The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023
Even more heartbreaking is telling a person they've got a really strong case and that we will support them all the way, but they can't proceed because it is taking such a heavy toll on their mental health. Sorry, I have been doing this for a long time and I know it has an accumulative negative impact when you see that repeatedly time and again. It feels like the system is so broken.
The Law Council is also concerned that the equal-access model as proposed in the Costs Protection Bill was not recommended by the AHRC—
either in its Respect@Work orFree and Equal reports.
As Australia's National Human Rights Institution, the Commission is concerned that the reforms proposed may have unintended consequences on the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution options aimed at facilitating early resolution of complaints, including settlement offers and the Commission's conciliation function, and may impact on the Commission's role in stemming the flow of complaints that proceed to court.
The Law Council is concerned that the Costs Protection Bill tilts the balance overly in favour of the applicant and moves the financial risk and disincentive for unmeritorious claims to the respondents … the Law Council is concerned that the Costs Protection Bill reduces incentives for the parties to engage genuinely with the AHRC's conciliation processes and, later, in any alternative dispute processes available … It could also render offers of compromise and Calderbank offers ineffective.
Further, as a matter of principle, it is inappropriate for the courts routinely to treat parties differently based on their power or financial means relative to other parties, particularly where they have not engaged in unlawful conduct.
I am also concerned that the court decision could make it potentially harder for women and girls to argue for the proportionality, legitimacy and necessity of female-only spaces in some circumstances. Even if unintentional, the ruling by the Federal Court may have made it potentially harder for women and girls in Australia to avail themselves of the full breadth of protections provided by the international human rights treaties that Australia is part to, including CEDAW and the ICCPR …
While the Act differentiates between the concepts of sex and gender identity, this distinction is abandoned in practice.
Amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to insert a cost protection provision consistent with section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
The Bill will have disproportionate, extremely adverse impact on Christian and faith-based schools and educational institutions if, as the Government appears intent upon, the exemptions in the SDA are to be removed, or reduced so they have no value in enabling such institutions to operate in accordance with their ethos.
It would make discrimination law activism virtually cost and risk free for complainants.
Australians may be financially ruined for things that should never have been alleged under discrimination legislation in the first place.
… … …
The result of the Bill in that context would be that Christian and faith-based schools and the like will become exposed to an entirely new range of discrimination claims under the SDA simply for operating in accordance with their ethos … Christian schools remain a highly popular choice among Australians. The problem is that their ideology does not fit with Labor's current ideology.
There is strong evidence that there are issues with the current system that need to be addressed. There is largely consensus in this regard. However, there is no consensus with respect to the costs model which should apply to proceedings commenced under Part IIB, Division 2 of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act1986 …
… the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur the costs—
… if there was a gap fee for people turning up to emergency who did not get admitted, I think you would see a drastic reduction in people attending emergency departments.
… it is vital that before we build more network, we use more network.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to social media.
These problems are solvable. A safer, free-speech respecting, more enjoyable social media is possible … Facebook can change, but is clearly not going to do so on its own.
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:
Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024
National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024.
Better And Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill
Purpose of the Bill
The Bill will amend the Student Identifiers Act 2014 to enable the assignment and maintenance of unique identifiers for school students by the Student Identifiers Registrar and authorise the collection, use and disclosure of those identifiers in specified circumstances.
Reasons for Urgency
Implementation of unique student identifiers (USIs) for all Australian school students is a national initiative agreed by the Australian Government and all state and territory governments under the current National School Reform Agreement (NSRA).
The bill provides for the allocation of Schools USIs backed by strong privacy protections. First Ministers and Education Ministers have agreed that expansion of USIs to school students is needed to support a better understanding of student progression and to improve the national evidence base. The first use of the Schools USI will be as a data element within the Student Data Transfer Protocol (SDTP), supporting the sharing of information when a student moves between schools and systems. The SDTP is a key element in the response of governments to recommendations of the 2017 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.
This Bill must be passed in the 2024 Spring sitting period to ensure that all Australian Government arrangements for the Schools USI are completed by the end of 2024 in line with commitments made under the NSRA, which terminates at the end of 2024. With the completion of Commonwealth legislative amendments by the end of 2024, jurisdictions will be positioned to make their own legislative changes to allow USIs to be issued to school students in their state or territory. Without the passage of the Commonwealth legislation in the 2024 Spring sittings, progress on national implementation will be delayed.
