by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network, I move:
That the Select Committee on the National Broadband Network be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 1.45 pm to 2 pm.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committees, I move:
That the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.15 pm to 4 pm.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committees, I move:
That the Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.15 pm to 4 pm.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 11 May 2010 be from 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 13 May 2010 be from 9.30 am to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that:
Question agreed to.
Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Senator Ludwig:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I rise today to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. The bill establishes a free superannuation clearing house for small services businesses with fewer than 20 employees. In addition, it makes changes to the tax treatment of managed investment schemes, managed investment trusts, the entrepreneurs’ tax offset and consolidations. Schedule 6 makes a number of housekeeping amendments.
The coalition supports the amendments contained in the schedules 2 to 6 of this bill. Many of these amendments will enhance investor certainty about the tax status of investments and, hence, should encourage additional investment. In particular, the changes to protect investors and managed investment schemes are a worthwhile response to the high-profile collapse of a number of these schemes. Under current arrangements investors can claim immediate deductions as long as a capital gains tax event does not occur within four years after the end of the income year in which the amount is first paid. These changes will protect the returns of investors from unanticipated, uncontrollable changes which cause schemes to collapse before the four-year rule is satisfied. Recently, the insolvency of several managed investment schemes has had a devastating and unexpected effect on investor funds. The Australian Taxation Office has not had the scope to provide relief to investors in these circumstances. This bill will change that and allow investors to keep their deductions where a capital gains tax event occurs because of factors outside the control of investors. Importantly, these amendments will apply retrospectively from 1 July 2007 providing some welcome relief to those affected by the recent collapses of some managed investment schemes. This bill also amends the tax law to allow managed investment trusts to make an irrevocable election to apply capital gains tax on the disposal of certain assets, such as shares and real property. Again, these provisions will provide greater certainty.
Schedule 4 introduces an income test for the entrepreneurs’ tax offset. The entrepreneurs’ tax offset was introduced by the former coalition government and took effect from 1 July 2005. Its aim was to provide greater incentives for very small businesses in the early stages of their development. This bill limits access to this concession by applying thresholds to taxable income over $70,000 for single individuals and $120,000 for families. Currently, eligibility for the entrepreneurs’ tax offset is not restricted by sources of income other than those derived from the small business. The coalition is concerned that these amendments will deter some from starting a business. This bill also makes some changes to the consolidation regime from a tax perspective. This regime has been continuously improved and the changes presented here stem from proposals of the former coalition government in 2007. Finally, schedule 6 contains a number of housekeeping amendments. It makes a number of minor changes to the existing tax law to ensure they operate as intended.
I turn now to schedule 1 of this bill, which introduces a superannuation clearing house. The coalition supports a superannuation clearing house for small businesses. The clearing house will provide small businesses with free access to services which allow them to pay their superannuation guarantee contributions in a block to an approved clearing house. Small businesses are then relieved of the need to split contributions into individual payments according to each employee’s respective superannuation fund. A clearing house provides scope to achieve economies of scale and reduces the overall costs of Australians saving for their retirement. This will reduce red tape for small business while maintaining choice for individuals to choose their own superannuation fund. Lower costs will improve the ability of small businesses to compete and will increase productivity and, ultimately, the wages of Australian workers.
The government likes to talk about slashing red tape and increasing productivity but has been slow to act in these instances. The government originally promised to establish the clearing house by 1 July 2009. Senator Sherry released a discussion paper in November 2008, but then over 12 months went by with no further news from the government. The deadline passed without a murmur. The superannuation industry was left doubting whether the reforms were progressing. There are private operators which already provide clearing house type services to businesses. How could they invest with any certainty while the government sat on changes that would affect the industry substantially? We should not be surprised by the government ignoring these effects. This government does not understand business. Few of its members have ever run one. As in so many other areas, the government put a high priority on discussion and consultation but less on actually delivering results. It appears that an election year has finally woken the government from its slumber.
Notwithstanding the coalition’s broad support for these changes, the specific proposals that are in front of us here are different from those that the government initially proposed. We do not think that many of these changes have been adequately explained. Originally the government proposed to tender the operation of the clearing house to the private sector. The Prime Minister made this promise in his original 2007 proposal. At the time, Senator Sherry claimed that the government’s proposal would not create a new bureaucracy, because the government would leverage off existing private sector providers. The discussion paper in late 2008 continued to support a tendering process, yet in November last year something changed. Suddenly the government announced that Medicare would operate the clearing house; no consideration was given to the private sector operators. On top of the uncertainty the government generated by inexplicably delaying the establishment of the clearing house, it then took away the option for private sector operators to provide these services as promised. What changed in the 12 months after the government released its discussion paper? No-one knows, and the government has provided no explanation. As one company payment adviser said:
We did not hear from Treasury or anyone associated with the Government after putting in our submission. We worked to develop this solution and a few other people looked at what they could do to provide a solution to small business. And it was quite a shock late last year for a press release to say that the Government was going to give it to Medicare.
The coalition has two major concerns with this surprise decision. First, it would appear that the government is again rushing the implementation of a new program without doing sensible due diligence beforehand. Second, the special advantages that this bill provides to Medicare could have harmful effects on competition in this sector and ultimately push up the costs for businesses with more than 20 employees. The Senate inquiry on this bill has revealed that Medicare is worryingly unprepared to deliver these services to small business. It might be easier if I simply listed all the things that Medicare has not done.
Medicare has no estimates on the cost of providing free clearing house services. How much will costs be affected by the ultimate take-up by small businesses? We do not know. The government has allocated $16.1 million over four years, but we have no certainty of whether this is enough. Second, Medicare has not finalised its data-processing system or the types of payments that are to be accepted. Third, Medicare has not developed key performance indicators for the scheme. It cannot say how it will deal with any of the errors that arise. Fourth, Medicare has no targets for business take-up or time lines for getting the system up and running by the due date, nor has it committed to any time lines for remitting contributions to personal accounts. Medicare told the Senate inquiry that it could not commit to a time, because it did not know if there would be ‘issues with matching and some requirements for us to do follow-up work’. Funds that are not quickly transferred to the relevant accounts can have adverse effects on investor returns. We would have seen that lately. Medicare has not revealed how it will deal with the massive quarterly peaks in workloads when payments arrive. Sixth, we have not been assured that Medicare will establish a sufficient database to protect the life insurance and other entitlements of members.
It is almost unbelievable that the government had not worked through these issues before committing to use Medicare as its approved clearing house. If it had made a request for proposals from the private sector for these services, the government could have asked for all this information in bid documents. We would then be in a position to undertake proper due diligence, review the capacity of different providers and use pressure on different competitors to sharpen their pencils and provide the best deal for taxpayers. Instead the government has chosen a provider without any of this information being available. We are in the dark, and Medicare itself appears to be in the dark on its ability to deliver.
The government and Treasury have claimed that Medicare has been chosen for risk management reasons, but when the chosen provider cannot inform us of the kinds of details that normally would be contained in a bid document, how rigorous can that risk management process be? As Craig Osborne, Managing Director of MicrOpay, commented:
Medicare is not looking at the full detail that needs to be achieved when there are adequate private enterprise solutions out there ... To run with a government agency that doesn’t have a track record in collecting this information and collecting these sorts of funds, and doing the disbursements and matching and cross-checking that’s needed to ensure the system is efficient, has not been addressed or even contemplated.
The Senate inquiry had a number of existing private providers which could provide clearing house services. These providers already have road-tested systems to process transactions. They know how much each transaction costs and they could implement the government’s policies quickly. Indeed, many of these providers would likely perform clearing house functions for much less than the estimated $16 million cost to Medicare. One private clearing house operator has already begun free services to small businesses without any government inducements. But overpaying for things has become a very bad habit for the Labor Party.
We have further reasons to be sceptical of the government’s decision to ignore these private providers and their reasons for it. A failure to manage risk is becoming a pattern. We have seen them ignore the risks highlighted to them on the pink batts program, with tragic consequences. We have seen them ignore the risks of rorting the solar hot water rebates. We have seen them ignore the risks of cost blow-outs in school halls. Once again here, we see a government that is being reactive, waiting for the risks to materialise before acting. We need a government that proactively identifies and mitigates risks in accordance with the best due diligence practices.
This whole delayed and incomplete process is reflective of the inherent paradoxes at the heart of the Labor government. They are slow to act but then hasty to decide. They spend years asking questions but then ignore the experts. They are busy creating announcements but do not follow them through to implementation. In summary, they are incompetent. They are managers of public policy—not necessarily a do-nothing government but an achieve-nothing government. The coalition believes that the government should return to their original plan. We believe that a competitive tendering process would provide the strongest guarantee for the transition to a clearing house which provides free and seamless service to small business while providing no interruption to the services and returns that members expect from superannuation funds.
But in addition to the process of establishing a clearing house there is also the actual impact that these arrangements will have on the existing providers in the sector. In particular, this bill delivers the approved clearing house a number of special advantages over its competitors. First, this bill provides that employers will be able to discharge their superannuation guarantee obligations by making a bulk payment to the approved clearing house on the 28th day of the month in each quarter when the payment is required. But current private clearing houses must themselves process the payments by the 28th day of the month in which the payments are due, which means that employers must make payments in advance of that date. Under these conditions, why would any employer not choose Medicare as its clearing house? Obviously there is a cash advantage in the cash management capacity of sending to a clearing house that has a later date of real acceptance.
Second, at the moment the Australian Securities and Investments Commission requires clearing houses, as financial service providers, to issue product disclosure statements which must detail the conditions of the facility, the fees and charges, how transactions are to be made and authorised, and any risks associated with the facility. So Medicare will have a lower compliance burden than private operators, and small businesses could end up with less information on the terms and conditions of their facility.
One of the last acts of the Keating government was to introduce principles of competitive neutrality in the delivery of government services. In simple terms, this requires governments to ensure that their own enterprises compete on a level playing field with private competitors. This bill contains elements that contradict the principles of competitive neutrality. Medicare will have a clear advantage over private sector clearing houses. The coalition view is that there is a simple way of correcting this issue. There is a real opportunity to create a more efficient superannuation clearing house market by extending the definition of ‘approved clearing house’ to privately operating clearing houses holding an AFS licence and subject to prudential requirements—a change of the term to include privately operating clearing houses. This will create a more level playing field and allow employers to make their superannuation guarantee payments to a number of clearing houses with the same deadlines. The government should also select a government subsidised clearing house following a competitive tendering process. The coalition’s changes would increase competition and could be expected to lower fees in the sector.
As I stated earlier, the coalition supports the broad changes in this bill. We support the changes to give investors greater certainty about the operation of the tax system. We support the principle of establishing a superannuation clearing house to lower compliance costs for small businesses. However, we do not support achieving this by giving a government entity an unfair advantage over private suppliers and private businesses and the aspirations of other Australians to participate in this market if they so choose. The coalition’s proposed amendments will maintain a level playing field among clearing house suppliers. Competition is the best way to ensure that these services are delivered at a lower cost—and the government on budget day should be more focused on lowering costs than at any other time during the year—and, more importantly, that these services are delivered in a way that guarantees no interruption to the timeliness of superannuation payments and accordingly protects members’ benefits.
On the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010, which I think is generally supported except for some issues about the Medicare clearing house, I will deal with just the issues that the Senate Economics Legislation Committee was asked to look at, and they were whether the legislation will have unintended consequences for the superannuation market, whether it is anticompetitive in relation to privately operated clearing houses and whether Medicare is an appropriate agency to operate the clearing house.
Superannuation is very important to Labor governments and to our constituency. It is the basis of the savings pool of Australia and is particularly important for the retirement incomes of ordinary Australians, because they do not have the ability to increase their money through private savings that other people do. Therefore, superannuation and the administrative requirements around it are clearly of great priority for Labor governments. That is why this bill in relation to superannuation has been particularly well considered and is a good solution to the problem. The problem, as was outlined, is that many small businesses, with the choice of funds which was introduced in July 2005, have some administrative difficulties in sending off the superannuation guarantee payments to a variety of funds under a variety of different data arrangements. So the government promise before the election was to create a clearing house for small businesses such that they could simply send the superannuation guarantee fund to that clearing house. As soon as the clearing house received it, those small businesses would be in compliance with their obligations under the superannuation guarantee system.
So initially, as the opposition outlined, the government did indeed envisage that the clearing house would be put out to tender. But, despite Senator Joyce’s diatribe on risk and the evaluation of risk, he did not once in his speech mention the key piece of advice which persuaded the government to change that original proposal to have private companies do it. That key advice was that if a clearing house is put out to tender there is a risk that a private company, in the event of incompetence, fraud or outright failure, could potentially affect employee entitlements of all employers using the clearing house. In other words, if there were some problem within the private clearing house, employees who expected that their superannuation was going to their fund might suddenly find out that, as a result of fraud or some other failure in the private clearing house, their superannuation had not been going for years into the fund but had disappeared into a clearing house.
This is the situation we have occasionally seen in the United States with private funds. It would mean that employees, ordinary Australians, would suddenly find that they did not have the superannuation that they thought they had. This is clearly a huge risk for ordinary Australians and it would mean that the Australian government would therefore have a contingent liability—and I have certainly heard Senator Joyce wax long and lyrical about the dangers of contingent liabilities. So, rather than ignore it, the government dealt with the risk proposed by that, and the way they did it was to provide a government agency to deal with this. Rather than set up a bureaucracy to oversee, regulate and deal with the possibility of a failure of a private company—and then not even have that guaranteed to work—they decided that it would be more prudent and less risky on many levels to set up a government agency.
Fortunately, there is a government agency used to dealing with money coming in from small groups in small amounts, and dealing with it quickly and efficiently, and that agency is Medicare. Medicare are already doing this kind of work. In their evidence to our committee, Medicare were very confident of their ability to perform this additional responsibility well and efficiently, and they were very clear about this. Senator Joyce talked about KPIs and various other things and said that Medicare admitted that they did not have these procedures in place. But this was a gross misrepresentation of Medicare’s evidence. Medicare have set up a working group with involved parties to deliver a flexible, responsive and appropriate set of guidelines. They are confident that they will have those in place by the time this is up and running and they are confident that they can do it within the budget required.
Small businesses were happy with that response. Indeed, AustralianSuper very concisely illustrated that. As they said in the Senate Economics Legislation Committee report:
Australian Super also did not agree that allowing existing clearance houses to participate would be a more efficient way of processing superannuation for small business:
If the government were to offer subsidies to existing clearing house providers to focus a service on this segment of the market, they probably could have done it, but it would have to have been in conjunction with legislation introduced as we have seen Medicare looking at—mandatory electronic data, mandatory data standards, licensing, a guarantee on floats, and service standards on how long a clearing house can hold onto the money and send it to the funds. If your question is, ‘Could private clearing houses provide this service with the subsidy going to them?’ the answer is: yes, they could have, but it would not have been as effective as the model that we are looking at now, unless it were in conjunction with a whole list of additional criteria.
AustralianSuper raised in there another point—that Medicare now has the ability to organise the data standards and the arrangements so that they are uniform across the sector, making it even easier for small business to provide the correct data in a uniform manner that will enable further efficiencies in the sector.
As for the private sector being cut out of this sector, they are able now—and they will continue to be able—to provide a clearing house service if they wish. But the committee took evidence that, of the two million small businesses in Australia, only around two per cent are currently being provided with clearing house services by SuperChoice, the largest private provider. The private providers have not been especially active in seeking this business and, if they have, they have clearly not been very successful, because only two per cent of those small businesses are operating with them. We have to remember that this is only for small businesses employing 20 or fewer people. Private clearing houses are still able to get business from any small to medium enterprise that has 20 or more players. It is not as if the market is being taken away from them; they are still free to complete in that market.
Speaking of 20 or more employees, the one area of the bill that the committee did make some recommendation on was the limit of 20 being monitored to make sure that businesses that had spikes in employment were adequately catered for. We were assured that there would be some flexibility in there, but we would like to make sure that those businesses that might employ 10 or 15 and have a seasonal spike and put on another six, seven or 10 employees, will not be disadvantaged by the system and have to leave it temporarily.
It is quite clear from our evidence that the government were presented with an unacceptable risk in dealing with the issue of tendering out to private services for this clearing house. They dealt with the risk in a pragmatic and responsible way. I was very pleased to see that that then got industry support from a broad range of sources. Industry was very pleased that this happened—both small businesses and the superannuation industry. It is a rational and reasonable response and I would urge the chamber to support this bill.
We believe this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010, providing for Medicare to be the clearing house for superannuation for small companies, will significantly disadvantage private organisations already in the field. It is interesting that during the 2007 election Kevin Rudd promised that the Labor government would establish a superannuation clearing house by 1 July 2009. Labor, of course, have failed to meet this promise. Prime Minister Rudd also promised that the clearing house would be contracted to the private sector. The discussion paper on the legislation issued in November 2008 also stated that the government would contract the clearing house to the private sector. However, in November 2009 the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr Bowen, announced that Medicare would be awarded the contract. In other words, there was not to be any competition. The fact that there were private companies already providing this service was ignored. The government decided that Medicare, which had no experience at all in dealing with superannuation, would be awarded the contract to provide this clearing house service.
We find that very hard to accept and understand because the private clearing houses not only have a lot of experience in this area but are obviously going to be competitively disadvantaged by Medicare coming into this market. Treasury has not been able to explain why Medicare was awarded the contract by the government. We on the coalition side feel that the government should be getting best value for money, and yet no competitive tender was issued. We find that quite hard to understand. Witnesses to the Senate inquiry on the legislation, which I was involved in, indicated that Medicare has no experience in the superannuation field and does not know what it is getting itself into. It is inadequately prepared and it has not developed a business plan to provide this service.
The government has awarded $16.1 million to Medicare to operate the clearing house over a four-year period. However, many experts in the private sector have said that the costs will inevitably blow out and that Medicare will not be able to provide the service within this budget. Private sector companies have provided these services in the market for years and have designed and implemented innovative technology to deliver low-cost services to employers and superannuation funds. We find it very hard to understand, as I said, why the private sector has not been offered the opportunity to participate in the provision of this service.
At the inquiry, the Superannuation Information Centre submitted that the decision to send the clearing house to Medicare means that there is serious potential for large-scale economic waste. They pointed out that it is not clear if Medicare will be subject to the same professional indemnity insurance that private clearing houses are required to hold. Senator Hurley has said that there was concern that the private sector might default in some way and that employees would find that their funds for superannuation had not been passed on to the superannuation funds. But, of course, if these private sector companies have indemnity insurance then that is not a matter of concern. It seems that Medicare does not have private sector indemnity insurance and it may be that the real concern is whether or not Medicare will be the defaulter and whether employees may be at greater risk if Medicare is handling this service. If in some way there is a problem meeting deadlines and so on, employees may not be covered in the way they would be were the service provided by the private sector. These are very serious concerns that we in the coalition have with this legislation and we certainly believe that more consideration should be given to it.
But basically we are really concerned about why the government has not explained the reason for breaking its commitment to tender the service to the private sector, that Medicare has not publicly made a business case for establishing the clearing house and that many operators in the superannuation sector have expressed concern about the anticompetitive nature of this decision by the government.
We really do believe that there is a very strong case for private sector superannuation clearing houses to be given the opportunity to compete for this market. The sector’s largest clearing house, SuperChoice, told the Senate inquiry that currently it is processing around 20 million contributions on behalf of 50,000 employers, 40,000 of whom are employers with fewer than 20 employees. They account for two million-odd employees. SuperChoice said: ‘Overall we project about $7.2 billion will be cleared through our service. We estimate that it is around 20 per cent of the entire clearing market.’
The superannuation fund contracts the clearing house transactions to companies like SuperChoice who provide their services to the employers free of charge through their chosen super fund. We in the coalition believe that if the government goes ahead and introduces its own clearing house operator and enforces preferential regulations on that operator when compared to the currently operating clearing houses, the legislation has the potential to seriously impact upon the business of those privately operated clearing houses. In other words, giving this contract to Medicare may well so adversely affect some of these privately operating clearing houses that their businesses will be made non-viable.
At the inquiry which the Senate Economics Legislation Committee held, Westpac made the following comment in its submission on the different superannuation guarantee requirements:
This important difference means that private sector clearing houses, such as Westpac’s QuickSuper, will be forced to compete in a market distorted by the change and no longer uniform or equitable from public and private sector participants. This will have negative consequences for small business who choose to continue to use private sector clearing houses.
Westpac recommended that the legislation be amended to ensure clearing house standards are the same across both the private and public sectors.
While the intentions of Medicare may be to provide a superannuation clearing house to those employers who cannot currently access a free service, the legislation and regulations will allow absolutely any business with fewer than 20 employees access to a free service, and that is where the threat to the viability of the private superannuation clearing houses comes in. For example, the 40,000 employers who use the SuperChoice clearing house service will have an overwhelming incentive to switch to the free Medicare clearing house due to the far less stringent requirements for discharge of super guarantee payments through Medicare.
The government has recently said that the way superannuation can be strengthened is to drive efficiencies, reduce administrative costs and thus increase returns, and this is the exact opposite of what the superannuation sector will achieve by this bill in its current form if it is passed. As IFSA stated in their submission:
If the Item 3 amendment is passed as drafted, we would be concerned about the erosion of the “level playing field” in the provision of clearing house services.
IFSA has long maintained that competition is the key to an efficient and cost-effective superannuation system and that this should occur on a level playing field. Quite obviously, if Medicare is allowed to be the sole provider and it is providing its services free of charge, there will no longer be a level playing field.
AFSA, another superannuation provider, suggested that the legislation could be improved by amending it so as to provide a path forward whereby private sector organisations could achieve approved clearing house status and that that would provide a level playing field. They said:
The path forward could include the establishment of operating standards combined with regulatory oversight, as envisioned by the government’s original statement. Importantly, this would ensure clearing houses meet certain minimum requirements and provide a wider range of employers with the opportunity to meet their SG obligation by contributing through a clearing house.
We in the coalition are very disappointed that the government has broken its original commitment to put this clearing house service out to tender and can only say that it is typical of the 1930s socialist approach of the Rudd government. The government has to do everything and yet out there in the community we have these very efficient private sector superannuation clearing house operations. There is absolutely no reason why these organisations should not be given the opportunity to participate in providing superannuation clearing house services to these companies which are the target of this legislation.
Quite worryingly, Medicare’s evidence to the inquiry demonstrated that the agency has not completed a business plan to a level which would have been required in a competitive tender process, and in the course of their evidence Medicare made the following comments to the hearing. Firstly, they said:
We do not have any targets at this point in terms of the number of businesses which are going to use the system.
In other words, they have no idea how many businesses are going to use their system. Therefore one has to ask: how are they going to gear up to provide the service?
They said that they did not go and cost an alternative provider. They said: ‘We are considering options to accept employer payments. We have looked at the alternatives. We have not reached any firm decision on that and we are still talking with the industry about that.’ Medicare said:
We have a wide range of KPIs … I cannot imagine we would deviate from the normal Medicare ones. We have payment cycles of 14 days for some things as well as other time frames.
This may mean that they miss the deadlines for the payment of super into the super funds if they stick to their existing 14-day time frames for payments.
Then there is the question of upfront validation. Medicare said:
We do not check with the fund at that point to ensure the member details match up when the employer sends us a payment. … At this stage we are not planning to do that sort of validation.
One has to wonder what sorts of standards private Medicare will have in acting as a clearing house for superannuation and whether the slack approach, the apparently vague approach, demonstrated by these statements of Medicare—that indicate they have not really come to grips with the requirements of providing superannuation by time deadlines—is going to mean that the employees are going to be disadvantaged by the vagueness of the Medicare operation.
Private clearing houses also have raised concern about Medicare being awarded this contract, on exactly these grounds. SuperChoice said:
… a significant underestimation of the costs to build and operate an effective clearing house, particularly in the time frame that Medicare has been given—
is a matter of concern. They continued that there will be:
… likely poor employer experiences as a result of rushing into operation of a functionality based service offering, which will lead to growing employer complaints and an increase in red tape for employers; relatively low benefits for super funds, which will be offset by the cost to access the clearing house; an inequitable landscape, where 85,000 employers who employ 7.7 million employees are not offered the same level of benefits that SME employers will access through Medicare; and ultimately a missed opportunity to support the industry to advance its e-commerce aspirations.
The Superannuation Information Centre submitted that the decision to send the clearing house to Medicare means there is a serious potential for large-scale economic waste.
In conclusion, I say that, given the evidence available, Medicare and Treasury have not been able to prove that Medicare can handle the scheme at the budget provided without risk to employee superannuation payments. Many in this industry have legitimate concerns about how Medicare will operate the scheme. I think that leads to the conclusion that this is bad legislation which needs to be amended to provide choice to employers rather than forcing them to use the Medicare system.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. As many speakers have alluded to on this side, the bill introduces a number of measures, the majority of which are supported by the coalition. However, as has become a hallmark of the Rudd Labor government, as history since Rudd Labor have been in power now dictates, everything that this government does you need to look very carefully at. You need to carefully review the details of their legislation. In reviewing the detail of this legislation, we find incorporated quietly into the provisions of this bill, in the hope no-one will see them, provisions that are of real concern to the coalition. These provisions relate to the government’s policy to implement a superannuation clearing house for small business. Surprise, surprise: the provisions that are of concern to the coalition relate to yet another broken promise by the Rudd Labor government. But nothing is new in that regard. Those on the other side continue to mismanage and waste taxpayers’ money. They are chronically incapable of delivering sound government to the Australian people. And we are going to see in question time today the shaking and the quivering when they are made to answer questions in relation to their proposed super tax.
Kevin Rudd Labor is all talk and no action. This is yet another broken promise. The government promised to protect our borders; they failed on that. They have monumentally and tragically failed on the Home Insulation Program. They have failed to deliver value for money to taxpayers with the so-called Building the Education Revolution. They have failed in relation to the creation of their GP superclinics. The list goes on and on. The question that the Australian people are entitled to be asking this government is: what exactly does Mr Rudd stand for? The only thing on this side we can see him standing for is short-term political opportunism. Everything he does ends up in a policy backflip, a backdown or a disaster. The only thing Kevin Rudd is prepared to fight for is himself, especially in light of the rumours circulating regarding the new Labor leadership team—and the bad news for Mr Rudd is that his name is not on it. Julia Gillard and Craig Emerson must be very happy at the moment. What do we have with this legislation? Yet another broken promise by the Australian Labor Party.
Why do we say it is a broken promise? During the 2007 election the Labor Party promised to the people of Australia that they would establish a superannuation clearing house by 1 July 2009. The question that we now need to consider is: did the Labor Party deliver on that promise? The answer is a resounding no. The Labor Party failed to deliver on an election commitment to the Australian people. However, there was of course, in typical Labor style, a flurry of action in relation to this now broken promise. What did the Labor Party do? An amount of $16 million was allocated to the clearing house in the 2008-09 federal budget to form what the government called an election promise to reduce the superannuation red-tape burden on employers. What did they then do? They issued a discussion paper for the clearing house, which was released in November 2008, seeking submissions by 19 December 2008. Then what happened? Absolutely nothing. There was a deafening silence from the Rudd Labor government. We did not hear one word from them, which may be okay for those sitting on the other side, but the industry was left guessing as to what may happen in relation to the potential changes to its regulatory environment. But, again, as is the history of the government, you expect nothing more and nothing less.
I said that this legislation represented two broken promises by the Rudd Labor government, the first being their blatant failure to actually deliver on a commitment that they gave to the people of Australia prior to the 2007 election. What was the second? On 26 November 2009, after they had failed to deliver on their election commitment and realised that they had to do something because the industry were saying, ‘We’re up in arms. What are we going to do? We actually don’t know what is going on,’ they released an exposure draft on the superannuation clearing house legislation. What did they quietly do through the exposure draft? They announced that the Labor government would not tender the clearing house to the private sector and had decided to fund Medicare to deliver the service rather than the private sector. What do we have by that announcement? Another broken promise by Rudd Labor because, in 2007, when Mr Rudd was the opposition leader, he issued a media release. On 10 May 2007, Mr Rudd stated very clearly that the clearing house would be contracted to none other than—no, not Medicare—the private sector. Mr Rudd, as a potential leader of this country, said to the people of Australia, ‘If I am elected, the clearing house will be tendered to the private sector.’ One has to ask: did Mr Rudd ever have any desire to actually deliver on that promise? It is a blatant election breach, so the answer to that is a clear and resounding no.
What do we now have? We have the legislation before us, which represents part of a broken promise to the Australian people. But, in November last year, without any warning, without any explanation, the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law announced that the clearing house would be awarded to Medicare. One has to ask: where did that decision come from? How can the minister go from, in 2007, a pre-election commitment that the clearing house would be awarded to the private sector to, in 2009, saying, ‘We’ve awarded the superannuation clearing house to Medicare’?
What we do know, though, is that there are leaked Treasury minutes from the working group on the issue that indicate that Treasury consider that clearing house operations under Medicare will lack functionality when compared to that offered by the private sector and, in particular, that BPAY is to be the only payment method supported, not direct credit or direct debit—something that people often use—and that industry standard data formats will not be used. How is that for efficiency? But I tell you what: based on the government’s reputation, I would prefer the evidence from the leaked Treasury documents as opposed to believing any statement from those opposite. The government is clearly vulnerable in deciding to award the clearing house contract to Medicare and, in so doing, it refuses to answer the question: why did the government award the contract to Medicare? It is a very simple question.
Treasury, during a recent estimates sitting, refused to answer any questions. In the explanatory memorandum on this bill the decision is mentioned only once. Then we had Medicare claiming that they had completed costings on this proposal but then they refused to publicly release what those costings were. I would have thought that the public are entitled to know just how much this funding of Medicare will cost them. Medicare have also admitted that they have not finalised their system for data processing and the types of payments to be accepted. That is in stark contrast to what could have been occurring in the private sector. Contrast Medicare’s situation to that of Australia’s largest superannuation clearing house, SuperChoice. They made a detailed submission to the government. They stated in their submission that they would be able to implement the government’s policy at a fraction of the government’s anticipated cost of $16 million. I thought Mr Rudd was all about savings. That is all the spin that he gives to the Australian people, but what is the substance? It is absolutely lacking. SuperChoice’s submission refers to $1.57 million in start-up costs, $200,000 per month in operating costs and between a $15 and $60 per month cost for each employer using the scheme, depending on the take-up. That is a stark difference to the $16 million under Medicare, which has been quoted by Rudd Labor.
So what do we have again, in contrast? SuperChoice and other private providers have detailed computer systems already in place and could easily incorporate additional employers under the government’s plan. Instead, what do the government do? They say: ‘No, no, no. Forget about functionality, forget about operational efficiency, Medicare can do it even if they are required to create and implement a processing system from scratch.’ Talk about reinventing the wheel at taxpayers’ expense! There has been no justification provided by the Rudd Labor government as to why it awarded the contract to Medicare. If I were a member of the Australian public—and I am—I would be very, very worried. I would have thought it more appropriate for Medicare to be discharging its core responsibility of delivering services to the Australian public than designing a computer system from scratch and doing something that, quite frankly, it should not be doing. The questions the Australian public should be asking—and which those on the other side should be answering—are: how will Medicare deal with the quarterly massive peaks in workload created by the operation of the clearing house? How are they going to staff this? Are there going to be additional staff provided to Medicare—again, at additional cost to the Australian public? The public are entitled to know the answers to these questions. Medicare’s preparation to operate the clearing house is an example of a government agency getting involved in a sector where private companies have been operating efficiently for many, many years. Giving any government—let alone a Labor government—control over millions of dollars of superannuation payments is a very, very dangerous thing.
So what have the coalition done? The coalition have proposed an amendment to the legislation. That is right, the coalition want to assist the government in meeting its 2007 election commitment. We support the superannuation clearing house for small business. We believe it will lower compliance costs associated with the SuperChoice system. However, the coalition have a responsibility to hold the Rudd Labor government to account in relation to its political waste and management of taxpayers’ money. Our amendment to this legislation is therefore a very, very simple one. The amendment will merely force the government to have Medicare compete for the private tender. That is it. It is all about choice—nothing more and nothing less—which is something those on the other side are fundamentally opposed to. The amendment does not actually tell the government how it will achieve this choice; it simply requests that the decision to name Medicare as the operator over private sector clearing houses be made transparently and with good reason.
‘Transparently’—isn’t that a word that Mr Rudd used prior to the 2007 election? Has Mr Rudd come clean with the Australian people on the issue of transparency? This legislation continues to affirm that he has not. Unlike Medicare, private superannuation clearing houses have already invested millions and millions of dollars in designing efficient systems that process millions of transactions every year. Why is the government so insistent upon reinventing the wheel? Our amendment does not give the project to the private sector; it merely ensures that the private sector has a chance to compete for it. What we want the government to do is to ensure that it chooses the most effective and most efficient option for delivering clearing houses to small business. The question I ask those on the other side is: given the very, very clear election promise that Mr Rudd made to the people of Australia in 2007, are those on the other side going to stand here today and vote down the coalition’s amendment, which effectively means they will be voting against their own election commitment? This is the commitment Mr Rudd made prior to the November 2007 election.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution, the opposition support many elements of this bill. However, we have major reservations about the impact of the proposed government clearing house. This part of the legislation is nothing more and nothing less than a backward step by the Rudd Labor government. To depart from a very, very clear and explicit election promise to have a service that is provided on a contestable basis is a failure by the Rudd Labor government. In his speech on this legislation my esteemed colleague Luke Hartsuyker, the member for Cowper, said:
We have no problem with the allocation of the job of the government funded clearing house to Medicare if Medicare is able to compete with private sector operators and put in a bid that is price and service competitive and offers the same degree of amenity or better amenity than is being offered by private operators. But there is a very distinct possibility that we are going to squander large amounts of government money and see a more expensive solution and a less customer orientated outcome.
It is the Australian taxpayers who will lose out in the end if this legislation goes through in its current form. It is their money that is going to be squandered by the Rudd Labor government. To ensure that taxpayers are getting value for money, to ensure that private businesses do not suffer, to ensure that life insurance is protected and to ensure that this exercise does not turn into yet another of the bungled Rudd Labor government’s exercises, I urge those on the other side to support the coalition’s amendment.
I rise today to make some remarks on theTax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010. I particularly want to comment on the forestry managed investment schemes part of the legislation, and to note that what this particular amendment is doing is protecting the right of a taxpayer to claim and retain a deduction for investment in forestry managed investment schemes where the four-year holding rule is breached for reasons outside the taxpayer’s control.
Clearly, this is being brought in because of the failure of a whole range of managed investment schemes—in particular, Great Southern, Forest Enterprises Australia Ltd, Timbercorp, Environinvest, Radiata Plantations Ltd, and on and on the list goes. We all know that, because of the recklessness of the managed investment scheme product, we have a situation where investors got an upfront tax deduction. The government moved to bring in an integrity measure saying that you had to hold that investment for four years so that people did not just move in, take on the investment, get the tax deduction and move out.
In my view, we should have abolished managed investment schemes altogether. That is still my view. I would be very interested to know why the government maintains their support for forestry managed investment schemes when we have a glut of wood product from one end of the country to the other and one end of the world to the other. Now is the opportunity to protect our native forests if we want to have any value at all left in this wall of wood that is now in Australia. But, having said that, the situation we now have is to protect those people who made their investment in these managed investment schemes, and they are not the ones who sold out of them—rather, the company that they invested in collapsed.
In talking about these managed investment schemes, though, I think we need to go a lot further than we are here. We really need to ask: what is the role of the tax commissioner and the discretion that the tax commissioner offers in relation to these particular products? I am aware that, in 2000—and this is from a paper by Dr Judith Ajani—the government responded to the Ralph review of business tax with, amongst other things, division 35 amendments aimed at removing the practice of presenting consumption expenses for non-commercial activities as business expenses. That led to a test on division 35 rules for commerciality.
The test was that business people had to pass one of the following: that they had an assessable income from the activity of at least $20,000, or had produced a profit in three out of the past five years, or used real property or an interest in real property worth at least $500,000 on a continuing basis, or used other assets worth at least $100,000 on a continuing basis. Leaving aside very important arguments about the commerciality test’s arbitrary and inequitable nature and scope for improvement, a review of matured hardwood plantation MIS investments would probably find that most of them failed the first test, and probably no plantation MIS investor would pass the other three tests.
So what has happened is that plantation MIS investors have received dispensation from division 35, with the ATO commissioner exercising discretionary powers in specified areas. The commercial loss provisions, which are specifically addressed in product rulings, require the tax office to consider the commercial viability of plantation MISs. And, in using his discretionary powers to give plantation MIS investors the right to deduct investment costs against income earned from other activity, the commissioner must have judged that plantation MIS investments are inherently commercial by some criteria. But we have no publicly available data on the tax office’s operation of division 35.
Since 1998 we have had a series of tax commissioners. They have all used their discretion to give a product ruling, essentially, on these managed investment schemes. It is a tick for the tax concession, and therefore it is also a tick on viability—it is sending a clear message to investors that the tax commissioner has made a judgment that these must be viable financial investments to have achieved the product ruling and to have achieved the tax concession.
So I think it is really about time, as Dr Ajani points out in her paper, that we had a really good look at the tax office and the commissioner’s rulings and discretionary power, and at the reasons why that assessment of viability was made, when we have had, subsequently, collapses from Great Southern, Forest Enterprises, Timbercorp, Environinvest, et cetera. How could the tax commissioner have been giving, essentially, this nod of approval about financial viability when, clearly, that has not stood the test of time?
Dr Ajani argues:
To create the information for policy debate and policy making, evaluation and monitoring, it is recommended that:
and that:
I think we really have got to the point where we need some explanation from the tax office and the tax commissioner as to the basis for their discretionary use or interpretation of that particular section of the tax act. I would be very interested in the division 35 rules in trying to understand what criteria were used for judging that plantation MIS investments are inherently commercial. We have never, ever seen that from the tax office, but it is about time we did because a lot of people have lost out through this process in rural and regional Australia. It has led to a complete distortion in land use. It has led to a clash between food security and wood product, and now we have what is a complete collapse in the wood products industry around Australia. This is probably one of the biggest examples of a public policy disaster that Australia has seen, and certainly as rural and regional Australia see it at the moment. When you look at the complete collapse of the timber industry and the whole of the forest products industry in Tasmania, you can sheet home a lot of the blame to a complete failure to look at the market realities of the wood products industry globally and the failure to recognise the glut and the distortional influence of managed investment schemes.
