The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day No. 1 (National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013).
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013
The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient. It gives people with a disability little choice, no certainty of access to appropriate supports and little scope to participate in the community.
…around 18 per cent of carers only had face-to-face social contact either once every three months or less often.
The individual needs to be at the centre and in charge, able to pick the supports, the aids, the equipment and the service providers of their choice. This is the vision of the Productivity Commission's landmark report …
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
The Coalition is so committed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, for instance, that we've offered to co-chair a bi-partisan parliamentary committee so that support for it doesn't flag across the three terms of parliament and among the nine different governments needed to make it work.
The current disability support system is underfunded, unfair, fragmented, and inefficient, and gives people with a disability little choice and no certainty of access to appropriate supports.
Ms Macklin said the Government was taking a big step this week toward peace of mind for people with disability, their families and carers with the passage of the NDIS Bill through Parliament.
In another step that this care and support is about to become real for Australians with disability and their families, we now have a name for the National Disability Insurance Scheme—
'DisabilityCare Australia'.
The name has been chosen based on consultations with people with disability, their families and carers, peak organisations and the general public.
DisabilityCare Australia reflects the principles of the NDIS—that all Australians with significant or profound disability receive the care and support they need, regardless of how they acquired that disability.
It does not represent what the scheme is about …
The scheme is not just about caring, it's about supporting people to have to get on and do what they want in life.
She said the word "care" had implied the scheme was linked to welfare and paternalism.
Oh, come on guys! Really? Disability Care? Why not go all the way and call it Crip Care? …
It is not about caring. It is about empowering or enabling, equipping, etc. Can't we be a little more imaginative?
I hate the name. But I worry more that the name reflects the way the powers that be see it. Now that is very scary …
We aren't a scheme for sick people needing care—we're people with disabilities that need to be supported, assisted and enabled …
We don't need the NDIS name change to further perpetuate patronising attitudes.
(1) Clause 3, page 4 (lines 5 to 7), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:
(a) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities done at New York on 13 December 2006 ([2008] ATS 12); and
(2) Clause 3, page 4 (line 28), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (i) in conjunction with other laws, give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to:
(i) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1980] ATS 23); and
(ii) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 ([1976] ATS 5); and
(iii) the Convention on the Rights of the Child done at New York on 20 November 1989 ([1991] ATS 4); and
(iv) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women done at New York on 18 December 1979 ([1983] ATS 9); and
(v) the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination done at New York on 21 December 1965 ([1975] ATS 40).
Note: In 2013, the text of a Convention or Covenant in the Australian Treaty Series was accessible through the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (www.austlii.edu.au).
(3) Clause 4, page 6 (after line 19), after subclause (12), insert:
(13) The role of advocacy in representing the interests of people with disability is to be acknowledged and respected, recognising that advocacy supports people with disability by:
(a) promoting their independence and social and economic participation; and
(b) promoting choice and control in the pursuit of their goals and the planning and delivery of their supports; and
(c) maximising independent lifestyles of people with disability and their full inclusion in the mainstream community.
(4) Clause 4, page 6 (line 20), omit "(13)", substitute "(14)".
(5) Clause 4, page 6 (line 24), omit "(14)", substitute "(15)".
(6) Clause 4, page 6 (line 27), omit "(14A)", substitute "(16)".
(7) Clause 4, page 6 (line 29), omit "(15)", substitute "(17)".
(8) Clause 5, page 7 (line 18), after "circumstances", insert ", and the gender,".
(9) Clause 9, page 12 (lines 7 to 13), omit the definition of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities .
(10) Clause 26, page 29 (lines 13 to 16), omit subparagraph (1)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(11) Clause 36, page 40 (lines 23 to 26), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(12) Clause 50, page 49 (lines 1 to 4), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), substitute:
(ii) undergo, whether or not at a particular place, a medical, psychiatric, psychological or other examination, conducted by an appropriately qualified person, and provide to the CEO the report, in the approved form, of the person who conducts the examination.
(13) Clause 73, page 64 (line 4), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (d) processes to deal with conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest.
(14) Clause 73, page 64 (after line 19), after paragraph (2)(d), insert:
(da) obligations relating to dealing with conflicts of interest, or perceived conflicts of interest; and
(15) Clause 85, page 75 (lines 9 and 10), omit "a medical, psychiatric or psychological".
(16) Clause 147, page 119 (lines 8 to 26), omit subclause (5), substitute:
Membership requirements
(5) In appointing the members of the Advisory Council, the Minister must:
(a) have regard to the desirability of the membership of the Advisory Council reflecting the diversity of people with disability; and
(b) ensure that all members are persons with skills, experience or knowledge that will help the Advisory Council perform its function; and
(c) ensure that:
(i) a majority of the members are people with disability; and
(ii) at least 2 of the members are carers of people with disability; and
(iii) at least one of the members is a person who has skills, experience or knowledge in relation to disability in rural or regional areas; and
(iv) at least one of the members is a person who has skills, experience or knowledge in the supply of equipment, or the provision of services, to people with disability.
Note: A particular member may meet one or more of the conditions in subparagraphs (5)(c)(ii), (iii) and (iv).
The NDIS will be responsible for:
(b) where a person is in a custodial setting supports which are required as a result of the person's functional impairment and are additional to supports required by the general population in relation to the following:
(i) aids and appliances; and
(ii) capacity and skills building to re-enter the community.
The NDIS will be responsible for:
(b) where a person is in a custodial setting supports which are required …
(i) aids and appliances; and
(ii) capacity and skills building to re-enter the community.
(1) Clause 3, page 5 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:
; and (d) the provision of services by other agencies, Departments or organisations and the need for interaction between the provision of mainstream services and the provision of supports under NDIS.
(1) Clause 4, page 5 (after line 23), after subclause (5), insert:
(5A) People with disability have a right to access independent disability advocacy support to promote, protect and ensure their full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and to enable them to participate fully in the community.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport 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 1.50 pm.
…will the government be transparent in this year's budget as to what the exact dollar figure is that is already committed for climate finance in 2013-14, so everyone can see what remains for overseas aid?
We are on target to reach 0.5 per cent, as I said—and I have got my speech in front of me—by 2016-17. We have said that before and we say it again. We are totally accountable in terms of every aspect of the AusAID budget. As I said at the estimates committee, you can find the details online and we are proud of that level of accountability. In estimates recently, the opposition and the Green party were able to exhaust their folder of questions about AusAID expenditure, with every question being met in comprehensive detail.
The government is aware of the need to protect charitable trusts by regulating the fees they may be charged by trustee corporations. It is proposed to 'grandfather' the fees charged to existing charitable trusts and foundations. Thus, if the fees of the charitable trust would be increased due to the introduction of a new fee regime, the grandfathering provision would require that client to be charged as if they were still covered under the old rules.
Forestry Tasmania—
was asked by contractors to provide a letter of support for the applicant's exit from the public native forestry industry, as evidence of support from the principal contributed to the applicant's merit score.
NBN Co. go through … a daily assessment about how their partners are going. They are in constant contact seeking information from their construction partners. I am seeking to gain information from the NBN Co. to find out where that process is up to.
At Senate estimates in February, NBN Co. CEO Mike Quigley informed the committee of the initial deployment challenges being … experienced by NBN Co.'s contractors.
