-all statements at best confuse and frustrate consumers, and they certainly don't support informed decisions. This bill prohibits them, and instead requires any packaged food that has some level of Australian processing or content, but that does not meet 'Product of' or 'Manufactured in' claims to simply say "Packaged in Australia".
By providing three tiers of country of origin claims, this bill offers an opportunity to greatly simplify a complex and frustrating area of food labelling. It responds specifically to years of consumer research, showing that Australians equally want to know where their food is from, and where it was processed.
I want to now briefly describe the process of how this bill has come about. Fifteen months ago I introduced the Competition and Consumer Act (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 to the parliament, a bill which I have now withdrawn.
The Competition and Consumer Act (Australian Food Labelling) Bill sought to implement the key recommendations of the Blewett Review as I have outlined before, and also those in which he recommended that country of origin labelling of food be based solely on the origin of the ingredients.
My previous bill allowed these key recommendations to be tested, which is a necessity given that food labelling is frequently acknowledged to be an area of great complexity fraught with unintended consequences.
For this reason I encouraged all interested parties with expertise in the area of country of origin food labelling to make a submission to the Senate inquiry, and urged them to not just focus on critiquing the bill, but if possible provide viable alternatives.
As a result the senate inquiry was a demonstration of just how effective this core process can be to help focus attention and find solutions in a complex area of law. In addition to submissions from the public expressing support for clearer labelling, I am especially grateful to AUSVEG, the Australian Manufacturers Workers Union, Australian Made Australian Grown, the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance and CHOICE for their investment of time and goodwill in providing constructive input to the bill. CHOICE deserve special acknowledgement for their work in putting forward viable alternatives to the current labelling system, and my bill reflects the core of their recommendations.
As a result of this constructive work, we were able to identify which of Blewett's recommendations would be effective, which would not, and clear common ground for reform in an area of great interest to many Australians.
The Competition and Consumer (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill that I introduce today is the product of that process.
I want to once more put on record why this issue is so important. This is a topic on which there is a clear and united public view. Whenever the question is asked, overwhelmingly Australians tell us that they want to be able to easily identify and buy Australian-grown food, and overwhelmingly they are frustrated in that desire by current country of origin labelling.
CHOICE provided updated comprehensive research to this effect as part of their submission to the senate inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill this year, once again confirming Australia's desire to have clear country of origin labelling that allows them to easily identify and choose to purchase food grown and processed in Australia.
I believe this bill offers a tangible step forward to improving country of origin labelling for food, one that has support from organisations representing Australian growers, local jobs in food manufacturing and information transparency for consumers.
There are no doubt further reforms we could and should consider over time. It is still difficult for example, for some forms of local processing that supports local jobs to get recognition under these proposed labelling claims - and the existing one.
But the ability to pursue further improvements should not be used as a reason to oppose the reforms this bill offers. We must remember that over half of Australians are very clear that they do make food purchasing decisions based on whether the food is local.
For Australian farmers and food manufacturers, this bill is urgent. As the news continues to be filled with stories of Australian food manufactures going into administration or slashing their intake of local content, and as Australian farmers struggle to keep market share at home against a rising tide of cheap imports, it has never been more timely to help Australians identify and buy local food. It is time to act.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 12 May to 18 May 2013 is Schizophrenia Awareness Week,
(ii) people affected by serious mental illness face critical challenges to achieving and maintaining the same physical health as other people in the community,
(iii) such people are more vulnerable to coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke and respiratory disease than those without serious mental illness, and
(iv) their life expectancy is up to 25 years less than that of the general population; and
(b) calls on all governments in Australia to address the poor physical health status of people with serious mental illness as a priority.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in Bangladesh that killed 1 127 garment workers, many of whom were sewing clothes for international brands in unsafe conditions,
(ii) the significant protests and riots by garment workers in Bangladesh in response to the building collapse, and
(iii) that in response, some international clothing brands have signalled their intention to sign an accord committing to improve fire and building standards for their workers in Bangladesh; and
(b) calls on:
(i) Australian companies to ensure the safety of their workers in developing countries through improving standards and conditions and providing for independent inspections of factories,
(ii) Australian clothing companies to join the accord committing to improve fire and building standards for workers in Bangladesh, and
(iii) the Australian clothing industry to consider moves towards supply chain accreditation for products from developing countries.
That the Senate—
(a) notes with deep regret the passing of The Rt. Hon. The Baroness Thatcher, LG, OM, PC, FRS, one of the most significant and influential British Prime Ministers, and the first woman to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and
(b) conveys its condolences to the people of Great Britain.
That the Senate—
(a) notes its support for the fruit growers and workers in the local food processing industry;
(b) recognises the impact and toll That the increased cost of doing business has on local food processors;
(c) acknowledges the significance of iconic local food processors as key employers and contributors to regional communities;
(d) supports the 'Toss a tin in your trolley' campaign to encourage Australians to throw a tin of local canned produce into their shopping trolley and urges supermarkets to promote this initiative; and
(e) calls on:
(i) the Treasurer to initiate an urgent safeguard investigation to determine whether safeguard action should be imposed in respect of imported canned produce, and
(ii) the Government to undertake an immediate and comprehensive anti-dumping investigation with respect to the request from SPC Ardmona and the canned food industry.
That the Senate notes that not a single Australian economist or industry group has publicly supported the Coalition's Direct Action Plan.
The Senate divided. [12:35]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the voluntary national Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry designates a maximum outdoor stocking density of 1 500 free range layer hens per hectare yet this is not enforceable and relies on self regulation,
(ii) there is no consistent state government move to legislate a maximum of 1 500 hens per hectare, with only New South Wales, Tasmanian, Western Australian and South Australian governments currently considering bills to do so,
(iii) while an overdue review by the Primary Industries Ministerial Council of the Domestic Poultry Code has finally begun, it is years from completion and implementation, and
(iv) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has made free range eggs one of seven priority areas for 2013, noting consumers want clear and accurate labelling of eggs; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to work with state and territory governments to implement mandatory, nationally consistent truth in labelling laws covering production methods in the egg industry.
The Senate divided. [21:41]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) in 1964 the Commonwealth Government transferred the Point Peron area to the Western Australian State Government subject to agreement that its future use was restricted to a reserve for public recreation and parklands, reiterating in 1968 That the land must not be used for private industrial, commercial or residential development,
(ii) the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority gave conditional approval to the Mangles Bay Marina project in Cape Peron on 29 April 2013 adjacent to a protected freshwater lake containing one of the only surviving thrombolite communities in Western Australia, and
(iii) 8 000 signatures opposing the Point Peron Marina development were submitted to the Western Australian Parliament on Tuesday, 14 May 2013; and
(b) calls on the Government to insist That the Western Australian Government honour its 1964 commitment regarding the use of the land and reject development of this pristine area.
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.
NATIONAL DISABILITY INSURANCE SCHEME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
This bill follows up the recent landmark legislation underpinning the first stage of DisabilityCare Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by making minor clarifying and consequential amendments to complement the main legislation.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013, passed earlier this year, establishes DisabilityCare Australia, —the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
This will enable the scheme to be launched, and DisabilityCare Australia to operate the launch, in four sites across Australia from July 2013 – in South Australia, Tasmania, the Hunter region in New South Wales, and the Barwon area of Victoria – and, from July 2014, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Barkly region of the Northern Territory.
This bill makes minor amendments to the legislation to clarify the policy intention in relevant provisions, and to address minor anomalies and technical errors.
These technical changes will make sure that all of the details intended to be specified in the rules – which are necessary for implementation of the first stage of the scheme – will reflect the principal legislation for the scheme.
For example, provisions that allow rules to be made to prescribe relevant 'criteria' will be clarified to make sure rules can also be made to prescribe 'matters for consideration' or 'factors to be taken into account'.
Similarly, in the case of the early intervention supports, where there is no intention to make rules and where key eligibility criteria are already set out clearly in the legislation, the current rule-making power is being removed to avoid any risk that those provisions would not be available to people who may benefit from them.
The bill will strengthen the audit and risk management framework of DisabilityCare Australia. It is critical that the Board adopts a rigorous approach to oversight of DisabilityCare Australia, ensuring that this historic reform is financially sustainable and will support the wellbeing of Australians with disability for decades to come.
The framework for audit and risk management provides an important assurance that DisabilityCare Australia's operations and risks are being prudently and soundly managed.
Other minor amendments include clarifying the matters to which the CEO must have regard when considering whether to take action to claim or obtain compensation, or take over the conduct of an existing claim. These matters are similar to the matters that the act already requires the CEO to have regard to when deciding whether to require a scheme participant to take compensation action.
While it is not expected that the CEO will often need to take on or take over compensation claims, the amendments provide clarity to scheme participants and potential participants about what the CEO would need to consider before taking any such action.
The bill also makes consequential amendments to other Commonwealth Acts to complement the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013.
The bill will establish a new National Disability Insurance Scheme Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and require that members appointed to the division have expertise relating to disability or other relevant experience.
The Minister responsible for the scheme will also have to be consulted before a tribunal member can be assigned to the new division.
These requirements will ensure that applications for review of relevant decisions under the scheme are reviewed by tribunal members with appropriate training, knowledge or experience in this specialised area. A robust external merits review system is integral to supporting fair, efficient and effective decision making under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
Amendments to the social security law will include changes to ensure that amounts paid under the National Disability Insurance Scheme for supports funded under a participant's plan are not taken into account under the social security or veterans' entitlements income and assets tests.
Lastly, among some consequential amendments to the taxation legislation, there will be changes to ensure that payments and benefits provided under the National Disability Insurance Scheme to participants in the scheme are exempt from income tax.
DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA FUND BILL 2013
For too long, people with disability, and their carers and families, have lived with inequity and uncertainty.
That is why this Government is transforming disability services by creating and locking in funding for DisabilityCare Australia.
DisabilityCare Australia will provide people with significant and permanent disability across Australia with the support they need.
The support they have waited too long for.
It will provide them with choice and control.
And it will enhance their opportunities for social and economic participation.
Through the bill the Prime Minster has introduced, the Government will provide a strong and enduring funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia, and provide certainty to people with disability that they will receive support in the long term, the Government will increase the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2 per cent from 1 July 2014.
Disability can affect any of us and therefore it affects all of us.
That is why we are asking Australians to make a small contribution that will make a big difference to the lives of over 460,000 people with disability when the scheme is fully rolled out.
It was a Labor Government that introduced the Medicare levy in 1984 to fund Medicare.
The introduction of Medicare and the Medicare levy ensured equal access to health care for all Australians and demonstrated a commitment by the Labor government to the benefits of universal health care.
The DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill is an important part of making DisabilityCare Australia a reality.
Every dollar raised from increasing the Medicare levy will be paid into the DisabilityCare Australia Fund, that we will establish with this bill.
This bill makes it crystal clear that the additional funds raised by the Medicare levy can only be drawn upon to fund DisabilityCare Australia.
The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians (the Future Fund Board) who have the experience in successfully managing other Government owned investment funds.
The bill requires that a fixed amount of the money flowing into the Fund each year will be set aside for the States and Territories.
This amount will be $825 million in 2014-15, one quarter of the amount we expect to raise in that year.
The annual amount allocated within the Fund to the States and Territories will be grown in future years by 3.5 per cent per year.
Over ten years, the States and Territories will be allocated a total of $9.7 billion.
Funds will be used to reimburse States and Territories for spending on the scheme once key conditions are met.
We will formalise those conditions in agreements with the States.
Consistent with the principle that these funds are only to be used for additional costs in delivering DisabilityCare, those conditions will ensure that States can only access funds once they are incurring significant new costs in delivering DisabilityCare.
To support early establishment costs, eligible States will also be able to access some of their annual allocation in 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18.
The bill will also provide the opportunity to cover interim matters to enable DisabilityCare Australia to commence operations from 1 July 2013, through creation of a transitional special account to manage State and Territory government funds until the Board overseeing the National Disability Insurance Scheme Launch Transition Agency is established.
The transitional special account will also be credited with the Commonwealth's contribution for 2013-14 which will be appropriated to the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. This will provide assurance to State and Territory governments that the Commonwealth's contribution will be spent only on DisabilityCare Australia.
This bill allows the DisabilityCare Australia Fund to receive, hold and invest the additional revenue from the increase in the Medicare levy for the purposes of reimbursing the Commonwealth and States and Territories for their contributions to DisabilityCare Australia. It supports the critical objectives and principles of DisabilityCare Australia.
The Government's plan for DisabilityCare Australia extends well beyond the Medicare levy increase and the DisabilityCare fund.
In the Budget, the Government detailed the long term structural savings that, along with the revenue from the Medicare levy increase, will fully fund DisabilityCare well beyond the forward estimates, even beyond a ten year horizon.
This unprecedented step of providing long-term funding well beyond the normal four year Budget cycle shows the depth of Labor's commitment to DisabilityCare.
It shows our commitment to righting the wrongs of too many years of complacency, too many years where we have not given proper regard to the needs of people with significant and permanent disability.
With the secure funding we lock in for DisabilityCare today and for the future, we ensure that come 1 July 2013, DisabilityCare will be here to stay.
MEDICARE LEVY AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
Australia's strong economy and Australia's social safety nets are the envy of the world.
In this Bill, we see Australia at its very best.
In this Bill, we see that we still can be the strong, smart, fair Australia that created the Age Pension and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Medibank, Medicare and universal superannuation.
In this Bill, we see that there is still a place for collective action to solve those great pressures of life that are too big and complex for individuals and families to solve alone.
In this Bill, we see a nation united in a spirit of concern to strengthen and extend the fair go, to ensure no one is left behind ...
… we also see a Parliament ready to put the national interest ahead of ideology.
To those who say Australian politics no longer works, I say simply: read the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill.
This is a united embrace of national responsibility and a great act of mutual care and solidarity.
Every week or fortnight, a sliver of the paypacket will go to DisabilityCare Australia: around a dollar a day for the average earner.
But all that money added together from every corner of the nation will be a mighty force for good.
Today we give an assurance to all Australians who live with disability and to those who care for them: DisabilityCare Australia will be here when you need it … election after election, decade after decade, generation after generation.
A new assurance for 410 000 Australians living with significant, permanent disability now and for their families and carers.
Today we also give a new assurance to all those Australians who do not have a disability today but who, through the vagaries of fortune, will come to have a significant, permanent disability in times to come.
For everyone who thinks, "it couldn't happen to me – could it?" this Bill brings peace of mind, it brings the knowledge that a scheme as well-designed and stably-funded as Medicare will be here when you need it.
Let me turn to the detail of the Bill.
The Bill will increase the Medicare levy by half a percentage point, from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, from 1 July 2014.
The Bill also makes consequential changes to the upper phase‑in amount for low‑income taxpayers with income between certain thresholds – as well as to the formula for calculating the amount of a person's Medicare levy liability where a person has a spouse or dependants.
These changes reflect the increase in the Medicare levy.
Low‑income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low‑income thresholds for singles, families, seniors and pensioners.
The current exemptions from the Medicare levy will also remain in place, including for blind pensioners and sickness allowance recipients.
A number of other tax rates that include a component for the Medicare levy will also increase in line with this change – these include increases in the rate of fringe benefits tax and excess contributions tax.
These bills will be introduced by my Ministers today and further details of these consequential increases are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Every cent raised by the increase in the Medicare levy will be allocated to a special fund over the next decade – the DisabilityCare Australia Fund.
By law, the fund will only be spent on supporting people with disability through DisabilityCare Australia.
The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be established by the DisabilityCare Australia Fund Bill 2013, which will be put before the House as part of this package.
Full details of this fund will be outlined in the explanatory memorandum to that Bill which is to be tabled by the Deputy Prime Minister shortly.
Increasing the Medicare levy will raise approximately $20.4 billion between 2014‑15 and 2018‑19 – amounting to approximately 55 per cent of the total cost of funding DisabilityCare Australia over that period.
The Commonwealth's share of the fund will go toward our additional contribution to DisabilityCare Australia.
This will cover around 60 per cent of the Australian Government's net new spending on the scheme over the ten years from 2014-15.
In last night's Budget, the Deputy Prime Minister outlined that through this increased Levy and other wise savings, DisabilityCare Australia is fully funded.
DisabilityCare Australia is designed to ensure every Australian with significant and permanent disability, regardless of where he or she lives, gets the care and support they need.
DisabilityCare Australia will end the notorious "postcode lottery" for people with disabilities in this country.
I want no more of the unfairness and irrationality by which a person gets vastly different support merely because of where he or she lives or how a disability was acquired.
This requires the commitment and support of State and Territory governments.
The Government will assist the States and Territories with funding their share of DisabilityCare Australia, by setting aside some of the money going into the DisabilityCare Australia Fund.
Over the life of the fund, the States and Territories will be allocated a total of $9.7 billion.
The States and Territories will be able to draw down from the Fund when they meet key conditions for implementation.
DisabilityCare Australia will have full coverage across the Australian Capital Territory by July 2016, in New South Wales and South Australia by July 2018, and Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory by July 2019.
These agreements will see the scheme cover around
90 per cent of the total Australian population.
The Western Australian allocation from the Fund will be quarantined until we reach agreement with the State.
We encourage the Western Australian Government to join the cause.
All our people deserve the best.
To ensure that DisabilityCare Australia is fully funded, the Government has implemented a number of other savings measures.
Part of the savings from reforms to the Government's assistance for private health insurance announced in the 2012-13 MYEFO which have not been allocated to the Government's dental package will support DisabilityCare.
Funding will also come from reforms to retirement incomes policy, the phase out of the net medical expenses tax offset and other long-term savings decisions now announced as part of the 2013-14 Budget.
Making a new call upon the finances of Australians is not something that is done without care in this country – the fact is when a levy does happen, there is rightly a very good reason.
Bob Hawke with the Medicare levy.
John Howard with the levy for gun buy-backs.
This Government's flood levy which rebuilt Queensland.
Now, this increase in the Medicare levy to support DisabiltyCare.
Ours has been a fiscally-responsible government.
Offsetting all new spending since 2009, holding expenditure at a level lower than the average seen over the past 25 years.
A levy was not our first choice of funding vehicle for DisabilityCare.
But with the high dollar and the historic anomaly of nominal GDP growth falling below real GDP growth for a sustained period, the revenue write-downs have been unprecedented ... $17 billion for this financial year since the last budget update alone.
In short, the facts have changed.
I am also deeply conscious that the States and Territories face their own fiscal pressures arising from these same complex economic circumstances.
So we want to be able to offer them more support to pay for the scheme – which is why a substantial share of funds raised by this levy will go to the States and Territories.
Most importantly, we've listened to the sound case made by disability support groups for secure, ongoing funding for the national disability insurance scheme.
In a time of burden sharing and wise savings, they are right to want to ensure that DisabilityCare has a sustainable and stable funding stream ... in order to guarantee the security DisabilityCare is designed to bring.
The President of People with Disability Australia, Craig Wallace, has summarised the argument well – the levy will be
An insurance premium for good times and bad ... people ' s disabilities will not go away the next time we have a surplus.
That's the backdrop against which I introduce this Bill.