I also give notice that I will be moving an amendment to this legislation in the committee stage to abolish the tax deductibility for carbon sink forests, given what I have just said in relation to the glut of wood products around the country and because of the need to test the tax office ruling in relation to whether the upfront costs of land are incorporated in the tax deduction. I recognise that there is a statement saying that they are not, but we will wait and see what a court has to say about that, given the way that that has been packaged and the advice I have from a leading tax barrister in that field who is looking at the law. It is very clear to me that, if we are to have carbon sink forests in rural and regional Australia, they must be biodiverse and permanent, not some other dodge for yet another excuse to go in with monoculture plantations and again make some sort of profit out of that distortional influence in rural and regional Australia, particularly as it pertains to land prices and, as is coming down the line, food security.
Today we have a report on the loss of biodiversity across Australia. It is 30 per cent less than we had in 1970 and, at that rate, we will be losing all species by the end of the century. It is a pretty sobering kind of analysis of what is going on with our wildlife around Australia. What we desperately need in the face of climate change, peak oil and this species crisis are policies that lead to the restoration of ecosystems, the maintenance of existing ecosystems and the protection of existing carbon stores in terms of forests and native vegetation, not some distortional policy, such as the government has in place here, which is yet another example of having monoculture plantations to try to benefit from taxation minimisation schemes. This is something that the coalition also needs to look at very carefully in its climate change policies and to make sure that there is recognition that what we currently have in carbon sink forests legislation is totally flawed. It does not have biodiversity and it does not have permanence in its sights. It is just another one of these poorly thought-through schemes. So I indicate that, when we get to the committee stage, I will be looking at that and moving an amendment on it.
I also want to say that I think it demonstrates a complete lack of courtesy to the Senate for the government to have dropped in a whole swag of amendments three or four minutes before this debate. I did not see them until 25 past 12 today. I do not know whether the coalition had the opportunity of seeing and being briefed on the amendments that were dropped here just before this debate began; perhaps the coalition may wish to clarify whether they did have that opportunity. I did not and I am not prepared to proceed beyond the second reading stage until there has been the courtesy of a briefing to the various parties in this place as to what these amendments mean. I note that there appears to be a connection between managed investment schemes and managed investment trusts. I do not know what that means and I would appreciate some explanation. I note that page 19 of the Bills Digest says:
As the Explanatory Memorandum for the current Bill explains, a wholesale trust ‘is a MIS [Managed Investment Scheme] that has wholesale clients and is not required to be registered under the Corporations Act 2001’
I notice that, in one of the proposed amendments we have, ‘Proposed subdivision 275(a) extends the concept of managed investment trust to certain widely held trusts that do not otherwise meet the definition of a managed investment trust.’ I want to know whether, under some circumstances, managed investment schemes are regarded as managed investment trusts and what these amendments mean in terms of their treatment. It may be, as the minister has claimed, that this is just a technical amendment that has no significant meaning in the scheme of tax law. I am not an expert on tax law by any stretch of the imagination and do not pretend to be, but I would appreciate an explanation from the government as to the connection between the changes being proposed for managed investment trusts and managed investment schemes in terms of how the two operate and connect. If the government does want the Senate’s support for amendments, particularly in areas like tax law, which is hugely complicated, it has an obligation to circulate those amendments not with a couple of minutes to go before the debate.
To conclude, I am glad that ASIC currently has out a consultation paper regarding managed investment schemes. In my view, it is about time that ASIC took its responsibilities in relation to these schemes a little more seriously than it has in the past. When I wrote to ASIC about the fact that I regarded these managed investment schemes as no more than Ponzi schemes, I got a note back saying that it was beyond the capacity of ASIC to make judgments like that and that they had to look at the product disclosure briefs in their offerings to make sure that they adhered to certain regulatory disclosure, but no judgment could be made as to the veracity of those. In my view, that is misleading investors.
I am pretty disgusted all round with the way managed investment schemes have worked. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government would continue with this structure of managed investment schemes when it is very clear that they have been a disaster in terms of forest policy, wood products and the price of agricultural land and now they are a disaster for a whole range of investors who went into them not because they were interested in wood products but because they were interested in minimising their tax. Once you separate the reason for the investment from the outcome, as occurs with managed investment schemes, you are setting up a disaster.
I would like to see the government get rid of managed investment schemes altogether. I think we are going to be cleaning up the mess from those schemes for a very long time to come, especially as they pertain to land use in rural and regional Australia, wood supply and the wood products industry around Australia—not to mention integrity. I am particularly keen to know from the tax commissioner the basis on which he has deemed, since 1998, for more than a decade, these managed investment schemes to be commercially viable. The community has a right to know why the tax office gave that tick of approval.
I endorse wholeheartedly Senator Milne’s comments in relation to managed investment schemes. I note that Senator Milne will be moving an amendment to the Tax Laws Amendment (2010 Measures No. 1) Bill 2010, which I will be supporting, in relation to managed investment schemes. If I could add to one of the criticisms that Senator Milne made about these schemes, not only do they affect issues around wood products, agricultural use and land use, they also affect water. They distort the water market. They act to intercept water that otherwise would be going to river systems, which completely distorts both the use of agricultural land and the inflow of water into our river systems. So I will be supporting that amendment strongly, and hopefully the government will see the logic of clamping down on these schemes.
I should also foreshadow that I will be moving, in the same vein, in a sense, as Senator Milne’s amendment, an amendment to formulate a test, to be known as a ‘public benefit test’, against the aims and activities of entities, whether they be religions or charities, to receive tax-free status. My colleagues know of my position in relation to the Church of Scientology and of my moves to have an inquiry into it. We should go down the path of having a public benefit test, and this bill is as appropriate a vehicle as any other tax amendment bill to deal with these matters.
In relation to this particular bill, ask any small business owner and they will tell you that one of their biggest burdens is red tape, with administrative costs on par. It is time consuming, frustrating and confusing, and anything that reduces time and money spent on administrative duties so that they can focus on the business itself is ideal. Small business owners can have anywhere from one to 20 employees, and it is more than likely that each of these employees has a different superannuation fund, so many small businesses opt to use a clearing house service, where the provider receives a total deposit for all its employee super payments from the employer and deposits the relevant moneys and funds accordingly. The establishment of a government-run optional superannuation clearing house seems a logical step which will, most importantly, enable employers to extinguish their superannuation obligations with a single payment to the approved clearing house. This means that, once the employer has made their payment to the clearing house fund, they will not be liable for a superannuation guarantee in instances where the superannuation is, for whatever reason, not paid to the employee’s fund.
I understand the concerns of the opposition and of some stakeholders in terms of the allocation of this project to Medicare and the effect that it has on competition in the sector, and I note Senator Cash’s impassioned speech about the promises that were made at the last election, but it seems to me that the issue is about the implementation of this. The issue is about facilitating this for employers, and the clearing house is the way to go. I note that the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia says that this measure was:
The most significant first step in lowering administration costs for employers ...
and therefore it is to be welcomed.
I will speak to the opposition’s amendments when they are moved, during the committee stage. It is important that we consider the risks involved in this going to a private fund. Given the time constraints, I think it is more appropriate to ventilate the issues in the context of amendments that will be moved by the opposition in the committee stage. I support the second-reading stage of this bill. I will listen to the arguments in relation to the opposition’s amendments; but, from what I have seen so far, this seems to be a sensible way forward in dealing with the issue. Administratively, it seems to be the cleanest and most effective way of relieving the burden on small businesses of their superannuation obligations where there are multiple funds involved.
Debate interrupted.
I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list, reflecting changes to the ministry in April 2010. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
RUDD MINISTRY
14 April 2010
Title | Minister | Other Chamber |
Prime Minister | The Hon Kevin Rudd MP | Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Cabinet Secretary (Manager of Government Business in the Senate) | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig | The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP |
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib | |
Parliamentary Secretary | The Hon Anthony Byrne MP | |
Minister for Education | The Hon Julia Gillard MP | Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations | The Hon Julia Gillard MP | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for Social Inclusion (Deputy Prime Minister) | The Hon Julia Gillard MP | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth | The Hon Kate Ellis MP | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Minister for Employment Participation | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib | The Hon Julia Gillard MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion | Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens | |
Parliamentary Secretary for Employment | The Hon Jason Clare MP | |
Treasurer | The Hon Wayne Swan MP | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Population | The Hon Tony Burke MP | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law | The Hon Chris Bowen MP | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs | The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Assistant Treasurer | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry | The Hon Wayne Swan MP |
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Leader of the Government in the Senate) | Senator the Hon Chris Evans | The Hon Robert McClelland MP |
Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services | The Hon Laurie Ferguson MP | |
Minister for Defence (Vice President of the Executive Council) | Senator the Hon John Faulkner | The Hon Greg Combet AM MP |
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs | The Hon Alan Griffin MP | Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
Minister for Defence Personnel | The Hon Alan Griffin MP | Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
Minister for Defence Materiel and Science | The Hon Greg Combet AM MP | Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support | The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP | |
Minister for Trade | The Hon Simon Crean MP | Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Trade | The Hon Anthony Byrne MP | |
Minister for Foreign Affairs | The Hon Stephen Smith MP | Senator the Hon John Faulkner |
Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance | The Hon Bob McMullan MP | |
Minister for Health and Ageing | The Hon Nicola Roxon MP | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery | The Hon Warren Snowdon MP | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Ageing | The Hon Justine Elliot MP | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Minister for Sport | The Hon Kate Ellis MP | Senator the Hon Mark Arbib |
Parliamentary Secretary for Health | The Hon Mark Butler MP | |
Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs | The Hon Jenny Macklin MP | Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for Housing | The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP | Senator the Hon Chris Evans |
Minister for the Status of Women | The Hon Tanya Plibersek MP | Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services | The Hon Bill Shorten MP | |
Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction | The Hon Bill Shorten MP | |
Parliamentary Secretary for the Voluntary Sector | Senator the Hon Ursula Stephens | |
Minister for Finance and Deregulation | The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP | Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Special Minister of State | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig | The Hon Lindsay Tanner MP |
Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation | The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP | |
Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Leader of the House) | The Hon Anthony Albanese MP | Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy |
Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government | The Hon Maxine McKew MP | |
Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia | The Hon Gary Gray AO MP | |
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) | Senator the Hon Stephen Conroy | The Hon Anthony Albanese MP |
Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research | Senator the Hon Kim Carr | The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP The Hon Julia Gillard MP (Research) |
Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy | The Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP | Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry | The Hon Richard Marles MP | |
Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water | Senator the Hon Penny Wong | The Hon Greg Combet AM MP The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP (Water) |
Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency | The Hon Greg Combet AM MP | |
Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts | The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP | Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Parliamentary Secretary for Water | The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP | |
Attorney-General | The Hon Robert McClelland MP | Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister for Home Affairs | The Hon Brendan O’Connor MP | Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry | The Hon Tony Burke MP | Senator the Hon Nick Sherry |
Minister for Resources and Energy | The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP | Senator the Hon Kim Carr |
Minister for Tourism | The Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP | Senator the Hon Penny Wong |
Minister for Human Services | The Hon Chris Bowen MP | Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig |
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
Can I steal Senator Abetz’s thunder a little, while I am on feet, and congratulate him on his election as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and congratulate Senator Brandis on his election as deputy leader. We look forward to working constructively with them on matters of mutual interest. I have always had a very good relationship with the previous leader, Senator Minchin. We never agreed on anything politically, but we were able to work cooperatively. I wish him well in his new role as active backbencher.
by leave—On 3 May, Senator Minchin, in defiance of his total party room, resigned as Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—a great way to leave. We wish him and his loved ones well. Consequent upon Senator Minchin’s decision, the Liberal senators elected me as leader and my colleague Senator the Hon. George Brandis SC as deputy leader. For the information of senators, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard an updated list of the coalition shadow ministry.
Leave granted.
The document read as follows—
COALITION SHADOW MINISTRY
3 May 2010
TITLE | SHADOW MINISTER | OTHER CHAMBER | |
Leader of the Opposition | The Hon Tony Abbott MP | Senator the Hon Eric Abetz | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition | Senator Cory Bernardi | ||
Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) | The Hon Julie Bishop MP | Senator the Hon David Johnston | |
Shadow Minister for Trade, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Leader of The Nationals) | The Hon Warren Truss MP | Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia | Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport | Mr Don Randall MP | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Emerging Trade Markets | Mr Mark Coulton MP | ||
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations (Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | Senator the Hon Eric Abetz | Mr Michael Keenan MP | |
Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Apprenticeships and Training | Senator Mathias Cormann | ||
Shadow Attorney-General | Senator the Hon George Brandis SC | Mr Michael Keenan MP | |
(Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) | |||
Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection | Mr Michael Keenan MP | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Public Security and Policing | Mr Jason Wood MP | ||
Shadow Treasurer | The Hon Joe Hockey | Senator Barnaby Joyce | |
Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs, Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law (Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) | Mr Luke Hartsuyker MP | ||
Shadow Assistant Treasurer | The Hon Sussan Ley MP | Senator Mitch Fifield | |
Shadow Minister for COAG and Modernising the Federation | Senator Marise Payne | Hon Joe Hockey MP | |
Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training (Manager of Opposition Business in the House) | The Hon Christopher Pyne MP | Senator the Hon Brett Mason | |
Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and Childcare | The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP | Senator Marise Payne | |
Shadow Minister for the Status of Women | The Hon Dr Sharman Stone MP | Senator Marise Payne | |
Shadow Minister for Youth and Sport | Mr Steven Ciobo MP | Senator the Hon Brett Mason | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education and School Curriculum Standards | Senator the Hon Brett Mason | ||
Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Deputy Leader of the Nationals) | Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion | The Hon Kevin Andrews MP | |
Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Infrastructure and Water | Senator Barnaby Joyce | The Hon. Ian Macfarlane MP | |
(Leader of the Nationals in the Senate) | |||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure | Senator Cory Bernardi | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin | Senator Simon Birmingham | ||
Shadow parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development | Mr Mark Coulton MP | Senator Barnaby Joyce | |
Shadow Minister for Finance and Debt Reduction | Hon Andrew Robb AO MP | Senator Barnaby Joyce | |
(Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) | |||
Shadow Special Minister of State and Scrutiny of Government Waste | Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson | ||
Shadow Minister for Energy and Resources | The Hon Ian Macfarlane MP | Senator the Hon George Brandis SC | |
Shadow Minister for Tourism and the Arts | Mr Steven Ciobo MP | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism | Mrs Jo Gash MP | ||
Shadow Minister for Defence | Senator the Hon David Johnston | The Hon Bob Baldwin MP | |
Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel and Assisting Shadow Minister for Defence | The Hon Bob Baldwin MP | ||
Shadow Minister for Veterans’ Affairs | Mrs Louise Markus MP | Senator the Hon David Johnston | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence | Mr Stuart Robert MP | ||
Shadow Minister for Health and Ageing | The Hon Peter Dutton MP | Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | |
Shadow Minister for Ageing | Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | ||
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Health Services, Health and Wellbeing | Dr Andrew Southcott MP | ||
Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services | The Hon Kevin Andrews MP | Senator Mitch Fifield | |
Shadow Minister for Seniors | The Hon Bronwyn Bishop MP | Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector | Senator Mitch Fifield | ||
(Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families, Housing and Human Services | Senator Gary Humphries | ||
Shadow Minister for Climate Action, Environment and Heritage | The Hon Greg Hunt MP | Senator the Hon Eric Abetz | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Action | Senator Simon Birmingham | ||
Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Food Security, Fisheries and Forestry | The Hon John Cobb MP | Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry | Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck | ||
Shadow Minister for Small Business, Deregulation, Competition Policy and Sustainable Cities | The Hon Bruce Billson MP | Senator the Hon Michael Ronaldson | |
Shadow Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy | The Hon Tony Smith MP | Senator Mathias Cormann | |
Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship | Mr Scott Morrison MP | Senator Gary Humphries | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for population Policy | Senator Cory Bernardi | Mr Scott Morrison MP | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Citizenship | Senator Gary Humphries | Mr Scott Morrison MP | |
Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research | Mrs Sophie Mirabella MP | Senator the Hon Richard Colbeck | |
Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research | Senator the Hon. Richard Colbeck |
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
In addition, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP will act as Shadow Cabinet Secretary.
by leave—Obviously the National Party would like to concur with the remarks of Senator Abetz and Senator Evans. We found Senator Minchin to be a person of utmost integrity and a great person to work with. We wish him all the best and understand completely his reasons for needing more time.
Senator Bob Brown.
Opposition senator interjecting—
by leave—It comes naturally to me to be nice to Senator Abetz. I wish him very well and congratulate him on the leadership position and Senator Brandis on the deputy’s position, and a word of happy resting over there on the new seat for the former leader.
by leave—I also want to wish Senators Abetz and Brandis well and congratulate them on their leadership positions, and I wish Senator Minchin all the best. I have thoroughly enjoyed working with Senator Minchin and will continue to. Your family will get you back, and it is good to see you putting your family first!
by leave—Unlike Senator Brown, I am almost always on good terms with Senator Abetz, with some notable exceptions—but that may well change given his new role. I wish to congratulate Senator Abetz and Senator Brandis on their leadership positions. Also, to my fellow South Australian senator, Senator Minchin, I really do wish him all the best. I will not repeat my private conversations, but I think we are all with you given the traumatic events of the last few weeks. We are all delighted to see things are going much better for your lad. We are all very pleased about that.
I might start by thanking honourable colleagues for their comments. My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister Carr. Can the minister explain how the Australian mining industry will remain viable when Mr Rudd’s great, big new tax on mining will make Australia the highest taxed mining industry in the world?
The government’s new tax reforms are about making Australia a more attractive place for investment, and that includes a more attractive place for investment in the resources sector. We will have a company tax rate falling from 30 per cent to 28 per cent from 2013-14. We will have a resources super profits tax that only taxes projects when they become profitable, not on what they produce. We will have a resources exploration rebate that will provide an immediate cash rebate of 30 per cent for eligible exploration expenditure.
But that is only part of the resources super profits tax and what it is all about. It is also about providing essential infrastructure that will enable Australia’s resource industries to achieve their full export potential, starting with a $700 million investment in the period 2012-13. It is also about sharing the rewards of the resources boom so that all Australians get a return from the exploration of this non-renewable resource. It is about equity and it is about social justice. The reality is that it is about the Australian community— (Time expired)
Before I call Senator Abetz, I remind senators that supplementary questions are 30 seconds. We had hoped to have the clocks set to 30 seconds but that has not been possible. With your indulgence, I will be a judge of the 30-second mark. I advise that that will hold for this week. Hopefully when we come back, we will have the clocks properly set.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Given the minister’s answer, can he explain why a range of mining companies have already shelved plans to continue with exploration and certain projects? Three premiers, two of them Labor, have expressed concerns and a range of finance institutions have advised clients that Australia was now seen as a high sovereign risk destination to invest, with a significant risk of major capital flight out of Australia. Will the government back down on this great big tax grab, just as it did on its failed ETS tax grab?
This is a measure, of course, the opposition opposes. It opposes all measures this government introduces. It opposes measures that we introduce sight unseen because this is an opposition that is about obstructing the progress of economic development in this country. This is an opposition that is not actually interested in debating the fortunes of this country because it has already determined that it will oppose any measure that this government introduces. We have a process of discussion with the mining and resources industries and the states about implementation details. But we are determined to see that Australians get a fair share of the resources that go towards this very important industry—resources that the community of Australians have a right to enjoy.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given that this great big new tax will raise $9 billion per year compared to the $8 billion per year interest repayment required in 2012-13 to service Labor’s great big debt, doesn’t this just prove that the government is raising taxes simply to pay for its reckless spending to the detriment of jobs in the resources sector—or is it all just a great big coincidence?
I think the opposition has to face up to its responsibilities to the Australian people because, as far as this government is concerned, we have a responsibility to capture the real value of our mineral wealth and apply it to make this country fairer and stronger. We are using this revenue to generate more superannuation savings for working families, we are using it to lower taxes for all companies—especially for small business—and we are using this revenue to meet our future infrastructure needs, particularly in the mining states. The government takes a responsible approach; the opposition takes an irresponsible approach. Our focus is on building this nation for the common good and we will not be deterred by vested interests or by the servants of the status quo over there. (Time expired)
My question is to the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Sherry. Can the Assistant Treasurer inform the Senate of the government’s plans to deliver improvements to the retirement savings of Australians, along with a fairer distribution of superannuation tax concessions? Will these reforms be substantial and will they be able to ensure that more Australians will be able to enjoy the comfortable retirement they deserve? Also, how have key stakeholders reacted to this announcement?
As part of the package of tax reforms that were announced last week to make the tax system fairer and simpler, there will be a number of significant improvements to the Australian superannuation system. Firstly, there will be a gradual increase in the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent starting on 1 July 2013. Secondly, there will be a new superannuation concession of up to $500 for some 3.5 million low-income earners who currently receive no tax concession on their compulsory superannuation contributions. In fact, there is a group of people who, because of the compulsory nature of superannuation, pay a 15 per cent contributions tax when some of them pay effectively no income tax, and this is manifestly unfair. Thirdly, we will be extending the $50,000 superannuation contribution cap for those over 50 with balances below half a million dollars from 1 July 2012.
The increase in the superannuation guarantee will benefit 8.4 million Australians. It will mean an 18-year-old entering the workforce will have an extra $200,000 in retirement income. For someone now aged 30 they will have an extra $108,000 and for a person aged 40 they will have some $57,000 extra at retirement. These measures will also boost the total pool of superannuation savings by some $85 billion over 10 years. The superannuation industry and the financial sector have strongly supported these improvements in the individual retirement savings of Australians. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. How do these measures help address the challenges of an ageing population as set out in the Intergenerational report 2010 and what other benefits would result from the government’s proposed superannuation reforms?
The 2010 Intergenerational report identified that between now and 2050 the number of people aged 65 to 84 years will more than double, the number of people aged over 85 will more than quadruple and nearly one-quarter of the population will be aged 65 and over compared to about 13 per cent today. Obviously, their personal retirement income is of critical importance in supporting them during their retirement years. This means that there will be only 2.7 people of traditional working age for every person aged 65 and over compared with five today. This is a huge shift in the ageing population. So the historic reforms that I have referred to in respect of superannuation will deliver a significant boost to the retirement incomes of the vast majority of Australians. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the Assistant Treasurer aware of any risks to the government’s responsible and forward-looking strategy to boost the retirement savings of Australians? What is the risk and who poses it?
As I mentioned in my answer to the first question, these reforms to superannuation are part of a package of tax reforms. The package of tax reforms also includes a cut to the company tax rate, from 30 per cent to 28 per cent, and additional relief and simplification through a $5,000 instant asset write-off for small business. Those reforms, together with the very significant superannuation changes that I have outlined to the chamber, are part of a package. The way in which this package is funded is by the resource superannuation tax that is being introduced.
Senator Bernardi interjecting—
If you bother to look at the costings in the document, Senator Bernardi, this is what the new resource superannuation profits tax is for. It is to boost superannuation, it is to cut company tax— (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans. Is the minister aware that some 67 illegal entrants are currently being housed at the Virginia Palms motel in Boondall in suburban Brisbane—in the Treasurer’s own electorate? It is an establishment described as:
… four star … property set amongst 10 acres of lush, tropical gardens. Renowned for quality and friendly personalised service, your stay with us will be enjoyable, relaxing and stress-free.
Can the minister confirm that these people have been transferred to this location from Christmas Island? Why are illegal entrants being accommodated in a luxury hotel in the middle of suburban Brisbane while thousands of Australians are homeless?
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you, Mr President, to look at the word ‘illegal’—which was twice used in that question—against the standing orders, which I believe would prohibit that usage of that word.
No, I have ruled on this before, Senator Brown, and I have been consistent. I understand the context in which you raise it, but I have allowed it to stand before and I will allow it to stand on this occasion.
On a further point to that point of order: it clearly says in the standing orders that argument shall not be brought into the use of a question. The least to be said about the use of the word ‘illegal’ in this context is that it is arguable. It is actually downright wrong, but I ask you again to look at the standing orders and give a considered reply to the Senate on that matter.
I will take that away and look at it, Senator Bob Brown. I have ruled consistently to date, but I have given that undertaken.
I am disappointed that Senator Brandis would take this approach, given that he allegedly represents the progressive wing of the Liberal Party. If this is what the progressive wing of the Liberal Party has come to, they clearly are in desperate straits.
It is true that we are accommodating some families who are seeking asylum in this country in that motel. Some people have been there for a number of weeks. The newsworthiness of this surprises me, given that it was on the front page of the Courier-Mail about three weeks ago. Clearly, Senator Brandis and the Liberal Party do not read the Courier-Mail. I confirm that we have been accommodating some asylum seekers, particularly vulnerable groups or families, in motel accommodation—consistent with a long history of the Howard government doing exactly the same. The Howard government accommodated asylum seekers in the Comfort Inn Asti in Darwin for many years. The Howard government accommodated asylum seekers in the Colonial inn in Brisbane. The Howard government accommodated asylum seekers in the Arkaba Hotel in Adelaide. And the Howard government accommodated asylum seekers in Quest apartments in various states. So it may come as a surprise to you, Senator Brandis, but this is long-established government policy for dealing with vulnerable groups and families.
We make no apologies that we do not put children behind barbed wire; we actually try to find appropriate accommodation. In the Howard government’s latter years, you also took to trying to find more appropriate accommodation on some occasions. I am told that in 2004 the Howard government was spending approximately $80,000 per month to house a mother and child in the Arkaba Hotel in Adelaide. So, yes, consistent with past governments’ practice, where appropriate we have accommodated children and their accompanying families in motel accommodation.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, given the comprehensive failure of the Rudd government to secure Australia’s borders from illegal entrants, what measures has it put in place to ensure the safety of local suburban Australian communities where it has chosen to accommodate illegal entrants?
Opposition senators interjecting—
Order! If you wish to debate the issue, the time is at the end of question time.
The Liberal Party are headed for the lowest road as quickly as they can get there. We saw the ads on TV; we are getting back to demonising people rather than treating them as human beings. I urge the Liberal Party to pull back before we go down this road again. We got to a very dark place in Australia in terms of the way we treated people. I thought we had an emerging consensus that we do not want to go back there, but clearly that is not the case.
In accordance with past governments’ practice, the appropriate health and security checks are conducted before people are accommodated in the community. The appropriate security arrangements are provided by Serco, the security provider. I understand there is also a security firm involved in perimeter security. All local police have been consulted about these matters. This is normal practice as it existed under the Howard government, and I do not regard those children as a threat.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, do you agree with the opinion of Mr Sandi Logan, an officer of the department of immigration, who told Madonna King on Brisbane radio this morning that there was no need to advise local residents of the presence of these people and that ‘this is no issue for local residents’?
I am not aware of the particular quotes that the senator refers to but I can say that Mr Logan is the departmental media spokesperson, employed in that role by the previous government and by this government; that he is a highly competent officer; and that he does do radio interviews and other media appearances to try to explain what is occurring. What he was doing was explaining the processes that have been in place for many years for housing people in hotel and motel accommodation. I am advised that advice was provided to the appropriate education and police authorities in Queensland about arrangements for housing of this particular group, that the normal arrangements with some of the relevant community organisations have been in place, and that large numbers of people have been informed of those arrangements where relevant. As I said, there was a story about a particular family on the front page of the Courier-Mail weeks ago. It is practice as normal and consistent with the previous government. (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Carr, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research. I ask: can the minister inform the Senate what the government’s tax policy statement Stronger, Fairer, Simpler: A tax plan for our future means for small business—
Probably insolvency.
and what specific measures it contains to reduce the complexity of the tax system and provide tax relief for smaller firms?
Thank you, Senator Marshall. This is a very, very important question, and I have heard already from the opposition their view about these things. Once again we see them in action: before the question is asked, they of course have the answers. They do not really appreciate that small business is the backbone of the economy; that there are some 2.4 million small businesses in Australia and they generate the jobs and the wealth right across the economy. It is quite clear that the opposition are not interested in their welfare.
Small business is an engine of innovation and a critical source of fresh ideas and new techniques. That is why this government has been working to support and strengthen small businesses since day one. That support continues in the government’s tax plan for our future. This is a plan that includes an early tax cut for small companies which will see a fall from 30c to 28c in 2012-13, two years ahead of a similar reduction in the general company tax rate. This measure will benefit some 720,000 small companies. It will deliver a direct financial benefit and a direct boost to cash flow. Importantly, it will give small companies an incentive to retain profits and to use them to build capabilities and to expand their activities. The government’s tax plan for our future will introduce an instant asset write-off for small businesses. Under this plan, small businesses will be able to get an immediate write-off of items worth up to $5,000. That means that— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that answer and I ask: can the minister explain to the Senate how the measures for small businesses in the government’s tax policy statement relate to other government initiatives to support small business, in particular to support small business innovation, such as Enterprise Connect?
This government has made a priority of providing tax relief and of reducing the complexity of the tax system for small businesses. We want to see these businesses prosper and grow, so we want to be able to provide assistance for a company that is providing a machine tool within a factory, if they are a manufacturer; a fridge in a cafe; or IT equipment for an office. That is why the new depreciation benefits will directly flow to businesses such as those.
This is consistent with the objects that we have been pursuing through other activities such as Enterprise Connect, which builds the capabilities of small- and medium-sized enterprises and links them to new ideas. Some 2,700 firms have benefited from Enterprise Connect’s business reviews. Others have received support from Enterprise Connect to make specific business improvements, to increase their research capacity and to access leading-edge technologies. The government’s tax plan— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Again I thank the minister for his answer. Given that Enterprise Connect has been operating successfully for two years, can the minister advise what recent measures the government has taken that will enable small businesses to take advantage of the small business taxation reforms in the government’s tax policy statement to become more innovative?
Another longstanding interest, Gav?
I am sure Senator Marshall has a longstanding interest in these areas, Senator Abetz. Enterprise Connect is about building small business innovation capacity. Commercialisation Australia is about turning small business inventions and discoveries into moneymaking goods and services. It is about turning good ideas into good jobs. Commercialisation Australia provides support for accessing skills and knowledge, for encouraging experienced executives—actually engaging them by paying CEOs—and for accessing new concepts and early-stage commercialisation activities.
Early-stage commercialisation support is available to firms who are turning over less than $20 million a year, and other components are made available to firms who are turning over less than $10 million. All of these measures come together. The government’s tax plan for our future will create the conditions for increased small business investment in innovation. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Carr. I ask: what will be the impact on jobs, in particular across regional Australia, of Kevin Rudd’s proposed $9 billion great big new tax on mining?
It is quite clear from that question that not only is the opposition, frankly, not interested in discussing serious issues about the future economic development of this country; but they have already determined that position of opposition. This measure that the government is introducing in terms of our tax reform is about increasing job opportunities. It is about increasing the opportunities for new investment in the mining sectors. In the context of the changes we are making right across the system, it is about making sure Australian business is more competitive. It is about building on our strengths and it is about ensuring that we have the investment opportunities in the future. It is absolutely consistent with what is happening around the globe. It is absolutely consistent with the changes that are occurring. The modelling has shown that under this new arrangement mining investment will rise by 4.5 per cent, jobs by seven per cent and mining production by 5.5 per cent in the long run. What we have is an opposition that are going to take an obstructionist position no matter what is said.
Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I asked the minister a very specific question about what impact the great big new tax on mining will have on jobs. The minister has gone on for more than a minute now and he has not got anywhere near addressing the impact on jobs of Labor’s great big new tax on mining.
There is no point of order. I consider that the minister is answering the question. He might not be responding in the way that you desire but he is answering the question. I draw the minister’s attention to the fact that he has 46 seconds remaining.
What I have said is specifically related to the question asked. This is about growing jobs, about growing economic activity, about building international competitiveness and about ensuring that mining production actually grows. But it is also about a fair go—a fair go for the Australian community and for what are the Australian people’s resources. This is about ensuring that we share the benefits of the mining boom, ensuring that we can provide resourcing for superannuation, ensuring resources for infrastructure and ensuring resources so that the economic benefits of this industry are spread right through the Australian community. It is about a fair go—something this opposition is not interested in. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Has the government conducted any formal modelling or any other formal assessment of the impact of the so-called resources super profits tax on jobs, in particular across regional areas?
It is quite clear the senator did not listen to the previous answer. I said that modelling shows that under the government’s proposals mining investment will rise by 4.5 per cent, jobs by seven per cent and mining production by 5.5 per cent. These arrangements allow for the funding of a tax cut for all businesses. They allow for the funding of the superannuation scheme. They provide for the investment in new infrastructure. It is about ensuring that Australians get a fair go. It is about ensuring—
Mr President, on a point of order: the question was directed to one topic and one topic only: whether modelling had been conducted and the nature of that modelling. The minister has affirmed that there has been modelling—which is responsive—but then he has gone on to make an argument as to the effectiveness of the policy. He has not been describing the modelling or providing the information in relation to the conclusions of the modelling, which was the point of the question.
There is no point of order. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question. I believe the minister is answering the question. I cannot put words into the mouth of the minister. The minister has 24 seconds remaining.
The amount the Australian community receives in taxes and charges from our non-renewable resources has actually halved as a share of the profits during the past decade, and we cannot allow that to continue. The Australian people are entitled to a fair go. We are entitled to ensure that the resources from this highly profitable industry— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister table the modelling that he has just talked about. Given that the modelling of the impact on jobs across regional Australia clearly appears to be inadequate and given the important contribution of the resources sector in keeping Australia out of recession and in creating new jobs, how can the government go ahead with such a reckless tax grab without properly assessing its impact on jobs, in particular across regional areas?
The new leadership of the Liberal Party in the Senate really has to do a much better job than this. If they cannot even read the published documents, which already demonstrate that the modelling has been tabled, why do they bother coming in here at all? They are wasting everyone’s time. What you are highlighting is that you are not interested in serious matters of public policy; you are interested in opposition for the sake of opposition. You are in the business of opposing every worthwhile measure this government presents to this parliament. You are in the business of frustrating the economic development of this country and you are in the business of undermining the economic welfare of Australians for generations to come.
Mr President, on a point of order: there has been absolutely no modelling of the impact on jobs across regional areas tabled by this government. Perhaps he can correct the record.
There is no point of order.
What this opposition does is oppose everything before it sees the detail. What we see, of course, with the current Leader of the Opposition is that he is actually bored by economics. He is not interested in the management of the economy, and that is why Peter Costello said we should never have him as deputy because he did not care about the welfare of Australians. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing, Senator Ludwig. Bearing in mind that Australia has one of the lowest organ donation rates in the developed world and that the figure has not improved for some time, and the fact that the government has now established the Organ and Tissue Authority with a budget of $150 million over four years, the purpose of which is to seek to improve this donation rate, can the minister please comment on the report that in fact the donation rate in Australia has not significantly improved? There are reports that it has in fact decreased. Could the minister inform the Senate as to whether it is correct that the number of organ donations in this country has not improved, and in fact may be decreasing, and if this is correct why has it not improved?
I thank Senator Siewert for her question. I add to the question in this way: an acting interim CEO of the authority for organ and tissue donation was appointed on 17 March. That person is an experienced senior official and is continuing to spearhead the authority’s work. It is about ensuring that the government’s $151.1 million organ donation package is implemented successfully and in accordance with all government legal requirements. The previous CEO stated that she had left for personal reasons. Although we have now got a new package of $151.1 million, together with a new CEO, it is recognised that, while transplant success rates in Australia are among the best in the world, organ and tissue donation rates remain comparatively low. Over the past 10 years Australia has averaged around 10 donors per million of population. The current rate of 11 donors per million of population compares to 15 in the UK and over 20 in the US. It is for this reason that the government is spending the $151.1 million to create a world’s best practice and nationally consistent system for organ and tissue donation in Australia. The implementation plan and focus of the measure reflects the Sharelife Australia plan. There are encouraging early signs in providing information about how this reform is progressing. In the first quarter of this year there were 88 organ donors resulting in 251 life-transforming transplantations. That is the highest number for this period than any other year in the past decade. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer, but he was only just starting to get to the point. Has there been an overall increase since the authority was implemented and put in place in the organ donation rate in this country? If not, why not, and what is the government doing about it?
As I have been outlining, the government has put together a package. We recognise that organ and tissue donation rates have remained comparatively low in relation to other countries. I indicated in the principal answer that we have also implemented a plan to focus on the measures and to reflect the Sharelife Australia plan. I also indicated that the early signs are promising. In the past two years we have also averaged over 50 donors more than for the last 10 years before that. So the signs are encouraging, but it is recognised that comparatively they still remain low. Clearly, to improve donation rates we must change two things: first, hospitals need systems and staff of the right capacity and expertise to enable organ and tissue donations and, second—one of the most important—Australians need to be empowered with the information necessary to make informed choices. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I again thank the minister for his answer. Has the government set milestones for the operation of the implementation plan and, if they have, have those milestones been met in the authority’s first period of operation?
I thank Senator Siewert for her question. We have already made very good progress in laying the foundation for change in public hospitals. That is the first step in meeting that first requirement. We have appointed over 150 staff dedicated to improving Australia’s donation rates in 76 major public hospitals around the country and we have established organ and tissue donation agencies with specialist organ donor coordinators in all jurisdictions. We have launched a clinical trigger tool in hospitals across the country to assist clinical staff in the identification of potential donors and we have developed a new funding stream for hospitals to ensure costs are not a barrier to organ donations. To complement the work in hospitals, the Organ and Tissue Authority is also tackling the required change in community perception which, as I said, was the second area we have to address. To do that, we are launching a national advertising campaign in May 2010 to promote the need for families— (Time expired)
My question is to Senator Carr representing the Minister for Resources and Energy. I was fascinated by Senator Carr’s answer to Senator Cormann when the minister said that this great big new tax on mining was all about growing jobs. I ask the minister: how does he reconcile that statement with the statement by Queensland’s Labor Premier Anna Bligh, and her damning criticism, that this tax grab on the resources sector will ‘undermine efforts to create 100,00 new jobs in Queensland’?