In particular, Mr Quigley highlighted that workforce mobilisation issues were being faced … by Syntheo in Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory.
Every day in Parliament when I'm asked a question … I announce how many connections we've got.
Pensions, disability support, family tax benefits and childcare support, among others, create a cycle of dependency for millions of Australians.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Additional Estimates February 2013
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Question: 179
Division/Agency: Finance and Business Support Division
Topic: IER
Proof Hansard page: Written
Senator COLBECK asked:
Figures provided at Additional Estimates indicated the IER has dropped from approximately $24 million to $10 million this financial year, and that the target figure is actually $18 million.
Specifically what has this money been spent on?
Has industry been advised of the erosion of the reserve?
Has industry approved the use of this money?
What efficiencies is the division implementing to redress the ongoing use of the IER?
What is the IER expected to be by the end of the current financial year?
When will decisions be made on how to return the IER to the target of $18 million?
Answer:
1. At Additional Estimates the opening balance of the reserve on 1 July 2012 was $14.3 m. The import clearance deficit for 2012-13 was forecast to be $24.7 m. This would put the reserve into a $10.4 m deficit position.
Departmental budgets have been updated since Additional Estimates and the forecast operating deficit has reduced from $24.7 m to $10.9 m. As a result, the reserve balance is forecast at a $3.4 m surplus.
The range of the reserve agreed in the Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) is between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of annual expenditure. This equates to approximately $4 m to $19 m.
Attachment A provides a breakdown of expenditure for the 2012-13 year to date.
2. Yes. Industry is provided financial information as part of the Import Industry Finance Working Group.
Please provide an estimation of hours spent on QoN response for each officer involved.
3. The industry reserve is a mechanism to smooth out operational results of cargo operations over years. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) does not seek industry agreement to draw on the reserves each time a deficit is incurred. Industry is informed of the forecast, actual expenditure and the underlying activities on a regular basis.
4. From 2007-08 until now, the following efficiencies have been implemented:
a. Reduction of intervention of containers departing the wharf gate from 100 per cent external inspection to 30 per cent inspection.
b. Paperless processing of non-commercial air cargo documentation.
c. Reclassification of postcodes previously classified as rural (rural assurance postcode review).
d. Reduction of intervention on Air Cargo containers from 20 per cent intervention to surveillance only.
e. Reduction of intervention on letter class documents from 20 per cent intervention to surveillance only.
f. Introduction of a nationally consistent approach to monitoring imported goods at quarantine approved premises, airports, wharves and port precincts.
g. Redirection of resources away from low risk activities and toward high risk cargo.
h. Conducted targeted campaigns on imported commodities to verify the documentary assessment
i. Implementation of processes to reduce intervention on high risk cargo based on good compliance (Sea Container Hygiene System, Q-Ruler and e-cert)
j. Import conditions have been refined to reduce intervention on low risk cargo.
The industry reserve is a mechanism to smooth out operational results of cargo operations over time. DAFF does not plan to cease using the reserve for this purpose.
5. The IER is forecast to be' $3.4 m in surplus at the end of 2012-13.
6. The range of the reserve agreed in the Cost Recovery Impact Statement (CRIS) is between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of annual expenditure. This equates to approximately $4 m to $19 m. The current 2012-13 forecast closing balance of the reserve is $3.4 m. The operating result and IER are monitored throughout the year.
Please provide an estimation of hours spent on QoN response for each officer involved.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to all questions without notice asked today.
That the exposure draft relating to the Australian Jobs Bill 2013 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013.
That leave of absence be granted, on 21 March 2013, to the following senators:
(a) Senator Stephens, for parliamentary business; and
(b) Senator Brown, for personal reasons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Boyce from 20 March to 21 March 2013, for personal reasons.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 21 March 2013, from 10 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 3 June 2013:
The current framework and operation of subclass 457 visas, Enterprise Migration Agreements and Regional Migration Agreements, including:
(a) their effectiveness in filling areas of identified skill shortages and the extent to which they may result in a decline in Australia's national training effort, with particular reference to apprenticeship commencements;
(b) their accessibility and the criteria against which applications are assessed, including whether stringent labour market testing can or should be applied to the application process;
(c) the process of listing occupations on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupations List, and the monitoring of such processes and the adequacy or otherwise of departmental oversight and enforcement of agreements and undertakings entered into by sponsors;
(d) the process of granting such visas and the monitoring of these processes, including the transparency and rigour of the processes;
(e) the adequacy of the tests that apply to the granting of these visas and their impact on local employment opportunities;
(f) the economic benefits of such agreements and the economic and social impact of such agreements;
(g) whether better long term forecasting of workforce needs, and the associated skills training required, would reduce the extent of the current reliance on such visas;
(h) the capacity of the system to ensure the enforcement of workplace rights, including occupational health and safety laws and workers' compensation rights;
(i) the role of employment agencies involved in on-hiring subclass 457 visa holders and the contractual obligations placed on subclass 457 visa holders;
(j) the impact of the recent changes announced by the Government on the above points; and
(k) any related matters.
That the Senate notes the Australian Government's efforts to urge Chinese authorities to:
(a) address the underlying causes of tension in Tibetan regions;
(b) end the use of harsh policies, such as increased surveillance and violent crack-downs, which have only exacerbated the security situation in Tibetan areas;
(c) lift restrictions on access to Tibetan regions, including for international media and diplomats; and
(d) resume substantive talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives to prevent the situation deteriorating further.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) about 70 000 Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel have been deployed on over 60 peacekeeping operations throughout the world, significantly contributing to international peace and security, and
(ii) more than 40 000 people signed a community petition calling for the 48 Australian peacekeepers who have died in service to receive equal recognition and be placed on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial; and
(b) commends:
(i) the Australian War Memorial Council's decision to recognise peacekeepers on the Roll of Honour; and
(ii) the tireless work of advocates, including Mrs Avril Clark, Ms Sarah McCarthy and the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans' Association for their work on this matter.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013 implements in our national environment laws key recommendations of the World Heritage Committee to ensure the Great Barrier Reef does not get added to the "world heritage in danger" list.
The Australian Greens share the World Heritage Committee's "extreme concern" that the Australia's world heritage icon, the Great Barrier Reef, is being overrun by industrialisation.
In June of 2012, the World Heritage Committee stated that unless the Australian Government makes substantial progress on improving our management of the Great Barrier Reef, the Committee at its meeting of June 2013 will have to consider inscribing the Reef on the "List of World Heritage in Danger". This would be a tragedy for our Reef, and the extraordinary number of Australians who love this place, and the 54,000 people who rely on it for their livelihood. The only other countries that have had their world heritage properties inscribed on this list are among the world's poorest, and war-torn nations—Afghanistan, the Congo, Yemen.
In February 2013, the Australian Government submitted its state party response to the concerns outlined by the World Heritage Committee.
The Australian Greens have carefully reviewed this response, and are very concerned that far too much is greenwash and obfuscation. While we welcome the announcement of an independent panel to investigate the ecological disaster in Gladstone Harbour in the Southern Great Barrier Reef, this is long overdue given the wildlife disease that has been apparent since dredging began in 2011, compounded by flooding impacts. Such an investigation must be based on independent data if it is to be truly independent—not the data collected by the very folk doing the reef's largest dredging program, Gladstone Ports Corporation. We welcome federal investigation into Gladstone Harbour but the government is failing to genuinely address a number of other critical recommendations made by the World Heritage Committee.
