The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Marine Engineers Qualifications Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act relating to maritime safety to ensure the maintenance of standards of training and certification of marine engineers.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:20]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [11:18]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Cameron)
The Senate divided. [11:23]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Cameron)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2]
We will not be silent. It is not OK to play politics with the lives of people fleeing persecution and tragedy.
We are a nation that has moved forward in regard to our treatment of asylum seekers. We need to move further forward in the interests of compassion and justice. The reintroduction of TPVs would be a massive step backwards.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [11:52]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [11:59]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 at 6.44 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) contingent upon its introduction in the Senate, the Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Go for Fair Use) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report 3 October 2013 (see appendix 1for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2013 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2013 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
27 June 2013
A ppendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Go for Fair Use) Bill2013
Reasons for referra l/ principal issues for consideration:
To canvas expert and community views on four reforms to Australian copyright law proposed by this Bill; the removal of clauses in Australian law that prevent the visually impaired from enjoying purchased content for private and domestic use, the protection of Australia's libraries and educational institutions through a stronger safe harbours provision, the prevention of Australians paying higher prices for software, games and music and the adoption of a fair use model based on the US system which allows the law to respond to new technology that was not, or could not, be foreseen by parliamentarians.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Member organisations of the Australian Digital Alliance—http://digital.org.au/content/ members
Member organisations of the Copyright Council—http://www.copyright.org.au/ Member organisations of the Communications Alliance http://www.commsalliance.eom.au/about-us/membership
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
August
Possible reporting date:
October
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
A ppendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Fair Trade (Workers' Right) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The impacts this Bill will have on international labour standards with our trading partners.
The impact this Bill will have on Australian business' competitiveness.
Consideration on how this bill will advance human rights in developing nations which sign trade agreements with Australia in the future.
Comment on the definition of the minimum labour standards definition.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Trade Unions
International Trade Unions
Local and International Humanitarian NGOs
Australian Civic NGOs Political Parties Business Associations
Small, medium and large business
Australian Citizens
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Possible hearing date(s):
August 2013-December 2013
Possible reporting date:
February 2013
Senator John Madigan
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Public in interest in Overseas Aid
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Action Aid; Oxfam; ACFID
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Possible hearing date(s):
TBC
Possible reporting date:
30 November 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Public interest in improving animal welfare
Possible submissions or evidence from:
RSPCA; Voiceless; Humane Society; WSPA; Animals Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
Possible hearing date(s):
TBC
Possible reporting date:
30 November 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for 28 June 2013:
(a) Senator Bob Carr, on account of parliamentary business; and
(b) Senator Collins, for personal reasons.
That the order of general business for consideration of today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 115 (Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013); and
(b) general business order of the day no. 109 (Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013).
Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to provide for certain minimum standards for products imported into Australia under a trade agreement, 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.
FAIR TRADE (AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS) BILL 2013
Today I introduce the Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013.
Last week I introduced the first of a series of Fair Trade Bills that I hope will bring us closer to that mythical 'level playing field' we hear so much about with regards to our international trade agreements.
The Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill was introduced with the hope that by addressing the pitiful situation of workers' rights in many of the countries with which we trade, Australia will be able to effect some manner of improvement in their conditions, while helping our own industries to become more competitive in our own domestic market.
Today I am pleased to be introducing the second of these Fair Trade Bills.
Just as the rights of workers in so many countries are sub-standard by Australian standards so too we find that many of the products being exported from countries we trade with fail to meet Australian Standards. Under current regulations the import of these products is permitted provided they are brought up to the necessary standard level before being used or on sold within Australia.
As we know there is little policing of these regulations and as a result sub-standard and dangerous products are regularly released into the Australian workplaces and marketplaces, often with tragic results. The immediate finger of blame can be pointed at the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC); but while policing of these regulations does fall to their department; can we honestly expect them to examine every article that enters the country without vastly increasing their administrative budget and workforce ?
I could give example after example of cases where workplace injuries have occurred as a result of sub-standard products being released into the Australian market without having been examined by the ACCC. However, this Bill is not an exercise in berating the ACCC for failing to act or of criticising the government for not dramatically increasing their workforce. This Bill is directed at the Trade negotiations we hold with other countries and the conditions we are prepared to bargain away.
As I said when introducing the Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill, many will say this Bill cannot work because we cannot legislate for countries other than Australia. Again I remind Senators that, while that statement is essentially true, that is not what this Bill seeks to do. After all, unless we have given up all control of our borders, we can legislate on which products we accept into this country and the circumstances under which we will accept them.
The intent of this Bill is simply to ensure that every step possible is taken to comply with the necessary Australian Standards before a product is released onto the Australian marketplace or workplace. Likewise, if an Australian company exports goods to another country, that company should be required to meet local product standards.
At present there are very few requirements for an overseas company to comply with Australian Standards when exporting their products to our shores. Once the product leaves their country their obligations generally cease and it becomes the responsibility of the Australian importer to comply with the regulations to bring the product up to the necessary standards.
Time and again we see importers who fail to meet those requirements and who, once their faulty products are detected, fold up leaving little or no recourse for the Australian consumer. Shortly after another, similar importer sets up business, importing similar or identical goods, and the process starts up again.
The lack of policing leaves workers and consumers at the mercy of shonky operators who import substandard goods and, having decided that a quick profit makes more sense than a safe marketplace, they put lives and livelihoods at risk.
And let's not forget the thousands of genuine businesses across our country who are trying to comply with all necessary regulations and who are committed to selling only those products that meet Australian Standards. How much do they suffer because their business can't compete with these irresponsible importers?
Substandard products do not only injure Australian workers and consumers, they also injure Australian businesses who are trying to compete against all odds in what is ridiculously referred to as a level playing field.
Surely at some point the manufacturer, the overseas exporter, must be held accountable. To produce a product that is acceptable in their own country is their own business; but to produce a product that is acceptable in our country is both our and their business. Ensuring their products are imported by reputable businesses and are on sold only after they have complied with local regulations is simply good business.
The Fair Trade (Australian Standards) Bill 2013 calls for all future trade agreements to include a binding requirement (binding on all parties involved) that goods sold to a purchaser located in one country by a company or entity located in the other country, must comply with all applicable product standards that apply in the purchasers country or if they do not comply – the company or entity selling the products must ensure that the goods are improved to standards that comply with all applicable product standards.
In other words, any product imported to Australia from a country we have a signed agreement with must be guaranteed by the exporting country, to comply with Australian Standards before being used or on sold in Australia. For our part Australia will agree to do the same with regards products we export to their country.
It is hoped that with this requirement in place, companies exporting to Australia will see the benefit in trading only with reputable importers who will bring their products up to standard or will improve their procedures to ensure the goods are up to standard before reaching our shores.
While it is understood that it is difficult to force an overseas company to comply with many of our domestic regulations, the fact that this would be a binding arrangement in a trade agreement means that by not complying with these requirements the exporting company could lose lucrative contracts to competitors who are prepared to abide by the regulations.
Likewise, with pressure on exporting companies to use reputable importers to guarantee long term compliance with the regulations rather than using disreputable importers whose desire for quick profits will damage the standing of the exporter by leading to a breach in the regulations; local importers will have less competition from the 'shonky' operators and will be better able to compete in the local marketplace.
Mr President, again I say there is no level playing field. We know it and the Australian people know it. And what's worse our international competitors know it and are only too glad to exploit it.
Today, instead of raising the standards of imported goods to the levels of quality equal to that of Australian manufacturers, we are expecting Australian producers to compete against low quality goods that are exported by overseas companies with little or no obligation for the final standard of that product. This position is untenable and grossly unfair to Australian consumers, Australian workers and Australian businesses.
While this Bill cannot deal with all the problems we face from cheap imports and under policing, I am hopeful it can go some way towards improving the situation and at least move us towards a more competitive position in our own country.
Copyright Legislation Amendment (Fair Go for Fair Use) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to provide for the better use of, and fairer access to, copyrighted information, 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.
COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FAIR GO FOR FAIR USE) BILL 2013
This Bill introduces four reforms to Australian copyright law to remove discrimination to the visually impaired, protect Australia's libraries, digital innovators and educational institutions, prevent Australians paying higher prices for software, games and music and to adopt the US fair use model which allows the law to respond to new technology that was not, or could not, be foreseen by parliamentarians.
Australian copyright law is out of date, inflexible, unnecessarily complex, imbalanced and virtually blind to digital communication technology such as smartphones used by three out of four Australian adults.
Until our copyright laws were last updated in 2006, it was illegal for Australians to use a videocassette recorder (VCR). The absurdity of this was obvious given the widespread use of this technology in education and entertainment. While the law caught up with the video age eventually, advances in technology have served to make our laws nonsensical once again.
Current anomalies in Australian copyright law include:
When Gutenberg invented the printing press, it was banned for periods of time in some parts of Germany. When libraries were created, the publishing industry feared authors would starve and the book business would die if people could read for free. What soon became apparent is that libraries sharing culture created incentives for further learning, writing and the creation of more culture. Similar types of fears and predictions were aroused by the invention of the photocopier and video cassette recorder.
The internet is all of these things - the greatest library in human history, proliferating and recording information, sharing culture and innovation while providing opportunities to collaborate and communicate despite location. Shutting down the printing presses didn't stop the desire to read and learn. Locking up content that can be shared online and shutting down technology isn't going to either.