National Health Amendment (Technical Changes To Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold And Other Matters) Bill
Purpose of the Bill
This Bill clarifies the operation of section 99ADH(6)(b) of the National Health Act 1953 (the NH Act),which forms part of a test for when a price disclosure reduction may occur following sustained discounting across related brands of medicines. The amendments clarify that for a brand to be subject to a price reduction under 12.5% average unadjusted price reduction test, that a price reduction cannot have occurred as a result of calculations using data from the 3 consecutive data collection periods used in the test. The amendments will apply retrospectively and prospectively to ensure the understanding of the provisions is consistent with the Parliament's intention when it passed the Amendment Act, removing any possible doubt as to how these provisions have operated to date, and how they will continue to operate.
This Bill also clarifies the date on which a brand will become a designated brand as the result of satisfying section 99ADHC(1)(a) of the NH Act (which relates to older medicines which are listed on the PBS). This Bill clarifies the time period referred to by 'previous data collection period' in s99ADHC of the NH Act, and makes clear the policy intent in relation to older medicines that a brand becomes a designated brand, subject to the minimum stockholding requirement in the NH Act, and receives the benefit of more protective price reduction thresholds and floor price protections, all from the same date.
Reasons for Urgency
Price disclosure reductions to certain medicines listed on the PBS may occur on 1 April or 1 October in each year, based upon whether the relevant thresholds in section 99ADH of the NH Act are met for a reduction to occur. These price reductions result in savings to the Commonwealth and to patients, and ensure that the price which is paid for multi-branded medicines listed on the PBS more closely reflects the price at which medicines are sold in the market.
This Bill amends section 99ADH of the NH Act to clarify understanding of the provisions reflective of the policy intent. The policy intent of the relevant provision (as enacted) is made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum for the National Health (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Amendment Act 2021 (the 2021 Amendment Act). The Explanatory Memorandum expressly states that, for relevant brands,'there will be no further price reductions under the Act unless, over a period of three consecutive data collection periods (1.5 years), the brand is discounted on average by 12.5% or more without taking a price reduction, or if the brand is discounted by more than 30% in any one price disclosure cycle' .
This legislation must be passed prior to 1 October 2024 to be applicable to price reductions which are applied on 1 October 2024 and 1 April 2025. The amendments will remove any possible doubt as to how these provisions have operated to date, and how they will continue to operate.
That the following bills be listed as separate orders of the day:
Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, by no later than midday on 19 September 2024:
(a) Services Australia's latest 2 program status reports produced for each active program;
(b) all papers, including attachments, prepared by Services Australia to support members of the interim Services Australia Independent Advisory Board for their meeting of 17 and 18 June 2024;
(c) the record of meeting of the interim Services Australia Independent Advisory Board for their meeting of 17 and 18 June 2024;
(d) the name of each deep dive, the date the deep dive was held and the rationale for each deep dive conducted by Services Australia over the past 6 months;
(e) the latest Q4 quarterly performance assurance report sent from Services Australia to the Department of Social Services; and
(f) the list of policy simplification suggestions, and associated correspondence, sent to the Department of Social Services pertaining to the crisis payment, as noted in Services Australia's Q3 quarterly performance assurance report for 2023-24.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on 16 September 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction, from 20 May 2024 until 6 September 2024 between:
(a) the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office;
(b) the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Treasurer or his office;
(c) the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Prime Minister or his office;
(d) the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office and the Treasurer or his office;
(e) the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury or his office and the Prime Minister or his office; and
(f) the Treasurer or his office and the Prime Minister or his office;
in relation to preparations for the 2026 Census, including:
(g) the questions that will or will not be asked;
(h) its drafting; and
(i) its contents.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 8 October 2024:
(a) any written correspondence and documentation between the Minister for the Environment and Water, the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and ACEN Australia (and its parent company Ayala), related to the impacts and management of Tasmanian devil populations on Robbins Island, Tasmania, including any provisions for offset covenanted Tasmanian devil habitat; and
(b) any written correspondence and documentation related to the impacts and management of Tasmanian devil populations on Robbins Island, Tasmania between ACEN Australia (and its parent company Ayala) and ministerial offices and departments prior to the commencement of the 47th Parliament.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Monday, 16 September 2024, the statement of reasons by the Minister for the Environment and Water in respect of her declaration on the tailings dam of the McPhillamys Gold Project, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 .
