Senator CROSSIN: by leave—I move:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs 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 1.50 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT: by leave—I move:

That the Community Affairs 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 noon.

Question agreed to.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:12): I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011. This bill establishes two pilots: one that requires teenage parents to complete their education and one that requires eligible parents in jobless families on income support to get themselves job ready. These reinforce the principle of mutual obligation, about which the coalition has always been serious. We do not believe in the welfare entitlement mentality. One of the core Liberal principles is mutual obligation:

… whereby those in receipt of government benefits make some form of contribution to the community in return, where this is appropriate.

Those words are part of the Liberal Party federal platform.

Encouraging people to take charge of their own lives and obtain the skills to be able to support themselves and their families is a good thing for the people involved and for society in general. Welfare dependency clearly has adverse effects. When people receive passive welfare payments with no obligations attached they fall in to a cycle of dependency that can be very difficult to get out of. I am sure that many senators in this place would bear witness to this occurrence in their own electorates. Individuals who are in this cycle of dependence have little opportunity to play their part in Australia's prosperity.

According to government figures, there are approximately 11,000 teenage parents in receipt of parenting payment. Of those 11,000, about 90 per cent have not completed year 12. Completing year 12 is not in itself the ultimate educational goal—there are many other opportunities such as work or apprenticeships—but it is a process of learning. We want to encourage these young parents to continue their education, whether it be in a formal academic setting or perhaps in on-the-job training processes. There are also about 257,000 jobless families who receive income support and who have reported no income in the last year, and these are families with dependent children. In 2007, according to the latest available international comparisons, Australia had the fourth highest rate of children living in jobless families within the OECD.

One of the most dangerous outcomes of welfare dependency is the effect it can have on the next generation. Some kids grow up never knowing what it is like to have a parent with a steady job. There are children who are missing out on learning about the life skills and pride that come with earning for yourself and being able to support your family. That is why the coalition worked very hard to encourage people to move from welfare into work when we were in government.

In terms of the big economic picture, the coalition's record is one where, while in government, we got the budget back into the black, we got rid of billions of dollars of previous Labor government debt and we laid the framework for a secure economic future for the nation. This led to more jobs, lower taxes, more productive workplaces and better living standards, among many other things. In such a positive environment, more people were—and are—able to find work. The unemployment rate under the coalition fell from 8.2 per cent in 1996 to just 4.3 per cent in August 2007—the lowest unemployment level in 33 years.

More specifically, through programs like Work for the Dole, the coalition encouraged more Australians off welfare and into work. From 1997—when Work for the Dole commenced—to 2007, over 555,480 people took part in 32,826 Work for the Dole activities. This helped them to improve their work ethic. It is something that many of us can bear testament to. At the Work for the Dole programs that we attended during that time, the individuals who were involved in these programs often sought us out, came up and said how meaningful and valuable it had been in helping them get their lives back on track. It gave these individuals valuable work experience and helped to improve their self-esteem and sense of pride in making a contribution to the community.

I say these things to demonstrate to the Senate that the coalition does indeed have a proven track record of supporting mutual obligation. This is in stark contrast to many of the words that are used by the Labor government. Time and time again, we have seen that this government makes tokenistic attempts at meaningful action. We have seen repeated knee-jerk reactions to problems that are often of its own making. In many instances, as the saying goes, this govern­ment is all about spin and not about substance. There is a growing concern amongst others and by me that we see more tokenism again in this bill. I make the point that this bill establishes a pilot program—not a proper program. It begs the question: why doesn't the government commit to a proper program? One could draw the conclusion that it is concerned that it will once again make a mess of the program—like it has done with so many others—and by calling it a pilot it can say, 'We were just experimen­ting with this.'

The coalition has consistently pushed for better mutual obligation requirements. Whilst the government has embraced a small part of that with this bill, it is going only part of the way that it should. It raises a number of questions. The first one relates to the monitoring of the teenage parent pilot program. Whilst the coalition welcome the intent behind this bill—it aims to encourage engagement—we still clearly have some concerns. With the teenage parent pilot, we ask: how will the government monitor whether the parents have been complying with their participation plans and how will the government enforce the obligations of the parents? It is all very well to establish a pilot with good intentions, but we need to be able to monitor it effectively to ensure that it is working properly and for its intended purpose.

The coalition also supports attempts to have parents re-engage with the workforce early. However, the coalition is concerned that with the jobless family trial, as demonstrated in this bill, once again, there is no requirement to comply with the plan signed by the participants. So the coalition will be proposing some amendments to ensure that the parents do comply with their plan. Let me spell this out quite clearly: signing onto a plan is enough for the parents in this jobless family trial, but they do not actually have to comply with the plan that they have put forward. This does not pass the commonsense test. There should be a compliance regime that requires participants in each trial to comply and follow through with what they have promised to do in their plan. In addition, it appears that this bill completely removes the power from the secretary to intervene in extenuating circumstances. The coalition would like the secretary to be able to intervene in extenuating circumstances, and so I flag that we will be moving amendments to reflect that.

In conclusion, we know very well that this is a government that is big on talk and very short on delivery. We know that, unfortunately, this government has breached faith with the Australian people on many occasions, either by failing to keep its promises or, indeed, breaking its promises. While the coalition support the principle behind this bill, we believe it can be improved. We believe that, to encourage parents to improve their lives and those of their families, we need to make some amendments, and we will be doing that to seek to make this bill more effective in achieving its stated aims.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:21): It will come as no surprise to the chamber or to Australia that the Greens oppose the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011. This is a continuation of the punitive approach that started with the Welfare to Work regime of the Howard government era that Senator Bernardi was just championing. Unfortun­ately, there is no evidence to show that the punitive approach works. Again, the government is choosing to suspend payments and take a punitive approach, in this instance, to jobless families. We particularly have concerns about the issues around teenage mothers. Instead of supporting these most vulnerable people in our community, the government is again seeking to take a punitive approach. We believe it is unnecessary and ineffective and that it stigmatises young parents who face a number of significant challenges. While we do agree that teenage parents need a lot of assistance and we are aware they have poor educational achievements, threatening them with a punitive approach, to our mind, does not work. We believe it could have grave ramifications for young parents and their children.

We should be aiming to encourage young people and jobless families to overcome the barriers that prevent their participation in employment and education. The barriers that prevent people from participating in employment and education are very significant. The government's own Social Inclusion Board has produced a number of papers that address this very issue. The government is addressing some of the key areas, but it is giving with one hand and taking with the other: 'Do this or else.' As I said, we do support the aim of encouraging young and long-term unemployed parents into education and work. Unfortunately, it is the compliance mechanisms that we have significant problems with.

We are deeply concerned that these measures will further marginalise young and long-term unemployed parents. As was articulated in the second reading speech, this is part of a process of 10 trials around the country. There are a series of measures, some of which include the further rollout of income management, which is being trialled in five sites. Other measures will be undertaken in other sites. The income management measures will be applied in Logan and Rockhampton in Queensland, Playford, Bankstown, Wyong, Shellharbour, Greater Shepparton, Hume, Burnie in Tasmania and Kwinana in my home state of Western Australia.

Despite all the rhetoric from this government and the previous government about Welfare to Work and the punitive approach, the government has provided little evidence that this punitive approach actually works. Yes, there is concern about barriers to education and work, but the government offers no research explanation as to why this particular approach will work. There are reasons why people miss appointments; they can be many and varied. People must overcome very significant barriers to completing their education and barriers to accessing workplaces, as has been articulated in the government's own documents.

This bill continues the pattern of punitive measures that the government insists on pursuing without any introspection. We see the same with the legislation that the government is going to be introducing to continue to roll out the Northern Territory emergency response. Don't let a little bit of evidence get in the way of rolling out a really good punitive scheme! We have consistently opposed the Welfare to Work measures. We do not believe this is the appropriate approach. As I said, the research indicates that in fact it is not the appropriate approach. We need to look at the barriers to education. Yes, we want to encourage young parents into the workforce and we need to address these barriers and not simply dock their income support when they fail to comply. If you are trying to work with people and encourage them to overcome barriers, simply taking a punitive approach and threatening them does not generate the trust that is needed to work in partnership with them.

Across this and many other budget measures, some of which are still to come and some of which we have already debated in this place, the government plans to make life harder for people on pensions and allowances. We believe measures such as the changes to the eligibility criteria for the disability support pension which we have debated in the place, as well as the failure to index thresholds and the failure to index supplements, all have cumulative effects on families. I have consistently asked in this chamber and also in estimates whether the government has done any work to assess the cumulative impacts of these measures on families and sole parents. To date this has not been adequately addressed. The approach the government is taking is simply continuing and extending measures that the previous government started. We continue to see the erosion of allowances for those on income support. It becomes worth less and less. The inequity between allowances and pensions gets worse. Those on Newstart are living on $132 less than those on the age pension, for example. This measure will make this issue even worse for those most vulnerable in our community, teenage parents.

A lot of these measures to get tough on people on income support—income management, for example—seem to us to have been imported from the US, where they denigrate and demonise people on income support. We now seem to be taking the same approach in Australia. Transplanting these measures from one country to another does not necessarily work, particularly as we have very different issues in Australia. As was pointed out in the second reading speech for this legislation, there are around 11,000 teenage mothers in this country—about 2.5 per cent of those who receive the parenting payment. This is a small percentage. While the Greens think teenage pregnancy is good for neither the parents nor the children—we do not advocate it—we believe that what we need to be doing is working out how we can help mothers in this situation. As has been articulated, most of these parents do not have a year 12 education, and of course we all know about the link between education and better job prospects but also life outcomes for both the parents and the children. But what impact does threatening to take away their income support and carrying it out have on the mother and the child?

We are particularly concerned about the impact of this heavy-handed approach on young women—some of the most vulnerable people in our community—who are dealing with very significant issues in their lives, not to mention the fact that they are mothers at such a young age. As well as that, they will have to deal with a punitive approach by Centrelink, the very organisation that they are now supposed to go to to access case management and to access support to participate in education—and the organisation that will threaten them if they do not turn up. Again, this is not the way to help young parents and teenagers to re-access education and re-engage with the system.

While it is true that once young parents comply they will get back pay, how are they going to afford their day-to-day living expenses? How will they survive? How will they feed their children and pay their utility bills? This policy assumes that parents have support networks, secure tenancy and enough money for basics. Of course they do not have those things. There is a high potential for them to not have support networks—they may be alienated from their parents. They certainly will not be in a position to have a secure tenancy and it is unlikely that they will have enough money for basics. Realistically, on top of all that, education is going to be at the very bottom of the list. As Welfare Rights Network and ACOSS write:

An initiative designed to support young parents should not involve any risk of increasing the levels of poverty or children being left without access to food, essential health care and shelter.

That is exactly what will happen if you take this to the final point of the legislation: children will not be guaranteed access to food, essential health care or shelter.

What should an initiative look like that actually supports young and long-term unemployed parents? As we have already articulated, this group have the least education and are disenfranchised. They need encouragement, support and incentives to assist them to re-engage with the system and to assist them to access education and meaningful employment that suits their needs and improves their standard of living. We must offer as much support as possible—support in getting an education, learning life skills and helping them find employment that they can mix with their child-rearing responsibilities.

Yes, coordinated case management is essential and individualised, tailored engagement participation plans can make a real difference, but it must be done in a way that cultivates a young person's confidence and skills. If you take the punitive approach, that will create a very different relationship for that young person with the system that is supposedly trying to help them. We know that case management has proven effective in helping to improve social outcomes. We need to invest further in this rather than spending money on enforcing compliance processes. We need to help young families address obstacles and barriers to their participation, such as lack of child care and poor access to public transport. While there is some support offered for child care, we believe it is not enough. We also know that in most of the trial locations where this process is being rolled out public transport is poor.

We believe the support incentives are not enough. We do not believe that this is the appropriate way to tackle this issue. We do not believe we need this legislation. We believe we need to be addressing these problems by putting more resources into engaging with families and empowering them to take control of their own lives rather than pursuing a punitive approach.

At this stage, should this legislation go through, it is unclear whether there is sufficient protection for young parents and consideration of their special needs. For example, when a teen appeals the suspension of their payment, will they receive an automatic payment pending review? They should. Will Centrelink staff receive specialised training in engaging with young parents? Will Centrelink address the specific issues that so strongly alienate young parents from the system and address the barriers to their participation in the system? Will they be able to understand the requests for special consideration or appeals, even if a young person does not use the correct terminology? In these instances, you are dealing with a group of people who have the least experience in dealing with the social security system.

We are also concerned about the risk of domestic violence and the impact that this can have. We already know that there is a very poor application rate for exemptions due to domestic violence. I think it is around three per cent. We are concerned that in the broader community there is a lack of engagement with and understanding of how to apply for an exemption due to domestic violence. For this particular group of young people, knowledge of that particular exemption is guaranteed to be even poorer.

What will happen to participants if they move outside the trial sites? Will they continue to be subject to the requirements of the trial where there is no guarantee they will be able to access the various supports that this program purports to put in place? What will happen to those people? One of the trial sites for the income management process is Kwinana in Western Australia. We know that in that area the government could not get enough participants and had to expand it virtually across the whole of metropolitan Perth. Will we see teen mums moving away from the trial sites and further away from any family support that they may have? If the case management proves to be adequate and we see them moving away from that, will they still be subject to this? I am looking forward to these questions being addressed by the minister in the summing up.

Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales) (11:36): The purpose of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011 is to allow for the conduct of participation pilots for teenage parents. The amendment delivers on a commitment made by the government in the last budget. During the budget, the government announced the introduction of these participation pilots for teenage parents. We did not simply announce this participation pilot; we have also backed it up with encouragement, support and incentives for greater education for teenage parents. The form of that support came in the budget through expenditure of $80 million over four years to provide additional training places for single and teenage parents in receipt of income support. I do not believe it is fair at all to characterise these reforms in isolation as punitive measures.

The bill will implement a commitment made by the government in the last budget. It will implement what is known as 'the teenage parents' trial from 1 January 2012 and what is known as 'the jobless families' trial from 1 July 2012. These trials, which will occur at 10 disadvantaged locations throughout the country, were announced in the budget as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. The trials will provide for new services, opportunities and responsibilities to boost the educational attainment, job readiness, child wellbeing and functioning of families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged locations throughout the country.

Specifically, the basic elements of the teenage parents' participation pilots are that parents on income support will be required to attend six-monthly interviews with Centrelink once their child turns six months of age. Once the child is 12 months old, the purpose of the interview with Centrelink will be to develop a participation plan aimed at improving the educational outcomes of the parent by focusing on their most basic needs. No. 1 amongst those needs is an adequate education. The plan will focus on school completion, on foundation skills or certificate level qualifications as well as the health, safety and education of the child. Support for the participation plan will continue until the parent achieves year 12 completion or the child turns six years of age.

The bill recognises that there is no greater benefit that we can give our kids in modern day society than an education. A basic year 12 education is a passport to employment and participation within society. We need to ensure that we do all we can to encourage and provide an incentive for teenage parents to ensure that they complete that basic passport to participation and employment in our society. Under the trial, teenage parents will need to work towards obtaining their year 12 qualification or its equivalent whilst continuing to engage in a range of activities focusing on the health and wellbeing of their child. Parents in the jobless families trial will need to develop a plan outlining how they will move towards being job ready once their youngest child starts school and how they will prepare their child to be ready to go to school.

The teenage parents trial is funded at $47.3 million over four years; the jobless families trial is funded at $71.1 million over four years. Currently, only parenting payment recipients with children aged six or seven years of age have participation requirements and can be required to comply with the terms of an employment pathway plan. A failure to meet some of those requirements can—not necessarily will—result in sanctions being imposed under the job seeker compliance framework. But, as I stressed earlier, it is important to note that these reforms are coupled with additional spending in this area to provide the necessary encouragement, support and incentive for those who may be subject to this trial to gain basic qualifications and a pathway to employment.

The amendments in the bill broaden the participation requirements and compliance sanctions for parenting payment recipients with children under six who are part of the 'teenage parent of jobless families' trials operating in those 10 disadvantaged locations throughout Australia. The bill is designed to create new opportunities for the 4,000 single parents who reside in those 10 trial locations. In my state those locations are Bankstown, Wyong and Shellharbour—areas where there are lower socioeconomic indicators and lower levels of educational attainment amongst certain age groups and areas where there are difficulties in some locations related to entrenched poverty and the cycle of poverty.

These reforms are aimed well and truly at trialling in these areas new ways to ensure that members of our community who otherwise may have been susceptible to being driven into that ongoing cycle of poverty—the poverty trap, intergenerational poverty—are provided with a circuit-breaker. That circuit-breaker comes in the form of support from Centrelink and government through those additional funds focusing on teenage mothers and ensuring that they continue to pursue basic educational outcomes.