That's why the Government not only has bipartisan support for this Bill, we have near-nationwide agreement on this scheme.
Following the ground breaking agreement with New South Wales last December, the other jurisdictions have joined the cause, one by one:
South Australia, the ACT, Tasmania, Victoria, Queensland and most recently the Northern Territory.
That means 90 per cent of Australians are now part of the plan ... leaving only the people of Western Australia still waiting for a decision by their Premier.
People with disabilities and their families have campaigned so long to design and fund a national disability insurance scheme.
Many of those advocates are here with us today – I want to take the time to welcome and acknowledge you all now – and to acknowledge the passion and dedication of so many people with disability, so many families and carers, who have brought the campaign to this point.
In recent weeks, as the momentum you have built has broken through, as we have struck agreements with States and Territories and announced details of the funding, I have seen the hope and anticipation which Australians with disability, particularly young Australians, now share.
The Saturday before last, I travelled to Melbourne to meet Premier Napthine and sign up Victoria to DisabilityCare.
In Melbourne, I saw Sophie, a twelve-year-old girl who lives with Down Syndrome.
As her parents describe her, Sophie "reads and writes, mucks around on the monkey bars, can be well behaved and badly behaved, runs like a billy goat, and is a budding photographer".
She took my photo while we were there.
Last week I travelled to Brisbane to meet Premier Newman and sign up Queensland to DisabilityCare.
While I was there, I met Sandy, who is 17 and lives with a physical disability similar to cerebral palsy.
Sandy has big dreams for his future, like any teenager, but his future also has some big needs: mobility aids that cost tens of thousands of dollars, personal care to maintain his hygiene, physical therapy to maintain his muscles and his health.
When I met this young man he handed me a card signed by him and his mates to say thanks for what we are doing for people with disability – a card illustrated by the photo Sophie had taken a week before.
In years to come, DisabilityCare Australia will ensure Sophie and Sandy and so many other young people with disability will have the security and dignity every Australian deserves.
This, above all, is why Australians so overwhelmingly support DisabilityCare.
Over the past six years, the idea of a national disability insurance scheme has found a place in our nation's heart.
In March, we gave it a place in our nation's laws.
Today we inscribe it in our nation's finances.
The people who've gathered here today from around the country to witness this debate, know what this means.
There'll be no more "in principle" and no more "when circumstances permit".
There'll be launches, not trials ... permanent care, not temporary help.
DisabilityCare Australia starts in seven weeks – and there will be no turning back.
FRINGE BENEFITS TAX AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
The Gillard Government is proud to be delivering DisabilityCare Australia, the most important social reform since Medicare.
We know this is a reform that's time has come.
A reform that will deliver significant benefits to people with disability, their carers and families and to the wider Australian community.
DisabilityCare Australia will transform the lives of people with disability, their families and carers. In 2019-20, the first year of full scheme, it will provide around 460,000 Australians with a significant and permanent disability the care support they deserve, regardless of how they acquired their disability.
People with a disability, their families and carers deserve certainty. They deserve the certainty of knowing that they will be supported over their lifetimes, and the certainty that DisabilityCare Australia will be funded over the long term.
That's why the Government is increasing the Medicare levy from 1.5 to 2 per cent. And that is why every dollar raised from increasing the levy will go directly to fund DisabilityCare Australia. The DisabilityCare Australia Fund will be used solely to for spending on DisabilityCare Australia.
This will ensure DisabilityCare Australia has a strong and stable funding stream, replacing the current funding model based on arbitrary budget allocations.
People with a disability, their families and carers also deserve certainty that they will receive support no matter where they live in Australia. DisabilityCare Australia is a national reform that requires the commitment and support of all State and Territory governments.
To assist the States and Territories, the Government will make a share of the DisabilityCare Australia fund available to the States and Territories. We will make available to the States and Territories $9.7 billion over the next decade to assist in the delivery of DisabilityCare Australia.
People with a disability, their families and carers also deserve certainty that the Commonwealth will fully fund its share of DisabilityCare Australia. That is why we have taken a number of tough savings decisions and will direct those savings to fully fund DisabilityCare Australia.
The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (Disabilitycare Australia) Bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Fringe Benefits Tax plays an important role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of Australia's taxation system.
It places employees who receive fringe benefits on a more even footing with employees whose remuneration consists entirely of salary or wages. It ensures that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax.
The fringe benefits tax system also ensures that such benefits are counted as income when a person accesses means tested Government financial assistance, such as family tax benefits, ensuring that families are treated equally.
Fringe benefits are taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Fringe Benefits Tax Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the fringe benefits tax rate to 47 per cent to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy. This will apply from 1 April 2014 – the start of the FBT year.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
In supporting these changes in the Parliament, we show our support for certainty for people with disability, their families and their carers.
We all commit ourselves to this long overdue and much needed reform.
INCOME TAX RATES AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax Rates Act 1986. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
When a superannuation fund or retirement savings account member does not provide their tax file number, the contributions made on behalf of the member are counted as income of the superannuation fund or the retirement savings account provider. The superannuation fund or retirement savings account provider is then required to pay tax on the contributions where no tax file number has been provided. This helps to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The rate of the tax imposed on contributions where no tax file number has been provided includes a component which is the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Income Tax Rates Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this component from 1 July 2014 to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help maintain the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAX) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
The increase in the Medicare levy will help fund DisabilityCare Australia, the most profound piece of social justice policy since Medicare.
This is a watershed moment in our federation of states, our national story. An opportunity to alter the course of the future for millions of Australians that find difficulty in maintaining a basic level of existence which we all take for granted.
The importance, the urgency of this, is not to be underestimated.
Once DisabilityCare becomes a reality, we will never look back.
We will never look back to a time, a truly primitive time, when the disabled and their carers had to shoulder the burden and fill the gap while legislators sat back and looked at their knuckles, and hoped the problem would fix itself.
I believe this is the greatest cause to come before this chamber for a very long time, and the most important that I have had the privilege to work for.
This is our chance to turn to the almost more than four hundred thousand Australians, their families and their carers that face these daily struggles and say to them `your country will not leave you to fight each day alone`.
We see you. You have worth. And with a bit of help from your people, your society, your tribe, there is a chance things can change.
A better prosthetic may give new chances of work. The help of a specialist, one that was previously unaffordable under the private system, could make a breakthrough that can turn a life around.
This will change lives.
Change families.
Change the dimension of hope in every community.
No longer do we fill this place with empty rhetoric on this issue. We now put our money on the table. And we ask:
What is the price of an ordinary life?
Under DisabilityCare, it doesn't matter if you were born with it, or the circumstance in which you came to be the way you are.
What seems like such a basic concept, as old as the Good Samaritan, has taken a lot of work by a lot of people to come to action, fruition, to legislation in this place, on this historic day.
This really is a moment in our history to relish and remember.
Equality, a truly Labor principle, is the simple goal of this nation changing reform.
I turn now to the details of the bill.
This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution, and on whether the contribution is made out of before or after tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted.
The amount of a person's pre-tax superannuation contribution that exceeds the concessional cap is currently taxed at a rate of 31.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent, less the general rate of 15 per cent tax paid by most superannuation funds.
The Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the rate at which tax on excess concessional contributions is payable.
From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point to 32 per cent, reflecting the increase in the Medicare levy.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS NON-CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS TAX) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Superannuation (Excess Non-Concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution, and on whether the contribution is made out of before or after tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted.
The amount by which a person's after-tax contribution to their superannuation exceeds the non-concessional cap is currently taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent. This is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent.
The Superannuation (Excess Non-concessional Contributions Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the rate at which tax on excess non-concessional contributions is payable.
From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point to 47 per cent, and will apply to an individual's excess contributions for a financial year. This reflects the half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS UNTAXED ROLL-OVER AMOUNTS TAX) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-Over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Contributions to superannuation are subject to a number of different caps, which vary depending on the age and retirement status of the person making the contribution, and on whether the contribution is made out of before or after tax income. These caps exist to ensure that the amount of concessionally taxed superannuation benefits that a person may receive is sustainable and appropriately targeted.
Excess, untaxed, roll-over amounts are currently taxed at a rate of 46.5 per cent, which is the sum of the top marginal personal tax rate of 45 per cent and the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent.
The Superannuation (Excess Untaxed Roll-Over Amounts Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase the rate at which tax on excess untaxed roll-over amounts is payable.
From 1 July 2014, this rate will increase by half a percentage point to 47 per cent, and will apply to excess untaxed roll-over amounts paid on or after 1 July 2014. This reflects the half a percentage point increase in the Medicare levy.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
INCOME TAX (TFN WITHHOLDING TAX (ESS)) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Act 2009. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Employers are required to pay the withholding tax if they provide their employees with discounted shares or rights and employees have not provided their tax file number or Australian Business Number to their employer by the end of the income year. This helps to ensure the integrity of the taxation of employee share schemes.
The rate of the withholding tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Income Tax (TFN Withholding Tax (ESS)) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate to 47 per cent, from 1 July 2014, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
INCOME TAX (FIRST HOME SAVER ACCOUNTS MISUSE TAX) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Act 2008. These are necessary as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Where a first home saver account holder improperly uses the account, the First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax applies to claw back the benefit they have obtained.
The rate of the misuse tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Income Tax (First Home Saver Accounts Misuse Tax) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill will increase this rate from 1 July 2014 to 47 per cent, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of Bills.
FAMILY TRUST DISTRIBUTION TAX (PRIMARY LIABILITY) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
This bill is part of a package of measures to transform disability services by creating and locking in funding for DisabilityCare Australia, the national disability insurance scheme.
DisabilityCare Australia will change the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers. It will provide the 410,000 Australians with a significant and permanent disability the care and support they deserve, support they have waited far too long to receive.
The Government is also providing certainty. Certainty for people with disability. Certainty for their families and carers. And certainty to all Australians. Certainty that DisabilityCare Australia will be funded in the long term.
The Gillard Government will increase the Medicare levy by half a percentage point, from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent, from 1 July 2014. This will provide DisabilityCare Australia with a strong and enduring funding stream.
The Government will also ensure that every dollar raised from increasing the levy will go directly to fund DisabilityCare Australia. As part of this package of bills, the Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer introduced the bill that will establish the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. The Fund will hold and invest the proceeds from the increase in the Medicare levy and can only be used to meet expenditure directly related to DisabilityCare Australia.
To ensure that all Australians benefit from this fundamental reform, the Government will make a share of the Fund available to the States and Territories to assist them in establishing DisabilityCare Australia.
Over a ten-year period, the Government will allocate around $9.7 billion of the revenue from the increase in the Medicare levy to the States and Territories to help fund their contribution to DisabilityCare Australia.
The risk of disability is something that all of us face and the rewards of supporting people with disability will be shared by all. That is why we are asking Australians to make a small contribution to fund DisabilityCare Australia.
For someone earning average wages of around $70,000 this will mean a modest contribution of around 96 cents a day—a small amount that will make a big difference to those with disability, their carers and their families.
Despite this small increase, virtually every taxpayer is still paying less tax now than they were in 2007.
I will now turn to the details of the bill.
This bill contains consequential amendments as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
The family trust distribution tax is payable where a trustee of a family trust has made a family trust election and a distribution is made to, or a present entitlement conferred on, a person other than the primary individual or a member of their family.
The rate of the family trust distribution tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal tax rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy of 1.5 per cent. The alignment with the top marginal rate and Medicare levy minimises the incentive to reduce a person's tax through the use of a family trust.
To maintain this alignment, the Family Trust Distribution Tax (Primary Liability) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate of tax to 47 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) (NO. 1) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 1) 2007 as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
Where a share of the net income of a closely held trust is distributed to another trust, the trustee must advise the Commissioner of Taxation of each share of trust income or tax-preferred amounts that is distributed from the trust. If a trustee does not provide this information, they will be liable to pay trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax.
The rate of the trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 1) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate to 47 per cent, from 1 July 2014, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
TAXATION (TRUSTEE BENEFICIARY NON-DISCLOSURE TAX) (NO. 2) AMENDMENT (DISABILITYCARE AUSTRALIA) BILL 2013
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 is part of a package of measures increasing the Medicare levy by half a percentage point.
This bill contains consequential amendments to the Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 2) 2007 as a result of the increase in the Medicare levy, contained in the Medicare Levy Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013.
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 2) 2007 also imposes a secondary trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax, which supports the core trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax, which is contained in Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) Act (No. 1).
In order to discourage the use of circular chains of trusts to disguise the identity of the final beneficiary of trust income, trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is also imposed on the first trustee beneficiary where trust income is further distributed to another trust.
The rate of the trustee beneficiary non-disclosure tax is currently 46.5 per cent, the top marginal rate of 45 per cent plus the current Medicare levy rate of 1.5 per cent.
The Taxation (Trustee Beneficiary Non-Disclosure Tax) (No. 2) Amendment (DisabilityCare Australia) Bill 2013 will increase this rate from 1 July 2014 to 47 per cent, to reflect the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.5 per cent to 2 per cent.
These consequential amendments will help to ensure the integrity of the tax system.
The revenue from this package of bills will be used to provide a strong and stable funding stream for DisabilityCare Australia.
Further details of the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum for the package of bills.
That the bills be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the bill be now read a third time.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY AMENDMENT (INBOUND CARGO SECURITY ENHANCEMENT) BILL 2013
Australia’s aviation security framework is under continuous review to ensure it is responsive to changes in the aviation security environment including the deterrence, detection and prevention of acts of unlawful interference with an aircraft.
It is apparent that at times it may be necessary for Australia to place restrictions on certain cargo being carried on Australian aircraft, or being carried into Australia on foreign nationality aircraft.
This fact was highlighted on 29 October 2010, when two improvised explosive devices were discovered on board aircraft in Dubai and the United Kingdom.
The devices were hidden in printers and sent from Yemen to the United States as air cargo consignments.
They were intercepted en route following an intelligence tip-off.
Such events show the potential for inbound air cargo to pose an unacceptable security risk to Australians and Australian interests.
While providing for a security framework covering outbound international air cargo, current provisions under the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 do not provide specific mitigation measures to counter the threat posed by inbound international air cargo.
The proposed legislative amendment addresses this issue and will ensure that the Government has a sound, transparent and effective legal basis to mitigate the threat posed to Australia by international inbound air cargo in the future.
In 2010, responding to the Yemen incident, the Government moved to prohibit air cargo originating in, or transiting through, Yemen or Somalia from being carried to Australia.
This was initially achieved through the issuing of Special Security Directions.
However, Special Security Directions only operate for a six month period as they were deliberately created as a short-term measure, providing an appropriate means to quickly deal with emerging security threats.
Upon their expiration, the effect of the prohibition was continued by requiring relevant aviation industry participants to vary their Transport Security Programs.
Under the current legislation, this is the only way the framework can address lasting threats such as those presented by the 2010 Yemen incident.
While this mechanism has the desired security effect, it is cumbersome, and creates an excessive administrative burden, requiring each aircraft operator to manually amend its security program, and for the Government to individually assess each amendment.
This Bill changes that by introducing a mechanism to quickly and efficiently respond to security threats on a national basis.
The proposed changes allow the Government to prohibit all air cargo entering Australian territory, or be limited to a variety of types of cargo, depending on the nature of the threat.
Some of the current examples of the types of cargo that might be regulated are:
This flexibility allows for currently unknown threats to be dealt with effectively and proportionately.
The threat of improvised explosive devices concealed in air cargo is real and the consequence of such a plot succeeding would be catastrophic.
As such, the Bill contains a strict liability offence.
The Government believes this is an appropriate deterrent against acts or omissions committed by aviation industry participants that may contribute to the success of an attack.
The penalties for an offence under the Bill are $34,000 for an aircraft operator and $17,000 for any other aviation industry participant.
These penalties are consistent with similar existing penalties for strict liability offences within the Aviation Transport Security Act.
Another consideration in developing the Bill is that lasting prohibitions on cargo have the potential to affect trade and foreign relations.
This Bill addresses this by providing an appropriate level of scrutiny, transparency and accountability through the use of a disallowable instrument.
No decision will be taken without consultation with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Trade Minister.
The Bill makes a technical amendment to the Act which arose out of the Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Act 2011.
The Yemen incident has been a key driver for the strengthening of Australia’s air cargo security measures.
Ideally, all countries throughout the world would secure their own domestic and outbound cargo to a global minimum standard.
However, as this goal remains aspirational, the Government must take steps to ensure it has the right tools to take action when needed to protect Australia’s interests.
The security of inbound cargo is a key aspect of the Government’s overall aviation security strategy.
The Government’s first priority is ensuring the safety and security of Australians and Australian interests.
This Bill ensures that the Government has a sound, transparent and effective legal basis to mitigate the threat posed to Australia by international inbound air cargo in the future.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (COMPLIANCE MEASURES No. 2) BILL 2013
The tragic deaths of two employees following an incident on the Stena Clyde rig in Bass Strait last year, the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from the Montara Wellhead Platform off the northern coast of Western Australia in August 2009 and the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April 2010 - all serve to represent unfortunate examples of the serious and inherent risks associated with the offshore petroleum industry.
Collectively these events demonstrate and emphasise the need for a strong, effective and properly resourced offshore petroleum regulatory regime to safeguard human health and safety and the Australian marine environment.
The amendments contained in this bill largely continue the Australian Government's work of implementing its response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry, building as they do, on the previous compliance themed legislative package I introduced in November 2012 and which completed its passage through the Parliament last sitting fortnight.
This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to clarify and strengthen the compliance, monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the national offshore petroleum regulator.
As a result, there will be a range of graduated enforcement measures available to the regulator to appropriately and proportionately address different contraventions of the act.
Compliance measures contained in the amended bill will include:
The bill amends the act by introducing continuing penalties, infringement notices, adverse publicity orders and injunctions .
These tools will enable the regulator to select and apply an appropriate and proportionate regulatory response, depending upon the nature and relative seriousness of the breach that has occurred given the overall set of circumstances.
This range of graduated enforcement tools supplement, but do not replace, existing criminal penalties.
Provisions of the bill also strengthen and clarify the application of the 'polluter pays' principle in the act.
In the event there is an escape of petroleum as a result of operations within a title area, operators will be required to stop, contain, control and clean up the spill, as well as remediate the environment and carry out appropriate environmental monitoring.
In the event that the titleholder fails to comply with these requirements following a spill, the 'polluter pays' provisions will also enable the regulator (NOPSEMA or the Commonwealth Minister) to recover from the titleholder the costs incurred by them carrying out remediation activities.
While recognising that titleholders are operating within the Commonwealth's exclusive jurisdiction, the Australian Government recognises that, should an incident occur, there may be potentially serious environmental consequences in adjacent State and Northern Territory jurisdictions.
Acknowledging this risk, this bill also provides a statutory course of action for State and Northern Territory governments to recoup the costs, from the responsible titleholder, of cleaning up the escaped petroleum and remediating the damage to the environment.