The Greens want to see strong steps taken urgently to secure the future of the Reef, in line with the World Heritage Committee's recommendations. To that end, we have identified a number of recommendations by the Committee and the UNESCO reactive monitoring mission which are suitable for implementing through our national environment laws.
This bill proposes to put in place a permanent ban on any new port development outside of the existing and long-established major port areas within or adjoining the GBR WHA, including specifically banning new port developments in the ecological valuable Port Alma, Balaclava Island, northern Curtis Island and the entire northern section of the Great Barrier Reef. This would implement, under our national environment laws, Recommendation 5 of the World Heritage Committee's decision of June 2012 (Decision 36 COM 7B.B), and reflects the findings of UNESCO's reactive monitoring mission's report, which identifies a number of pristine areas along the Great Barrier Reef coastline which should not be destroyed by industrial port developments.
This bill also proposes to stop port expansions if they impact individually or cumulatively on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef. This implements Recommendation 5 of the World Heritage Committee's decision of June 2012 (Decision 36 COM 7B.B).
The third major amendment proposed by this bill is that it will put in place a moratorium to stop the national environment minister from approving any new developments that would seriously affect the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area until the Strategic Assessment currently underway, and a resulting long term plan for the sustainable development of the Reef, has been completed and considered by the World Heritage Committee. This implements Recommendation 2 of UNESCO's Reactive Monitoring Mission's report, which the World Heritage Committee has requested the Australian Government address (per the Committee's Recommendation 4 of Decision 36 COM 7B.B). The critical point of this amendment is to ensure that the Minister can no longer continue to tick off the very projects that have prompted the World Heritage Committee's extreme concern, while they are undertaking their strategic assessment to work out what the reef in fact can handle. Since the World Heritage Committee first made this recommendation in June 2012, the Government has flouted this request and approved expansions of Abbot Point (including 3 million cubic metres of dredging), and the huge Alpha coal mine. The terms of reference for the strategic assessment currently underway to assess coastal development impacting on the Great Barrier Reef explicitly says, despite the World Heritage Committee's request, that project level assessments and approvals will continue to be progressed unhampered by the strategic assessment process. That is, anything that is applied for before the strategic assessment finishes cannot have its approval impacted by the strategic assessment—like a smoker going to the Doctor and getting everything but their lungs checked. That's why this amendment requires the World Heritage Committee to assent to the strategic assessment before the moratorium is lifted, to ensure that it does adequately address the parameters which the World Heritage Committee said it should.
Lastly, this bill proposes to amend the approval criteria for projects that will impact the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area, so that projects can only be approved if they deliver a net benefit for the Reef. This amendment also requires that a methodology be developed to underpin this judgement, and that the 'net benefit' reasoning is explained by the Minister for each project that is approved. This will implement part of the World Heritage Committee's Recommendation 8 (Decision 36 COM 7B.B), which calls on the Government to ensure that developments affecting the Great Barrier Reef demonstrate an overall net benefit to the protection of the Reef's Outstanding Universal Value. The Government itself, in its February 2013 state party response to the World Heritage Committee's concerns stated that any approvals granted under the EPBC Act will include best practice conditions so as to promote an overall net positive impact for the property. If this is genuinely intended, a clear methodology is without question needed, and this bar locked in place in law.
The Australian Government has so far fallen short in acting on the World Heritage Committee's recommendations, but this bill presents the Government and the Coalition the opportunity to stand up for our Reef, and do what the Committee has clearly stated the Reef desperately needs.
It should be beyond party politics to protect our Reef, to keep it as the seventh wonder of the natural world that so inspires our spirit, fills our coffers with 6 billion annual sustainable—and long-term—incomes, and keeps employing 54,000 people. Political parties of all persuasion must take this warning from the World Heritage Committee seriously and do everything we can to avoid the Reef being placed on the World Heritage In Danger list. Such a listing would be a disaster for our tourism industry, and would acknowledge the serious environmental peril the reef is in from the scourge of dredging, dumping and shipping for fossil fuel exports, and from the climate change impacts when such fossil fuels are burnt.
On behalf of Australia's reef communities, and all Australians who love our Reef, I implore our elected representatives for their support on this bill. Australia's Great Barrier Reef is simply too precious to lose.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, by noon on 8 May 2013, the report of the review of Commonwealth fisheries management legislation undertaken by Mr David Borthwick.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) with concern, the New South Wales Government's intention to abolish the Independent Snowy Scientific Committee established under section 57 of the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 (NSW), and
(ii) That the Independent Snowy Scientific Committee was established with the purpose of maintaining political and scientific independence in conducting research and providing advice to the Minister in relation to Snowy catchments, Snowy montane and the Snowy River; and
(b) calls on the New South Wales Government to reverse its decision and to reinstate and fully fund the Independent Snowy Scientific Committee and all its legislative functions.
The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) and (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That, on Thursday, 21 March 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment; and
(b) the routine of business shall be:
(i) general business orders of the day consideration of bills only for up to 2 hours and 20 mins,
(ii) non-controversial government business only,
(iii) petitions,
(iv) notices of motion,
(v) tabling of Selection of Bills Committee report,
(vi) postponement and rearrangement of business,
(vii) consideration of reports under standing order 62(4),
(viii) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 12.30 pm to enable a motion relating to the National Apology for Forced Adoptions to be moved,
(ix) at 2 pm, questions,
(x) motions to take note of answers,
(xi) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded,
(xii) formal motions – discovery of formal business,
(xiii) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,
(xiv) from not later than 4 pm to 5 pm, statements relating to the imminent retirement of Senator Evans,
(xv) consideration of general business under standing order 57(1) (d) (xi) shall not be proceeded with,
(xvi) from not later than 5 pm to 6 pm, consideration of government documents under standing order 57(1) (d) (xii),
(xvii) from not later than 6 pm to 7 pm, consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1),
(xviii) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 7 pm, and
(xix) the time limit for the adjournment shall be 40 minutes.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me 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 a routine of business for Wednesday 20 March and Thursday 21 March.
Government senators have used their numbers to turn the communications committee inquiry into the media law bills into an absolute farce …
It is clear that the Government does not want its legislation subjected to proper scrutiny by the senate committee …
The committee will be forced to cram more than 30 witnesses into just two days of hearings …
The Senate divided. [16:28]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for today and Thursday, 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today till determined.
We are asking for something very simple: that complex, controversial legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Australians be properly scrutinised by this chamber through a Senate committee process before it is voted on.
You do not just need to be here in this chamber to realise how arrogant and out of touch this government has become with the ramming through of legislation, ridiculously tight deadlines for legislation, changing the sitting pattern all the time and using the guillotine. It is turning this chamber, which for 30 or 40 years has been a chamber of accountability and scrutiny, into a farce.
The Australian people deserve a house of review. A house of review means appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of governments.