For teenagers who do become parents, this bill will provide guidance and support to enable them to learn life skills, to get and finish a decent education and to give their child the best start in life. Being a parent is tough for anyone, and no-one disputes that. There are additional burdens and difficulties that come with being a teenage parent and that is why this government is committed to providing the support and guidance that these young parents need to develop their skills and work readiness, helping them to provide a better future for themselves and their children.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:44): I thank all senators who have made a contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011. This legislation delivers on the budget commitment for the teenage parents and jobless families measures under the government's Building Australia's Future Workforce package. These measures provide new services, opportunities and respon­sibilities to boost the educational attainment, job readiness, child wellbeing and function­ing of families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged locations in the country.

We have a growing economy and a strong labour market but not all Australians are benefiting equally from this. Joblessness among families continues to be a significant, social and economic problem in Australia. It is associated with higher rates of poverty, poor health status and low educational attainment for parents and their children. There is a strong intergenerational tendency for joblessness in families. By taking steps to build family functioning and skills, this government aims to break the cycle of welfare reliance and give disadvantaged parents and their children a brighter future.

Through the teenage parents and jobless families measures, the government is providing greater opportunities for parents to build on the own skills and capabilities, providing a pathway to better life outcomes for themselves and their children. The government recognises the important role that parents play in caring for their young children. These measures are being introduced to enhance this role, not to reduce it. There are often many services available in local communities that can provide the support and assistance parents need to plan and move forward in a positive way. These measures encourage parents to make the most of the services they are entitled to in their local communities. By introducing requirements for teenage parents receiving parenting payment in 10 trial locations, the government is sending a clear message that having a child does not mean the end of your education. Teenage parents in the trial will be required to engage in activities to help them attain year 12 or an equivalent qualification. They will also be required to do activities with their child or children that will maximise their health and education outcomes. Children need good early childhood development opportunities to help them become school ready both socially and academically.

Parents in the jobless families trial will be required to attend interviews with Centrelink where they will develop a plan focusing on job preparation and future employment. They too will be asked to do activities in their local communities designed to get good early health and education outcomes for their children. These measures are about building on and enhancing family functioning, skills acquisition, community engagement and making sure that families are well equipped for the future. All Australians on income support should have the opportunity to access the full range of services available to improve the lives of their families, but with this opportunity comes responsibility. This bill strikes the right balance in ensuring that those opportunities are made available to parents who need them while clearly stating that parents need to meet their respon­sibilities to ensure that early health, education and well-being outcomes are achieved for their families.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:48): Minister, as I outlined in my speech in the second reading debate, the bill has good intentions and in general and in principle the coalition are not opposed to these intentions. However, we do have some concerns about what the point is in introducing obligations where there is no effective penalty attached to them. Two of my amendments, which have been circulated in the chamber, go to this very fact. They deal with schedule 1 items 8 and 9, which is where some parenting payment over­payments are not considered debts to the Commonwealth. By way of brief explanation and so as not to delay the Senate longer than we need to: where someone has been paid on the basis that a person has qualified for parenting payment and then that person fails to meet one or more of the participation requirements, therefore being deemed ineligible, they have received funding or money inappropriately—to anyone who rationally considers that particularly issue—yet the Commonwealth is saying that they have no debt obligation.

I can understand at one level that there must be some concern about attaching a debt to an individual who may already be in difficult financial circumstances, particularly where children are involved. If there is simply an obligation for someone to sign up to a plan and then not fulfil any commitment to that plan, however, I really feel that is more about tokenism than anything else. I would seek your response to my concerns in that area.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:51): The government is mindful in this case, as I said in my summing-up contribution, to getting the balance right. Acknowledging some of the concerns raised by Senator Siewert, the government's intention is that the penalty provisions be utilised only as an absolute last resort and would indeed apply to only a very small element of the target population. This is what colours the government's mind when looking at the amendments proposed by the opposition. We certainly understand the point and highlight that compliance measures in relation to all income support arrange­ments are important but, on this occasion and with this particular targeted group, we think the provisions as they stand strike that right balance. In that respect, suggestions that this program is about token measures can, I think, be addressed simply by looking at all that has gone into the measures to ensure that these very young, vulnerable families—young women in particular—receive support, as I indicated, to highlight that being a teenager and having a young child is not the end of your education. This is a significant mind shift for many young girls contem­plating a future along with a pregnancy.

Whilst we have been very concerned to ensure that the balance is right and that penalties are absolutely a last possible resort—and, Senator Bernardi, I am not sure if we are dealing with all of your amend­ments at the moment or a particular grouping of them—the government's view is that the balance in this bill is the best we can address for a targeted trial type arrangement, although we certainly will be mindful of the issues that you have raised when we are looking at how effectively that trial has worked.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Moore ): To clarify, Senator Bernardi, are you moving any of your amendments at this stage or are you into general questions?

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:53): I am into general questions but they are going to my amendments, though I have not formally moved them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Particularly (3) and (4)?

Senator BERNARDI: Particularly amendments (3) and (4), which are about the debt due to the Commonwealth.

Minister, you spoke about the penalties for noncompliance. At one level, as it says in the bill's explanatory memorandum, 'parents who fail to attend appointments/workshops with Centrelink without a reasonable excuse' and who do not 'attend a rescheduled appointment/workshop' can have their income support payments suspended. I think that is under clause 17 of the bill. If they then fulfil their obligation they get those released with full back pay. That is for individuals. But those who come under the second clause of this bill, about families, do not, from my reading of this, have any penalties whatsoever attached to them. If they fail to comply with a plan, which is their only obligation, the only penalty attached is that they may be required to go more frequently to interviews where there is further noting that they have failed to comply with the plan. That is not really a penalty in any meaningful sense. At one part of this, a teenage mother—and I presume it applies just to teenage mothers, which may beg another question in a moment—can lose their payments until they comply, but when it is in regard to a family they may not. Indeed, there is no penalty attached to it once they have done their plan. Is my reading of this correct and, if not, could you please tell me what the penalties are if someone creates a plan and then fails to comply with it under the two different scenarios?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:56): Your reading of the bill is correct. However, it moves away from the intent of the bill, which is to target this specific audience and to focus more on generating opportunities rather than on pursuing penalties. If we, for instance, look at the opposition's amendments (3) and (4), which relate to debt accumulation of the parenting payment and supplements, not family payments, in that context the measure is about helping parents improve their lives and those of their children. Teen parents are one of the most vulnerable groups in society, and we believe we have already achieved the balance of creating opportunities requiring responsibility through the suspension model. Anything beyond that is too harsh and contrary to the policy intent.

If I go to the other proposed amendments (1), (2) and (5), relating to exemptions, I indicate that the trial is designed to assist vulnerable teenage parents. We will be providing new services, opportunities and responsibilities to boost educational attain­ment, job readiness, child wellbeing and the functioning of families with young children in some of the most disadvantaged locations in the country. We want everyone, especially the most vulnerable, to benefit from this assistance. Vulnerability in individual circumstances will be taken into account in the development of participation plans. The likelihood of teen parents falling into this category is relatively minimal. That said, the broader compliance issues remain important for the government and, through this trial, we will be monitoring the issues that you have raised.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (11:58): Thank you, Minister. I hear your words and I understand you have accepted some advice in respect of this but I have grave concerns that they are platitudes; they are just about implementing a pilot program that is going to be neither effective nor efficient.

That brings me to another question in respect of the suspension of income support payments where parents fail to attend appointments with Centrelink without a reasonable excuse or fail to sign an employment pathway form. I understand that, as part of this, when parents comply with the employment pathway plan after having had a failure they get full repayment of their benefits. But let us imagine a scenario in which a parent fails to comply for a period of weeks and thus has no income support coming through. Has the government considered the impact it would have on the child who is in the care of the parent if possibly the only form of income for supporting and sustaining the child were suspended?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:59): The government has taken into account the impact of any financial penalties on the wellbeing of the child. These participation plans have been designed to ensure that the child's interests are paramount. Family tax benefit is not affected by these measures, and that ensures that payments directly targeted at family members will continue. It is the income support component that is targeted on this occasion. It needs to be remembered that the whole objective of participation plans is to provide wraparound support for these very vulnerable families. To the extent that some families might continue to breach participation plans, the support and resources of the community associated with those plans will be drawn upon. The removal of income support is meant to be a very last resort. Presumably we would be looking at situations that may involve child protection or other arrangements, if we are talking about family circumstances of the nature Senator Bernardi mentions.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:01): We believe that this is neither a strong enough incentive for people to do the right thing nor a disincentive to stop them doing the wrong thing. To facilitate the government's guillotine, I will now indicate that the opposition formally opposes items 8 and 9 of schedule 1, as set out at amendments (3) and (4), as circulated, in the following terms:

(3)   Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 8 to 21), TO BE OPPOSED.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 22) to page 5 (line 9), TO BE OPPOSED.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:03): I have several questions of the minister and I will also indicate the Greens' position on our amendments. Before moving them I wish to ask the government a few questions on some issues I articulated in my second reading contribution. What happens to participants if they move out of a trial area?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:03): If people are within a trial area and under participation arrangements and they move out of that trial area, their program will continue. There will be flexible Centrelink services to ensure that occurs—except if they move to a remote location.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:04): You say there will be flexible services available. Does that mean when they go to their nearest Centrelink office they will have access to case management and the whole process we have been talking about?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:05): The case management in those types of circumstances will not be quite the same as it is in a trial area, but Centrelink is developing remote arrangements to ensure that they have the appropriately qualified staff delivering post-management services. That may be over the phone or it may be online. These arrangements are still being developed to ensure that if people move out of the pilot areas case management support continues.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:05): I do have some concerns about that. As I understand it, extra funding is being made available for these support services in the trial areas. If a number of people move out of the trial areas, there will be a group of people subject to these provisions that are not getting the support this process intends and they may suffer adverse consequences. I touched on appeals. Will people subject to these provisions be able to appeal suspension of payments through the usual appeal processes?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:06): Yes, that is the case.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:06): I also raised the issue of specialised training for Centrelink staff. This relates not only to Centrelink staff in the trial areas but also to Centrelink staff outside the trial areas who may be dealing with some of the people who are the subject of this process.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:07): Senator Siewert, I can indicate a response to some elements of your question, but you may need to be a bit more specific about the nature of the training when we get to that point. The people working within the pilot locations will receive specialist training. That training is not being rolled out across the board, as I am sure you will appreciate. However, those who will be responsible—for want of a better expression—in a centralised way for the people who move out of the area will also receive specialised training and will be dealing with the other caseworkers who have been working with the families in the pilot area as well.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:08): I thank the minister. I probably misinterpreted the response earlier. People who move out of the trial areas will be dealing with more a centralised team, rather than the specific people in their local Centrelink centre?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:08): Yes, Senator. The response to that is yes, but they will be dealing with both the workers in their new local Centrelink area and also this centralised, flexible arrange­ment to ensure that the benefits of the participation plan and arrangements continue if they move out of one of the pilot areas.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:08): Do I take it from that that there will be some sort of centralised process established under these provisions? Under the funding that is made available for this process, there will be some sort of centralised team that will be taking on the responsibilities that you just articulated but also coordinating the whole process?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:09): Yes, in the national office there will be a centralised team of people who are trained in the participation plan and arrangements but also dealing with that coordination function.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:09): I thank the minister for the responses. I indicate that the Greens will not be supporting amendments (3) and (4), which are around items 8 and 9. We agree with and support the government's argument about that. As we opposed this bill in the first place, we certainly would not be seeking to support measures that would further penalise parents and take away any hope of accessing any income should the worst come to the worst under the these provisions. So we will not be supporting the removal of items 8 and 9. However, we are more persuaded, I will say now, by the other amendments that the opposition have indicated that they may be moving.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:10): Just to let the chamber know, in respect of amendments (3) and (4): as the Greens have indicated their position I will not be calling for a division on these, so we can do that on the voices, if you like.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:10): Yes.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that items 8 and 9 in schedule 1, relating to amendments (3) and (4) on sheet 7182, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:11): Briefly, I would like to address the other amendments that we have proposed, which are in effect giving the secretary the flexibility to determine noncompliance and to consider extenuating circumstances in that respect. The Greens have indicated—for which I am grateful—that they are amenable to these amendments. I hope that that will be the case because the amendments simply bring this bill into line with the Social Security Act, whereby, for an individual who is deemed to be noncompliant and may indeed suffer a penalty—notwithstanding the fact that I am saying that some of the penalties are not that significant—the secretary should be able to consider their personal circumstances in making a determination. This is a flexible approach. It is entirely consistent with other legislation that has been through this chamber. I think it is an important initiative to ensure that this pilot can work as effectively as it possibly can, notwithstanding our concerns. With that—I am looking once again for that wonderful wording, and I will try to recreate it—the opposition opposes items 5, 6 and 22 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 26 to 30), TO BE OPPOSED.

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 1 to 5), TO BE OPPOSED.

(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 5 to 8), TO BE OPPOSED.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:13): As I indicated in my earlier remarks, it is the government's view that we have the balance around these things as best appropriate in the circumstances of this being a trial. We would indeed acknowledge some of the issues that Senator Bernardi has raised, but we would use the trial as an opportunity to see how matters proceed. That being said, we will of course accept the will of the Senate.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:13): Just so that I am absolutely clear about what the Greens are not supporting and about our position: we are of a mind at this stage to support these amendments. We believe they maintain the secretary's discretion to be able to:

… make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer of one or more children, and that:

(a) the person is a registered and active foster carer; or

(b) the person is a home educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or

(c) the person is a distance educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or

(d) under a family law order that the person is complying with, a child, of whom the person is a relative (other than a parent), is to live with the person.

And then section 502D(3A), as I understand it—the other one—applies too: the secretary may make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer for four or more children. I have questions of both Senator Bernardi, as the opposition is moving these amendments, and the government. Why does the government think it is appropriate that the secretary not have the power to make such a determination? These are very important categories, and I would have thought it would have been appropriate to exempt them. I must admit I am supporting this although we are not supporting the bill. If this bill goes through, as it is indicated to be highly likely to, we believe these exemptions should be kept in place. I ask Senator Bernardi whether it is your intention, by moving these amendments, to keep in place those exemptions for those particular categories? Am I correct in that understanding?

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:15): I am delighted to answer questions from Senator Siewert. If only I were on the other side of the chamber—that would be even more satisfying. Yes, you are correct that that is our intention.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:15): I indicate that one of the concerns of the government in this matter is to keep the terms of the trial as broad as possible. For instance, families having four children is not, in the government's view, a reason for them to be exempted from the trial. We wanted to use this trial as an opportunity to look at what might be a reasonable basis for exemptions or arrangements on an ongoing basis. Leaving this capacity or authority with the secretary was not the government's view of how to proceed on a trial basis but rather that the government review the application of these circumstances and look at future program arrangements to deal with any of the inflexibilities or problems that might need to be managed in the future.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:16): I have to admit that the government's explanation does not fill me with joy, so we will be supporting these amendments. I think it is important that this power of determination remain with the secretary for these particular groups of people, so we will be supporting these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Fawcett ): The question is that items 5, 6 and 22 in schedule 1 relating to amendments (1), (2) and (5) on sheet 7182 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:16): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:19): I do not intend to make a long speech on the third reading; I just want to make the position of the Greens clear. The Greens are opposed to this particular piece of legislation. The amendments just passed make it slightly better. I will not be moving to divide, but I want to make sure that our opposition to this particular bill is recorded.

Senator BERNARDI (South Australia) (12:19): I will make a brief contribution as well. I restate our concerns with this bill, notwithstanding the fact that some of our amendments have been carried. We do not believe that this bill goes far enough. It is a pilot program and we believe that it should be a full program. We believe the penalty regime is virtually non-existent. Having said that, as some amendments have been passed, we will give the government the benefit of the doubt and we will not be calling a division on the passage of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator RYAN (Victoria) (12:20): The opposition will not be speaking for long on the Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011. It is a bill to address some areas in a piece of legislation considered earlier by the Senate. I point out that through facilitating the passage of this bill, while in no way supporting the guillotine measures of the government and the Greens that were debated in this chamber earlier today, this is an example of how the opposition is being constructive in facilitating the government's legislative program.

In the last debate regarding this particular policy initiative, we highlighted that there were flaws relating to the transitional provisions in the last bill. These flaws were pointed out by stakeholders and they were reflective of this government's failure to address the detail on so many issues, particularly on the regulatory and red tape fronts. The coalition has supported the national business names registration regime, and I understand it is pending legislation in all states and territories to refer the relevant authority to the Commonwealth to imple­ment this particular piece of legislation. This is a rare attempt from this government to reduce red tape. Sadly, while the government talks a great deal about reducing red tape and compliance burdens upon business, its actions betray its true performance and, I contend, its true agenda. We knew of the so-called 'one in, one out' promise that was made prior to the 2007 election, which has, since prior to the last election, become '200 in, one out'.

