The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 7), before Chapter 5B, insert:
Chapter 5AA—Oversize f ishing v essels
Part 15AA—Oversize fishing v essels
Division 1— Prohibition
390SAA Civil penalty—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel
A person must not engage in fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel in a Commonwealth marine area.
Civil penalty:
(a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units;
(b) for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units.
Note: If a body corporate is found to have contravened this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have contravened section 494.
390SAB Offence—fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person takes an action; and
(b) the action is taken in a Commonwealth marine area; and
(c) the action is a fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 7 years or 420 penalty units, or both.
Note 1: If a body corporate is found to have committed an offence against this section, an executive officer of the body may be found to have committed an offence against section 495.
Note 2: Subsection 4B(3) of the Crimes Act 1914 lets a court fine a body corporate up to 5 times the maximum amount the court could fine a person under this subsection.
(2) Strict liability applies to paragraph (1)(b).
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
390SAC What is a fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel ?
(1) A fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel is a fishing activity using a vessel capable of processing and storing more than 2,000 tonnes of biomass.
(2) A fishing activity means an activity that constitutes fishing.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 4 to 11), omit paragraph 390SF(3)(b), substitute:
(b) remains in force until a revocation of the declaration comes into force.
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 390SF(4).
(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (line 10), before item 11, insert:
10A Section 528
Insert:
fishing activity using an oversize fishing vessel has the meaning given by subsection 390SAC(1).
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 17), after "environmental", insert ", social or economic".
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (line 22), after "environmental", insert ", social or economic".
The Committee divided. [10:29]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Fawcett)
This type of scrutiny is rare for an organisation like AFMA, which generally operates behind a veil and in its own domain. It is king, judge, jury and all powerful. Suddenly, its authority is being questioned and issues have been identified to suggest its processes and science need review. This is healthy democracy at work. It does not necessarily mean the scientists and public servants at AFMA are bad people or that they have consciously been deceitful or negligent or even failed in their duties.
It does, however, mean they must be accountable, transparent and above board. They must explain, in laymen's terms, their decisions. They must accept public scrutiny.
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 10 (lines 17 to 22), Division 4 TO BE OPPOSED.
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [11:00]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 4) Bill 2012
… taxpayers who get deductions as a result of those changes to the consolidation regime do not receive interest in respect of tax they had previously overpaid. However, where interest has already been received by a taxpayer, the taxpayer will not need to pay back the amount received in most cases.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
In Australia, functional equality has already been achieved. I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions, other than the right to call the relationship a marriage. Certainly that is so in federal law.
… support for this legislation reflects our deep commitment to the intrinsic dignity of every human being and our deep commitment to their fundamental right to lead their own lives in their own way. Like gender, race and religion, sexuality is intrinsic to identity. It is simply no business of society’s to dictate to its members about matters which are so private that they define a person’s very sense of self. But it is the obligation of society to ensure, as a basic principle of fairness, that its members are protected from unlawful discrimination and enjoy the right to equal treatment.
The other thing that’s irritating I suppose about it is that it has become this orthodoxy within the community. Dissenting voices are not allowed, it’s just assumed that if you’re gay you’re for it, as it’s clearly a human right – which it’s not.
The right is to have our relationship recognised equally by the State; the right is not to marriage.
… open to these possibilities, but at the same time I'm also keen to defend traditional marriage.
I'm in favour of stable, enduring relationships. I'm in favour of people keeping their commitments to people. I would be very sympathetic to some institutional arrangement which encouraged that across the board, rather than in just what might be described as the more common or traditional contexts.
A personal note is in order. I am both gay and conservative and don't find a contradiction. There shouldn't be any 'shame' in being gay. Moreover, the conservative view, based as it is on the inherent rights of the individual over the state, is the logical political home of gay men and women. The conservative movement must reject the bigots and the hypocrites and provide a base for gays as well as others. The politics of inclusion is the model by which what we have achieved with Ronald Reagan can continue and flourish without the anti-Communist and the anti-tax movements of sustaining elements. Conservatives need to remind themselves that gay men and women, almost always residing in the closet, were among those who helped in the founding, nurturing, and maintaining of the movement. They should be welcomed based on common beliefs, and without regard to our response to different sexual stimuli. One's sexuality should not be factored into acceptance in a cause that is based on beliefs, no more than colour, or ethnic origin: because sexuality isn't a belief, it's a factor of birth.