The Greens believe that the potentials, benefits and gifts of the online library can be available safely with privacy and human rights and civil liberties intact, as well as copyright preserved for commercial copying, but only if we pay very careful attention to the balance that is being struck between these freedoms and our obligations as citizens. We are currently not getting the balance right.
Technical Protection Measures (TPMs)
Technical Protection Measures (TPMs) lock up content, denying visually impaired people the ability to take advantage of audio editions of e-books (making text to speech) or converting a text book into braille or using voice synthesiser to convert a digital article. Overcoming the barriers to sharing published works across borders is under negotiation at the World Intellectual Property Organisation Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities. This Bill seeks to remove current practices in Australian law that discriminate against the visually impaired.
This Bill provides an exception so that TPMs can no longer prevent visually impaired people from enjoying audio books in accessible formats. It allows service providers - libraries, institutions and those providing assistance to the visually impaired, including online services, to buy content and make it available for the visually impaired in a format to be enjoyed for private and domestic use.
The Bill also requires regulation to ensure that schools, universities and libraries assisting the visually impaired are given an exception in the Copyright Act when that content is lawfully acquired by or on behalf of a person with visual impairment.
Safe Harbour
Currently Australian universities, libraries, schools, digital innovators, cultural institutions and IT companies provide internet services without the benefit of the same safe harbour as their equivalents overseas. A Safe Harbour would allow content provide to make information and culture available online and will be protected by common activities - transmitting data, caching, hosting and referring users to an online location - where service providers do not control, initiate or direct the users' online activities are currently not covered by the scheme.
Having had time to evaluate the changes to copyright law made in 2006, and the disparity in safe harbour schemes provided for Australia in the US Free Trade Agreement, the government recognised the need to address the safe harbour issue in 2011 through initiating an inquiry. The discussion paper proposed the expansion of the range of service providers to be protected, however the government never reported in response to submissions.
This Bill acts to protects Australia's public and other non-profit educational institutions from being liable for how people might use the content made available through their services. It adapts the model adopted in the US in the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act with a simple and technologically neutral definition of a service provider. It also details the responsibilities for public or non-profit institution to promote and comply with copyright law, but recognises limits in the extent to which the institution is responsible for the behaviour of persons utilising their services.
Geocode mechanisms
Geocode mechanisms serve to enforce different prices and associated conditions of use of content by Australian consumers. Australians are paying high prices – much higher prices – for some IT hardware, software, computer games, music and video products due to Geocode mechanisms. This is having a negative impact on Australian businesses and citizens who are limited in engaging with international markets.
This Bill addresses this serious problem of geographic market segmentation is designed to enforce different prices for e-books, films, games, music and recordings for people in Australia. It amends the phrase 'acquired outside of Australia' because consumers downloading content in Australia may not fall under the exclusion 'acquired outside of Australia'. A general phrase is inserted: 'content made available by, with the permission of, or on behalf of, the owner or the exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter.'
Fair Use
A Fair Use reform would shift Australian law to the US model. Such a technically neutral doctrine would allow the law to respond to developments in technology, with the acceptability of new uses of content and technology determined when a dispute arises.
In the Australian system, every new use or technology is forbidden until Parliament gets around to saying otherwise. Under the fair use model, decisions are not made on specific technology through legislation but on the nature and market effect of use of copyright works.
A Fair Use doctrine allows people developing new technologies or who a reproducing and transforming culture to make an assessment of whether their use is fair and if they are challenged they have to defend their use or negotiate terms with the copyright holder. The alternative is a less flexible rule based system where, people with existing lobbing power may have an undue advantage in achieving new exceptions.
This Bill adapts aspects of the US Copyright Act, repealing Section 200AB of the Australian Act.
The arguments for and against the fair use doctrine are being canvassed and examined through the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry and discussion paper. The Greens believe that testing how fair use might translate to the Australian legal system is worth beginning in parallel to that process.
Copyright reform is needed to remove discriminatory barriers that impact the visually impaired or force Australians to pay more for no good reason, to protect our learning and cultural institutions and provide fair rules, fair process and fair opportunities to defend use of copyrighted material.
Australian laws cannot continue to migrate assumptions about copyright from the printed or analogue age which is rapidly passing as we enter the digital age.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish an independent Office of Guardian for Unaccompanied Non-Citizen Children 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.
GUARDIAN FOR UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN BILL 2013
This bill establishes an independent office of the Guardian for Unaccompanied Non-Citizen Children to provide expert care and advocacy for asylum seeker children who arrive in Australia on their own.
No child belongs in detention. We know that keeping children locked up hinders their development and causes them significant mental harm, as the Australian Medical Association and other experts have repeatedly said. We have heard doctors giving evidence to a parliamentary committee that keeping children in immigration detention is tantamount to child abuse.
For refugee children who are here without parental or family support, having fled torture and persecution by taking a harrowing boat trip and now finding themselves alone in a strange new country, there is all the more risk of long-term trauma.
At the time of introducing this bill, there are 75 unaccompanied children in places of detention in Christmas Island, 338 in detention on the Australian mainland and over 257 in community detention.
This bill is spurred by the Australian Greens' long-held policy position that children do not belong in detention, and by our great alarm at the high numbers of unaccompanied children currently exposed to harm in Australia's immigration detention network.
The role of the Guardian established by this Bill is critical in removing the guardianship of unaccompanied children from the government of the day. For decades now, the Minister for Immigration has held the conflicting roles of guardian and detainer of unaccompanied asylum seeker children.
This is because under current law, the Minister has a responsibility to look after unaccompanied children's best interests as their appointed Guardian under the Immigration (Guardianship of Children) Act 1946 as well as a responsibility for deciding whether or not to detain them under the Migration Act 1958.
As immigration law expert Professor Mary Crock has powerfully said, the simple and devastating problem for young asylum seekers is that the Minister is both their legal guardian, and their prosecutor, judge and gaoler.
It is not just advocates and experts in Australia who have, for many years, been forcefully calling for action to address this conflict of interest. The eyes of the world are watching Australia, in relation to this issue as well as the current government's regressive adoption of cruel deterrence polices towards asylum seekers across the board.
In June 2012 Australia appeared before the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to respond to questions on Australia's commitment to improving the fundamental rights and welfare of its children.
The Committee drew specific attention to the issue of the conflict of interest in guardianship and strongly recommended that the Australian Government expeditiously establish an independent guardianship for unaccompanied immigrant children.
A Joint Select Committee into Australia's Immigration Detention Network, which reported to Parliament in early 2012, also recommended that relevant legislation be amended to replace the Minister for Immigration as the legal guardian of unaccompanied minors in the immigration detention system.
In passing this bill into law and establishing the office of the Guardian for Unaccompanied Children, the federal legislature will at last be correcting this much criticised and deeply unsatisfactory failure of Australian law and policy.
This is a crucial reform due to the high stakes of children's full lives, inherent rights and personal wellbeing.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has previously commented that unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum are particularly vulnerable. These children have faced the challenge of making the difficult and dangerous journey to Australia alone, and upon their arrival in Australia they must negotiate the refugee status determination process and the experience of detention without family support.
There are also compelling reasons under international law for this bill to be passed as a matter of urgency.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which Australia is signatory, requires our government to ensure that unaccompanied children who are seeking asylum should receive the extra help they need to guarantee enjoyment of all rights set out under the CRC and international law.
Australia must provide special protection and assistance to ensure that the best interests of unaccompanied children seeking asylum are a primary consideration at all times.
This Bill sets up a Guardian who will be in a position to advocate that children should not be detained by reason of his or her immigration status, or if detained, for the shortest possible period of time. The Guardian will also be mandated to oversee and ensure the provision of legal and other assistance such as care, accommodation, education, language and health support amongst other functions. The Guardian will be responsible for ensuring that the best interests of the child are always the paramount consideration. This is not something that the Minister, who is simultaneously responsible for the detention of the child, can likewise achieve.
This is a reform that cannot wait any longer. As global asylum flows continue to increase, irregular migration continues unabated and boats continue to arrive to Australian territories, our country needs an entirely uncompromised institution to care for the most vulnerable cohort of asylum seekers, unaccompanied children.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate congratulates the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on his speech about climate change.
Reserve Bank Amendment (Australian Reconstruction and Development Board) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Reserve Bank Act 1959, 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.
RESERVE BANK AMENDMENT (AUSTRALIAN RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD) BILL 2013
Rural and regional Australia is struggling. We have heard over and over again the challenges communities are facing, and how they are trying to survive. In recent years, they have borne the brunt of extreme weather events, a high Australian dollar, and a lack of support from State, Territory and Federal Governments.
This bill, which mirrors that introduced in the House by the Member for Kennedy, the Hon. Bob Katter MP, seeks to establish a specific board under the umbrella of the Reserve Bank. The aim of this board is to aid reconstruction and development in rural and regional areas.
In a sense, the proposed board is similar to the Commonwealth Development Bank, which was established in 1960. Its aim was to provide loans to individuals and businesses in the primary and secondary industry sectors, where that support would lead to an increase in productivity and wasn't otherwise available to the applicants.
Rural and regional areas are, in many ways, the lifeblood of our country. Certainly, our farmers play an incredibly important role both in our economy and our national security. Without their produce, we are all at risk.
People living in rural and regional areas face challenges on almost every front. In terms of healthcare, of education, of aged care, and of employment, they have to fight to be counted.
If rural and regional communities do not receive the support they so desperately need, the impact on the rest of Australia will be significant, in both economic and cultural terms.