The national OH&S regime draft that came out earlier this year required tens of thousands of businesses in my home state of Victoria to develop a paper based evacuation plan. Jim of Jim's Mowing apparently needed to have paperwork to show him how to get out of the garage in an emergency. As we have seen in so many cases, it betrayed a lack of understanding by this government of the burden that such compliance places upon small and medium business and family business. Common sense simply does not prevail with this government. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has recently highlighted how the Fair Work Act has increased costs for business, including small and medium enterprises and family businesses—so much for the promise that no business nor worker would be worse off. But these are debates for another time.

The opposition will support the passage of this bill to correct the errors regarding the transitional provisions in the first bill. We are here because the government did not listen. We hope that the government has got the bill right this time. We hope that the government addresses the concerns we raised in the earlier debate on this policy initiative, particularly with respect to having geographical identifiers for existing businesses with similar names. There may be a plumber in Melbourne that goes by the name of John Smith Plumbing. I would venture to say there may well be a John Smith Plumbing elsewhere in Australia. We do not yet have a series of protocols about how such conflicts are going to be managed, particularly without additional burdens being placed upon small business. The last thing we would want to see is more compliance or red tape placed upon businesses with similar names, who only face those issues because of this particular policy initiative.

We also lack further information on what process will be put in place to resolve applications for business names that may be similar to existing business names. Again our concern is that, with the track record of this government, we will see the processes create increased red-tape and compliance costs for small and medium enterprises seeking to use this new facility. We urge the government to take the time—they have got until March next year—to make sure that any additional processes are actually resolved by the government and by bureaucrats, rather than doing as they have done in so many other cases and actually forcing more and more work onto the small and medium sized business people of Australia. We hope that the resolution to these issues is smooth. We hope it is quick. We will be keeping a watchful eye on the government regarding the implementation of this initiative.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:24): I thank the senator for the contribution he has made to the debate on this bill and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Fawcett): As there have been no amendments circulated for the bill I call on the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator ARBIB: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (12:25): I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This bill will make a number of amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and also includes amendments to the Disability Services Act 1986 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Schedule 1 of the bill makes changes to allow for parenting payment recipients to access the bereavement allowance following the death of a partner. The original purpose of the legislation was that, following the death of a partner, the surviving partner would continue to receive parenting payment single. This was in lieu of transferring temporarily to the equivalent of the bereavement allowance and then back to parenting payment single. There has traditionally been no financial advantage in transferring between these payment types. Allowing parenting payment recipients to temporarily transfer to bereavement allowance will provide for additional assistance following a family tragedy. This measure is expected to cost less than $1 million over the forward estimates. The amendments in this schedule will commence on 1 January 2012.

Schedule 2 removes the family member exemption from the two-year newly arrived resident's waiting period before special benefit is paid. Special benefit is an income support payment for people in severe financial need due to circumstances beyond their control who are not eligible for other Centrelink pensions or benefits. At present, special benefit is payable to temporary visa holders on arrival in Australia if they are suffering hardship. Other migrants are subject to the newly arrived resident's waiting period and therefore must wait two years before special benefit is payable. However, exemptions do apply to indi­viduals who can demonstrate financial hardship and a substantial change in circumstances beyond their control after arrival in Australia. An exemption from the newly arrived resident's waiting period is provided to a family member, which is defined as either a partner or dependent child, under paragraph 3(1)(e) or (g) of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident's Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Act. The effect of this schedule is to add a new paragraph, 739A(8), to the Social Security Act. The effect of this amendment is to remove the exemption from the need to demonstrate a substantial change in situation beyond their control that exists for provisional partner visa holders who are applying for special benefit. In other words, provisional partner visa holders will need to demonstrate they have had substantial changes of circumstances beyond their control after having arrived in Australia. This test is in addition to financial hardships tests they will need to satisfy in order to access the special benefit. This measure is expected to save $38.1 million over the forward estimates.

Schedule 3 is a matter of some public interest and has been subject to a Senate inquiry. This schedule removes the current impairment tables from 1 January next year and enables the minister to introduce new impairment tables via a legislative instru­ment. Placing the tables in the legislative instrument and removing them from the Social Security Act should provide greater ease in updating the tables regularly in response to developments in medical or rehabilitation practice.

The impairment tables are currently in schedule 1B of the Social Security Act and have been there since 1991. They are used in assessing a person's work related impair­ments to determine eligibility for the disability support pension. In the 2009-10 budget the government announced its intention to review and update the impair­ment tables and commissioned an advisory committee to oversee the review and to recommend changes. It is the view of the opposition that it is appropriate that the impairment tables are reviewed from time to time.

There has been substantial growth in the number of disability support pensioners. In 1990 there were around 320,000 people on the DSP. As at June this year, there were 818,850. That is growth of over half a million people on the DSP in a period of just over 21 years. Over the last four years, from June 2007 to June 2011, the number of DSP recipients grew by over 100,000 or 14.6 per cent. As at June 2011, there were about 290,000 more people on the DSP than on the Newstart allowance, and little more than one per cent of disability support pensioners move back into the workforce each year.

The current impairment tables consist of 22 tables that are mainly based on body systems. These tables have effectively remained unchanged since the reforms of 1997. The advisory committee that was charged with looking at the tables confirmed that they were, indeed, outdated, inapprop­riate for use and in need of significant reform. The committee made 12 recom­mendations, including the replacement of the current impairment tables with draft tables which were outlined in detail in the report.

The committee also found that there is a need to move from a medical diagnosis to an assessment based on the capacity of an individual to work or to undertake training. The opposition is of the view that that is a very positive move—away from a medical approach to one that is based more on the capacity of an individual to work. Hopefully, that change will see more Australians in the workforce.

The schedule will also provide an easier avenue than exists at the moment for future governments to revise and update the impair­ment tables, as I mentioned. This will accommodate advances in our knowledge of medicines and therapies. It should be noted that there will be a review of these tables in 18 months after they are implemented on 1 January and that the report recommended that the tables be reviewed regularly thereafter. We think that is a good idea. This is an appropriate reform. However, I note in passing, as I am duty-bound to do, that the current government does not have what you would call a terrific track record when it comes to implementing significant reform. But it is my earnest hope, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, as I know it is yours, that this is one area where the government will surprise us all. But we shall wait and see.

The committee's inquiry into schedule 3 made several recommendations that addressed some concerns that stakeholders had. A number of stakeholders queried the consultation process for the impairment tables, and the committee recommended that the government find ways to expand consultation and evaluation of the revised impairment tables. This expanded consultation should include information for current DSP recipients about the impact of the tables when a medical review is conducted.

The second recommendation addresses concerns raised by stakeholders about interassessor reliability. The advisory com­mittee reported a difference in 35 per cent of assessments conducted by different assessors. The committee found that this has the potential to create a degree of uncertainty for DSP applicants. It recommended that FaHCSIA regularly check the interassessor reliability as part of the department's quality assurance mechanism.

The committee also heard from several stakeholders about issues relating to specific tables. The committee heard from the National Council on Intellectual Disability, which raised issues with the impairment table for intellectual function. I understand that FaHCSIA asked NCID to prepare a proposal to establish a technical group to look at alternatives for that table as it applies to people with an assessed IQ between 70 and 79. I look forward to seeing the out­comes of those discussions in the revised impairment table for intellectual function.

The committee also heard from the Australian Pain Management Association and Painaustralia regarding the treatment of persistent pain under the tables. I understand that FaHCSIA has had discussions with these groups regarding the issues they raised. The Mental Health Council of Australia also raised concerns regarding the application of the impairment tables to co-occurring and episodic mental health conditions. These concerns have been addressed, to an extent, in the introduction to draft revised impairment table 5, which incorporates recurring psychiatric episodes.

The committee also heard that there were a number of concerns in the disability employment sector about the impact of the government's reforms combined with other reforms that came into effect on 3 September this year. The changes to the impairment tables will place additional pressure on disability employment providers from next year. During Senate estimates we found out that the Department of Education, Employ­ment and Workplace Relations believe that an additional 13,000 people will be using employment services provided by the government. The department estimated that around 80 per cent of these would be using Disability Employment Services and the remaining 20 per cent would be using Job Services Australia. The government must ensure that disability employment providers are adequately equipped to accommodate the increased demand for their services.

Schedule 4 provides for the introduction of a third-party-certification quality assur­ance system for disability advocacy providers. In 2010-11 FaHCSIA provided nearly $16 million in funding to the National Disability Advocacy Program, to 62 advocacy providers. Under the proposed QA system, the compliance of these advocacy providers with the disability advocacy standards legislative instrument will be assessed by an independent, third-party certification process. This process will be based on the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand that provides accreditation to certification bodies to undertake certification assessments of disability advocacy services.

The introduction of this schedule follows a consultation process which was initiated by the former government following a review of the National Disability Advocacy Program in 2005-06. In response to the conclusions of the report, the government provided an additional $12.2 million to NDAP. The previous government's budget measure included funding for the establishment of a national quality assurance regime for better disability advocacy services. It provided funding for the quality improvement strategy, a successful trial and an indepen­dent evaluation in consultation with the disability advocacy services sector. The evaluation recommended formal implemen­tation, and this schedule effectively delivers on work that was undertaken by the previous government.

A key feature of the proposed new quality assurance system is the inclusion of 11 draft disability advocacy standards, 24 key performance indicators and certification of compliance against these standards by independent accredited certification bodies. I would like to add briefly that the third-party certification process for disability advocacy services, outlined in schedule 4, has been in place successfully with the other disability employment providers since 2002.

Schedule 5 makes some amendments aimed at improving the integrity of treatment of certain asset-test-exempt income streams. Lifetime and life expectancy income streams receive concessional treatment for the assets test under social security law provided they meet the relevant sections under the Social Security Act. This means that the asset value of the income stream is not taken into account when determining whether a social security payment is payable to a person. The Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 provides a similar concessional treatment under its assets test when the equivalent requirements are met.

Over time, an inequity has arisen between social security recipients and veterans affairs pensioners. Inconsistencies in the treatment of self-managed superannuation funds and small APRA funds has led to some social security recipients and veterans affairs pensioners receiving concessions and a higher rate of entitlement payments without meeting their obligations under the act. The amendments in schedule 5 seek to improve on the existing rules by clarifying that self-managed super funds and small APRA funds may provide only one actuarial certificate for each financial year. They will also clarify that the certificate must be provided within 26 weeks of the beginning of the financial year. If a person does not provide the appropriate actuarial certificate in relation to the income stream by the end of the 26-week period the income stream will lose its asset test exemption. These changes are intended to improve the integrity of the current arrangement.

Schedule 6 makes a clarification that payments made by an employer to an employee in lieu of notice of termination are regarded as redundancy payments under social security law. When a person makes a claim for an income support payment, Newstart, the DSP or sickness allowance, for example, an income maintenance period may apply. During this period redundancy or leave payments are treated as income under the Social Security Act. People who have received a redundancy payment, for example, are expected to use that payment to support themselves before turning to the social security system for assistance. This schedule amends the definition of redundancy payment to include payments in lieu of notice. This will ensure that payments that are made in lieu of notice for the termination of employment are included for the purposes of receiving an income support payment.

In summary, this bill makes a number of sensible amendments to the Social Security Act, some of which will result in savings. The coalition will not be opposing this bill.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:43): While the Greens support some schedules in the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, we do not support schedule 3. Schedule 3 allows for the implementation of the new disability impairment tables, which we believe are inadequate. We are deeply concerned that they will have unjust outcomes for people living with disability, particularly when it is added to the process around access to the disability support pension, which the government has already put through this place.

While we support the move to a functional model of disability, as opposed to a purely medical one, we believe that the process by which the tables were drafted and tested should have been much better. We are deeply concerned that the more stringent nature of the assessment will have unacceptable impacts on some people living with a disability. We believe that the process by which the tables were drafted showed a lack of adequate consultation. We do not believe that the tables were adequately tested. They do not properly address the needs of some people living with disability, particularly those in regional and remote Australia, and they show considerable gaps in coverage of certain conditions. We believe they will cause increasingly large numbers of people living with a disability to go onto Newstart in a deeply inhospitable labour market where there are still not good outcomes for people living with a disability trying to find sustained employment. That came out not only in the inquiry into this particular bill, but also in the previous inquiry into the process for accessing the disability support pension. It is also coming out in the inquiry into disability and employment services.

If you look at the consultation and testing process, we are deeply concerned that there were a limited number of consultations with people living with a disability and with the disability sector, both before and after the drafting. We are concerned that there has also been inadequate testing of the new impairment tables. There was a small sample size of 215 people who were tested through the process. We do not believe this is statistically sound, despite the government's claim that it is. Moreover, when those people are divided over the 15 tables, there are 10 tables where the number of people tested is six individuals or less. This is far too small a sample size. The trial was conducted entirely in Victoria. Not that I am being state-centric, but there is a vast difference between Victoria and my home state of Western Australia, for example. We do not believe that has provided adequate coverage of the rest of Australia, particularly of regional and remote communities. It is also unclear whether people with a disability from non-English speaking backgrounds or those who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders were consulted or included in that process.

Furthermore, the trials revealed that in some cases where an inter-rater comparison was completed there was a 35 per cent conflict between primary and secondary assessors. This brings into question the validity of the assessments, which cannot be applied consistently. It is extremely troubling that these tables, which have the potential to impact on thousands of vulnerable Australians, have not been subject to more rigorous examination. I have no confidence that the tables will adequately assess a person's disability or functionality. It is unfortunate that, yet again, the people who are going to be the most affected by this—those with a disability—are going to be subject, in essence, to what will become just one big trial of these new impairment tables.

During the committee inquiry into this bill, the impact on people living with disabilities in regional and remote areas was discussed quite a bit. I am particularly concerned that the adverse consequences of the new tables will be felt very strongly in regional and remote areas. The new tables rely heavily on applied health practitioners such as occupational therapists to provide information for diagnosis. In many regional and remote areas these specialists may not be available or may be recent graduates with not sufficient experience. That is not having a go at recent graduates, but the point is we often have the most inexperienced graduates in some of these areas who are not used to this type of assessment. We are quite concerned about these particular issues.

Furthermore, the tables clearly prohibit the consideration of environmental concerns when determining DSP eligibility, creating serious questions of equity for people living with a disability in remote and regional Australia. For example, this group is subject to the same requirement to look for work within 60 minutes commuting time of their residence. In some areas with minimum public transport this is a deeply unreasonable expectation, even with the mobility allow­ance. The tables are unable to consider issues such as access to public transport and taxis, distance required to travel to work, attitudes of employers and availability of jobs. Sue Egan of Physical Disability Australia says:

We believe that, for people with a physical disability, an accessible worksite and being able to get to and from work are crucial, particularly for people who work in rural areas where there is no accessible public transport. I live in a rural area myself and I work from home, but if I did not work from home there would be no accessible transport for me to get to work, as I have a disability as well. So I think that those factors need to be taken into account when considering whether a person should qualify for a DSP.

Almost 50 per cent of people living with a disability on DSP in Australia live in regional and remote areas. It is extremely concerning that the needs of this large group have not been adequately taken into account. I am very concerned that many conditions are not properly captured by the impairment tables—in particular, co-morbidity, chronic or persistent pain, and intellectual disability. Senator Fifield has touched on the issues around chronic and persistent pain and around intellectual disabilities.

There are concerns that individuals who have co-morbid conditions, scoring 15 points across the tables, are likely to face major difficulties in the employment services system but will no longer be eligible for DSP. The tables compound difficulties already experienced by people with co-morbid conditions and, as I was saying earlier, when you look at the changes that were brought in under the 3 September changes to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011, the interaction of these two pieces of legislation will have significant impacts on people living with a disability. Under this new legislation, only those who are assessed to have a severe impairment will be exempt from completing a program of support. However, the method for determining severe impairment does not adequately take account of co-morbidity, as there is a requirement for 20 points in a single table. People with co-morbid conditions who are not judged to have a severe impairment will not be put straight on to DSP. They will most likely be placed on Newstart and yet be unable to, in some cases, meet the requirements of participation in a program of support. I know I have traversed these issues previously in this chamber, but it remains a very serious concern.

Chronic pain is another condition, coverage of which by these tables has also been significantly questioned, and it was raised during the committee inquiry. The tables consider paying a symptom only and not a condition. It appears that chronic pain will not be assessable as an impairment even though it may have major function impacts on daily activities and preclude the sufferers from maintaining 15 or more hours work per week in the labour market without the need for ongoing support. I understand some of these issues are being addressed, but it yet again highlights the way the changes to these tables have had inadequate consultation and were brought forward before these issues had been adequately dealt with.

The other issue that was raised, which Senator Fifield also touched on, is intellectual disability, particularly for people with an IQ score of 70 to 79, who would fail to qualify under the revised tables. Some 24,000 people fall into this group, which is already over-represented in homelessness statistics, in hostels and, unfortunately, in our prison incarceration statistics. Again, while I understand that there has been some ongoing dialogue about this issue, it is symptomatic of the fact that these impairment tables have been rushed through without adequate consultation or thought about what they mean for these people with significant disabilities.