The bill clarifies existing insurance provisions, ensuring that it is compulsory for a titleholder to maintain sufficient financial assurance to meet any expenses or liabilities arising in connection with work done under the title following an escape of petroleum and also with other extraordinary regulatory costs they might incur. Financial assurance is required to deal with extraordinary costs, expenses and liabilities that a titleholder might not have the capacity to meet. It is not expected to cover ordinary expenses of a titleholder in meeting ordinary operating costs, such as the costs of compliance with title conditions.
The polluter pays and financial assurance amendments collectively implement and address the matters raised in Recommendations 95 and 96 of the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry.
Finally, the bill implements a number of miscellaneous technical and minor policy measures, including:
This current set of amendments makes further strides towards addressing issues identified as arising from the Montara incident in August 2009 and underscores the Government's commitment to the maintenance and continuing improvement of a strong, effective framework for the regulation of offshore petroleum activities.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
CUSTOMS AND AUSCHECK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (ORGANISED CRIME AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL
In July 2010 the Government established Taskforce Polaris - a joint law enforcement taskforce targeting organised crime in the cargo system in Sydney.
It is made up of officers from the:
It was set up by this Government, funded by this Government and it has been very successful.
To date, it has made 36 arrests, laid 171 charges and seized over 12 tonnes of illicit substances and pre-cursor chemicals.
It has also provided me with advice on further action to strengthen security in the cargo system.
Based on this advice, last year I announced the work of Taskforce Polaris would be expanded to Melbourne and Brisbane.
I also announced major reforms to make it harder for organised crime to infiltrate and exploit the cargo system.
This bill implements a number of these reforms.
Expansion of Taskforce Polaris
Taskforce Polaris shows how effective State and Federal law enforcement agencies can be when they work together.
Given its success, and the threats it has identified, we are going to replicate this model right across the eastern seaboard.
In Melbourne it is called Taskforce Trident. It has now been established and has around thirty members, including officers from:
In Brisbane it will be called Taskforce Jericho. Officers from the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection have begun setting it up and it will roll out in the middle of this year.
Non legislative reforms
A number of non-legislative reforms have also been implemented to harden the cargo supply chain against infiltration by criminal groups.
This includes:
This is backed by the new offences in this bill which make it an offence to obtain and use restricted information, including information from the Integrated Cargo System and for unlawfully disclosing that restricted information.
These patrols have increasingly been targeted using intelligence provided by both task force intelligence units and normal Customs and Border Protection intelligence areas. This intelligence has also been used to more effectively coordinate the use of overt uniformed presence and covert activities such as CCTV monitoring, static surveillance posts and mobile surveillance teams.
For example, from 1 July last year Customs and Border Protection has imposed the following conditions on all broker licences:
Security clearance procedures and access have been tightened for external service providers assisting the Container Examination Facilities. Customs and Border Protection is also implementing a range of other measures including enhancing CCTV coverage and security signage.
ASIC and MSIC Scheme Discussion Paper
The Government is also updating the list of offences that lead to the refusal or cancellation of an ASIC or MSIC.
The Department of Infrastructure and Transport released a Discussion Paper on this in December last year.
It proposes better and more consistent offence categories across the ASIC and MSIC lists. It also proposes including a number of offence categories that are not currently on either list, including organised crime, currency violations and harbouring of criminals, and a number that are not on the ASIC list, such as unlawful activity relating to firearms.
I understand that, following on from the Discussion Paper, the Department of Infrastructure and Transport is now preparing an Options Paper in consultation with other relevant Departments. The Options Paper will provide a more detailed proposal for Government and stakeholder comment.
Legislative Reforms
This bill implements four further important reforms.
First, it places new obligations on cargo terminal operators and people who load and unload cargo, which are similar to those that the Customs Act imposes on holders of depot and warehouse licences.
These obligations include mandatory reporting of unlawful activity to ensure the physical security of relevant premises and cargo.
They also include fit and proper person checks at the request of Customs and Border Protection Service.
Non compliance with these obligations will attract criminal or administrative sanctions.
Second, it creates new offences for obtaining and using restricted information, including information from the Integrated Cargo System, to commit an offence, and for unlawfully disclosing that restricted information. The offences will be punishable by a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, a fine of up to 120 penalty units, or both.
Third, it gives the Chief Executive Officer of Customs and Border Protection the power to impose new licence conditions at any time, and makes it an offence to breach certain licence conditions. This brings the Customs broker licensing scheme into line with other customs licensing schemes.
The bill also adjusts a range of other controls and sanctions in the Customs Act, including increasing penalties for certain strict liability offences and improving the utility of the infringement notice scheme.
Fourth, the bill amends the AusCheck Act 2007 to enable an ASIC or MSIC to be suspended if the cardholder has been charged with a serious offence.
The current ASIC and MSIC regimes provide for the cancellation of an ASIC or MSIC where the holder is convicted of, and sentenced to imprisonment for, an aviation or maritime security relevant offence.
The bill introduces the capacity for AusCheck to suspend a person's ASIC or MSIC, or the processing of an application for an ASIC or MSIC, if the person is charged with a serious offence.
The list of serious offences will be prescribed by regulation. The list of offences will be developed by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Minister for Infrastructure and Transport.
Law enforcement agencies would be able to notify AusCheck when they charge the holder of, or applicant for, an ASIC or MSIC with a serious offence.
Holders and applicants for ASICs and MSICs will also be required to self-report when they are charged with a serious offence. The Regulations will make it an offence for a person to fail to self-report or to return a suspended card, punishable with a fine of up to 100 penalty units.
This measure has been developed instead of the proposed use of criminal threat assessments to refuse or revoke ASICs and MSICs.
This is based on advice from the Australian Federal Police that this is a better model.
The advice of the Australian Federal Police is that this measure will enhance the ability of Taskforces Polaris, Trident and Jericho to remove high risk individuals from sensitive aviation and maritime areas.
The Australian Federal Police have advised that they prefer this model to the use of criminal threat assessments because of uncertainty around the definition of what should constitute compelling criminal intelligence, what law enforcement should be required to disclose, and how the appeal process should work.
Amendment to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission Act 2006
The bill also amends the Law Enforcement Integrity Commission Act 2006, which establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity.
This bill repeals provisions which prevent the deputy presiding officers from being appointed to the Committee.
This amendment will provide Parliament with greater discretion when appointing members to this important Committee.
It will also make membership eligibility for the Committee consistent with Parliamentary committees with similar functions, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Tackling organised crime
This legislation is part of broader action we are taking to tackle organised crime.
Two weeks ago the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of a National Anti-Gang Taskforce. This includes:
The Taskforce will be made up of 70 members from the Australian Federal Police and State Police forces and will also include officers from the Australian Crime Commission, Customs and Border Protection, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink.
The National Anti-Gang Taskforce will:
This approach is based on the same model as Joint Taskforce Polaris – the Commonwealth and States working together to tackle organised crime.
It is also based on the FBI's Violent Gang Taskforce – that has been very successful.
This is about State and Federal law enforcement agencies working together.
State and Federal politicians also have to work together to ensure our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to tackle organised crime.
Criminals move from State to State. They have assets and associates in other states.
If you clamp on organised crime in one state it tends to move to another. We have seen evidence of this.
That's why we need national anti-gang laws – so there is no place to hide and no safe havens.
We also need national unexplained wealth laws.
We all know the story of the person driving around in a flash car with no job, who doesn't pay income tax.
National unexplained wealth laws mean that if you can't explain where the income comes from to buy the flash car and the big house those assets can be seized.
State and Federal police have called for these powers.
Labor and Liberal politicians from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement have called for these powers.
They require the States to refer these powers to the Commonwealth.
I put this to State and Territory Attorneys-General last year—and they rejected it.
This is a mistake and I am prosecuting the case for these powers again.
The Prime Minister has put this on the agenda for COAG in April, along with a proposal to give law enforcement additional powers to search people who are subject to a Firearm Prohibition Order, as well as any vehicle or premises they are in, for the presence of a firearm without the need to demonstrate reasonable suspicion. South Australian law could be used to as a model.
I am also implementing a number of other reforms to harden the border.
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister and I also announced the establishment of a $30 million National Border Targeting Centre to target high risk international passengers and cargo.
The National Border Targeting Centre will use an intelligence-led, risk-based approach to target high-risk international passengers and cargo.
The advice of Australian law enforcement agencies is that intelligence and targeting is the key to seizing drugs and other contraband on the streets and at the border.
85 per cent of seizures at the border are the result of intelligence developed by Customs and Border Protection and other law enforcement agencies in Australia and overseas.
The more intelligence that law enforcement agencies have, the more they can seize.
The National Border Targeting Centre is based on the model developed by the National Targeting Centre in the United States and the United Kingdom's National Border Targeting Centre.
It will provide the basis for co-locating agencies like:
The National Border Targeting Centre will also provide a basis for Customs and Border Protection to work more closely with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
The new Centre will be able to work alongside targeting centres in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand.
This legislation and the establishment of a National Border Targeting Centre are part of the major reforms I am making to Customs and Border Protection.
I have made the point on a number of occasions that Customs and Border Protection requires major and comprehensive reform to improve its business systems, its law enforcement capability and its intelligence culture.
To drive this reform I have established the Customs Reform Board, made up of three distinguished Australians with expertise in law enforcement, corruption resistance and best practice business systems.
The members of the board are:
The Board has already met a number of times, held a number of site inspections and received a number of briefings, and will provide me with its first report by the middle of the year.
Conclusion
I have made it clear I am serious about making sure our law enforcement agencies have the powers and tools they need to target organised crime – at the border and on the street.
I am equally determined to weed out corruption.
The vast majority of law enforcement officers, public servants and private sector workers who work in the aviation and maritime industries and the cargo supply chain are good, honest, hardworking people.
However organised criminals do try to target and infiltrate ports, airports and the cargo system.
When they penetrate the system they can cause enormous damage.
The purpose of this bill and the other measures I have outlined are to give our law enforcement agencies the powers they have asked for and the powers they need to stop organised crime from penetrating the system.
This is a constant battle. More reform is required.
I hope that in the near future I will be able to bring forward national anti-gang legislation and national unexplained wealth legislation to give our law enforcement agencies even more power to target organised crime.
Unions are unaware that the incidence of criminal activity is more prevalent on the Australian waterfront than in other domestic workplaces. We have seen and read divisive and scurrilous reports, including newspaper headlines about organised crime being rampant on our waterfront but the articles lack substance while the social commentators' arguments are hardly compelling.
Both Australian Crime Commission maritime case studies included in their submission rely on allegations and suspicions. They suggest there is evidence of gangs of organised criminals operating and infiltrating the transport industries but the evidence is not included in the submission.
That this bill be now read a third time.
It is believed there will be an application to extend the Coal Company's mining area—
at some time in the future—that application may impact on "Cintra" land if approval were to be given.
This portion of coal bearing land on Windsor Family land is … gravel ridge …
A gravel ridge is the type of land that should be mined …
A gravel ridge is the type of land that should be mined …
… conservative and credible revenue forecasts—without unduly leaning on the economy’s near-term vulnerable economic recovery.
If we are serious about the future, if we are serious about modernising the Australian economy, strengthening Australian communities and improving the lives of Australian families then we have to be serious about lifting the capacity and the performance of Australia's universities.
I believe in this as a moral cause—a crusade—but I also believe that our future prosperity is inextricably linked to us winning the education race.
I will fight to get this done.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) and the Minister for Science and Research (Senator Farrell) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Despite recent, significant, and much-welcomed increases, base funding per student has fallen in real terms from 2008 to 2013 by 1.6 per cent, and has fallen 22 per cent since 1995. Without arresting this decline, Australia will continue to fall behind.
The Federal Budget delivered tonight includes funding of $9.1 million towards Stage 1 …
Accordingly, after consulting with the State Government and Infrastructure Australia , we are now in a position to release a preliminary schedule of new projects to be funded and delivered over the five year life of our next Nation Building Program (2014-15 to 2018-19).
Australian Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration’s Report on Annual Reports No. 1 of 2012, tabled on 15 March 2012.
Recommendation of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration:
Recommendation 1
2.52 The committee recommends that a list of all departments and agencies required to report on social exclusion outcomes should be published on the social inclusion website.
Australian Government response:
Agree. A list of the departments reporting on social inclusion strategic change indicators was published on the Government’s social inclusion website (www.socialinclusion.gov.au) on 13 December 2012.
Australian Government response to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report: Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011
DECEMBER 2012
Background
On 25 November 2011, the Senate referred the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report. The Committee held a public hearing on 16 March 2012, and released its report on 4 April 2012, with four recommendations. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young prepared a dissenting report, with three recommendations.
The Australian Government Attorney-General's Department (AGD), in collaboration with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), made a joint submission to the inquiry (the Commonwealth submission). Commonwealth officers also gave evidence at the Committee hearing.
The Commonwealth's submission recommended that the Senate should not pass the Bill. In summary, Commonwealth agencies considered the Bill's proposal to impose strict timeframes for age determination and laying charges would not be practical or achievable. The limitations on laying charges would also be inconsistent with section 15B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 , which permits the Commonwealth to commence prosecutions for serious Commonwealth offences at any time.
Further, Commonwealth agencies considered the proposed presumption of age and associated detention arrangements would jeopardise the Commonwealth's ability to flexibly manage detainees on a case-by-case basis, taking into account a range of factors in accordance with 'the best interests of the child' principle under the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child .
This paper sets out the Australian Government response to the Senate Committee's majority and dissenting reports.
Government Response: Majority Report
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the Australian Federal Police ' s procedural and legislative requirements in dealing with persons suspected of people smuggling offences, with a view to facilitating the prompt laying of charges where appropriate.
Agreed in principle.
The AFP has worked hard to reduce the amount of time taken to investigate people smuggling offences and prepare a brief of evidence, setting a benchmark of 90 days to lay charges.
As a result of continuing efforts to reduce time in detention, the AFP advises that for the period from 1 January 2012 to 12 November 2012, the average period of investigation from the date of formal referral of crew by DIAC to the date of charging by the AFP is 74 days.
The Government is committed to further reducing delays in the investigation and prosecution of people smuggling offences. Commonwealth agencies are developing solutions to address delays, including obtaining identity documents from Indonesian consular officials in the first instance, pending a mutual assistance request. These documents may then inform the AFP's decision about whether to give a person the benefit of the doubt about their age, prior to laying charges.
Unfortunately, there are often delays to the investigation process caused by environmental factors, which are difficult to avoid. For example, weather conditions may cause delays in conveying items of evidence, such as mobile phones and GPS equipment, which require forensic analysis by experts and equipment on mainland Australia. There may also be delays in securing interpreters of specific dialects required for interviews or investigations.
In addition, passengers on board people smuggling vessels are sometimes initially unable or unwilling to provide statements, which are necessary to proceed with most people smuggling prosecutions.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation to expressly provide that, where a person raises the issue of age during criminal proceedings, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish that the person was an adult at the time of the relevant offence.
Agreed.
Under the Migration Act 1958, penalties for aggravated people smuggling offences do not apply to persons where it is 'established' on the balance of probabilities that they are under the age of 18 years. However, the legislation does not specify whether the prosecution or the defence bears the burden of proof.
There has been some inconsistency in the courts as to who bears the burden of proof. However, in practice, the CDPP has assumed the obligation of establishing whether the person is a minor or an adult, in cases where the defendant raises age as an issue.
The Government will consider amendments to the Migration Act that would codify current practice by specifying that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age, where age is contested during a prosecution.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review options to support the capacity of the legal representatives of persons accused of people smuggling offences who claim to be underage at the time of the offence to gather evidence of age from their place of origin.
Disagree.
Commonwealth agencies facilitate access to legal aid by accused people smugglers as soon as the AFP requests to interview them. Commonwealth funding for legal aid in each State and Territory is provided through the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund. As part of this funding, legal aid representatives are entitled to claim the costs of reasonable disbursements, including costs associated with calling expert witnesses and gathering evidence of a defendant's age in their country of origin. To date, all costs claimed by legal aid commissions, including the costs of travel to Indonesia to collect identity documents, have been approved for reimbursement.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Senate should not pass the Bill.
Government response: Dissenting Report
Recommendation 1
The Bill be amended to require facilitation of timely access to legal advice, and that regulations require that children are afforded communication with their family.
Agreed in principle.
To address the issue of clients having access to legal advice in a timely fashion, the AFP has amended its practises concerning minors and provides those accused of people smuggling offences the opportunity to speak with legal representatives at the first available opportunity following referral from DIAC.
People smuggling crew held in immigration facilities are permitted to make domestic and international phone calls, and are allowed to try several different numbers until they make contact with their family or friends. These calls last approximately two minutes, to enable them to let the receiver know of their wellbeing. Individuals are permitted further additional time on a case by case basis. Due to poor mobile coverage in some countries, telephone contact is not always possible, which is typically understood by those trying to contact people in particular countries.
Internet access is also provided in immigration facilities after people are accommodated.
The only time phone calls are not attempted on the day of arrival is when a significant number of individuals arrive on the same day, as there is no distinction in the allocation of phone calls between people smuggling crew and other passengers arriving by boat. In situations like this, phone calls are generally completed over two or three days. DIAC considers these phone calls to be very important and it is a priority for these calls to be made as soon as possible.
The States and Territories are responsible for the management of individuals on remand or serving sentences for Commonwealth offences. This includes facilitating communication between detainees with both their families and legal representatives. All jurisdictions allow domestic phone calls, and most allow international calls. A table comparing the facilitation of contact by State and Territory correctional facilities between prisoners and their family or legal representatives is at Attachment A .
Recommendation 2
Item 3 of Schedule 1 of the Bill be amended so that proposed new subsection 3ZQAA(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 provides that the 30 day limit on bringing an application to a magistrate to determine a person ' s age applies from whichever is first of:
(a) The date the person is taken into immigration detention; or
(b) The date on which the person first asserts that he or she was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
Disagree.
The recommended amendment does not change the practical effect of proposed new subsection 3ZQAA(3) in its current form.
Currently, the proposed subsection requires investigating officials to make an application to a magistrate to determine a person ' s age within 30 days of the person being taken into immigration detention. The recommended amendment to the subsection would require the 30 day timeframe to commence on either the date the person is taken into immigration detention, or the date on which the person first claims to be a minor; whichever is first.
In practice, a person will very rarely (if ever) be in a position to claim to be a minor before being taken into immigration detention. This is because immigration detention of people smuggling crew under section 189 of theMigration Act 1958 commences at the point of interception by Border Protection Command (BPC) personnel. Unless a member of a people smuggling crew is able to communicate their age to BPC personnel (or potentially to any Australian Government official) at least one day or more prior to their interception, the commencement date for the application period will always be the date of interception. Accordingly, even if earlier notification of the person ' s claim was possible, the timeframe would be almost identical.
As such, the Commonwealth ' s concerns with the provision as set out in the joint submission are still applicable. In particular, the reference to ' magistrate ' alone excludes the possibility of a superior court judge hearing an application. Further, the proposed provision does not clarify the meaning of ' application ' , which could be referring to the filing of an originating application, the age determination hearing before a magistrate, or both.