The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That—
(a) the Senate notes that:
(i) order for the production of documents no. 580 required the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government to table certain Civil Aviation Safety Authority permits in respect of helicopter flights relating to the national fire ant eradication program by no later than midday on 21 August 2024, and
(ii) the order was not complied with by the deadline; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 11 September 2024, all documents required by order for the production of documents no. 580.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 8 October 2024:
(a) all correspondence between the Minister for the Environment and Water (the minister) and the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation since 1 March 2024;
(b) all correspondence between the minister and the Prime Minister and his office in relation to the McPhillamys Gold Project;
(c) all correspondence between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in relation to the McPhillamys Gold Project;
(d) all correspondence between the minister and the New South Wales (NSW) Minister for the Environment, the Minister for Heritage, the Minister for Climate Change and the Minister for Energy in relation to the McPhillamys Gold Project;
(e) all correspondence between the minister and the NSW Minister for Finance, the Minister for Domestic Manufacturing and Government Procurement, and the Minister for Natural Resources; and
(f) all correspondence between the minister and the Premier of New South Wales in relation to the McPhillamys Gold Project.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 17 September 2024, a copy of the following documents as noted in 'Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed' of the June 2024 assurance review into the Macquarie Island Modernisation Project, denoted as document number 2024-002525 and tabled in the Senate on 21 August 2024:
(a) Macquarie Island Future Station Government submission—provided in PE environment;
(b) Macquarie Island—Detailed Business Case—MIMP Executive Summary 18 Mar 24 FINAL;
(c) Macquarie Island—Detailed Business Case—SFAPMI—FAQ—18.03.24 FINAL;
(d) Macquarie Island—Detailed Business Case—2024 FINAL;
(e) AAD/21/0009—MIMP—AECOM Macquarie Island geotechnical report (2023) RP-GT-0001.1 (Clean Original Report);
(f) AAD/21/0009—MIMP—AECOM Macquarie Island Landslide Susceptibility Assessment September 2023;
(g) AAD/21/0009—(MIMP)—Strategic WHS Risk Assessment of Macquarie Island Operations (V3 October 2023); and
(h) Macquarie Island—2024-03 Antarctic Infrastructure—ESS Monthly Report March 2024.
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on First Nations Representative Bodies, be established to inquire into and report on the role, governance and accountability of native title representative bodies and prescribed bodies corporate, with particular reference to:
(a) the effectiveness of the Native Title Act 1993 (the Act) and related state, territory and federal institutional and policy frameworks in addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of First Peoples, with specific reference to the principles of free, prior and informed consent;
(b) the process, quality and effectiveness of consultation and consent processes with traditional custodians with respect to:
(i) ascertaining the views of traditional owners and native title holders and applicants,
(ii) negotiations on behalf of traditional custodians,
(iii) communication with traditional custodians,
(iv) maintenance and accuracy of the register of members,
(v) opportunity for dissenting views and the management of dissenting views and conciliation of disputes,
(vi) declaration and management of conflicts of interest, including but not limited to connections to and involvement with proponents, and
(vii) transparency and accountability in decision-making processes;
(c) the current operation of the future acts regime and other relevant parts of the Act, including section 31 (right to negotiate), section 66B (replacement of the applicant) and Part 6 (the operation of the National Native Title Tribunal);
(d) ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making, financial and other operations, including corporate reporting responsibilities and conducting directors' meetings, annual general meetings and special general meetings;
(e) the availability, accessibility, impact and accountability of public sector funding for:
(i) prescribed bodies corporate,
(ii) native title representative bodies,
(iii) land councils,
(iv) traditional custodians to pursue native title claims outside of native title representative bodies, and
(v) native title claim respondents/objectors;
(f) the explicit authority and responsibilities of prescribed bodies corporate and representative bodies under the Act;
(g) opportunities for reforming existing institutional, legislative and policy frameworks, including new accountability or governance arrangements, to better advance the rights and economic, social, environmental and cultural aspirations of First Peoples; and
(h) other related matters.
(2) That the committee present its final report by 26 August 2025.
(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, as follows:
(a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;
(b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(c) Senator Thorpe; and
(d) one nominated by minority party or independent senators.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; and
(b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That if a member of the committee is unable to attend a meeting of the committee, that member may in writing to the chair appoint a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee at that meeting. If the member is incapacitated or unavailable, a letter to the chair appointing a participating member to act as a substitute member of the committee may be signed on behalf of the member by the leader of the party or group on whose nomination the member was appointed to the committee.
(6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and as its deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate or any independent senator.
(7) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant.
(8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee.