I must question the motivation for some of these changes. While ideally the move to functionality is supported, as I have already articulated, I am very deeply concerned about what the underlying motivation is for some of these changes, when you also take into account the changes that have already been made in the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. I believe these changes are focused on trying to save money by keeping people off disability support and on Newstart, not on improving their ability to find long-term, sustainable employment.

When you look at some of the issues around the labour market, one of the most critical issues I want to raise is the endemic and widespread inability of people with disabilities to secure sustainable employ­ment. This is not just about cycling people in and out of short-term employment. It is extremely concerning that about 38 per cent of new DSP applicants in the trials at the moment have been rejected under the new tables. It is clear many people will be placed on Newstart who are unlikely to find long-term, sustainable employment, which is what this measure is said to try to achieve.

According to the National Council on Intellectual Disability, the current outcomes for disability employment service programs reveal a 26-week employment outcome rate of 16 per cent. This means 84 per cent of people with disabilities entering the disability employment service will not get a sustainable job. Anglicare and ACOSS believe this is largely due to the job market, which is currently not able to meet the employment needs of job seekers with a disability. The concern here is that, if we are cycling people in and out of short-term jobs, this is not achieving what we are trying to achieve, which is sustainable employment. It can also act as a disincentive to people who are continually cycling in and out of jobs and, through no fault of their own, are not able to maintain these positions. We will just be adding more people to this group, of which there are already 13,000. I am not convinced (a) that the employment services are prepared to handle this number of people and (b) that we can guarantee we will be able to find sustainable employment for these people.

I know the minister will address the issue by saying that there was money allocated in the budget for work placements. Again, there are not enough resources allocated to adequately support the number of people on the disability support pension who are seeking employment or the number on Newstart who are seeking employment. I will quote from ACOSS's submission to the inquiry:

… the DSP assessment process as a whole does not take account of the labour market response to disability, for example whether work of the kind a person is capable of performing is available where they live and whether employers discriminate against people with a particular disability … it is important to acknowledge that the labour market is still hostile to disability. The overall employment rate of people with significant functional impairments in 2009 was 42% compared with 70% for the wider community.

We are deeply concerned that the government is pursuing measures that will reject more people from DSP, given the inability of the present job market to absorb people living with a disability.

We are also concerned that people who are unable to get sustained employment and unable to qualify for the DSP will be living on Newstart, on $34 a day. Newstart is $128 a week less than the pension—and that has changed—and has a much harsher income test and taper withdrawal rate. It is inferior to the DSP in many ways. For example, there is no eligibility for the pensioner education supplement and a liquid assets waiting period applies. People living with a disability accrue extra costs on top of ordinary living expenses—for medication, equipment, transport and even electricity. We are not saying that people who do not qualify through the impairment tables are not living with a disability, so we are talking about people on Newstart trying to find sustained employment while living with a disability. We believe many, many people will find it difficult to meet the activity requirements and will be confronted by a complex and punitive compliance regime.

I am very concerned at what will happen to people currently on DSP when they are subject to review with the new tables. According to FaHCSIA, under the old tables 2.2 per cent, or 18,100 people, were required to undertake a medical review in 2010-11, and 1.6 per cent of those, or 298 individuals, lost eligibility. It is not possible to tell with certainty how many people would lose eligibility when assessed using the new tables, but if the results of the trial are any indication around 38 per cent of those 18,000, or 4,500 people, may no longer qualify for DSP and be placed on Newstart. This is exceptionally problematic, consider­ing many of these people will have been on DSP for years, if not decades, and have little prospect of securing sustainable employ­ment. This impact has to be examined in light of other changes to DSP taking place. As I have already said, we are extremely concerned that we are going to have a growing cohort of people living with a disability on Newstart who will be permanently stuck on Newstart. I do not think this is a way of helping people—entrenching poverty, particularly when they have a disability.

We are very concerned about monitoring these changes, given all these concerns, and about how soon this massive trial, which is essentially what this amounts to, will be adequately reviewed. Although we know an 18-month review is planned, we do not believe this is soon enough. We believe it should occur within 12 months, because, as I said, this is essentially a giant trial. The longer it goes on before it is assessed, the greater the impact of its negative effects on those living with a disability. We cannot support the changes proposed in schedule 3 at this time, because we do not believe the new impairment tables will lead to better outcomes for those living with a disability. So we will be opposing schedule 3 of this bill, and I have circulated amendments to that effect.

Finally, I would like to touch on schedule 4. While I support the introduction of an independent certification system for disability advocacy services, and the creation of the new standards, it is imperative that we get these standards right. I have received concerned calls from disability advocacy organisations stressing the importance of including independence from disability employment services in these standards and the provision of other support. I have circulated a second reading amendment going to a specific issue to do with independence. While we appreciate that, particularly in regional areas, it is very hard to ensure complete independence of organisations from the provision of other support services and employment services from advocacy services, we do believe that there must be as much care as possible and services should as much as possible be free from conflicts of interest or the perception of conflicts of interest.

So, although I understand that these issues are intended to be addressed in the standards, we believe that there should be a second reading amendment to the legislation to actually state that fact very clearly upfront. I have to say that the evidence I have heard so far through the hearing into employment services reinforces for me the need to make sure that advocacy services are, as much as possible, independent from the other services that organisations may provide. I do understand the argument, particularly for regional and remote services, that it is very difficult to have completely separate services in these small centres, so I have amended my position on this. But I still believe there is a need for a recognition by this chamber with respect to this legislation that in fact, for the purpose of certification of advocacy services under amendments made by schedule 4 of the bill, advocacy services must be as free as possible from conflicts of interest or the perception of conflicts of interest with disability service providers. I believe that is essential. I understand that is the government's intention. We believe it needs to be permanently on record that this is what the parliament of Australia expects: that these services are as independent as possible. I therefore move the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 7152:

At the end of the motion, add: "but, that for the purposes of certification of advocacy services under amendments made by Schedule 4 of the bill, advocacy services must be as free as possible from conflicts of interest, or the perception of conflicts of interest, with disability service providers".

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:02): I will make a short contribution on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Similarly to Senator Siewert, I do have concerns, particularly in relation to schedule 3. As a workers compensation lawyer in South Australia, I was aghast at the changes that came about a number of years ago in relation to relying so heavily on the American Medical Association impairment tables, where there was a much narrower focus and approach—which seems to be the case with this particular legislation. I note from the government's advisers that the impairment tables are based on WHO guidelines, in a sense, but I think we need to be careful of the unintended consequences of such moves. Of course I support moves that would ensure that people who have disabilities are encouraged to participate in the workplace and are given opportunities to be part of the workforce, where discrimination is removed and where they have a real opportunity to participate fully in the workforce. But the concern I have with the approach of this piece of legislation, particularly in relation to schedule 3, is that there may be many unintended consequences.

I think it is quite pertinent to refer to Frank Quinlan, the CEO of the Mental Health Council of Australia, who provided evidence on this issue to the inquiry. He made the point:

Several Australian and international studies have shown that people with disabilities such as mental disorders and substance abuse disorders will usually have co-occurring disorders, and a person with co-occurring disorders is likely to have greatly exacerbated negative impacts. A person with two or more moderate level disorders occurring across the tables when combined could result in a total equivalent of a severe impairment, when you combine substance, mental and physical disorders. The current amendment does not allow for cumulative totals across the tables and therefore does not take account of co-occurring disorders.

That is a concern. What happens in those circumstances? What safety valve will there be in the system in those situations?

   There is also a very fixed approach of reaching the 20 points. Is there any discretion where it is clear that people will fall between the cracks of these impairment tables? I understand the reason behind impairment tables, and that you try to have a much more efficient and effective system to deal with these issues. I understand that you do not want to take an almost common-law type approach when looking at levels of disability and functionality, and have a mini-trial of a person's disabilities, but what do you do in cases where people will clearly fall between the cracks, where people have difficulties and are not, on any reasonably objective standard, able to participate in the workplace because of cumulative disabilities but will not get to the 20 points? What safety valve is there? I understand there is no discretion: if you do not get to the 20 points, you are out.

To what extent will the government be having an ongoing review of this? I suspect what may well happen is that Senator Siewert, me and others in this chamber could well be approached by constituents saying their family member has been knocked out of a disability support pension, notwithstanding that the cumulative nature of their disabilities make it, in practical terms, impossible to participate in the workforce. How do you deal with unintended consequences? How do you deal with cases where people with an intellectual disability—there are some 20,000 people who could fall within this group—do not make the 20-points threshold?

These are the concerns that I have. These are concerns that must be addressed, because I fear that what is being proposed here is quite inflexible, quite prescriptive and does not allow for exceptional circumstances. I think it is always important in legislation such as this to allow for those genuine cases, those genuine exceptional situations, where, given an individual's personal circumstances, the rules need to be reconsidered.

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:07): I thank Senators Fifield, Siewert and Xenophon for their contributions to the debate on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

The government is working hard to support people with disability to fulfil their potential; it is working hard on a number of fronts. In August this year, the Prime Minister released the Productivity Commission's final report into long-term care and support of people with disability. Shortly after that, the state and territory premiers and chief ministers agreed with our government that major reform of disability care and support was needed through the implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme. We have already started work to transform the way that care and support is provided to people with disabilities. We are working to deliver results for people with disability right now, including by improving support for Australians with disability to help them into work wherever possible. The disability support pension is an essential element of Australia's safety net and it is vital that it supports the people who need it—those Australians who, through disability, are unable to work to fully support themselves.

I go now to the elements of this amendment bill. In the 2009-10 budget, the government committed to updating the impairment tables used to assess eligibility for the disability support pension to bring them into line with modern medical and rehabilitation practice. The current impairment tables have not been comprehensively rewritten since they were introduced in 1991, and they contain anomalies and inconsistencies. For example, the assistance that can be provided by hearing aids is not included in the assessment for hearing impairment; however, visual assessment is assessed with glasses.

An advisory committee of medical, allied health and rehabilitation experts, representatives of disability peak bodies, mental health advocates and relevant government agencies was established in 2010 to provide advice on updating the impairment tables. The advisory committee found that the current impairment tables were out of date. They developed new impairment tables in close consultation with the medical profession and disability stakeholders. They recommended that the new tables be used to assess eligibility for the DSP from 1 January next year.

The new impairment tables reflect modern expectations about functional ability and focus on what people are able to do rather than what they cannot do. For example, under the current tables, ratings for some conditions such as back conditions are based on loss of movement. Under the new tables, ratings are based on what the back condition prevents a person from doing—for example, sitting for a long period of time, reaching objects over head height or bending to pick up objects. In this way, the new tables are being brought into line with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and, in answer to Senator Xenophon's question, the World Health Organisation's internal classification of functioning disability and health.

The introduction to the tables is also updated so that for the first time there will be explicit guidelines about the impact of episodic conditions such as some mental illnesses. This will help ensure that assessments of eligibility for DSP for people with episodic conditions are fairer and more consistent than under the current tables.

The bill removes the current outdated tables and enables new tables to be introduced through a disallowable legislative instrument. This change, if the bill is passed, will occur on 1 January 2012. Putting the impairment tables in a disallowable instrument allows them to be updated regularly in response to developments in medical and rehabilitation practice and will also retain the parliament's role in scrutinising any changes. The government is committed to ensuring that the recommended new tables are implemented fairly and effectively.

In addition to the extensive consultation process which has already occurred, the government is continuing to consult with disability stakeholders and medical experts, including pain management organisations and the National Council on Intellectual Disability. The government also accepts the advisory committee's recommendations to monitor the initial implementation of the revised impairment tables and to conduct a review 18 months after implementation. In line with the advisory committee's recom­mendation, this will include considering how to further strengthen a functional approach to assessing eligibility for the disability support pension.

The bill also introduces a stronger quality assurance system for disability advocacy services to ensure that people with disability receive the best possible advocacy support. The current quality assurance system has not changed since 1997, and the need for improved quality assurance for disability advocacy services has been highlighted in a number of reviews. Development of a robust quality assured disability advocacy sector will help meet the objectives of the National Disability Strategy and will also help meet Australia's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

This bill requires disability advocacy services that receive financial assistance under the Disability Services Act to be reviewed and assessed by independent accredited certification bodies against disability advocacy standards. The new system has been successfully trialled and independently evaluated. The evaluation was overseen by a reference group, including disability advocates and technical experts. It recommended formal implementation. The government has provided $7,000 to each funded advocacy service to help them prepare for the stronger quality assurance arrangements. We are also working closely with the sector to provide them with practical support as the new arrangements are introduced.

To that extent, we will not be supporting the second reading amendment which has been moved by Senator Siewert. We understand the principle of the amendment. We are not convinced, though, that a second reading amendment is the right way to pursue this agenda. The government is working with the disability advocacy sector to ensure disability advocacy standards and key performance indicators include appropriate arrangements to manage conflicts of interest.

The government is also working through the recommendations of the Productivity Commission in its report on long-term care and support for people with disability. This includes the Productivity Commission's recommendations relating to disability advocacy groups and disability support organisations. I can assure senators that, as the new system is implemented, a priority for our government will be to ensure that the interests of people with disability are put first and foremost. This of course includes robust processes to manage potential conflicts of interest in the advocacy sector.

The bill also gives effect to a budget 2011-12 measure by enabling parenting payment recipients to access bereavement allowance on the death of a partner. Allowing a parenting payment recipient to transfer to bereavement allowance on the death of their partner will provide additional financial assistance during a difficult time.

The bill also gives effect to another budget 2011-12 measure: to more closely align the rules for accessing special benefit for provisional partner visa holders with the rules for other newly arrived migrants. Under the current policy, provisional partner visa holders are able to access special benefit from when they are granted the visa and they are in Australia, if they can demonstrate they are suffering from financial hardship. This is not consistent with the situation for other newly arrived migrants, subject to the newly arrived residents waiting period, who need to demonstrate both financial hardship and change in circumstance outside of their control in order to access special benefit. From 1 January 2012 the rules for provisional partner visa holders will be consistent with those for other newly arrived migrants. The new arrangements will continue to ensure adequate protection for vulnerable migrants—for example, when there is domestic violence, death of a partner or an injury or accident after their arrival in Australia.

The bill also makes changes to the social security law and veterans' entitlements legislation to enhance the integrity of treat­ment of certain asset-test-exempt income streams. These changes strengthen the existing rules that require lifetime and life expectancy income streams to provide an annual actuarial certificate in order to benefit from concessional treatment and address inconsistencies that have arisen over time in the treatment of these income streams.

Finally, the bill makes amendments to the social security law to clarify that payments made by an employer to an employee in lieu of notice of the termination of his or her employment are redundancy payments for the purposes of social security law. This ensures that, in calculating income main­tenance periods under the act, people who receive these payments are treated the same as people who receive other types of redundancy payments.

I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:18): The Greens oppose schedule 3 in the following terms:

Schedule 3, page 5 (line 1) to page 8 (line 2), Schedule 3 TO BE OPPOSED.

As I articulated in my speech on the second reading—I do not want to detain the chamber to traverse again all of the arguments—we have very significant concerns about the impairment tables. We do not think there was adequate consultation. We are deeply concerned that many people are going to fall through the gaps of these impairment tables. We do not believe they are right yet. We are going to be submitting a large number of Australians living with a disability to falling through the gaps, because they will not be adequately assessed through tables that are still not adequate and still need to be fixed.

As I said, there has not been adequate consultation. The tables do not adequately cover all disabilities and all conditions. In fact, the government is still trying to fix some of them up. The issues around comorbidity continue to concern us. I note Senator Xenophon's support for those concerns. He has in fact worked in the area of dealing with tables such as these.

The people who fall through the gaps here are the ones who are going to end up on the lower payments on Newstart. They will be on significantly less money and will be required to meet participation requirements that may well be too stringent for somebody who is living with a disability—a quite significant disability—that, because of the new tables, has not been recognised as a significant disability as the person does not make the required number of points. These people will be subjected to quite harsh provisions and will be condemned to live in poverty, with no prospect of escape from that poverty.

We believe it is not appropriate to be changing the impairment tables before the problems with these tables have been rectified. We are deeply concerned about the effect this will have on many Australians. Although we support the motivation in terms of moving to a more functional model, we do not believe the government has got it right. The sheer fact that there was so much disagreement between the assessors using these tables, and the small sample size they were used with, prove to us that, using the precautionary principle, we need to spend more time getting these right and not subjecting Australians to one massive great big trial.

We are therefore opposed to the current tables and to the current process, so we have no option other than to oppose the changes in this bill. We do not believe that they are best suited to those in this country living with a disability.