I must tell you that I was indifferent about the ceremony in the lead-up to it, after all, what difference could a piece of paper make after 19 years together?! I dissolved into tears during our vows, and it hit home to me how special it was to be able to finally be recognised as legally married. What a wonderful affirmation of love in front of friends! We got married in front of a small group of friends, by a magistrate who travelled 400km to marry us, in a game park in South Africa—in full view of elephant, hippo, and even a visit by a family of meerkats and a warthog on the day right into our lodge. It almost resembled a scene out of the Lion King!
In February, when the act became law, my beautiful, loving and supportive partner of almost 12 years, Paul, and I rushed to make our relationship official. The only thing that would have made the process of doing so more joyous would have been if my lovely mum had lived long enough to share in our joy, because the homophobia that I experienced throughout my life had a profound impact on her, too. But she passed away suddenly and unexpectedly just weeks before the Civil Partnerships Act became law. My colleagues at work put together a morning tea to help me celebrate my official union with Paul. Now I must face them daily knowing that they know my relationship has been erased by Campbell Newman.
For a small moment in time, we truly believed that headway was being made, and respect for our relationship by our Govt was actually happening. What a momentous breakthrough this could have been, in the fight against discrimination—and the encouragement of respect for diverse families. As it turns out, so long as we continue to pay our taxes and be quiet, the Government doesn't care in the least about us, our relationship, our very lives.
This very much encourages division, derision, inequality, and an 'acceptance' … of unequal treatment of the non-heterosexual community.
Exclusion of LGBTIQ people from marriage also sends the message that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity is acceptable.
Timo and I were elated to be able to celebrate the love we have for each other when we applied for our civil union shortly after it was introduced to Queensland in February 2012. It was a major milestone for us and a moment that we'll always treasure. It's hard to put into words how hurt, how victimised and how vulnerable we feel as gay men living in Queensland under Campbell Newman. Our civil union has been spat upon, our relationship has been thrown to the dogs as a registration and day by day we watch as social justice for gay people is trampled underfoot. Has there ever been a time in Australian history where the clock was deliberately and callously set backwards like this?
I love both my children equally and I want them to be treated equally. This is a matter of basic human dignity. A person's fundamental rights, including their right to marry, should not be affected by their sexual orientation. How can I tell my son that he has less rights than my daughter has? Could you tell your own child this? I cannot justify this. Society is stronger when couples make vows to each other and support each other. I want this for my gay son.
We have both struggled immensely as young people coming to terms with our sexuality. As teenagers, we had very few role models. Our school friends could aspire to going to university, having a career, meeting a handsome man, marrying him and having beautiful children. Our future in comparison seemed bleak and something to fear—negative labels and stereotypes, being bullied or ostracised by friends, being disowned by parents … We believe that if we had lesbian and gay role models, committing to a life together in marriage, it would have made a difference to the challenges we experienced as young people.
In March 2012, we entered in to a Civil Partnership in Queensland. We did this because we wanted our son to know when he is old enough to understand, that we did everything we could to gain legal protection and recognition for him and our relationship. When we informed friends, family and colleagues that we had entered into a Civil Partnership, we had some people congratulate us, others asked us what it meant, and some said 'why can't you get married?' Not a single person gave us a card, a hug, a gift, or a congratulatory phone call.
It has been our lived experience that Civil Unions do not have the status, symbolism or recognition of a marriage. We still feel like second-rate citizens with a token second-rate legal recognition of our partnership.
I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative; I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
The question is whether we would desire that our sisters or our brothers should be married into any of these races to which we object.
Fiscal equalisation involves the transfer of payments or grants across jurisdictions with the aim of offsetting differences between a jurisdiction's revenue raising capacity and expenditure needs.
It can address both vertical fiscal imbalance and horizontal fiscal imbalance.
… … …
Horizontal fiscal imbalance refers to the situation where the States have differing abilities to provide comparable levels of services through the imposition of comparable tax burdens, because of demographic and economic disparities between them.
… this is one nation. It was established as a commonwealth, and those words mean something … the wealth of the nation should be shared equitably, not according to some notion of the rich states taking the resources and keeping them for themselves.
What ought to be very seriously considered by the Government right now is the proposal that all the Liberal states have put up, that the GST revenue should be distributed on what is closer to a per capita arrangement ...