It is time to overhaul our attitude in this area. Government grants and programs are no longer enough. Instead, we need to establish a body that has the power to make a real, long term difference, such as the board proposed in this bill.
We cannot ignore this problem any longer. Australians living in rural and regional communities deserve better. They deserve security, and they deserve to know the Government is taking meaningful steps to fix this problem.
The measures in this bill will bring about real and long lasting change. And that change will not only benefit rural and regional communities, but the rest of Australia as those communities flourish.
This bill is in the best interests of us all.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2013:
The operation and effectiveness of customs functions within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, with particular reference to:
(a) the effectiveness of controls in place to prevent goods from entering the country illicitly;
(b) issues of alleged misconduct, bribery and corruption in the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service;
(c) any links between staff of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and organised crime;
(d) the extent to which criminal gangs use the proceeds of smuggled goods to fund their activities;
(e) an assessment of the current division of roles and responsibilities of different levels of government (federal, state and local) to respond to smuggling and the integration of these roles to ensure best outcomes;
(f) the incentives and disincentives for criminal organisations to engage in illicit trade;
(g) the levels of illicit tobacco products coming into Australia and the cost to the Australian taxpayer;
(h) options to improve border security and control; and
(i) any related matter.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 19 July 2013:
All matters relevant to the impacts of imposing on Telstra Corporation Limited a carrier licence condition that would require it to produce printed and online national number directories within Australia.
(1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on Cyber Safety be appointed to inquire into and report on options for addressing the issue of sexting by minors.
(2) That the committee present its final report on or before 30 August 2013.
(3) That the committee consist of 6 senators, 3 to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 to be nominated by minority groups or independents.
(4) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(5) That the committee elect as chair one of the members nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
(6) That the chair of the committee may, from time to time, appoint another member of the committee to be the deputy chair of the committee, and that the member so appointed act as chair of the committee at any time when there is no chair or the chair is not present, at a meeting of the committee.
(7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(8) That the quorum of the committee be 3 members.
(9) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
(10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, and that the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the senators appointed to the subcommittee.
(11) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President.
(12) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
That the Senate calls on the Government to bring forward urgently a bill to provide that the legislated increase in the carbon tax from 1 July 2013 does not proceed.
The Senate divided [12:18]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, confirming Australia's commitment to sustainable development through the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of resources, and specifically notes Article 10 of the Convention and its focus on:
(i) encouraging cooperation between government and the private sector in the sustainable use of biological resources,
(ii) protecting and encouraging customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements, and
(iii) supporting local approaches to remedial action in areas of reduced biological diversity;
(b) supports the sustainable use of Australia's national parks and reserves to conserve biological diversity; and
(c) notes the Foundation for Australia's Most Endangered Species recognition of value of hunting in protecting biological diversity, particularly in relation to feral control.
The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the significance of the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), an intergovernmental treaty, which centres on the concept of ‘wise use’ to promote the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, through ecosystem approaches, for the benefit of humankind, and specifically that:
(i) the Ramsar Convention aims are to halt the worldwide loss of wetlands and to conserve through ‘wise use’ management those that remain, and
(ii) that ‘wise use’ means the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources for the benefit of humankind;
(b) acknowledges that:
(i) the Ramsar Convention stresses the importance of maintaining ‘ecological character’ and that this should be done for the peoples’ benefit, and
(ii) the natural environment has inherent value, and value in relation to peoples’ relationship and interaction with it;
(c) supports the wise use of wetlands; and
(d) congratulates Field and Game Australia for the conservation of the Heart Morass, the largest habitat conservation project in Australia.
The Senate divided. [12:27]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Stage 8 of the Roe Highway:
(A) threatens the Beeliar wetlands and its regionally significant vegetation, banksia woodlands and the habitat of fauna, migratory birds and the endangered Carnaby cockatoo, and
(B) would dissect North Lake and Bibra Lake, recognised as valuable biodiversity sites by all three levels of government, and one of the most significant Aboriginal historical sites within the Perth metropolitan area south of the Swan River, and
(ii) the Western Australian Environment Protection Authority received 449 submissions, 29 from organisations and government agencies and 420 from the public opposing Stage 8 of the Roe Highway extension; and
(b) calls on all political parties to:
(i) recognise widespread community opposition for this project, and
(ii) affirm that Commonwealth funding for this project will not be forthcoming.
The Senate divided. [12:31]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 June 2014:
The benefits and risks of the uranium mining industry and the adequacy of federal regulation of the sector, including:
(a) the extent and means through which the findings of the October 2003 Senate inquiry that the uranium sector is characterised by a pattern of underperformance and non-compliance, an absence of reliable data to measure the extent of contamination or its impact on the environment and an operational culture that gives greater weight to short term than long term considerations have been addressed;
(b) an assessment of the wide variance in predictions of future growth estimates of uranium exports and nuclear power;
(c) an assessment of the adequacy of Australian standards and responsibilities in supplying uranium to Japan and the Tokyo Electric Power Company [TEPCO] where demonstrably inadequate regulation was evident;
(d) the Government’s efforts to address recommendations and issues raised in the September 2011 United Nations (UN) system-wide study on the implications of the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant;
(e) an assessment of the adequacy of environmental practices, including security fencing and warning signs to prevent access to land and waters contaminated by exploration and mining activities;
(f) an assessment of the adequacy of worker and community health and safety at uranium mine sites;
(g) the impacts, benefits and costs of uranium mines for Aboriginal people;
(h) an assessment of whether the exemptions for the uranium industry from Aboriginal heritage, environment and water legislation are necessary or justifiable;
(i) the preparedness and resourcing of regional emergency contingency planning for accidents and incidents, including education and training services;
(j) an evaluation of the frequency and severity of transport and handling accidents and the process of issuing and auditing compliance with transport radiation management plans;
(k) the performance and scope of the Australian Safeguards and Non Proliferation Office, including its capacity to fulfil its role with current human and budgetary resources;
(l) the proliferation risks associated with a policy of programmatic open ended permissions for reprocessing Australian uranium rather than a case by case policy;
(m) an assessment of the compliance of Australian uranium companies operating overseas with regard to occupational health and safety and environmental standards and laws; and
(o) other relevant related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar, including in the states of Rakhine, Kachin and Shan, in the Mandalay, Bago, and Yangon regions,
(ii) that in Rakhine State in particular, this has created significant humanitarian concerns given the current monsoon season,
(iii) that Human Rights Watch recently released a report on the unrest in Rakhine State in 2012 and the situation of Rohingya Muslims there,
(iv) That the Australian Government continues to assist affected people in Rakhine State through direct humanitarian assistance, and in 2012-13 provided over $5.79 million in humanitarian assistance to Rakhine State, making Australia one of the largest donors to the crisis, and
(v) That the Myanmar Government and the Kachin Independence Organisation recently reached an agreement on 30 May 2013 following peace talks in Myitkyina (Kachin State), to de-escalate and cease hostilities; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) urge the Myanmar Government to:
(A) redouble its efforts to resolve ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar,
(B) resolve the underlying causes of unrest,
(C) bring to justice those responsible,
(D) ensure proper judicial procedures are applied, and
(E) support the reconciliation of local communities, and
(ii) continue to urge the Myanmar Government to provide appropriate humanitarian assistance, including adequate shelter, and access by humanitarian organisations, to those affected by the unrest.
Omit paragraph (b), substitute:
(b) urges the Myanmar Government to:
(i) redouble its efforts to resolve ethnic and sectarian unrest in parts of Myanmar,
(ii) resolve the underlying causes of unrest,
(iii) bring to justice those responsible,
(iv) ensure proper judicial procedures are applied,
(v) support the reconciliation of local communities; and
(vi) provide appropriate humanitarian assistance, including adequate shelter, and access by humanitarian organisations, to those affected by the unrest.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) Western Australia has the fifth largest reserve of shale gas in the world, and
(ii) the Western Australian Government is providing significant subsidies and royalty reductions to incentivise the gas fracking while failing to establish environmental assessment processes to assess its impact on groundwater, environmental integrity and agricultural productivity; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) explain why the Commonwealth Government deems coal seam gas dangerous to ground water and agricultural productivity but not shale gas fracking, and
(ii) amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013 to apply equivalent Commonwealth regulatory oversight to shale gas as coal seam gas.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the concern of Hansard editors about their trial changes which have reduced their presence in the Senate and House of Representatives chambers, and
(ii) that this trial, if made permanent, has a number of serious implications for the social, legal and historical value of Hansard in the future; and
(b) calls on the Presiding Officers to:
(i) not make decisions which adversely affect or compromise the quality of Hansard services, and
(ii) ensure that the integrity and quality of Hansard is their foremost consideration.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) over one year ago the Australian Heritage Council found that the 30 000 year old rock art complex on the Dampier Archipelago and Burrup Peninsula met two World Heritage criteria, and
(ii) construction of the Yara Pilbara Nitrates ammonium nitrate plant began in November 2012, in breach of approval conditions under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , as a survey of rock art within a 2 km radius of the site has not been completed and no air quality monitoring instruments are in place; and
(b) calls on the Minister to:
(i) commit to taking all necessary steps to have the Dampier Archipelago, which includes the Dampier Archipelago Rock Art Province with its uninterrupted rock art collection spanning 30 000 years, placed on the World Heritage List by 2016,
(ii) confirm That the Dampier Archipelago is on the Tentative List for World Heritage Nomination, and
(iii) urgently suspend construction of the Yara Pilbara Burrup Nitrates ammonium nitrate production facility until approval conditions are met.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Sleep Health Foundation is one of Australia's foremost authorities on sleep disorders and their effects,
(ii) the Foundation aims to raise public awareness of sleep health issues and to improve public health and safety through the treatment of sleep disorders and sleep deprivation, and
(iii) the Foundation's report, Re-awakening Australia: The economic cost of sleep disorders in Australia, 2010 (dated October 2011) estimates the total cost of sleep disorders on the Australian health system in 2010 at $5.1 billion, with a broader economic cost to the community of $31.4 billion;
(b) recognises that reducing the incidence of sleep disorders and sleep deprivation would have a positive effect on the wellbeing of the Australian community as well as on the economy; and
(c) calls on the Government to review the findings of the Foundation's study and consider the inclusion of sleep health issues as part of a broader preventive health strategy.