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:22): In speaking against the amendments moved by the Greens, I reject the assertion that there has not been adequate consultation. This process has been ongoing for quite some time, as I indicated in my summing-up speech. It has engaged signifi­cant people, including members of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisa­tions, Disability Advocacy Network Australia, National Disability Services, the Mental Health Council of Australia and the National People with Disability and Carer Council. Seventy-four stakeholder organisa­tions were asked to provide input into the review, and submissions were received from 23 of those organisations. The review report has been published, and many third parties have reacted very positively to the update to the impairment tables, including the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, the Mental Health Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service and the chair of the National People with Disability and Carer Council.

I think that the new structure of the arrangements, as I indicated earlier, allows for flexibility in responding to changes in medical practice or, more importantly, rehabilitation practice. The fact that it is a disallowable instrument allows for us to work more flexibly in ensuring that the updating of these tables does not take the years and years during which updating is talked about but not done because the tables sit in the substantive legislation. I do not accept Senator Siewert's assertion that there has not been adequate consultation, and I want to say that that consultation is ongoing as more information comes to light. There has been very positive engagement by the department with a range of experts over the development of these impairment tables. So we will not be supporting the amendment.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:24): I am reluctant to draw this out. Many of the organisations the parlia­mentary secretary listed also made submissions and appeared at the hearing into these bills. They expressed concern about the tables and about the consultation process. I will say again that the National Council on Intellectual Disability expressed very strongly, when these tables first came out, their concerns about the process around the outcomes for people with an intellectual disability. I will acknowledge that there have been some steps to address that. The point is that that is one example of where, yes, there may have been some consultation, but whether it was taken on board is another issue. The government has now had to fix up those particular problems. The same goes for chronic pain, for example. Other issues around regional accessibility have not, to our mind, been adequately dealt with. There is consultation and there is consultation. The fact is that the government is still having to make changes to these tables because there has not been sufficient process in terms of being able to come up with rigorous tables that address issues of concern. Until the National Council on Intellectual Disability raised those issues yet again, they were not dealt with.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Pratt ): The question is that schedule 3 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [13:30]

(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Pratt)

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:32): Madam Temporary Chairman, given that that amendment has been lost, I am wondering if I could ask the minister a few questions. Is that okay?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Yes, please proceed.

Senator SIEWERT: I am now wondering about time lines once this legislation has been passed. Is the time line for the legislative instrument still the same as the one that the government was originally proposing?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:33): I understand so.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:33): Will the negotiations with the National Council on Intellectual Disability, in respect of the issues that we have been talking about, be completed by then?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:33): I understand we are in the final stages of working with the NCID to address their concerns. I also note that at the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing the National Council on Intellectual Disability were very positive about how they and FaHCSIA had been working through the issues that they had put on the table. So I feel quite confident that process will be completed in that time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:34): I understand that the council had indicated some progress but that there was further work to be done, which is why I was asking about whether that would be achieved by the time line—so I thank the minister for that. We talked earlier, and I note Senator Xenophon did so as well, about monitoring the process and about the review process. If it turns out that there are some unintended impacts or that the impacts turn out to be bigger than anticipated through the process, is the government prepared to consider a process of ongoing monitoring? If it turns out that there is a larger negative impact than expected, could the review process kick in prior to what is currently determined?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:35): Of course we would continue to monitor the implementation of the change as to the new impairment tables. We have made a commitment to do a formal review at 18 months, but there will be ongoing monitoring as we work through it. I do not think I can give a commitment that we would bring on that formal review earlier, but I can assure you that there will be constant and ongoing monitoring of the implementation of these impairment tables.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:35): Thank you, Parliamentary Secretary. In terms of the issues around access by those in rural areas to transport, which have been raised both in the committee inquiry and with me separately, have you looked at whether there are any further ways by which you can address the issue of transport for those people that are living in regional and rural areas where there is an absence of public transport?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:36): As a person who lives in a regional area, I understand the point you are making but it is not through the imple­mentation of impairment tables that we can deal with the issue that you are identifying. These are impairment tables which, as I said earlier, are meant to fairly and equally assess someone's ability—not their disability—to participate in the workforce. The fact that in a regional or rural area there may be less access to transport is something that needs to be addressed in another way, not through an assessment of someone's ability to participate in the workforce. We cannot take into account the fact that they live in regional or rural area. But the point that you make is right. That is why our government developed the National Disability Strategy.

The National Disability Strategy is designed so that all government depart­ments—all service points—consider the special needs of people with disability when designing their service systems. That means that the bus system in a particular place must provide equal and fair service to people with disability. That means that people with disability who access the health system need to be treated according to their needs. The question that you are asking is a broad one about access to transport and employment. These impairment tables are not the way to solve that problem.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:38): I do not accept your point but I understand it. But a number of decisions that this government has made will make it harder for people to get the disability support pension. More people are now subject to participation require­ments. More people will not have the required number of points through the impairment tables. While I understand the point that you are making, I do not accept it, because there are going to be an increasing number of people subject to participation requirements and who are going to be disadvantaged because they live in regional and rural areas that do not have access to good public transport. They will find it harder to meet their participation requirements.

I am aware that a mobility allowance is provided and that there are various state programs. This is not adequate. People living with disability have told us that this sort of support is not adequate. The public transport systems in these areas are not adequate. We know that there are a number of people living in regional areas and areas fringing metropolitan areas because it is cheaper to live in those places. We know that that is the case and yet there are going to be an increasing number of people disadvantaged by this. That is why I asked the question. I know that we are talking specifically about the implementation of impairment tables. But that begs this question: when will you look at the cumulative impact on people living with disability of all the decisions being made by government?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:40): Our government is focused on ensuring that every person who has the ability is supported into employment, whether or not they have a disability and whether or not they are living in a regional or remote area. That has been the hallmark of this government. We are working hard with the community to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to be employed. There are a number of people who, because of their disability, cannot have the benefits of employment. We will make sure that they get the support that they need. But our focus has been on ensuring that everyone has the chance to share in the wealth of this nation. Ensuring that the support structures are put in place so that people can access employment has been the focus of the government.

You make some points about regional and rural areas. You are right. People with disability often move to areas where it is cheaper to live. We have to make sure that we support those people to get into the employment that they in many cases would love and want to have. We have to make sure that people with mental illness have support so that they are able to work through episodic conditions. This set of impairment tables addresses that question.

This amendment bill, particularly schedule 3—the impairment tables—will provide a lot of support to people and enable them to think about getting employed rather than believing that, because of their disability, they are not part of the employment market. We have to change the mindset in some sectors to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to be employed if they have the ability to be so. This is part of a suite of measures that will focus on employing people. We know the benefits of employment. They are not just monetary. People who engage in employment are included in society; they are part of society. They do not feel socially isolated. We know that the benefits of employment are much broader than a pay packet at the end of the week. I see positive moves in this and other pieces of legislation that have focused on employment rather than classifying people as not having the potential and possibility of having a job.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:42): I want to change tack for a moment. I want to raise the issue of intellectual impairment versus cognitive impairment. Has the government put some thought into that? When the government undertakes the review in 18 months, is it an issue that can be picked up?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:43): I am advised that that will occur.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:43): I want to go to the issue raised in my second reading contribution and referred to in Senator Siewert's dissenting report, in which reference was made to the evidence given by Frank Quinlan, the CEO of the Mental Health Council of Australia. He was concerned the current amendment bill does not allow for cumulative totals across the tables and therefore does not take account of co-occurring disorders. The method for determining severe impairment does not account for comorbidity, as there is a requirement for 20 points in a single table. That has been serious concern of mine and of Senator Siewert. What happens in those cases? Is it the case that, if you do not get to the 20 points, there is no appeal mechanism other than trying to get to the 20 points by some other mechanism—such as by having a reassessment? In other words, is there no safety valve for exceptional cases?

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (13:44): I can advise that a person can use multiple tables if they have coexisting conditions. If they have, for example, a physical disability and a mental illness, they can use multiple tables to get to their 20 points. Senator Xenophon, I think you may be confusing it with another piece of legislation: the 3 September changes.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Senator McLUCAS: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (13:45): The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 establishes the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority by amending the National Health Reform Act 2011. This is another one of the bureaucra­cies being established as part of so-called health reform. This one is supposed to exist to promote improved efficiency in and access to hospital services by providing independent advice to Commonwealth, state and territory governments about the efficient cost of services and to develop and imple­ment systems to support activity based funding for those services. It is supposed to formulate the national efficient price for healthcare services that are provided in public hospitals and funded on an activity basis. The authority will aim to deal with the vexed issue of cost-shifting between various jurisdictions and with cross-border disputes, and will seek to make decisions about block funding for hospitals that are too small, remote or otherwise unable to be funded on an activity basis. As I said, this is another bureaucracy in the Rudd-Gillard-Roxon so-called health reforms.

The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 amends the National Health Reform Act 2011 to establish this pricing authority. The bill provides for functions, powers, accountabilities and liabilities of the pricing authority as well as the establishment of committees and bodies to assist the authority. On 25 August, on the recommendation of the Selection of Bills Committee, this matter was referred to a Senate committee for inquiry and report by 15 September. This pricing authority is supposed to be the linchpin of the government's so-called health reforms and will operate alongside a raft of other bureaucracies, most notably the quality and safety commission and the national performance authority.

The impact of the pricing authority on the nation's hospitals remains very unclear. An interim pricing authority commenced operations on 1 September. In the additional comments report to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee's inquiry into this bill, we noted:

Coalition Senators do not oppose the recommendation of the report that this bill should be passed.

However, Coalition Senators strongly believe that the Government's so-called health reform package is more about creating the political illusion of health reform than any meaningful improvement or guarantees for patients.

This is a 'reform' that represents an enormous backdown by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health and Ageing, who are absolutely desperate to create the impression of health reform. It establishes the third bureaucracy as part of this overall framework. Of course it comes with its own price tag: $100 million over the forward estimates; $31 million this year. There has already been legislation to establish the performance authority, which is supposed to monitor and publish reports on the performance of local hospital networks, public and private hospitals, primary healthcare organisations and other healthcare organisations providing health services.

The first new bureaucracy we saw was the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. We may yet find ourselves suffering authority fatigue. The new bureaucracies come before the major changes in health, which are not due to be implemented until 2014-15—very conveniently long after the next election is due. Let me take the Senate back to Mr Rudd's commitment to scrap funding of 60 per cent of hospital costs, which was watered down to the Commonwealth providing 50 per cent of growth funding, and of course this will not occur before 2017.

Let me not forget to put on the record again the bypassing of mental health and aged-care reform in all these changes. The Australian Labor Party only made mental healthcare announcements in the budget because it was shamed into doing so after the coalition released more detail of its commitment to reforming mental health with an additional $432 million and the $1.5 billion already outlined before the 2010 election. Aged care continues to be the subject of discussions and conversations following the myriad reviews. People are dying of old age while reform in the sector is still stalled. Activity based funding is due to take effect from 1 July 2012 but, as we heard at Senate estimates on 19 October, the intention of the bill may not be reflected in reality. Ms Halton told us on 19 October:

Block funding will have to apply in particularly smaller country hospitals and we need the pricing authority to provide a view about that.

It is of great concern that the Department of Health and Ageing does not have a definition of a small hospital—not surprising since in previous estimates we were told that COAG still cannot make up its mind as to the definition of a 'bed'. Mr Broadhead, the acting First Assistant Secretary of the Health Reform Transition Office, told us:

We do not have a fixed definition of 'small hospital'. From our point of view, the discussions that we have had—and these are not settled—are really about the volatility of activities in hospitals.

As he explained, the process by which it would be decided is for the pricing authority to come up with what it believes are the appropriate criteria for hospitals to be block funded. Then, of course, all this has to go to COAG and COAG will agree or not agree, as it happens. Then, whatever criteria are established, the pricing authority looks at the level of funding that should be provided to these hospitals.

Is this a ringing endorsement of the process and a confidence-inspiring statement that all is on track for a 1 July start date? Hardly. The success of any reform should be on the ground and at the coalface of our hospital system. On that basis, I share with the Senate the recent AMA Public Hospital Report Card 2011, which is the AMA's analysis of Australia's public hospital system. I highlight some of the key points: only 378 new public hospital beds were opened across Australia in 2009-10 and in the previous year only 44 beds were opened. Remember Mr Rudd and the grand plan for over 1,300 hospital beds? That is certainly another broken promise from the Australian Labor Party.

Let us look at median waiting times for elective surgery—they are continuing to deteriorate. In 2009-10 the median waiting time was 35 days compared to 27 days eight years ago in 2001-02. Information about the real waiting time and demand for elective surgery is still hidden. People waiting to see a specialist to be assessed for surgery are not counted in waiting list data and over one-third of emergency patients who should be seen within 30 minutes were not seen within the recommended time. The list of inadequacies goes on. In the end, what will all these new bureaucracies do? Thus far, they are certainly not producing against the important yardstick of reform—that is, more beds in our hospital system.

As part of the coalition's proposals, I foreshadow an amendment which goes to the constitution and membership of the Pricing Authority and, most importantly, the inclusion of a representative from public hospitals. This is so typical of the Australian Labor Party. Its views on private health insurance and its ideological objection to it are well known; its views on private hospitals are no different.

In the State of our Public Hospitals June 2010report, there are 756 public hospitals in Australia, with about 56,000 available beds. But we also have in Australia 561 private hospitals—that includes day surgery facilities—and these account for 43 per cent of the available beds. While there are 2.5 public hospital beds per thousand of population, there are 1.2 private hospital beds per thousand of population. So it is vitally important that legislation does contain representation from the non-government hospital sector. Not surprisingly, this was an omission by the government. I will return to the reasons for our amendments when we propose them.

It has taken almost four years in government; an 18-month independent inquiry into the health system; a prime ministerial listening tour of the nation's hospitals, complete with Minister Roxon and then Prime Minister Rudd parading in white coats daily at our hospitals for photo opportunities; several fraught COAG meetings; and one unsuccessful attempt for the federal Labor government to finally secure some form of deal with all the states and territories. As we heard during the Senate inquiry, there are considerable concerns about the possible duplication of effort following the creation of all these new authorities. Various submissions commented that there was no legislative requirement for the new authorities to cooperate with existing agencies so as to not simply duplicate existing work. While it may seem obvious that such cooperation is necessary and beneficial, the lack of a legislative direction in this regard is a concern.

Coalition senators believe that consideration should be given to an independent review of these agencies' and authorities' operations after their initial establishment and implementation. There are still plans for a national funding organisation with a national health fund administrator and, no doubt, more administration to distribute federal and state funding to hospital networks. This was going to be yet another independent authority that Minister Roxon and then Prime Minister Rudd said would ensure transparency about where every dollar came from and went to in relation to public hospitals. It was announced last year and then, surprisingly, on 17 June 2010—

The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 2:00 pm the debate is interrupted.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (15:31): by leave—At the request of the Chair of the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator Sterle, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011 and the Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011 be extended to 29 February 2012.

Question agreed to.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:32): I, and also on behalf of Senator Di Natali, move:

That the following bill be introduced:

A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to encourage healthier eating habits among children by restricting the broadcasting of advertisements for junk food, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator BOB BROWN: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:33): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum.

Leave granted.

Senator BOB BROWN: i seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

In introducing this bill, the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting and Telecommunications Amendment) Bill 2011, I note that this will be the third time that I have introduced a private senators' bill on this matter of critical importance to the Australian community.

In March this year the Senate debated Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2010, which was opposed by both the government and the Coalition. I had previously introduced the bill in 2008, which was also voted down by the Labor and Coalition senators, when the debate occurred in June 2009. I said at the time of those surprising and disappointing votes, I would continue to advocate legislative action in this area.

The bill I am introducing today reflects the broad recommendations of the paper on regulatory approaches to protect children from junk food advertising, released in May by the Obesity Policy Coalition. This highly credentialed group includes the Cancer Council Victoria, Diabetes Australia – Victoria, VicHealth and the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Obesity Prevention at Deakin University. Their work is backed by the Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance (including Cancer Council Australia, Diabetes Australia and the National Heart Foundation), the Australian Medical Association, and the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children.

As the Obesity Policy Coalition state in making their recommendations for a regulatory approach to protecting children from junk food advertising, "The aim of the legislation should be to minimise children's exposure to unhealthy food product and brand advertising to the greatest extent possible, as well as restrict unhealthy food product and brand advertising that specifically targets children."

This bill extends the restrictions placed on junk food advertisers beyond children's free-to-air television to include subscription television, the internet and mobile phone advertising to reflect the rapid change in telecommunications tech­nologies and usage by children in recent years. For example, a study conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2007 found that 33% of children aged 8–11 years watched subscription television. The bill also prohibits the promotion of unhealthy food to children via web pages and websites that are likely to appeal to children and via commercial electronic messages, for example email or SMS.