… the Coalition will always support a fair deal, a square deal for Tasmania.
Let’s see what the Greiner group comes up with and then the Coalition will have more to say.
I think what ought to be very seriously considered by the government right now is the proposal that … the GST revenue should be distributed on what is closer to a per capita arrangement.
If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
Australia is a viable democracy in which virtually all groups have prospered, including the vast majority of Muslims. If last Saturday's demonstrators don't appreciate this, tough. It is not our fault.
… pointed to the "utter unreliability of Brown's evidence…"
… that Brown's evidence … became "increasingly nonsensical."
… that Brown’s evidence in relation to the bribery allegations indicates, very clearly, that Brown cannot be taken as a reliable witness of truth.
… contradicted statements and sworn testimony which he had given to the Dubai authorities in the course of an investigation into the acquisition of Plot D17 in December 2008 and through to 2009.
… also inconsistent with the agreed transcript of his interview, conducted under oath, with the Dubai prosecutors on 16 February 2009…
… it is clear that, at various times, Brown’s personal interests (including the fear of remaining the subject of investigation for bribery by the Dubai authorities), together with his and Sunland’s commercial interests, coloured his statements and communications …
This is particularly so having regard to the pressure Brown was then under personally in explaining the Plot D17 transaction to the Dubai authorities in a way that convinced them that it was lawful, together with the commercial consequences for Sunland were they to find otherwise.
'Instead of states facing penalties for economic growth and rewards for economic underperformance, the GST distribution process should encourage economic reform and better delivery of services, and provide states with certainty,' she said.
Ms Gillard made the announcement in Perth, where Labor is deeply unpopular and where the Premier, Colin Barnett, has complained about losing GST revenue because of the mining boom.
The review will lead to a simpler, fairer, more predictable and more efficient distribution of the GST to states and territories …
'Here in WA Premier (Colin) Barnett has posed the question what have we done wrong besides being successful?'
Shadow Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type.
In addition, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP will act as Shadow Cabinet Secretary
You’d hope that before they made billions of dollars worth of promises, they’d be able to explain how they were going to fund it.
$70 billion in cuts would be the equivalent of stopping Family Tax Benefit payments for three years or cutting the age pension for two years.
The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore and no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous boat journey to Australia.
The combination of an increased refugee intake from offshore and no advantage for those who arrive by boat removes the attractiveness of attempting the expensive and dangerous boat journey to Australia.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Cormann and Sinodinos today relating to the Budget.
'When you see what is happening in Queensland and New South Wales … of course we can't criticise these other governments if we are doing the same thing ourselves. If the tax base doesn't increase, my concern is we will end up losing jobs and import-ant programs.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to Afghanistan.
This is a symbol of a much deeper problem of Afghan-American distrust. In a way, there was a bigger change last month when special forces stopped training Afghan local Police.
This is a signal that the US does not trust its counterparts. It is a statement of mounting cynicism and resignation.
… … …
… Hamid Karzai, had pledged to vet all new recruits but Nato officials on Tuesday said the plan had never been properly implemented.
Vetting is virtually impossible in a place like Afghanistan … In such conditions the suspension of joint patrols made 'eminent sense' …
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Joyce for today, on account of parliamentary business.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
The effect on Australian ginger growers of importing fresh ginger from Fiji, including:
(a) the scientific basis on which the provisional final import risk analysis report regarding the importation of fresh ginger has been developed;
(b) the adequacy of the pest risk assessments contained in the provisional final import risk analysis report for fresh ginger from Fiji;
(c) the risk and consequences of the importation resulting possibly in the introduction of pest species or diseases and soil-borne diseases;
(d) the adequacy of the quarantine conditions recommended by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; and
(e) any other related matter.
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 10 October 2012, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Ruston to make her first speech without any question before the chair.