That the Social Security (Administration) (Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipient) Principles 2013, made under subsection 123UGA(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 , be disallowed.
The Senate divided. [12:45]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013
The issue with employer-conducted labour market testing is that this won’t stop the rorts of the 457 visa scheme. Good employers already recruit for local workers and when they can’t, they make an application to the department to use the 457 visa scheme. The vast majority of Australian employers are decent, law-abiding men and women who use the 457 visa scheme to fill genuine skill shortages. Nonetheless, bad employers exist.
The Senate divided. [13:44]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [13:48]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Page 82 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:
Schedule 17—Further amendments
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004
1 After section 333
Insert:
333A Liability for claim must be determined within 120 days in most cases
Liability for claim must be determined within 120 days in most cases
(1) Subject to subsection (2) and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the Commission must determine whether the Commission accepts liability for the claim in writing in accordance with this Act within 120 days of the date that the claim was given to the Commission.
Note: The Commission must determine whether it accepts liability for the claim within 120 days of the date that the claim was given to the Commission. The time limit in this subsection applies only for the purposes of determining whether the Commission accepts liability and does not impact the time for calculating the amount of damages or determining the assistance that will be provided. The Commission must determine the claim within the shortest reasonable amount of time.
Extension of time when further information required
(2) If, in exceptional circumstances, the Commission requires further information about the claim, the Commission may seek further information in writing from the person making the claim. Where this subsection applies, the Commission is required to determine whether the Commission accepts liability for the claim in writing in accordance with this Act within 180 days of the date that the claim was given to the Commission.
Claim deemed to be rejected
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the Commission is deemed to have rejected a claim made by a person:
(a) where the Commission has yet to determine whether or not it accepts liability for the claim and it has requested further information about the claim under subsection 333A(2) and the person making the claim has responded to that request for further information—on the day that is 180 days after the date that the claim was given to the Commission; and
(b) where the Commission has yet to determine whether or not it accepts liability for the claim and it has not requested further information under subsection 333A(2)—on the day that is 120 days after the date that the claim was given to the Commission.
Note: Where a person makes a claim that is subsequently deemed to be rejected, the person may seek to have the claim reconsidered and reviewed under Chapter 8.
Deemed rejection does not apply where request for further information has not been responded to
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if the Commission has reasonably requested that a person making a claim provides further necessary information and the person fails to respond to that request for further information.
2 At the end of section 350
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the Commission must make a determination revoking, confirming or varying the original determination:
(a) where the Commission has requested further information about the claim and the person making the claim has responded to that request for further information—on the day that is 60 days after the request to reconsider the original determination was given to the Commission; and
(b) where the Commission has not requested further information—on the day that is 30 days after the request to reconsider the original determination was given to the Commission.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
3 After section 61
Insert:
61A Liability for claim must be determined within 120 days in most cases
Liability for claim must be determined within 120 days in most cases
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the person in respect of whom the claim is made is an employee for the purposes of paragraph 6A(1)(a); and
(b) the period for determining each claim for compensation within the period prescribed by the regulations is greater than the period determined under subsection (4).
(2) Subject to subsection (3) and notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the determining authority must determine whether it accepts liability for the claim for compensation in writing within 120 days of the date that the claim was given to the relevant authority.
Note: The determining authority must determine whether it accepts liability for the claim within 120 days of the date that the claim was given to the relevant authority. The time limit in this subsection applies only for the purposes of determining whether the determining authority accepts liability and does not impact the time for calculating the amount of damages or determining the assistance that will be provided. The determining authority must determine the claim within the shortest reasonable amount of time.
Extension of time when further information required
(3) If, in exceptional circumstances, the determining authority requires further information about the claim, the determining authority may seek further information in writing from the person making the claim. Where this subsection applies, the determining authority is required to determine whether the determining authority accepts liability for the claim in writing in accordance with this Act within 180 days of the date that the claim was given to the determining authority.
Claim deemed to be rejected
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the determining authority is deemed to have rejected a claim made by a person:
(a) where the determining authority has yet to determine whether or not it accepts liability for the claim and the determining authority or the relevant authority has requested further information about the claim under subsection 61A(2) and the person making the claim has responded to that request for further information—on the day that is 180 days after the date that the claim was given to the relevant authority; and
(b) where the determining authority has yet to determine whether or not it accepts liability for the claim and the determining authority or the relevant authority has not requested further information under subsection 61A(2)—on the day that is 120 days after the date that the claim was given to the determining authority.
Note: Where a person makes a claim that is subsequently deemed to be rejected, the person may seek to have the claim reconsidered and reviewed under Part VI.
Deemed rejection does not apply where request for further information has not been responded to
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the relevant authority has reasonably requested that a person making a claim provides further necessary information and the person fails to respond to that request for further information.
4 At the end of section 62
(7) Subsection (8) applies if:
(a) the person in respect of whom the claim is made is an employee for the purposes of paragraph 6A(1)(a); and
(b) the period for determining each claim for compensation within the period prescribed by the regulations is greater than the period determined under subsection (6).
(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any other law, the determining authority must make a decision affirming or revoking the determination or varying the determination:
(a) where the determining authority has requested further information about the claim and the person making the claim has responded to that request for further information—on the day that is 60 days after the request to reconsider the determination was given to the determining authority; and
(b) where the Commission has not requested further information—on the day that is 30 days after the request to reconsider the determination was given to the determining authority.
Schedule 18—Review of amendments
1 Minister to cause independent review
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.
(2) The review must consider at least each of the following matters:
(a) the effectiveness of the amendments made by this Act; and
(b) whether any shorter time frame requirements for decision making in relation to liability can reasonably be achieved by the Commission in terms of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 , or by the determining authority in terms of theSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ; and
(c) the timeliness and quality of decision making in terms of claims made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 orSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ; and
(d) whether improvements can be made in terms of the decision making process for claims made under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 orSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ; and
(e) whether the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 orSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 should include specific provisions requiring that compensation and support be provided to claimants within a fixed period of time;
(f) similar provisions in other rehabilitation and compensation scheme in the States and Territories of Australia; and
(g) the ability of the Commission, the relevant authority, the determining authority, Comcare and the Department of Defence to comply with the requirements in the amendments made by Schedule 17 of this Act; and
(h) whether the amendments by Schedule 17 of this Act have a positive or negative impact upon persons making a claim under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 orSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 .
(3) The review must make provision for public consultation.
(4) The review must be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of Schedule 17.
(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 12 month period.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
That the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 2 pm.
I did serve in Kevin Rudd’s cabinet, and I want to continue serving in Prime Minister Gillard’s cabinet. I’ve made a judgement based on the time I’ve spent under both leaders about who I think is best to govern the country. And that is why I’m supporting Prime Minister Gillard.
My view is you need to think about who do you think is the best person to be Prime Minister? Who has the temperament, who has the character, who has the determination and the discipline? And my view is that person is Prime Minister Gillard.
By providing the best treatment in the home communities, the outcomes will improve—
it’s important to build on the effective TB treatment regime that is already established at Daru.
I think it's not possible for the Coalition to say that it has to go back to Indonesia because Indonesia is not the origin country of these people …
No such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia (to) bring back the people to Indonesia.
As it currently stands, the scheme of shipbuilding projects in the Defence Capability Plan creates gaps for the Australian shipbuilding industry with a decline in project activity that has already commenced … These peaks and troughs further deny industry the serious opportunity to invest, develop skills and improve performance over a longer period.
Now it might be easy for you to sit in 7:30 Report land and say that was easy to do. Let me tell you mate, it wasn't. … That is why we've announced a decision that we would not seek to reintroduce this legislation until … global action has been adequate …
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Abetz and Brandis today relating to recent changes in the Government.
He doesn't have the courage and the strength that's required to do this job. What he can do is spread confusion.
The stories that were around of the chaos, of the temperament, of the inability to have decisions made—they are not stories.
… there had been 'unbelievable' leaks during the 2010 election campaign against Ms Gillard and hence the Labor party.
That is unprecedented in Labor's history, that we would have leaks coming out of cabinet to target the then-prime minister during an election campaign, to aid and abet Tony Abbott to win the 2010 election. That destabilisation, that treachery has gone on now for varying degrees for the last 18 months.
At the heart of the Howard government's management of the economy was a raging, unending argument.
"a lucky dip feel", as officials and ministers scrambled to formalise tax cut options and decide which ones would get the go-ahead.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) today relating to the treatment of asylum seekers.