That a motion to vary the hours of meeting and routine of business for Wednesday 20 March 2013 and Thursday 21 March 2013 may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business today until determined.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [17:22]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
[The Senate divided [17:26]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That:
(1) On Wednesday, 20 March 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment; and
(b) the routine of business for the remainder of the day be as follows:
(i) consideration of the following government business orders of the day:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013,
(ii) the bills listed in paragraph (1)(b)(i) be considered under a limitation of debate, and that the time allotted be as follows:
and this paragraph shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142,
(iii) committee memberships,
(iv) messages from the House of Representatives,
(v) tabling of committee reports,
(vi) the proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,
(vii) consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with, and
(viii) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
(2) On Thursday, 21 March 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7 pm to adjournment; and
(b) the routine of business shall be:
(i) general business orders of the day for consideration of bills only for up to 2 hours and 20 minutes,
(ii) non-controversial government business only,
(iii) petitions,
(iv) notices of motion,
(v) tabling of Selection of Bills Committee report,
(vi) postponement and rearrangement of business,
(vii) consideration of reports under standing order 62(4),
(viii) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at 12.30 pm to enable a motion relating to the National Apology for Forced Adoptions to be moved,
(ix) at 2 pm, questions,
(x) motions to take note of answers,
(xi) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded,
(xii) formal motions – discovery of formal business,
(xiii) from not later than 4.45 pm consideration of the following government business order of the day:
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (News Media Diversity) Bill 2013
News Media (Self-regulation) Bill 2013
News Media (Self-regulation) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Public Interest Media Advocate Bill 2013,
(xiv) the bills listed in paragraph (2)(b)(xiii) be considered under a limitation of debate, and that the time allotted be as follows:
4.45 pm to 6.30 pm, and from not later than 7 pm to 9 pm––all remaining stages,
and this paragraph shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142,
(xv) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm,
(xvi) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with,
(xvii) consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with, and
(xviii) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
Before subparagraph (1) (b) (i), insert:
(ia) tabling and consideration of committee reports pursuant to standing order 62(4),
That the question be put.
The Senate divided. [17:38]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [17:42]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Omit paragraphs (2) (b) (xi) and (xii), substitute:
(xi) formal motions—discovery of formal business,
(xii) further consideration of business referred to in paragraphs (ii) to (vi), if not concluded.
That the question be put.
That the question be put.
The Senate divided [17:48]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [17:51]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Bill 2013
(2) Clause 100, page 84 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (c) explaining the reasons for the reviewable decision.
(3) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103A Costs
(1) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal can make a costs order providing that the CEO or Agency must pay the costs of a person who makes an application for a review of a decision.
(2) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal must not make a costs order providing that a person who makes an application for review of a decision is required to pay the CEO's or Agency's costs, unless in the opinion of the Tribunal the person is acting in a manner that is vexatious or an abuse of process of the Tribunal.
(4) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103B Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
For the avoidance of doubt, if the CEO makes a decision under this Act, the decision is taken to be a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment.
(5) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103C CEO to ensure appropriate means of communication
The CEO must ensure that the Agency institutes a process to ensure that communications with participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are undertaken so as to allow the participants to deal with the Agency in the most effective way possible.
Note: For example, providing written communications to a person who is vision impaired does not allow that person to effectively communicate with the Agency. In this case, the Agency may determine that it is appropriate to directly speak with the person and to send them the written communication in braille form.
(6) Clauses 104 to 105B, page 87 (line 5) to page 90 (line 26), omit the clauses, substitute:
104 Compensation
Where:
(a) compensation is paid or payable to a person (the injured party ), otherwise than under a scheme of compensation under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law; and
(b) the injured party has received, or is entitled to, damages from another person (the wrongdoer ) in pursuance of rights arising from the same trauma as gave rise to the rights to compensation; and
(c) the person to whom the compensation is paid or payable (the claimant ) is entitled to recover the amount of the compensation; and
(d) the person has taken no action to claim or obtain compensation,
then the following provisions apply:
(e) the CEO is entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid or payable from the wrongdoer or the injured party, but subject to the following qualifications:
(i) no amount may be recovered from the wrongdoer in excess of the wrongdoer's unsatisfied liability to the injured party; and
(ii) no amount may be recovered from the injured party in excess of the amount of the damages received by the injured party; and
(iii) in a case involving contributory negligence, the amount to be recovered from the wrongdoer by the claimant under this subsection must be adjusted to the extent that is just and equitable having regard to the extent to which the wrongdoer establishes that the contributory negligence contributed to the occurrence of the relevant injury; and
(f) the claimant shall, on giving notice to a wrongdoer of an entitlement to recover compensation under this section, have a first charge, to the extent of the entitlement, on damages payable by the wrongdoer to the injured party; and
(g) any amount recovered by the claimant against a wrongdoer under this subsection shall be deemed to be an amount paid in or towards satisfaction of the wrongdoer's liability to the injured party; and
(h) an action for the recovery of compensation may be heard in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) Clause 22, page 25 (lines 20 to 26), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) A person meets the age requirements if the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purposes of this paragraph prescribe that on a prescribed date or a date in a prescribed period the person must be a prescribed age and the person is that age on that date.
(3) Clause 22, page 25 (line 27), omit "paragraph (1)(b)", substitute "subsection (1)".
(1) Clause 22, page 25 (lines 20 to 26), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) A person meets the age requirements if:
(a) the person was aged under 65 when the access request in relation to the person was made; and
(b) if the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules for the purpose of this paragraph prescribe that on a prescribed date or a date in a prescribed period the person must be a prescribed age—the person is that age on that date.
(1A) A person also meets the age requirements if the person is a polio survivor (whether aged above or below 65 years of age) when the access request in relation to the person was made.
(2) Clause 22, page 25 (line 27), omit "paragraph (1)(b)", substitute "subsections (1) and (1A)".
(4) Clause 23, page 26 (lines 2 to 11), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) A person meets the residence requirements if the person:
(a) resides in Australia; and
(b) is:
(i) an Australian resident for the purposes of the Health Insurance Act 1973 ; or
(ii) is an eligible person by reason of section 6 or 6A of that Act; and
(c) satisfies the other requirements in relation to residence that are prescribed by the National Disability Insurance Scheme rules.
(5) Clause 40, page 41 (line 25) to page 42 (line 2), omit "6 weeks" (wherever occurring), substitute "12 months".
(2) Clause 100, page 84 (line 19), at the end of subclause (1), add:
; and (c) explaining the reasons for the reviewable decision.
(3) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103A Costs
(1) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal can make a costs order providing that the CEO or Agency must pay the costs of a person who makes an application for a review of a decision.
(2) The Administrative Appeals Tribunal must not make a costs order providing that a person who makes an application for review of a decision is required to pay the CEO's or Agency's costs, unless in the opinion of the Tribunal the person is acting in a manner that is vexatious or an abuse of process of the Tribunal.
(4) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103B Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
For the avoidance of doubt, if the CEO makes a decision under this Act, the decision is taken to be a decision of an administrative character made under an enactment.
(5) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6 of Chapter 4, add:
103C CEO to ensure appropriate means of communication
The CEO must ensure that the Agency institutes a process to ensure that communications with participants in the National Disability Insurance Scheme are undertaken so as to allow the participants to deal with the Agency in the most effective way possible.
Note: For example, providing written communications to a person who is vision impaired does not allow that person to effectively communicate with the Agency. In this case, the Agency may determine that it is appropriate to directly speak with the person and to send them the written communication in braille form.