That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 20 September 2012, from 3.30 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 9 October 2012, from 5.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the care of Australian Defence Force personnel wounded and injured on operations.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) dementia is the greatest cause of disability in older Australians aged 65 and over,
(ii) there are almost 280 000 Australians living with dementia and 1.2 million who provide support and care, and
(iii) every week an estimated 1 600 new cases of dementia occur, with the number expected to grow to 7 400 new cases per week by 2050, resulting in 1 million Australians living with dementia by 2050;
(b) recognises the significance of Dementia Awareness Week, from 21 September to 28 September 2012, in promoting and advocating for the needs of those living with dementia, their families and carers;
(c) welcomes the designation of dementia by the Minister for Health (Ms Plibersek) as the ninth National Health Priority Area; and
(d) acknowledges the ongoing contributions of Alzheimer's Australia and its state and territory associations in supporting and advocating for those affected and leading the charge in the fight against dementia.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that two-thirds of Australian women who have experienced domestic violence with their current partner are in paid employment;
(b) recognises the:
(i) significant impact that domestic violence can have on the employment of women who are subjected to it, including:
(A) lost productivity as a result of anxiety and distraction in the workplace,
(B) absenteeism due to sustaining physical and psychological injuries,
(C) disrupted work histories as victims often frequently change jobs,
(D) lower personal incomes and reduced hours of work, and
(E) risks to personal safety in the workplace as well as to co-workers, and
(ii) positive impact of the inclusion of domestic violence clauses in contracts of employment to ensure protections for victims, including:
(A) additional paid leave to enable employees subjected to domestic violence to, for example, attend court hearings and medical appointments without exhausting other forms of personal leave,
(B) access to flexible working arrangements where possible, and
(C) assurance that employee details will be treated confidentially and disclosure will not lead to discriminatory treatment;
(c) acknowledges the introduction of domestic violence clauses for public sector employees in both Queensland and New South Wales and congratulates organisations in the private sector that have also moved to incorporate these clauses in contracts of employment; and
(d) urges all private companies and public sectors to include domestic violence clauses in their enterprise agreements to provide victims with important protections such as access to leave in addition to existing entitlements.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges:
(i) that 19 September 2012 is National Family Business Day, and
(ii) the role that family businesses have played in shaping the social, economic and cultural fabric of Australia; and
(b) notes:
(i) data from Family Business Australia advising that about 70 per cent of Australian businesses are family businesses and employ 50 per cent of the Australian workforce,
(ii) that family businesses can be small, medium or large enterprises and that one of the largest family businesses employs more than 27 000 people, and
(iii) the resilience and adaptability of family business even in difficult economic conditions.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, by 28 September 2012, the following:
(a) the confidentalised Wave 3 and Wave 4 Parent 1 and Parent 2 data sets from the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children';
(b) the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Parent 1 Mark Up Questionnaire from the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children';
(c) the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Parent 2 Mark Up Questionnaire from the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children'; and
(d) documents which include an analysis of income management data in the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children'.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australia has been a signatory to the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 1974,
(ii) Australia has been a signatory to the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 1986,
(iii) Australia has been a signatory to the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement since 2006,
(iv) each of these agreements obliges Australia to protect the flight paths and habitats of those migratory birds listed in the agreements, and
(v) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act) requires that 'an action will require approval if the action has, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a listed migratory species'; and
(b) calls on the Government to ensure it complies with its obligations to the protect the flight paths and habitats of all migratory birds listed under these agreements and the Act, and to refer any project that has, or may have, a significant impact on a listed migratory species for assessment under the Act.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by 5 pm on Thursday, 11 October 2012, the contents of the following National Health and Medical Research Council files which relate to wind turbines:
(a) Public Health and Medical Research – Advice – Health Effects of Wind Farms;
(b) Public Health and Medical Research – Research – Wind Turbines and Health – Evidence Review and Public Statement 2010/012940;
(c) Public Health and Medical Research – Enquiries – Wind Turbines and Health – Evidence Review 2010/041323;
(d) Information Management – Appeals (decisions) – Freedom of Information 2010/00883;
(e) Wind Turbines and Health – Acciona Energy Oceania Pty Ltd 2010/066543;
(f) Public Health and Medical Research – Latest Scientific Evidence on Wind Turbines and Health 2011/014789;
(g) Public Health and Medical Research – Research – Wind Turbines and Health Literature 2011/024222;
(h) Public Health and Medical Research – Liaison – Wind Turbines Externally Submitted References 2011/028268;
(i) Public Health and Medical Research – Liaison – Wind Turbines Externally Submitted References Part Two 2011/039890;
(j) Public Health and Medical Research – Reviews (Decisions) – Wind Turbines and Health Senate Inquiry 2011/039945;
(k) Public Health and Medical Research – Liaison – Reference Group and Literature Review 2011/054388;
(l) Public Health and Medical Research – Research – Wind Turbines and Health Literature 2011/054389; and
(m) Public Health and Medical Research – Committees – Wind Turbines and Health Literature Review Reference Group Membership and Finance 2011/054391.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the intention of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to transfer responsibility for protecting our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to state governments by March 2013, and
(ii) that Australians expect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to be protected by the Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, including South Australia's Glossy Black Cockatoo, and the internationally listed Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Wetlands; and
(b) calls on the Government to retain responsibility for all major decisions on environmentally damaging projects that affect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places.