The bill also adopts the recommendations of the Obesity Policy Coalition on restricted viewing times. Weekdays from 6–9am and 4–9 pm, and weekends and public holidays from 6am–12pm and 4–9pm are identified as the key times when a significant number of children or a proportion of children are watching television. These restricted times incorporate G classification periods when material suitable for children is broadcast.

The need to address the growing crisis of childhood obesity has been well established. I will simply set out a few of the most compelling statistics to highlight the case.

Childhood obesity in the 5 – 15 years age group has almost doubled for boys and girls in the last 20 years. Comparing prevalence of obesity for boys and girls in 1985 and 2007, the increase is 11 percent to nearly 24 percent, and 12.2 percent to 21.5 percent respectively. The health impacts and costs of this rising tide of obesity include shorter life expectancy, increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, orthopaedic complica­tions, asthma and high blood pressure. Obese children are 25 – 50 percent more likely to become obese adults, thereby increasing their risk of cancer as well as other psycho-social problems. In addition to the burden of ill health for individuals, the economic and social costs of childhood obesity into the future will be sub­stantial and borne by all Australians. In a report commissioned by Diabetes Australia in 2008, Access Economics estimated that the costs of obesity were $58.2 billion when the indirect cost of loss of productivity and well-being are in­cluded. Access Economics estimated the costs of obesity to the health system to be $2 billion in 2008. This is a pressure on our health services which is preventable and there is no excuse for not taking the steps necessary to avoid this health crisis.

Restricting the advertising of unhealthy food to children is a preventative step that has long been supported by public health advocates and health professionals. One of the key recommendations of the National Preventative Health Taskforce to tackle obesity was to "reduce the exposure of children and others to marketing, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of energy-dense nutrient-poor foods and beverages."

There is overwhelming public support for this measure. The findings of the recent study released by the Obesity Policy Coalition were consistent with previous research. This study, Obesity Prevention Policy Proposals: Public Acceptability 2008 to 2010 surveyed a random sample of 1521 adults who were the main grocery buyer, residing in private households in metropolitan and regional areas across all Australian states and territories in 2010 by the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer at Cancer Council Victoria.

As I have said previously, and will say again, the World Health Organization has recognised that food marketing to children, particularly television advertising, is an important area for action to prevent obesity and has called upon governments to implement policies and strategies that reduce the impact of foods high in fat, sugar and salt and promote the responsible marketing of foods and beverages.

Critics of this approach have argued that the advertising of unhealthy food to children is a cultural and community issue; that it is a matter of parental accountability and responsibility. Governments of both persuasions have shirked their responsibility by accepting the advertising and food industries' promise of self-regulation and voluntary codes of practice. Let me quote here from the Obesity Policy Coalition summa­tion of this approach: "These codes are effective in creating the appearance of responsible conduct and in achieving advertisers' aim in warding off intervention. However these codes fail to impose meaningful limits on the content of food advertising to children, or the level of children's exposure to this advertising." According to the Obesity Policy Coalition, even the Australian Food and Grocery Council's (AFGC) own report in January 2011 found that one in five food advertisements in children's programs were for high fat, sugar and salt products. Simply, voluntary self-regulation by industry is not working. It is time for a legislative intervention.

No single intervention will combat the problem of childhood obesity. This issue requires a comprehensive approach, and government action is one essential component. In this regard, Norway, Quebec, and the United Kingdom have all banned exposing children to unhealthy food advertising to some degree. Adopting this legislation to restrict junk food advertising to children will provide an effective measure in the tool kit of the National Preventative Health Agency in its role of tackling the biggest public health issues facing our nation today.

There is bipartisan support in this parliament for tackling childhood obesity. This bill provides the opportunity to capitalise on this co-operative intention and demonstrate to Australian parents and children that we are committed to ending childhood obesity. Restricting the advertising of unhealthy food to children is one crucial step in the right direction.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator BOB BROWN: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (15:34): I move:

That the Joint Standing 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 on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, from 6 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (16:54): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the government response to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry's report Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee.

This is a very sad and ongoing saga and it is something that the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee spent a considerable amount of time on, working very hard to try to get to the bottom of the process behind the decision that the Asian honey bee could not be eradicated from where it has established itself in an area around Cairns. It is reasonable to suggest that members of the committee still have considerable concerns about the process, the way it was managed and the way the decision was made. Unfortunately, events since then do not change the view of many of us who have followed this issue closely.

We do acknowledge, though, that following the hearings that were held and the concerns that were expressed by the committee, the government provided $2 million to support a national pilot program to facilitate management of the Asian bee. But, again, the processes that the government undertook and the way that this issue has been managed have continued to raise concerns. As part of the process, and as part of the funding for this $2 million that was allocated by the government towards the study of the Asian bee, the government was supposed to provide a document to support a national pilot program—a plan—put into place by June.

We hear that just this morning—months, obviously, after the target date of June—members of the industry have been offered and provided with a copy of that plan. This continues the process that we saw during the decision-making discussion around whether or not the Asian bee might be eradicable. The farce continues. During the management of a key meeting in January on whether or not the bee might be eradicable, one of the pre-eminent scientists in this country had his name disappear off the email list, so he was not available to speak and advise the industry at the meeting. We hear now that, through the development of this plan which is five months late, scientists sitting around the panel are only allowed to speak if they are asked a direct question. They are not allowed to have general input. The process has been held confidential to three members of the industry.

It is a great way to manage dissent—that only three members of the industry who are on the panel developing the plan are able to have access to the information. There has been no effective consultation with the industry, no capacity for the development of the plan to be canvassed broadly within the beekeeping and honey industry in Australia. Three people have been allowed to be part of the process. The scientists sitting on the panel are allowed to comment only if they are asked a direct question. The complete farce that is this process continues. Further, we have a number of members of the beekeeping community, about 50 volunteers, working in and around Cairns on the potential eradication of the bee. One of the key assumptions made as part of the process was that the bees would move into the dense rainforest in and around Cairns and that it would be very hard to find them. That was one of the key elements in the decision-making process as put to us, as senators on the Senate inquiry, by departmental representatives. So dense forest was an issue for the potential eradication of the bee.

The observations coming out of that region now are that the bees are in fact not taking up residence in the dense rainforest. There is no food for them in the rainforest, so they might be going in but they are coming back out. One of the criticisms committee members had of this process during the inquiry was that at a critical point for the decision-making process the funding ran out, even though a decision had been made to collect more data. The fact that funding was not available meant that the data was not collected. Now the volunteer beekeepers operating around Cairns are finding a contradiction to what was the accepted wisdom at the time—that the bees would establish in the rainforest. They are telling us that the bees are not establishing in the rainforest, so the reality of the decision made earlier this year may be very different.

I know that Senator Milne has also been quite concerned about ensuring that this process continues. We acknowledge that the government put additional money on the table and we appreciate that. Let us not criticise the fact that there has been a positive move made in that area. But then the report on how to manage the process was five months late, continuing the complete debacle which has been the process right from the outset—when a key member of the committee did not attend a meeting because their email address had slipped off the invitation list. I do not know whether you call it being accident prone, careless or incompetent. I really do not know how to describe this.

Then we saw in the development of a management plan that only three people have been allowed to be part of the process. The key scientists, the people who really understand the Asian honey bee and its characteristics, who might have known what to do, were sitting around the table and could speak only when they were directly asked a question. This process has been so intensely controlled to manage against dissent or discussion that it is just absolutely absurd. For the government to control and restrict it to three people and not allow effective discussion throughout the rest of the industry is completely outrageous.

We appreciate that the government has accepted a number of our recom­mendations—they have stepped away from a couple of elements of what we asked them to do—but the practical processes they have undertaken right throughout the incursion of Asian bees into Australia really has been a comedy of errors. We questioned the decision that the bee was not eradicable and we questioned it based on advice from scientists who said there was not enough data to properly make that decision. We questioned the fact that the scientists were allowed to sit around the table but not be part of the discussion and that the key scientist was not at the meeting where the decision was made.

It now appears, through observations being made by beekeepers and the volunteers who have taken it upon themselves to continue the work in and around Cairns—and we know that is by the agreement of the government—that their observations are indicating that the bees still may be eradicable. Yet the government persists with the line that it does not believe this bee can be eradicated even though the basic premise we saw during the inquiry was that there was not enough information to make that decision. While I acknowledge the tabling of the government's response, I still question their management of this overall process because it appears to me, with the key report being five months late, there is still a lot to be desired as far as the process is concerned.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:05): I rise to note the government's response to the inquiry report Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee. While I acknowledge the $2 million which the government provided to support a national pilot program, the whole point of the Senate report was that senators from all political parties wanted to make sure that eradication was reviewed. We wanted a review of the decision not to eradicate the Asian honey bee. The $2 million has been put into facilitation of the transition from eradication to the ongoing management of the Asian honey bee. In other words, the money has gone into upholding the decision that you cannot eradicate the Asian honeybee. There is no evidence to say that you can eradicate it or that you cannot eradicate it. That is the problem. That is why, after taking a lot of evidence, we recognised that the big problem was the lack of data that was collected on the incursion of the Asian honey bee—where it had spread, how it had spread, what it was feeding on, what the impact of the cyclone was and so forth. We wanted data collection and the beekeepers wanted data collection, and they had indicated they were prepared to put in a big voluntary effort to go up there, collect the data and see what was going on. In fact, as Senator Colbeck just mentioned, data coming out of the effort of those volunteers has shown that the expectation that the bees would get lost in the rainforest and breed up there, making them impossible to eradicate, was in fact quite wrong. The evidence is showing that they go in but then come out of the rainforest.

The issue I have with all of this is that a decision made by the management group not to eradicate was not based on evidence but based on an assumption that the bee would not spread. Therefore it became a cost decision of state governments. The state government representatives on the management group voted not to go for eradication because of the additional costs, the Commonwealth did not want to take on the additional costs, and the upshot was: 'Pull up the ladder, Jack. We're all right. It will spread in the tropics but it won't spread further south than that.' My big concern has always been that not only is it going to be a major problem in tropical Australia but the fact that it has spread throughout the highlands in PNG suggests that it is only a matter of time before it spreads to more temperate regions in Australia.

One of the real concerns I had with all of this was that nobody but nobody had taken into account the impact on Australia's biodiversity of the Asian honey bee incur­sion, which is why one of the recom­mendations of the committee was that biodiversity be taken into account and written reports be made on the likely impact. There is a high expectation that it will displace native bees—and again I come back to the fact that evidence based research is just not there.

Throughout it was: yes, it is going to have a major adverse impact on the beekeepers; yes, it is going to have a major adverse impact on wiping out European honey bees, reducing their production levels; it will also have an impact on the cross-pollination services that the European honey bee makes in horticulture. But nobody was talking about what the impact would be on Australia's biodiversity—what the impact would be on native bees, nectar-feeding insects, bats et cetera. Nobody could say because the work had not been done. I was horrified when I found out that the representative of the department of the environment who appeared at these talks was there as an observer and did not speak. Whether they knew nothing, whether they chose not to speak or whether they had no questions directed to them really does not matter, because the upshot is that biodiversity was not taken into account.

The government, in its response, has said:

The Government notes that as part of the decision making process, National Management Group members already consider biodiversity conse­quences of the establishment and spread of a pest or disease.

Really? I think that is misleading the Senate and I am now very motivated to find out, under FOI, exactly what the management group took into account in relation to the spread of the Asian honey bee. I can tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, they did not take into account the biodiversity consequences.

Subsequent to the decision to allow the Asian honey bee to spread and to manage it, the Wet Tropics Management Authority has said that the adverse consequences on the wet tropics are likely to be considerable as a result of the spread of this Asian honey bee. Where was that in the consideration? It was nowhere. It was not raised once by anybody in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. It was not raised once by anybody from Biosecurity Australia. I do not believe the impact on the wet tropics was considered at any point, nor do I believe that the Wet Tropics Management Authority was actually asked for its view, just as I do not believe CSIRO was asked for its view on biodiversity. But I intend to find out, since the government has said quite clearly, in black and white:

The Government notes that as part of the decision making process, National Management Group members already consider biodiversity consequences …

I do not think anybody could tell you right now what the biodiversity consequences of the Asian honey bee incursion are likely to be, because very few people are out there doing the research. The one officer at CSIRO who has done 20 years of research in this field was not asked for his views on the impact on biodiversity.

The government refuses to take into account the second recommendation that relevant scientific agencies be asked to provide written advice through the national management group or consultative com­mittees with regard to biodiversity. The excuse for not taking that up is that it 'may hinder action being taken in a timely manner'. I have never heard so much rubbish in my life. If you want to take action in a timely manner you need to find out quickly what the likely consequences are so that you can design the action to make sure you protect that which needs protecting from a pest incursion.

I believe the spread of the Asian honey bee is going to be an absolutely huge natural disaster for Australia's biodiversity. The Asian honey bee takes up small cavities. Small cavities are known to be the breeding places of birds and insects. We are going to see a major consequence in the loss of native bee populations and impacts on insects. I can assert that. I do not have an evidence base for that, but nor do these people have an evidence base to suggest that there will not be impacts on biodiversity. The impacts I am talking about have been put to me by experts in the field. The point that Senator Colbeck was making and that I am now making is that senators across all political parties asked that the money go into an evidence based campaign to get up there and find out exactly what is going on so as to make an informed judgment. After the senators asked that that happen, there was a meeting convened and we now get the answer that the group:

… reconvened on 12 May 2011 to consider the impact of the Consultative Committee delibera­tions on the original decision on eradicability. Although consensus was not reached, the Group determined that it is not technically feasible to achieve eradication.

They have no basis for that. Either it is or it is not, but there is no evidence to support either case. The point the experts were making ad infinitum was: we need to collect the data before we can make an informed decision about whether we can eradicate or whether we cannot. That is what the Senate was asking the government to do—not to put $2 million into switching from eradication to management, running up the white flag and saying that is it, the Asian honey bee is here so we will just have to live with it.

The consequences of this incursion of the Asian honey bee will be huge. Whilst I accept there will be a huge impact on honey bee production, on cross-pollination services across Australia and on amenity in the community—they nest all over the place—the main issue that has not been considered is biodiversity consequences. I am very unhappy with the government's response on that particular recommendation.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (17:15): I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak on the government response to the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee. The spread of the Asian honey bee has been worrying me for some time. I come from North Queensland and I look after northern and remote Australia issues for the coalition. This is simply another case of the government's out of sight, out of mind approach. We have a minister who is completely out of his depth when it comes to anything to do with agriculture, fisheries and forestry. This is the first government for a long time that has had only one minister covering this portfolio. Whether the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is interested or not, I am sure he does not have time to give to this particular issue, as with many issues in this portfolio, the attention that it demands. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry issues sit in the rural and regional parts of Australia, the more remote parts of Australia, including Northern Australia. There are no votes there and the minister has clearly shown on a number of occasions he has made decisions that he has no interest in—as I say, it is the out of sight, out of mind approach.

I congratulate Senator Colbeck on the great work he has done and on the issues he has raised, and I acknowledge that other senators have been very concerned about this matter as well. This response by the government deserves much fuller debate but again I despair—because of a motion supported by the Greens and the Australian Labor Party this morning we are not going to have an opportunity, apart from today, to discuss government responses to committee reports or to discuss the literally hundreds and hundreds of government documents that have been tabled in this parliament for scrutiny. Because of this guillotine decision earlier today, for the rest of this parliamentary year—for the rest of this calendar year—there will be absolutely no opportunity for senators to hold the government accountable for all these government documents and government reports that are brought into this parliament every week.

We hear about the new paradigm of open accountability, but where has it gone? The Senate's ability to look at government documents and committee reports at the appropriate times on Wednesday and Thursday afternoons is an essential part of a parliament keeping a government accountable. I think this is about the fourth or fifth week running that the government has done away with that opportunity for senators to look at these matters. This government response deserves much greater attention but it is not going to get it. By the time the Senate gets back to this report, the Asian honey bee could be anywhere. As Senator Colbeck points out, this is an issue which should be subject to intense scrutiny. Senator Milne is talking about a freedom of information request because she is unhappy with the response of the government. Senator Colbeck raises some issues about the conduct of this inquiry which really bring the honesty of this government to account. We know this government is led by a Prime Minister who told a deliberate lie before the last election, but you would think there would be a certain basic governmental honesty in relation to all of these documents.

Senator McLucas: Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I request that you ask Senator Macdonald to withdraw his comment about the Prime Minister. It was not parliamentary.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Senator Macdonald, I remind you that you cannot impugn another member of the parliament.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I withdraw my comment—I simply say that before the last election the Prime Minister promised there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, and we have just had guillotined through the Senate 18 bills introducing a carbon tax. Senator McLucas can assess that how she likes, but it does not seem to me to be terribly truthful or terribly honest when you promise not to do something before an election to get yourself elected and, immediately you are elected, you completely break the promise. If it disturbs her when I say the Prime Minister deliberately lied, I withdraw. But, as I say, I will leave it to the listeners to work out what it means when you promise a day before an election that you will not do something and then immediately you get into government you do it.