(6) Clauses 104 to 105B, page 87 (line 5) to page 90 (line 26), omit the clauses, substitute:
104 Compensation
Where:
(a) compensation is paid or payable to a person (the injured party ), otherwise than under a scheme of compensation under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law; and
(b) the injured party has received, or is entitled to, damages from another person (the wrongdoer ) in pursuance of rights arising from the same trauma as gave rise to the rights to compensation; and
(c) the person to whom the compensation is paid or payable (the claimant ) is entitled to recover the amount of the compensation; and
(d) the person has taken no action to claim or obtain compensation,
then the following provisions apply:
(e) the CEO is entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid or payable from the wrongdoer or the injured party, but subject to the following qualifications:
(i) no amount may be recovered from the wrongdoer in excess of the wrongdoer's unsatisfied liability to the injured party; and
(ii) no amount may be recovered from the injured party in excess of the amount of the damages received by the injured party; and
(iii) in a case involving contributory negligence, the amount to be recovered from the wrongdoer by the claimant under this subsection must be adjusted to the extent that is just and equitable having regard to the extent to which the wrongdoer establishes that the contributory negligence contributed to the occurrence of the relevant injury; and
(f) the claimant shall, on giving notice to a wrongdoer of an entitlement to recover compensation under this section, have a first charge, to the extent of the entitlement, on damages payable by the wrongdoer to the injured party; and
(g) any amount recovered by the claimant against a wrongdoer under this subsection shall be deemed to be an amount paid in or towards satisfaction of the wrongdoer's liability to the injured party; and
(h) an action for the recovery of compensation may be heard in a Court of competent jurisdiction.
(1) Page 86 (after line 17), at the end of Part 6, add:
Part 7—Joint Select Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
103A Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
(1) As soon as practicable after the commencement of the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, is to be appointed according to the practice of the Parliament.
(2) The Committee is to consist of 10 members, made up of the following:
(a) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members;
(b) 2 members of the Senate who are Government members;
(c) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members;
(d) 2 members of the Senate who are Opposition members;
(e) 1 member of the House or Representatives or the Senate who is a member of the Australian Greens;
(f) 1 member of the House of Representatives or the Senate who is an independent member.
(3) A member of the Parliament is not eligible for appointment as a member of the Committee if he or she is:
(a) a Minister; or
(b) the President of the Senate; or
(c) the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(4) A member ceases to hold office:
(a) when the House of Representatives expires by effluxion of time or is dissolved; or
(b) if he or she becomes the holder of an office specified in any of the paragraphs of subsection (3); or
(c) if he or she ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which he or she was appointed; or
(d) if he or she resigns his or her office as provided by subsection (5) or (6).
(5) A member appointed by the Senate may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the President of the Senate.
(6) A member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign his or her office by writing signed by him or her and delivered to the Speaker of that House.
(7) Subject to the requirements of subsection (2), either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the Committee appointed by that House.
103B Powers and proceedings of the Committee
All matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Committee are to be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament.
103C Functions of the Committee
(1) The functions of the Committee are:
(a) to review the implementation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
(b) to review the administration and expenditure of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
(c) to review any matter in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme referred to the Committee by:
(i) the responsible Minister; or
(ii) a resolution of either House of the Parliament; and
(e) to report the Committee's comments and recommendations to each House of the Parliament and to the responsible Minister;
(f) such functions as agreed to by resolutions of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
103D Annual report
As soon as practicable after each year ending on 30 June, the Committee must give to the Parliament a report on the activities of the Committee during the year.
The Committee divided. [18:21]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
That the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 7 pm.
That the question be put.
The Senate divided. [18:49]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [18:53]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2013 AUTUMN SITTINGS
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONVERGENCE REVIEW AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013
Purpose of the bills
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 , theAustralian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 and theSpecial Broadcasting Service Act 1991 to implement initial measures arising from the government's consideration of the Convergence Review.
Recognition of the current online and digital activities of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and Special Broadcasting Service, increased Australian content requirements, and a requirement for the appointment of an Indigenous non-executive director to the SBS Board.
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the bill in the Autumn 2013 sittings will ensure that the communications and media policy framework continues to provide appropriate and important community safeguards in relation to the availability of quality Australian content on free-to-air television.
The Convergence Review received significant interest from industry groups, businesses, academics, community groups and members of the public. The government publicly committed to implementing its initial reforms by early 2013.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2013 AUTUMN SITTINGS
TELEVISION LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the bills
The Television Licence Fees Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Television Licence Fees Act 1964 to reduce the licence fees payable by commercial television broadcasters by 50 per cent.
Reasons for Urgency
Passage of the bill in the Autumn 2013 sittings will ensure that the media industry has certainty in relation to buying licence fees arrangements.
The speeches read as follows—
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (CONVERGENCE REVIEW AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2013
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Convergence Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 is part of a package of six Bills representing the Australian Government's initial response to issues identified by the 2011 Independent Inquiry into the Media and Media Regulation and the 2012 Convergence Review.
This Bill responds to matters raised in the Convergence Review, primarily in relation to Australian content and public broadcasting.
New Australian content requirements
Despite the growth of new digital services and channels, Australians still want to see Australian content.
The Bill addresses the need for ongoing support for the broadcast of Australian content by legislating the 55 per cent Australian content quota on core or primary channels of free-to-air commercial television broadcasters.
The Bill also imposes a new Australian content transmission quota on these broadcasters that applies otherwise than on core or primary channels.
This new quota will increase incrementally for the next three years.
It will create an incentive for new Australian drama programs to be shown on those channels by allowing one hour of such drama to count as two hours for the purposes of the new quota.
The Bill also provides commercial broadcasters with the flexibility to meet their Australian content sub-quotas for drama, documentary and children's programming otherwise than on the core or primary channel.
Providing increased flexibility to broadcasters in meeting Australian content obligations allows innovative programming choices, and assists broadcasters to respond to competitive market pressures.
Limitations on the number of commercial television licences
The Bill implements the Government's decision announced on 30 November last year, that no new licences or spectrum will be made available to enable a fourth commercial television network.
This is achieved by capping the number of commercial television broadcasting licences that use broadcasting services bands spectrum, at three for each licence area.
The Bill repeals existing provisions that prohibited the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) from allocating additional commercial television licences unless directed to do so by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, as these are now redundant.
The Government's decision to 'cap' the number of licences at existing levels was guided by the increasing commercial pressures faced by television broadcasters as a result of structural changes caused by convergence.
The cap will also ensure that the remaining capacity in the television broadcasting services bands, known as the 'sixth channel', remains available for other types of broadcasting services.
This includes, but is not limited to, community broadcasting services, narrowcasting services, datacasting services, or other communications services.
In light of these decisions, the Bill repeals a now redundant obligation to undertake statutory reviews into the use of the broadcasting services bands spectrum to provide additional television broadcasting services or other broadcasting services.
Repeal of the captioning and content review requirements
The Bill will also repeal a separate obligation to undertake a statutory review of the Australian content and captioning rules applicable to digital multichannels.
The review is now unnecessary given the new and modified Australian content requirements introduced by the measures outlined above, and the extensive reforms to captioning arrangements implemented through the Improved Access to Television Services Act 2012.