The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Gillard Government's undermining of the defence budget affecting the capability of the Australian Defence Force.
The plans set out in 2009 are in disarray; investment is badly stalled, and the defence budget is an unsustainable mess.
As things stand I don’t think we are structured or postured appropriately to meet our likely strategic circumstances in future.
We have come a long way since Mr Tange harangued the services in 1973, but if we don’t go further—much further—we run the risk of becoming irrelevant.
… in order to proceed the proposal must be supported by 4 senators, not including the proposer, rising in their places.
… few people in government or Defence think that Australia faces any credible risk of major military attack, and fewer still believe we could defend ourselves if we did … Of course, apart from defending our shores, the ADF has always had something to do—peacekeeping in the Middle East,—
nation-building in East Timor, tsunami relief in Indonesia or fighting bushfires in Victoria—but these aren't reasons enough to have a defence force.
Climate change is fast emerging as the security issue of the 21st century, overshadowing terrorism and even the spread of weapons of mass destruction as the threat most likely to cause mega-death and contribute to state failure, forced population movements, food and water scarcity and the spread of infectious diseases …
For the military, whether the warming is caused by man, is naturally occurring, or is some combination of the two is immaterial. The military cannot wait for the science to be perfected to begin planning for the potential effects of global climate change.
I do worry that we are developing some gaps in our defence structure that will be very tough to claw back later on. I may not be as pessimistic as (others), but I would applaud the day when we can restore a high level of funding for defence.
The 2009 white paper is dead on the floor, butchered by the withdrawal of funds. There's no way they can deliver it. On current funding levels, there will need to be dramatic changes.
… in the last budget there were savings methods across the decade of $2.9bn in increased efficiencies, and efficiency dividend of $400 million, and that brings us to $12bn.
You have to look back to the draw-down from Korea in 1953 to see anything like this.
WE SHOULD thank Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan. Their budget cuts have destroyed the defence policy of the 2009 white paper, and that is a good thing because it was a bad policy.
We pretend to be a middle power and we say we're a middle power but we have the defence capability of a small power.
The plans set out in 2009 are in disarray; investment is badly stalled, and the Defence budget is an unsustainable mess.
As things stand I don’t think we are structured or postured appropriately to meet our likely strategic circumstances in future.
The Coalition will commit to restoring the funding of Defence to 3% real growth out to 2017/18 as soon as we can afford it.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
I hope the bench of Fair Work Australia has given proper regard to the input of the tourism industry in this context—
because I understand that is the key issue to industry at this point in time.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Communit y Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed––Substitute members:
Senator Thorp to replace Senator Brown for the consideration of the 2012-13 supplementary Budget estimates on Wednesday, 17 October 2012
Senator Pratt to replace Senator Brown for the consideration of the 2012-13 supplementary Budget estimates on Thursday, 18 October 2012
Senator Urquhart to replace Senator Brown for the consideration of the 2012-13 supplementary Budget estimates on Friday, 19 October 2012
Elect ricity Prices—Select Committee—
Appointed––Participating member: Senator Waters.
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS (NOTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT) AMENDMENT BILL 2012
I am pleased to introduce the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2012 which amends the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 (also known as the ICNA Act).
In summary the act establishes a system of notification and assessment of industrial chemicals to protect human health and the environment. The Department of Health and Ageing, through the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS), administers the Act. The activities of NICNAS underpin essential services across government agencies which collectively make up Australia’s regulatory system for industrial chemicals.