(9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(10) That the committee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
That the motion be amended to read as follows:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 August 2025:
(a) the effectiveness of the Native Title Act 1993 (the Act) and related state, territory and federal institutional and policy frameworks in addressing inequalities in the negotiating position of First Peoples, with specific reference to the principles of free, prior and informed consent;
(b) the process, quality and effectiveness of consultation and consent processes with traditional custodians with respect to:
(i) ascertaining the views of traditional owners and native title holders and applicants,
(ii) negotiations on behalf of traditional custodians,
(iii) communication with traditional custodians,
(iv) maintenance and accuracy of the register of members,
(v) opportunity for dissenting views and the management of dissenting views and conciliation of disputes,
(vi) declaration and management of conflicts of interest, including but not limited to connections to and involvement with proponents, and
(vii) transparency and accountability in decision-making processes;
(c) the current operation of the future acts regime and other relevant parts of the Act, including section 31 (right to negotiate), section 66B (replacement of the applicant) and Part 6 (the operation of the National Native Title Tribunal);
(d) ensuring transparency and accountability in decision-making, financial and other operations, including corporate reporting responsibilities and conducting directors' meetings, annual general meetings and special general meetings;
(e) the availability, accessibility, impact and accountability of public sector funding for:
(i) prescribed bodies corporate,
(ii) native title representative bodies,
(iii) land councils,
(iv) traditional custodians to pursue native title claims outside of native title representative bodies, and
(v) native title claim respondents/objectors;
(f) the explicit authority and responsibilities of prescribed bodies corporate and representative bodies under the Act;
(g) opportunities for reforming existing institutional, legislative and policy frameworks, including new accountability or governance arrangements, to better advance the rights and economic, social, environmental and cultural aspirations of First Peoples; and
(h) other related matters.
The Senate divided. [15:54]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [15:57]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than midday on 11 September 2024, the funding agreement negotiated between the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), under which the Australian Government made a $6 million contribution to the UNRWA flash appeal in 2024.
Omit "midday on 11 September 2024", substitute "10 am on 16 September 2024".
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) order for the production of documents no. 350, agreed to on 17 October 2023, relating to communications between CBUS Super Fund and the Treasurer and his office since 21 May 2022, was not complied with,
(ii) on 7 November 2023, in response to the order, the Treasurer made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that the documents sought are commercial-in-confidence, and
(iii) on 5 September 2024, documents that were the subject of the order were provided following a freedom of information (FOI) request, Treasury reference no. 3331, after the Information Commissioner found against the Treasurer in an appeal and required the documents be disclosed; and
(b) requires the Minister representing the Treasurer to attend the Senate on Wednesday, 11 September 2024, at the conclusion of consideration of private senators' bills and immediately prior to government business being called on, to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, the misuse of a public interest immunity claim, and how documents obtained under FOI could not be obtained by the Senate, and that:
(i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and
(ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each.
The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Lines)
That the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024, made under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 , be disallowed [F2024L00849].
The Senate divided. [16:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [16:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)
The Senate divided. [16:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Albanese Labor Government to end its anti-farming agenda, which is damaging Australia's competitive advantages, driving up the cost of doing business for Australian farmers and further increasing the cost of living for all Australians."
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for the Albanese Labor Government to end its anti-farming agenda, which is damaging Australia's competitive advantages, driving up the cost of doing business for Australian farmers and further increasing the cost of living for all Australians.
The Senate divided. [17:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
With Australia in the grip of a cost of living crisis, now is the time to focus on providing good numeracy and literacy education so our children are equipped to make fiscally responsible decisions.
The fact that kids have to wait to be in prison to get one-on-one intensive learning support that they need is just abominable.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee — Report on the efficacy of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade due diligence framework — Government response
Australian Government response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report:
Efficacy of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade due diligence framework
September 2024
Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee ('the Committee') on its inquiry into the: Efficacy of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade ('DFAT') due diligence framework ('the report').
The Government recognises and appreciates the work of the Committee. The report is comprehensive and detailed, with four recommendations. The Government also notes the additional comments from some members of the Committee, including their concerns about recommendations one, two and three.
The Government has carefully considered the report and does not accept recommendations one and two. The Government notes recommendations three and four.
DFAT makes extensive use of a range of partners, and in turn their downstream partners, to support implementation of the Australian development program. DFAT's Due Diligence Framework (the Framework) is part of its broader risk management approach, applying a structured and consistent methodology to review a potential partner's ability to deliver services in line with the policy requirements of the Australian development program. The Framework assists financial delegates to satisfy Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 requirements to discharge their duties with the degree of care and diligence a reasonable person would exercise.
The Framework is one element of the Government's risk management approach to the delivery of official development assistance in the high-risk context of Myanmar. DFAT's approach extends beyond the selection assessment of partners to the close monitoring of program delivery and implementation. DFAT actively monitors programs throughout their life-cycle to confirm that Australian assistance has been delivered as intended and has not been misdirected to the regime.
The Government remains deeply concerned about the situation in Myanmar, and the ongoing repression and violence by the military regime. The Government remains committed to supporting the people of Myanmar through the provision of sustained development and humanitarian assistance. The Government does not provide direct funding to the Myanmar military regime and takes proactive steps to ensure assistance is neither diverted to the regime nor legitimises or gives credibility to the regime.