Updating ABC and SBS Charters
The Bill proposes amendments to the Charters of the ABC and SBS to recognise their roles as providers of digital media content.
This is not an expansion of their present roles, but merely recognises what the national broadcasters are already delivering.
And it reflects the value and importance of digital engagement to the work of the ABC and SBS.
International broadcasting services provided by the ABC
The proposed Bill also implements the Government's decision that the ABC should have the sole responsibility, and be funded by Government, to provide international broadcasting services on an ongoing basis.
The amendments recognise that Australia's international broadcasting service is an important public diplomacy platform, which should be provided by Australia's national broadcaster.
Indigenous non-executive director for the SBS
With the establishment of the free-to-air National Indigenous Television service on the SBS, amendments are proposed to require the Minister have regard to the need to ensure the SBS Board includes at least one Indigenous director.
This strengthens the SBS contribution to the communications needs of Indigenous communities.
Do you seriously believe that the SBS's interpretation is consistent with the intent of parliament?
It just seems to me that with the way the act was written—and I have spoken to some of the people who were involved in drafting it—it was not open slather. Clearly, it does not say: 'Just have ads wherever you want;' it says: 'You can have ads in only a couple of places,' and yet, as you have testified, there is now open slather in every single program. That just seems to me to be inconsistent with the intent of the limits that the legislation attempted to set. You have now defined those limits as being unlimited.
To trivialise it by saying that it can be cut off at the whim of a majority—maybe the uninterested majority, at that—and to prevent those who find this matter extraordinarily and hugely important and deserving of the greatest consideration is very bad parliamentary process. I think it is unconscionable: the unconscionable is occurring to what we proclaim as the conscionable. It is bad parliamentary process and a total abrogation of the whole idea that, when we get to complex and important ethical mileposts like this in the progress of our society, the matter should be given greater importance and should not be cut down by a guillotine …
(i) trespass unduly on personal rights and liberties;
(ii) make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon insufficiently defined administrative powers;
(iii) make rights, liberties or obligations unduly dependent upon non-reviewable decisions;
(iv) inappropriately delegate legislative powers; or
(v) insufficiently subject the exercise of legislative power to parliamentary scrutiny.
The bill as it stands ... will result in a dilution of Australian drama on the main channels. Insofar as it is fulfilled on the digital channels, it is likely to result in lower average licence fees.
The future of broadcasting is local content. It is what defines us and it is why 47 of the top 50 shows on television last year were all Australian; out of that, the top 20 shows were Australian.
Australia's media landscape is changing rapidly. Today Australians have access to a greater range of communications and media services than ever before. Developments in technology and increasing broadband speeds have led to the emergence of innovative services not previously imagined.
It would be the end of regional television … there would be no differentiation between what comes out of Sydney and what is aired in Victoria.
The practical application of this legislation is that it sets up a model where a minister of the government can pick up the phone to his own appointee and say 'fix it', fix it being 'get the media off our backs'.
Neither the explanatory memorandum nor the statement of compatibility demonstrate why these reforms are necessary. They do not provide any detailed information or empirical data on the extent of the unacceptable intrusions by the news media on personal privacy in Australia, or of the adequacy or otherwise of existing procedures (media specific or under the general law) for obtaining redress if there is a violation of the right to privacy.
The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.
Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 10), omit "1,095", substitute "1,460".
Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (line 17), omit "1,460", substitute "2,920".
The Senate divided. [21:06]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the document tabled earlier today be printed and included in the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
That Senator Colbeck replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into the Auditor-General's reports nos 26 of 2007-08 and 22 of 2013-13 in relation to the Tasmanian forest industry, and Senator Nash be appointed as a participating member of the committee.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2013
Foreign Affairs Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2013
Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
BROADCASTING LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DIGITAL DIVIDEND) BILL 2013
The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend) Bill 2013 proposes minor amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to facilitate the early commencement of telecommunications services in the digital dividend spectrum, while that spectrum is still considered part of the broadcasting services bands.
In 2010, the Australian Government announced its decision to release 126 Megahertz of broadcasting spectrum as a digital dividend.
This spectrum is expected to be cleared of all existing services by 31 December 2014.
The release of this broadcasting spectrum is a significant benefit of the digital switchover process.
The auction of this spectrum in April 2013 will pave the way for next generation mobile broadband services in Australia, such as 4G mobile services.
Following the auction's completion, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) will consider applications on a case-by-case basis to allow successful bidders to commence services, before the digital dividend spectrum is redesignated out of the broadcasting services bands.
In order to ensure successful bidders are not unduly restricted in the types of services that can be provided in the interim period, the Bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act to limit the scope of datacasting regulation.
For the foreseeable future, only commercial and national broadcasters are required to hold a datacasting licence for the delivery of datacasting services in broadcasting spectrum.
To achieve this limitation in the scope of datacasting regulation in the Broadcasting Services Act, the Bill will introduce the concept of 'designated datacasting services'.
This is defined as a datacasting service provided by a commercial television broadcasting licensee, a commercial radio broadcasting licensee, or a national broadcaster.
The Bill will also empower the Minister to specify, by legislative instrument, other services that are 'designated datacasting services'.
This will allow flexibility to expand the scope of the datacasting regime if the circumstances warrant.
For example, this may apply where a provider seeks to use broadcasting spectrum to provide a datacasting service that the Minister considers should be subject to the conditions of service and codes of practice that apply to licensed datacasting services.
The Bill will also make a number of minor consequential amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and the Radiocommunications Act to implement these changes.
Amendments to this Bill were passed in the other place to assist in managing the transition of the wireless audio devices community to alternate spectrum and provide clarity about the future operation of their devices.
As amended, the Bill will require the Minister to direct the ACMA to review and report on the provision of spectrum for low interference potential device class licences and provide a transition pathway for such licences by 30 July 2013.
In addition, the main operative provisions in the Bill will not commence until 1 October 2013.
It should be noted that datacasting regulation under the Broadcasting Services Act will not apply to any services using digital dividend spectrum after the Minister removes this spectrum from the broadcasting services bands.
This is intended to occur after that spectrum is cleared of digital television services as a result of the restack, scheduled for completion by 31 December 2014.
The proposals in this Bill will provide certainty and clarity around the conditions placed on the digital dividend spectrum in the interim period prior to its reallocation.
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2013
The Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2013 would, if enacted, amend five Acts across three portfolios.
This Bill forms part of an ongoing program to address financial framework issues as they are identified and assists in ensuring that specific provisions in existing legislation remain clear and up-to-date.
Keeping the existing financial framework legislation up ‑to ‑date is also consistent with the reforms foreshadowed in the Government ' s proposed Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review.
First, the Bill would amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to authorise the Commonwealth to form, or participate in forming, companies, as specified in theFinancial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997.
The Bill would also amend the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 to specify the objects or activities of existing Commonwealth companies.
For the avoidance of doubt and to address potential constitutional issues raised by the High Court ' s decision in Williams v Commonwealth , the Bill would confirm the Commonwealth ' s existing involvement with companies. The proposed amendment would provide explicit legislative authority for the Commonwealth ' s involvement in companies.
The Bill would amend the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (the ADJR Act) to provide for decisions made under the proposed amendment to the FMA Act, as I have outlined, not to be subject to administrative review. As decisions about the formation of, and participation in, Commonwealth companies are not administrative decisions impacting on the interests of individuals, the Government considers that it would not be appropriate for such decisions to be subject to administrative review.