In addition, the period of 30 days to conduct an age investigation and make an application to a magistrate is impractical and will be, in some cases, impossible to comply with. The provision also retains the presumption of age in the defendant ' s favour, which has serious implications where the person is an adult and who, as a result of his claim alone, will automatically be required to be detained with minors.
The Commonwealth notes that other significant issues of concern about the Bill ' s remaining provisions, as set out in the Commonwealth ' s joint submission, have not been addressed by the recommendations made in the dissenting report.
Recommendation 3
That the Bill be passed by the Senate.
Attachment A: State and Territory correctional services facilitation of communication between prisoners and their families, and between prisoners and legal practitioners
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery ‑like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill
March 2013
INTRODUCTION
On 19 June 2012, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery ‑like Conditions and People Trafficking) Bill (the Bill) was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 13 September 2012.
The Committee held a public hearing in Canberra on 29 August 2012.
The Bill was passed by the Senate on 27 February 2013.
BACKGROUND
This Bill would amend the existing people trafficking, slavery and slavery-like offences contained within Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code , the reparations provision in Part IB of theCrimes Act 1914 , and make consequential amendments to theProceeds of Crime Act 2002 , theMigration Act 1958 andTelecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 as follows:
Recommendation 1
3.84 The committee recommends that the Attorney-General ' s Department revise and reissue the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify that the proposed slavery and servitude offences in the Bill apply to circumstances of slavery and servitude within intimate relationships (including marriage and de facto relationships).
On 8 October 2012, the Government tabled an addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill in the Senate, which takes this recommendation into account. The addendum makes it clear that the new offences apply irrespective of whether the relevant conduct occurs in the victim ' s public or private life. Provided the elements of the offence are established, it is immaterial whether the victim and the offender are married or in a de facto relationship.
A copy of the addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill is attached.
Recommendation 2
3.88 The committee recommends that the Australian Government further investigate the establishment of a federal compensation scheme for victims of slavery and people trafficking.
Australia ratified the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (the Trafficking Protocol), which supplements theUnited Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime , in 2005. The Australian Government takes its international obligations, including those under the Trafficking Protocol, very seriously.
Article 6.6 of the Trafficking Protocol states that each Party shall ' ensure that its domestic legal system contains measures that offer victims of trafficking in persons the possibility of obtaining compensation for damage suffered ' . Under Australia ' s domestic legal system, compensation for victims of crime is generally a matter for States and Territories. Each State and Territory has a victims ' compensation scheme, which may be available to victims of people trafficking, slavery and slavery ‑like practices. A number of these victims have accessed compensation from these State and Territory schemes.
As such, the Government ' s view is that Australia has implemented measures that allow victims to obtain compensation, in accordance with Article 6.6 of the Trafficking Protocol. Given these considerations, the Government does not support establishing a Commonwealth victims ' compensation scheme at this time.
Recommendation 3
3.95 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the People Trafficking Visa Framework and the Support for Victims of People Trafficking Program, and consider establishing an ongoing visa and access to victim support mechanism which is not conditional on a victim of people trafficking providing assistance in the criminal justice process.
Australia ' s anti-people trafficking strategy (the strategy) is designed to ensure a balance between victim welfare and criminal justice processes. Prosecutions for people trafficking, slavery and slavery ‑like practices rely heavily on witness assistance and testimony, and the complete de-linking of witness assistance and visa provisions from the criminal justice framework may affect the success of trafficking ‑related prosecutions.
The Government is committed to the continuous improvement of the Support for Trafficked People Program (the Support Program), aiming to provide a flexible, compassionate victim-focused program that is tailored to the individual needs of each client. The new funding agreement, commencing from 1 July 2012 with the current service provider, will provide greater flexibility and accountability in the delivery of the Support Program, to meet the individual needs of clients.
Over the life of the strategy, significant enhancements have been made in response to community sector feedback. In particular, a number of changes were made to the strategy in 2009 following extensive consultation with the community. The changes, which are outlined below, are in line with international best practice and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ' Recommended Principles and Guidelines on Human Rights and Human Trafficking:
To monitor and resolve operational matters, respond to new and emerging issues, and continue to explore ideas for enhancement of the strategy, the Australian Government has established an Operational Working Group, which is comprised of the Attorney‑General's Department, the Australian Federal Police, the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The Operational Working Group meets approximately every six weeks.
In addition, the strategy is also regularly reviewed externally by a number of bodies, including through the United Nations. In 2011 the strategy was reviewed both by the UN Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children, and through the Universal Periodic Review process where United Nations Member States' human rights records are reviewed once every four years. Both of those reviews recognised Australia's role as a leader in regional efforts to combat trafficking.
Given these processes, and the extensive consultation on both the Visa Framework and the Support Program which led to enhancements in 2009, the Government does not propose to formally review the Visa Framework or the Support Program at this stage.
Recommendation 4
3.96 Subject to Recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
ATTACHMENT
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SLAVERY, SLAVERY-LIKE CONDITIONS AND PEOPLE TRAFFICKING) BILL 2012
ADDENDUM TO THE EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
(Circulated by authority of the Attorney-General,
the Hon Nicola Roxon MP)
THIS MEMORANDUM TAKES ACCOUNT OF RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE SENATE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
REPORT TABLED ON 13 SEPTEMBER 2012
NOTES ON CLAUSES
Schedule 1 — Criminal Code Amendments
Item 12
Section 270.5 — Servitude offences
After "The new offences apply to all forms of servitude, regardless of whether the servitude is sexual in nature." on page 16, insert, "The new offences apply irrespective of whether the proscribed conduct occurs in the victim's public or private life. For example, provided the elements of the offence are established, it is immaterial whether the victim and the offender are married or in a de facto relationship."
Section 270.6A — Forced labour offences
After "Whether the offence applied in a particular circumstance would be determined by the nature of the relationship between the victim and their 'employer', and not by the type of activity performed, however hard or hazardous, or the legality or illegality of the work under Australian law." on page 20, insert, "The new offences apply irrespective of whether the proscribed conduct occurs in the victim's public or private life. For example, provided the elements of the offence are established, it is immaterial whether the victim and the offender are married or in a de facto relationship."
Section 270.7B — Forced marriage offences
After "Where a person has been transferred, sold or inherited into a marriage with no right to refuse, this may also amount to an offence of slavery." on page 25, insert, "Where a person freely and fully consented to enter into a marriage, but was later coerced, threatened or deceived into remaining in the marriage, or the powers attaching to the right of ownership were exercised over the person, this may also amount to a servitude or slavery offence, or a domestic violence offence under State and Territory legislation."
Australian Government response to the
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report:
Detention of Indonesian minors in Australia
DECEMBER 2012
BACKGROUND
On 10 May 2012 the Senate referred the matter of detention of Indonesian minors in Australia to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committees for inquiry and report.
The inquiry considered:
(a) whether any Indonesian minors are currently being held in Australian prisons, remand centres or detention centres where adults are also held, and the appropriateness of that detention;
(b) what information the Australian authorities possessed or had knowledge of when it was determined that a suspect or convicted person was a minor;
(c) whether there have been cases where information that a person is a minor was not put before the court;
(d) what checks and procedures exist to ensure that evidence given to an Australian authority or department about the age of a defendant/suspect is followed up appropriately;
(e) the relevant procedures across agencies relating to cases where there is a suggestion that a minor has been imprisoned in an adult facility; and
(f) options for reparation and repatriation for any minor who has been charged (contrary to current government policy) and convicted.
The Attorney-General's Department (AGD) made a submission to the inquiry in collaboration with the Australian Federal Police (AFP). The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) also lodged submissions.
Officers from AFP, AGD, CDPP and DIAC appeared before the committee on 24 August 2012.
The Committee reported on 4 October 2012, providing seven recommendations to the Australian Government. The Chair of the Committee also presented a minority report with fifteen recommendations. This document provides a coordinated Government response to the inquiry recommendations.
Government Response: Majority Report
Recommendation 1
Subject to the advice of the Office of the Chief Scientist regarding the utility of wrist X ‑rays as an age assessment tool, and noting evidence received by the committee raising significant doubts about this procedure, the committee recommends that the Australian Government consider removing wrist X-rays as a prescribed procedure for the determination of age under 3ZQB of the Crimes Act 1914 and regulation 6C of theCrimes Regulations 1990.
Agreed in principle.
On 11 January 2012 the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb AC, advised AGD on the available scientific methods for determining chronological age. The advice confirmed that wrist X-rays did not allow for precise estimation of chronological age; that results vary with ethnic and socio-economic conditions; and that there were ethical considerations.
The 'observed variation' of two years for wrist X rays, identified by the Chief Scientist, further indicated that the science of wrist X-rays and statistical analysis from that science was a contested issue that required further expert consideration.
Between January and June 2012, AGD consulted further with the Office of the Chief Scientist on a number of age determination issues. This included seeking assistance on identifying available experts to assist the Commonwealth with the science of age determination, in particular to critically analyse the scientific and statistical basis for using wrist X-rays as an age determination procedure.
On 29 June 2012, the Office of the Chief Scientist provided AGD with advice relating to statistics and wrist X-rays from Professor Patty Solomon. In her report, Professor Solomon concluded that there is not enough scientific data in either the Greulich and Pyle Atlas or the TW3 Manual for those experts to draw sufficiently precise inferences of chronological age for young Indonesian males.
In order to address this issue, AGD is considering options for legislative amendments to remove wrist X-rays be removed as a prescribed procedure for age determination in the Crimes Act and Crimes Regulations.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government formalise arrangements for the Government of Indonesia to expedite the process of gathering evidence in Indonesia relating to the age of individuals who claim to be minors and are detained in Australia suspected of people smuggling offences.
Agreed.
The Foreign Evidence Act 1994 provides a mechanism for adducing material received from a foreign country in response to a mutual assistance request. The process can be complicated where a request is made to a country where government records, including birth, marriage and other identity records, are not centrally held. Even where a mutual assistance request is urgent and prioritised, it can take up to several months to receive the material sought. This mutual assistance process is assisted by the bilateral mutual assistance treaty with Indonesia, theTreaty between Australia and the Republic of Indonesia on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters , done at Jakarta on 27 October 1995.
Since July 2011, the AFP has sought documents from the Indonesian National Police (INP) on a police-to-police basis. Recently the AFP commenced seeking documents from Indonesian consular officials in Australia. Where documents received through these processes indicate the person may be a minor, the AFP considers this material in deciding whether to give the person the benefit of the doubt. However, INP officials have advised the AFP that a mutual assistance request is required to obtain documents for use as evidence in prosecutions (in most cases, documents indicating the person is an adult).
The AFP continues to utilise all avenues available to it to expedite the process of gathering evidence relating to the age of Indonesian individuals detained in Australia suspected of people smuggling offences.
The defendant's legal representatives may also seek to present as evidence documents obtained from Indonesia containing information about the defendant's age or affidavits from relatives. The costs of obtaining this evidence are covered as a disbursement within a grant of legal aid.
Credible documentary evidence is not always available to support the claims of people smuggling crew about their age. Only 55 per cent of Indonesian births were recorded between 2000 and 2008. There are at least three different calendars used in parts of Indonesia, and it is commonly the case that Indonesian crew may not know their age or date of birth, and that there may be no documentation of their age or date of birth.
This recommendation reflects Australia's existing practice for making formal and informal requests for assistance to Indonesia; however any requests by Australia for the process to be expedited would be a matter for Indonesia to consider. It will always take time to obtain documents given the dispersed nature of the Indonesian archipelago, and in some cases documents may not exist.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Migration Act 1958 be amended to require that individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who claim to be minors be offered access to consular assistance as soon as practicable after their arrival in Australia.
Agreed in principle.
This recommendation reflects existing practice. However, some individuals choose not to accept consular assistance.
Indonesians detained in Australia for people smuggling are able to access consular assistance in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) and Australia's Arrangement on Consular Notification and Assistance (the Consular Arrangement) with Indonesia, signed on 10 March 2010.
Australia's obligations under the VCCR and the Privacy Act 1988 prevent Australia from providing the personal particulars of any Indonesian national detained in Australia for people smuggling to Indonesian consular officials without that person's consent.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) provides the initial notification to the Indonesian Embassy within three days that a SIEV has been boarded by Australian authorities and that Indonesian nationals, normally the crew of the vessel, are believed to be on board.
DIAC advises the Indonesian Embassy when Indonesian people smuggling crew enter immigration detention, are transferred between facilities, or leave immigration detention. Unidentified information (date of arrival, the number of individuals concerned, current location, and whether they are adults or minors) is provided where crew do not provide consent for consular notification.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that, in cases where an Indonesian national in immigration detention claims to be a minor, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship must notify the Indonesian Embassy and relevant consular officials of that claim as soon as practicable.
Agreed.
This recommendation reflects existing practice and is not restricted to Indonesian nationals who are detained for people smuggling offences. However, foreign nationals must first sign a consular notification form to agree to have their names released to the relevant consulate, and to obtain consular assistance. Some individuals choose not to accept consular assistance.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that DIAC:
- explicitly inform each Indonesian crew member suspected of people smuggling of their right to contact relatives in Indonesia as soon as practicable after their arrival in Australia; and
- take proactive steps to assist all crew who claim to be minors to contact their families in Indonesia within seven days, or as soon as practicable, after their arrival in Australia.
Agreed.
This recommendation reflects existing practice.
People smuggling crew held in immigration facilities are permitted to make domestic and international phone calls, and are allowed to try several different numbers until they make contact with their family or friends. These calls last approximately two minutes, to enable them to let the receiver know of their wellbeing. Individuals are permitted further additional time on a case by case basis. Due to poor mobile coverage in some countries, telephone contact is not always possible, which is typically understood by those trying to contact people in particular countries.
Internet access is also provided in immigration facilities after people are accommodated.
The only time phone calls are not attempted on the day of arrival is when a significant number of individuals arrive on the same day, as there is no distinction in the allocation of phone calls between people smuggling crew and other passengers arriving by boat. For example, in one instance 230 clients arrived at one time and it was not possible to make all 230 calls on that day. In situations like this, phone calls are generally completed over two or three days. DIAC considers these phone calls to be very important and it is a priority for these calls to be made as soon as possible.
Recommendation 6
In accordance with Recommendation 2 of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee ' s report into the Crimes Amendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011, the committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation to expressly provide that, where a person raises the issue of age during criminal proceedings, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to establish that the person was an adult at the time of the relevant offence.
Agreed.
Under the Migration Act 1958, penalties for aggravated people smuggling offences do not apply to persons where it is 'established' on the balance of probabilities that they are under the age of 18 years. However, the legislation does not specify whether the prosecution or the defence bears the burden of proof.
There has been some inconsistency in the courts as to who bears the burden of proof. However, in practice, the CDPP has taken on the obligation of establishing whether the person is a minor or an adult, in cases where the defendant raises age as an issue.
AGD is considering options for amendments to the Migration Act that would codify current practice by specifying that the prosecution bears the onus of proof in establishing age, where age is contested during a prosecution.
Recommendation 7
In accordance with Recommendation 2 of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee ' s report into the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012, the committee recommends that the Australian Government facilitate and support further deterrence and awareness raising activities in relation to people smuggling offences, with a focus on relevant communities in Indonesia.
Agreed.
At the Australia-Indonesia Leaders Meeting on 3 July 2012, it was noted that Australia and Indonesia will conduct a joint public information campaign in Indonesia to prevent potential crew from being used by international people smuggling networks by helping them to understand the consequences, both in Australian and Indonesian law.
This campaign has commenced with two information sessions held in Bali and Kupang from 17-19 September 2012 for local Indonesian stakeholders and representatives.
The next phase of the awareness raising campaign is currently under development.
Government response: Chair ' s further findings and recommendations
Recommendation 1
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Attorney-General ' s Department undertake a review of all cases since 2008 where Indonesian minors may have been detained in Australia on suspicion of people smuggling offences, in order to determine:
- the number of minors who have been inappropriately detained in Australia; and
- the length of time for which those individuals were detained.
Disagree.
On 2 May 2012, the Attorney-General announced a review of convicted crew whose age was raised as an issue at some stage during the investigation and/or prosecution. A total of 28 cases were reviewed after being identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Indonesian Embassy and the CDPP.
On 29 June 2012, the Attorney-General announced that the outcomes of the review were that:
o 15 crew were granted early release from prison on licence as there was a doubt they may have been minors on arrival in Australia
o two crew were released early on parole
o three crew completed their non‑parole periods prior to the commencement of the review and
o eight crew were assessed as likely to be adults on arrival as there was no evidence supporting suggestions they were minors at the time of arrival.
There have been 1115 crew arrive in Australia since 2008. As at 30 November 2012, 197 crew have been returned on the basis that they may have been minors. AGD has reviewed all cases were crew in Australian prisons had been convicted and age was raised as an issue at some stage during the proceedings.
Recommendation 2
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with state and territory governments, sufficiently resource Australia ' s eight legal aid commissions to enable legal aid lawyers representing suspected people smugglers who claim to be minors to travel to Indonesia to obtain relevant evidence relating to the age of their clients.
Agreed.
This recommendation reflects existing practice.
Legal aid commissions can seek reimbursement of costs incurred for providing representation to people smuggling defendants (including travelling to Indonesia to seek documentary evidence of age) through the Expensive Commonwealth Criminal Cases Fund, which is administered by the Attorney-General's Department.
Recommendation 3
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce legislation to appoint an independent legal guardian for individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who claim to be minors, to represent their best interests while their age claims are assessed.
Disagree.
Interviews for individuals suspected of people smuggling who claim to be minors are undertaken in the presence of an Independent Observer who provides support to ensure the well-being of the individual. This applies whether the interview is to determine a person's age, identity or to establish information relevant to their travel to Australia. A legal representative is not present at these interviews.
However, in the criminal investigative context, current practice reflects the need for an independent person or guardian during a criminal investigation. Under s23K of the Crimes Act, if an investigating official believes on reasonable grounds that a person who is under arrest or a protected suspect is under 18, the official must not question the person unless an interview friend is present while the person is being questioned and, before the start of the questioning, the official has allowed the person to communicate with the interview friend in circumstances in which, as far as practicable, the communication will not be overheard.
An interview friend means:
(a) a parent or guardian of the person or a legal practitioner acting for the person; or
(b) if none of the previously mentioned persons is available—a relative or friend of the person who is acceptable to the person; or
(c) if the person is an Aboriginal person or a Torres Strait Islander and none of the previously mentioned persons is available—a person whose name is included in the relevant list maintained under subsection 23J(1); or
(d) if no person covered by paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is available—an independent person.
Indonesian consular representatives are also able to advocate on behalf of Indonesian crew given their consular functions include safeguarding the interests of their minor nationals ( Vienna Convention on Consular Relations) , provided that the individual accepts consular assistance.
Recommendation 4
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Migration Act 1958 be amended to require that legal assistance be provided to all individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who claim to be minors within three days of their arrival in Australia
Disagree.
Legal Aid Commissions are currently informed when crew arrive in Australia and offer assistance as soon as practicable. However, it is not appropriate to include time frames in the legislation.