It is quite clear that the opposition are not prepared to actually engage in this matter. The modelling that we have undertaken as a government highlights that under these new arrangements we will see mining investment actually rise. It will go up. What we will see is an increase in the number of jobs. There will be an increase in mining production. I am sure if the opposition were prepared to read the KPMG reports on these matters that they would notice that there will be an expansion of GDP as a result of these changes.
What we have here is a highly responsible measure aimed at ensuring that Australians and the community as a whole enjoy the benefit of increased economic activity and we do so by supporting a change in the fundamental tax rate across all companies. We provide additional resources for infrastructure to facilitate increased export. We also provide for a social justice measure in terms of funding superannuation benefits for Australian workers. These are measures that the opposition clearly cannot come to terms with.
What we have is an opposition that are led by a group of economic knuckle draggers. We have an opposition that are not interested in economic management. We have an opposition that find economics boring. It is no wonder that the opposition rely on newspaper headlines rather than doing the proper research that is required to ensure that they have a better grasp of what actually is going on as distinct from their blind prejudices. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I ask the minister: does he use the term ‘blind prejudices’ when he refers to his Queensland Labor colleague Premier Anna Bligh who said that this tax will undermine her efforts to create 100,000 new jobs? Further, Minister, are you aware of the criticism by the mayors of Mount Isa, Cloncurry and Mackay, who all damned this as a big attack on job creation and on small business in their communities?
I was referring to the opposition. It is an opposition that has no plan. It is an opposition that seems to know nothing about developing a plan. It is an opposition that has no policies. It is an opposition that is committed to opposition and nothing else. Of course it is not surprising; the opposition has never had a plan in this whole parliament. What we have seen is an opposition—
Mr President, a point of order on the grounds of relevance. There is no way my question in any way related to the opposition’s plan, which is all Minister Carr has spoken about. My question related to the Queensland Labor Premier, Anna Bligh, and her damning criticism of this great big new tax on the mining resource industry.
On the point of order, it may be that the questioner, Senator Macdonald, did not recall the beginning of his sentence but he did start with ‘blind prejudice’. Senator Carr was responding in relation to that issue. Clearly, Senator Carr has been on point in relation to answering the question. It is a matter for Senator Carr whether he deals with each part of the question in seriatim or which point he goes to, but there were three major points that were raised by Senator Macdonald in his question. One went to blind prejudice, the second went to the tax issue and the third went to criticism by the mayors of Mount Isa and Cloncurry. Therefore, Senator Carr has been answering the three parts of that question and has been very relevant to the question.
Order! Senator Carr, I draw your attention to the question. You have 37 seconds remaining to answer the question.
I am referring directly to the question about the blind prejudice of the opposition, who are opposing the super act guarantee that we are introducing. They are opposing the expansion of superannuation concessions for low-income earners. They are opposing support for small business in terms of the depreciation arrangements. They are opposing the infrastructure spending that we are proposing with regard to $5.6 billion over the next decade. They are opposed, of course, to the resource exploration rebates and they are opposed to the cuts in company taxation. What else could that be but blind prejudice from an incompetent opposition? (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I take it then that Minister Carr includes Anna Bligh in his accusation of blind prejudice. It would be interesting for Comrade Bligh to hear about that. I ask the minister further: what does he think of Labor Premier Bligh’s estimate that $100 billion in mining activity will disappear from Queensland as a result of Mr Rudd’s great big new tax? Does he accept Premier Bligh’s assertion that $100 billion of activity will go? (Time expired)
What I accept is that this opposition is anti growth. It is anti fairness. This is an opposition that is not interested in ensuring the economic welfare of the Australian people. What I do accept is that this opposition has no policy, has no plan for the future and is contemptuous of the Australian people, because it thinks that it can just slide through into the next election with nothing to say about the future of this country.
My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Can the minister advise the Senate on the implementation study that was released last week? What are the key findings of the report in relation to the government’s plan to roll out the National Broadband Network?
I thank Senator Bishop for his ongoing interest in this portfolio area. The NBN is an historic nation-building project, the positive economic and social effects of which will be felt for generations to come. Last week we released in full the implementation study into the NBN. This study was undertaken by McKinsey and Co. and KPMG. It is highly rigorous and detailed, at over 500 pages and with 84 recommendations for government. It covers a range of critical areas including issues around the technology, financing, ownership, policy framework and future market structure.
The study confirmed that high-speed broadband over a wholesale-only network for all Australians is achievable and can be built on a financially viable basis with affordable prices for consumers. In fact, the study finds that in a number of areas it is possible not only to meet but also to exceed the government’s original objectives. It finds that the original $43 billion total capital cost estimate is conservative and at the high end of the plausible range and identifies a number of opportunities to reduce the bill’s cost. It recommends taking the fibre footprint further than the government originally intended from 90 to 93 per cent and covering the 1.3 million new premises expected to be built to 2017-18. In effect this means the study recommends taking fibre to an extra 1.6 million premises. (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate what the reaction has been to the release of the NBN implementation study? Has the report been welcomed by industry and consumer groups around Australia?
The release of the implementation study has been widely welcomed across the industry and by consumer groups. For example, Optus CEO Mr Paul O’Sullivan said on the day of its release:
With the release of the NBN Implementation Study, we are now on a path to building a world class broadband network, a network that will ensure Australia’s place in the leading economies of the world.
Mr Allan Asher, CEO of the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, said:
What Australians need from the NBN is improved accessibility, affordability and availability of communications services and the study’s findings support this becoming a reality.
Intel General Manager Philip Cronin said:
This is the utility of the 21st Century and is as important to our future economy as transport infrastructure is today.
(Time expired)
Mr President, I ask the minister a further supplementary question. Given the importance of high-speed broadband for strengthening the Australian economy and providing critical infrastructure for consumers, small business and our regional areas, is the minister aware of any alternative policies to deliver enhanced broadband for all Australians?
Regrettably I must advise the Senate that I am not aware of any alternative policies to ensure that all Australians have access to high-speed broadband. Even before the implementation study was released the opposition announced they would scrap the NBN. This took opposition for opposition’s sake to a whole new level. After 2½ years in opposition those opposite still do not have an alternative broadband plan, which is no surprise, given they are on their third shadow minister. The opposition plan to stop building the NBN would risk Australia’s economic future. The NBN is crucial economic infrastructure. Without it Australian companies will not be able to compete with the likes of Japan, South Korea and Singapore. (Time expired)
My question is to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery, Senator Arbib. I refer the minister to the monthly reports which were provided to him by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet about the progress of the Home Insulation Program and which were recently released to the Senate inquiry. I note the reports consist almost entirely of information about how much money was paid out under the program. Did the minister ever seek information about the quality, standards or safety of the insulation program?
I thank Senator Birmingham for his question. Yes, a number of documents in relation to the stimulus have been released and Senator Birmingham does have them in his possession.
It took a while.
Yes, Senator Rondaldson, it did take a while, but you do have them, don’t you? These documents relate to information concerning all elements of the stimulus package across the 49,000 projects that are taking place and also information concerning the insulation package. We have discussed this before and there have been many misrepresentations and much misinformation spread by Liberal Party senators and members about my role. I would like to state to the Senate my role was maximising jobs and ensuring the implementation coordination of the programs. That was my role. The reports that were provided by the Office of the Coordinator-General go to that role and provided me with information to allow me to undertake those duties.
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister, in receiving and considering these reports—assuming he read them—ever consider that the reported substantial increase in uptake and rapid growth in registered businesses conducting installations might lead to problems with quality, standards and safety? If so, what action did he take?
The issues that Senator Birmingham has raised have been discussed extensively by me in this place in the numerous question times where I answered these questions. They have been discussed in Senate estimates hearings time and time again by all the individual representatives of the Office of the Coordinator-General and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. And, of course, the issues that have been raised have been answered in detail in response to questions on notice that have been provided by Senator Birmingham and also by other Liberal Party and coalition senators.
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I note that the minister seems to be confusing discussion with dodging when it comes to what takes place in this chamber. If the minister never sought additional information about quality, standards or safety from these monthly briefings highlighting the rapid pace of payments and new installation businesses, will he concede that his entire focus in this program was putting speed before safety?
Once again, the premise of the question is incorrect, because Senator Birmingham has attempted to misrepresent my position and what my role was. Again, I have informed the Senate—
Senator Abetz interjecting—
You may laugh, Senator Abetz, but this is something that I have raised many times in this place. Liberal Party senators can ask me question after question on it, but I can only answer as to what my role was and what I undertook in that role.
My question is to the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator Carr. Can the minister inform the Senate on the government’s proposed research and development tax credit? What is the structure of the credit? How will it benefit Australian business, especially small business? How does it differ from the existing tax concession?
I thank Senator Cameron for the question and acknowledge his longstanding interest in these issues. The research and development tax credit is the most important reform to Australian business innovation support in a generation, and I am sure that Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon would appreciate that it is essentially critical to small business.
It is not often that I applaud the judgment of the Australian Financial Review, but this morning’s headline says it all: ‘SMEs win in new R&D tax breaks plan’. There will be a 45 per cent refundable tax credit for companies turning over less than $20 million and a 40 per cent non-refundable tax credit for all other companies. The 45 per cent credit doubles the base rate of support available to small- and medium-sized enterprises from 7½c in the dollar to 15c in the dollar. That is equivalent to a 150 per cent tax concession. The 40 per cent non-refundable tax offset raises the base rate for large companies by a third, from 7½c to 10c in the dollar. It is equivalent to a 133 per cent tax concession. Small, innovative firms are big winners from the new R&D tax credit. They will enjoy more generous rates of assistance and better access to cash refunds for their R&D expenditure, and under the present arrangements a company in tax loss turning over $10 million and spending $1 million on eligible R&D might eventually receive a tax deduction of $375,000 when it turns a profit. Under the new scheme— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister explain to the Senate why action is needed to replace the present research and development tax concession? Is the concession being used inappropriately? Are there problems with the definition and interpretation of research and development?
As I was indicating, under the new scheme, benefits in the case I mentioned are increased from $375,000 to $450,000, so it is a major reform to extend R&D support to a new generation of companies that unlocks creativity right across the economy. The R&D tax concession is a great Labor reform and, of course, in its day was obviously a matter of urgent need, but it is now time for a replacement. Those opposite halved its value and ignored the problems that emerged over time in its administration. They have a legacy whereby a mining company that does $20 million worth of R&D is able to claim $500 million for normal mine operations and mineral exploration associated with R&D. They might have a situation under present arrangements where a construction company that does $15 million worth of R&D on air-conditioning systems can potentially claim the $100 million cost of construction of a whole building on the grounds— (Time expired)
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate of what industry is saying about the government’s proposed R&D tax credit? Have the government reforms been welcomed by innovative firms and knowledge-intensive industries?
What these measures are about is providing innovators with a real opportunity to innovate. AusBiotech says:
The biggest winners will be those companies with turnover of less than $20m with no commercial production yet, which are able to cash out the refundable credit if in tax loss.
Deloitte, for instance, say:
The software rules are … in many ways better than what we have now.
TGR BioSciences are saying that it is ‘absolutely’ a crucial reform. Of course, my new best friends at the Australian Financial Review point out:
The government also made it easier for most software to qualify for the tax break …
What we have seen is the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia saying:
It’s clear the Government is focused on rebalancing and retargeting the R&D tax credit for the SME market, rather than the big end of the market.
This is precisely what we are doing. (Time expired)
Mr President, noting that friends can be fickle, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Senator Carr) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Cormann and Macdonald today, relating to taxation.
The minister’s answers to the questions asked today bordered on absolutely delusional, and they demonstrated to the people of Australia just how out of touch and just how disconnected the Labor Party are with both the domestic and the international reaction to Rudd Labor’s supertax. The minister had the gall to call us on this side economic—what was it?—‘knuckle draggers’. I have to say the only economic knuckle dragger in this place is the minister.
This proposed tax is economic vandalism; it is economic lunacy from a dangerous government that does not have a clue about economic management. Even the Labor premiers are now running a mile from Rudd Labor and its proposed supertax. Look at what the Australian says today, under the headline ‘Labor states back big mining companies on resources profits tax’:
South Australia’s Labor Treasurer, Kevin Foley, has declared he plans to travel to Canberra with BHP Billiton to lobby his federal colleagues to change the resources tax, while Queensland Premier Anna Bligh yesterday called on the Rudd government to “get it right” on the tax or it would threaten jobs around the country.
This is the impact of Mr Rudd’s announcement to date. The article continues:
Mining investment and exploration continued to be threatened yesterday as $300 million was chopped off the takeover bid for Macarthur Coal in Queensland … Incitec Pivot stopped drilling for phosphate; Xstrata cancelled projects; and Macquarie Bank advised clients Australia was “now seen as being a high sovereign risk destination to invest” …
What an absolute joke! Under this government, Australia’s sovereign risk is now being questioned.
Senator Sterle interjecting—
Senator Sterle, the people of Western Australia are listening today, and you should be ashamed of yourself. Stand up for the people of Western Australia; do not sit back there and cop what Mr Rudd is going to do to our state, which is to well and truly finish it off. This is nothing more and nothing less than a blatant tax grab by the Rudd Labor government.
The bottom line with those opposite is that you are part of a big-spending, economically irresponsible government, and the only reason that you need to tax the living daylights out of the industry that is this country is that you have record levels of debt, which has soared up, and you need to satiate your out-of-control spending. Mr Rudd claimed he was a fiscal conservative prior to the 2007 election. I tell you the Australian people are not laughing at that, because they actually took him on his word, and he blatantly misrepresented himself. It is the Australian people who are now going to have to pay back the debt that the government have incurred.
But the bad new for the Australian people is they will not have jobs. They will not have jobs because you are going to destroy the industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people in this country. The joke going around at the moment—and this is from Labor people back in my home state—is that Mr Rudd is the worst prime minister since Billy McMahon. Then the Labor people offer their apologies to Billy McMahon for actually putting him in the same category as the underachiever, Mr Rudd. Mr Rudd is nothing more and nothing less than an underachiever. He is going to destroy this country. He is dangerous for Australia.
This so-called superprofits rent tax will have dire consequences for the industry in Australia which is the most significant to this country, and dire consequences will flow on to the Australian economy. You have to begin to worry when the Canadians actually send a delegation over here to work out what investment they will take as it is driven offshore. Chinese companies are on the record as already redirecting investment to Africa, Asia and South America. And, in relation to the impact on the average Australian, forget about the so-called increase in superannuation; no amount of increase in the superannuation levy is going to make up for the damage that you have done to superannuation investment with your announcement. This new superprofits tax will discourage investment in our mining industry, put projects at risk and send jobs overseas. But what is new with you lot over there?
I know I have only five minutes—I would love to have a lot longer, and my turn will come—but there are a few things that I think we need to correct for the record. As a proud Western Australian who made my living on the back of supplying the mining towns in the far north and the goldfields, I think there is no more important industry, certainly in Western Australia, than mining. I am not belittling our other industries, which employ a lot of people, but I think we have to clear up the hysterics from the other side and unfortunately from News Corp et cetera—they love to run the hysterics too.
In the last six months I have had the pleasure of assisting the Hon. Gary Gray, the member for Brand—
Opposition senator interjecting—
If you do wish to listen, you might learn something, you peanut. Sorry, Mr Acting Deputy President, I retract that—it’s not fair to peanuts. I have had the pleasure of assisting the member for Brand, the Hon. Gary Gray, who is the chair of the Prime Minister’s National Resources Sector Employment Taskforce. In all fairness, I do not expect those opposite to know what was going on, because the government has been quietly getting on with the work. That task force was put together by the Prime Minister to provide an answer to Minister Ferguson and Minister Arbib on where we will find the labour for all of the 84-odd projects announced, which are probably to go to final investment decision in the next couple of years. Unfortunately there are some wild—
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Order! Senator Cormann!
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I suggest that Senator Cormann should listen; he may learn something.
Doubtful!
Yes, you are right, Senator Abetz; that is doubtful. I agree with you! I am being very hopeful in saying that Senator Cormann could learn anything!
There are a lot of mistruths and ridiculous figures being espoused around the country about how many workers we may need, should these projects go to final investment decision. With the great work of the task force, which includes mining representation, gas representation, tertiary education representation and construction representation, the best figure which has been agreed to by the members of the task force is that we would probably need about 80,000 construction workers if these projects were to go to final investment decision. As best as we can ascertain, those 80,000 workers would be needed in the next five to 10 years. Of that, we would need some estimated 30,000 production workers to run those plants. That is a far cry from the figures that we have heard today.
The West Australianand it is fine newspaper—has unfortunately been conned or fooled by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Western Australia into thinking that, in a state with a population of some two million, in the next seven years we will need some 441,000 workers just in WA. I can tell you now, Mr Acting Deputy President—and it is on the record—that, if you were to check with the Chamber of Minerals and Energy, with the Minerals Council of Australia, with APIA or with whomever else you may want to check, you would find that that figure is absolute nonsense.
To come back to the figures that have been thrown around today—and you can see where the hysteria and the hype come from—they go off the record and become absolutely ridiculous. I encourage opposition senators, if they are going to get up and speak for the big end of town, to do a couple of things. One, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you on the other side have financial interests or shares in any of these mining companies or resource companies, the decent thing to do would be to declare it before you start ranting and raving and attacking the Rudd government. That is a process of the Senate, one which I would follow if I had those shares or those interests, which I do not.
I don’t have shares!
Senator Cormann says that he does not have any. I did not actually mention Senator Cormann; I just said that, if any of you Western Australian senators had financial interests, you should put your hands on the table and declare them.
I do not have a lot of time left but I will use this opportunity to say that there is a very devious cause being run too. It is coming from the Minerals Council of Australia through their CEO, Mitch Hooke, who made it very clear in the Australian on 9 April 2010 that he wants predominantly 457 visa workers employed in this industry. (Time expired)
I would like to have my say on the answers given to questions put to Minister Carr here today. Senator Carr said that this great big tax on our mining industry will increase job opportunities. How, when you increase the taxes on industry, when you reduce investment and when you reduce exploration, is that going to increase jobs? I find that amazing.
This is straight out of North Korea!
Straight out of North Korea—exactly! It is a $9 billion tax. Those on the other side should be honest about this and tell the Senate that this is about a $9 billion tax collection to pay the interest on the debt that the Rudd government has accumulated. We are today looking at a $140 billion gross debt. In simple figures, five per cent on $140 billion is $7 billion. But, wait, there’s more: the debt has grown by more than $1 billion a week.
What this is about is tonight’s budget. It is so that the Treasurer can say, ‘We are bringing the deficit down; we are bringing $9 billion extra in every year by strangling the goose that lays the golden egg in Australia.’ That is what this is about. This is the industry about which Mr Rudd, prior to the 2007 election, said: ‘We must change our economy; we cannot be reliant on the mining industry. If it falls over and commodity prices crash, we need to have another source of income.’ What is he depending on? It was the mining industry, but now he is depending on taxing it as much as he can. I find this amazing. This is simply a great big tax to finance the great big debt.
We know where the great big debt came from. We can talk about Building the Education Revolution and the waste of money there. You will hear more about that in the near future, despite the Auditor-General’s report. We can talk about the waste in the pink batts fiasco, where we had a $2.6 billion program which is now costing $1 billion to clean the mess up. That is what this tax on the mining industry is about: collecting money to pay for the huge debt that the Rudd Labour government put our nation into. But that is nothing new: look back at the history of Labor, whether it be at the state level or the federal level, and tell me of one Labor government that, when they were thrown out of government, had reduced debt. Name one occasion.
Never!
Never! This is what they are about: building debt and throwing money around willy-nilly. Then all of a sudden they say: ‘Well, now we have a problem. We have a $7 billion, $8 billion or $9 billion interest bill. How are we going to fund it? Oh, we will go up to the big end of town.’
Who owns those industries? Who owns Rio Tinto? Who owns BHP? The workers of Australia, those with superannuation, own them. What we are doing is strangling the future, the retirement fund for the working families, the working Australians that the people on the other side of the parliament are supposed to represent. You are strangling their retirement, because they are the people who own those industries. One accountant has given me figures today saying that 10 to 20 per cent of investment portfolios are directly in mining shares—for example, BHP and Rio Tinto. So you are strangling the workers’ retirement funds. You have already seen the damage that you have done to the stock market because of the announcement of this huge tax on that industry.
There is one thing that is interesting: when this tax is brought in and implemented by the Rudd government, Australia will pay about twice the tax of the mining industries in Canada, Brazil and China, yet we are expected to compete. What we are going to see—and we have already seen it—is the pulling out of investment and of exploration. Companies will tend towards South Africa, Indonesia, Brazil—you name it—anywhere where there are fewer costs so they can get the same product and make more profit. That is how free enterprise is. What this government is doing is simply scaring business out of our nation.
The one concern I really have is the fertiliser industry. Incitec Pivot have told the Stock Exchange that they will stop drilling for phosphate as a result of Labor’s new mining supertax. We have been importing our fertiliser onto our farms for years and here is an opportunity to have our own fertiliser in Australia and get a distinct benefit for our nation, but our Incitec people have said, ‘What’s the point of going ahead; we’ve been taxed out of existence.’ That is what this tax is going to do, and that is why we on this side of the parliament will oppose it from the very beginning until Mr Rudd does another backflip and does away with it.
I have to say that, in the last 20 minutes, the debate around this issue has been characterised very much in the sorts of contributions we have had from senators across the way. It has been extraordinarily hysterical, and it has been littered with misinformation. Unfortunately, Senator Williams, you are leaving the chamber. It would have been an opportunity, potentially, for you to get some clarity on what this tax is about. The government’s tax reforms are about making Australia a more attractive investment destination, including for the resources sector.
The resource superprofit tax is designed to ensure that Australians get a fair share from valuable non-renewable resources. Resource taxing is a better way to tax resources because it taxes only the profits and it fully recognises the large investments made in mining. A tax such as this rebates state royalties. Royalty and excises are based on volume or value and they do not rise with profits. It is important to remember that in 2008-09 the resource sector generated close to $90 billion of superprofits. Superprofits are profits above what a competitive business would normally expect to earn. In that same year state royalties and Commonwealth excise returned only $12.3 billion to the Australian budgets. The effect of these proposals is in fact a rebalancing. Ten years ago Australians, through their government, received $1 out of every $3 of profit reaped by the resource sector. Today it is $1 in every $7 of superprofit. Surely that needs some attention.
So what is a superprofit?
I will go back to that, although I did explain. They are profits above what a competitive business would normally expect to return. As I said, 10 years ago $1 in every $3 of profit was returned to Australians from rental on a non-renewable resource. Today it is $1 in $7.
Profit based taxation does work. For example, the 40 per cent petroleum resource rent tax has existed for over 20 years. The $50 billion Gorgon project was approved under the 40 per cent petroleum resource rent tax. To say that it does not work is simply a furphy. In fact, I encourage leaders of the large mining companies and LNG producers to work with our government to roll out the delivery of the resource superprofit tax for our community.
It is important to remember also that there have been many economists who do not oppose the introduction of this tax. I look to Professor John Quiggan’s commentary on this issue. He goes through a range of arguments about why it is a good idea—a sensible, fair and equitable idea—to introduce a profit tax rather than user royalties and excise. I think his most compelling argument is where he says:
The political economy argument. Ever since I can remember, and probably before that, mining companies have been threatening to pack their bags and go overseas. They’ve made these threats when they were upset about tax policy, about environmental restrictions, about Aboriginal land rights, about union wage demands and work practices and when they were in a bad mood for no particular reason. But, even though lots of Australian industries have disappeared, or contracted drastically for a range of reasons, the miners are still here. The reason is obvious. They can leave but they can’t take the minerals with them. It’s precisely this immobility that underlies the case for—
as he describes it—
RRT—
that is, a resource rent tax. (Time expired)
I rise to take note of the pathetic effort by Minister Carr to try to defend Prime Minister Rudd’s absolutely indefensible supertax on the mining industry in this country. In recent weeks, the Prime Minister has made Australia the laughing-stock of the world. He has put Australia in the situation where the Canadian Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, has indicated Canada will now have a tremendous competitive advantage. That minister is over here looking for opportunities. There has been a massive reduction in the value of Australian resource companies in the last week and a half. With it, we have seen a massive erosion in the value of superannuation and shares for Australian retirees and Australian workers—the very people those opposite should be standing up for and defending.
Amongst other things, the Prime Minister has vilified foreign investment in this country. When since 1788 did we use anything other than foreign investment to support and grow industries in this country? As has previously been said, we are already seeing the major mining companies walk away, close up investments and close up opportunities. We now have the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying, ‘Why don’t they come and talk to us?’ Surely they learnt something from the emissions trading scheme—that is, that they should have gone and spoken to those companies in advance.
We have had figures presented to us in the last few minutes, but let me give you the figures from the Australian Taxation Office on the contribution of the mining sector to this country. According to the ATO, the resources sector pays 13 per cent more tax than any other sector in this country. In the last year alone, the resources sector paid to Australian governments, federal and state, $22 billion. When added to the $22 billion surplus that this government inherited from the previous government, they have squandered $44 billion plus, plus and plus.
Do not go past what the Wall Street Journal said last week. It said, ‘This economic thinking runs counter to everything that has made Australia rich.’ So what have we seen in recent times? We have seen losses. The super funds of retirees and working Australians have gone out the window. Seven hundred thousand Australians have shares in BHP, quite apart from those who have super funds. We just heard the senator opposite speak about the petroleum resource rent tax. Does she not understand this: firstly, it is a tax at the government bond rate plus five per cent, and it is only a prospective tax not a retrospective tax; secondly, the offshore oil and gas industry does not pay royalties to any states. In the petroleum resource rent tax we have this factored in. This stupid tax is being set at the bond rate, currently six per cent. I invested some money the other day for an elderly relative in a nursing home. I rang my bank and they said, ‘We’ll give you six per cent while that person does absolutely nothing for it.’
What an absolute joke this is. We have been made a laughing-stock. Only in the last week have we learnt about the $170 billion of projects in the mining and resource sector and the 500 companies—not just one, two, three or four big companies. As the Queensland Labor Premier and the South Australian Labor Premier have both said in recent days: ‘This is a disastrous tax; it has got to be reversed.’ Let us look at Labor’s gambling for a moment. Under this new tax, this nationalising of the Australian mining industry, we have the government sharing the profits.
Senator Cameron interjecting—
But also, if Senator Cameron would take note, they will potentially share the losses. Mining is a very fraught industry, as we all know. The situation we will have into the future—and the Australian taxpayers need to know this—is that the government have forced themselves on the mining companies and the government will be paying out losses of up to 40 per cent, as mining companies do not always make profits. If ever there has been a widening of the difference between Labor and Liberal, we have it in the way the cake is made. Labor divides up the cake until it becomes crumbs; Liberals grow the cake to improve it for everybody. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the order of the Senate agreed to earlier today relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business for today, be amended as follows:Omit paragraph (a), substitute:
I understand there is agreement around the chamber that there be no adjournment tonight.
Question agreed to.
I seek leave to make a personal explanation as I claim to have been misrepresented.
Leave granted.
I have had the opportunity to view a Twitter blog, which purports to be my own personal Twitter blog. The address for this site is: http://twitter.com/senjohnfaulkner. The description on the Twitter blog states that the owner’s name is John Faulkner. The biographical description states, ‘A senator for New South Wales with accountable representation since 1989, Minister for Defence, Vice President of the Executive Council.’
For the purposes of the record, I wish to state that I do not have a Twitter account. I can also confirm for the Senate for those who might be interested that I do not have a personal Facebook account either.
Are you sure?
Of that I am certain. I seek leave to make a further personal explanation.
Leave granted.
On 15 April this year News Limited newspapers ran an item on turnover in ministerial staff offices in this government. In a graphic alongside the article it stated that I had lost some 50 per cent of my staff. The journalist claimed that I had allegedly lost eight staff because I was ‘a tough minister’. The journalist, Mr Lewis, stated that he had calculated the turnover in staff by tracking changes in personnel in various internal phonebooks over 2008 to 2010. He did not include the departure of departmental liaison officers but did include departures in electorate office staff.
I want to say very clearly that there are flaws in Mr Lewis’s methodology. It failed to take into account transitional temporary positions supplied by departments and internal shifts between ministers’ offices. After the election, temporary staff provided by departments remained on deck for weeks or even months while permanent positions were filled. Since my own portfolio changed in June 2009 from Special Minister of State and Cabinet Secretary to Minister for Defence such temporary positions were factored in twice. This would also have occurred to the staffing component of perhaps some of my other colleagues but I cannot speak on their behalf.
I just want to place the facts on record in this personal explanation: 33 people, permanent and temporary, have worked for me as Special Minister of State or Minister for Defence. Two were ADCs and seven were temporary staff supplied by the respective department. So I have had 24 staff work on a permanent basis—that is, staff employed under the MOP(S) Act. After becoming defence minister two left and four others went to other offices in the building, rather than leave the service of the Rudd government. Two of those in fact went to the Prime Minister’s office. So the portfolio change accounted for six staff changes.
I took two of them.
You did indeed, Senator Ludwig. I did not mention that but it is true because you took over my previous responsibilities. That is six out of 24—25 per cent. On the other hand, my staffing component has increased from 13 to 18, and I am including the defence ADC in that.
I do not want to be misunderstood in this personal explanation. I think it is the job of the media to probe these issues, as I and my former colleague, former Senator Robert Ray, did for many years in Senate estimates. It is an important accountability mechanism to ensure that offices do not get bloated with political operatives, extra departmental liaison officers or the like. But I do say this: to jump to false conclusions, present speculation as fact and not acknowledge the spills that occur during portfolio changes is not very good form. I do not think it presents the full picture.
Like all my colleagues, I am grateful to all the people who have worked as ministerial staff, present and past, and I would obviously acknowledge that working for a minister is hard, demanding and not everybody’s cup of tea. It is also a public service which progresses our nation and, for some, it is very rewarding. For the record, I have employed 24 permanent staff over 18 months. I have had six staff changes; four of whom went to work in other offices in a change of portfolio. I would calculate the staff turnover at 25 per cent, not 50 per cent—and two happily went to work for the Prime Minister.
Two came to me.
And two apparently went to Senator Ludwig as well. I just want to place the full story on the record for the benefit of anybody who might be listening.
Senator Pratt to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Abetz to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ludlam to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:
Environment, Communications and the Arts
Finance and Public Administration
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Birmingham to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Cash to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Xenophon to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Xenophon to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Trood to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Ian Macdonald to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Hanson-Young to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Stephens to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Bob Brown to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Brandis to move on the next day of sitting:
Senator Brandis to move on the next day of sitting:
I withdraw general notice of motion No. 761 standing in my name and in the name of Senator Birmingham for today.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 13 April 2010, of Bernard Francis Kilgariff, OAM, AM, a senator for the Northern Territory from 1975 to 1987.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death on 13 April 2010, of Bernard Francis Kilgariff, OAM, AM, former senator for the Northern Territory, and places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Bernie, as he was known, was born in Adelaide in 1923 but moved to Alice Springs with his family as a young boy. He was the first Territory student to achieve a year 10 intermediate certificate.
After he finished school, Bernie served in the Australian Army during the Second World War. He fought in Papua New Guinea in the 2nd/5th Battalion, 6th Division of the Australian Imperial Force. Upon his return, he became very active in his local community and was well known for being one of the first tourism entrepreneurs in the Alice.
Bernie had a distinguished career representing the people of Alice Springs, starting when he was appointed to the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory in 1960. He served in the Legislative Council until 1968, at which point he continued as a member of the new Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory until 1975. He was Speaker for two years until he was elected to federal parliament as one of the first two senators for the Northern Territory in 1975.
Bernie campaigned hard for the establishment of self-government for the Northern Territory, which was achieved in July 1978, and he remained a vocal advocate for statehood for the Northern Territory for the rest of his life. I am sure that Senator Scullion will have more personal reflections on what was clearly a very committed and active life advocating for the Northern Territory.
Bernie remained in the Senate until 1987 and played a significant role in the formation of the Country Liberal Party. During his time in parliament, he served on a number of Senate legislative and general purpose standing committees as well as a number of Senate select and joint committees. He was also a member of parliamentary delegations to China, Japan, Romania, the former USSR and Hungary in 1978; Saudi Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates in 1982; and Thailand and Indochina in 1984.
It is worth noting that, during Bernie’s 27-year political career, he never once lost an election. Not many of us can say that. In 1989, Bernie was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia and, in 1996, he was elevated to a Member of the Order of Australia. The recognition was for continued service to the Northern Territory through the Northern Territory Landcare Council, the Anti-Rabbit Research Foundation, the Cattlemens Association, the Australia Day Council and St John Ambulance. He was also invested as a Knight of the Order of St John. In 2001, he received the Centenary Medal for service to Australian society through the parliament.
Unfortunately, Bernie passed away on 13 April this year. He will be fondly remembered for his passion for politics and his lifelong commitment to the people and causes of the Northern Territory. Fittingly, he was accorded a state funeral at Alice Springs.
On behalf of the government, I offer our condolences to the family of Bernard Francis Kilgariff, particularly to his wife, Aileen, and their many children: Danny, Andrew, Frances, Helen, Claire, Brian, Anne, Michael, Kathryn and John. It is a full life well lived and a tremendous record of contribution to public service.
On behalf of coalition senators, I too extend our sincere condolences to the family of former Senator Bernie Kilgariff, a senator for the Northern Territory and a member of the Country Liberal Party, who died on 13 April this year at the age of 86, after a long and very rich life. His contributions have set the bar high for those who follow. His life was full in so many ways. His life was inspirational and a living expression of the coalition philosophy.
Mr Kilgariff was one of the modern pioneers of Central Australia and was instrumental in the formation of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. He was born at Mile End in South Australia in 1923 and arrived with his family in Alice Springs at the age of seven.
He went on to make extensive contributions to the outback, pastoral, aviation, construction and resource industries, defence, tourism, Aboriginal affairs and the community—all in partnership, with the support and encouragement of his wife, Aileen, and their 11 children. I note: no baby bonus or paid parental leave was needed here. His 11 children were undoubtedly a great apprenticeship for his later role as whip of coalition senators.
Mr Kilgariff’s political career started in 1960 in the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory. He went on to become the first Speaker of the first fully-elected Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory in 1974 and then, in 1975, he was elected as one of the first Territory senators and one of the first senators to represent the newly-formed Country Liberal Party. From 1979 he represented the Liberal Party. I recall meeting with the then senator when I was a very young President of the Australian Liberal Students Federation seeking support for voluntary student unionism, which I note was finally achieved about four or five years ago. I had the privilege of steering the legislation through this place, never expecting it would take so long.
Mr Kilgariff retired from politics in 1987 and continued contributing to every facet of the community for the rest of his life. His contributions were rightly recognised through the Order of Australia. He received the Medal of the Order, OAM, and the Member of the Order, AM, in 1996. On receiving the Order of Australia, Mr Kilgariff said:
It sounds corny, but the biggest pleasure of my career has been representing people.
Mr Kilgariff exemplified commitment to and engagement with the community. He genuinely wanted the Northern Territory—and I quote from his maiden speech in the Senate in 1996—to be ‘capable of performing mighty feats which will be to the benefit not only of the Territory but of Australia’. He was a devoted servant to the parliament and the Northern Territory.
To Mr Kilgariff’s widow, Aileen, and his children and grandchildren, the coalition extend our sympathy in their bereavement and place on record our appreciation of his public service throughout his life. I know Senator Scullion, who so ably represents the Northern Territory and the Country Liberal Party in the Senate, will provide additional supportive comments.
I rise to join the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate in the condolence motion for the loss of former Senator Bernard Kilgariff. All Australians should honour the enormous contribution of my mate, one of the Northern Territory’s first politicians and the founder of the Country Liberal Party, Bern Kilgariff, who was born on 30 September 1923 and sadly passed away on 13 April this year.
Bern had a lifetime of outstanding community contribution and was well liked by people from both sides of the political divide, representing the Northern Territory as the first Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and as the Territory’s first senator. In 1929 he arrived in Alice Springs with his family on one of the first Ghan trains from Adelaide. I was very lucky, particularly in the first few years of the Senate, to enjoy some of the stories that Bern used to tell about his early days growing up in Alice Springs. As you can imagine, it really was a joy to see Alice Springs in the late 1920s and early 1930s through the eyes of someone who had spent so much time there and seen so much change.
Bern went on to serve in the Australian Army during the Second World War, built and operated motels and service stations in Alice Springs, turned his hand to farming and pastoralism and was instrumental in opening up Central Australia to tourism. He was a very experienced guy. If you spent any time with him and there was a bit of old agricultural equipment or a car of some age he would straightaway tell you how they had improved that part. I often used to say, because he was so knowledgeable, ‘What’s that bit there?’ And he would say that that was a such and such and it used to hang off the something or other. He always had such an intimate knowledge of almost every aspect of life. Certainly in the pastoral industry, he was somebody who looked back with some sadness at the changes in the opportunities that presented to our first Australians. He reflected on a time when Aboriginals in Central Australia were the absolute backbone of the pastoral industry and saw with some sadness that they no longer enjoyed the same opportunities they had when he first got there.
One might wonder whether there was anything, as an individual, that Bernie could not do. We need only to look at some of the positions he held in the Northern Territory. He was Chairman of the Northern Territory Housing Commission, Director of the Central Australian Travel Association, President of the Alice Springs Art Foundation and Chair of the Alice Springs Community College. In 1974 he founded the Country Liberal Party—and, in this place, we may appreciate the difficulty of that. He was instrumental in securing for that party, as a brand new party, 17 of the 19 seats in the first Northern Territory Legislative Assembly election. I do not think it matters what side of parliament we are from; we must all acknowledge that as an incredible feat. Bern, they certainly were the halcyon days, mate!