The second set of amendments in the Bill would establish a framework for dealing with overpayments within the Judges ' Pensions Act 1968 , theRemuneration Tribunal Act 1973 , and theSocial Security Act 1991 in relation to Australian Government Disaster Relief payments. These changes are technical in nature and would address instances where payments are made by the relevant agency from a special appropriation to recipients, that are not, in practice, consistent with the requirements or preconditions imposed by these Acts and risk breaching section 83 of the Constitution. The proposed amendments are similar in nature to the amendments delivered by theFinancial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2012 .
Finally, the Bill would allow deferred tax asset relief to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation in relation to the transfer of assets from the Military Superannuation and Benefits Fund to the ARIA Investments Trust that occurred in May 2012. This is an operational amendment and follows the Government ' s decision to consolidate the trustees of the Commonwealth ' s main civilian and military superannuation schemes.
This Bill is, accordingly, another step to help ensure that specific areas of the Commonwealth's financial framework remain effective and up-to-date.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES BILL 2013
The bill amends two Acts, the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and theWork Health Safety Act 2011 .
The Staff of ASIS
The amendments to the Intelligence Services Act will create a mechanism for Australian Secret Intelligence Service employees to move to an Australian Public Service agency in the same way that Australian Public Service employees can voluntarily transfer from one Australian Public Service agency to another under section 26 of the Public Service Act 1999 .
These amendments will better facilitate the protection of an ASIS employee's identity as an ASIS officer and broaden the mobility opportunities for ASIS employees in the Australian Public Service.
ASIS employees are not Australian Public Servants. Instead they are Commonwealth officers employed under the Intelligence Services Act.
ASIS officers perform difficult and, at times, dangerous tasks in distant locations. Information about their work and their identities is closely held in order to protect them, their activities and the people they interact with. Indeed it is an offence under section 41 of the Intelligence Services Act to identify a staff member of ASIS, other than in a few prescribed circumstances.
In order to protect their identity ASIS officers are typically identified as public servants. However, this may have unintended consequences when an ASIS officer seeks to move to a public service agency as there is no obvious reason why a person identified as a public servant would not transfer under the Public Service Act like any other public servant.
The amendments include mechanisms by which the Public Service Commissioner and the Director-General of ASIS will agree on how the ASIS classifications correspond to the APS classifications. This will ensure that ASIS levels have an equivalent Australian Public Service level for operation of this new provision and the other related aspects of the Public Service Act (for example the special requirements in respect of merit that apply in relation to promotion).
This proposal does not detract from the Australian Public Service merit principle in engagement. Under section 35 of the Intelligence Services Act the Director-General must adopt the principles of the Public Service Act in relation to employees of ASIS to the extent to which the Director-General considers they are consistent with the effective performance of ASIS's functions. In accordance with this obligation, ASIS's recruitment and promotion policies are based on merit.
Work Health and Safety
This Bill also contains amendments to the Work Health Safety Act 2011 . These amendments will enable the Director-General of ASIS, with the approval of the Minister responsible for the Work Health Safety Act, to make a declaration that specified provisions of the Work Health Safety Actdo not apply, or apply subject to modifications, in relation to persons carrying out work for the Director-General.
These amendments clarify rather than amend existing Work Health Safety policy with regard to national security. The amendments make clear that in administering ASIS and in the exercise of the power to make a declaration the Director-General must take into account the need to promote the objects of the Work Health Safety Act to the greatest extent consistent with the maintenance of Australia's national security.
The Work Health Safety Actalready recognises that national security may not always be compatible with full compliance with Work Health Safety Actand the need to ensure that national security is not prejudiced. However, currently there is no mechanism to modify the operation of the Act to people who perform work for the Director-General of ASIS.
This is in contrast to the position of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) and the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Both of these agencies have mechanisms for modification of the WHS Act under sections 12C and 12D of the Act respectively.
The environments in which ASIS operates overseas are very similar to the environments in which ASIO and the ADF operate.
In these environments the requirements of national security may not always be compatible with full compliance with Australian work health and safety obligations. Indeed full compliance could in some circumstances place people who work for the Director-General of ASIS at risk and prejudice national security.
Therefore there is a similar need for the Work Health Safety Actto be modified in its application to ASIS in appropriate circumstances. Any modification will only occur with the agreement of the Minister responsible for the Work Health Safety Act.
INSURANCE CONTRACTS AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Having a safe, efficient and well-functioning insurance market is vital for all Australians. Insurance enables people and organisations to participate in social and economic activities that they otherwise would not be able to engage in, as they are able to price and transfer risks associated with those activities and with other aspects of their lives.
The important role that insurance plays in Australian society has become even more evident in the past few years with the devastating impact of natural disasters on so many lives.
In recognising the critical role insurance plays and the impact that insurance has on families and businesses the Government has taken and continues to take a number of steps to improve the insurance market in Australia.
In this regard, on 23 November 2011 the Government introduced the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2011 into Parliament. The Bill received Royal Assent on 15 April 2012. The 2012 Act introduced the framework for a standard definition of flood for home building, home contents, small business and strata title body corporate insurance contracts and for the provision of a Key Facts Sheet for home building and home contents insurance policies.
During 2012, regulations to give effect to these two measures were made and I am pleased to say that a significant number of insurers have adopted the standard definition early. This measure in particular ensures that Australians can rely on a common understanding of what flood actually means in these type of insurance contracts.
This Bill, the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013, is yet another example of how the Government is improving the insurance market in Australia. The law governing contracts of insurance has a direct influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the insurance market.
This Bill has been developed over a long period. Its history began back in September 2003, when a Review Panel comprising Mr Alan Cameron AM and Ms Nancy Milne was established to embark on a comprehensive review of the Act.
The Review Panel's final report was released in 2004. The report noted that the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (the Act), which is the primary source of laws regulating the rights and obligations of insurers, insureds and relevant third parties, had generally been operating satisfactorily to the benefit of insurers and insureds. However, the Review Panel found that some changes would be beneficial given the passage of time from the Acts original enactment. Consequently, the Review Panel made some recommendations to give effect to the beneficial changes that they had identified in the review. The review panel also recommended that further consultations should be undertaken on the details of any proposed amendments to give effect to their recommendations.
In 2010 after extended consultation with industry and consumer groups, the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2010 (2010 Bill) was introduced into Parliament. While the 2010 Bill passed the House of Representatives, due to the calling of the 2010 Federal election the 2010 Bill lapsed.
On the Government's return, it was decided that it was appropriate to consult further with key stakeholders to ensure that the amendments to the Act struck an appropriate balance between providing certainty for insurers and ensuring that insureds are able to obtain appropriate outcomes under the Act. Through this engagement, some additional refinements have been made to the proposed amendments to the Act. These refinements further add to the beneficial nature of the amendments to the Act.
The Government appreciates the constructive and thoughtful way that consumer representatives and industry have worked closely together throughout the development of the amendments to the Act.
The Bill includes measures that will:
remove impediments to the use of electronic communication for statutory notices and documents;
make the duty of disclosure easier for consumers to understand and comply with, especially at renewal of household/domestic insurance contracts;
make the remedies in respect of life insurance contracts more flexible and suited to modern life insurance products;
clarify the rights and obligations of persons named in contracts as having the benefit of cover, but who are not parties themselves; and
clarify what types of contracts are exempt from its operation.