Response to the recommendations
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to develop and implement an alternative and more flexible due diligence framework to be used when a recipient community is in a defined contested environment.
Response: Not accepted.
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Under Australia's International Development Policy , we will continue to deliver a high-quality, effective development program underpinned by rigorous performance and delivery frameworks.
The Government considers the existing Due Diligence Framework used by DFAT fit-for-purpose. The Framework allows DFAT to employ a risk-based approach to the engagement of a wide range of implementing partners, many of whom operate in difficult environments.
The Framework establishes important minimum requirements for any implementing partner delivering development cooperation or humanitarian assistance, regardless of the environment. These minimum requirements are reflected in the seven criteria applied for a baseline due diligence assessment (Entity Details; Past Performance; Fraud and Corruption Control; Proscribed List Checks; Integrity System Checks; Child Protection; and Preventing Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment). Delegates may elect to include additional assessment criteria depending on a range of factors such as the complexity and financial value of the activity, operating environment and delivery arrangements.
Guidance for departmental officers provides some flexibility in how assessments are conducted. It outlines a range of evidence that can be used to complete assessments and indicates they are to be based on a pragmatic evaluation of the best available evidence at the time of completion.
The Framework is a risk management tool and not a hard gate for funding, except in instances where a potential partner is on one of DFAT's prohibited dealings lists (e.g. sanctions). It is used to ensure that the delegate has the information they need to make an informed decision, including how risks identified in the assessment process will be mitigated.
DFAT is currently considering the recommendations from a strategic review of the Australian NGO Cooperation Program ('ANCP') accreditation process and funding policies to ensure these are fit for purpose and able to adapt to multiple contexts, including in Myanmar. ANCP accreditation is a rigorous process, which aligns with and satisfies DFAT's due diligence requirements.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to develop a decision support tool to assist officers conducting risk management assessments to make it easier to facilitate better distribution of aid funding using the proposed contested environment due diligence framework.
Response: Not accepted.
The Government does not accept this recommendation. DFAT has a comprehensive risk management policy with procedures and supporting systems to assist officers conducting risk management assessments in relation to development and humanitarian investments.
Risk management is a key focus of the investment design process and is subject to testing and quality assurance. For every investment, there is screening for mandatory policy considerations, including environmental and social safeguards, fraud and corruption and terrorism resourcing risks, as well as other common risk factors. Risks associated with a potential implementing partner, identified through the due diligence assessment process, are also incorporated into investment risk registers stored on the department's online program management platform, AidWorks.
Delegates approving investment designs are responsible for ensuring all material risks have been identified and appropriate management controls and treatments are in place. The Risk Appetite Statement and Tolerances Levels for the development program provide guidance to departmental officers as to which categories of risk require greater attention in decision making and management effort during implementation.
A strong focus on risk management is maintained throughout the implementation phase of an investment. DFAT recommends that investment managers review investment risk registers at least quarterly. In addition, all investments over $3 million are required to undergo an annual performance assessment, which includes criteria related to risk management.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government utilise any new due diligence framework to engage with and strengthen ties with aid partners and stakeholders on the ground in contested environments, such as the National Unity Government, faith-based non-government organisations and civil society organisations.
Response: Noted.
The Government notes this recommendation.
Although the Government does not accept recommendations one and two, it notes the intent of this recommendation in terms of strengthening localisation, which is a key commitment of Australia's International Development Policy .
Australia already engages with development and humanitarian partners and stakeholders on the ground in contested environments, including Myanmar.
The Government appreciates the importance of hearing and understanding the voices of all stakeholders in Myanmar. Australian officials engage with representatives of the National Unity Government, faith-based non-government organisations (NGOs), civil society organisations and other groups. Australia will continue to engage with all relevant stakeholders to reduce the politicisation of international development assistance, and to advocate for access to people in need and the safety of those providing assistance.
Australia's development and humanitarian assistance for Myanmar is delivered through United Nations (UN) agencies, multilateral and regional partners, international NGOs, local NGOs and local civil society organisations. While Australia's direct funding partners are mostly multilateral agencies and international NGOs, they partner with local groups to deliver assistance.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that further details be released as soon as possible on the Australian Government's new International Development Policy's key commitments on:
In particular, detailing how these programs will apply in the context of Myanmar and resolve the challenges being faced under the current framework.
Response: Noted.
The Government notes this recommendation. Australia's International Development Policy prioritises locally-led development, multi-year funding and capacity development to local organisations, with support as needed to meet policy requirements. The policy also includes a commitment to design a new Civil Society Partnerships Fund that will support local civil society organisations. DFAT will release further details as arrangements are developed.