By the same token, the Australian people were promised with this deal with so-called rural Independents that there would be this whole new paradigm of accountability. Where are we in the Senate? All of these government documents and important responses to reports like this report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee are not being considered. There is no scrutiny because the Greens and the Labor Party have chopped off the opportunity for the Senate to do its job and look at these documents. The carbon tax was guillotined, and for the whole week that was set aside for the carbon tax debate we could not look at government documents and could not look at these reports. Then we had an extra week. We all came back for an extra week, just for the Senate, so that we could debate the carbon tax. After one and a bit days of that week, the government and the Greens again guillotined it. But they did not uplift the ability to hold the government to account on many of these documents. And here the first motion for what is supposed to be the final two weeks of parliament this year is the government saying, 'Again this week we'll do away with any ability for senators to do their duty and look at these government responses.'

You will not get any of the media writing about this because it is a left-wing government doing it, but this should be a headline outrage: taking away from this parliament the ability to do its duty and to follow the 'new paradigm' of accountability. There is no accountability here. The government and the Greens—

Senator Mason: No scrutiny.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: There is no accountability and no scrutiny of that accountability because the government and the Greens continue to deny senators the opportunity to discuss this. Whilst I appreciate that Senator Milne has something to say on this Asian honey bee business, it does seem a little trite to me that she then gets up and takes 10 minutes of the Senate's time in debating this issue, preventing other speakers apart from Senator Colbeck and me from having a say on this, when she is one of those who supported the motion this morning to make it impossible to properly scrutinise all of these documents and reports such as this. I get very angry about that. One of the real roles of the Senate is to look at all of the government documents, to hold the government accountable, but how can you do that when the Greens and the Australian Labor Party take away those opportunities with what is becoming monotonous regularity?

As Senator Colbeck says, this needs a lot more investigation. It should be debated much more fully in the parliament, but it will be February before anyone else gets a chance to make a comment on this issue. This shows a government that have no interest in these issues. It is the out of sight, out of mind approach: 'Oh, the Asian honey bee will only come to tropical North Queensland. Who cares what happens up there?' Little did they think that it could destroy the horticulture industry by destroying the honey bee. And, as Senator Milne rightly says, little did anyone bother about the fact that it could have a real impact on our biodiversity. Those things just went over the minister's head. For a lousy couple of million dollars, research was stopped. What is worse, as Senator Colbeck points out, when the committee inquired into it, it seems—I was not on the committee, but it seems—that some of the witnesses might have even been gagged, and that in itself should be a reason for a full-scale debate on this in the Senate. But are we going to get that opportunity? Not this year. And, by the time next year comes around, it will be clearly too late.

There is the other issue raised in the debate about the Wet Tropics Management Authority. I would like to say a few words about how their funding has been cut back over the years, and perhaps that is why they did not get the opportunity to alert people to this beforehand.

For all of these reasons, we should have more time to investigate this report. I am just disappointed that the guillotining stops that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): The time for consideration of this document has expired. Senator Macdonald, do you want to continue your remarks?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator MASON (Queensland) (17:26): by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the government response to the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on the welfare of international students.

Honourable senators will be aware that, after coal and after iron ore, Australia's largest export is education, the selling of educational services to young people right throughout the world. There is a lot of talk in this chamber at times about financial services, tourism and so forth, but in the field of education Australia truly is a superpower. The Senate would be aware that, at its peak, international education generated approximately $18 billion per annum for this country. Indeed, it has been growing rapidly, in recent years sometimes upward of 40 per cent.

Upon reflection, perhaps the growth was too quick. I think it is fair to say that during the Howard government—indeed, in the early days of the Rudd and then Gillard governments—the perception developed in the international community and among the higher education sector here in Australia as well that entrance into an Australian higher education establishment could inevitably lead to immigration or to permanent residency. So an apparent nexus developed between acceptance into higher education in this country and permanent residency. That was not a deliberate policy, but that is what came to be understood. It is fair to say that, in some quarters in East Asia and indeed on the Indian subcontinent, some education agents seemed to be pushing that barrow.

I have to compliment the government on doing this: they deliberately broke the nexus between acceptance into an Australian higher education establishment and immigration and permanent residency. That was in my view, and indeed in the coalition's view, the right thing to do, because—as the government's response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee report indicates—the system started to fray at the edges. We had instances in Melbourne of certain higher education establishments offering below par courses. We then had instances of violence against Indian students in Melbourne. You would be aware of that, Madam Acting Deputy President. In more recent times, of course, we have had the tightening of visa restrictions and also the high Australian dollar and increased competition for higher education places from the United Kingdom and the United States. It is true, as many vice chancellors of many reputable higher education establishments have reminded me, that the problems that were caused to the Australian higher education sector really evolved because of very few courses and very few estab­lishments. What happened was that the entire sector was tarred with the same brush. It is quite true to say that there is nothing really wrong with our universities—their standing worldwide is still very high. Similarly, our VET sector is very well regarded. But the entire higher education sector was besmirched by the failings of a few.

Far be it from me to ever have a go at the media, but I think it is fair to say that the media in India blew up the problem of violence against students. There was violence in Melbourne against Indian students, but in the end after all the reports—the police reports, the academic reports and Bruce Baird's report—the violence against Indian students was no greater than it was against any other higher education student. Young people in distant parts of Melbourne on railway lines and in railway stations are always vulnerable, but that violence was played up by the Indian media and that led directly to a slackening of uptake by Indian students of higher education places in this country. It has cost the sector billions of dollars, but it is recovering. It has to recover because, as I say, it is our largest services export industry—much larger than tourism or financial services and just below coal and iron ore. Perhaps at times people think I sound like a broken record, but it is a huge industry with not only enormous economic benefits to the country, and all the spin-off benefits of parents and friends visiting students studying in this country, but also the soft diplomacy and the soft power that Australia derives from all the young people that it educates. It is a large industry with enormous diplomatic input for and impact on this country.

All the issues I mentioned resulted in the government commissioning two reviews: the Baird review into governance of the international student sector and student support and the Knight review into student visas. As well as that, the Senate com­missioned the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee to conduct this inquiry into the welfare of international students in June 2009. Two years later, nearly to the day, the government has replied. I must be in a very good mood because I am going to be very generous to the government, which is not my usual stance. I am in a very generous mood. The government's response has adopted all the recommendations of the Senate committee's report and I salute the government for so doing. In the interim, many of the issues raised in the Senate committee's report have been developed further by the Baird review and more recently by the Knight review. In the areas of student welfare and international student visas, both those very important aspects of a huge industry have been dealt with. It is a pity perhaps that it took the government two years to reply, but in the spirit of bipartisanship it must be said that the government, with the cooperation of the opposition, has made strides in trying to resurrect our international education industry, sell it better overseas, regulate the industry for quality, knock out the dodgy providers and make Australian education once again one of our proudest industries, and Australia the superpower it has always been in the area.

Senator RONALDSON (Victoria) (17:34): by leave—I also wish to speak to the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on the welfare of international students. I support the comments of the previous speaker, Senator Mason, whose knowledge of this area is second to none. That was a typical contribution from the honourable senator, who spoke about matters for which he has great passion. Being a regional representative, for want of a better word, I know the enormous damage that was done to regional universities through this very difficult period. Rightly or wrongly, there are many regional universities that rely on international students. They are made very welcome by those institutions and by the communities in which they are placed. In my hometown of Ballarat, the University of Ballarat has long encouraged and has long welcomed international students, and we very much hope that those students will return.

I also take up some matters raised by Senator Macdonald in his contribution earlier on. The fact that we are again subject to another week of guillotines, another week when we are unable to debate government documents and a large number of reports, again shows the utter hypocrisy of the Australian Greens in relation to this matter. I remember full well when in the days of the Howard government the Greens used to bleat about guillotines. We get these sanctimon­ious speeches day in, day out from Senator Bob Brown about the gag, and here they are complicit with the Australian Labor Party in the most outrageous set of gags that we have seen over the last month. The worst, of course, was the gag on the toxic carbon tax, and I cannot believe that anyone in the Australian Labor Party can be proud of what we have seen in this chamber over the last month. The fact that their fellow travellers, the Australian Greens, are driving this constant and ongoing gag is a disgrace.

We know why this has been gagged. We know why these debates have been gagged. It is because those opposite, including the Greens, want to go home. They think they have fulfilled their responsibilities to the Australian parliament and to the Senate this year. I invite them to go back and look at the program. What does the program say? If required we will sit on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday next week. It is required. It is required to have appropriate levels of debate in this place. It is required to enable us to articulate the views of those who put us here and to stop us being cut off at the knees by some dirty, grubby deal by the Labor-Greens coalition government, which is what they are. Who is wagging the tail with this? We are seeing it over in the other place as well. The tail is wagging the dog but never has it been worse than it is in this particular chamber.

I have said this before to the Australian Labor Party: if you go to bed with dogs, you wake up with fleas. This arrangement between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens will be the end of you. If you do not realise that, I cannot tell you any more. I am trying to save this great party of yours, and you are not listening to me. I am trying to save you, but you will not listen. You go to bed with these people to your eternal electoral detriment. They are pulling the heart out of the Australian Labor Party and you cannot see it. What they are doing to you is as plain as the nose on your face. They are destroying you. They will destroy you. You hear what they are saying. You see what they are doing. They are only using you for their own devices. They are using you and they will chew you up and spit you out when they are sick and tired of you. They will move onto the next dog when they are sick of you, when they have sucked every bit of blood out of the great Australian Labor Party. I am philosophically opposed to you, but I support your continuation because you are needed. The Australian Greens are certainly not needed. They are sucking the blood out of you and you cannot see it. They will jump to the next dog and you will not see it.

I think there are some opposite who actually do realise how dramatic this is. I think there are some opposite who realise what is happening. I think ultimately they will be proved right. I look forward to Labor reunions in due course when those who will not say it now stand up and say: 'I knew we were making a dreadful mistake when we were seduced by the Greens. They chewed us up and they spat us out.' You have got an opportunity next year. This year has bolted. I say to the Australian Labor Party: you have an opportunity next year to make sure that you represent the people who put you here. You have the opportunity next year to cut yourselves loose from this alliance from hell. It is an alliance from hell. You can do it. I encourage you to do it. Australian democracy needs you to do it.

I say to the Greens: please at least be consistent about what you say you believe in. I would love to go back and pull up the speeches from the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens about the gag, about cutting off legislation, about cutting off an appropriate level of debate and about cutting off our representation of the people who have put us here. I will throw that back on the table for you to have look at. Then the Australian Greens can make some value judgments about what they really do believe in, what they really do stand for.

Senator McLucas: International education.

Senator RONALDSON: I just heard the parliamentary secretary talk about 'international'. The sooner the Australian Labor Party wakes up to the fact that those who you are in bed with are indeed part of an international political movement—

Senator McLucas: Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I bring your attention to the question of relevance. We are debating a response from the government to a report about international education numbers. We are usually fairly generous in these sorts of debates, but this has gone a bit too far.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): Senator Ronaldson, I draw your attention to the matter before us—that is, debating the government response to the committee report on the welfare of international students.

Senator RONALDSON: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I obviously accept that. I do not know how long I have been talking for, but I would have thought it was all about education. It was about educating the Australian Labor Party that what they are doing is not a terribly smart thing. I would have thought it was an education lesson well delivered. What you need to do, if you are really sensible, is actually take it on board, study it, listen to it and then make a decision about where you want to go. I will finish as I started. International students in this country deserve the support of every single senator in this chamber. They are extraordinarily important for our international relations and they are extraordinarily important for the longevity and strength of Australia's educational institutions, particularly those in the regions.

Question agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Furner): I present the following responses to Senate resolutions:

(1) from Tasmanian Minister for Health (Ms O'Byrne) and the ACT Chief Minister (Ms Gallagher) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 September 2011 concerning hearing health in Indigenous Australians; and

(2) from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 12 October 2011 concerning Iranian actress, Marzieh Vefamehr.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:44): I seek leave to take note of the answers from the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Ms O'Byrne, and the Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory, Ms Gallagher, on the hearing health of Indigenous Australians.

Leave granted.

Senator SIEWERT: I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

These letters are in response to the motion that was passed by the chamber in September which dealt with issues of hearing health for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Last session we had a response from Ms Bligh, the Queensland Premier, outlining the Deadly Ears program and we have since had these two subsequent responses. I am really pleased to see that the states and territories are responding to this motion because this is a particularly important issue. It is fairly unusual to get such a speedy response and I am really pleased that they are taking this issue very seriously. But I would urge the states that are responding and also those that are yet to respond to this to seek to raise this issue with the Commonwealth and suggest that it be an issue that is taken up through COAG, because it is only through coordinated national state and territory responses that we are going to see this issue being seriously addressed.

I have outlined to the chamber on numerous occasions the pandemic that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities face through otitis media and the subsequent impact this is having on their hearing health and the subsequent impact that that hearing impairment is having on people's educational outcomes, their interactions with the educational system and, unfortunately, the subsequent interactions they are having with the criminal justice system. I am in no doubt about the statistics that we are starting to see in the criminal justice system. A recent survey showed that 90 per cent of Aboriginal prisoners in the Darwin Correctional Centre had some form of hearing loss or hearing impairment. We also had anecdotal evidence to the Senate inquiry that articulated the poor interaction that people with hearing loss or hearing impairment are having with police and, once in the justice system, within the justice system and, once in the prison system, in the prison system. It is absolutely imperative that this issue is dealt with.

Unfortunately, I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting on the flawed approach the government is taking to educational outcomes in the Northern Territory and the legislation that I understand, judging by media reports, will be introduced any day into the House of Representatives extending the Northern Territory Emergency Response and in particular seeking to expand the SEAM trials, which are the school attendance trials, and then to cut income support if we do not increase school attendance.

Getting a child into school is not the end of this process. Unfortunately, the government seems to be forgetting that. You cannot tick the box because the child is at school. We need to be providing an education system that provides educational outcomes. We need to be dealing with hearing health. Once the child is in school we obviously need to be making sure we have a program in place dealing with otitis media. That requires a coordinated approach from all other states and the Commonwealth. When we have a child in school, we need to make sure, for example, that we have sound fields in not just some but all classrooms. One of the simple recommendations that the Senate Community Affairs References Committee made in its Hear us report into hearing health in Australia is that, under the act that governs the provision of services, Australian Hearing be enabled to spend some of their resources on the provision of sound fields, because at the moment they cannot. We believe it would be a fairly simple amendment to make that would have a very significant impact. We need to be making sure that schools do not have to just apply for that money, combined with the money that the government has assigned to the disabilities in schools program—which is a good program, I have to say—and that we have a rollout of investment in sound field systems and make sure that classrooms have proper acoustics. We need to make sure that that money is being well targeted.

We need to be making sure that we are screening schoolchildren as they enter the school system, because we are not picking up hearing loss in classrooms. We need to be investing in making sure that we are really addressing this pandemic of otitis media across Australia because Australia has the highest rate of this in the world. That is an indictment of our health systems. That is an indictment of living conditions, particularly in remote and regional Australia, although we still find that we have these problems in metropolitan Perth.

The Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre has done marvellous work with an ear bus that has been going out to schools and diagnosing and treating children straightaway. We are seeing that program being rolled out across virtually the rest of the Pilbara, but further north in the Kimberley we still need resources for that. There is the Deadly Ears program in Queensland. There are various bits and pieces of programs, as the ministers here are articulating, but we need a much more coordinated approach. We need a national program; we need a national plan as to how we are going to have a sustained effort and not a piecemeal effort to address these points.

I note that the tabling of these letters is fortuitous because some of the experts that were mentioned in the original motion happen to be here meeting in Parliament House this week. They are talking about how to further progress issues addressing Aboriginal children's health. I wish them good luck in their deliberations. If they come to meet with you, senators and members of the House of Representatives, I encourage you to talk to them because it is essential that we target our resources effectively and efficiently to deal with this issue. It is a preventable tragedy that is happening in our country today in 2011. This pandemic is happening in our country. We should be ashamed of it and we need to do more to address it.

Question agreed to.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Furner): I present a report on access to documents of the Joint Standing Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:52): On behalf of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Bishop, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and the Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011, together with submissions received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:57): Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Crossin, I present reports of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 and the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011 together with the Hansard records of proceedings, and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (17:58): Before question time, I was talking about the national funding body. Senators would remember that this is the body that first was in, then, when the ink was barely dry, was removed and now is back in the equation. It has gone from being out in deal mark 1 to being back in deal mark 4. Last year, on 17 June, on the ABC's AM program, it was reported that:

The Rudd Government has made a pre-emptive strike on one of its health reforms, even before the measure saw the light of day.

The Federal Government has been accused of axing a health funding watchdog, which was supposed to oversee payments to the states under its new health and hospital network.