… we've reached the view that as a result of court and tribunal decisions, it's coming up wrong. We need a tougher, more hard-edged assessment.
… they're not people fleeing persecution. They're coming from majority religious or ethnic groups in the countries their fleeing, they're coming here as economic migrants.
… … …
… there is an unsustainable spike in their numbers.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Tabling and consideration of committee reports – pursuant to standing order 62(4)
Chair of the Standing Committee on Publications (Senator Brown) to present 26th report and move for its adoption
Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (Senator Wright) to present report – Current framework and operation of subclass 457 visas, Enterprise Migration Agreements and Regional Migration Agreements
Government Whip (Senator McEwen) to present reports from legislation committees relating to 2013-14 Budget estimates
Chair of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (Senator Polley) to present report – Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (Senator Crossin) to present report – Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee (Senator Stephens) to present report – Implementation of the Defence Trade Controls legislation
Chair of the Standing Committee of Senators' Interests (Senator Bernardi) to present report – Statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations lodged between 28 November 2012 and 26 June 2013
Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Senator Macdonald) to present seventh report and alert digest no. 7 of 2013, together with the work of the committee in the 42nd Parliament: February 2008 to June 2010
Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (Senator Furner) to present the delegated legislation monitor no. 7 for 2013, together with reports:
No. 114—Report on the work of the committee in the 41st Parliament
No. 115—Report on the work of the committee in the 42nd Parliament
No. 116—Report on the work of the committee in 2010–11
No. 117—Report on the work of the committee in 2011–12
Senator Stephens, on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, to present 10th and 11th reports (tabled in the House of Representatives on 26 June 2013)
Deputy Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity (Senator Cash) to present report – Integrity of overseas Commonwealth law enforcement operations
Senator Furner, on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to present report – Review of the Defence Annual Report 2011-12
Deputy Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (Senator McKenzie) to present reports nos 133 and 134
Government Whip (Senator McEwen), on behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, to present report – Referrals made May 2013: Development and construction of housing for Defence at Warner and Enoggera
Government Whip (Senator McEwen) to present additional information received by the committee relating to its inquiry into the advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport and the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013
Government Whip (Senator McEwen) to present additional information received by committees relating to estimates
Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (Senator Crossin) to present progress report
Government Whip (Senator McEwen), on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, to present:
Report no. 439––Review of the Auditor-General's reports nos 11 to 31 (2012–13) (tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 June 2013)
Executive minutes on report no. 434—Annual public hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation (2012) (tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 June 2013)
Executive minutes on report no. 435—Review of Auditor-General's reports nos 33 (2011–12) to 1 (2012–13) (tabled in the House of Representatives on 27 June 2013)
Business of the Senate orders of the day
1–Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee – Report – Current framework and operation of subclass 457 visas, Enterprise Migration Agreements and Regional Migration Agreements
2–Legislation Committees – Reports – 2013-14 Budget estimates
3–Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee – Report – Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
4–Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
5–Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee – Report – Effectiveness of NAPLAN
6–Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee – Report – Victims of sexual and other abuse in Defence
That report No. 26 of the Publications Committee be adopted.
PRESIDENT ' S REPORT TO THE SENATE ON GOVERNMENT RESPONSES OUTSTANDING TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
AS AT 27 JUNE 2013
PREFACE
This document continues the practice of presenting to the Senate twice each year a list of government responses to Senate and joint committee reports as well as responses which remain outstanding.
The practice of presenting this list to the Senate is in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 14 March 1973 and the undertaking by successive governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in timely fashion. On 26 May 1978 the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) informed the Senate that within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible minister would make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the government proposed to take in relation to the report. The period for responses was reduced from six months to three months in 1983 by the incoming government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate announced this change on 24 August 1983. The method of response continued to be by way of statement. Subsequently, on 16 October 1991 [tabled 5 Nov 1991] the government advised that responses to committee reports would be made by letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the Senate at the earliest opportunity. The government affirmed this commitment in June 1996 to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports within three months of presentation. The current government indicated on 26 June and 4 December 2008 that it is committed to providing timely responses to parliamentary committee reports1.
Although, on 29 September 2010, the House agreed to a resolution which places a six month response time on House and joint committee reports tabled in the House2, the Senate has not agreed to a similar resolution. Therefore, this list is prepared on the basis of a three month reporting undertaking for Senate and joint committee reports tabled in the Senate.
This list does not usually include reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights or the following Senate Standing Committees: Appropriations and Staffing, Privileges, Procedure, Publications, Regulations and Ordinances, Scrutiny of Bills, Selection of Bills and Senators' Interests. However, such reports will be included if they require a response. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions in the House of Representatives for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. However, responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an executive minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an executive minute within six months of the tabling of a report. The committee monitors the provision of such responses.
An entry on this list for a report of the JCPAA containing only administrative recommendations is annotated to indicate that the response is to be provided in the form of an executive minute. Consequently, any other government response is not required. However, any reports containing policy recommendations are included in this report as requiring a government response.
Senate committees report on bills and the provisions of bills. Only those reports in this category that make recommendations which cannot readily be addressed during the consideration of the bill, and therefore require a response, are listed. The list also does not include reports by committees on estimates or scrutiny of annual reports, unless recommendations are made that require a response.
A guide to the legend used in the ' Date response presented/made to the Senate ' column
* See document tabled in the Senate on 27 June 2013, entitled Government Responses to Parliamentary Committee Reports–Response to the schedule tabled by the President of the Senate on 29 November 2012 for Government interim/final response.
** Report contains administrative recommendations – any response to those recommendations is to be provided to the JCPAA committee in the form of an executive minute.
______________
1 See House of Representatives Hansard, 26 June 2008, p6131 and 4 December 2008, p1263, and Journals of the Senate, 4 December 2008, p1447
2 See House of Representatives Votes and Proceedings, 29 September 2010, p44
Tabling Statement
Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings: General Principles and Standing
Determinations
For the information of Senators I present the General Principles for the radio broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. These general principles have been adopted by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and are being tabled in both Houses, pursuant to the requirements of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act.
The General Principles set out in this report determine that the allocation of broadcasts between the two Houses should be approximately equal and that Question Time in the House not being broadcast live should be rebroadcast later that day.
These General Principles are essentially the same as those currently in force and detailed at the back of the Standing Orders, but have been written in a more contemporary style.
To come into force, the General Principles must be adopted by both Houses. I expect a motion to that end in the near future as part of a broader redrafting of the resolutions concerning the broadcasting of proceedings.
The General Principles are complimented by Standing Determinations which provide more detailed advice to the ABC for the radio broadcasts.
I encourage Senators to look at the report and I thank the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings for drafting both the General Principles and the Standing Determinations.
I commend the report to the Senate.
Government Response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report: Prospective Marriage Visa program
June 2013
INTRODUCTION
On 23 November 2011, the Senate referred the following matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 1 March 2012:
(a) the number of Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa applications and grants by post, officer, nationality, age of applicant and sponsor;
(b) the risk and incidence of fraud under the Prospective Marriage (subclass 300) visa program, including the incidence of cases where prospective marriages did not occur;
(c) the incidence of Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa applicants and sponsors who entered into an arranged marriage;
(d) the administration, application and effectiveness of eligibility criteria in relation to the Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa program, with a special focus on, but not limited to, protections against fraud, age differences, regard for cultural practices and relationship criteria;
(e) the sufficiency and suitability of assessment procedures to protect against fraud and to ascertain the reliability of consent of an applicant for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa, where it is believed the applicant will be entering into an arranged marriage;
(f) whether current policies and practices of the Australian Government with regard to the Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa or other visa categories are facilitating forced marriages;
(g) the policies and practices that could strengthen protections against fraud and for women in other countries applying for a Prospective Marriage (Subclass 300) visa, from entering into a forced marriage; and
(h) any other related matters.
The Committee tabled the final report for the inquiry on 26 June 2012. The Committee found that there is a high level of integrity within the Prospective Marriage visa program, and concluded that no wide-scale reform of the program is needed. The Committee did however, make the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1
5.14 The committee recommends that:
Recommendation 2
5.22 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship consider modifying its electronic database to enable statistical reporting on the incidence of fraud within the Prospective Marriage visa program (noting that this information is collected but not centrally recorded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship).
Recommendation 3
5.23 The committee recommends that:
Recommendation 4
5.24 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should develop a specific prosecution policy for the offences contained in Subdivision B of Division 12 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 and, after implementation, continue to update the policy as necessary.
Recommendation 5
5.34 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship:
Recommendation 6
5.35 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider establishing a working group to investigate the incidence of forced marriages in Australia and to explore relevant options for assisting victims.
Recommendation 7
5.36 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship develop an information package for newly arrived migrants on a Prospective Marriage visa or Partner visa, which informs such migrants about:
BACKGROUND
The Prospective Marriage visa program allows prospective partners of Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or Eligible New Zealand citizens to enter Australia, marry and apply for permanent residency in Australia.
The Prospective Marriage visa is a temporary visa that must be lodged and decided outside Australia. It is valid for nine months from the date it is issued, and there is no provision for its validity to be extended after the holder arrives in Australia.
To satisfy the requirements for a Prospective Marriage visa, the applicant and sponsor must, among other things, be:
In addition, Prospective Marriage visa applicants must meet certain health and character requirements. Where the application includes persons under the age of 18, the sponsor is also required to satisfy certain character requirements to support the protection of children.