Bern was very passionate about the Northern Territory. I can remember, when on the few occasions a keynote speech I gave in the Northern Territory did not include statehood, he would come up to me and remind me very forcibly that I had forgotten the first principle—that if we were ever talking about the Northern Territory we needed to remember that statehood was an absolutely fundamental part of the future. Bern, it is never far from our minds, mate.
Bern was recognised in a number of ways, including being given the Order of Australia. I think he would have reflected on how wonderful that was, but I know that in 2008 being invested as a Knight in the Order of St John, specifically for his contribution to the St John Ambulance service, would also have given him a great deal of joy.
He was also named Senior Australian of the Year for the Northern Territory in 2003. That acknowledgement was a reflection of how Bernie, even in his later years, was a very active person in the community, continuing to advocate right across the board. I still remember that at any time I could get a phone call with his voice on the other end saying: ‘Nigel, it’s Bernie. Just a couple of ideas.’ He would then go into some aspect of politics or his thoughts of the day. He was always worth listening to. He had an incredible mind and often had a different angle that you would never have thought of. In politics it is very refreshing to see somebody who has such a wonderful insight into Australian life, and I am sure that was a reflection of his great experience.
Those people who knew Bern will know that one of his most famous sayings about opportunity was, ‘If a tram goes past, hop on it and see where it takes you.’ As I have moved around Australia—not just the Northern Territory—I have found that as soon as someone knows I am a senator and I am from the Northern Territory they say, ‘You’d know Bern Kilgariff.’ I would say, ‘Yes, of course I know Bernie,’ and we would have some sort of conversation. Bern’s tram took him right around Australia and right around the world. He had a great many opportunities. He took every single one. I think the hundreds of people who turned out at Bernie’s state funeral in Alice Springs last month were a reflection of that. It was a fantastic funeral. It was a fitting farewell to a man who contributed so much to his community and so much to his country. I would like to extend my condolences to Bernie’s wife, Aileen, and to his family, who lost a wonderful husband, father and grandfather.
Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.
It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of two former members of the House of Representatives: on 20 April 2010, Andrea Gail West, a member for the division of Bowman, Queensland, from 1996 to 1998; and, on 10 April 2010, William Yates, a member for the division of Holt, Victoria, from 1975 to 1980.
by leave—I would like to make some brief remarks. It was a great pleasure of mine to meet the local member for Holt, Bill Yates—as he was known to us all—in 1975, when I first joined the party. It was a memorable year, because it was the last year of the former Whitlam government. Bill was a flamboyant man and a man of incredible intellectual rigour, integrity and common decency who has left a lasting legacy in the Liberal Party and one that his family should be enormously proud of.
It brings a smile to my face to remember the first times that I met him, when we were holding local Holt electorate meetings in my family’s home. He was the only member of the House of Representatives who could claim that he had served both in the House of Commons and here in the Australian parliament. As a Conservative member of the House of Commons he was one of the government’s staunchest critics during the 1956 Suez Canal crisis, which saw the downfall of then British Prime Minister Eden. Holding a marginal seat, he was later defeated at the polls in the general election of 1966 and soon thereafter moved to Australia. Putting his marginal seat campaigning skills to the test, he stood for the seat of Holt in 1975 and secured a nine per cent swing to the Liberal Party and held the seat of Holt for two terms. He was a much appreciated, revered and combatant local member and was known to be a very eloquent advocate not only for the constituency of Holt but also here in Canberra. He was also very well known as the beekeeper of the Australian parliament and was known for the hives he kept in the grounds of Parliament House. He used to frequently share his observations on the merits of bees both for the pure honey produce and for the therapeutic effects, if you like, of the bee stings themselves.
It was later, when I entered this place, that I reconnected with him. He had moved to country Victoria to a place called Tallangatta. He would frequently get in touch with me and share his views on a number of subjects, very excited that one of his earlier branch members had ended up in this place. It was at the ripe old age of 82 that he undertook his doctorate in political science. So he did not take his retirement very seriously at all. In fact, rather than enjoying the simpler things in life, he worked very hard until the end. He had good reason to be very proud of his family. His family have great reason to be very proud of his achievements. The condolences and best wishes of all in the Liberal Party, but particularly those of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party, are sent to all his family.
by leave—As a fellow Queenslander, I want to make some remarks on the sad death only last week of former member for Bowman Andrea West. Andrea West died at a very young age, comparatively speaking. She was born in 1952, so it would have been her 58th birthday later this year. Sadly, she has been taken from us. Andrea West served only one term in the House of Representatives, as the member for Bowman. She was one of the landslide that elected the Howard government in 1996 and she was one of the several members of the coalition parties who lost their seats at the 1998 election. I knew Andrea West reasonably well. She was a well-known and well-liked figure in the Queensland Liberal Party and she had a very long Liberal lineage in Queensland, because she was the daughter of Bill Kaus. Bill Kaus was a member of the state parliament. He was the member for Mansfield throughout the 1960s and into the early 1970s. So Andrea came from very good Liberal bloodlines.
She was a very generous and a gracious person. She was one of those heroic people who, knowing that they were clinging onto a very marginal seat after the 1996 election, nevertheless strongly supported the GST—the proposal that John Howard took to the 1998 election to seek the people’s mandate. Some of those members, particularly for very marginal seats, must have known, as turned out to be the case, that by supporting the GST—a proposal that had never been successfully introduced by an incumbent government without suffering loss at the following election anywhere in the Western world at that stage—she was imperilling her own future. But she, along with several other Liberal-National Party colleagues, was prepared to put the national interest and her beliefs and her principles ahead of her own self-interest. So she supported this what promised to be a very unpopular measure. She did go down to defeat in Bowman in 1998, but she was one of those people who, although they left the other place involuntarily, nevertheless left with their head held high because she had come into parliament to achieve things for Australia and, at the cost of her own political life, she contributed to bringing about that very beneficial set of policies. That is part of her legacy.
After her defeat Andrea West remained a member of the Liberal Party in Queensland. She was active around the branches in the Redlands area, which was where she lived, and in fact just over 10 years ago, on 30 April 2000, Andrea West was one of the candidates who stood for the casual Senate vacancy which was created by the resignation of Senator Warwick Parer. I was fortunate enough to be selected by the Liberal Party on that occasion from a field which I think it is fair to say was a strong field. Andrea West, as a rival for preselection, was the soul of courtesy and grace and decency.
I am sad for her passing. I am particularly sad that she has died at such a young age. Her legacy, although modest by comparison to longer political careers, is nevertheless a distinct and an honourable legacy of which she and her family can be proud. I am sure that the other four Queensland Liberal senators would wish to be associated with my remarks.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ferguson from 11 May to 13 May 2010, on account of parliamentary business overseas on behalf of the President of the Senate.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Boyce from 11 May to 13 May 2010, for personal reasons.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of Senator Lundy, on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I move:
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 12 May 2010, from 11.30 am to 1 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the review of Auditor-General’s reports.
Question agreed to.
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion no. 694 standing in the name of the Leader of the Family First Party (Senator Fielding) for today, proposing the introduction of the Protection of Personal Information Bill 2010, postponed till 12 May 2010.
General business notice of motion no. 738 standing in the name of the Leader of the Family First Party (Senator Fielding) for today, proposing the introduction of the Responsible Takeaway Alcohol Hours Bill 2010, postponed till 12 May 2010.
I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion no. 768 standing in my name for today proposing an order for the production of documents relating to the establishment of new therapeutic groups under the National Health Act 1953.
Leave granted.
I move the motion as amended:
by leave—The government notes its opposition to this motion and also notes that the motion is supported by both the opposition and the Greens and therefore by the majority of the Senate. Therefore, we will not call for a division.
Question agreed to.
I move:
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
The government does not support this motion. The government is working with the New South Wales government to ensure that its reforms lead to forestry action being compliant with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
This is the International Year of Biodiversity. We have on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald and in other newspapers today the news that there has been a massive loss of biodiversity on the planet with over 30 per cent of wildlife gone since 1970 and an increasing loss of species, including the loss of plant species, across the planet at a totally unacceptable but accelerating rate due to human activity. The red gum forests of Australia are an heirloom of this nation, but the most recent reports are that upwards of 70 per cent of the red gums along the Murray-Darling system are dead or dying under huge stress and the process is continuing.
In the Millewa forests we have a damaged but intact ecosystem of red gums in the Murray system. We have an Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—let me repeat that—a biodiversity conservation act which requires that there be a probity which errs on the side of protecting biodiversity. Here is an opportunity for it but the government opposes it. It is working with the New South Wales government. What does that mean? What we need to hear in the Senate is that these red gum forests will be protected and that the vigour of this government will be put into protecting this nation’s heritage against this onslaught of extinction, with Australia one of the worst-performing countries. It is time that the legislation was backed up and action was taken. I am surprised the government will not be supporting this motion.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
Leave is granted for two minutes.
I would like to add to this debate that I have visited the red gum forests. I was down there last weekend and some six months ago. Locking up these forests and leaving them will destroy these forests—make no mistake about it. The forests have been managed for more than 150 years. They are a renewable resource. I urge Senator Brown to go down and have a look at the 900 hectares that was burned some four years ago. Red gum will not stand any fire whatsoever. When it was burned, the millers asked to remove the timber within 12 months before it cracked so that they could use it for some good. They were not allowed to do that. The locals asked to remove the dead timber to use it for firewood and to allow the growth of a new forest. They were not allowed to do that.
We now have 900 hectares of dead trees, and people call this conservation. I call it absolute destruction of our environment. You take the grazing out, you let the fuel levels build up and, once you have more than five tonnes of fuel per hectare, a 40-degree day and a 30-kilometre wind, the fire is uncontrollable. By locking this land up, just as the past Premier of New South Wales, Nathan Rees, did on the very day he was sacked as Premier, you are losing jobs and taking millions of dollars out of the economy. There is a destruction of the economy and now you are going to destroy the whole red gum forest with fire. Make no mistake about it—it will happen as sure as I speak here now if that country is locked up and left. The grasses will grow, the fuel will increase, the lightning will strike and there will be the destruction of the whole environment.
The question is that the motion moved by Senator Bob Brown relating to the Victorian Millewa forest be agreed to.
I move:
removal of united states armed forces from afghanistan
Pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)), Congress directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan—
Question put.
Mr Acting Deputy President McGauran, on a point of order: you described the motion about the Millewa forest as being about the ‘Victorian’ Millewa forest. I want to correct the record. That is not correct, and I do not know where you got that information from. It was a mistake from the chair, and I just want to correct the record.
So corrected.
by leave—I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Bill 2010 be extended to 12 May 2010.
Question agreed to.
The President has received a letter from Senator Abetz proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:
The Rudd government’s litany of broken promises.
I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.
I quote:
Trust is the key currency of politics, and unless you can be trusted to honour that to which you’ve committed to do, then, I’ve got to say, you’re not going to obtain the enduring respect of the Australian people.
Those prophetic words were spoken by no other than the Labor leader himself on 29 February 2008, some two years ago. Put simply, the Australian people no longer trust Labor, because Labor has not honoured the people of Australia by keeping its promises. Indeed, Labor discards its solemn promises as easily as we discard our used tissues: it spares them not another thought.
The list of broken promises, this shameful record, must surely be vying for a place in the Guinness Book of World Records. Who else could recklessly make so many inflated promises—inflated both in number and actual size—and then so dismissively walk away from them other than Labor, led by the promise-making, promise-breaking duo of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard—and, might I add, every single Labor member and senator in this place?
We all recall the galling, high and mighty pontifications of the odd couple of Australian politics telling Australians that the greatest moral challenge of our time was climate change. That was why we needed their big new tax on everything by 2010: because to delay until 2011 or 2012 and go with the rest of the world was simply irresponsible. It was immoral, no less. We then had the indecency of the Prime Minister, during question time, blaming a heatwave on climate change to underscore the importance and urgency of Labor’s emissions trading scheme, only to have it delayed by one year and then out to 2013—after not only this election but the one after that as well. The great moral challenge of our time simply evaporated. Why? Because Labor never meant it. They had focus group testing and a series of phrases clearly tested very well, and they regurgitated them, but without conviction, without sincerity and without belief, but with absolute cynicism, with connivance and with manipulation of the Australian people in mind.
The list of cynical promises and overblown commitments that Labor took to the last election is mind blowing. Remember Fuelwatch? Treasury officials worked 37 hours straight to deliver to a cynical political agenda and delivered a policy debacle. Fresh from the humiliation of that debacle, the government simply turned to GROCERYchoice, with similar cynicism and similar results.
We can turn to Ms Gillard’s trifecta of debacles. Remember the huge promise of a laptop for every student? It was the toolkit of the 21st century, we were told—but it was empty and it was not connected, and the cost blew out. Let us recall the Building the Education Revolution program—just a minor blow-out there of over $1,000 million. The worst example of Ms Gillard’s trifecta was the commitment that no worker would be worse off under their industrial relations changes. Remember that? Tens of thousands of Australian workers today are worse off—some in excess of $120 per week worse off—and all Ms Gillard can say when confronted is that her new Fair Work system is working ‘as expected’. If it is truly working as expected, why didn’t Ms Gillard tell the Australian people before the last election that tens of thousands of Australian workers would be worse off? And, of course, as minister for training, Ms Gillard was responsible for the lack of training in that literally fatal debacle with the pink batts. And Ms Gillard is seen as one of Labor’s leading lights. You can see how bad they all are when somebody with such a ministerial record is seen as one of the leading lights.
But it will be noted that these breaches of promise are in the area of economics, workplace relations, environment, climate change, education, consumer affairs and health as well. Just witness the private health insurance rebate, which Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard so solemnly promised to keep—and discarded just as easily. Look at the non-GP superclinics.
We turn to family policy. Remember the chest beating about the double drop off? How outrageous that was and that the Howard government had done nothing about it! That was why we needed 260 new childcare centres all to be funded, quite responsibly, by Mr Rudd. What did they do? I think they built three and then simply dumped the policy—no apology, no contrition; just greasing their way to the next issue hoping that people would forget that which they have broken.
I could go to border protection. What a great promise that was: that Mr Rudd would turn the boats back in the seas. Indeed, he has welcomed them with open arms and we now see the greatest flood of illegal immigration into this country for many years—I believe, ever.
Then we have the Japanese whaling debacle. Remember that? We were going to take Japan to the International Court of Justice, and how weak was Mr Howard in not doing so! Unfortunately, a lot of Australian people believed that rhetoric. What have they done? Absolutely nothing other than—and here is a hint as to when the election is going to be—they will consider taking Japan to the International Court of Justice in November or thereabouts if nothing has occurred by then. We all know the election will have come and gone by November on the basis of that promise.
What we have with this government is all inflated brash promises based on cynicism, not on the evidence or the national interest. I make this observation: the people of Australia wanted this Labor government to succeed. The people of Australia elected them. But Labor, with a huge well of goodwill to draw upon, have failed the Australian people to the point of blatant betrayal. The Australian people now see the Labor Party for what it really is: a party without character, a party without backbone, a party without belief and a party that has betrayed—remember this phrase?—the working families of Australia. Labor and its leadership team have betrayed the Australian people.
The coalition, on the other hand, under Mr Abbott’s leadership—
What are your policies?
A very timely interjection, Senator Pratt. On the other hand, under Mr Abbott’s leadership the coalition is plain talking. We have genuine direct action plans—no need for programmatic specificity and other nonsensical gobbledygook, no need for spin. We just have plain talk and direct action, which are such a breath of fresh air to the Australian people after three years of a barrage of stifling, meaningless verbiage.
Give us one credible policy!
Senator Bilyk interjecting—
Just in case those Labor senators think that the list I have raised is exhausted, let me take them through the list: the Commonwealth takeover of hospitals by July 2009; GROCERYchoice, Fuelwatch and delaying the ETS, which I have already mentioned; prudent government spending; capping IVF treatment; no budget deficits; simplifying GST paperwork for small business; GP superclinics; delivering health services to military families; providing for the homeless; taking a hard line on terrorism; taking a hard line on immigration; private health insurance; reigning in corporate salaries; the bank deposit guarantee; responding—remember this one?—to the 2020 summit; that no worker would be worse off; building a broadband network for only $4 billion, for which the figure is now $43 billion and, I suspect, will increase; restricting employee share schemes; and living in Kirribilli House. Remember that outrage? Where is he now? Swanning around in Kirribilli House.
This is a government that has breached every single one of its solemn promises to the Australian people, and that is why the Australian people have run out of patience with this government.
I am nearly speechless after that diatribe of completely unfactual rubbish. What a load of rubbish! In response to the matter of public importance today, I would like to make it very clear, particularly for those opposite, who seem to live in some sort of alternative history paradise, that the Australian people understand that the Rudd government has been delivering and will continue to deliver. It is doing that knowing that those sitting opposite could not and did not deliver in 11 years of government—11 years! The blatant hypocrisy of those opposite is astounding, especially with regard to the MPI for today.
When I read what the MPI was for today, I was instantly reminded of John Howard’s promise of the never, ever GST. In fact, one of the things that I think I will best remember—and a lot of other people will too—about the Howard government is the notion of ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ promises, non-core promises being the kind that you do not have to keep.
A classic example of this—and there were many quotes, but I have limited time today—was the doorstop interview of 2 May 1995 with John Howard and a journalist.
Journalist: So you’ve left the door open for a GST now, haven’t you?
Howard: No, there’s no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.
Journalist: Never ever?
Howard: Never ever. It’s dead. It was killed by the voters at the last election.
It makes you wonder, doesn’t it? It also makes you wonder about Mr Abbott’s ‘Work Choices is dead’ comments too. I do not think that has actually been a promise, but it does make us wonder.
Let us not forget John Howard’s promise that he would keep interest rates at all-time lows. History, of course, tells us a very different story there. In fact, so arrogant and out of touch were he and his government that he said Australian families had never had it better. Obviously, Australian families did not agree with him, did they?
Let us put this into perspective. The Rudd government have been governing since November 2007 and already we have delivered on many of our worthwhile election promises, some of which I intend to outline—
Senator Joyce interjecting—
Thank you, Senator Joyce! I intend to outline some of those election promises for those opposite. It comes as no surprise that those opposite want to whinge and moan. They have made a habit out of it; that is all they do. They have no policies. They have some plans, allegedly, but no policies. In fact, all we get from those on the other side is nagging, grizzling, moaning—they are like spoilt little children. We just turn off to it after a while. Where are their policies on improving the health and education systems? Where are their funding commitments to local communities? I will tell you where they are. They are not there; they are nonexistent. The complete audacity of those opposite is evidenced best by looking right here in the Senate, a Senate which is currently being obstructed by those opposite. They have nothing constructive to add. They are just opposition for opposition’s sake.
Being a passionate advocate for Tasmania, it does give me great pleasure to inform the Senate of some of the many funding promises that have been and will continue to be honoured by the Rudd government. Let me start with Franklin. Delivering on the Rudd government election promises in the electorate of Franklin has been the very energetic and hardworking federal member for Franklin, Julie Collins. Ms Collins has worked hard to deliver on every election commitment to the local residents of Franklin since being elected in 2007, all of which of course will be of ongoing benefit to the people across the electorate.
The Franklin electorate commitments included $15 million to fund construction of the Kingston bypass—tick; $12 million to fund the Huon Valley regional water scheme—tick; $10.5 million to fund stage 1 of the south-east Tasmania recycled water scheme—another tick; $5.5 million to fund the Clarence GP super clinic, about which I thought I heard the previous speaker say there was none—tick; $166,000 for the Green Tea program—yet another tick; $155,949 for the redevelopment of the Dennes Point community centre—tick; $35,000 for the Cygnet gymnasium—tick; $10,000 for the Kingborough Lions soccer club—tick; $10,000 for the Rokeby Cricket Club to install nets—tick; and $10,000 for the Port Huon Sports Centre—tick. Those are just an example of some of the promises that have been met in Tasmania. The Rudd government is delivering on its promise to the Australian people—
Honourable senators interjecting—
This is a sustained exercise in irony, Senator Joyce!
The exercise of the MPI from your side is just an exercise in complete futility. The people of Australia know that the Rudd government does keep its promises, is continuing to keep its promises and will continue to keep its promises. We will give the kids an opportunity to obtain skills and education.
Senator Joyce interjecting—
Do you think that is not a worthy cause, do you?
Opposition senators interjecting—
That is what amazing about you guys: you sit there and you laugh about things you know that we have done. We have kept those promises— (Time expired)
I do not know how many of the interjections Hansard would have caught. I just want to put on the record profound relief that the chamber just showed that you got the Green Tea program in Tassie right. I want to speak briefly about one of the things that the Rudd government has got very wrong—and I like green tea.
You don’t?
No, I do. I am a big fan. It is just a relief to know that something has been going right.
On the matter of radioactive waste, the Rudd government has been nothing short of a disaster. The government has not delivered in the spirit of or to the letter of very simple commitments that it made in the run-up to the 2007 election. So, in the context of this debate on the Rudd government’s broken promises, I want to return briefly to the heady days of the 2007 election campaign, with Kevin Rudd in opposition castigating the Howard government’s approach to radioactive waste management, which had been, I should say, appalling. But the Rudd opposition at the time—quite senior ALP spokespeople and to a person all of their Northern Territory representatives and candidates in both Houses—made very strong commitments in the area of radioactive waste.
Let us reflect briefly on what the promise was and what the 2007 election platform said. Chapter 5 stated:
Labor is committed to a responsible, mature and international best practice approach to radioactive waste management in Australia.
Accordingly, a Federal Labor Government will:
this is pretty simple language. If elected, a Rudd government was also to:
I was working as one of the advisers to Senator Rachael Siewert when this legislation was first rammed through the Senate towards the end of 2005, in the same sitting fortnight as the former government’s Work Choices legislation, Welfare to Work legislation, the legislation abolishing compulsory student unionism and, of course, the infamous terror laws, which are all still on the books. They found time to ram through radioactive waste dump legislation as well. Again, the ALP condemned that. They called the legislation—accurately, in my view—extreme, arrogant, heavy-handed, draconian, sorry, sordid, extraordinary and profoundly shameful. Some of these words were put to us by Senator Trish Crossin, Senator Carr and Warren Snowdon, MP. Of course, they were spot on. They took a very clear and unequivocal position on this issue into the closing months of the 2007 election campaign. So that was the promise, and exactly when has it been broken? Indeed, is there a case to say that it has been?
The first thing that happened subsequent to the Rudd government taking office after the 2007 election was that radioactive waste management issues were mysteriously taken out of the science portfolio, where they had been right through the period of the Howard government and well before, and given to Martin Ferguson in the resources and industry portfolio. That is a bizarre decision to make, quite honestly: to transfer radioactive waste management from the science portfolio to the resources portfolio; to give it to somebody with absolutely no expertise, no subtlety and no idea, really, about any of the commitments that had been made by the Rudd government and by its representatives in the Northern Territory and around Australia in the run-up to the election. So it was given to this minister with no background, no expertise and no willingness to follow through with the ALP’s election commitment, and we waited for several months for the government to fulfil that promise. It was pretty simple, really: repeal the legislation and replace it with something scientifically defensible that actually brings the community along, rather than simply ramming something through, as the former government had attempted. We started to get pretty edgy. This was at the time when I took my place in here, and I started testing the ALP on whether they actually would come through with this election commitment. On a couple of occasions we brought motions through here and watched the government vote against the exact same language that was in their policy document in the lead-up to the 2007 election. We were not asking them to do anything, simply to note the language in those policy commitments, but the ALP lined up against the Greens and voted against it. That was interesting.
In 2008, the government-dominated Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee conducted an inquiry into my private senator’s bill to fulfil the ALP’s election commitment for them: a repeal of the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act. That committee did some very good work. It was very collegial. We travelled to Alice Springs, and we had hearings here in Canberra. We heard from the agencies with the lead portfolio responsibility for radioactive waste management, from the industry and from environment groups around the country with a very large membership with a strong interest in these issues. In Alice Springs we heard from some senior traditional owners from around the Territory, because at that time four sites were still under consideration and they were very strongly opposed to the approach of the former government and wanted to know why on earth the ALP had not followed through with their commitment. Senator McEwen, who is with us this afternoon, chaired that committee. We in the Australian Greens had quite a degree of affinity, and we signed on to the majority report. We had some additional comments but the recommendations flowing from that report were quite satisfactory to us in large part in that they said that the government should do what they said they would do when in opposition. The committee came out with a set of recommendations that were not perfect, as far as we were concerned, but that we could live with. We shared common ground at that time on the objective of establishing a consensual process of site selection, which looks to agreed scientific grounds for determining suitability and the centrality of community consultation and support.
So what exactly happened after that? Nothing at all. The first thing that the government did was to ignore the committee’s recommendation that the repeal bill be brought in to this place at the beginning of the first quarter of last year. That did not happen. It took a full year for the minister to get around to serving up what we have before us now. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee was given, in the government’s view, 11 working days to inquire into to the government’s repeal bill, which in fact is nothing more than a rather shabby and amateurish cut and paste of what the former government had been proceeding with. At least with the former government you knew where you stood. What we have now with the Rudd government is exactly the same approach with an added dash of hypocrisy, because when they were in opposition they had been castigating senators and MPs on this side of the chamber for doing what they are now quite clearly doing in attempting to ram it through this place. That is indeed a broken election commitment.
Who cares? Who was the Labor Party making this election commitment to in the run-up to the 2007 election? Chiefly, of course, the people on the front line, the people targeted to host, against their will and without their consent, a facility hosting Australia’s most dangerous industrial waste materials—radiotoxic waste, the low-level material that ticks for a period of approximately 300 years, the long-lived intermediate level waste, the old reactor cores and the spent fuel that has been reprocessed overseas and returned to Australia, which is deadly for tens of thousands of years, for periods that will last several ice ages from now. The government are attempting to force this facility on to a cattle station 100 kilometres from Tennant Creek in a direct violation of the commitments that they made in the run-up to that election. For the people who are on the front line, and who are facing this juggernaut now in the name of Martin Ferguson, sitting in an office in Canberra planning this assault on their sovereignty and on their rights to stand up for country and culture, that election promise has been violated. For ALP voters, who during the federal election campaign put their trust in the representatives that the ALP would send to Canberra, the promise has been broken. For anybody who preferenced the ALP, including a large number of Green voters who helped carry the Rudd government into office, the promise has been broken. For environment groups, with tens of thousands of members around Australia who have taken a long interest in this and who have played an enormously important role in galvanising community support around the country for communities on the front line, the promise has been broken and for every Northern Territory citizen who thought the ALP would be able to serve up something better than what we have seen now that promise has been broken.
So now what we see is a 2007 election promise becoming a 2010 election liability. I see it as a very important part of my job in the remaining months, whether or not the Rudd government succeeds in blasting this flawed and disgusting piece of legislation through this place, to make sure that right around the country this is not seen as a Northern Territory issue. When the Senate committee sat in Darwin we had rallies as far away as Hobart, Perth and Melbourne, a very long way from where that Senate committee was hearing evidence from the traditional owners on the front line, from the Northern Territory Chief Minister and from people right on down the line. This is not an issue that is going to go away. This is an election commitment that will haunt the government in this election campaign.
It is a little more than three years since the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kevin Rudd, planted himself in front of some rural fencing against the beautiful background of the Nambour countryside. Looking straight down the barrel of a camera, he read from a script prepared for him by an advertising agent, and he said: ‘When it comes to being an economic conservative, it is a badge I wear with pride.’ Several months later, when he delivered the Labor Party’s policy speech for the 2007 election, the line that resonated in that speech—the one line everybody will remember, though we remember it these days for a very different reason than we did then—contained the words ‘this reckless spending must stop’.
Mr Kevin Rudd and his team were elected by the Australian people on 24 November 2007 to be the government of Australia because the Australian people trusted them. They did not know very much about Kevin Rudd at the time, but they knew that he was a fresh face. They knew that he was a glib, articulate and, evidently, intelligent public spokesman for the Labor Party. They put their trust in him. They trusted that he was as good as his word. After he was elected, he maintained that he was a politician who could be trusted. When he spoke at the Australian War Memorial in March 2008, only five months after he was elected, Mr Kevin Rudd said:
We’re going to adhere to the integrity of the budget process but all working families ... will be protected by our Government in the production of that budget and we will honour all of our pre election commitments.
Just another lie.
Yes, just another lie. He went on:
Every one of them, every one of them.
They were Mr Rudd’s very words in the first blush of electoral success, five months after he was voted into office. A few months later, he addressed the National Press Club and, reflecting on the government’s first year, he said:
When we formed government, I said I had no intention of recycling the absolute cynicism of previous governments—making a swag of pre-election commitments then reneging on them ...
That is what he said then. As late as year, Mr Rudd seemed to continue to command the confidence of the Australian people, if the opinion polls are any guide. But you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, as every senator in this chamber knows, that there has been a significant change of sentiment across this nation over the Easter recess. What those of us who know Kevin Rudd well knew would happen—particularly those of us who have known him from the Queensland days, the bad old days even before he was a member of parliament—has happened: the people have found him out.
You all sat there mute.
Quite right, Senator McGauran. The Labor Party, who must have known what he was like, sat mute and defended the indefensible. Let it not be forgotten that these are the people who wanted to make Mark Latham Prime Minister in 2004 and told us how good he was, until he was found out by the Australian people. They knew what Kevin Rudd was like too, but this time the con trick worked. This time, the Leader of the Labor Party was not found out before the election in the way that Mr Mark Latham had been.
What we have had over the Easter recess is what I call the ‘Mark Latham moment’—the moment when the penny dropped with the Australian people that Kevin Rudd was not what he represented himself to be, that Kevin Rudd was as cynical a politician as god ever put breath into. That moment came, in particular, when Mr Rudd humiliatingly and comprehensively abandoned, for electoral reasons, what he had only four months earlier described as ‘the greatest moral, social and economic challenge of our time’—the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Senator Bushby interjecting—
Of course, Senator Bushby, if he was a man of courage, he would call a double dissolution on the issue. But it is not likely now. What the Australian people have discovered about Kevin Rudd is that for him promises have no meaning. Do not worry about core promises and non-core promises. There are no such things as core promises in the Rudd government; there are merely expendable words—words that get you from one news cycle to the next but contain no integrity, no commitment and no purpose.
This government must be such a disappointment to its supporters, to those who serve as its ministers and those who serve as its apologists on the backbench. You must have known about this man—this man you elected as leader in extremis when you had run out of other options four years ago. The Australian people have now woken up to the fact that he cannot be trusted, that nothing he says can be believed, that he stands for nothing, that he has no core values, that he has no guiding philosophy, that he has no policy courage, that he is a hollow man and a hollow political leader.
This is the first Australian Prime Minister in the lifetime of anybody in this chamber today—and I am sorry to say this about a Prime Minister of this great country—about whom one must say has a character problem. You would not have said that about John Howard, loathe him or love, nor would you have said it about Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser or Gough Whitlam, or any Australian Prime Minister I can remember. Regardless of what you thought of his policies, regardless of what you thought of his style of government, every Australian Prime Minister on both sides of politics I can remember in my lifetime was a person of character, a person steadfast in their beliefs, whatever those beliefs may have been. This man has no steadfastness in his beliefs because he has no beliefs. He has no core values and his commitment to any sense of values is nominal, transitory and temporary. He is a politician who lives from news cycle to news cycle. The hollow man, caricatured on ABC television, now leads a government tainted forever in the public mind and to be forever condemned in Australian history as the government led by the man who stood for nothing.
We are a government that has faced up to enormous challenges, including a financial crisis that threatened the livelihoods of Australians right across the nation. I am proud of the way that we have faced up to these challenges. It has been done with courage, conviction and purpose. We make no apology for coming into government with a big agenda, with big aspirations for this nation and with a determination to address more than a decade of neglect of Australia’s interests under the Howard government. It was a decade where unfairness was entrenched and where the proceeds of the last resources boom were squandered while productivity stalled. It was a decade where the big issues in health and education were ignored. Under Mr Abbott’s watch $1 billion was ripped out of public hospitals and nothing was done about a chronic shortage of nurses and GPs. It was a decade where working Australians suffered the insecurity of Work Choices—a policy that Mr Abbott rules out in name but will not rule out in practice. It was a decade where the stolen generation was denied an apology and where asylum seekers were used as a football for political gain.
But I am not going to waste further time talking about the Howard years because we all know that the forthcoming election is at the core of this debate today. This debate is about what Australians want from their future government. That is why today I stand proud. Like my colleagues, I stand behind our achievements and our commitment to reform in the national interest. I know that we are well placed to deliver on our commitments. We can look forward to a bright future because we have avoided a global recession through the strong and decisive action that stimulated the economy and saved a quarter of a million jobs by investing in local communities and essential infrastructure. We are delivering on better health and hospitals, ending the blame game with the states and putting together a $15.6 billion plan, including commitments for thousands more doctors and nurses and caps on waiting times.
We are providing a fairer distribution of the nation’s wealth in ways that also support economic growth. For example, we have delivered a massive increase in the childcare rebate. It was a great Labor initiative that was good for families and good for the economy. We have also delivered a long overdue increase to the pension—reforms to make the pension more sustainable. We also have a plan to ensure that the surplus profits generated by this mining boom are shared, not squandered. We have a plan that will benefit all Australians through lower company taxes, especially for small businesses—
Senator Brandis interjecting—
Senator Brandis, I ask you to come to order. You were mostly heard in silence and I ask you to give the same courtesy to Senator Pratt.
He is just a bully.
Senator Collins, I think I can do without anyone else’s help. The Senate chamber will come to order.
We have a plan for better super, especially for low-income earners, and for more infrastructure, especially for the mining states like my own. These are responsible reforms for a stronger economy and a fairer Australia. We are delivering on our education revolution through the My School website, the national curriculum and new facilities for all schools around the nation.
Our commitment to justice and social inclusion has seen the removal of children from detention centres and an end to inhumane temporary protection visas, a plan that is tackling homelessness around the nation, equality for same-sex couples and their children in 85 laws, an apology to the stolen generation and a commitment to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We have had to fight tooth and nail for many of our reforms and the numbers in this chamber also mean that we have not won them all. Climate change remains the greatest environmental challenge of our time and one that can be fully addressed only when those opposite show the vision required to do so.
You talk about broken promises, but what you deliver are broken policies that have not worked—like your blame the states health policy under your leader, Mr Abbott, which ran down our health system and like your plan to put a massive new tax on business to make higher parental leave payments to those who already earn the most. It was a policy that broke Mr Abbott’s no new taxes policy just five weeks after he announced it.
Then there are your policies that are policies in name only, like your leader’s statement that Work Choices is dead, and the policies that you renege on under Mr Abbott’s leadership, like your commitment to put a price on carbon. So, as you sit there in your obstructionist, broken policy zone, think about this: the Rudd Labor government will be getting on with creating jobs and managing the economy, reforming our health and education systems, and making Australia a better and fairer place for all Australians.
Welcome, Australia, to Labor’s philosophical brothel of ideas where any virtue is for sale—purchased for popularity but never loved beyond the dirty, grimy bed where these ideals have been laid down to be abused and deflowered by the Labor Party and by their cohort of senior ministers. It is the philosophical brothel of ideas. It has no substance, it is so tacky, it is so horrible; and everybody—even the Greens—feels they have been used. That is the resentment that is welling up because people—even we on this side—believed that Kevin was serious about what he said. But we were duped.
Now we have this incredible many and varied personality. It has always amazed me. This personality started with ‘2020 Kevin’—that earnest man sitting on the carpet, cross-legged with his clipboard and taking down notes. He was taking notes, he was listening to Australia, he had a thousand people around for tea and he was going to make them all feel satisfied. What did we get out of that? What a revelation: we got the republic. I thought we had already heard that idea. Anyway, that is what we got from that. Then we had ‘Combat Kevin’. This man wants war. He had a war on obesity. He had a war on drugs. He had a war on inflation. He is a very violent man. He had a war on unemployment. He had a war on executive salaries. He was going to help the disadvantaged but he was going to have a war on homelessness. When he was not at war he was starting revolutions. He had a Building the Education Revolution. It was revolution and wars. It was him in his DPCUs with his Steyr under his arm. He was out there having wars.
Then we had ‘Earnest Kevin’, who was saying ‘sorry’ but not actually doing anything about Indigenous disadvantage. He was having review after review; he was having reviews on reviews. He was a man who lived in reviews, who lived as a dilettante wandering across the nation picking up daisies and thinking about the world. It was ‘Earnest Kevin’—
Senator Joyce, you are really skating very close.
He had jets and he believed in visiting people—wherever they lived. This is earnestness.
Then we had ‘Copenhagen Kevin’. He was going to cool the planet from a room in Canberra. He told us so. He was going to do it by himself. He did not need anybody else; he was flying solo on this one. He was really going to show us how big his muscles were! The unfortunate thing was that he was not only going to cool the planet; he was also going to try to cool everybody’s house. He was going to spend $2.45 billion cooling everybody’s house. But, far from cooling people’s houses, he actually ended up burning down in excess of 110 of them. Tragically, there were deaths associated with this. So much for ‘Copenhagen Kevin’.
Then we had ‘Casualty Kevin’. He was dressed up in a blue smock. He had a little plastic blue hat, a plastic blue jacket, and he had his little plastic pants and his plastic booties on. And it came with an association: he had Nicola in blue as well.
Senator Joyce, I have really cut you a lot of slack, in one sense, but I think you need to bring yourself back to addressing people by their correct names and titles.
The Prime Minister was dressed up in blue. He was very blue; and I know that. And he looked at the camera, and he winked at the camera, and he took his little blue smock and he disappeared. I was wondering what he was going to do. Maybe he was going to operate on somebody. I did not know. But I earnestly believed that today he was in blue and he was going to do something. It was all part of the rhetoric. The last one we have is ‘Castro Kevin’. This is the one who nationalises the mining industry.
Again, Senator Joyce, I have pulled you up.