To facilitate implementation of these commitments, DFAT has recently published new guidance on supporting locally-led development. The guidance emphasises there is no 'one size fits all' approach to locally-led development programming. Further detail will be outlined at country-level in Development Partnership Plans, and at program-level through investment designs, taking into account factors such as country context, development objectives, delivery models, partners, risk and safeguarding.
Providing support for organisational capability (e.g. financial management, child protection policies) will be central to locally-led development: this can be provided directly in funding agreements or via intermediaries. Strategies will be tailored with the local organisation.
In certain contexts, it may not be possible to partner directly with local actors. In those cases, DFAT will work indirectly through intermediaries such as Australian NGOs, international NGOs, multilateral agencies and managing contractors. For example, to advance locally-led development, ANCP allows partner NGOs to plan multi-year programs and projects, and is also trialling a 'pass down' of a minimum $10,000 for each Australian NGO annual grant to local partners to support their administrative costs.
The Government has a range of multi-year humanitarian and development programs in Myanmar across several sectors, where the direct implementing partner is a multilateral agency or international NGO, but which partner with a range of local organisations to implement activities on the ground. Many of these programs provide multi-year funding and capacity development for local organisations. Noting the sensitivities and security situation in Myanmar, the Government does not publicise the details of local implementing partners. This is at their request.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee — Report on the Attorn e y-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 [Provisions] — Government response
Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report:
Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 [Provisions]
AUGUST 2024
Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's (the Committee) report, Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 [Provisions] (the Report), tabled on 1 February 2024. The Government would like to acknowledge the contribution that organisations made in preparing written submissions to the Committee's inquiry.
The Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Act 2024 (the Act) received Royal Assent on 11 June 2024. The Act makes a range of important amendments to update, clarify and improve the intended operation of legislation administered by the Attorney-General's portfolio. The Act:
The amendments to the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to expand the membership of the PJCHR (Schedule 4, Part 2A) were inserted after the Committee's inquiry.
The Government tabled an Addendum to the Explanatory Memorandum for the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 (Addendum) in the Senate on 16 May 2024 to address Committee recommendations 1-2 and dissenting recommendations 2-4 and 6-7 of Senator Paul Scarr.
The Government's response to the Report is set out below. The response addresses the recommendations of the Committee and the recommendations in Senator Scarr's dissenting report.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends the Attorney-General's Department update the Explanatory Memorandum to the Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 to include further guidance and information to clarify how the proposed reforms to the Federal Court of Australia in Schedule 1 and 2 of the Bill will result in more efficient prosecution of corporate crimes and increased procedural fairness.
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 addresses this recommendation and the Committee's associated comments.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that, subject to the passage of the Bill, the Attorney-General's Department amend the Guidelines on the Marriage Act 1961 for authorised celebrants to reflect the requirements for a celebrant to hold a separate meeting with each party to the marriage before it is solemnised. The amendments should provide information as to how the meetings might operate in practice and how consent can be determined.
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Attorney-General's Department will amend the Guidelines on the Marriage Act 1961 for authorised celebrants to reflect the requirements for a celebrant to hold a separate meeting with each party to the marriage before it is solemnised.
There will not be a mandatory approach to the issue of separate meetings. The duration, timing and approach to a separate meeting with each party to a marriage will be at the discretion of the marriage celebrant, having regard to cultural and other relevant considerations. However, the department will work with celebrants and celebrant associations to develop options to support celebrants to comply with this obligation, for inclusion in the Guidelines.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends the Bill be passed.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Act received Royal Assent on 11 June 2024.
Dissenting recommendations of Senator Paul Scarr
Recommendation 1: It is recommended that the Bill be divided to allow the Senate to consider Part 2 of Schedule 4 (dealing with the Native Title Respondents Scheme) in its own bill separate from Schedules 1 and 3 and Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 4 in the Bill.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government considered that division of the Bill was not be an effective use of the Parliament's time. Scrutiny by this Committee illustrates that the Senate was able to appropriately consider the Bill in its entirety, including Part 2 of Schedule 4. Accordingly, no amendment was made to the relevant provisions.
Recommendation 2: It is recommended that the government considers providing additional commentary in the Explanatory Memorandum regarding the offence categories included in subsection 67G(4) to address the concern of the Law Council.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 addresses this recommendation and Senator Scarr's associated comments.
Recommendation 3: It is recommended the government considers amending the Bill and/or its explanatory materials to include further matters that could guide the court's consideration about whether a transfer of proceedings would be in the interests of justice.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 states:
The Bill does not define the criteria for assessing the interests of justice. Rather, the court should assess the interests of justice on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the relevant circumstances. In this regard, the Bill is consistent with transfer regimes provided for in other Commonwealth legislation, particularly the [ Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-Vesting) Act 1987 ].