Recommendation 5
The Chair of the committee recommends that the government appropriately resource National Legal Aid to station a full-time independent legal aid representative on Christmas Island, to provide legal assistance in person to all foreign boat crew who arrive there suspected of people smuggling offences.
Disagree.
National Legal Aid (NLA) is not funded by governments to provide legal assistance services. NLA is a non-statutory representative group comprising the directors of all eight legal aid commissions.
Under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services (NPA), the Australian Government funds legal aid commissions to deliver Commonwealth legal aid service priorities, including certain migration matters. The NPA does not fund legal assistance for external territories. The Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia is funded by the Territories Division of the Department of Regional Australia to provide legal assistance services on Christmas Island. Those arrangements cover the provision of assistance to people who are residents of Christmas Island, and any person on Christmas Island who is charged with a criminal offence.
Recommendation 6
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Crimes Act 1914 be amended to require that an individual suspected of people smuggling offences who claims to be a minor can only be detained in Australia for a maximum of 14 days before being charged or released from detention.
Disagree.
The Government is keen to avoid delays in investigations for persons suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are minors. The AFP requires adequate time to consider all relevant factors when making a decision to charge a person, and has worked hard to reduce the time taken to investigate people smuggling offences and prepare a brief of evidence, setting a benchmark timeframe of 90 days from interception to laying charges.
As a result of continuing efforts to reduce time in detention, the AFP advises that for the period from 1 January 2012 to 12 November 2012, the average period of investigation from the date of formal referral of crew by DIAC to the date of charging by AFP is 74 days.
The Government is committed to further reducing delays in the investigation of people smuggling offences. Commonwealth agencies are developing solutions to address delays, including seeking identity documents from Indonesian consular officials in the first instance, pending a mutual assistance request. If available, these documents may then inform the AFP's decision about whether to give a person the benefit of the doubt about their age, prior to laying charges.
Unfortunately, there are often delays to the investigation process caused by environmental factors, which are difficult to avoid. For example, weather conditions may cause delays in conveying items of evidence, such as mobile phones and GPS equipment, which require forensic analysis by experts and equipment on mainland Australia. There may also be delays in securing interpreters of specific dialects required for interviews or investigations.
In addition, passengers on board people smuggling vessels are sometimes unwilling or unable to provide statements, which are necessary to proceed with most people smuggling prosecutions.
Recommendation 7
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Migration Act 1958 be amended to require that, where Criminal Justice Stay Certificates are issued in respect of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who claim to be minors, those certificates should be the subject of periodic judicial review.
Disagree.
A Criminal Justice Stay Certificate (CJSC) operates to stay a non-citizen's removal and does not authorise or provide a legal basis for the non-citizen's detention. As set out in the written submission to the Senate Committee provided by AGD and the AFP, the person is detained pursuant to relevant provisions of the Migration Act (s189 and s250). If a CJSC is in force the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship may consider in his absolute discretion whether it is appropriate to issue a criminal justice stay visa which would entitle the person to be released from detention. The AFP and CDPP are the competent authorities in relation to investigations and prosecutions, and the Attorney-General's delegate may issue at the request of these agencies a CJSC to stay a person's removal. The Attorney-General's delegate necessarily relies on advice from these agencies as to whether the presence in Australia of a non-citizen is required for the purposes of the administration of criminal justice. AGD currently has procedures in place for the review of CJSCs, and in response to a recommendation made by the Australian Human Rights Commission has refined its procedures for review of CJSCs to include guidance on regular follow up with the AFP or CDPP, as relevant, for confirmation of the continuing need for the CJSC to ensure cancellation of certificates promptly once a person is no longer required. The Government considers its existing procedures for review of CJSCs to be appropriate.
Recommendation 8
The Chair of the committee recommends that an individual detained in Australia on suspicion of people smuggling charges who claims to be a minor must be held in community detention rather than immigration detention facilities while their case is considered, unless there is a clear reason why this would be inappropriate.
Disagree.
Under s197AB of the Migration Act, only the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship can approve a community detention placement for people in immigration detention. However, this is a non-compellable power and, in considering whether to make such a determination, the Minister must consider that it is in the public interest to do so. A blanket determination covering all people suspected of people smuggling offences who claim to be minors is inconsistent with the terms of the relevant provisions.
Recommendation 9
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Crimes Act 1914 be amended to require that an investigating official may only make an application to a magistrate or judge to determine the age of an individual charged with a people smuggling offence who claims to be a minor within 30 days of:
- the suspect being taken into immigration detention in Australia; or
- the suspect first making a claim that they are a minor
Disagree.
The proposed time limit of 30 days is insufficient for investigating officers to gather a thorough brief of evidence, particularly where the collection of evidence requires evidence being provided by the person's country of origin. The operational stages of the investigatory and age assessment process are outlined in the response to recommendation 6. Not only would the proposed time limit impact the ability of the AFP's to properly investigate an alleged offence it could jeopardise the ability of defendants to obtain evidence to substantiate their claims.
A person in immigration detention, or in remand in a criminal justice detention facility, can claim to be a minor at any time. It is not always the case that detainees claim to be minors at the point of interception, and it is not uncommon for claims about age to be made after the person has been detained for a period of time. Often challenges to the court's jurisdiction on the basis of age are made late in the proceedings, and in some cases claims about age are raised several times. Some age determination hearings are on the application of the defence. The defence has also, on occasion, asked that age determination proceedings be delayed while the defence gathers information.
The recommendation does not take into account these circumstances, nor does it clarify how the criminal proceedings would be dealt with should these circumstances arise. It is also unclear what should occur if an application for an age determination was not made within 30 days. Age is a fundamental question going to jurisdiction and cannot be ignored regardless of when an application is made.
Recommendation 10
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions review its procedures to ensure that all age-related evidence in its possession is made available to the court during age determination hearings.
Disagree
Under the policy framework announced on 8 July 2011, the AFP is to request documents containing information about the age of persons who say they are minors from their country of origin as soon as possible. However, the Government notes that it is not always possible to obtain such documentation given that other countries do not have the same requirements for identification documentation as Australia.
Based upon operational experience and expert advice, there are limitations in terms of the reliability of identity documents, as well as challenges posed by cultural and religious practices. As a result there can be issues with the admissibility of documents.
The CDPP's policy in relation to evidence in age determination hearings in people smuggling prosecutions is set out in the CDPP's Director's Litigation Instruction Number 2, which provides:
Evidence
(16) If a matter proceeds to an age determination hearing and the defendant seeks to:
the responsibility for making any arrangements to call such evidence will rest with the defendant's legal representatives, however the CDPP will cooperate as much as it is reasonably able to do so with the defendant's legal representatives.
(17) If a witness is unable to give evidence to the Court in person or by audio or audio visual link or if a defendant is unable to call the necessary evidence to make a document admissible, then generally the CDPP will not dispute the admissibility of any affidavits from the defendant's family or from other persons from the defendant's place of origin that the defendant wishes to tender nor the admissibility of any documentary evidence the defendant wishes to tender. It may be appropriate for comment to be made about the weight the Court should give to any evidence.
(18) The prosecutor may however dispute the admissibility of an affidavit or document; the information contained in the affidavit or document; call evidence or seek to cross-examine on the affidavit or document, if there are very cogent reasons for doing so.
(19) Any decision to dispute the admissibility of any such affidavits or documents should be discussed with the Deputy Director of the relevant Regional Office, and if necessary, raised with the Director.
This is a very unusual and permissive stance to be taken by a prosecuting entity, which has been taken as a result of practical issues confronting the CDPP in relation to documentary material from Indonesia. The CDPP does not have a similar approach in any other area of its practice.
This position only relates to the material that the defendant wishes to tender. The CDPP cannot require or expect that defence representatives will allow the CDPP to tender documentary material which is not admissible. Accordingly, the CDPP cannot ensure that all age-related material in its possession is made available to the court during age determination hearings.
Recommendation 11
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government issue an apology to those Indonesian nationals who were detained or convicted and imprisoned in Australia for involvement in people smuggling offences, only to be later released due to concerns that they were minors at the time of offending or upon the completion of their sentence.
Disagree.
In making decisions about investigation and prosecution of people smuggling crew Australian Government agencies act in good faith on the most reliable evidence available at the time. Assessing age is complex and difficult, as noted in the report. People may make claims to be minors at any stage of a prosecution.
Under the Government's current policy, in cases where age is not able to be clearly established, the person being investigated or prosecuted is given the benefit of the doubt and returned to their country of origin without charge. People being removed on this basis may in fact be adults, but they are being returned because there is a doubt whether they are adults or minors.
Recommendation 12
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government:
- recognise the right of Indonesian minors who were wrongly detained or imprisoned in Australia to be paid appropriate compensation;
- initiate a thorough and transparent process to identify individuals who were wrongly detained, or convicted and imprisoned, in Australia on people smuggling charges, only to be released due to concerns that they were minors at the time of offending or upon completion of their sentence;
- inform these individuals of their right to seek reparation for any periods of inappropriate detention or imprisonment; and
- establish an appropriate administrative mechanism, subject to judicial review, for determining rights violations associated with these cases and enabling compensation payments to be made to these individuals.
Disagree.
The offence of people smuggling applies equally to adults and minors: age is not relevant for this crime. Minors do not belong in adult prisons, which is why on 2 May 2012, the Attorney-General announced a review of convicted people smuggling crew whose age was raised as an issue at some stage during the investigation and/or prosecution. A total of 28 cases were reviewed after being identified by the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Indonesian Embassy and the CDPP.
On 29 June 2012, the Attorney-General announced that the outcomes of the review were that:
o 15 crew were granted early release from prison on licence as there was a doubt they may have been minors on arrival in Australia
o two crew were released early on parole
o three crew completed their non‑parole periods prior to the commencement of the review and
o eight crew were assessed as likely to be adults on arrival as there was no evidence supporting suggestions they were minors at the time of arrival.
Australia has a fair system in place for assessing the age of people smuggling crew who claim to be minors, where all individuals who claim to be minors have their cases assessed on an individual basis. If there is insufficient evidence to establish whether the person is an adult or a minor, the person is given the benefit of the doubt and removed to their country of origin, unless exceptional circumstances apply.
People are free to make claims at any time against any government if they believe that a government has acted wrongly. Governments have a duty to properly consider such claims, as well as to properly defend themselves if such claims have no basis.
Recommendation 13
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options for providing culturally appropriate psychological support for Indonesian minors who suffered psychological trauma as a result of being wrongfully detained in Australia on suspicion of people smuggling.
Disagree.
The offence of people smuggling applies equally to adults and minors: age is not relevant for this crime. Indonesian crew of people smuggling vessels will be detained while consideration is given to whether they should be prosecuted for this offence.
Recommendation 14
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Attorney-General ' s Department request that the states and territories afford persons convicted of people smuggling the right to remit a portion of any income earned in prison to their relatives in Indonesia.
Disagree.
Parliament passed legislation expressly providing that those convicted of people smuggling offences should be liable to repay the costs of their detention. Such people are also liable to pay the costs associated with their removal (see Recommendation 15). State and Territory correctional authorities have been asked to prevent convicted people smuggling crew from remitting money overseas so that DIAC can implement the debt recovery procedures that apply to this cohort under the Migration Act.The calculation of these individual debts can only be finalised once the person is released from custody and the full costs of each case are known. Allowing overseas remittances for this cohort will compromise the outcome of this lawful debt recovery.
Recommendation 15
The Chair of the committee recommends that the Australian Government immediately reverse the policy of seeking to recover the costs of detention and removal from Australia from Indonesian boat crew convicted of people smuggling offences.
Disagree.
The Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Act 2009 amended the Migration Act and removed liability for immigration detention and related costs for people in immigration detention. However, it remains Government policy that those engaged in people smuggling should not profit from such an activity. Hence, those people convicted of people smuggling continue to incur liability for both a detention and a removal debt. The Migration Act allows DIAC to freeze funds of people smugglers, and issue a garnishee notice to a third party, to recover that money as a means of meeting their Commonwealth debt. Under current arrangements, the extent to which removal and detention debts are recoverable depends on whether the person has funds available and the legal basis for the person's detention in Australia. DIAC is currently able to recover both detention and removal debts from crew who on their arrival were detained under section 189(3), because of section 250, of the Act as a suspected people smuggling offender, and who have not subsequently been issued with a Criminal Justice Stay Visa (CJSV). Crew who have been issued a CJSV under past procedures are only able to have debts recovered on a voluntary basis under the same arrangements in the Migration Act that apply to all unlawful non‑citizens who are being removed from Australia.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES
REPORT 131: TREATIES TABLED ON 21 AUGUST, 11 AND 18 SEPTEMBER 2012
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that new and revised extradition agreements should explicitly provide a requirement that the requesting country provide annual information concerning the trial status and health of extradited persons and the conditions of the detention facilities in which they are held.
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
The Government notes that the Committee made a similar recommendation in its Report 110 (Recommendation 4), and the Government's response to Report 110, which was tabled in February 2012, did not accept that recommendation. In considering Recommendation 2 of the current Report, the Government has carefully considered its previous response to Report 110 and the operation of Australia's extradition framework since that response. The Government has concluded that Australia's current extradition arrangements and policies remain appropriate and effective at this time.
The Government reiterates its view that the most appropriate time at which to examine any potential human rights concerns is before extradition occurs, during the extensive review process. This is consistent with Australia's obligations under international human rights law and with international extradition practice. As noted in the Government's Response to Report 110, the extradition process in Australia includes extensive procedural safeguards, which are included in theExtradition Act 1988 and in bilateral treaties. For example, Australia will not extradite a person if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life, application of the death penalty, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
In addition, since the time of the Government's response to Report 110, the Parliament has enacted the Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Act 2012 . This Act contains a number of significant amendments to further strengthen the protections in theExtradition Act 1988 . These amendments include a new ground for refusing extradition where the person may be punished, or discriminated against, upon surrender on the basis of his or her sex or sexual orientation, as well as amendments to strengthen protections in situations where a person may be subjected to torture. The Government will continue to closely monitor the operation of Australia's extradition framework, and will examine the need for any further amendments as required.
As noted in the Government's Response to Report 110, the Government has established monitoring mechanisms in relation to Australian nationals who have been extradited overseas. The Government is able to conduct this monitoring because of the consular rights provided for under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the resources provided to support Australia's consular network. In 2011-12, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provided consular assistance to 236 Australian nationals serving prison sentences overseas. In addition, when a foreign national is extradited from Australia to a third country, the Government has agreed to formally advise that person's country of citizenship of his or her detention and extradition, subject to that person's consent (noting the constraints on the disclosure of personal information under thePrivacy Act 1988 ).
As also noted in the Government's Response to Report 110, the Government has agreed to include additional information on persons extradited from Australia in the Annual Reports of the Attorney‑General's Department, including information on:
Accordingly, in 2011-12, the Attorney-General's Department Annual Report included the following information:
o Jurisdictions to which extradition was granted: United Kingdom (6), Hong Kong (1), Indonesia (1), Ireland (1), United States (1)
o Offence categories: Child sex and child exploitation offences (4), Drugs (1), Theft and/or fraud (3), Corruption (1), Culpable driving (1)
o Citizenship of person extradited: Australia (5), Hong Kong (1), Ecuador (1),1 United Kingdom (3),* United States (1)
_____________
1 One person was a dual Ecuadorian-United Kingdom national.
That the Senate adopts the recommendations of the 55th report of the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing in relation to the transfer of the information and communications technology functions and resources of the Senate department to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
I move that the Senate take note of the reports.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Economics Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee—
Appointed—
Participating members: Senators Lines and Rhiannon
Substitute member: Senator Wright to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee's inquiry into the effectiveness of NAPLAN
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Participating members: Senators Lines and Ludlam
Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Ludlam for the committee's inquiry into the Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Gambling Reform—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Lines
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—
Participating members: Senators Lines and Whish-Wilson
Substitute member: Senator Di Natale to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into sports science in Australia.
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.
COURT SECURITY BILL 2013
Federal courts and tribunals, due to their very nature as forums to resolve intractable disputes, bring together people who are in conflict. Proceedings are often emotionally charged, and can involve actual or threatened violence.
It is essential that the federal courts and tribunals are supported in their efforts to prevent, as far as possible, security incidents arising on their premises, and to respond quickly and appropriately to control incidents when they do arise.
Court users, particularly those involved in cases in the Family and Federal Magistrates courts, have the fundamental right to access facilities and have their cases heard without the threat of violence and intimidation.
Current court security arrangements
Security at most federal court and tribunal premises is provided by contracted security guards, and this has been the case for many years.
The current legislative framework for security at federal court and tribunal premises is Part IIA of the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971. However, this legislation is out of date, in that it assumes the presence of police officers on court premises. It also does not contain an appropriate range of powers – and safeguards on the exercise of these powers – sufficient to meet the security needs of the modern court environment.
Security officers are uncertain of their powers to confiscate materials or temporarily detain violent people.
Legislative fra mework established by this Bill
This Bill contains a comprehensive framework to enable the federal courts and tribunals to manage the wide range of security issues they face in different locations across Australia.
It allows courts to appoint persons as security officers and authorised court officers and clearly sets out the powers that these officers are able to exercise.
The powers build on those currently contained in the Public Order Act and those available to the courts under the common law as occupiers of premises.
The powers include screening and search powers, powers to give certain directions, and a limited range of powers supported by the use of necessary and reasonable force.
Only appropriately trained and licensed security officers will be able to use force in exercising powers under the Bill, and these officers will only be able to use force in clearly defined circumstances.
Recognising that security officers may not be present at all court locations, in particular when the courts are in regional circuit locations, the Bill allows authorised court officers to exercise a limited range of basic security powers.
The Bill creates a number of offences relating to court security, and provides for the administrative heads of the federal courts to seek protection orders on behalf of judicial officers and court staff or in the interests of court security.
The Bill contains important safeguards around the exercise of powers. These safeguards include licencing and training requirements for appointed officers, identification requirements, complaints mechanisms, and oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.
The measures under the Bill balance a person’s right to enter and remain upon court premises, with the right of other court users, judicial officers, court staff and members of the public to a safe and secure court environment.
The Bill has been developed in close consultation with the federal courts and tribunals. It responds to concerns raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the federal courts that the Public Order Act does not meet the security needs of the modern court environment.
The Bill is tailored to ensure that the courts can reduce, as far as possible, the risk of security incidents arising on their premises, and to appropriately respond to incidents that do arise.
Police presence for court security
It is expected that courts will continue to call for police assistance to deal with serious security incidents.
However, events at court premises can escalate with little warning. It is, therefore, vital that there is an effective legislative framework in place to ensure that courts are able to take preventative security measures such as screening, and, where a security incident has arisen, to enable the courts to continue to operate in a safe and secure manner before police arrive.
The Bill has been carefully drafted so as to be flexible to a range of different guarding arrangements. This is appropriate given the different security needs of different courts and tribunals.
Conclusion
Effective court security arrangements are a critical precondition for the effective administration of justice.
This Bill will modernise the legal framework for federal court and tribunal security arrangements and thereby ensure that our courts and tribunals are safe and secure places for the public to have their disputes heard.
I commend the Bill to the House.