‘Castro Prime Minister’—this one believes in nationalising the mining industry. This manifestation—in the ritual of new images being displayed for the Australian people—is peculiar in the extreme. Where was this promise at the last election? Australia has not heard something like this since 1949, when they were going to nationalise the banks. Don’t worry; it almost brought about a civil war, but let’s just put that behind us. Let’s forget about the new guard and all the things that occur when you nationalise industries. People are asking very serious questions about where we are now. What on earth has happened to this nation? It has devolved into something that is quite peculiar. You are getting all these manifestations, and it is costing you only $1¼ billion a week. What a bargain! What an absolute bargain! It must be a bargain to live at the philosophical brothel of ideas for only $1¼ billion a week—
Is that million or billion?
It is billion. It is ‘b’ for ‘bravo’ and it is ‘b’ for ‘billion’—and that is what it is costing Australia to live at this place. This is incredible. How did we get ourselves into this bind? How could Australia honestly stay with this person for another three years? How could we possibly even venture down the path of living at this philosophical brothel for another three years? Look at the absolute hypocrite that Mr Rudd has made of Minister Wong. I honestly believe that what Minister Wong said was what she believed. But now, in his absolutely mercenary way, he has not only let down the Australian people; he is also destroying his colleagues, one after the other. He does not care who he shoots. He does not care what he does. It is beyond his capacity to have empathy and to actually understand what is happening.
Look at all the people who are going to be cast aside and who are going to be made to look like hypocrites. Whether you are Peter Garrett or Penny Wong—next it will be Combet—you would do well to stay away from the Prime Minister. But there is one thing I do not want you to do: don’t you dare change him, because we want him there. Don’t you dare change to Julia Gillard; you leave Mr Rudd right there, because he is turning into our biggest asset. We will watch tonight with wonderment as they put forward Wayne Swan to try to shade out Mr Rudd. Now we know that this is how far it has descended: Wayne Swan is going to save Kevin Rudd. That is where it has got to and that is what we will see tonight on television. It has really become total and utter pathos.
Unfortunately, this debate has declined significantly. Some elements of humour do not cover the types of references that have been covered by opposition senators. Rather than argue their point—and I will come to what I think has been the main point in this debate—we get the sort of rhetoric that came from Senator Joyce about ‘brothels of ideas’ and ‘deflowerings’ and ‘being used’. We get all sorts of opinion as to the character of the Prime Minister from people who know very little about the man—in fact, from the same people who said very different things about John Howard when he was in government. I seem to recall reports about Senator Brandis’s references to John Howard as ‘the rat’, and yet he has the arrogance to come in here and say that our Prime Minister has no character and to claim that the very same Mr Howard is a man whom he holds in great regard.
In my short time today, I want to concentrate on what I think has been the main point—which Senator Brandis alluded to—and that is: this is about honouring promises. This is not about keeping promises regardless of changed circumstances; this is about having a plan, having an agenda and honouring the promises you have made. The best example I can give, just by virtue of my personal experience in this area and in the past, is what I would characterise as the national agenda for children. We refer to it as a national agenda for early childhood in Australia, but I recall when the minister of the day back in the early 2000s said that the Howard government would eventually introduce a national agenda for children. He claimed this for roughly five years. And we waited, and we waited, and we waited, and nothing happened.
Perhaps one of the most audacious claims of this opposition, when they mark their little tick boxes for what promises have been kept and what promises have not been kept, is when they talk about the 260 childcare centres that were part of our broader strategy of a national agenda for early childhood, because those centres were designed to rectify what the previous government had done to the market in child care. The promises that it made at that time were never kept. The promises of Barnaby Joyce’s former colleague Larry Anthony were never kept. The ministerial standards and the character that were meant to be part of the Howard government never occurred. That man left this parliament and went on to be a director of ABC child care and took fees from them during this process. I was only reminded a couple of weeks ago when he appeared in the Federal Court. We have seen the details of his consultant’s fees, his director’s fees and his lobbying on behalf of ABC child care, yet this opposition has the audacity to say that, because there are now changed circumstances in the market for long day care places, we have adjusted our policies in that area. We have, for some very good reasons which the government is able to justify and which are supported by the sector. Not only did we need to spend $58-odd million to rectify the problems around ABC child care—
Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—
Opposition senators raise their arms at the reference to $58 million. Is it nothing, Senator? What the former government did in this sector was one of the most outrageous elements of the previous government. Today we have a much broader agenda that is being delivered and being implemented. We have promises such as: access to early childhood education for four-year-olds, which is being delivered, and national quality standards, which are being delivered. And, yes, we do have promises around accessibility to child care, which are being delivered.
In your usual trite way, you address the commitment in relation to childcare centres, but it is what you do not say that is critical. You do not say that the number of childcare centres has grown by 1,000 over the relevant period. So our earlier promises are less relevant today than they were when they were made. They were made at a time when the previous government was deliberately denying us market data so that this sector could not be planned competently. So we come into government, we deal with the collapse of ABC child care—which had been allowed to grow into an enormous monopoly of delivery—and we stabilise the sector. Then, after we have had access to the relevant information, we are able to assess what the real growth in the sector has been and we see that accessibility has been improved by changes in the market and that an extra thousand childcare centres have been delivered within the market. And only a fool would proceed with a policy once they understood what change had occurred.
Those opposite talk about integrity, quality and character, but I look back on just this one issue you claim is a broken promise and I remember what Prime Minister Howard allowed his minister to do in this sector. Let us look at some of that whilst I am on that point. Let us look at the fundraisers and the lobbying that was allowed to occur in ABC child care. That is the nature of the character of the former government—which you do not find in this government. You cannot find the casualties that occurred under the Howard government amongst our ministers. (Time expired)
I am delighted to speak on this subject this afternoon. One interesting thing I would say at the outset about this MPI is that it does seem to have been the inaugural outing of the Liberal Party’s new Senate leadership team. We have seen Senator Abetz and Senator Brandis put themselves through their paces in attempting, to use that worn old phrase, to develop a narrative for the Liberal Party.
I guess when one considers the subject of broken promises, one has to concede at the very outset that those opposite are very well credentialled indeed when it comes to broken promises. Let us look for a moment at Howard’s and, indeed, Abbott’s record with respect to broken promises, because for 11 years those opposite governed this country on the back of one broken promise following another. ‘There will never, ever be a GST’ was the pronouncement before the 2006 election, and of course we all know what became of that promise. ‘No worker will be worse off’ was the solid undertaking from those opposite when introducing Work Choices. That commitment is now a matter of record, a continuing stain on the honour of the coalition. John Howard declared in 2001:
… I re-state the assurances I have previously made …
Yet only a short time later, in June 2002, the Howard government cut the pensions of some 200,000 disability support pensioners.
In 2004 John Howard swore that he would keep interest rates at record lows. Mr Howard told an interviewer at the time: ‘There won’t be any pressure on interest rates from us.’ This, of course, was followed by five interest rate rises, which again stands as a lasting testament to the fact that those opposite cannot manage a boom and do not have the stomach to manage anything else.
We should not simply confine these broken promises to the former Prime Minister. Tony Abbott himself has star qualities in this debate. In October 2004 Tony Abbott himself gave ‘an absolutely rock solid, ironclad commitment’—those were his words—that the Medicare safety net threshold would not be raised. After the election the threshold was indeed raised. In an interview with Laurie Oaks, when questioned about this spectacular backflip, this spectacular piece of callisthenics, Tony Abbott admitted that the government had indeed been aware of significant budget blowouts in this particular item before the election. Laurie Oakes remarked:
But your word’s not worth much any more, is it? A Tony Abbott commitment now will rouse horse laughs.
That was 2005, but the horse laughs continue, because those opposite today have the stomach, have the gall, have the cheek, to come into this place and try and accuse the Rudd Labor government of being behind ‘a litany of broken promises’. Let us take a moment to look at the profound deceit that sits behind and underpins that proposition. Since the Rudd Labor government came to office those opposite have worked assiduously as saboteurs in this place to block the government’s program. They have left no stone unturned in their resolve to obstruct and stymie the democratic mandate, a mandate secured by Kevin Rudd and Labor in 2007.
I have procured a list of all of the various pieces of legislation that those opposite have successfully blocked in this place and I seek to mention only some of the highlights for the edification of those opposite: the luxury car tax imposition, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill, the business investment partnership bill, the climate change bill version 1, the Household Stimulus Package Bill 2009, the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy Surcharge Thresholds) Bill 2008, and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill. It is a short taste of a much longer list which stands as testament to the fact that you have left absolutely no stone unturned in your commitment to blocking the program of this government. For you this might indeed be a list of pride, because you have successfully sabotaged and dismantled, at every available opportunity, the program of this government. Having succeeded in that heinous task all too often, you now have the cheek to come into this place and try and complain about the fact that some of this government’s commitments have not been achieved—the fruit of your own obstructionism. It is an absolute outrage.
Of course, the greatest of those outrages, at least to my mind, is in relation to climate change. While those opposite seek to crow about the fact that climate change legislation has been successfully defeated in this parliament, they do not seem to take the bow for succeeding in achieving that. That bill was brought to this parliament and it was successfully blocked by the coalition and the Greens. Undeterred, the government continued with its resolve to create action on climate change. Penny Wong and Greg Combet, undeterred, entered into negotiations with the Liberal Party. As we know, when it comes to breaking promises those opposite have absolutely superb credentials. So it is no surprise to us that, having reached an agreement with the opposition about the passage of that climate change legislation, the catherine-wheel of the Liberal Party’s climate change policy finally came to rest over the corpse of Malcolm Turnbull. Having finally reached a resolve to be climate change deniers—after 10 or 11 permutations—you blocked that legislation for a second time.
Let us consider the enormity of that deed, because not only were you reneging on an agreement you reached with the government, not only did you tear down your own leader to achieve it, but you did it in the face of your own commitments to the Australian people and in the face of your own policy. (Time expired)
Order! The time for the debate has expired.
Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present the following documents which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.
The list read as follows—
Ordered that the committee reports be printed.
In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate, the government response will be incorporated in Hansard.
The documents read as follows—
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2006-2007
Government response to recommendation 3
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Government exempts the Remote Locality Leave Travel entitlement from fringe benefits reporting.
The Government does not agree with this proposal.
The fringe benefits tax (FBT) system plays an important role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of Australia’s taxation system. It places employees with access to fringe benefits on a more even footing with employees whose remuneration consists entirely of salary or wages.
The introduction of FBT was designed to remove a serious gap in the income tax law and ensure that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax. The FBT system also facilitates the inclusion of fringe benefits in an employee’s income for the purposes of means testing benefits such as family tax benefit. This ensures that families with remuneration consisting entirely of salary are treated equally, when compared to those in receipt of fringe benefits.
FBT applies to virtually all employers, including Government, and is designed to be as inclusive as possible in the coverage of benefits received by employees in respect of employment are taxed, whether received in cash or otherwise.
Providing a FBT reporting exemption for the remote locality leave travel entitlement to members of the ADF would be inequitable to other employees working in remote locations who receive similar benefits (for example, employees working in the mining industry) and have them recorded on their payment summary. This exclusion would also have a broad range of implication across the transfer system.
Many of the existing FBT exemptions are work-related, that is, there is a general underlying principle that concessions or exemptions are provided on the basis that if these expenses were borne by the employee, it would be deductible to them. The Remote Locality Leave Travel Entitlement would not be deductible under the income tax law as there would not be the relevant nexus between the expense incurred and their employment. The expense, had the employee borne it themselves, would be considered private in nature.
The Australia’s Future Tax System Review, established by the Rudd Government in 2008 to review our tax and transfer system, delivered its final report to the Government at the end of 2009. Within the scope of the review was the taxation treatment of fringe benefits. The Government is currently considering the review’s recommendations and will release the report, and its initial response in early 2010.
Government Response to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping operations.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that, before the Australian Government commits personnel to a peacekeeping operation, it is satisfied that the mandate has:
Furthermore, where Australia is taking a key or lead role in the proposed mission, the committee recommends that the Government of Australia ensure the terms of the mandate strictly meet these fundamental requirements. This would be done in consultation with the host country, the UN and potential partners.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government is committed to promoting well informed, clear mandates, as well as achievable goals and a commitment to adequate funding as a fundamental enabler of mission success. This is demonstrated by our engagement with the United Nations (UN) Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) on the development of peacekeeping doctrine.
The Government notes that in some circumstances it may be necessary to allow Australia to commit personnel prior to the full articulation of these mission aspects where our strong national interests are engaged. Flexibility is also required to enable ongoing review of a mission’s mandate and goals in response to developments over time, as has occurred with the UN and African Union’s efforts in Sudan.
Where Australia is considering or has taken a leading role in a mission, the ability to sustain an appropriate level of materiel, human resourcing and financial support over the life of the mission is a priority consideration for Government. This is evidenced through Australia’s ongoing support to missions including in Solomon Islands and East Timor.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support actively the R2P doctrine and, through its representations in the UN, ensure that international deliberations are informed by the doctrine.
The committee also recommends that in the committee’s proposed white paper on peacekeeping (Recommendation 37). the Australian Government include a discussion on, and an explanation of, Australia’s current position on this evolving doctrine.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government is committed to advancing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, and Australia is an active supporter of R2P within the UN and its own region. The Government is providing an overall package of $4.58 million to advance a number of R2P initiatives including a $1.86 million joint initiative with the Asia Pacific Centre for R2P at the University of Queensland; a $2 million Australian R2P Fund that will disburse grants to support R2P outreach and research projects in the Asia Pacific region; and $300,000 to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and S417, 000 to the Non Government
Organisation (NGO) Coalition for R2P, both of which are based in New York. This package of Australian support will materially contribute to the advancement of R2P at the local, regional and global levels and across a range of political and civil society settings.
Government does not agree there would be benefit in a white paper on peacekeeping as noted in response to recommendation 37. See further response to recommendation 37.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that before the Australian Government decides to contribute to a non-UN mandated peacekeeping operation, it is satisfied that the mission has a proper legal framework with recognised authority to deploy the operation and is consistent with Australian law. In this regard the committee recommends that:
Furthermore, that the operation’s mandate:
Finally, through both formal and informal channels, the government endeavours to obtain UN endorsement of the operation even though the operation may have commenced.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government will continue to ensure that, before contributing to non-UN mandated peacekeeping operations, the operations’ mandate is in accord with the UN Charter (including any relevant Security Council resolutions), applicable human rights standards and Australian law. The Government must satisfy itself that the conditions under which forces are to operate are documented in appropriate instruments. While in some circumstances a treaty- level instrument may be required, in other circumstances lower level instruments may be sufficient. Consistent with long-established Government policy, such lower level instruments are not tabled in Parliament.
The Government would only contribute to a non-UN mandated peacekeeping operation if satisfied that the host country, through its legally recognised authorities, requested the establishment of a peacekeeping operation and willingly consented to the deployment of forces.
The Government notes that in certain circumstances where a host country seeks a peace-keeping operation due to a humanitarian emergency (e.g., East Timor in 2006 and 2008 and Tonga in 2006), an instrument of less-than treaty status may be the only mechanism allowing relevant countries to consent to that operation in a timely manner. Such an instrument would be confidential to the participants and therefore the Government would not be in a position to table the instrument in Parliament for examination by a parliamentary committee. The Government considers it necessary only to table in Parliament those instruments that create binding international legal obligations on Australia.
Government further notes that Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations does not require Member States participating in a regional peacekeeping operation to provide a copy of the relevant instrument to the Security Council. If requested by the UNSC, the Government would use its best endeavours to seek the agreement of the other participants before providing copies of the relevant instrument to the Security Council. Likewise, if the UN requests the Government provide further information or report periodically on the progress of Australian contributions to a regional peace-keeping operation, the Australian Government would seek to cooperate fully with the UN.
Recommendation 4
In light of the concerns raised about the conditions under which some members of ATST -EM were deployed, the committee recommends that the ADF conduct a review of this deployment to identify any shortcomings and ensure that lessons from ATST-EM’s experiences inform the deployment of similar small contingents. This case study would, for example, examine matters such as their preparation to serve as unarmed peacekeepers, the chain of command
arrangements and the provision of health services.
Response
Agreed. The Government is already in compliance with this recommendation. Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) staff is reviewing the Australian Training Support Team East Timor (ATST-EM) deployment to ensure that relevant lessons have been captured and incorporated into planning processes where appropriate.
Beyond the specific case of the ATST-EM, the ADF has an ongoing ‘lessons learned’ process which integrates lessons through small evaluation teams focussed on designated objectives. These teams capture data and information, during the actual conduct of each operation as well as reporting from commanders, senior staff and participants. The information is recorded in the ADF Activities Analysis Database System.
In addition to the ‘lessons learned’ process, HQJOC has implemented an Operational Capability Review (OCR) process to review the tasks and composition of all deployed elements. The OCR process will enable information and issues from theatre to be captured and conveyed to HQJOC directly, allowing timely action such as force design and training adjustments for follow-on rotations, and the application of lessons to other relevant situations. The OCR process is being rolled out progressively with priority to larger and more complex contingents, but will in time be applied to every ongoing ADF deployment.
With regard to medical support for our deployed personnel in East Timor, Defence establishes and maintains medical facilities to support ADF personnel in Australian-commanded missions. Health facilities supporting ADF personnel in East Timor have matured since the first Australian deployment in 1999. For Timor, UN health facilities are currently augmented by the contracted ADF facility for more serious medical conditions/cases.
UN-assigned personnel routinely receive first line medical support through organic UN health facilities. Where ADF local support is not available to provide a back-up facility, ADF personnel within UN contingents receive agreed health support through the local UN health facilities (if available). ADF personnel also receive Combat First Aid training and are issued with a deployable medical kit. Additionally, there are agreed higher levels of care available regionally where ADF personnel can be evacuated for treatment if required.
Government is committed to ensuring that the very best health support is available
ADF personnel. As noted in the response to Recommendation 27, Defence has commissioned the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to conduct the Deployment Health Surveillance Program, a series of longitudinal health studies of deployed personnel, including mental health issues.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that, before deploying Australian personnel to a peacekeeping operation, the Australian Government ensure that all instruments covering the use of force are unambiguous, clearly understood, appropriate to the mission and provide adequate protection.
Response
Agreed. Prior to approving deployment of Australian personnel to a peacekeeping operation, the Government determines whether the legal basis allows for sufficient force protection in light of the assigned mission and after considering all the prevailing circumstances of
the proposed peacekeeping operation.
The Government notes that the legal basis for use of force contained in the authorising UN mandate for a particular peacekeeping operation cannot be unilaterally amended by the Government to ensure that it is ‘appropriate to the mission and provide[s] adequate protection.’ Instead, the mission’s rules of engagement (ROE) must be appropriately defined and suitably tailored to complement the legal basis for use of force. If the legal basis for the mission is deemed to be inadequate, then the Government may either decline to contribute to the peacekeeping operation or seek changes to the mandate that would satisfy its concerns.
The Government further notes that while deployed, all ADF commanders and AFP personnel have an obligation to continually review the authorised ROE or Use of Force, and to seek clarification or request any necessary changes if they are considered to be unclear or inadequate to cover the security situation. The Government understands the importance of having an appropriate and unambiguous use of force regime that is fully understood by all personnel involved, whether the mission is a UN or non-UN peacekeeping operation.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that all government agencies advising the Australian Government on Australia’s participation in a proposed peacekeeping operation address clearly the adequacy of force protection provided in the mandate and accompanying ROE. This consideration is not only from the perspective of the physical safety of Australian personnel but also their mental wellbeing. Ultimately, the government must be satisfied that the mandate matches the needs on the ground.
Response
Agreed. A primary consideration when advising Government on a decision to commit personnel to a peacekeeping operation is the adequacy of available force protection measures for the overall wellbeing of Australian personnel.
The Government is committed to ensuring that high quality mental health support is available for Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel and the ex-service community. As discussed in the Government response to Recommendation 23, Government has developed a Mental Health Lifecycle Initiatives Package. The Package includes nine strategic mental health initiatives targeted across the four stages of an ADF member’s lifecycle: recruitment, service, transition, and resettlement into civilian life. As part of these initiatives, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (ACPMH) is undertaking research and learning processes to enhance current practices. Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs are working closely with the ACPMH on the lifecycle initiative.
In addition, Defence has commissioned the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to conduct the Deployment Health Surveillance Program, a series of longitudinal health studies of deployed personnel, including mental health issues.
The Government notes that, in the case of a UN-mandated peacekeeping operation, force protection policy and military ROE applicable to Australian personnel are ultimately derived from the UN mandate, which as previously noted cannot be unilaterally amended.
Prior to approving Australian participation in a peacekeeping mission, the Government receives advice on the sufficiency of ROE and force protection measures in view of the needs on the ground. This process applies to all ADF operations including those not led by the UN, and non- peacekeeping operations.
As noted in the response to Recommendation 5, all ADF commanders deployed on peacekeeping operations have an obligation to continually review the authorised ROE, and to seek clarification or request any necessary changes if they are considered to be unclear or inadequate to cover the military situation.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that, when considering a proposed peacekeeping operation, the Australian Government examine in detail the mission’s exit strategy to ensure that Australia’s contribution is part of a well-planned and structured approach to achieving clearly stated objectives. When committing forces to an operation the Australian Government should clearly articulate its exit strategy.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government recognises the importance of exit strategies. However, as noted in response to Recommendation 1, a degree of flexibility is required, as there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate to articulate an exit strategy.
The Government conducts a classified annual review of the ADF’s commitments to peacekeeping operations. This review critically examines each mission and considers the continuance, or otherwise, of the ADF’s contribution.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the ADF place a high priority on its undertaking to give training for peacekeeping operations a ‘more prominent place’ in its training regime. This training should extend to reservists as well as regular members of the ADF.
Response
Agreed. Training for peacekeeping operations has been identified as a fundamental element to the continuum of training in the ADF, especially within the Army. Land Command provides collective training for regular and reservist personnel aimed at meeting operational requirements, and peacekeeping is included as part of this requirement for operational training. In addition, the ADF Peace Operations Training Centre (formerly the ADF Warfare Centre (ADFWC)) includes peacekeeping operations modules on most of its joint courses and incorporates peacekeeping and stabilisation operations in joint exercises, such as the Talisman Sabre series with the United States. Peacekeeping operations are covered in a dedicated civil- military cooperation course, and also in a variety of other courses conducted by the ADFWC through presentations, syndicate tutorials and discussion periods.
The ADF Peacekeeping Centre also provides the ADF UN Military Observers’ Course, which prepares selected military personnel from Australia and overseas for service as military observers in UN or multinational peacekeeping operations. The course is focused on meeting the standards stipulated by UN DPKO’s Integrated Training System. Since 2008, components of the course have been merged into a course conducted by the AFP’s International Deployment Group.
Previously, the ADFWC ran the International Peace Operations Seminar (IPOS). The Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCM COE), created in 2008, now has responsibility for conducting 1POS, and has split the seminar into two courses focused on enhancing whole-of-government and whole-of-nation capabilities, and promoting civil-military UN and international engagement in the Asia Pacific region. These are the Civil-Military Interaction Seminar and the Civil-Military Interaction Workshop, the latter which is developed and delivered with the Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law (APCML). APCMCOE is also working closely with the ADF and relevant Government agencies to identify core training activities as part of a Training Continuum for military, police and civilian personnel.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that the AFP adhere to a procurement policy that requires, where possible, any equipment purchased for use in a peacekeeping operation to be compatible with equipment or technology used by the ADF.
Response
Agreed. The need for the ADF and AFP to operate together closely has been recognised by both Agencies and is pursued vigorously under an interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on interoperability, signed in 2008 by the Secretary of the Department of Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Commissioner of the AFP.
AFP and ADF logistics and capability development staff meet on a regular basis to discuss procurement opportunities as appropriate, and both Defence and the AFP recognise the unique operational responsibilities that each organisation needs to meet. Where practicable, common procurement solutions will be pursued; however, where operational responsibilities diverge and unique solutions are required, the most efficient and effective procurement solutions will prevail. Future developments on ADF and AFP Interoperability are under the direction of the Joint Steering Committee on Defence and AFP Interoperability.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that the ADF and the AFP work together to devise and implement programs—joint training and exercises—and develop shared doctrine that will improve their interoperability when deployed overseas. In particular, the committee recommends that the ADF implement a program of secondments of their members to the AFP’s International Deployment Group.
Response
Partially agreed. As noted in response to recommendation 9, in 2008 Defence and the AFP signed an MOU on interoperability, which provides a framework for cooperation in the preparation for and conduct of operations. A Joint Steering Committee on interoperability, headed by the National Manager of the AFP’s International Deployment Group and the ADF’s Chief of Joint Operations, has been established in accordance with the MOU. The MOU notes that interoperability is the ability to train, exercise and operate effectively together in the execution of assigned missions and tasks. Participation by the AFP on Exercise Talisman Sabre 2009 is a contemporary example of exercising together.
Should Defence and AFP be deployed to the same area of operations, coordination mechanisms are developed to achieve mutually supporting outcomes. As interoperability between organisations matures, this may lead to the inclusion of police as part of the Australian joint operations architecture. The APCM COE has secondees from Defence, the AFP and civilian agencies, and provides a further opportunity to develop and participate in joint training and education programs, and develop doctrine for practical collaboration.
Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that DFAT and AusAID jointly review the pre-deployment training arrangements for Commonwealth officers being deployed on peacekeeping missions with a view to establishing a government approved course of training. The committee recommends further that:
Response
Partially Agreed. The Government agrees that AusAID and the APCM COE should review the pre-deployment training arrangements for Commonwealth officers being deployed on peacekeeping missions, and this process is already underway.
The Government agrees that all Commonwealth personnel deploying on peacekeeping operations should satisfy pre-deployment training requirements. There is scope for training modules to be further developed and refined, to address core skill sets for peacekeeping operations. However, given the wide range of peacekeeping situations and varying roles of agencies, training programs must also be tailored to different contexts and roles.
The Government agrees that -train the trainer’ or capacity building skills are important for personnel whose duties involve instructing or coaching people in a host country. AusAID currently provides such training when required as a part of its pre-deployment programs for Commonwealth officers deployed under the aid program.
Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that DFAT undertake a comparative review and analysis of the strategic level arrangements for the planning and coordination of RAMSI and peacekeeping operations in Timor-Leste and to use the findings as a guide for future missions.
Response
Agreed. The Government agrees with the intent of this recommendation. The APCM COE commissioned the Australian Strategic Policy Institute to conduct a study into the key civil- military lessons from Australia’s response to recent disaster and conflict events in the region, including support to the Regional Assistance Mission Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and Timor Leste. The study focused on civil-military lessons in relation to whole-of-government policy and planning and operational implementation. The findings of the study. together with supplementary research and lessons learned activities, will help to support Australia’s approach to strategic-level planning and coordination for future missions.
Mission planning will also be informed by the development of a civil-military conceptual framework for conflict and disaster management. This framework, being developed by the APCM COE in collaboration with relevant government departments and agencies, is drawing from both Australian and international experiences in planning for peace and stabilisation operations.
Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that AusAID coordinate a consultation with DFAT, Defence, AFP, ACFID and key NGOs to establish a more effective mechanism for involving the NGO sector in the planning of Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping operations.
Response
Agreed. The Government has demonstrated its commitment to broader engagement with the NGO sector through the AusAID-ACFID Partnership Agreement. The Agreement contains an undertaking on the part of AusAID to facilitate an enhanced relationship between the NGO sector and other federal agencies.
The Government, through AusAID and the APCM COE, will collaborate to host a forum with the Australian Council for International Development (ACFID) and relevant NGOs and international organisations in 2010. It is expected that this forum will provide a further opportunity for dialogue and the exchange of ideas on peacekeeping issues and best practice for peacekeeping operations. This will build upon an earlier collaborative activity organised by the Government to ensure Australian and international NGO involvement in the development of civil-military doctrine for UN DPKO.
In addition, a responsibility of the APCM COE is to engage and develop collaborative mechanisms to support civil-military best practice with the non-government sector, which has been enhanced by the creation of an NGO Adviser position at the APCM COE. The position facilitates dialogue and an enhanced understanding between the NGO sector and government agencies on civil-military planning and capabilities for conflict and disaster management. The position, funded by AusAID, was filled by ACFID in September 2009.
It is important to note that while opportunities to involve the NGO sector in the planning for Australian peacekeeping operations is considered desirable by the Government, the extent to which this can occur needs to be balanced by relevant security considerations.
Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that a whole-of-government working group, such as the Peace Operations Working Group, arrange to hold regular meetings with representatives of NGOs engaged in peacekeeping operations to discuss and develop training programs and courses that would improve their working relationship. The committee recommends further that, in consultation with other government agencies and relevant NGOs, DFAT and AusAID review this arrangement in 2010 to assess the value to each organisation involved, and how it could be improved. The results of the review would be noted in DFAT’s annual report.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government agrees there is a need for regular dialogue between relevant government agencies and NGOs to enhance cooperation between the government and non- government sector, including through appropriate training activities. The mechanism for dialogue raised in response to Recommendation 13 provides an opportunity to consider training and education needs. Also, as raised in response to Recommendation 13, the NGO Adviser position at the APCM COE is strengthening Government-NGO engagement, and facilitating input from the NGO community into civil-military training and education programs organised by the APCM COE.
AusAID and APCM COE (through the Department of Defence) will report on progress on engagement with NGOs in their respective Annual Reports given their leading role in the NGO dialogue and engagement mechanisms noted above.
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that, in consultation with AusAID and ACFID, Defence review its civil-military cooperation doctrine, giving consideration to identifying measures to improve coordination between the ADF and the NGO sector when engaged in peacekeeping activities.
The committee recommends further that Defence include a discussion on its CIMIC doctrine in the upcoming Defence White Paper as well as provide an account of the progress made in developing the doctrine and its CIMIC capability in its annual report.
Response
Agreed. Defence is already in compliance with this recommendation. The ADFWC completed a review of its Civil Military Co-operation (CIMIC) doctrine in April 2009. A wide range of civilian and military agencies were consulted in the formulation of this review, including NGOs. The doctrine has also been designed to facilitate interoperability with our major allies and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Defence has also provided key support to the UN DPKO in developing CIMIC doctrine for modern, complex UN peacekeeping missions.
In the 2009 Defence White Paper, the Government recognised that:
“ ...it will be crucial to ensure that the ADF can work effectively alongside civilian agencies that specialise in law enforcement, development assistance, humanitarian relief health, correctional services, municipal services (such as water and infrastructure), education, and political and administrative governance. ... The Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence will inform Australia’s response to these challenges through research, education and doctrine development drawn from the accumulated experience of the ADF and other parts of the Australian Government, the United Nations, other nations and non governmental organisations.” 1
Recommendation 16
As part of this review process, the committee recommends that, in consultation with AusAID and other relevant government agencies and ACFID, Defence and the AFP consider the merits of a civil—military—police cooperation doctrine. The consideration given to this doctrine would be reflected in the committee’s proposed white paper on peacekeeping.
Response
Agreed. The need for the development of this doctrine has already been identified. The APCM COE assists departments and agencies with the development of civil-military-police doctrine, protocols and guidance and will consider this recommendation.
Recommendation 17
The committee recommends that in conjunction with its review of CIMIC doctrine, ADF consider ways to strengthen its CIMIC capability.
Response
Agreed. As raised in response to recommendation 15, the requirement for a strong ADF
CIMIC capability is recognised in the new Defence White paper. The APCM COE will assist in strengthening the ADF’s CIMIC capability through related training programs, advisory support, and research and analysis.
Recommendation 18
The committee recommends that AusAID, ACFID and Defence jointly review the current pre- deployment education programs, exercises, courses and other means used to prepare military and civilian personnel to work together in a peacekeeping operation. The committee recommends further that based on their findings, they collectively commit to a pre-deployment program that would strengthen cooperation between them and assist in better planning and coordinating their activities.
Response
Agreed. The APCM COE will facilitate dialogue and practical measures to strengthen the pre- deployment preparation of military and civilian personnel for peacekeeping operations. In 2008, the APCM COE commissioned an audit of current civil-military training courses available in Australia and internationally. The findings of this audit are informing the Centre’s training and education strategy and its implementation.
The APCM COE is working closely with AusAID on the civil-military training needs for civilians deployed overseas, and with the ADF to ensure the inclusion of civil-military perspectives within military deployment training and exercises. ACFID involvement in the development and conduct of identified training activities will he facilitated by APCM COE on a regular basis.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that Defence, AFP, AusAID and DFAT commission a series of case studies of recent complex peacekeeping operations, as proposed by Austcare, with the focus on the effectiveness of civil—military cooperation and coordination. Their findings would be made public and discussed at the Peace Operations Working Group mentioned in Recommendation 14
Response
Agreed. As noted in the response to Recommendation 12, the APCM COE commissioned a study of Australia’s responses to recent conflict and disaster events in the region to identify civil-military lessons. This study was undertaken by ASPI and involved interviews with personnel from the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, DFAT, Defence, Attorney-General’s Department, AusAID. AFP and a range of NGOs. Where appropriate, this and other studies and lessons learned, will he discussed with ACFID and NGO representatives.
Recommendation 20
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the lessons from RAMSI regarding the positive local reaction to the mission’s ‘relatively low profile’ with a view to adopting this approach as policy and best practice.
Response
Agreed. The Government seeks to capture and consider lessons learned from peacekeeping missions and use them to inform future engagements as a matter of course.
Recommendation 21
The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission independent research to test, against the experiences of past deployments, the relevance of the factors identified by the committee that should inform Australia’s approach to, and planning for, a regional operation. These include the need for understanding sensitivities regarding sovereignty, language skills and cultural awareness, local ownership and involving local community groups (for complete list see paragraph 16.61). The committee further recommends that the information be used to develop a template for the conduct of future missions.
Response
Partially Agreed. The Government is committed to continuous improvements in both civilian and military training, and recognises that reviews of lessons learned from a whole-of--government perspective can help our planning, policy and practice in-country. Existing exercises and training by the AFP, ADF and AusAID have improved the focus on cultural awareness, language skills and related issues. AusAID and other government agencies are examining mechanisms to improve civilian deployment, while recognising that every mission involving the deployment of civilians will be different.
Recommendation 22
The committee recommends that a whole-of-government working group review the language and cultural awareness training of government agencies with a view to developing a more integrated and standardised system of training for Australian peacekeepers. The Peace Operations Working Group may be the appropriate body to undertake this work.
Response
Agreed. As noted in the response to recommendation 21, while recognising that every mission will be different, the Government is committed to continuous improvements in both civilian and military training. AusAID and other government agencies continue to examine mechanisms to improve civilian deployments while existing exercises and training by the AFP, ADF and AusAID have enhanced their focus on cultural awareness, language skills and related issues.
Recommendation 23
The committee recommends that exchange programs and joint exercises with personnel from countries relevant to peacekeeping operations in the region continue as a high priority. It also suggests that such activities form part of a broader coherent whole-of-government strategy to build a greater peacekeeping capacity in the region.
Response
Agreed. The Government acknowledges the value of continuing exchange programs and joint exercises with personnel from countries relevant to peacekeeping operations in the region.
The Government notes a requirement to balance exchange programs and joint exercises with Australian policy priorities, and with consideration for the particular circumstances of a given agency. Individual agencies need the flexibility to pursue engagement priorities informed by wider national interests and Government guidance. For example, the AFP delivers education and training programs for the Pacific Island Countries contribution to the Participating Police Force in RAMSI; this has been extended to include observer/trainers from the East Timor Police Force. The AFP is the only regional police force with a training institution dedicated to preparing its officers for duty in peace and stability operations. Accordingly, the AFP is focused on education and training rather than exchanges. The AFP expects to conduct broader engagement with regional nations from South East Asia in the future.
The Government will also continue to support the work of UN agencies and regional organisations, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, in capacity building efforts for partner countries involved in peace operations. The civil-military training programs being developed and facilitated by the APCM COE, as noted in the response to Recommendation 8, include participants from the Asia Pacific region.
Recommendation 24
The committee recommends that greater impetus be given to the implementation of UN Resolution 1325. It recommends that the Peace Operations Working Group be the driving force behind ensuring that all agencies are taking concrete actions to encourage greater involvement of women in peacekeeping operations.
The committee recommends further that DFAT provide in its annual report an account of the whole-of-government performance in implementing this resolution. The report should go beyond merely listing activities to provide indicators of the effectiveness of Australia’s efforts to implement Resolution 1325.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government notes that Resolution 1325 covers issues broader than peacekeeping, making full application and implementation of the resolution broader than the working group’s mandate. In 2008 the Australian Government Office for Women funded an Australian non-government organisation to undertake research into possible options for the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 (Resolution 1325) including the possible development of a National Action Plan (NAP). Detailed research and community consultation was undertaken, culminating in a report to the Office for Women in July 2009 for consideration by government. In October 2009 an inter-departmental working group was convened to consider next steps. The Minister for the Status of Women then wrote to the Prime Minister and relevant ministerial colleagues seeking their support for the development of an Australian national action plan.
The Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister for Defence, Minister for Home Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance have given their support for a whole of government approach to the development of an Australian national action plan.
Recommendation 25
The committee recommends that Australian government agencies actively pursue opportunities to second senior officers to the United Nations. Furthermore, that such secondments form part of a broader departmental and whole-of-government strategy designed to make better use of the knowledge and experience gained by seconded officers. In other words, appointments should not be terminal postings and should be perceived as important and valuable career opportunities.
Response
Agreed. The Government actively pursues opportunities to deploy senior officers to UN missions and UN Headquarters in New York. The Government agrees that secondment opportunities must be strategically selected to ensure balance between the availability of senior officers and wider responsibilities and opportunities of each agency.
Recommendation 26
The committee recommends that the ADF develop a comprehensive and reliable database on Australian peacekeepers that would provide accurate statistics on where and when ADF members were deployed. The database would also enable correlations to be made between particular deployments and associated health problems.
Response
Agreed. PMKeyS, the ADF corporate human resource management system, provides a comprehensive and reliable database from which statistics can be extracted to identify dates and locations of service by Australian Peacekeepers.
The PMKeyS OpsLog is completed prior to a service member’s departure on any operational service, and then maintained to accurately represent service within an Area of Operations. OpsLog data enables periods of overseas service to he correlated against reported health problems, by operation, time and location. Considerable work has been undertaken since the introduction of OpsLog in July 2005 to incorporate information from other data sources. Project Remediate, the latest of such initiatives, is intended to capture data on ADF operational deployments of all types prior to July 2005.