The methodology for assessing the interests of justice, including considerations, has been developed by the common law. This existing methodology would also apply to transfer decisions under the Bill.
Recommendation 4: It is recommended that the accused be provided the right to make an application to transfer proceedings as proposed by the Law Council.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 states:
Although the Bill does not afford the accused a right to apply for part or all of the proceedings to be transferred, the accused's right are protected in several ways. The principles of procedural fairness will require the court to provide the accused an opportunity to be heard before any decision to transfer or not transfer is made by the court. Depending on the relevant rules of court, the accused may have a right to make an application requesting the court exercise its powers to transfer proceedings on its own motion. Superior courts, such as the Federal Court, have inherent powers to protect the administration of justice and prevent abuses of power. These powers would ensure that transfers do not occur in circumstances which would unfairly prejudice the accused.
Recommendation 5: It is recommended that if the Bill is passed, the government refers to the CDPP for its consideration of the request of the Law Council that guidance material be developed by relevant federal agencies, and be made publicly available, about when a prosecutor should apply to transfer proceedings.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The management of prosecutions for the Australian Government is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). The CDPP publishes and maintains the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth and other materials to guide decision-making in the prosecution process. As an independent entity, the appropriateness and development of any guidance relating to whether to transfer proceedings is a matter for the CDPP.
Recommendation 6: It is recommended that the government considers including an enhanced explanation of jury preparation and jury selection processes in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill as requested by the Law Council.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 addresses this recommendation and Senator Scarr's associated comments.
Recommendation 7: It is recommended that the government considers including in the Explanatory Memorandum more detailed specification of the criteria to be applied by the Sheriff in utilising the discretionary, hybrid jury preparation procedure proposed in Schedule 2 of the Bill.
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The Addendum tabled by the Government in the Senate on 16 May 2024 states:
Subject to certain safeguards …, the Sheriff will have discretion to determine whether a jury panel is to be prepared by the Sheriff or provided by a State/Territory jury official, on a case-by-case basis. The Sheriff is best placed to determine which of these approaches for preparing a jury panel is appropriate in the circumstances. Specifying detailed criteria to which the Sheriff must have regard when making their election could impact the efficiency and effectiveness of this measure.
Although the Sheriff will have discretion as to which of these approaches is to be adopted, the Bill provides a number of safeguards. The Sheriff must, in writing to the Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Court, elect whether a jury panel is to be prepared by the Sheriff or provided by a State/Territory jury official, pursuant to new section 23DD of the Federal Court Act. This ensures certainty for the Federal Court in managing the proceedings before it. A request by the Sheriff to a State/Territory jury official to prepare and provide a jury panel may only be made with the consent of the relevant State or Territory. Therefore, a State/Territory jury official will not be required to prepare and provide a jury panel for a particular jury trial unless the relevant State or Territory has consented to do so.
Recommendation 8: It is recommended that the amendments in the Bill in relation to subsection 42(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 relating to identity requirements be passed.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Act, including the amendments in relation to subsection 42(1) of the Marriage Act, received Royal Assent on 11 June 2024.
Recommendation 9: It is recommended that the issues raised by the Celebrant Institute be considered through meetings held by the Attorney-General's Department and the Celebrant Associations and Networks, including at biennial meetings. If the results of such consultation indicate that any further clarifications or improvements should be made to the Marriage Act 1961 to address the concerns raised by the Celebrant Institute in its submission (or in relation to any other matter), then these should be the subj ect of a further amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 to be introduced into the Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.
The Government notes this recommendation.
Recommendation 10: It is recommended that the issues raised by the Celebrant Institute be considered through meetings held by the AGD and the Celebrant Associations and Networks, including at biennial meetings. If the results of such consultation indicate that any further clarifications or improvements should be made to the Marriage Act 1961 to address the concerns raised by the Celebrant Institute.
The Government notes this recommendation.
Recommendation 11: It is recommended that the Bill not be passed if it continues to contain Part 2 of Schedule 4 abolishing the Native Title Respondent Scheme
The Government does not support this recommendation.
Abolition of the Native Title Respondents Scheme was an election commitment of the Government.
Consistent with its election commitment, the Government ceased providing this funding in the October 2022 Budget. The repeal of section 213A of the Native Title Act gives full effect to the Government's election commitment.
The Native Title Act has been in place for 30 years. Many legal questions and uncertainties have now been settled by the courts which means that the outcomes of many native title proceedings are more predictable, and in turn less costly. In addition, native title matters are increasingly being resolved through negotiation rather than litigation, which reduces the cost of involvement.
The Native Title Respondents Scheme has been used by a range of entities to fund their involvement in native title matters. With more legal certainty and familiarity with native title now, those entities should be in a position to factor the costs associated with native title matters into their expected business costs.