NICNAS activities are cost recovered through a combination of fees and charges levied on those persons or companies that introduce industrial chemicals into Australia through import or manufacture. For example, service fees apply to the assessment of new industrial chemicals introduced into Australia, an annual registration fee applies to all importers and manufacturers of relevant industrial chemicals, and an annual registration charge applies to all persons who introduce relevant industrial chemicals above a certain threshold value – these persons are known as “chargeable persons”. The annual registration charge funds the majority of NICNAS’s activities, including assessment of chemicals on the national inventory, compliance activities and stakeholder education and outreach.
NICNAS has reviewed its cost recovery arrangements in accordance with the Australian Government guidelines, utilising a highly consultative process. Industry, community and government stakeholders were consulted through a range of mechanisms including public meetings, an online survey and two rounds of written submissions.
The resulting Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) was agreed by Government. This bill amends the Act to give effect to several outcomes from the NICNAS CRIS.
The first set of amendments relates to annual registration charges.
As foreshadowed in the NICNAS CRIS, the bill changes the threshold and tier structure for annual registration charges in order to provide a more equitable charging structure for business by better aligning the charge payable with the value of relevant industrial chemicals introduced.
The number of registration tiers will be increased from three to four, and the threshold above which registrants pay a registration charge will be reduced from $500,000 to $100,000. This change will enable more than 2,500 low value introducers to pay a lower registration amount from 2013-14. Only a small number of higher value introducers (less than 400) will pay a higher registration amount.
This amendment supports the very important work being done to assess the large number of unassessed chemicals that can legally be on the Australian market.
Currently there are approximately 38,000 chemicals in the market which have not been assessed for health or environmental impacts. This is why in our 2011 Platform we made a commitment to the efficient and timely assessment of all chemicals in order to provide the highest level of protection to the community.
Recently I welcomed the launch of a framework which will provide a faster, more flexible and transparent approach to assess these chemicals.
This framework will be applied in a staged manner to determine the impact of these unassessed chemicals. Stage One began on 1 July this year which sees the assessment of 3000 chemicals over the next four years. A review to be undertaken in the fourth year is expected to make recommendations on the most efficient and effective approach to the assessment of the remainder of the unassessed chemicals on the national inventory.
The second set of amendments introduces a new fee to recover the cost of processing applications for authorisation to import or export certain hazardous chemicals listed under the Rotterdam Convention (to which Australia is a signatory). This new fee for service arrangement will ensure that costs are recovered directly from those using the service, rather than being levied across all chargeable persons, as is currently the case. The proposed fee is small and the number of companies accessing this service is low, therefore the impact on business is expected to be low.
The last CRIS-related measure in the bill amends the Act to remove a redundant fee for certain applications relating to the listing of chemicals on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances made under transitional arrangements in 1997 only. This service is no longer operational.
The bill also makes a minor amendment to the Act to improve clarity and consistency with other regulations. This is a consequential technical amendment arising from the new model work health and safety laws which commenced in the Commonwealth and some Australian states and territories on 1 January this year. Under those model laws, ‘Material Safety Data Sheets’ are now termed ‘Safety Data Sheets’. The amendment does not change the substance of the definition of what is a “Material Safety Data Sheet”. For consistency, the bill also makes a corresponding amendment to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994, which currently cross-references the ICNA Act. These minor technical amendments do not place any additional requirements on the industrial chemicals industry. They simply improve regulatory consistency.
I am very pleased to report that these amendments have been developed in close consultation with industry, government and the community. The proposed amendments enable NICNAS to provide more equitable cost recovery arrangements for business. The bill does this while maintaining existing levels of worker safety, public health and environmental standards.
These amendments therefore represent an important step in ensuring equity in regulatory charges and consistency across regulatory sectors. They reflect the Government’s commitment to ensure the most efficient regulatory system is in place for industrial chemicals.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Evans moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Thursday, 20 September 2012.
The Senate divided. [17:59]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Thursday, 20 September 2012 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.