Recommendation 27
The committee recommends that the ADF broaden the scope of the research and studies being done on veterans’ mental health by the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health and the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to include the rehabilitation of veterans with mental health problems; the retraining opportunities or career transition services provided to them; the quality of, and access to, appropriate and continuing care; and the stigma attached to mental health problems in the ADF.
Response
Agreed. These issues are being addressed in the Government Mental Health Lifecycle Initiatives Package. The Package includes nine strategic mental health initiatives targeted across the four stages of an ADF member’s lifecycle: recruitment, service, transition, and resettlement into civilian life. As part of these initiatives, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (ACPMH) is undertaking research and learning processes to
enhance current practices. Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) are working closely with the ACPMH on the lifecycle initiative.
In addition, Defence has commissioned the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to conduct the Deployment Health Surveillance Program, a series of longitudinal health studies of deployed personnel, including mental health issues. Studies have been completed on the Solomon Islands, Timor Leste and Bougainville, and a study of the Middle East Area of Operations will follow.
As part of the Review of Mental Health in Defence, Professor David Dunt has examined the scope of mental health research in the ADF, addressing the issue of the stigma attached to mental health problems. The review included a variety of submissions taken from many interested parties including individuals, ex-service organisations and other Government Departments. The report, and Government response, was released by the former Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, the Hon Warren Snowdon and the Minister for Veterans” Affairs, the Hon Alan Griffin on 1 May 2009. The Government has accepted, either wholly or in principle, all recommendations in the report.
In addition, Professor Dunt also undertook an Independent Study into Suicide in the Ex-Service Community, with the report released by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on 4 May 2009. There were five recommendations common to both reports relating to transition which Defence and DVA are working together to implement.
Recommendation 28
The committee recommends that the Australian Government release a policy paper outlining the options and its views on a rehabilitation and compensation scheme for the AFP, invite public comment and thereafter release a draft bill for inquiry and report by a parliamentary committee.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government agrees with the intent of the recommendation.
The Review of Military Compensation Arrangements is examining the current military rehabilitation and compensation system, including whether the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) should cover the AFP members deployed on high risk overseas missions. A Steering Committee has been established to manage the Review. The Committee is comprised of senior Government representatives and a member of the community with compensation expertise, and is chaired by the Chair of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.
Interim arrangements have been put in place for AFP officers serving in high risk missions to align rehabilitation and compensation arrangements with Defence, pending the outcomes of this review. Options will be discussed with the AFP and various interest groups for establishing ongoing arrangements including both high risk and other AFP missions, that provide parity with arrangements that will be put in place by Defence. Current interim arrangements will be subsumed into any ongoing arrangements.
Recommendation 29
The committee recommends that the ADF commission an independent audit of its medical records to determine the accuracy and completeness of the records, and to identify any deficiencies with a view to implementing changes to ensure that all medical records are up-to- date and complete. The audit report should be provided, through the Minister for Defence, to the committee.
Response
Not agreed. While initiatives are underway to meet the intent of the recommendation, the Government notes that an audit, as proposed by the committee, would not meet the requirement to -determine the accuracy and completeness of records” because effective datum for benchmarking accuracy and completeness does not exist.
The Government further notes that Defence is developing an electronic medical record system based on a commercial product, enabling individual records to be developed and maintained electronically. Using the Rapid Prototype Development and Evaluation (RPDE) process, Defence has commenced a requirements collection task. RPDE will then consider commercial off-the-shelf options, then trial and evaluate potential solutions before making a decision on the way ahead. This new e-health system will ensure all health information is collected and is available to all health providers for the care of the individual, and for Joint Health Command to use to manage the health of the ADF.
Recommendation 30
The committee recommends that the Australian Government requests ANAO to audit the hardware and software used by the ADF and DVA in their health records management system to identify measures needed to ensure that into the future the system is able to provide the type of detailed information of the like required by the committee but apparently not accessible.
Response
Partially Agreed. Following an ANAO audit in 2001, a number of health initiatives were identified aimed at retiring legacy systems and delivering a new health information systems environment to Joint Health Command, including the development of an e-health system as recommended by the ANAO and as detailed in the response to Recommendation 29. When completed, this system will enable the detailed information requirements mentioned by the Committee to be addressed.
Recommendation 31
The committee also recommends that Defence commission the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to assess the hardware and software used by Defence and DVA for managing the health records of ADF personnel and, in light of the committee’s concerns, make recommendations on how the system could be improved.
Response
Partially agreed. In light of the initiatives underway to retire legacy systems and deliver a new health information systems environment to Joint Health Command, there would be limited value in the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health (CMVH) assessing the hardware and software currently used by Defence in managing health records. There may be value in the CMVH assessing the new hardware and software at a future date.
Government also notes that the CMVH has made considerable contribution to informing the e-health debate within Defence and DVA, and continues to do so through the quarterly meeting of the CMVH E-Health Strategic Research Working Group.
Recommendation 32
The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider additional funding for the proposed Peacekeeping Memorial.
Response
Agreed. The Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project Committee (APMPC) is keeping the Minister, through DVA, informed about the progress of its fundraising activities. Any additional funding, beyond the $200,000 paid to the APMPC in June 2006, would be considered by the Minister. However, consistent with the rules governing all other memorials, public donations form a key indicator of public support for the establishment of a national memorial.
The Government notes that it is usual practice for the construction of new national memorials to be managed by committees of ex-service organisations and other community groups which have demonstrated the ability to raise the necessary funds and the skills necessary to manage such a project to completion.
Recommendation 33
The committee recommends that the Australian Government include Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping operations in East Timor in the terms of reference for the Official History of Australian Peacekeeping, Humanitarian and Post-Cold War Operations.
Response
Agreed in-Principle. The Government recognises the public prominence of Australia’s involvement in East Timor, which was Australia’s largest peacekeeping operation and was the first time Australia had led a major international coalition force. The Official Historian, Professor David Horner, has begun consultation with relevant departments to discuss this matter.
Request to Auditor General
The committee requests that the Auditor-General consider conducting a performance audit on the mechanisms that the ADF has in place for capturing lessons from current and recent peacekeeping operations including: the adequacy of its performance indicators; whether lessons to be learnt from its evaluation processes are documented and inform the development or refinement of ADF’s doctrine and practices; and how these lessons are shared with other relevant agencies engaged in peacekeeping operations and incorporated into the whole-of--government decision-making process.
Response
Agreed. The Auditor General will consider the merits of undertaking such a performance audit in the development of its 2009-10 Audit Work Program, taking into account other audit priorities.
Recommendation 34
The committee recommends that the relevant government agencies jointly develop standard measurable performance indicators that, where applicable, would be used across all agencies when evaluating the effectiveness of their peacekeeping activities (also see Recommendation 36).
Response
Partially Agreed. The Government notes that agencies already monitor and evaluate peacekeeping missions, particularly where agencies are represented together in the field. The AFP has contracted the University of Queensland to research measures of performance for police contributions to peace and stability operations and capacity building missions. Initial discussions between AFP and DSTO specialists have determined that some of the measures could be jointly applicable to both policing and the ADF in the peace and stability operations environment, and they will attempt to test this joint applicability in an exercise environment.
Government agencies, however, hold differing areas of expertise and mission focus, necessitating divergent approaches towards meeting their particular mission goals and requirements. In conjunction with the diverse scope of requirements across peacekeeping missions, this makes it problematic to standardise performance indicators across multiple peacekeeping operations and contributing departments.
Recommendation 35
The committee recommends that the Australian Government designate an appropriate agency to take responsibility for the whole-of-government reporting on Australia’s contribution to peacekeeping. This means that the agency’s annual report would include a description of all peacekeeping operations, a list of the contributing government agencies, and, for each relevant agency:
Response
Partially agreed. Government is considering if and how best to take forward Recommendation 35. An annual report may not be the best publication in which to collate and publicise Australia’s contribution to peacekeeping operations. Government agencies currently report relevant information on peacekeeping operations within their respective annual reports. As noted in response to recommendation 7, Defence also coordinates a classified annual review
of the ADF’s commitments to peacekeeping operations for consideration by Government.
Recommendation 36
In light of the committee’s discussion on the adequacy of performance indicators, the committee also recommends that the agencies reporting on peacekeeping activities provide in their annual reports measurable performance indicators on the effectiveness of these activities.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government acknowledges the importance of agencies providing clear and accurate reporting —against measurable performance indicators where appropriate —on the effectiveness of their activities. Government notes that Australian support to peacekeeping is conducted across multiple agencies, and the level of effectiveness of certain contributions is not always amenable to being quantified and measured, as noted in the response to Recommendation 34.
Recommendation 37
Committee recommends that the Australian Government produce a white paper on Australia’s engagement in peacekeeping activities.
Response
Partially agreed. The Government recognises the importance of a whole-of-government approach to Australia’s engagement in peacekeeping activities. In May 2009, Government delivered the most comprehensive Defence White Paper ever produced. While Government recognises that peacekeeping involves a range of key stakeholders beyond Defence, the Defence White Paper undertook an examination of peacekeeping. Government is considering if and how to move forward on recommendation 37, including instead making a comprehensive whole-of-government statement on peacekeeping.
Recommendation 38
The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a task force to conduct a scoping study for the Asia-Pacific Centre for Civil-Military Cooperation, focusing on best practice. The task force would:
The government should make the report available to the committee.
Response
Partially agreed. The Prime Minister officially opened the Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (formerly referred to as the Asia Pacific Centre for Civil-Military Cooperation) on 27 November 2008. The APCM COE has made a strong start with a comprehensive forward work program based in part on the examination of international best practice by a number of the counterpart organisations referred to in the Committee’s recommendation.
It has been established as an inter-agency initiative and includes staff from Defence, DFAT, AFP, AusAID and AGD. In addition, self-funded positions in the APCM COE have been filled by the New Zealand Government and ACFID. AusAID provided the funding for ACFID to establish and operationalise the position in the first year as a demonstration of the commitment it places on engaging NGO views.
The mission of the APCM COE is to support the development of national civil-military capabilities to prevent, prepare for and respond more effectively to conflicts and disasters overseas. The views of relevant government departments and agencies, and NGO organisations, were taken into account in the development of the APCM COE’s key responsibilities and priorities.
The APCM COE is developing partnerships with selected UN agencies, as well as bilateral and regional partners, peacekeeping centres and research organisations to encourage an active sharing of experiences, lessons. ideas and future training activities, including for peacekeeping missions. It engages with Australian NGOs, primarily through ACFID and AusAID.
The progress of the APCM COE will be reported in the Defence Annual Reports and formally reviewed by the Government in FY2010-11.
1 Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030, pg 23.
Government Response to the Senate Inquiry into the Renewable Energy Electricity (Feed-in Tariff) Bill 2008
Senate Committee Recommendation | Government Response |
Recommendation 1: Noting strong industry, consumer and government support for FIT schemes, the committee recommends that the Commonwealth government, through COAG, work as quickly as practicable to implement a FIT framework that is as far as possible nationally uniform and consistent. | The Government supports this recommendation. On 29 November 2008 COAG announced the adoption of a set of national principles to apply to new state and territory feed-in tariff schemes and to inform reviews of the existing schemes. These principles are available on COAG website at www.coag.gov.au. The Ministerial Council on Energy (MCE) has agreed to develop a work program to give effect to the COAG national principles for feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. |
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that all governments consider carefully the evidence received by this Senate inquiry regarding metering, as well as the track record of existing FIT schemes overseas, in designing a nationally consistent FIT framework for Australia. | The Government notes this recommendation. The Government, through the COAG Working Group on Climate Change and Water, took into consideration metering issues and international experience during the development of the national principles for feed-in tariffs for renewable energy. The Government expects that work being undertaken by the Ministerial Council on Energy on smart metering requirements will retain sufficient flexibility to support the particular tariffs in place for different customers. |
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that a more regular system of payments to generators be considered than the annual payments in the proposed bill. | The Government notes this recommendation. The COAG national principles state that any premium feed-in tariff rate be set by jurisdictions, and that the arrangements for the payment of that tariff be incorporated into the regulation of the minimum terms and conditions for retail contracts to ensure that they are no less favourable than those for other retail customers. |
Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that tariff degression rates form part of the nationally consistent FIT framework, but that there also be capacity for degression rate ‘pauses’ to be instituted following a rate review procedure. | The Government notes this recommendation. The national principles set out that any premium feed-in tariff rates are to be jurisdictionally determined and should be transitional in nature, with clearly defined time limits and review thresholds to ensure that not only is assistance effective, but that the schemes are complementary to other climate change initiatives, particularly the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). |
Recommendation 5: The committee recommends that tariff degression rates be technology-specific. | The Government notes this recommendation. The COAG national principles state that any premium feed-in tariff rates be set by jurisdiction and technologies to which these feed-in tariffs will apply. |
Recommendation 6: While strongly supporting a nationally consistent feed-in tariff framework, the committee recommends the current Bill not proceed. | The Government supports this recommendation. The Government agrees that there is value in seeking to ensure that state and territory feed-in tariff schemes are nationally consistent, as far as is practicable, and notes the work in this area being undertaken through the Ministerial Council on Energy on behalf of COAG. The Renewable Energy Target is the key policy mechanism for encouraging investment in renewable energy generation. On 26 February 2010, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change, the Hon Greg Combet AM MP, announced changes to be made to the Renewable Energy Target scheme. From January 2011, the existing scheme will include two parts – the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET). The new SRES will provide $40 for each Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) created by small-scale technologies like solar panels and solar water heaters. The number of systems receiving support under the SRES will be uncapped. These measures provide certainty for the small-scale sector and households, small businesses and community groups. The Government will review the operation of the SRES in the context of the planned 2014 statutory review of the Renewable Energy Target to ensure the fixed price for RECs remains relevant. |
THE SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 IN ELIMINATING DISCRIMINATION AND PROMOTING GENDER EQUALITY
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Standing Committee onn an important tool in addressing discrimination and changing attitudes about the participation of women and men in a range of areas of public life. The SDA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, educational institutions, and in the provision of goods and services. The SDA, similar to other
anti-discrimination laws, has been an important mechanism in changing community perceptions and setting appropriate standards to recognise that men and women should be able to fully participate in the social, economic and public life of Australian society.
The Committee’s recommendations can be broadly categorised into two groups. First, recommendations that are specific to the issue of sex discrimination and second, recommendations that are also relevant to other areas of anti-discrimination legislation. The Government’s consideration of the Committee’s Report has been informed by the National Human Rights Consultation into the promotion and protection of human rights, which coincided with the Committee’s Report.
In relation to those recommendations which are specific to sex discrimination, the Government proposes to act immediately and amend the SDA to:
Those recommendations with wider implications for federal anti-discrimination laws will be considered by the Government in light of its broader commitment to streamline and harmonise Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation as part of the Government’s response to the National Human Rights Consultation.
The Government thanks the Senate Committee for its report which will inform the future direction of federal anti-discrimination legislation. Ensuring that anti-discrimination law meets the needs of contemporary Australians is an important part of ensuring the promotion and protection of human rights.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the preamble to the Act and subsections 3(b), (ba) and (c) of the Act be amended by deleting the phrase ‘so far as is possible’.
Response
Noted.
The phrase ‘as far as possible’ is also used in the objects clauses of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA) and Age Discrimination Act 2004 (ADA). The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the process of consolidating Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation (the consolidation project).
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that subsection 3(a) of the Act be amended to refer to other international conventions Australia has ratified which create obligations in relation to gender equality.
Response
Noted.
The objects clauses of the DDA and ADA do not refer to international instruments. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Act be amended by inserting an express requirement that the Act be interpreted in accordance with relevant international conventions Australia has ratified including CEDAW, ICCPR, ICESCR and the ILO conventions which create obligations in relation to gender equality
Response
Noted.
The existing position at common law is that there is an intention that Parliament does not intend to infringe international law, such that courts will prefer an interpretation consistent with international law, though some formulations of the test restricts this to cases where there is an ambiguity in the text. In addition to the common law rule, section I 5AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 allows recourse to international law in specified circumstances (eg ambiguity) where the treaty is referred to in the Act.
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA), the DDA and the ADA also implement Australia’s international obligations. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 4
In order to provide protection to same-sex couples from discrimination on the basis of their relationship status, the committee recommends that:
Response
Noted.
Expanding the prohibition on marital status discrimination to include same-sex relationships may impact on the private sector. There may also be effects on State and Territory laws relating to adoption, artificial conception procedures and the recognition of changes of sex on cardinal documents. The Government will consider this recommendation further, in consultation with key stakeholders and the States and Territories.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the definitions of direct discrimination in sections 5 to 7A of the Act be amended to remove the requirement for a comparator and replace this with a test of unfavourable treatment similar to that in paragraph 8(1)(a) of the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)
Response
Noted.
The ADA and DDA also use the comparator test. Any new definition of discrimination would need to be applied consistently across all grounds of discrimination to ensure consistency. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that section 7B of the Act be amended to replace the reasonableness test in relation to indirect discrimination with a test requiring that the imposition of the condition, requirement or practice be legitimate and proportionate.
Response
Noted.
This test for indirect discrimination is also used in the ADA and the RDA, however the DDA uses a different test. For consistency, the suitability of any new test for indirect discrimination in one Commonwealth anti-discrimination law would need to be considered in the context of the complementary anti-discrimination laws. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that subsection 9(10) of the Act be amended to refer to ICCPR, ICESCR, and the ILO conventions which create obligations in relation to gender equality, as well as CEDAW, in order to ensure that the Act provides equal coverage to men and women.
Response
Accepted.
Australia has ratified the following international conventions, in addition to the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), directed at promoting gender equality:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
International Labour Organisation Convention No. 111—Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention 1958
International Labour Organisation Convention No. 100 —Equal Remuneration Convention 1951, and
International Labour Organisation Convention No. 156 —Workers with Family Responsibilities Convention 1981.
Section 9 draws on a number of Commonwealth heads of power to bring the Act within the constitutional power of the Commonwealth. All heads of power except subsection 9(10) —external affairs—apply equally to men and women. Subsection 9(10) only has effect in relation to discrimination against women, to the extent that the provisions give effect to CEDAW. If a complaint falls in an area where no other head of power applies, such as an unlawful act by an unincorporated body, subsection 9(10) operates to cover women but not men.
The Government believes that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) should afford equal protection to men and women, and give effect to Australia’s international obligations. Widening the constitutional basis of the SDA is necessary to ensure that men are equally covered under protections for family responsibilities (see below recommendation 13).
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to include a general prohibition against sex discrimination and sexual harassment in any area of public life equivalent to section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Act be amended to include a general equality before the law provision modelled on section 10 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
Response
Noted.
Section 9 of the RDA provides for a broad prohibition on discrimination in ‘the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life’. Section 10 is concerned with the operation and effect of laws. Both sections 9 and 10 of the RDA can invalidate inconsistent State laws.
There are no equivalent provisions in other Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. The ADA, DDA and SDA adopt a different approach to the RDA and list areas of public life in which discrimination is proscribed.
Inserting a general prohibition provision and equality before the law provision in other anti-discrimination legislation would represent a significant change in approach by the Commonwealth and needs to be considered further in the context of the consolidation project. The recommendations are likely to have a significant impact on State and Territory legislation and would require extensive consultation before implementation.
The Government will consider these recommendations as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that the Act be amended:
to provide specific coverage to volunteers and independent contractors; and
to apply to partnerships regardless of their size.
Response
Noted.
There are differing approaches to partnerships in Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. The ADA and SDA apply to partnerships of 6 or more persons, whereas the DDA applies to partnerships of 3 or more persons. The RDA applies to all partnerships, regardless of their size.
The RDA covers volunteers and independent contractors given the broad scope of section 9. The ADA, DDA and SDA cover contract workers; however there is some uncertainty about the scope of the coverage. Volunteers are not specifically covered in the ADA, DDA and SDA as they do not fall within the traditional definition of ‘employee’.
The Government recognises the inconsistent approaches and gaps in coverage and will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that subsection 12(1) of the Act be amended and section 13 repealed to ensure that the Crown in right of the states and state instrumentalities are comprehensively bound by the Act.
Response
Noted.
The ADA, DDA and RDA all bind the States and State instrumentalities, while the SDA does not bind the States and State instrumentalities unless expressly provided for. While a person can pursue a claim against a State or State instrumentality under the relevant State law, there may be limitations in relation to the amount of damages. State laws may also provide less protection than the equivalent Commonwealth law.
The Government recognises that other Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation has a wider coverage than the SDA and will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to make breastfeeding a specific ground of discrimination.
Response
Accepted.
Breastfeeding is specifically listed as a characteristic that appertains generally to women in subsection 5(1A). Discrimination on the basis of breastfeeding is therefore already captured as direct sex discrimination under section 5. However, making breastfeeding a separate ground of discrimination alongside marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy emphasises that breastfeeding is a protected attribute.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that the prohibition on discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities under the Act be broadened to include indirect discrimination and discrimination in all areas of employment.
Response
Accepted.
Under subsection 14(3A) of the SDA, discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities is only unlawful where the employee is dismissed. Unlike other grounds of discrimination, the definition is also restricted to direct discrimination. Women are able to use the indirect sex discrimination provision to get around this limitation as they have a disproportionate responsibility for the care of children. Men are unable to argue indirect discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities.
The Fair Work Act 2009 now protects employees from ‘adverse action’, which is not limited to dismissal, on the ground of family responsibilities. It would be desirable to bring protections under the SDA in line with the Fair Work Act to ensure consistency across Commonwealth laws.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to impose a positive duty on employers to reasonably accommodate requests by employees for flexible working arrangements, to accommodate family or carer responsibilities, modelled on section 14A of the Equal Opportunity Act 1995 (VIC).
Response
Noted.
The Government’s Fair Work Act and National Employment Standards operate together to promote flexible workplaces that balance the need for employees to manage their work and family responsibilities with the genuine requirements of businesses. This includes access to personal/carer’s leave to respond to personal illness, injury or unexpected emergencies - which is the first time a federal statutory entitlement to unpaid carers leave has extended to casual employees - and a right to request a change in working arrangements in certain circumstances.
The General Manager of Fair Work Australia is required to conduct research and report every three years on the circumstances in which employees make requests for flexible working
arrangements, the outcome of such requests and the circumstances in which such requests are refused. The Government has also committed to a post-implementation review of key legislative proposals contained in the Fair Work Act, including the National Employment Standards, of which the right to request flexible working arrangements is part.
In addition, the Fair Work Act provides that all modern awards and enterprise agreements must include a model flexibility clause, which will allow employers and individual employees to make arrangements that suit their particular needs.
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that the definition of sexual harassment in section 28A of the Act be amended to provide that sexual harassment occurs if a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the person harassed would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Response
Accepted.
The current test for sexual harassment relies on the reasonable person test, that is, a reasonable person would have anticipated that the aggrieved person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated. This is a stricter test than under some State legislation, including section 119 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 Old), which refers to anticipation of the ‘possibility that the other person would be offended’. The Government accepts that a broader test is needed to effectively address incidences of sexual harassment, particularly in the workplace.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 16
The committee recommends that section 28A of the Act be amended to provide that the circumstances relevant to determining whether a reasonable person would have anticipated the possibility that the other person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct include:
the sex, age and race of the other person;
any impairment that the other person has;
the relationship between the other person and the person engaging in the conduct; and
any other circumstance of the other person.
Response
Accepted.
The current definition provides that the court is to have regard to ‘all the circumstances’ in which a reasonable person would have anticipated that the aggrieved person would be offended, humiliated or intimidated.
Inserting a statutory guide to what circumstances are relevant does not affect the matters which should be considered but will clearly direct the court to consider the individual circumstances of the case in assessing what is reasonable conduct.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 17
The committee recommends that section 28F of the Act be amended to:
provide protection to students from sexual harassment regardless of their age; and
remove the requirement that the person responsible for the harassment must be at the same educational institution as the victim of the harassment.
Response
Accepted.
Section 28F of the SDA does not make it unlawful for an adult student to sexually harass a student under 16 years of age, or for a staff member or adult student to sexually harass a victim who attends another institution.
There is no persuasive policy reason for the existing age limit on the victim. Students under 16 years of age should receive equal protection as those over 16 years of age.
The current requirement that the harasser and victim attend the same institution reflects the policy intention that sexual harassment, as with discrimination, should be limited to specified areas of public life. This recommendation potentially imposes on a staff member or an adult student a higher degree of liability for sexual harassment than imposed on the general public in similar circumstances. For example, a teacher may be liable for sexually harassing a student with whom they have no existing relationship outside of the education and employment context, while another adult who is not a teacher engaging in the same conduct would not be liable.
The Government recognises, however, that where there is a connection between the conduct of the staff member towards a student of another educational institution and the staff member’s employment, liability for sexual harassment should be imposed. For example, a staff member who sexually harasses a student of another educational institution at an inter-school event should be liable under section 28F. Similarly, an adult student should be liable for sexually harassing a student who attends another institution where there is a connection between the conduct and their attendance at an educational institution.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 18
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to protect workers from sexual harassment by customers, clients and other persons with whom they come into contact in connection with their employment.
Response
Accepted.
The SDA proscribes sexual harassment in specified areas of public life, including employment and the provision of goods, services or facilities. It is unlawful for an employee to sexually harass another employee, and the employer may be held vicariously liable. It is also unlawful for a worker to sexually harass another person, including a customer, in the course of providing goods, services or facilities. However it is not unlawful for a customer to sexually harass a worker. Workers are equally as vulnerable to sexual harassment from customers as from colleagues or employers and should be afforded the same protections. The Government accepts that they should be afforded protections from sexual harassment by persons with whom they come into contact in connection with their employment.
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that the HREOC Actl should be amended to provide that, where a complaint is based on different grounds of discrimination covered by separate federal anti-discrimination legislation, then HREOC or the court must consider joining the complaints under the relevant pieces of legislation. In so doing, HREOC or the court must consider the interrelation of the complaints and accord an appropriate remedy if the discrimination is substantiated.
Response
Noted.
The Federal Court of Australia already has the power to join proceedings and to hear separate but related applications together. The Federal Court also hears and determines applications brought under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (AHRC Act) which allege unlawful discrimination under two or more different grounds of discrimination as one application.
The AHRC does not prevent the Commission from dealing with complaints brought in relation to numerous grounds of discrimination as the one complaint. The Commission has in the past joined multiple grounds of discrimination and awarded remedies under each relevant Act
(Djokic v Sinclaire & Central Qld Meat Export Co Ply Ltd [1994] HREOCA 17).
The Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2009 changed the name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. The legislation also changed the name of the Commission to the Australian Human Rights Commission.
Recommendation 20
The committee recommends that subsection 46P0(1) of the HREOC Act be amended to make the standing requirements for lodging an application with the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court consistent with the requirements for lodging a complaint with HREOC as set out in subsection 46P(2) of the HREOC Act.
Response
Noted.
This recommendation aims to give public interest organisations and trade unions standing to commence legal proceedings on behalf of one or more persons aggrieved by the alleged unlawful discrimination.
If implemented, it would not be necessary for a public interest organisation or trade union to show that it is a ‘person aggrieved’ by the alleged discrimination in its own right. The public interest organisation or trade union would still need to identify an aggrieved person or class of aggrieved persons on whose behalf the action is being brought.
The Government accepts that there is value in enabling public interest organisations to pursue representative actions on behalf of vulnerable and disadvantaged people, where the organisation has demonstrated connection with the subject matter of the dispute. If accepted, the recommendation would apply to litigation on all grounds of discrimination. The Government will consider this recommendation further as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 21
The committee recommends that subsection 46P0(2) of the HREOC Act be amended to increase the time limit for lodging an application with the Federal Court or Federal Magistrates Court from 28 days after termination of the complaint to 60 days.
Response
Accepted.
This recommendation was implemented by the Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2009.
Recommendation 22
The committee recommends that a provision be inserted in the Act in similar terms to section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (UK) so that, where the complainant proves facts from which the court could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the respondent discriminated against the complainant, the court must uphold the complaint unless the respondent proves that he or she did not discriminate.
Response
Noted.
It is not appropriate for legislation to purport to compel the court to make certain orders. The outcome sought by the recommendation may be achieved by inserting provisions that provide for certain presumptions to be made in favour of an applicant with the onus on the respondent to rebut them.
A reversal of the onus of proof would need to be applied consistently across all grounds of discrimination. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 23
The committee recommends that the remedies available under subsection 46P0(4) of the HREOC Act where a court determines discrimination has occurred be expanded to include corrective and preventative orders.
Response
Noted.
Under subsection 46P0(4) of the AHRC Act, the Federal Court may ‘make such orders (including a declaration of right) as it thinks fit’. A number of remedies are then listed; however, this does not limit the court’s discretion to award other remedies.
As part of the consolidation process, the Government will consider the implications of expanding the enumerated remedies that may be awarded under subsection 46P0(4) to include, for example, corrective and preventative orders.
Recommendation 24
The committee recommends that increased funding be provided to the working women’s centres, community legal centres, specialist low cost legal services and legal aid to ensure they have the resources to provide advice for sex discrimination and sexual harassment matters.
Response
Noted.
The Government will consider this recommendation in light of the availability of resources.
The future approach to the Commonwealth’s funding of legal assistance services, including those that are the subject of this recommendation, will be developed having regard to the Government’s Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System and the negotiation of the National Partnership Agreement on legal aid.
Recommendation 25
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to remove the exemption for voluntary organisations in section 39.
Response
Noted.
There are differing approaches to voluntary organisations in Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation. The ADA and SDA provide exemptions for voluntary bodies in connection with the admission of persons as members, or the provision of benefits, facilities and services to members. There are no equivalent exemptions under the DDA or RDA.
The Government recognises that some other Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation has a wider coverage than the SDA and will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 26
The committee recommends that the definition of ‘clubs’ in section 4 be expanded so that:
the prohibition on discrimination with respect to clubs applies to a broader range of organisations; and
those organisations have access to the automatic exception in subsection 25(3) permitting single-sex clubs.
Response
Noted.
`Clubs’ is defined in the SDA to mean an association of 30 or more persons. The definition in the DDA does not have a membership threshold. The RDA and ADA do not list ‘clubs’ as an area of public life to which the protections apply. Section 9 of the RDA would apply to discrimination in respect to clubs; however the ADA arguably allows clubs to discriminate in relation to membership and enjoyment of benefits provided by the club.
The definition of ‘clubs’ and the scope of exemptions which relate to clubs will be considered as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 27
The committee recommends that provisions such as sections 31 and 32, which clarify that certain differential treatment is not discriminatory, should be removed from Part II Division 4 which deals with exemptions and instead be consolidated with section 7D.
Response
Noted.
Section 31 of the SDA permits rights or privileges to be granted to a woman and not a man if in connection with pregnancy or childbirth. This is consistent with article 4(2) of the CEDAW which allows ‘special measures, including those measures contained in the present Convention, aimed at protecting maternity shall not be considered discriminatory.’
Section 32 of the SDA allows services to be provided to members of one sex if the nature of the services is such that it can only be provided to members of one sex.
Sections 31 and 32 clarify that certain differential treatment is not discriminatory. Sections 31 and 32 are currently contained in Division 4 which deals with exemptions. The Government will take this recommendation into account in the design of consolidated Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation.
Recommendation 28
The committee recommends that section 44 of the Act be amended to clarify that the power of HREOC to grant temporary exemptions is to be exercised in accordance with the objects of the Act.
Response
Noted.
The Commission can grant temporary exemptions under the ADA, DDA and SDA. The Commission’s guidelines for granting temporary exemptions already provide that consideration be given to the objects of the Acts.
Recommendation 29
The committee recommends that the Act and the HREOC Act should be amended to expand HREOC’s powers to conduct formal inquiries into issues relevant to eliminating sex discrimination and promoting gender equality and, in particular, to permit inquiries which examine matters within a state or under state laws.
Response
Noted.
The broader issue of the Commission’s inquiry functions will be considered as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 30
The committee recommends that paragraph 48(1)(gb) of the Act be amended to explicitly confer a function on HREOC of intervening in proceedings relating to family responsibilities discrimination or victimisation.
Response
Partially accepted.
Paragraph 48(1)(gb) of the Act gives the Commission power to intervene, with leave of the court, in discrimination cases that relate to sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy or sexual harassment. It does not cover intervention in proceedings relating to family responsibilities discrimination or victimisation.
The Government accepts that the Commission should be able to intervene in cases involving family responsibilities discrimination. This will complement the broadening of protection against discrimination on the grounds of family responsibilities (see above recommendation 13).
The Government will introduce legislation to implement this aspect of the recommendation.
Victimisation is a criminal offence under the SDA, RDA, ADA and DDA. Currently the Commission is not empowered to intervene in proceedings relating to victimisation of a person bringing a complaint under any of these Acts, and this recommendation therefore has implications beyond the SDA.
Conferring power on the Commission to intervene in proceedings relating to victimisation will be considered as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 31
The committee recommends that subsection 46PV(1) of the HREOC Act be amended to include a function for the special purpose commissioners to appear as amicus curiae in appeals from discrimination decisions made by the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court.
Response
Noted.
Under subsection 46PV(1), special purpose commissioners may appear as amicus curiae in certain proceedings with the leave of the court. It is unclear if subsection 46PV(1) applies to consequent appeals. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 32
The committee recommends that paragraph 48(1)(gb) of the Act and subsection 46PV(2) of the HREOC Act be amended to empower HREOC to intervene in proceedings, and the special purpose commissioners to act as amicus curiae, as of right.
Response
Noted.
Consideration needs to be given to the impact that an appearance as of right by a special purpose commissioner or the Commission may have on the conduct and cost of the proceeding, particularly where the proposed involvement may be opposed by the parties. The Government needs to examine further whether the court should retain the capacity to make orders as to the nature of the Commissioner’s involvement. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 33
The committee recommends that the Act be amended to require the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to monitor progress towards eliminating sex discrimination and achieving gender equality, and to report to Parliament every four years.
Response
Noted.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is currently required, under the AHRC Act, to submit a yearly report to Parliament on the enjoyment and exercise of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Tones Strait Islander persons.
The Government will consider similar statutory functions for the Sex and Disability Discrimination Commissioners, including the appropriate reporting cycle for all such reports, as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 34
The committee recommends that HREOC be provided with additional resources to enable it to:
carry out an initial public education campaign in relation to changes to the Act;
perform the additional roles and broader functions recommended in this report; and
devote additional resources to its functions to educate the public about the Act.
Response
Noted.
The Government will consider this recommendation in the Budget context.
Recommendation 35
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to reviewing the operation of section 38 of the Act, to:
retain the exemption in relation to discrimination on the basis of marital status; and
remove the exemption in relation to discrimination on the grounds of sex and pregnancy; and - require a test of reasonableness.
Response
Noted.
Section 38 of the SDA exempts educational institutions established for religious purposes from the operation of the discrimination provisions. This exemption does not apply to sexual harassment or discrimination on the ground of family responsibilities; however, it does apply to sex, marital status or pregnancy in certain defined contexts. All States and Territories anti-discrimination legislation include similar exemptions.
Consideration needs to be given to whether a test of ‘reasonableness’ would provide protections additional to that already contained in the SDA, which is that the discrimination occurs in ‘good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed’.
The Report makes several recommendations about the current exemptions in the SDA, such as recommendation 25 (voluntary organisations) and recommendation 26 (clubs). The Government will consider these recommendations together as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 36
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to removing the existing permanent exemptions in section 30 and sections 34 to 43 of the Act and replacing these exemptions with a general limitations clause.
Response
Noted.
The ADA, DDA and SDA all contain a number of permanent exemptions which will need to be reviewed as part of consideration of this recommendation. The Government will need to consider further how a general limitations clause would operate. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 37
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to amending the Act to give the Sex Discrimination Commissioner the power to investigate alleged breaches of the Act, without requiring an individual complaint.
Response
Noted.
This recommendation represents a significant shift towards a regulatory model of anti-discrimination legislation. This approach is not used in other Australian jurisdictions.
In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2006 (UK) provides that the Commission for Equality and Human Rights may investigate whether or not a person has committed an unlawful act if it suspects that the person concerned may have committed an unlawful act.
If adopted, this approach would need to be applied consistently across all grounds of discrimination. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 38
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to amending the Act to give HREOC the power to commence legal action in the Federal Magistrates Court or Federal Court for a breach of the Act.
Response
Noted.
As with recommendation 37, this approach represents a significant shift in the functions of the Commission; and it would need to be applied consistently across all grounds of discrimination. The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 39
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to expanding the powers of HREOC to include the promulgation of legally binding standards under the Act equivalent to the powers exercised by the Minister under section 31 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
Response
Noted.
The promulgation of binding standards under the DDA is a complex process and the Government will need to consider carefully the effectiveness of binding standards in the gender equality context.
Consideration also needs to be given to the interaction with the National Employment Standards and the outcomes of the review of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 and Agency (the EOWA review). The Government will consider this recommendation as part of the consolidation project.
Recommendation 40
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to amending the Act or the EOWW Act to provide for positive duties for public sector organisations, employers, educational institutions and other service providers to eliminate sex discrimination and sexual harassment, and promote gender equality.
Response
Noted.
The EOWA review was announced on 1 June 2009 and is due to report in the coming months. The review is examining broadly the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act and arrangements in delivering equal opportunity for women. The review will provide advice on practical ways in which the equal opportunity for women framework could be improved to deliver better outcomes for Australian women. The Government will consider this recommendation further in light of the outcomes of the EOWA review.
Recommendation 41
The committee recommends that further consideration be given to the relationship between the Act and the EOWW Act, in particular, whether:
the obligations under the EOWW Act and should be incorporated within the Act; and
the functions of EOWA and HREOC should be combined.
Response
Noted.
As discussed above under recommendation 40, the EOWA review will report on the effectiveness of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act and arrangements in delivering equal opportunity for women. The terms of reference provide that the review: ‘Consider the EOWW Act and Agency within the framework of existing proposed workplace-related and human rights legislation and policy.’
The Government will consider this recommendation further in light of the outcomes of the EOWA review.