Although many of the amendments are technical adjustments to the Act rather than significant changes to the framework of the Act, as a package they will operate to streamline and clarify requirements while maintaining appropriate consumer protections.
The Government is also in the process of developing draft legislation to extend the unfair contract terms laws to general insurance. This will ensure that the protections against unfair contract terms that are enshrined in Australia's consumer protection legislation will also apply to general insurance contracts, which have until now been excluded.
In conclusion, this Bill is yet another significant step made by the Gillard Government, in improving the insurance market in Australia. This Bill provides for a package of improvements and efficiencies to how the Act operates, while maintaining the right balance that the Act aims to strike between the interests of insurers, insureds and the wider public. This Bill will help ensure a better functioning, more efficient insurance market that will ultimately benefit the entire Australian community.
That the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
WATER EFFICIENCY LABELLING AND STANDARDS (REGISTRATION FEES) BILL 2013
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 will provide the necessary legal basis for cost recovery for the WELS scheme.
Background
When the WELS scheme was established by the Council of Australian Governments in 2005, the scheme was intended to recover 80 per cent of its costs through registration fees.
In practice, this level of cost recovery was never achieved. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 provides for charging of fees in relation to a service. The effect of this is that only the costs of registration-related activities may be recovered through WELS registration fees. Other activities of the scheme, including compliance and enforcement, communications, and product standard development, may only be taken into account in scheme fees when authorised by a cost recovery taxing statute.
The COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water has sought changes to the scheme to allow the realisation of its cost recovery target.
Purpose of the Bill
This Bill provides the necessary legal basis for the WELS scheme to recover costs for all its activities. Consequential amendments to the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005, provide for the collection and administration of the fees, and are made in theWater Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 .
This Bill is enabling and mechanistic in nature. It does not itself set the amount of the fees or affect the intended outcome for the scheme registrants. The fees will be set in a ministerial determination, which is a disallowable instrument and which is to be made following consultation with the States and Territories. The Bill does not allow the scheme to recover more than 100 per cent of its costs.
Conclusion
This Bill enables recovery of the full suite of the schemes costs, supporting a directive of the COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water that the capacity of the scheme to recovery costs should be strengthened to ensure the long term viability of the scheme.
WATER EFFICIENCY LABELLING AND STANDARDS AMENDMENT (REGISTRATION FEES) BILL 2013
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 amends the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) Act 2005. This Bill complements the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013.
Background
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards, or 'WELS' scheme was established by the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 as part of the Council of Australian Governments' National Water Initiative.
The WELS Act 2005 provides for charging of fees only in relation to a service. The effect of this is that only the costs of registration-related activities may be recovered through fees charged in relation to registration of WELS products.
Other activities of the scheme, including compliance and enforcement, communications, and product standard development, may only be taken into account in scheme fees when authorised by a cost recovery taxing statute.
Purpose of the Bill
This Bill is complementary to and introduced with the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 .
The Bill makes the necessary consequential amendments to the WELS Act 2005 to ensure that registration fees set under theRegistration Fees Bill will be able to be collected and appropriately administered by the WELS Regulator.
Conclusion
This Bill is integral to the success and long term viability of the WELS scheme, as it makes essential amendments to the WELS Act to allow the proper collection and administration of WELS administration fees; which will be able to recover any or all costs of the WELS scheme.
That the Senate take note of the report.
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
FOURTH AND FIFTH REPORTS OF 2013
TABLING STATEMENT (SENATE)
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH 2013
The Fourth Report of 2013 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sets out the committee's consideration of 24 bills introduced during the last parliamentary sitting week and four legislative instruments that the committee had previously deferred for further consideration.
The committee has identified 12 bills that do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns. The committee will seek further information in relation to the remaining 12 bills and the four legislative instruments.
This Fourth Report of 2013 includes the committee's examination of the six bills that make up a package of legislation on media reform. The committee noted that these bills are the subject of inquiry by three other parliamentary committees. The committee therefore decided to expedite publication of its comments on these bills to assist the work of those committees.
The committee has set out its expectation that the timetable for the consideration of legislation should allow sufficient time for the Parliament to examine draft legislation in some detail. The committee has noted that a fundamental premise of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 is that the examination of draft legislation for human rights compatibility is an important component of Australia's Human Rights Framework, and that the role of the committee is not a purely formal one, nor is it intended to provide after-the-event commentary on legislation.
The committee's Fifth Report of 2013 is its final report on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Act 2012.
Since the committee's interim report on this legislation was tabled in September 2012, additional material has become available to the committee. This Fifth Report of 2013 takes account of that additional information; confirms the committee's interim views where relevant; and presents the committee's final views on this legislation.
The completion of the examination of this legislation has been a long and formative journey for the committee. Senators will appreciate that this matter came before the committee very early in its existence, before it had established work practices around the routine scrutiny of legislation.
I draw the attention of senators to the analytical framework applied by the committee in its interpretation of the underlying human rights obligations and principles engaged by this legislation.
The committee has taken the view that there is considerable overlap between limitations on rights and retrogressive measures, particularly where such measures interfere with an existing enjoyment of a right.
Throughout its consideration of the measures in this legislation, the committee has focussed on three key questions:
In closing, senators will note that I avoid paraphrasing the committee's reports in my tabling statements because it is not possible to do so and still capture the import of the committee's conclusions.
Therefore, I encourage senators to read the committee's comments on legislation in their entirety. To not do so diminishes the work of the committee.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues for their principled approach to the consideration of these complex and contentious issues.
On behalf of the committee I again emphasise our gratitude to the committee's secretariat for their diligence and professionalism in carrying out their work, and their contribution to the collegiate actions of the committee.
I commend the committee's Fourth and Fifth reports of 2013 to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator FAULKNER: … Is there, for example, some form of IDC that has been established to work through this issue? You made the point in answer to previous questions, Ms Kelly, that there are other agencies, which I accept. Of course there are other agencies that have an interest in these issues. Is there an IDC, or some internal government mechanism that allows other agencies and, obviously, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and others to do the necessary work here?
Ms E Kelly: There has not been an IDC established at this point, …
Ms E Kelly: We have not started the consultation process with a view to developing the action plan.
We have, at officials level, been participating in the interdepartmental committee which has been led by the Attorney-General's Department, which has been considering how to develop a coordinated, whole-of-government approach. Mr Rowe went on to explain that the Australian government had not only received high-level communications from the United States Secretary of State but also received a letter from the United Kingdom's Minister for the Cabinet Office, who wrote to the Australian foreign minister about the same matter in January of this year. Neither letter had been responded to—but, to be fair to DFAT, it had been less than a month since the letter from the United Kingdom had been received. An official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also assisted the committee's understanding of why the letters were not responded to, so let me quote Mr Rowe from Hansard again:
It is because this is a relatively new initiative. It is a whole-of-government initiative. DFAT is not the lead coordinator on this. There is a process that has been launched by another agency, which we have been party to, and we have been actively involved. So the reply has been held pending the identification of a coordinated, whole-of-government response.
The IDC has met several times … at director level …
… … …
The IDC met most recently in January.