… … …

A spokeswoman for the Minister says the decision to scrap the funding authority removes a layer of bureaucracy, and she says the Commonwealth's investments in health will be transparently reported in the Budget papers.

When questioned about this matter later, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, told journalists:

… we've made it … clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy—it's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so.

In Labor's health reform mark 4—the deal of August this year—the funding body is back. It is under a different name, but it is back. All this is simply instructive as to how the Australian Labor Party has lurched from one so-called reform deal to the next: not really knowing where it was going or what it was doing, so long as it could be seen to be doing something. Mr Broadhead said at the recent Senate inquiry that 'under the agreement reached in early August there is a role for a national health fund administrator and the national health funding pool' and that these may be established by legislation later in the year. So it has worked out it does need them, but it needs them in a different iteration given that the states are back in control and it is business as usual. He further explained:

It is a very strong principle through the agreement that the aim here is to have the amount of funding, the source of funding, the destination of funding and the basis upon which the quantum was arrived at all publicly reported. This would mean that, to the extent that a state's contribution to activity-based funding for a particular local hospital network was less than or more than the national efficient price or the same as the national efficient price, it would be visible for people to see in the reporting that is required. That includes not only the reporting to parliament but also the public reporting that is required.

From a coalition's perspective, we consider that the millions of dollars to fund additions to bureaucracy would be better spent on frontline services. The Department of Health and Ageing already has 5,000 staff and former Rudd minister Lindsay Tanner said on 14 October 2009:

The indiscriminate creation of new bodies or failure to adapt old bodies as their circumstances change increases the risk of having inappropriate governance structures. This in turn jeopardises policy outcomes and poses financial risks to the taxpayer.

It is only the largest hospitals that will operate under an activity based model. Most of these so-called bureaucracies at the heart of the Australian Labor Party's health changes were due to start in July this year. Deadlines have been missed and pushed back, the health system continues to struggle and Tasmanian hospitals are broke. We have even had the Premier of Tasmania offering to the Commonwealth that it take back the hospitals in Tasmania. The Australian Workplace Ombudsman is seeking urgent court action against nurses closing hospital beds as part of their pay dispute. Yet this Australian Labor government would have us believe that it is in command of health and the efficient running of the health and hospital systems. Tell that to the parent wanting a doctor's appointment for their sick child. Tell that to the adult children of an elderly parent with dementia looking for a nursing home bed. Tell that to the people who cannot afford dental care who have to wait years for treatment. Tell that to the parents of a young adult with mental illness who cannot find treatment. Tell that to the health professionals who just want to get on and do their job of helping people.

The Minister for Health and Ageing, Ms Roxon, thinks everything will be fine by 1 July 2012 when the local hospital networks will be paid for the services they provide. Some of these local hospital networks do not even exist. But Ms Halton, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing, assured us at the October estimates that they are being set up by the states and that the states are well underway with that. 'I have no reason to believe that they will not be up and moving in the time frame that was agreed,' Ms Halton said. We can only be inspired by her confidence as many health experts are dubious that the time frame can be met. With the Gillard government's track record, optimism on this reform may well be misplaced.

In the remaining time I have available to me, I will foreshadow the coalition's amendments, and I will speak in more detail in the committee stage. We are concerned about and will be moving an amendment in relation to the constitution and membership of the pricing authority. The bill provides for the formation of two committees to assist the pricing authority: first, a clinical advisory committee to advise on the formulation of casemix classifications for health care and other services provided by public hospitals; and, secondly, a jurisdictional advisory committee which will maintain a schedule of public hospitals and the services each provides and advise on funding models for hospitals and determined adjustments to the national efficient price to reflect variations in the cost of delivery of healthcare services. Our amendment goes to the fact that there is no representation or any recognition of non-government hospitals. This was one of the issues that was highlighted so vividly in the submission by Catholic Health Australia, and this is one of the major potential problems with this legislation. But, while the cost base for treatment in Catholic public hospitals is different from state public hospitals, there is no guarantee of representation for non-government hospitals on the pricing authority. I will deal more with those issues in the committee stage.

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (18:05): The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 is all about bureaucracy. It is another Gillard bureauc­racy—more Gillard-ALP red tape. It is quite unbelievable. Yet none of us should be surprised. This government's record on health reform would leave even the healthiest of Australians dazed and confused. This bill establishes the third new bureaucracy under Labor's health reform program—the third new bureaucracy. It relies on other aspects of that so-called reform, such as local hospital networks, to manage hospitals and be funded under activity based funding. Yet in some states these local hospital networks are still to be established. The idea is for the local hospital networks to work with Medicare Locals to jointly deliver health care. But Medicare Locals are still not in existence across the entire country. There are very few of them established at all. This is possibly because their role has not been clearly defined. Even stakeholders are questioning what exactly they will do.

Then there is the price tag. They come at a cost of some $400 million, which is a lot of money, especially for a government which says it is going to put itself back into a balanced budget situation by 2014. We were told Medicare Locals would be at the forefront of the Labor government's promise to end the blame game and fix hospitals. That promise was made by Kevin Rudd almost four years ago, but the Australian people are still waiting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Furner ): Order! Senator Eggleston, I think you know the requirements in referring to people.

Senator EGGLESTON: I apologise. The promise was made by the then Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, almost four years ago, but the Australian public, as I said, are still waiting to see the hospitals fixed. One might almost say: so much for promises of historic reforms under this government.

The Australian healthcare system has been pricked and prodded by this government, but the outcomes, the benefits for needy Australians, have been thin on the ground. Labor's achievements in the health sector, when one looks at them closely, are few and far between. On 1 November changes to the Medicare benefits schedule announced in the May budget took effect. Under this budget cut, changes have been made to the allied and mental health services available under the Better Access initiative for mental health. We saw the slashing of $580 million from a scheme that had delivered some 11 million mental health services to two million needy Australians. In this scheme the federal government had for once recognised the importance of dealing with the issue of mental illness by involving general practitioners, psychologists and nurse practitioners in the management of people with mental illness. However, the program was cut.

Earlier this year the government broke the longstanding convention on the listing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines when it rejected the recommendation of the independent arbiter, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, to list some vital medicines concerned with the treatment of, among other things, cancer. It was a decision that undoubtedly caused many Australians sleepless nights, fearing they would have to pay a great deal more for their vital medications than they would under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and, perhaps most importantly of all, that they might not be able to access the latest and best forms of treatment either for themselves or for members of their families.

Prior to that, the government capped various services under the extended Medicare safety net, with cuts amounting to some $610 million. These included reductions to the in-vitro fertilisation and obstetrics services, which some people might feel are services which are not genuinely about people who are ill but something of a luxury, helping people who are unable to conceive have children. But to those people the cutting of the subsidies and the benefits for those services was very sad indeed. I am sure it caused a lot of heartache around this country among people who, as a couple, are infertile and who hoped that IVF services would help them have a family.

Then there are the cuts to pathology services and the cuts to incentives for GPs to provide after-hours services—more cuts and a diminished medical service to the Australian public. They are mostly at the GP level, which means that the ordinary members of the community are the ones most affected. Further, hanging over our health system is the threat of closing the Medicare chronic disease dental scheme, which has provided more than 11 million treatments to almost 800,000 Australians. This is a very important service because elderly Australians and those on social security often find they cannot afford to go to private dentists.

In addition, there is the threat of cutting rebates to those who hold private health insurance. The government is threatening to cut the taxation rebate which encourages people to take out private health insurance and which has meant that many more people have retained their private health insurance than might otherwise have done so as the cost went up. That in turn means that there would be greater pressure on public hospitals, increased waiting lists and more people finding that their medical treatment is delayed. So that is the real record of Labor's so-called healthcare reform agenda. It has been a record of cuts, diminished services and poorer outcomes for the Australian public.

The coalition supports the move to activity based funding for the nation's hospitals. We are very happy with that, but we oppose further layers of health bureaucracy. This bill establishes the third new bureaucracy under Labor's so-called national health reform program. The Independent Hospital Pricing Authority, which this bill is all about, comes at a cost of almost $100 million over the forward estimates. It follows the National Health Performance Authority, which followed the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Yet to come, it is some form of national health funding organisation which was promised by Prime Minister Rudd, then discarded by Prime Minister Rudd, described as 'unnecessary bureaucracy' by Health Minister Roxon and then resurrected by Prime Minister Gillard. The government is slightly confused about what to do, it would seem. The policy is all over the place—creating organisations, discarding them and then resurrecting them. It is a very inconsistent record, and all of this has come at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, money which could in large part have been spent on front-line services and improving health care for members of the Australian public. These various authorities were originally proposed to be formed, in place and operating by July this year. Activity funding is now due to be established by the pricing authority by July 2012. Experts are warning that even that time frame is too tight and perhaps unachievable. So it is likely to be another example of Labor's inability to deliver a program and threatens more uncertainty for the hospital system. So we can have little confidence that this government will deliver, given their record of past performance across a whole range of policy areas, not only in the health area. Stakeholders, including the Healthcare and Hospitals Association and the AMA, have warned that providing additional data needed by this new authority could impose very heavy burdens on the health sector. The Healthcare and Hospitals Association also warns that, rather than drive any reforms, there is a serious risk the introduction of activity based funding will simply reinforce the old inefficient models of care. So, significant warnings have been sounded to the government that it needs to get this change right.

Through the formation of all of these new bureaucracies the coalition has consistently warned that they raise the possibility of duplicating each other's work and imposing ever-greater burdens on the health sector. The coalition continues to hold these reservations about the policies and programs of the Gillard government in the health sector.

Activity based funding was part of this government's promises to end the blame game in health, but stakeholders warn us that it will do no such thing. Even the Bills Digestfor this bill states that 'it is likely that debates about the adequacy of public hospital funding by each level of government will continue for some time.' And 'some time', in government terms, can mean it could be 10, 20 years or even longer before decisions are made and resolutions affirmed—so it does not augur well for the future of the Australian health system.

Another major concern is that the private sector has had very little input into these proposed changes, when in many cases the private sector is already funding health care on the basis of activity. The government should have drawn on the knowledge and expertise in the private sector, one would have thought; but that has not happened so far. But, hopefully, it could be that the new pricing authority will go to the private sector and seek advice. The authority also needs to take into account the varying nature of different parts of the hospital sector. There are significant differences between public and private hospitals, and not even all public hospitals operate in the same way.

Let us have a look at Catholic Health, which operates some 21 public hospitals around Australia—some of them large, some of them iconic, well-known public hospitals, like the St John of God system in Western Australia—but they operate in a very different way to those operated by the state governments and the public sector. The amendments put forward by the coalition seek to recognise and allow for greater understanding of these differences in the modus operandi of the management programs and the impact that will have on the decisions of the pricing authority. This is just another example of the muddle-headed approach of the Labor government to health care which, if implemented, will do nothing to improve service delivery to the Australian public, I am afraid. And so, once again, I think we are going to see health care in this country not being as good as it could be and Labor missing the opportunity to make a substantial difference.

Senator McLUCAS (Queensland—Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) (18:19): The National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011 represents a critical part of the government's national health reforms to improve the efficiency and transparency of the nation's public hospital system. All Australian states and territories have joined with the Commonwealth to implement a national system of activity based funding. This piece of legislation is designed to create the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. The authority will determine the prices for hospital services across the country and also take into account factors such as safety and quality and the cost of services in regional hospitals. While most services will be provided through this system, block funding will be provided for some hospitals, particularly those in small regional communities. I will come back to that point.

The authority will have strong independence from all governments and will provide the health system with robust decision making, much like that the Reserve Bank provides to our financial system. In addition, the pricing authority will publish this and other information for the purpose of informing decision makers in relation to the funding of public hospitals.

The government have taken action to establish the interim pricing authority, which was part of our commitments under the health reform agreement. The interim authority has taken over the important activity based funding work from the Department of Health and Ageing, which will then transfer to the permanent authority after the passage of this legislation.

I thank senators for their contributions to the debate. I am pleased that the Senate committee has recommended the bill be passed and also that the opposition and the Greens have both said they will support the legislation. And nor should the opposition oppose this legislation, particularly since it implements reforms that have been supported on a number of occasions by the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, that has not stopped the opposition before, such as when they have opposed our other health reform bills in this chamber—in fact, one of those bills they opposed was to make permanent a critical safety and quality body that was created temporarily under the Leader of the Opposition himself.

Today in the Senate we have seen the usual criticising and sniping from the shadow minister for ageing and the opposition, rather than the promoting of any positive proposals of their own. They will continue to try and divert the public's attention away from health, desperate to avoid scrutiny of the Leader of the Opposition's inauspicious record as health minister. Specifically, Senator Fierravanti-Wells claimed that there was no clarity about which small hospitals would receive block funding. That is because under the National Health Reform Agreement it is a matter for the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority in consultation with jurisdictions to develop block funding criteria to be agreed by COAG. It is not a matter for decision by a Commonwealth bureaucrat or even by a Commonwealth minister but one to be resolved by independent experts and agreed by all jurisdictions.

I also note that the NHRA provides for loadings on the notional efficient price to reflect additional costs driven by regional location. Small rural hospitals will be protected as this agreement is implemented. The establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority is clear evidence of the government's ongoing drive to deliver for all Australians the best quality health care possible and to ensure the future sustainability of our health system. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (18:23): As foreshadowed in my contribution on the second reading, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7178, as circulated:

(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 19 (after line 18), after subsection 144(4), insert:

   (4A) The Minister must ensure that at least one member of the Pricing Authority has:

   (a) substantial experience or knowledge; and

   (b) significant standing;

in the provision of services in hospitals other than hospitals owned and operated by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

The amendment to schedule 1, item 21 goes to the membership of the pricing authority. The minister must ensure that at least one member of the pricing authority has substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in the provision of services in hospitals other than hospitals owned and operated by the Commonwealth, a state or a territory.

As I indicated, the bill provides for the formation of two committees to assist the pricing authority—firstly, a clinical advisory committee to advise on the formulation of casemix classifications for health care and other services that are provided by public hospitals; and, secondly, a jurisdictional advisory committee which will maintain a schedule of public hospitals and the services that each of those hospitals provide, advising on funding models for those hospitals and determining adjustments to the national efficient price to reflect variations in the costs of delivery of healthcare services.

The pricing authority is established as a body corporate with perpetual succession, with a seal. It is able to sue and be sued as well as deal with real and personal property under proposed section 142. Proposed subsection 63 and proposed section 143 effectively set the minimum number of members of the pricing authority at nine members, including the chair and deputy chair. Members, including the chair, are appointed by the minister and can be appointed on a full-time or a part-time basis for up to a maximum five-year period and can be reappointed as provided for in proposed sections 144 and 145. Proposed section 144 provides that at least one of the members of the pricing authority is to have substantial experience or knowledge and significant standing in regional or rural health care.

The coalition's amendment ensures that one member of the pricing authority will have substantial experience or knowledge and significant experience in the provision of services in hospitals other than public hospitals. This reflects in principle the submission by Catholic Health Australia, which recommended that a member of the pricing authority have experience in the operation of non-government public hospital services. As I indicated earlier, one only has to look at the state of our public hospitals as at June 2010 to see that 43 per cent of the hospitals in Australia are private hospitals and that they include day surgery facilities. There are 1.2 private hospital beds per 1,000 people as against 2.5 public hospital beds per 1,000 people. There are 756 public hospitals in Australia, with about 56,000 available beds. Hence, it is very important that non-public hospitals be included as part of the framework of this legislation. It has certainly been an oversight by the government in this legislation. One only has to look at the government's attitude towards private health insurance and at what Minister Roxon has tried to do once and failed, tried to do a second time and failed, and now, no doubt, there will be a third time, to see this government's ideological attack on private health insurance. That will be for another day. However, it reflects, I think, the ideological standard of this government towards private health and private hospitals. But I digress.

Catholic Health Australia highlighted one of the major potential problems with this legislation. While the cost base for treatment in Catholic public hospitals is different from that of state public hospitals, there is no guarantee of representation for non-government hospitals on the pricing authority. Senator Eggleston mentioned this in relation to major private hospitals in Western Australia. St Vincent's Hospital is one of the major examples in metropolitan Sydney. This issue was outlined by Mr Martin Laverty, the CEO of Catholic Health Australia. He said:

Very specifically, senators will be aware that Catholic Health Australia represents about 10 per cent of the nation's hospital beds. Within that there are 2,700 public hospital beds operated by Catholic hospitals, mostly on the east coast, but broadly around Australia. For the bill to be effective it needs to have regard to the unique nature and the slightly different legal status under which those 2,700 public hospital beds actually operate. We do not see that reflected in the bill at present, but we think minor amendments can adequately incorporate the impacts of the differing legal structures that operate those 2,700 public hospital beds, and we have proposed that to you in our submission.

Progress reported.

Proceedings suspended from 18:30 to   19:30