COURT SECURITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2013
I am pleased to introduce the Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013.
The Court Security Bill 2013 provides a new framework for court security arrangements for federal courts and tribunals. The new framework will meet the security needs of the modern court environment by providing a range of powers for security officers and limited powers for authorised court officers to ensure that court premises are safe and secure environments.
The Court Security Bill will replace the current security framework for federal courts and tribunals under the Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971, which no longer meets the security needs of the modern court environment.
This companion Consequential Amendments Bill allows proper implementation of the new framework.
This Bill will achieve this by removing the existing provisions in the Public Order Act that would otherwise overlap with provisions in the Court Security Bill.
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 TARIFF AMENDMENT (INCORPORATION OF PROPOSALS) BILL 2013
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013 contains several amendments to Schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act 1995.
Schedule 4 lists a range of goods and circumstances for which concessional rates of import duty are granted.
Following a review of the Schedule by the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Act 2012 was passed by the Parliament in 2012. This act commenced on 1 March 2013.
This bill makes minor amendments to this act, and were previously given effect through the tabling of Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2013 in the House of Representatives on 14 February 2013.
The items to be amended are items 20, 21, 27, 30 and 35 in the revised Schedule 4.
The amendments fix typos or change wording so it is consistent with the intentions of the schedule, and have come about from both industry and inter-department feedback on the bill that passed last year.
The changes include:
However, the term "batch repair" was not specifically mentioned in the new item 20, thus leading to confusion as to whether goods subject to a batch repair process have access to the concession or not. The bill will amend item 20 to specifically reference "batch repair" in the item.
Following consultation with the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education, this bill will remove the term "industrial processing" from item 21. This amendment will better reflect Australian Government policy that encourages all goods imported for industrial processing and subsequent exportation to use the Tradex Goods Scheme under item 21A of Schedule 4. Goods specified in a Tradex Order under the Tradex Scheme Act 1999 can then be better recorded and monitored for industry assistance purposes.
The bill will give effect to an amendment that removes all references to "value" and "amount" from the item. This amendment will then allow the nature of representative sample goods that have access to this concession to be defined more clearly in the associated by-law(s).
The bill will give effect to the amendment of item 30 that replaces "wheelchairs" with "invalid carriages", thus returning the item to its intended scope and application.
However, a typographical error was made in the drafting of item 35 which changed gross construction "tons" (T-O-N-S) to gross construction "tonnes" (T-O-N-N-E-S). The bill will correct this.
While these changes are minimal, they ensure our Customs Act is clearer. I commend the bill the house.
THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2013
The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 is a bill to amend the National Measurement Act 1960. It introduces changes appropriate for the long-term operation of Australia's national trade measurement system, which has been in operation since July 2010.In Australia, an estimated $400 billion worth of trade based on some kind of measurement takes place annually. Australia's trade measurement system provides the infrastructure needed to ensure that buyers and sellers both get a fair result. It provides assurance that the quantity of pre-packaged goods is correct and that measuring instruments used for trade are sufficiently accurate.
Trade measurement is a part of everyday life. We are interacting with the trade measurement system whenever we buy products such as fuel or groceries on the basis of prices set in dollars per litre, or dollars per kilogram, or dollars per metre. These prices are set by the product's volume, weight, or length.
Trade measurement rules also govern pre-packaged goods and are significant for the export of commodities, as well as measurements of gold, precious gems and the quality of agricultural products.
The National Measurement Institute (the NMI) is responsible for overseeing the operation of Australia's trade measurement system. As part of its "trade measurement compliance inspection program", the NMI employs trade measurement inspectors who inspect businesses nationwide for compliance with the act. The proposals in the bill will facilitate their work and the ability of business to comply with the act and its regulations.
Key amendments proposed in this bill deal with situations where NMI inspectors find minor non-compliance issues concerning a measuring instrument used for trade or the sale of pre-packaged goods. Currently inspectors are required to obliterate the instrument's verification mark and cause the trader to immediately cease using the instrument. Where the non-compliance applies to pre-packaged goods, the items are immediately removed from sale.
These requirements can be unduly onerous to businesses and, in some situations, can disadvantage consumers. Forcing products off the shelves, or preventing the use of a measuring instrument, can be a disproportionate response to a minor breach. It can also cause unintended difficulties for consumers, especially in rural and remote areas where the community may rely on a single retail outlet.
The proposed amendment gives an inspector the discretion to issue a notice to a trader to remedy the non-compliance and allow a 28 day period during which they may continue using the instrument or retailing the goods which are subject to the minor non-compliance. This change will give traders reasonable time to remedy any minor breaches and will retain consumer access to goods.
The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013 introduces a number of other minor amendments to the act. They include:
This Government is committed to maintaining a fair, effective and efficient national approach to trade measurement for business and consumers. The bill forms part of that commitment.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DISASTER RECOVERY ASSISTANCE) BILL 2013
This Bill introduces a new disaster recovery income support payment, the Disaster Recovery Allowance.
In recent years we have seen a trend of increasingly severe floods, cyclones, bushfires and storms. The recent summer has been no exception. Clearly the time for questioning the veracity of climate change is over.
These disasters have taken a physical, emotional and financial toll on all Australians. Most tragically, lives have been lost. We know that disasters in Australia are inevitable. We know that disasters in Australia are getting more prevalent. We know that disasters in Australia cost lives and livelihoods and we need to be prepared for this.
Ensuring that individuals across Australia are supported in the aftermath of these disasters is critical to the recovery of communities. The Australian Government stands ready to support disaster ravaged communities, providing the support they need to get back on their feet. The Government already provides a range of assistance, both by working with the States through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, and directly with the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment and a number of ex-gratia disaster payments.
The Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, or AGDRP, provides short term, one-off financial assistance to eligible Australians. It offers a helping hand and has assisted thousands of Australians in recent years. The AGDRP has a legislative basis in the Social Security Act 1991, which allows the Government to activate the AGDRP in response to a major disaster occurring in or outside Australia.
This Government is serious about supporting jobs following a disaster, about keeping people employed in the local area, protecting skilled labour and the longer term recovery of the community. Australian workers, businesses and farmers are resilient. But in times of great difficulty they may require that extra help to get them back on their feet and back to work.
The Disaster Recovery Allowance will standardise the highly successful assistance that is currently being provided as the ex-gratia Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy. The ex-gratia Subsidy provides fortnightly payments equivalent to the maximum rate of Newstart Allowance or Youth Allowance, depending on a person’s circumstances. The Subsidy supports those who, through no fault of their own, temporarily lose income as a direct result of a disaster. While the ex-gratia payment has worked well this past summer to meet this need, cementing the Disaster Recovery Allowance in legislation will provide a permanent and administratively efficient method for providing this assistance to communities. We have seen the value of such a legislated disaster recovery payment with the AGDRP.
The Disaster Recovery Allowance will provide temporary income support for up to 13 weeks. The Allowance will be paid at a rate equivalent to Newstart or Youth Allowance.
The Government will have the option of making the Disaster Recovery Allowance available for events of national significance where assistance in the form of income support is required. In making this decision we will consider the extent to which the nature or extent of the event is unusual, and the extent of disruption to the workforce.
This will fill a gap in the post-disaster assistance currently provided at both Commonwealth and State levels, which is mainly focused on relief and recovery, and not income support.
This Government recognises that each event is unique and the needs of each community will be different. That is why the Disaster Recovery Allowance will focus on either the areas that are affected, or the industries that are affected, or both. This means that it can apply broadly across a region, or just to an affected industry, depending on the impact of the event.
To qualify for the Disaster Recovery Allowance, a person will have to be able to demonstrate that, because of the disaster, they have lost income on which they were dependent.
In most cases this will be a straightforward self-declaration by a person, ensuring the Disaster Recovery Allowance is administered quickly and effectively in the wake of a major disaster.
While we are committed to supporting disaster-affected workers getting back on their feet, we do not want to create a disincentive for people to go back to work. For this reason the Disaster Recovery Allowance will be subject to reductions. This will ensure that recipients are encouraged to return to work when possible, restoring that normality to their lives.
The Disaster Recovery Allowance will be payable for 13 weeks. For those who have not been able to find work at the end of this period, the Department of Human Services will help them transition to the Newstart or Youth Allowance, and they will have access to all of the existing Commonwealth programs that help people get back to work.
We recognise that sometimes the full impact of a disaster is not felt straight away, particularly economic impacts. For this reason, and to allow adequate time for applications, the claim period for the Disaster Recovery Allowance will stay open for 6 months after the disaster.
The Disaster Recovery Allowance will be taxed and subject to Beneficiary Tax Off-sets, consistent with other social security payments.
Introduction of the Disaster Recovery Allowance reflects the Australian Government’s commitment to supporting communities affected by disasters. The Disaster Recovery Allowance is about more than individuals, it is about getting communities back on their feet. We are seeing again with the recent disasters in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania that Australians want to help each other out after a disaster, and they want to lend a hand. The Disaster Recovery Allowance makes sure that those people whose income has been hit by the disaster do not need to worry about getting food on the table, they can focus on what Australians want to be doing in that situation, which is helping their friends, their neighbours, their community in getting back on their feet and putting their lives back together.
Disasters will happen in this country. With the changing climate, conditions will become more extreme and disasters will happen more frequently. With each year this is becoming clearer. It is a reality we cannot ignore and we must be as prepared as possible for future events. That is why this Government is committed to improving the assistance we provide and the way it is delivered. With each year we, as a Nation, and as a Government, are getting better at preparing, mitigating and responding to disasters. This Bill is a further step in that process. It provides the Commonwealth with the ability to respond to disasters and to support the communities that are affected. These tools give us a greater sophistication in disaster recovery, they give us the certainty that the money is getting where it is needed.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MILITARY COMPENSATION REVIEW AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013
It gives me great pleasure to present legislation that will enhance Australia's repatriation system and provide improved access to compensation and health care for Australian Defence Force members, former members and their families.
The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 – the MRCA – was introduced on 1 July 2004 and provides rehabilitation and compensation coverage for injuries, diseases and deaths caused by all types of military service after that date.
In the lead up to the 2007 Election, we undertook to conduct a review of the MRCA.
The review commenced in mid-2009, at which time, the MRCA had been in operation for five years.
Extensive consultation with the defence and veteran community was undertaken throughout the Review.
The report concluded that the objectives of the MRCA are sound.
It also confirmed that the unique nature of military service justified rehabilitation and compensation arrangements specific to the needs of the military.
However, not unexpectedly given the relative complexity and period of operation of the MRCA, the review found opportunities for improvements.
The Government announced is response to the Review as part of the 2012 Budget.
This bill will give effect to a number of initiatives that form part of the Government response to the Review of Military Compensation Arrangements.
In total, the Government will implement 96 of the 108 recommendations put forward by the Review.
A number of Review initiatives that do not require legislation have been implemented, or are being implemented, to assist our members, former members and their families.
Many of the measures in this bill will further enhance the benefits and services provided to the defence force community.
These amendments deliver on the Government's commitment to continuing to improve and evolve our support for the veteran and defence communities, and their families, to better meet their needs.
Of significant benefit is the introduction of a Repatriation Health Card – For Specific Conditions, known as a White Card, to former members of the Australian Defence Force with conditions accepted under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, where they have a long term treatment need.
The new streamlined arrangements will replace the existing treatment arrangements under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which requires SRCA members to claim reimbursement of treatment costs for their SRCA injury or ask their health care provider to invoice the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
This measure will provide a consistent method of access for all former members of the Australian Defence Force with long term treatment needs.
The bill will provide greater flexibility for wholly dependent partners of deceased members under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
From 1 July 2013, instead of a single choice between receiving ongoing compensation payments or a lump sum payment, wholly dependent partners will be able to choose to convert either 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of the periodic compensation amount to an age-based lump sum payment.
This increased flexibility will enable a wholly dependent partner to better meet their immediate and long-term financial priorities, and applies to future partners and to existing partners who have yet to make their choice as to how to receive their compensation.
The bill provides for an increase in the amount of compensation paid for financial advice for those persons who are required to make a choice under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act about the nature of the benefits they receive. The maximum compensation available will increase from $1,592 to $2,400 and legal advice related to that choice can also be covered within the new limit.
The bill will also provide a one-off increase to the rate of ongoing compensation for eligible young persons under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. Ongoing compensation is one component of a package of compensation for this group.
The rate will be increased to match the rate payable for a dependant child under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
This will result in an expected increase of approximately 50 per cent on the current rate.
Rehabilitation and transition management services under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will be enhanced to improve consistency across the three branches of the Defence Force and increase flexibility in rehabilitation management.
Improved consistency will be achieved by giving the Chief of the Defence Force overarching responsibility for rehabilitation for serving members.
Transition management services will also be made available to part-time reservists.
The responsibility for rehabilitation for part-time reservists will transfer from the Department of Veterans' Affairs to the Chief of the Defence Force to give more visibility to Defence of the rehabilitation needs of this group.
There will also be greater flexibility in the transfer of rehabilitation responsibilities between the Chief of the Defence Force and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.
The bill contains provisions which will allow earlier payment of compensation for permanent impairment for claimants with more than one accepted condition under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
Additionally, DVA will make greater use of the payment of interim permanent impairment compensation and will be able to include a payment for an imputed lifestyle effect when determining the level of interim compensation payable, which will result in increased compensation payments.
From 1 July 2013, the eligibility criteria for Special Rate Disability Pension under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will be expanded to include certain persons who are not currently eligible because the person converted their incapacity compensation payments to a lump sum or because the incapacity payment is reduced to nil because it is fully offset by Commonwealth superannuation.
This measure will also result in the person being entitled to additional benefits that are associated with eligibility for Special Rate Disability Pension, including a Gold Card, education assistance for eligible young persons and MRCA supplement.
The bill will make changes to the treatment of superannuation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act so that serving members and former members are treated equally.
Technical amendments will be made to the definition of 'Commonwealth superannuation scheme' under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to exclude contributions made by a licenses corporation and to include Commonwealth contributions into a retirement savings account.
The powers of the Veteran's Review Board will be enhanced to provide a remittal power to allow certain matters to be referred to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission for further consideration and determination.
The membership of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission will be increased by an additional member, to be nominated by the Minister for Defence.
This will assist the Commission in the management of the broad and complex occupational health, safety and compensation issues faced by the Defence Force.
The claims process for conditions accepted under the Veterans' Entitlements Act that are aggravated by service covered under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will be simplified.
Currently, a person must choose whether to claim the aggravation under either the Veterans' Entitlements Act or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
The existing process is complex, resulting in confusion for clients and is administratively resource intensive.
From 1 July 2013, a simplified arrangement will be introduced resulting in all such claims being determined under the Veterans' Entitlements Act.
The bill will expand the definition of 'member' in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to include persons holding an honorary rank, persons who are an accredited representative of a registered charity and former members undergoing career transition.
Other measures in the bill will create an entitlement to travel expenses under the Veterans' Entitlements Act for certain partners of eligible persons, and make technical amendments to Veterans' Affairs Acts in relation to the appropriation of treatment costs for aged care services and administrative arrangements for payments to bank accounts.
The measures in the bill clearly demonstrate the Australian Government's support and high regard for our Defence Force members.
The Government is committed to continuously improving and adapting to the needs of veterans, serving and former members and their families.
These proposed changes will result in a positive outcome for many in the defence and veteran communities.
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.
AGRICULTURAL AND VETERINARY CHEMICALS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
As part of building a seamless national economy, the Australian Government is committed to reform of the regulation of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines (or agvet chemicals). A single national regulator, supported by state and Northern Territory laws, has been in place since 1993. However, it is evident that its effectiveness is hampered by the legislative framework it must implement.
Access to a full range of safe agvet chemicals is essential for the wellbeing of the economy. Agvet chemicals are needed to control disease and to protect people, companion animals, infrastructure and the environment. They are necessary tools for our export focussed agriculture sector and for future food security. They allow safe and efficient food and fibre production.
It was the foresight of the Hawke and Keating Governments, working in partnership with their state and territory counterparts, that put in place Australia's first national regulator for agvet chemicals. It is now almost 20 years since this system began, and it has served the community well over this period. But as with all legislated systems, they can fall behind best practice.
Human understanding of the natural and chemical world changes every single day. For this reason, we must have a dynamic regulator, with a systematic, risk-based approach to protecting human health and the environment. At the same time, the regulator must take into account the views of the community.
It is clear that the community expects a rigorous scientific approach to agvet chemical assessments. But it also expects that these assessments will occur on a regular basis so they remain up-to-date. This is something the current system has failed to do.We must recognise that many agvet chemicals are designed to kill pests and that they may be dangerous. This is the reason we have a product approval system in place to protect the community and the environment, those who use the chemicals, and those industries that rely on the use of these chemicals.
It is vital for these industries that the community retains its confidence in the methods used to produce food in Australia and to protect the environment. And for this reason it is vital that Australia has a strong, predictable regulatory system.
The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 confirms that protecting human health and the environment is Australia's first priority in regulating agvet chemicals. The Bill amends the suite of agvet chemical legislation to further modernise, and improve the effectiveness of, the current system. It will provide better protection for human health and the environment, thus maintaining community confidence in our food and fibre production.
The Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, known as the APVMA, is the regulator of agvet chemicals in Australia. The Bill amends the legislation administered by the APVMA to improve its effectiveness and responsiveness in regulating these chemicals. These amendments allow the APVMA to maintain its status with the community as a trusted regulator.
The Bill will modernise the APVMA's administration. Perhaps more importantly, the Bill will require the APVMA to provide greater clarity around its requirements. The APVMA will develop and publish its principles and processes for regulating agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines to complement these legislative amendments. This work has already begun within the APVMA and will continue into the future. The work to develop a risk framework, together with powers to reject poor quality applications, will encourage industry to make good quality applications. This in turn will allow the APVMA to do its job more efficiently and with greater predictability.
The amendments in the Bill enhance the consistency and transparency of assessments of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Legislative amendments enable the APVMA to align regulatory effort with chemical risk. The reforms implemented by the Bill will result in a more straightforward assessment process that is easier to understand, more cost effective to administer, and provide greater certainty to the community that agvet chemicals used in Australia are safe.
The Bill includes measures that implement an election commitment to ensure the ongoing safety of agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines and improve the current chemical review arrangements. Introduction of a mandatory re-approval and re-registration scheme brings Australia into line with other countries which have similar schemes such as the United States and Europe. The scheme has been designed to complement the specific characteristics of the Australian agvet market, so it delivers the desired outcomes without unnecessarily resulting in withdrawal of safe and useful chemicals. This measure responds to community concerns by ensuring that approved or registered chemicals continue to meet appropriate health and safety standards.
Other measures in the Bill provide for greater transparency and predictability about reconsiderations. The measures in the Bill achieve this by, for the first time, providing for timeframes for reconsiderations and prescribing timeframes for when information is provided to the APVMA for reconsideration.
The amendments in the Bill remove any remaining trace of an impediment to the APVMA's use of overseas assessments and data. This is on the proviso that the assessments are conducted by agencies that are comparable to the APVMA, and that overseas data are relevant to Australian conditions, agricultural practices and animal husbandry.