The relationship between the applicant and sponsor is assessed via a range of measures including:
In addition, and as far as practicable, migration regulations requires the couple to demonstrate their commitment to the relationship through assessment of the following four factors:
After the visa holder has entered Australia and married their prospective spouse, who is usually their sponsor, they are expected to lodge a combined Partner (Subclass 820/801) visa application before their Prospective Marriage visa ceases to be in effect.
The Australian Government's responses to the specific recommendations in the Report are set out below.
Recommendation 1
5.14 The committee recommends that:
Response: Accept
The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation to formalise the policy in relation to interviewing all Prospective Marriage visa applicants under the age of 18 separate from their sponsor or family members.
The Government also accepts the recommendation to increase the minimum age of visa holders within the Prospective Marriage visa caseload to 18 years of age.
Whilst the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's (the Department) current policy does not require Prospective Marriage visa applicants under the age of 18 to be interviewed as part of the visa process, the current practice is that all applicants in this category are interviewed, either in person or by telephone.
The Department will amend the Procedures Advice Manual (PAM), which guides decision makers on how to process Prospective Marriage visa applications, to reflect the requirement to interview all visa applicants under the age of 18.
Current Prospective Marriage legislation mirrors the provisions of the Marriage Act by allowing a Prospective Marriage visa to be granted to a person under the age of 18, provided they demonstrate they will have turned 18 by the date of intended marriage or have an Australian court order. Similarly, a visa application can be refused if the relationship is assessed as one that does not have the consent of both parties. Nonetheless, the Government accepts that there are benefits to be gained in increasing the age of Prospective Marriage visa holders to 18, and that the advantages would outweigh the disadvantages.
The Government will take steps to amend the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) to stipulate that a person must be at least 18 years of age when they apply for a Prospective Marriage visa.
Recommendation 2
5.25 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship consider modifying its electronic database to enable statistical reporting on the incidence of fraud within the Prospective Marriage visa program (noting that this information is collected but not centrally recorded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship).
Response: Accept
The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation to enable reporting on incidents of fraud with the Prospective Marriage visa program.
The Government will pursue a regulation amendment to include a public interest criterion that relates specifically to fraud as a requirement for grant of a Prospective Marriage visa. The changes, which are expected to come into effect during 2013, would enable data relating to refusal on fraud grounds to be reported on statistically.
Recommendation 3
5.26 The committee recommends that:
Response: Noted
The Government notes the Committee's support of the Australian Law Reform Commission's (ALRC) recommendation to extend the family violence provisions to Prospective Marriage visa holders who have not married their sponsor.
The Government is currently considering the ALRC's recommendations in relation to family violence and Prospective Marriage visa holders.
In considering this recommendation, the Department is exploring what options, if any, would support their implementation while maintaining program integrity. For example, the Department is considering the option of requiring additional checks for sponsors who have a history of family violence as an added protection measure in the Prospective Marriage caseload, or requiring the visa holder to have traveled to Australia and lived with their sponsoring partner in a spouse-like relationship before allowing them access to the family violence provisions.
Furthermore, the Department is considering how the recommendations will impact on other areas of migration law. For example, implementing the recommendation would require changing the family violence definition to allow family violence to occur outside the relationship, and amending the Partner visa (Subclass 820 and 801) regulations to enable Prospective Marriage visa holders who have not married their sponsoring partner to apply for the visa.
Recommendation 4
5.27 The committee recommends that the Australian Government should develop a specific prosecution policy for the offences contained in Subdivision B of Division 12 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 and, after implementation, continue to update the policy as necessary.
Response: Noted
The Department notes the Committee's recommendation to develop a specific prosecution policy for the offences contained in Subdivision B of Division 12 of Part 2 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The Act contains a number of provisions relating to contrived relationship offences. Section 240 and 241 of the Act focus on organizers who seek to arrange a marriage or a de facto relationship in support of a visa application. These offences carry a penalty of $100,000 or imprisonment for 10 years, or both.
Section 243 prohibits a party to a marriage or de facto relationship from lodging a visa for permanent stay in Australia when the applicant does not intend to live permanently with the other party in that relationship. This offence carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment.
Section 245 of the Act prohibits third parties from intentionally providing false or misleading statements and information to the department concerning whether or not other persons are in a de facto or married relationship. This carries a penalty of up to 12 months imprisonment.
The above provisions are underpinned by section 234 of the Act which prohibits the supply of false or misleading information and documents to the Department.
Based on its experience, the Department is of the view that, where possible, administrative action such as visa cancellation or refusal, is a more practical option for dealing with cases involving fraud, as opposed to considering prosecution.
The Department also has preventative measures in place, as detailed in its submission, to identify and respond to sham relationships.
Recommendation 5
5.34 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship:
Response: Accept
The Department already has arrangements in place which allow its officers to record the non-consent of one of the parties to a Prospective Marriage visa application in such a way that enables this information to be prevented from being disclosed to a third party.
The Government agrees to investigate and implement ways of utilizing this 'non-disclosable' information to refuse a visa application without compromising the safety of the non-consenting party. This will include canvassing ways of working with the Migration Review Tribunal to ensure consistency in approach and decision making.
The Government also accepts the recommendation to amend the Procedures Advice Manual to expressly require Prospective Marriage visa program decision makers to investigate and assess 'real consent' of applicants and sponsors as far as possible.
The Marriage Act 1961 (the Marriage Act) stipulates that the legal age for marriage in Australia is 18. The Marriage Act does allow persons under the age of 18 to marry, however, sufficient safeguards have been put in place in relation to underage and forced marriage. These provisions meet Australia's obligations under Article 16(2) of the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against women, which require State parties, among other things, to specify a minimum age for marriage, and states that the marriage of a child has no legal effect.
Section 23B of the Marriage Act provides that a marriage is also void where the consent of either of the parties is not real consent because:
(i) it was obtained by duress or fraud;
(ii) that party is mistaken as to the identity of the other party or as to the nature of the ceremony performed; or
(iii) that party is mentally incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the marriage ceremony.
There are adequate legal grounds to refuse a Prospective Marriage visa if there is no 'real consent' as the intended marriage would not be valid in Australia. The proposed PAM update will guide decision makers accordingly.
The Department has already commenced a number of measures to highlight the issue of 'real consent' and provide guidance to decision makers on detecting and dealing with cases where this may be of concern. These measures include the introduction of a specific question in the visa and sponsorship application forms from November 2012 which will require both applicant and sponsor to declare if they have entered into the relationship freely and without any force or coercion.
This will be followed by the development of specific guidelines to be included in the Procedures Advice Manual on how to detect and assess 'real consent' of applicants and sponsors while processing a Prospective Marriage visa application, as well as what action to take if it is established that consent has not been given. It must, however, be acknowledged that consent is a abstract concept and so, while decision makers should turn their minds to it, there will continue to be practical difficulties in assessing the genuineness of consent.
When collecting and recording personal and sensitive information, departmental officers must comply with the Information Privacy Principles of the Privacy Act 1988 , including information relating to non-consent to a marriage. The challenge the Department faces is therefore not in recording information that a party does not consent to an intended marriage, but rather using it as the reason for refusing a visa application. This is because the legislation requires decision makers to disclose to the visa applicant all adverse information that will form the reason or part of the reason for a refusal decision, except where the information is 'non-disclosable '.
Section 5(1) of the Migration Act sets out the definition of non-disclosable information, that being:
'non-disclosable information' means information or matter:
(a) whose disclosure would, in the Minister's opinion, be contrary to the national interest because it would:
prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia; or
involve the disclosure of deliberations or decisions of the Cabinet or of a committee of the Cabinet; or
(b) whose disclosure would, in the Minister's opinion, be contrary to the public interest for a reason which could form the basis of a claim by the Crown in right of the Commonwealth in judicial proceedings; or
(c) whose disclosure would found an action by a person, other than the Commonwealth, for breach of confidence;
and includes any document containing, or any record of, such information or matter.
Despite the provision to exempt non-disclosable information from being included in a refusal decision record, the decision must, as a minimum, contain the legislative criteria that have not been met. Whilst this may protect the source that provided the information and reasons why the criteria have not been met, the mere fact that a specific criterion has not been met may still be enough to alert the sponsor and possibly third parties, such as the applicant's family, that the Department has become aware of the applicant (or sponsor's) non-consent, which may, in turn, compromise that person's safety.
The Department will continue to work in conjunction with the Migration Review Tribunal to develop sensitive and consistent approaches to cases where a party does not freely consent to a relationship.
Recommendation 6
5.37 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider establishing a working group to investigate the incidence of forced marriages in Australia and to explore relevant options for assisting victims.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government accepts in principle the need to investigate instances of forced marriage in Australia and explore options for assisting victims. However, given that a number of Government agencies are currently working to address these and other issues through several forums and initiatives, the Government's view is that these matters are best addressed through existing forums rather than the creation of a new working group.
The Attorney General's Department is the lead agency on matters relating to the policy and legislation which govern forced marriage in Australia. New laws criminalising forced marriage were introduced in 2013. Under these laws, forced marriage offences will carry a maximum penalty of four years imprisonment or seven years imprisonment for an aggravated offence where the victim is under the age of 18, is subject to cruel or inhuman or degrading treatment, or is put at risk of death or serious harm.