Accordingly, no amendment was made to the relevant provisions.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… subjecting an individual to mandatory income management and restricting how they may spend a portion of their social security payment engages and limits the rights to: social security, privacy and equality and non-discrimination, and may limit other human rights (including the right to an adequate standard of living and the rights of the child).
That the Senate take note of the documents.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
That Senator McKenzie replace Senator Reynolds on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into Commonwealth, Olympic and Paralympic Games preparedness, and Senator Reynolds be appointed as a participating member.
Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024
Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024
Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024
National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024
Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024
Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 December 2024:
The benefits of conducting a Federal Convention to examine the ambiguous roles between the state, territory and federal governments considering, but not limited to, the following issues:
(a) the need to streamline the duplication of bureaucracies to save billions of dollars in bureaucratic waste and reduce unnecessary regulations;
(b) the lack of accountability and transparency between the state, territory and federal governments;
(c) the need for state and territory governments to raise their own revenue to reduce their reliance on Federal Government funding;
(d) the need for Federal grants and goods and services tax allocations to state and territory governments to be much more transparent, efficient and effective;
(e) the need for the implementation of a co-ordinated infrastructure funding facility to provide capital for sovereign infrastructure;
(f) the need for the Corps of Royal Australian Engineers to take responsibility for building and maintaining all national land transport network roads; and
(g) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 December 2024:
The benefits of conducting a Federal Convention to examine the ambiguous roles between the state, territory and federal governments considering, but not limited to, the following issues—
(a) the need to streamline the duplication of bureaucracies to save billions of dollars in bureaucratic waste and reduce unnecessary regulations—
(b) the lack of accountability and transparency between the state, territory and federal governments—
the need for the Corps of Royal Australian Engineers to take responsibility for building and maintaining all national land transport network roads …
Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023
Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024
Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Imposition Bill 2024
Treasury Laws Amendment (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) (Consequential) Bill 2024
It is time now to make urgent changes—counting them in cancer registries so we see them, providing platforms so their challenging stories can be heard, building quality information to guide them, and creating support and care that meets their specific needs.
Specific support and care, tailored to the stage of their cancer, and access to psychosocial services is also imperative to meet their evolving needs.
… when I tell people about my diagnosis, I often struggle with their lack of understanding about the differences between early and metastatic breast cancer. Colleagues and friends often ask me when I'll be in remission or if the disease will stop. But remission is like a mythical unicorn in our world, and I'm constantly haunted by the thought of cancer. Recognising the unique challenges and experiences of people like me with metastatic breast cancer as a separate group could bring huge benefits. We are more than our diagnosis; many of us continue to work and contribute to society, despite the physical and emotional toll of our condition. It's about creating a more hopeful and informed future, not only for ourselves, but for the generations to come.
I'm hopeful for a future with better support and more help for those of us with metastatic breast cancer. A future where we're equipped with the right information to tackle each day as it comes, living our lives to the fullest.
We came by sea and didn't know if we would survive the journey but took the chance to seek a safer life. For the first few years we were moved through detention centres until we settled in Melbourne.
It felt like we had finally found home. But in late 2018, everything changed. Our protection claims were rejected. Then in 2020 while we were waiting for our appeal, Covid hit and things got worse.
We couldn't get Medicare. We couldn't work or get any Government assistance, and we struggled to pay rent.
My Dad also got really sick. He was mentally struggling. Eventually he made the decision to go back to Iran. It wasn't an easy decision.
My Dad was taken into custody by Iranian authorities. They beat him and let him cut and bruised. He has now been missing for one year.
I can only fear the worst for what has happened to my Dad. And know that if I am forced to go back to Iran this is what I will be facing.
I don't understand why the Australian Government has punished my family in this way. All we wanted was to be safe, be together and to rebuild our lives.
It is also important to recognise that, especially for young people, gender identity and sexuality can shift or evolve over time.
Children in particular may want to experiment with different gender expressions through dressing up, and we can support them by avoiding mapping our expectations of gender onto them.
Library staff are told that even if they are "familiar" with a child who visits their library, they should "leave room for them to express a change in their identity", including by prompting them if they still go by the same pronouns.
Checking in casually about their pronouns ("Do you still prefer he/him pronouns?"'; "Do you still go by Sam, or is there something else you'd like me to use?") …
Leo is in pain most of the time. His back hurts badly when he stands up or walks. It is a hard life for a teenager, and he has no idea if the agony will ever go away.
… … …
He has spinal fractures and a condition called osteopenia, which weakens the bones, making them more liable to break. It is a disease that you often see in people aged 60 or 70 and is almost impossible to reverse.