Recommendation 42
The committee recommends that the Attorney-General’s Department conduct consultations regarding the further possible changes to the Act outlined in recommendations 35 to 41 and report publicly on the outcomes of that consultation within 12 months.
Response
Noted.
The process of consolidating Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation will involve consideration of recommendations 35 to 41 and include stakeholder consultation.
Recommendation 43
The committee recommends that HREOC conduct a public inquiry to examine the merits of replacing the existing federal anti-discrimination acts with a single Equality Act. The inquiry should report by 2011 and should also consider:
what additional grounds of discrimination, such as sexual orientation or gender identity, should be prohibited under Commonwealth law;
whether the model for enforcement of anti-discrimination laws should be changed; and
what additional mechanisms Commonwealth law should adopt in order to most effectively promote equality.
Response
Noted.
The National Human Rights Consultation received submissions on the issues covered in recommendation 43.
Further consultation on additional grounds of discrimination will be undertaken as part of the consolidation project.
Ordered that the committee reports be printed.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Senate
That the final reports of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee on sustainable management by the Commonwealth of water resources, and the Energy Efficient Homes Package be presented by 22 June 2010.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Senate
That the final report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 [No. 2] be presented by 30 June 2010.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This is a report into native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures. It was a particularly interesting inquiry. The inquiry raised many issues that are not normally before this place, because most of this legislation is within the domain of the various states and territories—and this is a key fact about this report. These are state laws, and many of the issues raised by the hundreds of submissions we received related to enforcement of these laws and the behaviour and actions of state governments. The majority report of the committee reflects concerns that have arisen, in some cases decades ago, since the passage of these laws—these are not laws that are merely the product of the last decade—that regulated the management of native vegetation on private land.
I note that these laws have represented a significant change to many. The laws guaranteeing retention of native vegetation on private land represent a change because in past years a condition of title or a condition of lease was in fact the clearing of land. So there has been a substantial change for many involved in the agricultural and pastoral industries who are affected by these laws.
The inquiry highlighted many issues and I would like to outline a few this evening. I know that some of my colleagues—I assume on both sides of the house—will add to this later on. In my view, laws that were once about broad-scale land clearing have now become significantly more about the management of native vegetation on individual properties. We heard of many examples of effective micromanagement of individual properties. In particular, there was an absurd example where a farmer was not allowed to remove a single tree in the middle of a paddock, even if he guaranteed to plant native vegetation elsewhere, that would have allowed much more efficient and modern utilisation of that particular land for farming use. Situations like that are absurd. I think they reflect the change in what these laws originally were about, which was broad-scale land clearing, and how they now seem to have become more about the management of individual properties.
Similarly, many witnesses outlined to us numerous examples of problems with the enforcement of these laws. The committee report highlighted a couple of these. Landholders are in fact liable for the payment of rates on land they cannot use or land that has been locked up, which the committee felt was an issue that needed to be reconsidered. There was also potentially the clash of legal regimes. Laws that required the management of noxious weeds may clash with laws about the retention and management of native vegetation. In certain jurisdictions there is a lack of administrative appeal of certain decisions made on behalf of government officials. It was put to the committee that in the state of Western Australia these decisions were one of the very few decisions that were not able to be appealed through the administrative appeals process of that state. The committee highlighted that as well.
There was also some concern that the state-wide application of laws would not always take into account regional, environmental, economic, social or, indeed, other differences. Even as a federalist myself, the lines drawn as our state boundaries do not always take these differences into account, and there might be a case for more regional flexibility within states. In my view, and in the view of a number of members of the committee, there appears to be at least a partial breakdown in relationships between enforcement agents and property owners. What underpins this? It is difficult to determine this from a simple Senate inquiry at the Commonwealth level into state laws. It is clear that some property owners are bearing a burden on behalf of the wider community. I hasten to add that the committee did not determine it to be inappropriate for the state to regulate the use of private landholdings or how they are utilised, but the committee was of the view that when someone pays for a benefit desired by the broader community through a direct economic cost there is a legitimate claim to consider compensating the landholder in that case for the burden they are bearing.
On a more philosophical level, I think another cause of this is the lack of common ground between urban policy makers and those involved in primary production, be it agriculture or pastoral production, in regional areas. There is much less shared experience, in my view, across the community than there was several generations ago between those who live and are raised in the cities and those who live and are involved in primary production in our regional areas. This lack of understanding has led to a more blunt degree of regulation by the states and a high degree of frustration by those who are regulated. If I look at my own experience, I realise that it is limited itself in this regard, and this is one of the many reasons I found this inquiry particularly interesting.
I make a final comment regarding the additional comments from government senators. Despite the attempts of the government senators to constantly pin the blame for these laws on the Howard government, it is clear that these laws are state laws. They were passed by state parliaments. They are enforced by state enforcement agencies. There is no Commonwealth head of power with respect to land management other than through treaties we have ratified and legislated through this parliament. These issues, such as biodiversity, were not prominent in our hearings or in the submissions received by this committee. These problems are primarily ones of legislation, regulation and enforcement at the state level.
Finally, I express my thanks to my colleagues who participated in this inquiry. It was done under a particularly tight time line. I particularly thank the committee’s secretary, Christine McDonald, and the committee secretariat, who worked extremely long hours during a very tight time line dealing with hundreds of submissions. I also thank the hundreds of Australians who made submissions and the many who appeared at our committee into this inquiry.
Looking back on the inquiry of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures, I think it is one of those good ideas that the opposition think they have but when they actually get into the nitty-gritty of the inquiry probably wish they had not sought to do so. The terms of reference of the committee encompass the rhetoric that was being used by the opposition to try to gain support amongst farmers and to try to share blame on anywhere but the coalition on this issue of native vegetation. The terms of reference go to the diminution of land asset value. They go to compensation arrangements for landholders. They go to the method of calculation of asset value and ‘any other related matter’. Yet if you look at the recommendations, which we as government members do not have great problems with, you will see they talk about anything but the terms of reference. Why is that? It is because this was a pure political position being put by the coalition to try to raise their position with farmers around the country. All they did was raise expectations through this inquiry and delivered on nothing. They delivered on nothing.
I have heard much about hypocrisy in the debates in this chamber this afternoon but, let me tell you, the hypocrisy from the opposition senators on this was huge. The hypocrisy was oozing from every pore in their bodies on this issue. They were up there arguing that there should be compensation when they were talking to farmers outside Parliament House at rallies but, as soon as they had to face some reality, they ran away from that position. I must say the coalition have got form on this whole issue and that form goes back a long way. It goes back to about 1995, when one of those coalition senators, Senator Ian Macdonald, was in the chamber, in opposition. In the Hansard of 22 March 1995, he says:
As opposed to that the coalition’s policy that Senator Kemp and Senator Brownhill have mentioned is a sensible policy. It was put out in our discussion paper and calls for an end to broadacre land clearing with compensation to owners to be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the states for the loss of further earnings, a no regrets approach to greenhouse reduction strategies, and a nationally coordinated reafforestation program.
So this was a ‘no regrets’ policy from the coalition. Well, as soon as they said it, they had regrets, because Senator Macdonald in the Hansard on 9 March 2000 changed his position. It was not that the Commonwealth should pay compensation because Labor were in government. Because the coalition were in government, it now became the coalition’s policy for an end to broadacre land clearing with compensation, but then they went on to say in 2002:
The Commonwealth reiterates—
This is the coalition government; this is Senator Macdonald—
that land clearing is primarily a land management issue and is the responsibility of state and territory governments.
And we heard that repeated again today. Senator Macdonald went on to say:
The Commonwealth has, however, indicated that it would be prepared to provide a financial contribution commensurate with the reduction in emissions from land clearing negotiated and implemented by the Queensland government. Achieving a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will involve a sizeable and sustained reduction in the ‘business as usual’ clearing rates over the past decade, beyond that flowing from the vegetation management regime in the national action plan.
When they were in opposition they were always saying to the farmers, ‘The Commonwealth should compensate you.’ When they were in government they ran away from that at a rate of knots. The coalition have got form on it and they are back again with the same form telling farmers that they should be compensated and it is a terrible thing that has happened to them—yet they were the federal government that pushed these laws on the farmers.
You were the ones that pushed it through the states and said the states had to deliver to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Then you go and grandstand to farmers, hypocrisy running out of you. Then, when you have an opportunity to actually stand up for what you were saying, you again run away from the issues. You did not deal with the issues and you must be absolutely clear with farmers; you should be honest with farmers. You should be honest with what you claim is your constituency because, when they find out what you have actually been up to, I do not think they are going to be your constituency for too long. They must realise that this was a con job, that you used this inquiry to give them false hope, that you used this inquiry to grandstand and when you had the opportunity to stand up for what you were saying you did not stand up for it. You ran away from it at a million miles an hour.
This has been going on for some time. There was evidence given by Mr Rheese, the executive director of an organisation that calls itself the Australian Environment Foundation. When I was questioning him I said: ‘Why is it an issue now? Why wasn’t it an issue when the coalition were in government?’ Mr Rheese said, ‘We addressed this at a public meeting in Dubbo in 2003. We tried very hard to get this on the national agenda.’ But Senator Macdonald could not get it on the national agenda for them because he was a minister at the time and he was not interested in getting it on the national agenda. He wants to grandstand now. He wants to say he is standing up for farmers, but the hypocrisy is so clear in relation to the performance of Senator Macdonald on this that the farmers will soon understand what he is about.
I asked whether there were any coalition government members at that meeting in Dubbo and the reply was: ‘Yes. Senator Nash was there.’ I said, ‘What did they put at the meeting?’ They said, ‘Senator Nash did not speak at the meeting.’ Here we have the National Party up ranting and raving about all these issues, but when they were in government there were as meek as lambs, as quiet as mice, not prepared to take the issue up. Now they are in opposition, they do exactly as they did when they were in opposition last time—hypocrisy is everywhere in relation to this.
To be fair to Senator Nash, she was not a senator at the time, but she was at the meeting. I suppose she was there in her employment at the time, which was as an adviser to the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mark Vaile. The coalition government were all over this issue but what they were doing was trying to keep it quiet—no ministers, no members, at a meeting of 300 farmers complaining about this in Dubbo. When they were in government there were no ministers there running the arguments about compensation, yet they have the hide and the hypocrisy now to be raising these issues but when they had an opportunity to actually put recommendations up on the terms of reference that were drafted by the coalition they ran away from it. There is nothing there that goes to the issues that they laid out as a promise to the farmers.
As I said, we do not have a problem with the broad generalities of the recommendations. We have put up a further 10 recommendations that strengthen the recommendations of the coalition senators on this committee. I think it is about time that the coalition senators were honest with farmers. When they are out there talking about compensation Senator Joyce goes back to the press saying, ‘No, no, we are not going to give compensation; it’s all too expensive.’ They are out there grandstanding to farmers at meetings and telling the press behind the scenes that there is no reason for compensation, that it is all too difficult and that it is all too expensive. Just be honest. (Time expired)
I also take note of the report currently being discussed, which is that of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures. I understand the rhetoric about the retrospectivity of this report, but it is vitally important to remember that it gives three recommendations that are supported by all parties except the Greens. We negotiated those recommendations to deliver some hope that we are going to change things for farmers.
On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: the Labor senators have been misrepresented by Senator Joyce. There were no negotiations to try and come to some agreement on these recommendations. The recommendations were the recommendations of the National and Liberal parties.
Senator Cameron, that is not a point of order.
It is not a dissenting report. There are additional comments by the Labor Party. The recommendations were the recommendations of the committee. What we have here are the recommendations of the committee, which included senators from the Labor Party. But let us put this behind us and have a debate and try to concentrate on how we can bring about a better outcome for the farmers. The farmers do not want a rhetorical flourish; they want some hope that we can deliver a better outcome. I agree with you, Senator Cameron, that we do not have—and I will say this quite openly—the capacity to compensate every farmer for all the trees that have been taken from them. I say that on the record. We do not because the Labor Party have got us $140 billion in debt as we speak and they are heading towards about a quarter of a trillion dollars in debt.
If we cannot compensate the farmers, then we must change the legislation. In fact, we must go so far as to give the trees back to them. The trees were stolen from them. They were an asset of the farmers and we proved that through the inquiry. The title specifically said that these assets were assets of the farmers and they were taken from them without the farmers ever being paid for them. I believe both sides of the chamber find that abhorrent. You cannot just wander into someone’s life and take an asset from them without paying for it. We should not believe in that. Once we believe in that, we would not believe in the value of going to work. Why would you go to work to pay for something if there is a prospect that you would not own it?
I hope this report becomes part and parcel of a bipartisan approach to try to take this issue forward and put pressure on to bring about a fairer outcome. I think I heard from those on both sides of the argument say that when people drilled down into this issue—an issue that maybe a lot of people did not know about—they saw how irrational some of these laws had become and how completely arbitrary and ridiculous they were, where you had a person with a number of trees in a wheat paddock and they were not able to get rid of them. Why? We do not know. It was almost a Franz Kafka type of intrusion. This intrusion affects a minority group and we have to move away from thinking that if we do not see them as a minority group they are not a minority group.
Farmers make up less than one per cent of the population. They are generally poor, not rich, to dispel one myth, and they do not have the political power that they should have because people find it convenient to look past them. If this happened to another minority group, there would be a hue and cry about this. Imagine if we went to another group and said, ‘We are going to steal something from you without payment because we believe we are in a position where we can.’ As a social justice issue, surely that should strike a chord and we should be doing something about it now.
I hope that this report does not become a political football but becomes a seed from which we can start to seek and find justice. I am not here to talk about state or federal responsibility and waste the farmers’ time. I am here to talk about exactly what we can do from this point forward and to hear from other people how we can go forward and bring justice to these people who do not have justice at the moment. The people listening to this right now—yes, the history lesson is interesting—are far more interested in how we are going to fix it and what we are going to do about it to try and make their lives better. The reality is that there has been the theft of an asset of the individual by the government, whether or not it was in collusion with the federal government. The theft happened and these people were dispossessed. In some instances, this has without a shadow of a doubt put them in a position where their assets have diminished. In some instances, this asset is worthless, has become without worth and is unsaleable.
We also have the ridiculous situation where a person who owned the trees woke up one day and the trees had become the property of the government. However, they had to pay rates on the land where the trees were, they had to pay the insurance, they had to keep the weeds down and if somebody else’s tree fell on a neighbour or anybody else—a person coming off the road—walking through the place guess who would have been sued. Not the government but the farmer would have got sued. He would have been sued for an asset he did not actually own. How can this be justice? How can this be right? Surely, the focus of the chamber right now should be about trying to bring a remedy. The honourable thing is to seek a remedy, because that is the only way you provide a sense of hope.
These people were told that it was to be done on an environmental basis, and even that has been flawed in many instances. The reality—as we are seeing more and more—is that, if it is based on carbon sequestration, the amount of carbon being stored and quarantined is inferior to the amount of carbon stored by such things as summer pastures. This is just a fact of science. People might have a biodiversity argument, but that was not the argument put up at the time. That was an argument of carbon sequestration.
The issue is: why should you go to a minority group and persecute them for a solution for the wider community? If the wider community believe they need it then the wider community should pay for it, and if the wider community are not prepared to pay for it then the need for it cannot be that great. That is the essence. To describe a similar circumstance, it is like people going to suburban Australia and saying: ‘The need of the community is that we now quarantine the use of your third bedroom for a social good—we’ll probably give that to the homeless—but we’re not going to pay you for it. In fact, you’re still going to have to pay the rates and insurance on it. You have to deal with the impost if you ever try to sell that house now that that is there.’ Obviously, when people see it in that dynamic, they see that it is completely abhorrent.
I definitely want stronger views on compensation, but the issue was that we had a recommendation of a report with no dissent. There is no dissenting report in this. I repeat: there is no dissenting report in this. We have additional comments, but we have no dissent. So this report is without dissent. That means it is without dissent from either the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Labor Party or any other party.
Senator Siewert interjecting—
Oh, yes; there is one by the Greens. The Greens dissented, but they are not actually trying to make things better; they are trying to make things worse. The Labor Party did not dissent; therefore they are in agreement with the recommendations. It is as simple as that. The reason that we have kept the recommendations where they were is to keep the Labor Party on board. That is why the recommendations are without dissent: because it is vitally important for this nation and for justice to this minority group that we bring about an outcome that is bipartisan. We now have a bipartisan report and recommendations. Let us not now revel in the rhetoric of history. Let us make sure, if we are people who are going to do something that is right and just, that we move forward from this point as if we were dealing with any other minority group and try to bring about some sense of justice for them. If we do not, then we make a mockery when we do it with other groups, because that means we have a form of partiality as to who deserves justice and who does not. I hope that is not where this chamber goes.
There are only a couple of minutes left in this debate on the Finance and Public Administration References Committee report on native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures, and I want to make a contribution. Fortunately, no-one listening would ever take any notice of Senator Doug Cameron. He is, after all, a member of the Labor Party, and with the promises they make and never keep you can understand that the people of Australia are now in a situation where they treat with a grain of salt anything Mr Rudd says and anything any of his minions, like Senator Doug Cameron, say, because they have been lied to so many times that they have given up taking any notice of or attributing any veracity to things said by Mr Rudd or by people like Senator Cameron.
Notwithstanding that, I am rather flattered that Senator Cameron has gone back 15 years to look up my words of wisdom in this place. I feel rather touched that Senator Cameron would do that, but perhaps it is worth while just to have a reality check. Back in those days that Senator Cameron was talking about, the Queensland Labor government was determined to stop tree clearing and, in fact, to destroy the value in most properties in Queensland. At the time, the then coalition government was trying to work with the Queensland government and say: ‘Look, don’t do this across the board. We understand the Queensland government’s desire to stop wide-scale tree clearing, but let’s talk about this. Let’s talk to the farmers about it. Let’s talk to the landowners. Let’s try to get a result that is good for the environment, good for farming communities and good for landowners.’ For a considerable amount of time, the Commonwealth government was talking with the Queensland government and urging it to work with landowners to come to a resolution. The Commonwealth government said: ‘Yes, let’s get a negotiated outcome so that everyone wins, and we might contribute some compensation. Provided the Queensland government is prepared to pay compensation to landowners, the Commonwealth will put in some compensation.’ This was how the negotiations were going, and then in the middle of it one morning, without any warning, we woke up and the Queensland government had just made this unilateral announcement that there would be no tree clearing whatsoever and very little compensation. At that stage the federal government, having been completely outflanked in these negotiations we were having with landowners and the Queensland government, simply withdrew from the whole question. That is the truth of the matter. I am not going to have time to finish this, so I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later time.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
This report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories was presented out of session. Through this inquiry, the committee sought to examine the issues associated with economic development in the context of the service delivery of communications, transport and housing; the operation of business; and preparations to deal with the impact of climate change. During the inquiry, several solutions were canvassed in each area examined.
The committee focused on how communications, internet services and mobile telephony were delivered. To improve internet delivery and access, options identified were either to upgrade the satellite link to the Indian Ocean territories or to access a cable if and when it is laid. Improving mobile telephony was found to be more complex as the service available on Christmas Island is limited and the service available on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands prone to failure. New infrastructure will be needed to implement an efficient, reliable and affordable mobile telephony service.
The high cost and unreliability of freight and passenger services have remained major areas of concern for the IOTs. As outlined in previous reports, the committee found that options to improve the service delivery of these in the short term rests with the government through subsidies in infrastructure investment.
Another major issue highlighted was the limited land made available for commercial development and investment. The committee found that investment in the Indian Ocean territories is critical to growing the economies, and has recommended the development of a land release and development strategy to stimulate the local construction industries and investment.
The social impacts accompanying the economic challenges facing the Indian Ocean territories relate to, in part, a diminishing permanent population and the limited contact that occurs with mainland and wider Australian society. In addition there is the challenge of the fluctuating non-permanent population associated with the demands placed on Christmas Island in particular with regard to the detention centre.
The shires of the Indian Ocean territories are focused on addressing the decreasing permanent population by mainly targeting the youth segment that is leaving in search of greater educational and employment opportunities. The committee believes that by improving economic diversity, the economies of Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands would be better able to sustain themselves into the future.
In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank individuals and organisations who participated in the inquiry. The committee was able to conduct public hearings on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and Christmas Island. I would also like to acknowledge and thank those who generously assisted the committee during that visit. I particularly acknowledge and thank the joint standing committee secretariat, Stephen Boyd and Stephanie Mikac, for their work on this inquiry and also my colleagues on the committee.
Question agreed to.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I seek leave to continue my remarks on the report on the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I will only be brief on this interim report on the Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010. I know that Senator Guy Barnett, who has been very involved as deputy chairman of this committee, has a very keen interest in this legislation.
This committee report is looking at a private member’s bill introduced by Mr Tony Abbott in the other place and introduced in this place by Senator Scullion. It has been referred to a Senate committee to have a look at the bill. The committee met at a number of places, and as a participating member I was able to be involved in the committee hearings in Cairns a few weeks ago. It became quite clear at the Cairns hearing that Indigenous people are absolutely furious, as well they may be, at the action of the Queensland state government in locking up their lands—the lands that they fought so hard to acquire over many decades—in a way that makes ownership of them practically valueless. We heard a considerable amount of evidence from different Indigenous people and groups about how the legislation and the processes were so complex that they restricted any useful activity that could be made on those lands.
This bill, which, as I mentioned, was originally introduced by Tony Abbott, was introduced as a result of a very close connection Mr Abbott has with Indigenous people in Cape York. Most people would not know—I did not until recently myself—that Mr Abbott has been going into Cape York without publicity and without the television cameras in tow. Over the last several years—I have subsequently become aware; I did not know at the time—he has been going up to Cape York, going to an Indigenous community and actually working with Indigenous people in various ways. I understand that in his last visit, which was several months ago and, of course, before he became the Leader of the Opposition, he went up there and worked as a teacher’s aide. Do not hold me to the facts—and Mr Abbott himself never talks about this very much—but others have told me that he goes up there, he lives in the community, he works with the community and he tries to add some value to their lives and, I suspect, to his own life in the way he assists Indigenous communities. He may be embarrassed, I hope not too embarrassed, that I am even raising this, because I know it is something that he has not been wanting to get publicity on. He really went up there to help, to look and to learn.
It was as a result of that close connection that Mr Abbott has had with Cape York communities over several years that he picked up on this anger from Indigenous communities about the wild rivers legislation and how those communities believed that it would impact upon their use of their lands. I know that the Queensland government has said, ‘There have been many applications and a lot of them have been granted,’ but, when you talk to the communities there, most of them would never even have made application for business activities in these wild rivers areas—the whole procedure was too complex and they felt that without resources, which very few of them have, they would be unable to make the case, make the legal challenge, get the accountants, solicitors and whatever was required to make a proper application to be given the ability to use their own land. That has incensed people in Cape York, and one can well understand why that might be.
I know that Senator Barnett will speak at another time on this report. I know there will be other senators who wish to make a contribution at some later stage. I understand, although I personally was not able to get to the committee meeting when this was dealt with, that the return of this report has now been extended by the government majority on this committee to a date which will mean that, quite frankly, the bill will never be able to be debated in this chamber prior to the next election. That is unfortunate, because it is an important area and it is an important bill. It is a bill that was very much sought by Indigenous people in the cape and it would have been good for the Commonwealth parliament to have been able to debate and vote on that bill about overturning the Queensland government’s wild rivers legislation wherever it occurs in Queensland. It would have been a momentous bill because it would have been one of those rare occasions when the Commonwealth parliament overrides the laws of a state under the Commonwealth Constitution, but it was so important for our Indigenous people that Mr Abbott thought that it was very important that the bill be introduced into the parliament, debated and voted upon. I am disappointed that the Labor majority on this committee have now rearranged the reporting date to effectively mean that it will not be able to be voted on prior to the next election. On the assumption that nobody else in the chamber wants to speak on this report at this time, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
I present a response from the South Australian Minister for Health, Mr Hill, to a resolution of the Senate of 10 March 2010 concerning renal health services.
by leave—I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
It is pleasing to hear that the South Australian government is responding to the Senate’s resolution on the issue around dialysis in Central Australia, and I thank Minister Hill for taking such an interest. However, it is interesting to note that the letter is already somewhat out of date, because the minister talks in his letter about working on a solution for the APY Lands and exploring the feasibility of providing dialysis services on APY Lands, meaning patients would no longer have to travel.
I note the media release of last Friday from the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Service Delivery, Mr Snowdon, in which he announced that there is going to be a joint study to look into delivery of kidney disease treatment in Central Australia. Again, it is very pleasing to note that the federal government, the state governments of South Australia and Western Australia and the Territory government are joining together to look at the delivery of these services. However, unfortunately the announcement did not include terms of reference for the inquiry. It did say that the inquiry will be completed by the end of the year, which in one way is pleasing in that at least it has a set end date. But, in the meantime, we are still seeing patients urgently needing access to dialysis.
I also note that there was an agreement, which turned out to yet again be an announcement of a tri-state agreement over the provision of dialysis support in Central Australia. It says that some resources will be made available for people interstate—in other words, patients in South Australia and Western Australia accessing dialysis support in Alice Springs. The problem with that is that, while the South Australian government said that they would continue to support existing patients in Alice Springs, by the sounds of it—and it is very difficult to get access to the real information—it appears that from then on they will only fund access for eight patients to receive dialysis in Central Australia. That is in fact a halving of the number of people from South Australia, the APY Lands, who will be able to access Central Australia. That of course means that people on the APY Lands are going to have to travel to Adelaide, Whyalla or Port Augusta. That is, in some instances, over 1,000 kilometres, so that means that people have to relocate permanently from their communities.
I remind the Senate that the debate and the discussions that we have been having have been about enabling people who live in Central Australia to access dialysis support close to their community so that they do not have to travel and remove themselves from the community. Having to do so means that their family is disrupted, they are isolated from their community and they are isolated from their families or their families have to move. They are often receiving treatment and support that is not necessarily entirely culturally appropriate.
Very often these patients do not speak English as a first language. They are often relocated to areas where they do not have people that speak their language or are able to support them in the manner in which they would be if they were supported in their community. I am pleased to see there is some progress. I urge the South Australian government in the interim to ensure that patients on the APY Lands have access to dialysis support in Alice Springs so that they do not have to relocate in some cases over a thousand kilometres from their home. It is essential that the people are able to remain either in their community or close to their community. I remind members that these lands are only 400 kilometres rather than a thousand kilometres from Alice Springs. There are often family members on dialysis already in Alice Springs. In other words, they are not isolated from their communities if they are able to access dialysis support in Alice Springs.
My next urging is that as soon as the government releases the terms of reference for this study that engages very strongly with all communities and all service providers the first consultation be undertaken. In fact, around the issues of the terms of reference, as soon as this study is completed a commitment should be given by both the Commonwealth government and the state and territory governments to come to a long-term planning solution to provide dialysis support in Central Australia. That support needs to be innovative, provided in community, involve training, provide support for nursing staff and accommodation for that nursing staff and ensure that people do not have to travel sometimes over 2,000 kilometres, as in my home state of Western Australia if they have to relocate to Kalgoorlie or Perth, but enables them to remain in community and receive that support. Of course, in the longer term we want to ensure that people do not get to the point of end stage kidney disease. We want appropriate health programs in place that ensure that they do not ever get to the stage of needing dialysis.
Question agreed to.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee of Privileges, Senator Brandis, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he shall move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee of Privileges on the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009 be extended to 4 June 2010.
by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Standing Committee of Privileges, Senator Brandis, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he shall move:
That the Standing Committee of Privileges be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 May 2010 from 4 pm to 7 pm to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Bill 2009.
I table the statement and documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Education Services for Overseas Students Assurance Fund.
At the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Crossin, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Bill 2010.
It is my pleasure on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories to present the committee’s advisory report on the provisions of the Territories Law Reform Bill 2010, together with the minutes of proceedings, and seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 will amend the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to strengthen accountability and transparency through reform of Norfolk Island’s administrative law, governance, electoral and financial structures. In addition, the bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied in the Indian Ocean territories. While the bill has two purposes, the bill’s main component relates to Norfolk Island.
The reforms contained in the bill were announced by the then Minister for Home Affairs in May 2009. At that time, the government of Norfolk Island welcomed moving towards greater transparency and accountability to strengthen administrative and financial systems and thereby improving Norfolk Island’s long term stability.
I am very conscious of the time. The committee has made four recommendations which it commends to the government. In the brief time available to me, I would like to thank all those who participated in the inquiry and acknowledge the work of the secretariat. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
The President has received a letter nominating senators to be members of a committee.
by leave—I move:
That senators be appointed to the Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation as follows: Senators Back, Ryan and Trood Participating members: Senators Adams, Barnett, Bernardi, Birmingham, Boswell, Boyce, Brandis, Bushby, Cash, Colbeck, Coonan, Cormann, Eggleston, Ferguson, Fierravanti-Wells, Fifield, Fisher, Heffernan, Humphries, Johnston, Joyce, Kroger, Macdonald, Mason, McGauran, Minchin, Nash, Parry, Payne, Ronaldson, Scullion, Troeth and Williams.
Question agreed to.
Messages received from the House of Representatives agreeing to the amendments made by the Senate to the bills.
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
I move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
The purpose of the bill is to repeal the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 and to put in place a proper process to establish a facility for managing, at a single site, radioactive waste arising from medical, industrial and research uses of radioactive material.
Australia has international obligations to properly manage its own radioactive waste.
This Bill represents a responsible and long overdue approach for an issue that impacts on all Australian communities.
It provides procedural fairness- a right for people to be heard, as outlined in the Bill, - on decisions as to where a facility should be built.
At the same time the Bill ensures that the Australian Government has appropriate powers to make arrangements for the safe and secure management of radioactive waste generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth.
The Bill enables the Commonwealth to act in good faith and spirit with respect to the Site Nomination Deed entered into by the Northern Land Council, the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust and the Commonwealth in 2007.
Radioactive Waste
Australia produces low level and intermediate level waste through its use of radioactive materials.
Low level waste includes lightly contaminated laboratory waste, such as paper, plastic, glassware and protective clothing, contaminated soil, smoke detectors and emergency exit signs.
Intermediate level waste arises from the production of nuclear medicines, from overseas reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel and from disused medical and industrial sources such as radiotherapy sources and soil moisture meters.
As can be seen the generation of low level and intermediate level radioactive waste is an unavoidable result of many worthwhile activities.
During the past 50 years, about 4,000 cubic metres of low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste has accumulated in Australia. It is currently stored at interim facilities including a multitude of small stores located in suburban and regional areas across Australia.
By comparison, countries such as Britain and France annually produce around 25,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate level waste. But unlike the current situation in Australia, Britain and France dispose of such waste in purpose built repositories.
In addition to providing proper disposal of Australia’s low level and short-lived intermediate level radioactive waste, the facility to be established under this Bill will also be suitable for storing the approximately 32 cubic metres of long-lived intermediate level nuclear waste arising from reprocessing ANSTO’s spent research reactor fuel. This material will return to Australia from France and the United Kingdom in 2015 and 2016.
Beneficial Uses of Radioactive Materials
Radioactive materials have a variety of important uses in medicine, industry, agriculture, environment and sterilisation, as well as in our homes.
The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) is a public research organisation responsible for delivering specialised advice, scientific services and products to government, industry, academia and other research organisations.
Nuclear medicine production is a core business of ANSTO, which provides around 85 per cent of the nuclear medicines to Australian hospitals to help doctors diagnose and treat a range of diseases including cancer.
Around 500,000 patients annually, benefit from a radioisotope in medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Responsible management of radioactive waste
However, accepting these benefits means also accepting the responsibility to safely manage resulting radioactive waste. The two must go hand in hand.
Australia also needs to comply with its international obligations to manage radioactive waste.
As a party to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, we need to promote the consistent, safe and responsible management of radioactive waste.
We need a long term solution to this unavoidable, but not unmanageable issue.
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
Schedule 1
Schedule 1 of the Bill repeals the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 (the current Act) and amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the ADJR Act).
The repeal of the current Act meets a 2007 ALP Platform commitment.
Key decisions under the current Act are not susceptible to review under the ADJR Act.
Decisions under this Bill will be reviewable.
Schedule 2
A site on Ngapa clan land at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory has already been nominated and approved as a site under the current Act.
The Government will honour the Commonwealth’s existing commitments to the Ngapa traditional owners made by the previous government in 2007.
Accordingly, Schedule 2 contains a saving provision to ensure that the site will remain an approved site.
Procedural fairness requirements will apply to any decision to select the site, as the site for a facility.
Part 2 –Nomination of sites
The current Act allows for the selection of a site for a facility only in the Northern Territory.
The Bill will allow the Minister to make a declaration allowing people to make voluntary, nation-wide nominations.
However, in deciding whether to make a declaration, the Minister must have regard to whether it is unlikely that a facility will be able to be constructed and operated on Aboriginal that has been land nominated as a potential site under the Bill.
The Bill provides that a Land Council in the Northern Territory may nominate land as a potential site. Under the existing Site Nomination Deed, the Northern Land Council is entitled to nominate other sites on Ngapa land. This provision will enable that entitlement to continue.
Importantly, procedural fairness requirements will apply to any decision to approve a potential site and to any decision to open the nation-wide volunteer site-nomination process.
In accordance with the 2007 ALP Platform, three sites on Defence land in the Northern Territory identified by the former Government have been removed from further consideration as potential sites.
Part 3-Selecting the site for a facility
A decision to select a site should not be taken lightly.
Cautious and comprehensive evaluation is necessary to verify whether a site is suitable for a facility, to ensure the safe management of Australia’s radioactive waste and protection of people and the environment.
Flora and fauna samples need to be collected, meteorological and hydrological conditions must be evaluated and heritage investigations must take place, before selecting a site.
These activities have a minor impact on land but could lead to significant delays if they do not proceed as required.
Part 3 of the Bill allows relevant persons to conduct activities for the purpose of selecting a site.
Certain State, Territory and Commonwealth laws will not apply to activities under Part 3 to the extent that they would regulate, hinder or prevent these activities.
Part 4-Acquisition or extinguishment of rights and interests.
Part 4 of the Bill allows the Minister to select a site, as the site for a facility, and to identify land required for an access road to the site.
Procedural fairness requirements will apply to these decisions.
Part 4 of the Bill allows for the acquisition or extinguishment of rights and interests in relation to the selected site and land required for an access road.
Part 4 of the Bill provides that the Minister may establish a regional consultative committee, once a site has been selected for a facility.
The Government is committed to ensuring community input and an open dialogue with regional interests on this important project.
Part 5-Conducting activities in relation to selected site
Part 5 of the Bill authorises certain persons to conduct activities on the selected site for the purposes of constructing a facility.
In conducting these activities the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 must be complied with.
However certain other State, Territory and Commonwealth laws will not apply to activities under Part 5 to the extent that they would regulate, hinder or prevent these activities.
Part 6-Granting of rights and interest in land to original owners
Part 6 of the Bill preserves rules in the current Act allowing the Minister to grant certain acquired rights and interests, back to the original owners.
This refers to land that was nominated by a Land Council, before the opening of the nation-wide volunteer site-nomination process.
Part 7- Miscellaneous
Under Part 7 the Bill provides for affected parties, if there are any, to be compensated on just terms, where land is acquired for a facility.
Full details of the measures in the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members.
I commend the Bill.
Protection of the Sea Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
Shipping is vital for world trade, particularly for an island nation such as Australia.
Nearly 4,000 ships carry commodities to and from Australia’s shores each year, carrying 99 per cent of our imports and exports, by volume. Australia has the 5th largest shipping task in the world.
It is inevitable that with such a large amount of shipping there will be pollution of the oceans and the atmosphere. As a Government, we are committed to preventing and reducing marine pollution where possible.
The best way of doing this is to ensure that Australian legislation reflects international standards.
This bill will amend two Acts to strengthen Australia’s comprehensive marine pollution prevention regime.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), whose headquarters are in London, has adopted a number of Conventions which are intended to reduce pollution by ships.
The most important of these Conventions is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships which is generally referred to as MARPOL.
MARPOL has six technical Annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution. These are pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution.
About 150 countries have adopted at least some of these Annexes.
Australia has adopted all six.
Schedule 1 of this Bill will implement amendments to Annex VI of MARPOL. Annex VI is intended to reduce air pollution by ships.
Adverse public health effects associated with air pollution include premature mortality, cardio-pulmonary disease, lung cancer and chronic respiratory ailments.
Annex VI places an upper limit on the emission of nitrogen oxides from marine diesel engines, limits the emission of sulphur oxides by limiting the sulphur content of fuel oil and prohibits the deliberate emission of ozone depleting substances from ships.
Amendments to Annex VI, which were agreed to by the IMO in October 2008, will enter into force on 1 July 2010. The main effect of these amendments is to provide for a progressive reduction in the permitted sulphur level in fuel oil used in ships.
The current maximum sulphur content of 4.5% will be reduced to 3.5% from 1 January 2012. Subject to a review to be conducted in 2018 by the IMO, it is further proposed that the sulphur content of fuel oil be reduced to 0.5% from 1 January 2020.
The IMO has agreed that some parts of the seas which are close to heavily populated areas be designated as Emission Control Areas. An Emission Control Area is an area in which there is a proven need for a further reduction of emissions from ships for health reasons.
At present, only two areas have been designated as Emission Control Areas – the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.
The current permitted sulphur content in fuels used in Emission Control Areas is 1.5%. It will be reduced to 1% from 1 July 2010 and to 0.1% from 1 January 2015.
In order to implement the progressive reduction in permitted sulphur content of fuel oil, the Bill provides for the maximum sulphur content to be set by regulation.
The proposed reduction in sulphur fuel content to 3.5 % from 1 January 2012 will have little practical impact on vessel operations in Australia. That is because the average sulphur level in world-wide fuel oil deliveries and the sulphur levels in fuel refined in Australia currently fall below the 3.5% cap.
Another important aspect of this Bill is to provide protection for persons or organisations who assist in the cleanup following a spill of fuel oil from a ship.