Other measures in the Bill improve the ability of the APVMA to enforce compliance with its regulatory decisions by providing the APVMA with a graduated range of compliance and enforcement powers. This will improve the ability of the APVMA to efficiently administer its regulatory decisions to protect public health and safety and the environment. Not only will this allow industry to take greater responsibility for ensuring compliance, but it will not reduce the APVMA's ability to take strong regulatory action where this is necessary to protect the community, animals and the environment. Often, the only option currently available to the APVMA is to take a person to court, a process that is not appropriate for many behaviours. The APVMA needs to be able to ensure that registrants and companies comply with all elements of the law. Therefore, the sanctions cannot be such that they can merely be factored in as a cost of doing business. The additional measures are similar to those available to other regulators under Commonwealth laws and ensure that contemporary safeguards are in place for regulated entities.
The existing legislation compensates intellectual property owners for the impact of the product approval system by protecting submitted data in a number of situations. The current data protection provisions are improved by the Bill. The Bill also removes disincentives for business to invest in chemical product development and extends data protection eligibility to a wider range of data and increases the time that the data is protected. These measures ensure that innovators can obtain a fair return on their research investment.
The APVMA currently obtains the majority of its income from a levy it collects, based on the value of sales of registered agvet chemical products. While this arrangement is not unusual, it may lead to a perception of a conflict of interest. Therefore, the Bill provides for an agency other than the APVMA to collect the levy. However, in making any decision to change the way this levy is collected, the Government will consider issues of cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
The Bill modernises and updates the suite of Commonwealth legislation for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines. Recognising the scope of the changes, the Bill includes a requirement for a review to be conducted of measures in the Bill in five years, and all Commonwealth legislation for agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines every ten tears. This will ensure that legislative measures operate as intended and remain appropriate.
Current agvet legislation is criticised as being an impenetrable maze of complexity. This complexity not only makes it difficult to administer, it makes it hard for companies that need to engage with the regulator. In response, and consistent with its wider role of improving the clarity and accessibility of Commonwealth legislation, the government has done extensive revisions to the agricultural chemicals and veterinary medicines legislation to bring it up to contemporary standards for legislative drafting. The improvements in comprehension and utility delivered by these revisions are significant, with benefits particularly for improved efficiency in complying with and administering the legislation.
At any one time, the APVMA has several thousand applications in process. It also has a register of nearly 10 000 chemical products. The Bill includes appropriate transitional measures to allow processing to continue for those in the system.
Overall, the Bill will increase community confidence in the regulation of agvet chemicals, while reducing the unnecessary impost on business. The reforms to agvet chemicals legislation in the Bill will ensure that agricultural productivity can continue to improve and keep Australia at the forefront of innovative food and fibre production.
EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT (NEW MANDATE AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013
The Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (New Mandate and Other Measures) Bill 2013 implements the Government's response to the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on Australia's Export Credit Arrangements.
When the Government announced its formal response to the Productivity Commission's report back in January it emphasized that Australian small and medium-sized enterprises will be the big winners following these reforms.
This bill will deliver for Australian small and medium-sized enterprises.
The response announced a number of changes to the operations of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) that will help it to play an even more valuable role in the provision of export finance.
This bill will ensure that more of EFIC's resources are devoted to Australian small and medium-sized enterprises that face genuine barriers to accessing finance.
Supporting our small and medium-sized enterprises looking to expand their activities overseas will help demonstrate to the private sector that it is commercially viable to fund these exporters.
EFIC will also be given a limited expansion of its guarantee powers so it can better support Australian businesses integrate into global value chains, particularly in the Asian region.
Increasing participation in regional value chains will result in increased specialisation and productivity as Australian businesses focus more on high value-added activities.
The White Paper on Australia in the Asian Century recommended that EFIC's mandate be revised to ensure more of its resources are devoted to addressing market failures that impede Australian companies, particularly in emerging and frontier markets.
This bill helps deliver on our White Paper objectives.
While the Productivity Commission Report found that market failures are most likely to affect small and medium-sized enterprises with limited export experience, EFIC's new mandate will not preclude it from supporting larger firms where they too face market failures, particularly when doing business in emerging and frontier markets.
To ensure that EFIC does not have a competitive advantage over other businesses in the private sector, the Government also accepted the Productivity Commission's recommendation that EFIC should be subjected to the Government's Competitive Neutrality principles.
Consistent with the recommendation of the Productivity Commission and the 2003 Uhrig Review, the bill will also remove the requirement to have a Government Member on EFIC's Board of Directors, increasing the Board's independence from Government.
In conclusion, the amendments in this bill will provide EFIC with a new mandate that reflects the changing international trading environment and resulting challenges for Australian exporters.
It will benefit Australian small and medium-sized businesses in particular, recognising their increasing importance and prevalence in global and regional value chains.
Importantly, the bill will help us take a further step in delivering on our Asian Century White Paper objectives, improving support to Australian businesses so they can take advantage of the changes and opportunities occurring in our region.
MILITARY JUSTICE (INTERIM MEASURES) AMENDMENT BILL 2013
In 2006 the Parliament enacted legislation amending the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to establish the Australian Military Court by passing the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The Australian Military Court commenced its work in 2007.
In August 2009, in Lane v Morrison, the High Court decided that the legislation was unconstitutional as it sought to confer on the Court jurisdiction to exercise judicial powers of the Commonwealth, without the Court conforming to Chapter III of the Constitution. The provisions were declared invalid.
To ensure continuity of Australia's military justice system, the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 was passed in September of that year. That Act amended the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to provide an interim response to the High Court decision in Lane v Morrison by returning to the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court.
The reinstatement of the pre-2007 military justice system was to allow for the consideration and development of options for a permanent military justice system which would meet the requirements of Chapter III of the Constitution and therefore be constitutional.
The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 provided a tenure of up to two years for the Chief Judge Advocate and the Judge Advocates. This was extended for a further two years by the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Act 2011, which is due to expire in September 2013.
Legislation to establish a constitutionally sound Military Court of Australia was introduced into the 42nd Parliament, but lapsed when that Parliament was prorogued for the 2010 election.
On 21 June 2012, the Attorney-General introduced the Military Court of Australia Bill 2012, which would establish the Military Court of Australia under Chapter III of the Constitution and provide for, among other things, the structure, jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the Court.
The Military Court of Australia Bill 2012, and its companion Bill providing transitional arrangements and making amendments consequential to the creation of the Military Court of Australia, are still being considered by the Parliament. The Bills were the subject of an Inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which reported on the Bills in October 2012. The Committee recommended the Bills be passed.
A Minority Report recommended two amendments:
These dissenting recommendations are the subject of discussion between the Government and relevant Senators.
While the Military Court Bills remain before the Parliament, it is prudent to introduce the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013 to continue the appointment, remuneration and entitlement arrangements for the Chief Judge Advocate and the full-time Judge Advocate for an additional two years or until the Minister for Defence declares, by legislative instrument, a specified day to be a termination day, whichever is sooner.
This will ensure the continuity of these key military justice appointments until legislation establishing the Military Court of Australia commences and is fully operational.
I commend the Bill.
SUPERANNUATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SERVICE PROVIDERS AND OTHER GOVERNANCE MEASURES) BILL 2012
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2012 represents the final tranche of legislation implementing the MySuper and governance elements of the Government's Stronger Super reforms.
Stronger Super is the Government's response to the Review into the Governance, Efficiency, Structure and Operation of Australia's Superannuation System – the Cooper Review.
Together with other tranches of legislation already introduced, this Bill continues the Government's commitment to enhancing the governance and integrity of Australia's superannuation system.
The Bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, the Corporations Act 2001, the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993 and the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008.
The Bill implements a key recommendation of the Cooper Review to override any provisions in a fund's governing rules that stipulate that the trustee must use specified service providers or only invest in or through specified entities.
Where provisions like this are included in a fund's governing rules, superannuation fund trustees are prevented from selecting other service providers, insurance companies or investment vehicles, even where it would be in the best interests of fund members to do so.
A recent report by APRA found that situations where a trust deed required trustees to use a related insurance provider resulted in higher-cost insurance products provided to members.
The Bill will ensure a trustee is obliged to enter into arrangements which are in the best interests of members.
The Bill also implements the Cooper Review recommendation to give APRA the power to impose infringement notices as an alternative to criminal prosecution. This will allow APRA to impose a more appropriate and flexible range of penalties for minor breaches of the SIS Act.
The Bill will improve individuals' rights in relation to access to reasons for decisions from trustees. Currently, when members and beneficiaries make complaints to trustees, trustees are not required to provide reasons for their decisions. This Bill will ensure people have a right to obtain information from trustees in relation to decisions that affect them.
Requiring trustees to provide reasons for decisions in relation to death benefit complaints is particularly important given the statistics from the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Annual Report for 2011 12 which show that death benefit complaints account for almost a third of all written complaints received by the Tribunal each year.
The Bill also provides more time for members and beneficiaries to lodge complaints with the Tribunal in respect of total and permanent disability claims. The increased time to lodge complaints aligns the treatment as closely as possible with the courts and the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Another Cooper Review recommendation being implemented by this Bill is enhanced requirements for entities that are responsible for both superannuation funds and managed schemes – so-called dual regulated entities.
Currently, these entities only have to meet resource and risk management requirements, administered by APRA, that are focussed on the entity's superannuation business. This left a regulatory gap in respect of the entity's non-superannuation business.
The Bill will close this gap and these entities will need to also meet resource and risk management requirements, administered by ASIC, that seek to protect the interests of investors in the non-superannuation schemes they manage.
Following feedback from industry, these new requirements will commence a year later, from 1 July 2015. APRA and ASIC will work together and with industry on how the respective resource requirements will apply in practice.
The Bill also addresses concerns that have been raised about the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Act 2012 in relation to director liability.
This Bill inserts a requirement for persons seeking to take legal action against a director for a breach of their duties to first seek leave from the Court.
The Bill also extends the availability of a defence for directors and trustees if their breach was due to reasonable mistake. The defence will now cover breaches of MySuper duties.
In response to concerns raised in consultation, a further change is being made to the defences in relation to investment and management of reserves. The changes will clarify that each defence is available where a trustee or director can establish compliance with all of the covenants and MySuper obligations that are relevant to the particular loss or damage suffered.
These changes have been developed in consultation with industry and will better balance the rights of super fund members and the protection of directors and trustees against frivolous or vexatious litigation.
The Bill also makes consequential amendments to ensure the effective operation of the first three tranches of MySuper and governance legislation. In particular, the amendments recognise that various provisions in the existing legislation will in future be dealt with in APRA's prudential standards.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
I commend the Bill to the House.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (COUNTERING TAX AVOIDANCE AND MULTINATIONAL PROFIT SHIFTING) BILL 2013
This Bill amends the income tax law to protect the integrity of Australia’s income tax system. These reforms come forward at a time of unprecedented global recognition that base erosion and profit shifting must be addressed.
Last night, the OECD released its latest report on Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, which identified modern transfer pricing rules and effective anti avoidance rules as two of the key weapons in the fight against base erosion and profit shifting.
As the OECD report says, ‘What is at stake is the integrity of the corporate income tax.’
The Government is committed to taking steps where necessary to ensure the integrity and sustainability of the tax system.
Without these amendments, significant amounts of revenue that should be available for the benefit of all Australians would be at risk of not being collected.
Schedule 1 amends Part IVA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 which is the income tax law’s general anti-avoidance rule. The amendments ensure that Part IVA continues to counter schemes that comply with the technical requirements of the tax law but which, when viewed objectively, are conducted in a particular way mainly to avoid tax. Without this, there would be significant scope for taxpayers to plan their way around the law’s intended operation and undermine the revenue base.
Part IVA applies when three elements exist. There must be a scheme; there must be a tax benefit obtained in connection with the scheme; and it must be reasonable to conclude that someone entered into the scheme for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit in connection with the scheme.
Some recent cases have focused on the ‘tax benefit’ element of Part IVA’s operation. A tax benefit exists if a scheme produces a tax advantage (for example, reduced assessable income or increased deductions) being an advantage that would not have been obtained, or might reasonably be expected not to have been obtained, if the scheme had not been entered into.
There are two limbs to ‘tax benefit’. The first limb — concerning tax advantages that ‘would’ not have been obtained without the scheme — deals appropriately with cases where simply removing the scheme reveals a coherent taxable situation consistent with the substance of what happened.
The second limb — concerning tax advantages that ‘might reasonably be expected’ not to have been obtained absent the scheme — deals with cases where what is left after simply removing the scheme would not make sense or would be inconsistent with the taxpayer’s actual commercial objectives and instead requires a prediction about alternative ways that the substance of what happened might reasonably have been achieved.
The amendments reinforce the view that the two limbs of the tax benefit element of Part IVA are alternative tests; that there is not just one test that merely spans a spectrum of likelihood.
The amendments also ensure, in deciding whether an alternative to the scheme is reasonable, that regard is had both to the substance of the scheme and to the non tax results or consequences for the taxpayer that the scheme achieved. In making that decision, the tax consequences of the alternative are ignored.
The proper role for the tax benefit test is to compare the tax consequences of what the taxpayer actually did with the tax consequences of a reasonable alternative that achieves substantively the same thing. It makes little sense in an anti-avoidance provision to allow the tax consequences of what the taxpayer has achieved to act as a shield against the operation of Part IVA.
These amendments ensure that a taxpayer who, having achieved something from a scheme (tax results aside), cannot say they did not obtain a tax benefit by arguing that, absent the scheme, they would have pursued completely different objectives, or done nothing at all.
These amendments have been through an extensive consultation process. In addition to the Government’s usual public consultation on draft legislation, the design process included a lengthy series of consultations with a roundtable of academic, legal and tax experts, and advice from a number of senior counsel. As a result, the Government is confident that these amendments will ensure that Part IVA properly protects the integrity of the tax law without unnecessarily interfering with taxpayers’ normal commercial activities.
Schedule 2 to this Bill modernises Australia’s transfer pricing rules in accordance with the Government’s announcement in November 2011. It provides a new, comprehensive and robust transfer pricing regime that is aligned with internationally accepted principles.
The transfer pricing rules are critical to the integrity of the tax system. They ensure that an appropriate return for the contribution of Australian operations of a multinational group is taxable in Australia for the benefit of the broader community.
The transfer pricing rules do not depend on the existence of a tax avoidance purpose. Transfer pricing rules ensure an arm’s length tax outcome is achieved for non-arm’s length arrangements or transactions, even where those arrangements or transactions have a legitimate commercial purpose.
A key feature of the new rules is their alignment with international best practice as set out by the OECD. Alignment with international norms improves the integrity and efficiency of the tax system, and reduces compliance costs and uncertainty for taxpayers.
The OECD’s Transfer Pricing Guidelines are widely used by tax administrations and multinational enterprises globally. The amendments provide a clear legal pathway to the use of OECD guidance material to assist in applying the arm’s length principle.
As well as alignment with the OECD guidance material, several design features of the new rules will further promote efficiency and certainty.
The new rules operate on a self-assessment basis, bringing the transfer pricing rules in line with the overall design of the Australian tax system. In contrast to the old rules, which relied upon the Commissioner making a determination, taxpayers will now be able to self-assess their Australian tax position in accordance with the arm’s length principle.
Specific rules linking voluntary documentation with a reduction in administrative penalties are included under the new rules. This approach balances compliance costs for taxpayers with incentives to adequately document issues relevant to transfer pricing matters. It allows taxpayers to risk assess matters that could be the subject of administrative penalties and prepare documentation accordingly.
The new rules also introduce a time limit in which the Commissioner may amend a taxpayer’s assessment to give effect to a transfer pricing adjustment. Under the previous rules, the Commissioner had an unlimited period in which to amend an assessment. These rules reduce this period to seven years. Given that transfer pricing audits often require information from other jurisdictions and involve complex arrangements spanning several income years, this time limit strikes an appropriate balance between providing the Commissioner with the time required to conduct an audit, and providing taxpayers with increased certainty as to their tax affairs.
The new rules also maintain the existing interaction between the transfer pricing and thin capitalisation rules that were developed in close consultation with industry during amendments to the transfer pricing rules last year.
The Government has engaged extensively with industry, corporate, and community representatives over the course of the reforms to Australia’s transfer pricing rules. The Bill has benefited significantly as a result of the consultation process. I would like to acknowledge these important contributions to the policy design process.
The measures contained in this Bill are vital for maintaining the integrity of the Australian income tax system.
Robust and properly functioning integrity rules are critical to maintaining a healthy tax system so that the Government can continue to deliver the public goods and services that Australians expect and require, like world class health and education systems, a strong social safety net and public infrastructure.
Full details of the amendments in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
That consideration of government business order of the day no. 1 (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013) be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business to 4.30 pm today.
10. A gravel ridge is the type of land that should be mined, not the fertile land of the Liverpool Plains.
It is believed there will be an application to extend the Coal Company's mining area at some time in the future—that application may impact on "Cintra" land if approval were to be given. The Coal Company has a legitimate right to make such an application.
4. The Coal Company has purchased a number of properties within what is called the "zone of affectation" of mining activities.
5. Most of these properties will not be mined.
A properly managed coal seam gas industry represents an unprecedented opportunity for regional Australia. Poorly managed it could tick every box of a social and environmental disaster.
My preferred option, and our association's preferred option, remains that the state government provide the protections that it promised it would prior to coming into office. We feel that that could quite easily happen through some of the instruments are currently in place—by making the aquifer interference policy enforceable, for instance.
I think it would be our preference if New South Wales were to revisit its perspective and make its good set of rules applicable to at least someone so that we do not have to have the difference between the two jurisdictions.
But the effect of this bill is to extend water resources—for example, a dry gully, every dry gully in the country, because a watercourse is defined as every watercourse, whether it is flowing or not. So this bill would make every dry gully in the country a matter of national environmental significance.
It is most unlikely that all dry gullies would be included.
Greens leader Senator Christine Milne is questioning why Shenhua Watermark Coal was granted a coal exploration licence on farmland that she believes could be vulnerable to water contamination from mining.
Shenhua Watermark Coal issued a statement yesterday, saying it had not been consulted about the visit or asked to provide a tour of the proposed mine site.
It said when the company did invite the delegation to visit, the request was rejected.
'This is extremely disappointing as our tour would have allowed her to see first hand how the project is avoiding any disturbance on the region’s black soil Liverpool Plains and highly productive acquifers which are used by local farmers …
Contrary to Ms Milne’s comment, the Watermark Project is actively managing the farms we have acquired and the overall loss of agricultural output will be minimal as a result of mining.'
That, in order to preserve the integrity of the sporting experience and protect Australian children, the Senate notes the need for law reform, including measures such as:
(a) banning the broadcast advertising of live gambling odds for sports betting;
(b) banning the advertising of sports betting services on television and radio during children’s viewing hours, before 9 pm; and
(c) banning the paid promotion of sports betting services by sporting commentators and their guests during sports broadcasts.