The Senate divided. [18:03]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That, on Thursday, 20 September 2012:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) consideration of general business private senators’ bills under temporary order 57(1)(d)(ia) shall not be proceeded with;
(c) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;
(d) subject to paragraph (g), consideration of general business under standing order 57(1)(d)(x) shall not be proceeded with;
(e) the government business order of the day relating to the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 shall have precedence over all other business, as follows:
(i) from 9.30 am for 2 hour and 20 minutes,
(ii) after consideration of non-controversial government business till not later than 2 pm, and
(iii) from not later than 4 pm;
(f) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;
(g) the routine of business after completion of the consideration of the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 shall be:
(i) tabling of documents,
(ii) consideration of the general business notice of motion relating to Australia’s agriculture, fisheries and forestry industries, for up to one and half hours, and
(iii) consideration of government documents under standing order 57(1)(d)(xi) and the consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General’s reports under standing order 62(1), for up to one hour; and
(h) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [18:31]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Moore)
The Senate divided. [18:35]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Moore)
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The purpose of the Fund shall be to assist the Bank in making an increasing effective contribution to the economic and social development of the Bank's members and to the promotion of co-operation (including regional and subregional co-operation) and increased international trade, particularly among such members. It shall provide finance on concessional terms for the purposes which are of primary importance for such development.
AfDB programs deliver strong tangible results at country-level and in support of regional integration.
AfDB’s level of experience and on-the-ground presence in African countries makes it a valuable partner for Australia given Australia’s limited presence in Africa.
… that when people must be displaced they are treated equitably, and that they share in the benefits of the project that involves their resettlement.
In regard to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Special Broadcasting Service, can details be provided, for each individual organisation, of advertising/promotion spending in the 2011-12 financial year for all programs, including a breakdown by program being promoted and also by News Limited publications, Fairfax Media Limited publications and any other publications.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
The total cost of advertising and promotions across the ABC for the 2011-12 financial year was $5.8 million. This consisted of $2.2 million in advertising and $3.6 million in promotions.
The ABC does not hold a single set of data for advertising placement for ABC Television for the full 2011-12 financial year. Between July 2011 and the end of March 2012, the ABC operated centralised buying arrangements with a single supplier.
Between April 2012 and the end of July 2012, ABC Television used a number of buying agencies. Television ad placement data for these two periods are reported below as separate amounts.
ABC Television ad placement expenditure for July 2011 – end-March 2012
ABC Television ad placement expenditure for April – July 2012
ABC Radio ad placement expenditure for full financial year 2011-12
Information regarding the promotion and advertising spend for individual programs is commercial in confidence.
Special Broadcasting Service
SBS’s advertising/promotion spend in 2011-12 was $2.3 million (excl. GST).
Total amount spent on News Limited and Fairfax Media Limited publications out of a total spend on print media of $398,414 (excl. GST): Fairfax - $219,784; News Limited -$145,979.
Information regarding advertising and promotion spend by program being promoted is commercial in confidence.
(1) Does Australia Post verify each Licensed Post Office’s (LPOs) claim for payment for street carded articles; if so, how.
(2) What is the rate of remuneration for the street carded articles for LPOs as opposed to the corporate offices.
(3) Does Australia Post make approaches to large volume customers of mail/express post and parcel services and offer discounts or incentives to deal direct with Australia Post; if so, how does this impact on LPOs.
(1) Licensees receive payment to handle street carded articles as part of the Mail Management Fee (MMF), which is a fixed amount per delivery point, a fixed annual fee, or, subject to very many or very few articles, a negotiated fee.
Australia Post verifies payment claims from licensees for the MMF and the negotiated fee. For payments under the MMF, Australia Post audits delivery point records maintained by licensees. In relation to the negotiated fee, Australia Post verifies the number of articles through a count of the “Article Awaiting Collection” notifications which are retained from customers when carded articles are delivered.
(2) The rate that licensees receive depends upon whether they are paid through the MMF (which includes other activities such as customer queries), the fixed fee which is currently $381.82 per annum or the negotiated fee which is site specific.
Corporate post offices operate under a different business model to licensed post offices and, therefore, comparisons are not practical.
(3) The pricing structure for a range of products and services offered by Australia Post provides discounts and incentives to customers based on factors such as purchase/lodgement volumes and the level of pre-sortation undertaken.
These discounts and incentives form part of Australia Post’s overall offer to its customers. Subject to operational considerations, these discounts and incentives are available to customers transacting business with Australia Post through both our corporate and licensed outlets.
Can the Minister confirm whether the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service: (a) have previously used; (b) currently use; or (c) are considering using, the TrapWire surveillance system.
The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has not in the past, do not currently and are not considering using the TrapWire surveillance system.
The answer to the honourable member’s question in regard to Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry employees is as follows:
(a) No
(b) No
(c) No
Any further questions regarding the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service should be directed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.