Recent experience demonstrates that even small oil spills can be very costly. For example, the cleanup and compensation costs following the spill of about 270 tonnes of fuel oil from the Pacific Adventurer off the south-east coast of Queensland in March 2009 exceeded 30 million Australian dollars.
It is therefore essential that persons or organisations not be deterred from providing assistance because they think they may become liable if their actions inadvertently lead to increased pollution.
The Bill includes a so-called responder immunity provision to protect persons and organisations who respond to a spill of fuel oil from liability provided they have acted reasonably and in good faith.
This Bill continues the Government’s efforts to enhance Australia’s marine pollution prevention regime.
Debate (on motion by Senator Chris Evans) adjourned.
Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Sitting suspended from 6.31 pm to 8.00 pm
I table the budget statement for 2010-11 and other documents as indicated on the list circulated in the chamber. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the Senate take note of the budget statement and documents.
The list read as follows—
Budget statement and documents 2010-11
Budget speech 2010-11—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan), dated 11 May 2010.
Budget papers—
Ministerial statements—
Debate (on motion by Senator Sherry) adjourned.
I table particulars of proposed and certain expenditure, in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber, and seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.
Leave granted.
I move:
That the documents be referred to standing committees for consideration of estimates.
Question agreed to.
I table the portfolio budget statements for 2010-11 for the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.
I table portfolio budget statements for 2010-11 for portfolio and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.
The list read as follows—
Budget Related Documents—11 May 2010
2010-11 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Attorney-General
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
Defence
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Finance and Deregulation
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Health and Ageing
Human Services
Immigration and Citizenship
Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government
Innovation, Industry, Science and Research
Prime Minister and Cabinet
Resources, Energy and Tourism
Treasury
Veterans’ Affairs
I table a statement about matters raised during question time today. With the concurrence of the Senate, the terms of the statement will be incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The statement read as follows—
Statement by the President —matters raised during question time on 11 May 2010
Earlier today, Senator Bob Brown took a point of order about the use of the term ‘illegal entrants’ by Senator Brandis in a question directed to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Evans. Senator Brown claimed that as the description was arguable it was therefore contrary to standing order 73. Although I informed the Senate that I had ruled before on this question, I undertook to have a look at it.
I have ruled before on several occasions that terms of this nature are not out of order. My rulings are in accordance with established rules of the Senate.
Standing order 73 prevents the use of arguments, inferences or imputations, among other things, in questions. The fact that the accuracy of a term is disputed does not mean that it amounts to an argument, an inference or an imputation. It was on this basis that I ruled that the term was not out of order.
Past Presidents have ruled over many decades that it is not the role of the Chair to judge the accuracy or truthfulness of senators’ statements, and that statements by senators are not out of order merely on the basis that they are alleged to be inaccurate. This is a matter for refutation in debate, and not a question of order for the Chair.
I note your statement, Mr President, and I dissent from your ruling inherent in your statement.
It is not a ruling, Senator Brown.
It is a ruling and it—
Are you seeking leave to make a statement? It is not a ruling.
I am dissenting from the ruling that is in your statement and, if you rule that it is not a ruling, I dissent from that ruling.
The clerk has rightly pointed out that it is not a ruling at all; it is a statement in response to a question that you raised during question time today. If you want to seek leave to move a motion or something or speak on the matter, then it is well within your rights to do so.
We are in disagreement. I am in disagreement with you. I seek leave to make a statement.
Leave is granted for five minutes.
I thank the Senate. I will not take that long. I and my colleagues take this matter very seriously. You responded to my request, Mr President, to make a ruling on a point of order which I took in question time today when Senator Brandis on a number of occasions referred to refugees to this country as ‘illegals’. The point that we make here is that refugees coming by boat to this country are not illegals. It has been shown that over 90 per cent end up being classified as genuine refugees. The term ‘illegals’ applied to refugees is pejorative and worse—I will not use the terms that I think are appropriate to it. It is scaremongering and it vilifies a small number of people who do not deserve to be treated in that fashion. I reiterate that the people are not illegal and therefore the term is wrongly applied to them.
You would be aware, Mr President, that the rules of this place provide that you shall not use in questions put to the chair ‘imputations, inferences or arguments’. There could be no clearer case of imputations, inferences and arguments than people who are genuinely within the law being labelled ‘illegals’ in a question put across the chamber. It should stop. I note that you have now tabled a statement which points out that you have ruled on several occasions that terms of this nature are not out of order and that your rulings are in accordance with established rules of the Senate. You have inter alia made it very clear that you are making a ruling. You are reiterating past rulings. It is that that I am dissenting from.
This is a very clear case of dissent from a ruling you have made to uphold previous rulings—not on the question Senator Brandis made across the chamber today, obviously, but on similar or related matters. It is proper for me to be able to dissent from that ruling and it is proper for the Senate chamber to debate that matter under standing orders tomorrow when we resume. This is an extremely important matter; I would not be raising it if it were not. I am not at all in agreement with the statement you made to the chamber in response to my request to you to make a ruling. You have effectively made a ruling. I am dissenting from that ruling. I put forward a motion of dissent to you in the chair.
It seems as though we are going to get bogged down, Senator Brown. I cannot entertain a motion of dissent because I have not made a ruling. I responded with a statement to the question which you raised today. I indicated at that time, and I ruled today, that I was being consistent with the past practices in this chamber. I then undertook, because you sought to take a further point of order, that I would look at the matter and get back to you with a statement. I came back to the chamber this evening. I tabled the statement and with the concurrence of the Senate I had it incorporated. I do not think I have circulated it to other people at this stage. I wanted to get the matter back on the record. I am saying to you that I cannot entertain a motion of dissent from a ruling when it is not a ruling.
You have just made it abundantly clear, President, that you did rule today on the matter. Then you accepted my invitation to review that and make a statement to the chamber—in which you have maintained the ruling that you made today. I am dissenting from that ruling. I am happy to let the matter remain and for you to look at it again overnight. I do not want to have this prosecuted immediately, but I believe I am right here and I do not want to forego my opportunity to dissent from what I think was a breach of standing order 73 by Senator Brandis today. I could dissent from your ruling that you have not made a ruling. That in itself is valid. But, in one way or other, this matter must be tested before the chamber, President. I am happy to wait until tomorrow for you to look at it again, but I am not going to accept that I cannot move dissent from a ruling that you made today on the use of the term ‘illegals’ being valid when I believe it infringes very clearly standing order 73.
I think I have made the position quite clear, Senator Brown. The best advice I have—and I believe it is the correct advice—is that there is no matter of a ruling before the chamber at this stage. As I said to you, I did—and I will check the Hansardwhen this matter was raised earlier today, make a statement about it. I have come back to you with a statement that I think clarifies the position. If you would like this matter referred to the Procedure Committee, I am quite happy to refer the matter to the Procedure Committee for further investigation. But, at this stage, I cannot see where there is anywhere to go with the matter.
Thank you, and I thank the Senate for the indulgence here. I will have you refer it to the Procedure Committee. I take up your offer but, in doing so, I have to say, President, that there cannot be a circumstance in which a senator who has asked for a ruling and had a ruling made cannot dissent from that ruling. We are in a position of illogicality on the matter. I am happy for the Privileges Committee to have a look at the matter.
No, I did not say the Privileges Committee; it is the Procedure Committee, Senator Bob Brown.
Correct, the Procedure Committee. It is an important matter. That means that the Procedure Committee will report back to the Senate and at that stage a debate may take place on its findings.
That is a correct assessment of the situation.
The following government documents were tabled:
Broadcasting Services Act 1992Digital television transmission and reception—Report, May 2010.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority—Corporate plan 2009-10 to 2011-12.
Medical Indemnity Act 2002Costs of the Australian Government’s run-off cover scheme for medical indemnity insurers—Report for 2008-09.
Office of the Inspector of Transport Security—International piracy and armed robbery at sea security inquiry report, April 2010.
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number]
A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act—A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) (Average Input Tax Credit Fraction) Determination 2010 [F2010L00759]*.
ACIS Administration Act—ACIS Administration (Modulation) Guidelines 2006 Variation 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00786]*.
Aged Care Act—
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of accommodation supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00603]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of concessional resident supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00608]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of pensioner supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00609]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of respite supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00607]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of transitional accommodation supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00606]*.
Aged Care (Residential care subsidy – amount of transitional supplement) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00605]*.
User Rights Amendment Principles 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00602]*.
Airports Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 51—Airports (Building Control) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00747]*.
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act—Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules Amendment Instrument 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00964]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 4) 2003-2004Determination to Reduce Appropriations Upon Request (No. 7 of 2009-2010) [F2010L00845]*.
Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2008-2009, Appropriation (Nation Building and Jobs) Act (No. 1) 2008-2009, Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Act (No. 1) 2008-2009, Appropriation Act (No. 3) 2008-2009, Appropriation Act (No. 5) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2008-2009Determination to Reduce Administered Appropriations (No. 1 of 2009-2010) [F2010L01155]*.
Australian Communications and Media Authority Act—
Radiocommunications (Charges) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00839]*.
Radiocommunications (Interpretation) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00837]*.
Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act—Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry (High Quality Beef Export to the European Union) Order 2010 [F2010L00859]*.
Australian National University Act—
Academic Board and University Policy Committees (Repeal) Statute 2010 [F2010L00784]*.
Membership of the Council Statute 2008—Membership of the Council Rules 2010 [F2010L00779]*.
University Committees Statute 2010 [F2010L00781]*.
University Committees Statute 2010—University Quality and Standards Committees Rules 2010 [F2010L00782]*.
Australian Passports Act—Australian Passports Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L01189]*.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act—Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Confidentiality) Determinations Nos—
4 of 2010—Information provided by trustees under Reporting Standard SRS 200.0, SRS 210.0, SRS 210.1, SRS 230, SRS 240.0 and SRS 250.0 [F2010L00716]*.
5 of 2010—Certain information provided by specified entities under Reporting Standard SRS 100.0 [F2010L00717]*.
6 of 2010—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 [F2010L00753]*.
7 of 2010—Information provided by locally-incorporated banks and foreign ADIs under Reporting Standard ARS 320.0 [F2010L01063]*.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act—Takeovers Panel – Procedural Rules, dated 12 April 2010 [F2010L0948]*.
Banking Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 53—Banking Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00739]*.
Broadcasting Services Act—
Broadcasting Services (Digital-Only Local Market Area for the Mildura/Sunraysia Licence Area) Determination (No. 1) 2010 [F2010L01098]*.
Commercial Television Conversion Scheme 1999—Digital Television Commencement Date (Geraldton TV1, Kalgoorlie TV1 and Western Zone TV1 Licence Areas) Determination 2010 [F2010L01087]*.
Variations to Licence Area Plans for—
Albury Radio – No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00757]*.
Deniliquin Radio – No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00790]*.
Griffith Radio – No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00756]*.
Moree Radio – No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00833]*.
Remote Central and Eastern Australia Radio – No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00806]*.
Civil Aviation Act—
Civil Aviation Order 82.1 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010 [F2010L00693]*.
Civil Aviation Order 82.3 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010 [F2010L00698]*.
Civil Aviation Order 82.5 Amendment Order (No. 1) 2010 [F2010L00701]*.
Civil Aviation Regulations—Instruments Nos CASA—
78/10—Instructions – for approved use of P-RNAV procedures [F2010L00692]*.
109/10—Instructions – RNP-AR approaches and departures [F2010L00674]*.
113/10—Approval and directions – operations without an approved digital flight data recorder [F2010L00730]*.
126/10—Instructions – for approved use of P-RNAV procedures [F2010L00844]*.
EX16/10—Exemption – flight data recording [F2010L00808]*.
EX19/10—Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Qantas [F2010L00735]*.
EX20/10—Exemption – navigation and anti-collision lights [F2010L00751]*.
EX21/10—Exemption – from standard take-off minima – Virgin Blue [F2010L00768]*.
EX24/10—Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – British Airways [F2010L00804]*.
EX25/10—Exemption – from standard take-off and landing minima – Cathay Pacific [F2010L00820]*.
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations—
Airworthiness Directives—
AD/A320/19 Amdt 1—Hydraulic Fire Shut-off Valve [F2010L00891]*.
AD/A330/110—Fuel Line Inspection [F2010L00826]*.
AD/A330/111—GE Engine – Forward Mount Bolts [F2010L00827]*.
AD/A330/112—State of Design Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00860]*.
AD/B717/4 Amdt 3—Rudder Trim Control [F2010L00888]*.
AD/GA8/5 Amdt 3—Horizontal Stabiliser Inspection [F2010L00889]*.
AD/HS 125/184—Main Entry Door Frame Pressing [F2010L00729]*.
AD/HS 125/185—High Pressure Oxygen Hoses – Inspection [F2010L00861]*.
AD/PR/35 Amdt 4—Propeller Hub Wall Cracking [F2010L00785]*.
AD/RAD/91—Rockwell Collins TDR-94/94D Transponder – Air/Ground Discrete Inputs [F2010L00706]*.
AD/RAD/91 Amdt 1—Rockwell Collins TDR-94/94D Transponder – Air/Ground Discrete Inputs [F2010L01095]*.
AD/RAD/92—Rockwell Collins TDR-94/94D Transponder/Honeywell AZ800/810 Air Data Computer Selected Altitude Data Inputs [F2010L00705]*.
AD/RAD/93—Rockwell Collins TDR-94/94D Transponders – Aircraft Type Category [F2010L00703]*.
Instruments Nos CASA—
ADCX 003/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00752]*.
ADCX 004/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00765]*.
ADCX 005/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00825]*.
ADCX 006/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00851]*.
ADCX 007/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00869]*.
ADCX 008/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00969]*.
ADCX 009/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L00970]*.
ADCX010/10—Revocation of Airworthiness Directives [F2010L01154]*.
EX17/10—Exemption – CASR Part 99 DAMP requirements for CAR 30 organisations overseas [F2010L00728]*.
EX22/10—Exemption – CASR Part 99 Standard for drug testing [F2010L00798]*.
EX23/10—Exemption – from provisions in Part 173 of CASR 1998 – Jeppesen Sanderson Inc. [F2010L00805]*.
Commissioner of Taxation—Public Rulings—
Class Rulings CR 2010/7-CR 2010/11.
Product Rulings PR 2010/5-PR 2010/9.
Self Managed Superannuation Funds Determination SMSFD 2010/1.
Self Managed Superannuation Funds Rulings—
Addendum—SMSFR 2009/4.
SMSFR 2010/2.
Taxation Determinations—
Addenda—TD 92/129, TD 92/158, TD 92/162, TD 92/171, TD 92/172, TD 93/36, TD 93/180, TD 93/182, TD 93/183, TD 93/184 and TD 96/18.
Notices of Withdrawal—TD 92/173, TD 93/37, TD 95/8, TD 96/32, TD 2004/63 and TD 2005/16.
TD 2010/2-TD 2010/12.
Taxation Rulings (old series)—Notices of Withdrawal—IT 2440, IT 2651, and IT 2664.
Taxation Rulings—
Addenda—TR 2001/3 and TR 2006/3.
Erratum—TR 2010/1.
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notices under section 45—
Australian Energy Market Operator Limited.
NBN Co Limited.
Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act and Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act—Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Orders (Financial Statements for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2009) [F2010L00841]*.
Corporations Act—
ASIC Class Orders—
[CO 10/29] [F2010L00797]*.
[CO 10/135] [F2010L01085]*.
[CO 10/246] [F2010L00800]*.
[CO 10/249] [F2010L00802]*.
[CO 10/288] [F2010L01075]*.
[CO 10/289] [F2010L01077]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
54—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00737]*.
55—Corporations Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00738]*.
Corporations (Fees) Act—Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
56—Corporations (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00736]*.
57—Corporations (Fees) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00741]*.
Corporations (Review Fees) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 58—Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00740]*.
Crimes Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 61—Crimes Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00777]*.
Currency Act—Currency (Royal Australian Mint) Determination 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00715]*.
Customs Act—
Defence and Strategic Goods List Amendment 2010 [F2010L01084]*.
Tariff Concession Orders—
0919562 [F2010L01134]*.
0922650 [F2010L00374]*.
0924291 [F2010L01135]*.
0925641 [F2010L00403]*.
0925650 [F2010L00436]*.
0925662 [F2010L00433]*.
0926241 [F2010L00406]*.
0926617 [F2010L00485]*.
0927139 [F2010L00477]*.
0927246 [F2010L00491]*.
0927435 [F2010L00499]*.
0927436 [F2010L00577]*.
0927438 [F2010L00529]*.
0927488 [F2010L00490]*.
0927632 [F2010L00575]*.
0927982 [F2010L00877]*.
0928110 [F2010L00872]*.
0928171 [F2010L00489]*.
0928220 [F2010L00578]*.
0928335 [F2010L00831]*.
0928336 [F2010L00875]*.
0928360 [F2010L00876]*.
0928685 [F2010L00438]*.
0928747 [F2010L00871]*.
0928763 [F2010L00873]*.
0929093 [F2010L00874]*.
0929226 [F2010L00544]*.
0929227 [F2010L00545]*.
0929303 [F2010L00574]*.
0929402 [F2010L00809]*.
0929534 [F2010L00870]*.
0929596 [F2010L00526]*.
0929597 [F2010L00527]*.
0929622 [F2010L00816]*.
0929713 [F2010L00546]*.
0929839 [F2010L00817]*.
0929949 [F2010L00822]*.
0929951 [F2010L00824]*.
0929985 [F2010L00818]*.
0930206 [F2010L00819]*.
0930292 [F2010L00863]*.
0930347 [F2010L00829]*.
0930371 [F2010L00868]*.
0930400 [F2010L00828]*.
0930750 [F2010L00548]*.
0930817 [F2010L00830]*.
0930932 [F2010L00864]*.
0930933 [F2010L00878]*.
0930934 [F2010L00866]*.
0930935 [F2010L00550]*.
0930936 [F2010L00867]*.
0930938 [F2010L00814]*.
0931055 [F2010L00815]*.
0931082 [F2010L00880]*.
0931106 [F2010L00549]*.
0931110 [F2010L00810]*.
0931142 [F2010L00865]*.
0931305 [F2010L00879]*.
0931306 [F2010L00881]*.
0931307 [F2010L00882]*.
0931406 [F2010L00813]*.
0931491 [F2010L00811]*.
0931657 [F2010L00812]*.
0931863 [F2010L00903]*.
0931866 [F2010L00902]*.
0931868 [F2010L00901]*.
0932152 [F2010L00525]*.
0932238 [F2010L00899]*.
0932239 [F2010L00905]*.
0932257 [F2010L00887]*.
0932259 [F2010L00890]*.
0932317 [F2010L00883]*.
0932406 [F2010L00904]*.
0932607 [F2010L00932]*.
0932615 [F2010L00930]*.
0932694 [F2010L00928]*.
0932711 [F2010L00885]*.
0932712 [F2010L00886]*.
0932751 [F2010L00897]*.
0932809 [F2010L00900]*.
0932867 [F2010L00893]*.
0932965 [F2010L00914]*.
0933033 [F2010L00896]*.
0933064 [F2010L00918]*.
0933115 [F2010L00986]*.
0933116 [F2010L00995]*.
0933117 [F2010L00925]*.
0933136 [F2010L00922]*.
0933310 [F2010L00927]*.
0933394 [F2010L00895]*.
0933510 [F2010L00898]*.
0933524 [F2010L01011]*.
0933525 [F2010L00911]*.
0933526 [F2010L00910]*.
0933578 [F2010L00913]*.
0933723 [F2010L00923]*.
0933724 [F2010L00892]*.
0933807 [F2010L00934]*.
0933888 [F2010L01102]*.
0933951 [F2010L00862]*.
0933956 [F2010L00989]*.
0933957 [F2010L00996]*.
0933960 [F2010L00990]*.
0933962 [F2010L00908]*.
0934178 [F2010L00906]*.
0934376 [F2010L00926]*.
0934613 [F2010L00907]*.
0934614 [F2010L00987]*.
0934676 [F2010L01105]*.
0934708 [F2010L00915]*.
0934716 [F2010L00955]*.
0934757 [F2010L00956]*.
0934936 [F2010L00921]*.
0934937 [F2010L00998]*.
0935302 [F2010L00988]*.
0935315 [F2010L00916]*.
0935340 [F2010L01004]*.
0935341 [F2010L00958]*.
0935358 [F2010L00912]*.
0935393 [F2010L00933]*.
0935519 [F2010L00909]*.
0935634 [F2010L00959]*.
0935863 [F2010L01024]*.
0935978 [F2010L00957]*.
0936044 [F2010L01015]*.
0936152 [F2010L00991]*.
0936288 [F2010L01132]*.
0936508 [F2010L01027]*.
0936529 [F2010L00997]*.
0936631 [F2010L00935]*.
0936632 [F2010L00920]*.
0936636 [F2010L00960]*.
0936637 [F2010L01010]*.
0936684 [F2010L01009]*.
0936710 [F2010L01007]*.
0936713 [F2010L01012]*.
0936718 [F2010L01013]*.
0936825 [F2010L01029]*.
0937098 [F2010L01121]*.
0937100 [F2010L01120]*.
0937104 [F2010L01124]*.
0937107 [F2010L01123]*.
0937109 [F2010L01119]*.
0937116 [F2010L01125]*.
0937119 [F2010L01000]*.
0937122 [F2010L00999]*.
0937197 [F2010L01100]*.
0937230 [F2010L01014]*.
0937231 [F2010L01113]*.
0937253 [F2010L01030]*.
0937373 [F2010L01122]*.
0937556 [F2010L01112]*.
0937558 [F2010L01028]*.
0937559 [F2010L01026]*.
0937561 [F2010L01115]*.
0937562 [F2010L01137]*.
0937985 [F2010L01025]*.
0937986 [F2010L01104]*.
0937987 [F2010L01127]*.
0938776 [F2010L01103]*.
0938934 [F2010L01114]*.
0939174 [F2010L01111]*.
0939738 [F2010L01110]*.
0939739 [F2010L01109]*.
0939874 [F2010L01118]*.
0939983 [F2010L01116]*.
0942056 [F2010L01136]*.
0943499 [F2010L01005]*.
0943510 [F2010L01006]*.
0946654 [F2010L00514]*.
1000790 [F2010L00894]*.
Defence Act—
Defence Force (Superannuation) (Productivity Benefit) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00694]*.
Determinations under section 58B—Defence Determinations—
2010/13—Hardship post and equipment costs – amendment.
2010/14—Casual meal charges – amendment.
2010/15—Hardship allowance – amendment.
2010/16—Navy – Aircrew retention and completion bonus scheme – amendment.
2010/17—Post indexes – amendment.
2010/18—School transport costs and benchmark schools – amendment.
2010/19—International campaign allowance – amendment.
2010/20—Suitable Service residence and travelling allowance – amendment.
2010/21—Post indexes – amendment.
Defence Force (Home Loans Assistance) Act—Warlike service – OPERATION CATALYST Declaration 2010 [F2010L00787]*.
Disability Services Act—Disability Services Standards (Eligible Service Standards) (FAHCSIA) Determination 2010 [F2010L00847]*.
Education Services for Overseas Students Act—National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students (National Code 2007)—Amendment No. 1 [F2010L00838]*.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—
Amendments of lists of—
Exempt native specimens—
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/11 [F2010L00767]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/12 [F2010L00973]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/13 [F2010L00974]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/14 [F2010L00770]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/15 [F2010L00769]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/16 [F2010L01066]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/17 [F2010L00961]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/22 [F2010L01065]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/23 [F2010L01168]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/24 [F2010L01165]*.
EPBC303DC/SFS/2010/25 [F2010L01099]*.
Threatened ecological communities, dated 19 March 2010 [F2010L00789]*.
Notice of proposed accreditation of the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery Management Plan 2002, dated 13 April 2010.
Excise Act—Excise (Spirit blending exemptions) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00823]*.
Federal Financial Relations Act—
Federal Financial Relations (General purpose financial assistance) Determination No. 13 (April 2010) [F2010L00992]*.
Federal Financial Relations (National Partnership payments) Determination No. 17 (April 2010) [F2010L00848]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Act—Determinations—
2010/06—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DEWHA to OPH) [F2010L00971]*.
2010/07—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from DEWHA to DCCEE) [F2010L01156]*.
2010/08—Section 32 (Transfer of Functions from ITSA to AGD) [F2010L01092]*.
Financial Management and Accountability Act, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act, Defence Service Homes Act, High Court of Australia Act and Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act—Financial Management and Accountability Orders (Financial Statements for reporting periods ending on or after 1 July 2009) [F2010L00842]*.
Fisheries Management Act—
Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery Management Plan Amendment 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L01126]*.
Fisheries Management (Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2005) Temporary Order 2010 [F2010L00792]*.
Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery Management Plan 2006—MITF 2010/2011 TAC D5 Determination—2010/2011 Season [F2010L00952]*.
Northern Prawn Fishery Management Plan 1995—NPF Direction No. 140—First season closures [F2010L01074]*.
Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003—Determinations—
2010 SESSF D2—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (non-quota species) Total Allowable Catch (2010 Fishing Year) [F2010L00780]*.
2010 SESSF D3—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Overcatch and Undercatch (2010 Fishing Year) [F2010L00783]*.
2010 SESSF TAC D1—Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (quota species) Total Allowable Catch (2010 Fishing Year) [F2010L00778]*.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act—Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code – Amendment No. 115 – 2010 [F2010L00803]*.
Health Insurance Act—
Health Insurance (Allied Health Services) Amendment Determination 2010 [F2010L00993]*.
Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation – Approved Accreditors) Instrument 2010 [F2010L00794]*.
Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Instrument 2010 [F2010L00795]*.
Health Insurance (Management of Bulk-Billed After Hours and Unsociable Hours Services) Determination 2010 [F2010L01078]*.
Health Insurance (Radiation Oncology) Determination 2010 [F2010L00994]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
65—Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00612]*.
66—Health Insurance (General Medical Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 3) [F2010L00855]*.
67—Health Insurance (Pathology Review Committee) Repeal Regulations 2010 [F2010L00852]*.
68—Health Insurance (Pathology Services Table) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00569]*.
Health Insurance Amendment (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation) Act 2007Health Insurance (Diagnostic Imaging Accreditation – Designated Persons) Instrument 2010 [F2010L00793]*.
Higher Education Funding Act—Declaration under subsection 4(2), dated 14 March 2010 [F2010L00709]*.
Higher Education Support Act—
Commonwealth Scholarships Guidelines (Education) 2010 [F2010L00696]*.
Higher Education Provider Approvals Nos—
3 of 2010—Chifley Business School Pty Ltd [F2010L00745]*.
4 of 2010—Jazzworx! Pty Ltd [F2010L01153]*.
Other Grants Guidelines (Education) 2010 [F2010L01076]*.
Revocation of Approval as a Higher Education Provider—Shafston Institute of Technology Pty Ltd [F2010L00771]*.
VET Provider Approval No. 4 of 2010—Emma’s Secret Investments Pty Ltd [F2010L00965]*.
Income Tax Assessment Act 1997Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
73—Income Tax Assessment Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 3) [F2010L00917]*.
74—Income Tax Assessment Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 4) [F2010L00850]*.
Marriage Act—Marriage (Recognised Denominations) Amendment Proclamation 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00732]*.
Migration Act—
Direction under section 499—Direction No. 46—Order for considering and disposing of protection visa applications.
Instruments IMMI—
10/011—Granting of Business Skills Visas in 2009/2010 financial year [F2010L00686]*.
10/035—Determination of daily maintenance amounts for persons in detention [F2010L00857]*.
10/038—Determination of daily maintenance amounts for persons in detention [F2010L01180]*.
Migration Agents Regulations—MARA Notices—
MN12-10c of 2010—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2010L00702]*.
MN17-10a of 2010—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Program of Education) [F2010L00981]*.
MN17-10b of 2010—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Private Study of Audio, Video or Written Material) [F2010L00982]*.
MN17-10c of 2010—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Attendance at a Seminar, Workshop, Conference or Lecture) [F2010L00983]*.
MN17-10e of 2010—Migration Agents (Continuing Professional Development – Preparation of Material for Presentation) [F2010L00985]*.
Migration Regulations—Instruments IMMI—
10/003—Student Visa Assessment Levels [F2010L00624]*.
10/005—Access to movement records [F2010L00714]*.
10/008—Classes of persons [F2010L00712]*.
Migration (United Nations Security Council Resolutions) Regulations—Instrument IMMI 10/013—Specification of United Nations Security Council Resolutions [F2010L00758]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
50—Migration Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00733]*.
70—Migration Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 3) [F2010L00929]*.
71—Migration Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 4) [F2010L00936]*.
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—
Instrument No. M25/2010—Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme (Scholarships) Instrument 2010 [F2010L00840]*.
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation (Warlike Service) Determination 2010/1 [F2010L00704]*.
National Consumer Credit Protection Act—
ASIC Class Order [CO 10/250] [F2010L01195]*.
Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 59—National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00742]*.
National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 60—National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00743]*.
National Health Act—
Instruments Nos PB—
15 of 2010—Determinations – pharmaceutical benefits [F2010L00666]*.
17 of 2010—Determination – drugs on F1 [F2010L00675]*.
18 of 2010—Determination – price determinations and special patient contributions [F2010L00676]*.
19 of 2010—Amendment determination – prescription of pharmaceutical benefits by authorised optometrists [F2010L00677]*.
20 of 2010—Amendment determination – conditions [F2010L00678]*.
21 of 2010—Amendment Special Arrangements – Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2010L00680]*.
22 of 2010—Amendment Special Arrangements – Chemotherapy Pharmaceuticals Access Program [F2010L00682]*.
23 of 2010—Amendment Special Arrangements – Highly Specialised Drugs Program [F2010L00748]*.
24 of 2010—Special Arrangements (Variation) – IVF/GIFT Program [F2010L00749]*.
25 of 2010—Amendment determination – drugs on F1 and drugs in Part A of F2 [F2010L00684]*.
26 of 2010—Amendment determination – exempt items [F2010L01008]*.
27 of 2010—Determination under subsection 84AE(3B) [F2010L00799]*.
28 of 2010—Amendment determination – Pharmaceutical Benefits – Early Supply [F2010L00755]*.
29 of 2010—Amendment declaration and determination – drugs and medicinal preparations [F2010L00772]*.
30 of 2010—Amendment determination – pharmaceutical benefits [F2010L00773]*.
31 of 2010—Amendment determination – responsible persons [F2010L00774]*.
32 of 2010—Amendment determination – conditions [F2010L00775]*.
33 of 2010—Amendment Special Arrangements – Botulinum Toxin Program [F2010L00776]*.
34 of 2010—Amendment declaration and determination – drugs and medicinal preparations [F2010L00919]*.
35 of 2010—Amendment determination – pharmaceutical benefits [F2010L00931]*.
36 of 2010—Amendment determination – responsible persons [F2010L00938]*.
37 of 2010—Amendment determination – prescription of pharmaceutical benefits by authorised optometrists [F2010L00939]*.
38 of 2010—Determination – drugs on F1 [F2010L00940]*.
39 of 2010—Amendment determination – conditions [F2010L00941]*.
40 of 2010—Amendment Special Arrangements – Chemotherapy Pharmaceuticals Access Program [F2010L00943]*.
41 of 2010—National Health (Emergency Treatment Program) Special Arrangements Instrument 2010 [F2010L01083]*.
42 of 2010—Amendment determination – Pharmaceutical Benefits – Early Supply [F2010L01035]*.
Select Legislative Instruments 2010 Nos—
49—National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00568]*.
69—National Health (Variation of Benefits) (No. 13) Repeal Regulations 2010 [F2010L00853]*.
Navigation Act—
Direction under section 421, dated 18 March 2010 [F2010L00801]*.
Marine Order No. 2 of 2010—Operations standards and procedures [F2010L00734]*.
Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act—Northern Territory National Emergency Response (Community Stores – Stirling Cattle Station Store) Instrument 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00754]*.
Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 62—Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) (National Standards) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00846]*.
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act—
Exemptions Nos—
OZO0113419—Strategic Airlines Pty Ltd, dated 17 February 2010.
OZO0114544—Tiger Airways Australia Pty Limited, dated 3 February 2010.
Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 64—Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00945]*.
Parliamentary Service Act—Parliamentary Service Classification Rules 2010 [F2010L00760]*.
Private Health Insurance Act—
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Amendment Rules 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00688]*.
Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Amendment Rules 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00962]*.
Private Health Insurance (Complying Product) Amendment Rules 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00689]*.
Public Lending Right Act—Public Lending Right Scheme 1997 (Modification No. 1 of 2010) [F2010L00979]*.
Public Service Act—Public Service Commissioner’s Amendment Directions 2010 (No. 1).
Radiocommunications Act—
Radiocommunications Advisory Guidelines (Use of Electronic Counter Measures for Bomb Disposal Activities) 2010 [F2010L00832]*.
Radiocommunications (Compliance Labelling – Electromagnetic Radiation) Amendment Notice 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00762]*.
Radiocommunications Devices (Compliance Labelling) Amendment Notice 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00761]*.
Radiocommunications Labelling (Electromagnetic Compatibility) Amendment Notice 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00763]*.
Radiocommunications Licence Conditions (PTS Licence) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L01086]*.
Radiocommunications (Prohibited Devices) (Use of Electronic Counter Measures for Bomb Disposal Activities) Exemption Determination 2010 [F2010L00821]*.
Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Act—Radiocommunications (Transmitter Licence Tax) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00834]*.
Remuneration Tribunal Act—Determinations—
2010/02: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office [F2010L00796]*.
2010/03: Judicial and Related Offices – Remuneration and Allowances [F2010L00849]*.
2010/04: Remuneration and Allowances for Holders of Public Office [F2010L00951]*.
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 52—Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00713]*.
Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Act—Determination of provisions to be contained in collecting society rules, dated 16 March 2010 [F2010L00791]*.
Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 63—Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2010 [F2010L00788]*.
Social Security Act—
Social Security (Approved Scholarship Courses) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00807]*.
Social Security (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Amendment Determination 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00947]*.
Social Security (Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment) Determination 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00744]*.
Social Security (Satisfaction of the Activity Test – Classes of Persons) (DEEWR) Amendment Specification 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00977]*.
Social Security (Administration) Act—
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas – Various) Determination 2010 (No. 3) [F2010L00710]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas – Various) Determination 2010 (No. 4) [F2010L00980]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Declared relevant Northern Territory areas – Various) Determination 2010 (No. 5) [F2010L01192]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Excluded Goods – section 123TI) Specification 2010 [F2010L00725]*.
Social Security (Administration) (toys are a priority need) Specification 2010 [F2010L00727]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Weekly Payments – Classes of Persons) (DEEWR) Specification 2010 [F2010L01064]*.
Social Security (Administration) (Weekly Payments – Classes of Persons) (FaHCSIA) Specification 2010 [F2010L00984]*.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 48—Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00746]*.
Telecommunications Act—
Telecommunications (Freephone and Local Rate Numbers) Allocation Determination Variation 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L01090]*.
Telecommunications (Freephone and Local Rate Numbers – Charities) Allocation (Repeal) Determination 2010 [F2010L01088]*.
Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Amendment Notice 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00764]*.
Telecommunications Numbering Plan Variation 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L01089]*.
Telecommunications Service Provider (Mobile Premium Services) Determination 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00639]*.
Telecommunications (Carrier Licence Charges) Act—Determinations under paragraphs—
15(1)(b) No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00691]*.
15(1)(d) No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L01032]*.
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act—Telecommunications (Interception and Access) (Emergency Services Facilities – Australian Capital Territory) Amendment Instrument 2010 [F2010L01079]*.
Therapeutic Goods Act—
Poisons Standard Amendment No. 1 of 2010 [F2010L00966]*.
Therapeutic Goods (Listing) Notice 2010 (No. 2) [F2010L00953]*.
Therapeutic Goods (Multi-Site Manufacturing Licences) Guidelines of 2010 [F2010L00700]*.
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act—Select Legislative Instrument 2010 No. 72—Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition (Modification of Act) Regulations 2010 (No. 1) [F2010L00858]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act—
Amendments of Statements of Principles concerning—
Anxiety Disorder No. 42 of 2010 [F2010L01058]*.
Anxiety Disorder No. 43 of 2010 [F2010L01059]*.
Depressive Disorder No. 40 of 2010 [F2010L01056]*.
Depressive Disorder No. 41 of 2010 [F2010L01057]*.
Intervertebral Disc Prolapse No. 38 of 2010 [F2010L01054]*.
Intervertebral Disc Prolapse No. 39 of 2010 [F2010L01055]*.
Lumbar Spondylosis No. 36 of 2010 [F2010L01067]*.
Lumbar Spondylosis No. 37 of 2010 [F2010L01068]*.
Neoplasm of the Pituitary Gland No. 46 of 2010 [F2010L01062]*.
Spondylolisthesis and Spondylolysis No. 44 of 2010 [F2010L01060]*.
Spondylolisthesis and Spondylolysis No. 45 of 2010 [F2010L01061]*.
Determination of Warlike Service—OPERATION CATALYST, dated 12 February 2010 [F2010L00699]*.
Statements of Principles concerning—
Alzheimer-Type Dementia No. 22 of 2010 [F2010L01038]*.
Alzheimer-Type Dementia No. 23 of 2010 [F2010L01039]*.
Cluster Headache No. 20 of 2010 [F2010L01036]*.
Cluster Headache No. 21 of 2010 [F2010L01037]*.
Dislocation No. 24 of 2010 [F2010L01040]*.
Dislocation No. 25 of 2010 [F2010L01041]*.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma No. 28 of 2010 [F2010L01044]*.
Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma No. 29 of 2010 [F2010L01045]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements (Partially Asset-test Exempt Income Stream – Exemption) Amendment Principles 2010 [F2010L00854]*.
Veterans’ Entitlements (Veterans’ Children Education Scheme – Scholarships) Instrument 2010—R24/2010 [F2010L00836]*.
Governor-General’s Proclamation—Commencement of provisions of an Act
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Act 2009Items 6 and 7 of Schedule 3—18 April 2010 [F2010L00946]*.
The following document was tabled pursuant to the order of the Senate of 17 March 2010:
Law and justice—National human rights consultation report—Australia’s human rights framework, April 2010.