Neil Evans is the public face of Centrebet. His organisation will accept a bet on pretty much anything. Their federal-election markets garner such coverage that Evans is occasionally referred to as a ‘political analyst’. Centrebet has released markets on the national unemployment rate, the colour of Queen Elizabeth’s hat at her grandson’s wedding, and the World Sauna Championships held in Finland. On the flip side, their plan to offer betting on the permutations of the Australian stock exchange was recently rejected by ASIC.
In March 2008, with James Packer’s Crown Limited bankrolling it, Betfair won a unanimous High Court decision which deemed it unconstitutional to prohibit bookmakers from advertising in one state and operating in another. Suddenly there were no state boundaries, the shackles were off and the land grab was on. “It was the most important thing to happen in 150 years of bookmaking in Australia,” says Betstar’s Alan Eskander. “It kick-started the life-cycle of our industry.”
Their market was voracious, if untapped. Australians are the most fearless gamblers in the world. A recent report in the Economist indicated that, on average, every adult Australian loses just under $1300 per year. As a nation, we drop $22 billion per year on the punt, nearly five times what we spend on foreign aid. “Australians love it,” Eskander says. “It’s how we’ve been brought up, it’s part of our culture, part of our folklore.”
… it is plain that, in the first round of the competition, the lines were a little blurred.
… now… there is a very clear distinction between the commentary team and the promotion of sports betting.
… now appears alone. There is a Tom Waterhouse microphone and big logo on the screen saying that he's an online bookmaker. … There is a significant change in the format of that.
"Sports gamblers seem to believe themselves the cleverest of all gamblers. They think that with experience and knowledge—such as player's statistics, manager's habits, weather conditions and stadium capacity—they can predict the outcomes of a game better than the average person,"
"Casino gamblers are more appropriately characterised as obsessives, because they have less belief in themselves, and know that they will lose sooner or later. But they gamble anyway because they feel they need to," Dannon said.
By contrast, sports gamblers may need tailored cognitive therapy that rids them of the belief that they have more control over the outcome than they really do.
I personally have spent the darkest of hours with a sports gambling addict. Without delving into too much personal detail out of respect to this person, I can however say that for over four years I battled weekly with a live in boyfriend’s gambling addiction.In the end we both lost.
… … …
It wasn't until one night in bed after a few weeks of living together with my partner that I started to have any indication there could be trouble in paradise. As we lay in bed, he sat up next to me, eyes fixed on the laptop.
"What are you doing on that so late?" I mumbled.
"Oh just watching a tennis bet," he replied. 3am rolled around and he was still up, eyes glued to that screen watching live tennis scores like a heroin addict waiting for his next delivery.
… as a 16-year-old kid he was led into the TAB by fellow teammates, unbeknownst to him at the time that one bet would cost him his football career, friendships and his first love.
Bring it in tight, Tom Waterhouse. Yes, yes, yes, it is me again, and no, I don't have particularly hard feelings because you're suing me for defamation at the moment. Nothing personal, what?
Nevertheless, because of that legal action, I have of course tried to temper my remarks when it comes to your statement to the joint select committee on gambling reform on Tuesday, where you robustly defended your ubiquitous presence on sports broadcasts across Australia, asserting your right to flog your sports betting operation as you please.
So let me, as delicately as I can muster, as carefully as possible, choose my words delicately ... with malice towards none ... with charity to all:
If you wrote the statement to the select committee, give yourself an uppercut. If someone wrote it for you, pretend you're Mark Bouris on Celebrity Apprentice and say loudly: "You're fired."
In that statement, you say you have, "No intention of targeting children through our advertising ..."
What are the kids then? Collateral damage? Whether or not the kids are specifically "targeted" by your company is hardly the point? The point is that they ARE hit, regardless. The point is that while the government has the brains to have a ban on gambling advertising on programs children are likely to be watching, there remains the ludicrous exception of sport, which millions of Australian kids watch for hours on end!
The point is that because of this exposure gambling chat in the playground is now endemic, and many young Australians think that gambling is glamorous instead of the brain-dead loser pursuit it actually is. So you didn't specifically target them? So what?The outcome is equally devastating—a time-bomb that will go off when they have more than their lunch money to lose.
(2) During a Live Sports Broadcast, a Licensee must ensure there is no Promotion of Live Odds:
(a) by a Commentator at any time; or
(b) during Play.
I note that a letter was addressed to Mr Burke at a post office box in Roselands in New South Wales. At the end of question time Mr Burke's office advised my office that the proposal had not been received at his post office box, or by fax or email at either his electorate or parliamentary office.
Tonight, I want to directly address you, the Australian people.
While it's easy, and understandable, that you should be pessimistic about this government, everyone should be optimistic about our country.
Our health researchers have saved hundreds of millions of lives through breakthroughs in everything from infectious diseases to cancer vaccines to ulcer treatments.
Our military personnel stand ready to protect people in some of the world's worst trouble spots.
Our universities are educating the future leaders of our region.
Our musicians, artists, actors and film-makers are making their mark all over the world.
Our resource exports have helped hundreds of millions to move from the third world to the middle class.
And, with the right product, our manufacturing, too, is capable of competing with the best in the world, even with the high dollar – as demonstrated by Cochlear, Blackmores, Murray Goulburn and RM Williams, whose boots I'm wearing tonight.
We are a great country and a great people let down by a bad government.
Bad governments always pass.
What should never dim is our faith that Australia's best years are ahead of us.
So my purpose tonight is to assure you that a Coalition government will do what's needed to restore the hope, reward and opportunity that should be your birth right.
Our Real Solutions Plan will build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
Margie and I know the pressure that every Australian – that each one of you – is under.
We're not crying poor but we run a household with power bills, rates, health and education costs to be paid all the time.
Margie runs a community-based occasional care centre which has to live within its means just like every small business and every family.
Governments' first job is not to make your life harder.
But this government has – with its carbon tax, broken promises, and skyrocketing debt.
Australian families are paying for this government's mistakes yet all you ever hear from the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are excuses and promises to do better next time.
Should the Coalition win the election, there will be no nasty surprises and there'll be no lame excuses.
No surprises and no excuses.
The Coalition's Plan has two objectives: first, to take the budget pressure off Australian households; and second, to strengthen our economy so that, over time, there's more to go round for everyone.
Only by delivering a strong economy can government deliver a sustainable National Disability Insurance Scheme and better schools.
You need certainty to plan your future and you need cost of living relief.
So tonight I announce a major initiative to ease the financial pressure on Australian families.
A Coalition government will keep the current income tax thresholds and the current pension and benefit fortnightly rates while scrapping the carbon tax.
The carbon tax will go but no one's personal tax will go up and no one's fortnightly pension or benefit will go down.
So with a change of government, your weekly and fortnightly budgets will be under less pressure as electricity prices fall and gas prices fall and the carbon tax no longer cascades through our economy.
This will strengthen our economy – because there'll less tax hitting Australian businesses but not their overseas competitors.
And it will help families – because you'll have tax cuts funded by smaller government, not by taking money out of one pocket to put it in the other.
Our plan starts with recognition of economic reality.
Government doesn't create wealth; people do.
Government doesn't spend its own money; it spends your money.
This year's spending is either this year's taxes or it's this year's borrowing – that's next year's taxes.
Government spending is not a free gift but something that everyone is paying for, now or in the future.
That's why good governments are at least as careful spending the money they hold on trust from the people as you are when making decisions that affect your family's budget.
Parents don't mortgage their children's future and neither should government.
Last year, the Treasurer began his budget speech declaring, and I quote: "the four years of surpluses I announce tonight are a powerful endorsement of the…success of our policies".
Well, surpluses would have been a vindication.
But there are no surpluses.
Not this year.
Not next year.
Not the year after that.
The Treasurer now says that there will be a surplus in four years' time.
That's four years after the Treasurer and the Prime Minister said that it had already actually been delivered and spent tens of thousands of your dollars boasting about it in letters to their constituents.
If a public company made these sorts of claims its directors would most likely face serious charges rather than asking to be re-elected.
If this had been the only dodgy promise, they might have got away with it but this government never gets it right.
It got the mining tax numbers wrong.
It got the carbon tax numbers wrong.
And last year's budget commitments to boost family payments and to cut taxes didn't even make it to this year's budget.
This year's supposed revenue shortfall went from $7 billion, to $12 billion to $17 billion in just two weeks – so how can ministers possibly predict a decade ahead?
The Prime Minister guaranteed there would be no carbon tax – but there is.
She guaranteed there would be a surplus – 165 times she guaranteed there would be a surplus – but there isn't and there never will be under the government.
After seven deficits totalling $220 billion, the Treasurer can hardly congratulate himself over an almost invisible surplus, if nothing goes awry, if he's still there, in four years' time, in his ninth budget.
The government originally said that the deficit was "temporary".
With seven in a row, the Second World War was more temporary than this government's deficits.
The government promised a surplus over the cycle but this isn't a cycle – it's a spiral, deeper and deeper into debt which is now surging towards $400 billion even on the government's own figures.
The last time a Labor Treasurer stood in this parliament to deliver a surplus was way back in 1989 so it's hardly surprising that this year's Labor surplus promises are no more believable than last year's.
In the second line of this week's budget speech the Treasurer said that it was a budget for jobs and growth.
In fact, unemployment increases and growth decreases.
The Treasurer spent much of his speech complaining that he was the victim of a sudden collapse in government revenue.
In fact, revenue is up 6 per cent this year and will be up 7 per cent next year.
Next year, revenue will be up $80 billion on six years ago.
That's right, the Treasurer has $80 billion more to balance his budget than Peter Costello ever had – yet Costello delivered surplus after surplus.
We have a $20 billion deficit now rather than the $20 billion surplus then not because revenue is down but because spending is up: by $120 billion.
Madam Speaker, in 121 days, there will be an election.
It will be a tipping point in the life of our country.
The choice could hardly be more stark: three more years of broken promises, nasty surprises and weak excuses.
Or change for the better with an experienced team that will not just rebuild the economy but also the bonds of trust that should exist between you and your parliament.
The last Coalition government grew GDP per person by well over two per cent a year – under this government it's limped along at well under 1 per cent.
The former government grew jobs by two and a quarter per cent a year – or enough to create over 2 million new jobs within a decade.
Since then, they've grown by just 1.6 per cent a year.
With the Coalition, you could trust government to save.
With Labor you can be sure government will spend which is why worried households are saving at the highest rate in a generation.
During the Howard years, real wealth per person more than doubled – since then, it's actually declined thanks to weaker growth, subdued house prices and lower share prices.
Change won't come overnight but a Coalition government will do what's needed to strengthen economic growth and prosperity.
All the Coalition's main policies are designed to make it easier for you to get ahead and for businesses to be more productive.
We will abolish the carbon tax – because that's the quickest way to reduce power prices and take the pressure off cost of living and job security.
Let me repeat: We will abolish the carbon tax – because it's a kind of reverse tariff that hurts local businesses but not our overseas competitors.
There is no mystery to how this will happen.
What one parliament legislates, another parliament can repeal and the carbon tax repeal bill, should we be elected, will be the first legislation that a new parliament considers.
We will reduce emissions with targeted incentives, not clobbering business with the world's biggest carbon tax.
We will abolish the mining tax – because that's the quickest way to support investment and jobs.
We will cut red tape costs by at least $1 billion a year – to give small business a much-needed break – and we'll have parliamentary days dedicated to repealing laws, not passing them.
By cutting tax and regulation, we will boost productivity.
That will give Australian manufacturers the more level playing field they need to remain at the heart of a five pillar economy along with services, education, agriculture and resources.
We will have a once-in-a-generation commission of audit so that government is only as big as it needs to be to do what people can't do for themselves.
We will set up a root and branch review of competition policy to ensure that small business gets a fair go and small business will be a cabinet portfolio within the Treasury department.
There'll be an affordable and responsible Paid Parental Leave scheme because women should get their full wage while on maternity leave just as men should get theirs while on annual leave.
We will revitalise work for the dole because people who can work, should work, preferably for a wage but, if not, for the dole.
Within three years, the Coalition's NBN will deliver broadband speeds at least five times faster than the current average for $60 billion less than Labor's version.
We will start work within 12 months on Melbourne's East-West Link, Sydney's WestConnex, Brisbane's Gateway Motorway upgrade, Adelaide's South Road, and Tasmania's Midland Highway, as well as key roads in Perth and parts of the Bruce Highway, because when you're stuck in traffic jams, you aren't at work or at home with your family.
We will duplicate the Pacific Highway, finally, well within this decade.
We will establish a one-stop-shop for faster environmental approvals so that new projects can get up and going more quickly.
We will re-establish a tough cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to deliver (as it previously did) $6 billion a year of productivity improvements in a troubled industry.
We will return the workplace relations pendulum to the sensible centre, under the existing Fair Work Act, with fairer rules for right of entry and for new projects.
And we will establish a new, two-way street version of the Colombo Plan taking our best and brightest to the region as well as bringing their best and brightest here.
It will be part of a foreign policy that's focussed on Jakarta, not Geneva.
All these commitments are affordable and deliverable.
We will deliver them in our first term of government, if we win, and will provide all the funding details after the pre-election fiscal statement is released.
But tonight, I set out specific savings to cover keeping tax thresholds and pension rates without a carbon tax to fund them.
The Coalition has already announced that we will rescind the increase to the humanitarian migration intake because – until the boats are stopped, and we will stop them – it's the people smugglers who are choosing who comes to Australia.
We've announced that we'll reduce by at least 12,000, through natural attrition, the size of the Commonwealth public sector that's now 20,000 bureaucrats bigger than in 2007.
We've also announced that we'd scrap Labor's green loans scheme for projects that the banks won't touch.
Tonight, I confirm that we won't continue the twice a year supplementary allowance to people on benefits because it's supposed to be funded from the mining tax and the mining tax isn't raising any revenue.
As well, we won't continue the low income superannuation contribution because that's also funded from the tax that isn't raising any revenue.
I announce that we will delay by two years the ramp up in compulsory superannuation because this money comes largely from business – not from government – and our economy needs encouragement as mining investment starts to wane and new sources of growth are needed.
These measures alone will produce nearly $5 billion a year in savings which is more than enough for tax cuts without a carbon tax.
The Coalition won't shirk the hard decisions needed to get the budget back into surplus.
Living within your means is not mindless austerity – it's simple prudence.
It's recognition of the reality that you can't spend what you don't have.
Households know this and it's time governments did too.
At least for a first term, until we're on an honest path not just to surplus but to re-paying debt, an incoming Coalition government will resist new spending commitments that aren't fully funded, nearly always by offsetting expenditure reductions.
As far as the Coalition is concerned, the next election won't be an auction.
Talking to people all around the country, the last thing you want is more "historic" announcements or so-called "revolutions" that never justify the hype.
Let me be clear.
Many of the measures in this budget are objectionable, the attacks on Medicare; the abolition of the baby bonus which the government had promised never to touch; robbing Peter to pay Paul on education; and forcing more businesses to do the tax paperwork monthly, not just quarterly.
But thanks to Labor's poor management over five years, there is now a budget emergency.
Hence the Coalition may decide not to oppose any of them; doesn't commit to reverse any of them; and reserves the option to implement all of them, in government, as short-term emergency measures to deal with the budget crisis Labor has created.
Far from cutting to the bone, we reserve the right to implement all of Labor's cuts, if needed, because it will take time to un-do all the damage this government has done
By keeping, if needed, all Labor's budget cuts – and – by not implementing any of their budget spending measures unless specified, we will achieve the first duty of every government: namely, to preserve the nation's finances.
We will keep the announced spending on the National Disability Insurance Scheme and we'll ensure that the scheme reflects the Productivity Commission's recommendations rather than becoming just another big government bureaucracy.
I would not have ridden 1000 kilometres, the week before last, to raise money for Carers Australia if I was half-hearted about the NDIS and would never claim for just one side of politics this reform that should be an achievement for our whole nation.
On the other hand, the key to better schools, at least as much as more money, is better teachers, better teaching, higher academic standards, more community engagement, and more principal autonomy.
So that's what we'll work with the states to deliver.
We won't back a so-called national education system that some states don't support especially as this government has a history of spending more while schools' performance actually goes backwards.
Regardless of normal political allegiance, Australians are sick of leaders who play politics ahead of governing the country and who blame everyone but themselves when things go wrong and the numbers don't add up.
You want a grown up government like the ones that John Howard and – yes – Bob Hawke too used to run.
As soon as people know there's a government with an economic strategy to build the country rather than just a political strategy to save its own skin, confidence will start to return to our economy.
Tax reform starts with immediately repealing the carbon tax and the mining tax and giving a modest company tax cut as soon as it's affordable – but it doesn't end there.
Within two years, an incoming Coalition government will consult with the community to produce a comprehensive white paper on tax reform.
We'll finish the job that the Henry review started and this government squibbed.
We want taxes that are lower, simpler and fairer and will take proposals for further tax reform to the following election.
Right now, the blame game between the Commonwealth and the states that Kevin Rudd promised to end has become worse than ever.
Typically, over the past three years, the Prime Minister has announced massive new programmes in areas that are the states' responsibility so she can claim the credit but the states have to pay.
It's no way to run the country and it's no way for adult leaders to behave.
Within two years of a change of government, working with the states, the Coalition will produce a white paper on COAG reform, and the responsibilities of different governments, to ensure that, as far as possible, the states are sovereign in their own sphere.
The objective will be to reduce and end, as far as possible, the waste, duplication and second guessing between different levels of government that has resulted, for instance, in the Commonwealth employing 6000 health bureaucrats even though it doesn't run a single hospital.
Again, a Coalition government will seek a mandate at the subsequent election for any proposed changes.
One of the best ways to ensure that governments don't make mistakes is to have a proper cabinet process.
That's how Bob Hawke and John Howard ran their governments but that's not how government is run now, as the four former ministers now sitting on the backbench have testified.
My ministers won't need to learn how to be a good government because they've been one before.
Sixteen members of the Coalition shadow cabinet were ministers in the last government that actually delivered surpluses, as opposed to just promising them.
Those surpluses weren't just John Howard's and Peter Costello's.
They were my surpluses and Joe Hockey's surpluses and Julie Bishop's and Warren Truss's and Malcolm Turnbull's because we were all part of the last government that Australians knew was competent and trustworthy.
Unlike the current government which never makes an announcement that isn't supposed to be the most important thing ever, what I'm proposing is not unprecedented and shouldn't even be remarkable.
I'm offering what should be normal: careful, collegial, consultative, straightforward government that says what it means and does what it says.
That would be change for the better.
The next election, to which this budget is a mere prelude, should not be about who becomes prime minister.
It should be about who can do more for our country – because our country is more important than any of us in this parliament.
My colleagues and I have a Plan to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.
It's not about us.
It's about you, the Australian people.
We pledge ourselves to your service.
… this Budget is less Robin Hood and more Sheriff of Nottingham.
The Australia-Indonesia Partnership Country Strategy 2008-14 aligns Australian development assistance with Indonesia’s priorities and reflects the determination of the two countries to tackle poverty and promote a prosperous, democratic and secure Indonesia.
In 2001 there was a Pakistani finance minister. That is quite an extraordinary one, that one.