Following passage of legislation criminalizing forced marriage, suspected victims of forced marriage may be eligible for access to the Support for Trafficked People Program, which is administered by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and delivered by the Australian Red Cross. However, under the existing legislative framework, a victim of forced marriage may already be eligible for the Support Program if he or she is also the victim of a slavery, slavery-like, or people trafficking offence.
The Australian Institute of Criminology is currently undertaking research on the role marriage plays in offences involving the trafficking of persons. In specific, the research related to investigations instances where marriage has been used to facilitate trafficking or related exploitations.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will undertake a research project during 2013 to collate existing literature on violence against migrant women and forced marriages among migrants. This will include working with stakeholders to identify options for further research and collaboration.
Recommendation 7
5.38 The committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship develop an information package for newly arrived migrants on a Prospective Marriage visa or Partner visa, which informs such migrants about:
Response: Accept in principle
The Government accepts the recommendation, and the Department will work with other stakeholders to provide as much information as possible to potential visa applicants, newly arrived migrants and the wider community about the law in Australia with respect to family violence and forced marriages.
The Department has a number of publications which contain information for newly arrived migrants on the law in Australia with respect to family violence. The most comprehensive publication, entitled Beginning Life in Australia , is available on the Department's website in 37 community languages.
Evidence given at the Committee's public hearing of 25 May 2012 suggests that educating the wider community, particularly English language and settlement service providers, could be a more effective way of making information accessible to visa holders.
The Department will review the current information products, which include Beginning a Life in Australia andBooklet 1: Partner Migration to ensure they contain adequate information about support services and options available for victims of family violence or forced marriages.
In addition, the Department will ensure this information is available more widely than just through its website, for example, by disseminating it to settlement service providers and Adult Migrant English Language Program (AMEP) centres who are more likely to come in contact with potentially affected persons through the services they provide.
The Department will also consider engaging with non-government organizations, through the National Roundtable on People Trafficking, to distribute the information to a wider network to raise awareness within the community on forced marriage issues, particularly in the migration context.
Australian Government response to the former Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts report:
Conserving Australia: Australia ' s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas (April 2007)
The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report by the former Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Conserving Australia: Australia ' s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas (the report), tabled in April 2007. The Committee examined the funding and resourcing of Australia's national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas under the former Howard Government.
Australian governments have long recognised that our natural environment is under threat. Climate change is a major threat, but it is not the only one. Our biodiversity, our clean air, our fresh water, our oceans, landscapes and special places are also under threat from the long established impacts of human use, including land clearing, urban development, invasive species, pollution and unsustainable use of natural resources.
The Australian Government has taken a pro-active approach to natural resource management and environment conservation through national reform in a number of key areas, including the way in which our environmental and natural resource assets are protected and funded. There have been major investments in our national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas and a shift in approach that prioritises investment in the skills and knowledge of our communities, including Indigenous Australians, to foster more effective partnerships with regional and other organisations to deliver landscape-scale change.
A number of issues identified in the report have been addressed and prioritised for funding under the first phase of Caring for our Country, and the government announced in the 2012‑13 Budget the continuation of this initiative for another five years from 2013-14 to 2017-18.
In November 2012, the Australian Government announced the proclamation of 40 new Commonwealth marine reserves. This brings to an end the development of the Commonwealth waters component of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, as agreed by all Australian governments in 1998. The new reserves came into effect on 17 November 2012. They comprise the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve and the South-west, North-west, North and Temperate East Commonwealth marine reserves networks. These reserves are in addition to the existing South-east Commonwealth marine reserve network (established in 2007), Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve (established in 2002) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The new Commonwealth marine reserves add more than 2.3 million square kilometres to Australia's marine reserve estate, resulting in a total area of 3.1 million square kilometres of Commonwealth waters (across 60 reserves) being managed primarily for biodiversity conservation.
Other initiatives have included: the continued engagement of Indigenous peoples to declare and manage Indigenous Protected Areas; development of the National Wildlife Corridors Plan; and support offered to land managers through the Biodiversity Fund under the Clean Energy Future Plan.
Table 1 presents the Australian Government's response to the majority report of the Committee.
The Australian Greens, while supporting many of the recommendations of the majority report, identified a number of key recommendations that they did not support as well as issues which they believed had not been given adequate consideration. These comments were presented as a minority report.
As with issues raised in the majority report, the Australian Government has progressed a number of these issues through new and ongoing initiatives. For example, the Biodiversity Fund is seeking to address the impacts of climate change on our biodiversity, including through funding for the management of threats to protected areas as well as privately owned land. Similarly, the Australian Government has established the National Wildlife Corridors Plan which embeds the concept of resilience into managing Australia's private and publicly-owned and managed land. Table 2 presents the Australian Government's response to the minority report.
Table 1. Majority Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Table 2. Minority Report from the Australian Greens
Reports of the Auditor-General:
No. 52 of 2012-13 – Performance audit – Management of debt relief arrangements: Australian Taxation Office
No. 53 of 2012-13 – Performance audit – Agencies’ implementation of Performance Audit recommendations
No. 54 of 2012-13 – Performance audit – Administration of Government Advertising Arrangements: August 2011 to March 2013
No. 55 of 2012-13 – Performance audit – Indigenous Employment: The Australian Government's Contribution to the Australian Employment Covenant: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013
The Australian Government should amend the Trade Practices Act 1974 to have restaurant and café menu surcharges for specific days placed outside the scope of the component pricing provision of that legislation.
There has been attack on the Prime Minister—
going back to the last election. There was destabilisation and leaking then; it's been going on since. … So if we're talking about attacking sitting prime ministers and destabilisation, I think Kevin—
should look in his own backyard because this has been going on for too long …
Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013
Governments are urged to take the necessary measures to prevent infanticide, prenatal sex selection, trafficking in girl children and use of girls in prostitution and pornography.
We do not know how widespread this practice is in Australia but we know there have been instances, and anecdotal evidence suggests these are not isolated.
One such procedure performed in this country is one too many.
Everyone has the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. States should take all appropriate measures to ensure, on a basis of equality of men and women, universal access to health-care services, including those related to reproductive health care, which includes family planning and sexual health. Reproductive health-care programmes should provide the widest range of services without any form of coercion. All couples and individuals have the basic right to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children and to have the information, education and means to do so.
(a) the professional service involves a medical practitioner performing:
(i) a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman;
(ii) a service that relates to or is connected with performing a medically induced termination on a pregnant woman; and
(b) the termination is carried out solely because of the gender of the foetus.
During my time here there will no doubt be a number of controversial bills proposed. I do not intend to be deliberately controversial simply for a few cheap headlines but on some issues I cannot be complicit by my silence.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
… take the necessary measures to prevent infanticide, prenatal sex selection, trafficking in girl children.
… uphold the rights of girls and women and to address the multiple manifestations of gender discrimination including the problem of imbalanced sex ratios caused by sex selection.
… enact and enforce legislation protecting girls from all forms of violence, including female infanticide and prenatal sex selection.
The Australian Greens condemn the practice of gender biased sex selection abortions.
NFAW is aware of the existence in some countries of such practices [being gender based sex selection], and finds such practices abhorrent, as we find the cultural practice of female genital mutilation.
The use of ultrasound technology to determine the gender (sex) of an unborn child combined with the traditional cultural preference for sons and the availability of abortion has led to increasing imbalances in the sex ratio in countries such as India, China, Nepal, Vietnam, the Caucasian republics and parts of the Balkans.
The range in the sex ratio at birth if there is no interference in normal biological processes is between 102 and 108 boys for every 100 girls. Any ratio outside this range points to human intervention.
… Australia has an entirely normal ratio of male to female births, which would suggest that sex selective abortion is rare,
… … …
Just over half (51%) of all births registered in 2011 were male babies, resulting in a sex ratio at birth of 105.7 male births per 100 female births. The biologically normal sex ratio at birth ranges from 102 to 106 males per 100 females. It is also worth noting that most abortions occur early on in pregnancy, before the sex of the foetus is known.
Sex selection is an ethically controversial issue. The Australian Health Ethics Committee believes that admission to life should not be conditional upon a child being a particular sex.
It is through widespread societal change in attitudes towards women that lasting improvements to the lives of women will be achieved.
We have a bizarre double standard in this country where someone who kills a pregnant woman's baby is guilty of murder but a woman who aborts an unborn baby is simply exercising choice.
We are not aware of evidence establishing that sex selective abortions occur in Australia or that Medicare funding has been used to this purpose. We also note that the Explanatory Memorandum and Second Reading Speech for the Bill material do not refer to any specific reports or research on these issues.
… the Bill fails to identify and address the potential for erosion of human rights, for example, the risk of such legislation obstructing access to safe, affordable, legal reproductive health options, including abortion.
Last financial year we had around 28,000 client visits and in the 85 years we have been operating we have no evidence to suggest that pregnancy terminations occur solely on the basis of gender selection.
Moreover, the Medicare rebate Senator Madigan is proposing to restrict is also used to fund miscarriage and fetal death; there is no way to extricate numbers of voluntary terminations from unintended pregnancy endings.
The absence of evidence that a problem exists raises the question as to the real motives for the development of this bill. What is known is that Senator Madigan and his Democratic Labour Party …are opposed to every women, for any reason, having access to safe and legal abortion.
Restrictions of this nature would be untenable because of the practical difficulties they impose on both health professionals and women.
Restrictions on sex selective abortion in countries such as China and India have not proved successful. Moreover, restrictions on sex selective abortions, if introduced in Australia, have the potential to perpetuate racial and sexual discrimination by ‘stereotyping and racial profiling of Asian women whose motivations for an abortion would be under suspicion.’
Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013
Young teens often have a desire to be free of their parent’s authority to gain acceptance as grown‐ups. Teens are naive and inexperienced, especially in dealing with adults who have ulterior motives. Sexual predators take advantage of this naivety. They manipulate kids in an effort to gain trust, which they use to gradually turn seemingly innocent online relationships into real‐life sexual interactions. A predator usually approaches a child initially through harmless chat room or instant message dialogue. Over time—perhaps weeks or even months—the stranger, having obtained as much personal information as possible, grooms the child, gaining his or her trust through compliments, positive statements, and other forms of flattery to build an emotional bond.
We are seeking to add this vital law to address the common denominator in the way online predators behave, they all set up false online profiles, most reduce their online age to present as a peer to the child with the intention to meet that child.
I put it to you that no adult could have a legitimate reason for establishing false profiles with fake names, age and photos to contact and meet a child that is not known to them for legitimate purposes. The proposed law is specifically tailored to that fact.
As a nation we need to support our law enforcement units that are dealing with this new form of stranger danger, to ensure that once they have identified a predator, they have the support of this Parliament to apprehend these criminals.
… … …
This proposed law—
is the gap between our law enforcement agencies and the ability to make a difference before it’s too late. We have comprehensive laws that protect us from those who seek to commit an act of terror, apprehending the persons evolved prior to the event. I believe we also need to have laws that protect our children on the same basis, to prevent an act of terror, terror that may or may not end in death, but may cause a lifetime of trauma.
It is possible that by requiring an intention to encourage a physical meeting only, this offence may be easier to investigate and prosecute than existing grooming and procuring offences which require evidence of sexual intent, allowing law enforcement agencies to intervene during the preparatory stage of an offence before proof of sexual or other illicit intention is apparent.
A 2005 survey of 742 teens (aged 13 – 18) and 726 tweens (aged 8 – 12) conducted by the Polly Klaas Foundation (USA) reported … 54% of teens admitted communicating with someone they’ve never met using an Instant Messaging program, 50% via email and 45% in a chat room. 16% of all respondents … discovered that someone that they were communicating with online was an adult pretending to be much younger.
Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
If an NFP wants to hire a local hall at a discounted charitable rate, gain a concession on local rates charges, achieve a reduction in payroll tax, put forward a submission for funding, participate in a government tender process, register a fundraising activity or seek to claim a concession of any kind, the organisation must be able to produce some kind of bona fides, a kind of organisational passport. At present no such document exists. Charities are forced to provide copies of letters from the Australian Taxation Office that define their eligibility for taxation concessions as proof of their charitable status. This situation has proven to be very problematic, costly and counterproductive.
charity means an entity:
(a) that is a not-for-profit entity; and
(b) all of the purposes of which are:
(i) charitable purposes (see Part 3) that are for the public benefit (see Division 2 of this Part); …
(a) the achievement of the purpose would be of public benefit; …
(i) the general public; or
(ii) a sufficient section of the general public.
The Senate divided. [19:44]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [19:50]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Coalition senators consider that the terms of the … Bill 2013 are directed at a number of apparently useful changes to existing legislation. Some of those changes have been expressly welcomed by submitters to the inquiry.
However, Coalition senators take this opportunity to outline their concerns with the lack of proper scrutiny which this bill has been afforded under this rushed reference to the committee.
Input to this inquiry has been seriously hampered by the restrictive timeframe, putting at risk the strong reputation of this committee for conducting careful and comprehensive scrutiny of every bill referred to it.
It is this fact that Australian Lawyers for Human Rights … raise in their submission where they state:
The fact that submissions are required in less than 40 hours destroys any notion of accountability and public scrutiny which is sought to be provided by public involvement in the committee process.
They go on to say:
However because of the time period the Parliament has chosen to allocate for submissions, ALHR—
are unable to assess and respond on these matters. We would like the Committee to note our concern and opposition to such a short time being made for submissions.
What we've made very clear to the Indonesian government is that we will set in place an administrative arrangement where the matter is not referred to the AFP but there will be a determination by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and then the International Office of Migration will accompany those minors home as quickly as possible.
The fact that submissions are required in less than 40 hours destroys any notion of accountability and public scrutiny which is sought to be provided by public involvement in the committee process.
However because of the time period the Parliament has chosen to allocate for submissions, ALHR are unable to assess and respond on these matters. We would like the Committee to note our concern and opposition to such a short time being made for submissions.
The fact that submissions are required in less than 40 hours destroys any notion of accountability and public scrutiny …
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013
The government has decided not to go ahead with the industrial relations bill this session. The legislation will not be debated and will be left to lie on the table. There is already a large measure of agreement between employer groups, the union movement and the government on the legislation, but some significant differences remain. This government has constantly pursued a process of consultation rather than confrontation. Because of the remaining differences of view over the legislation, the government will have discussions …
The reason we are opposing the amendments is that we had a policy on workers' entitlements before the last election, and we are implementing them. We do not believe that we should adhere to opposition amendments which were not flagged at the last election and are not part, as far as we can tell, of any appreciable opposition policy. It is policy on the run, which we have learnt about today.
Obviously a number of unions may be disappointed with elements of what we put forward, in particular in relation to right of entry provisions.
We believe it is important that we have a clear cut set of rules around that which does not provide unnecessary burdens for employers. We've got to make sure that when it comes to what's referred to as the union right of entry that that is prescribed to defined areas and properly authorised, and on the detail of all that, we're confident that we are going to get that balance right as well.
I consulted for hour after hour with business leaders, with union leaders, with small business leaders to get the balance right.
We built a modern and fair system that has got the balance right.
At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate notes that the Government:
(a) circulated amendments in the House of Representatives to excise Schedule 3 of this bill which would have removed the right of entry provisions, but decided at short notice to not proceed with these amendments; and
(b) has not explained why it decided to not proceed with these amendments”.
I think there is a real risk that will happen.
If you look at the numbers the commission has said it is planning on, now that's a huge number, as it is. It's very, very difficult to know what people will do.
I certainly think it would have been more sensible to build in some form of filtering mechanism to deal with bullying complaints.
Professor Stewart said the amendment was unnecessary as the commission already had the power to deal with disputes about where meetings were held in workplaces. "It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut," he said. "The number of workplaces where there is a dispute about union rights of entry are incredibly small and the commission has got the power to deal with those."
"There are going to be a lot of workplaces where it is not obvious where the lunchroom is. I think, in the end, rather than coming up with a sensible compromise, we have ended up, through political posturing and unpredictable shifts in views from the independents, with something less than optimal."
Economic growth without a significant population increase requires a flexible workforce to be paid fair and affordable wages. When laws prevent this and impose outdated standards to the detriment of job creation and higher incomes for all, it is time for modernisation.
In those small workplaces, as you know, if you sack someone because of penalty rates on a Sunday then you have to look that person in the eye and say, 'I'm sorry; you have to go.' It hurts you. It hurts them more, because that is money gone, but it hurts a small business owner because this is someone who they have been working with, who they potentially value, who lives nearby and who is part of their community.
The FWC, in ensuring that modern awards provide fair and relevant minimum conditions, must take into account the need to provide additional remuneration for overtime; unsocial, irregular and unpredictable hours; work on weekends of public holidays; and shift work.
The laws that we have in Australia concerning union right of entry—
if we're elected to form the next government, it would be identical to those which currently exist under this Government.
I have no time for any thuggery from any individual and that includes this individual—
hence my recommendation to the national executive that he—
be expelled from the party forthwith …
… the Minister's stance before and during the oral hearing was not that of an intervener, but that of a partisan. For example, some of the Minister's oral submissions were directed to factual material. This is hardly the province of an intervener.
Whatever hype people talk at conferences it is not the proof of the pudding; the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
… we engage in tripartite and bilateral negotiations and discussions with employers and industry and government bodies on a daily basis.
I go to the question of bullying. Give me your view of bullying and intimidation.
the honour of being ambassador of the year ….
We are very much opposed to bullying in the workplace.
You and your union have a zero tolerance approach—I am delighted to learn that.
The Senate divided [22:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
(1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 16 (line 6), omit "allows a worker", substitute "allows a worker or employer".
(2) Schedule 3, item 3, page 16 (line 17), omit "Workers bullied at work", substitute "Workers or employers bullied at work".
(3) Schedule 3, item 4, page 16 (line 21), omit "workers bullied", substitute "workers or employers bullied".
(4) Schedule 3, item 5, page 17 (line 1), omit "workers bullied", substitute "workers or employers bullied".
(5) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 5), omit "Workers bullied", substitute "Workers or employers bullied".
(6) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 8), omit "a worker who", substitute "a worker or employer who".
(7) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 9), omit "stop the bullying", substitute "stop the bullying after seeking advice from the Fair Work Ombudsman or Safe Work Australia or such other organisation as prescribed by the regulations".
(8) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 12), omit "Stopping workers", substitute "Stopping workers and employers".
(9) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 14), omit "A worker who", substitute "Subject to subsection (1A), a worker or employer who".
(10) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (line 15), omit "at work", substitute "at work by a worker, employer or official of a registered organisation".
(11) Schedule 3, item 6, page 17 (after line 15), after subsection 789FC(1), insert:
(1A) Prior to applying to the FWC for an order under section 789FF, the worker or employer must seek preliminary advice from one of the following organisations confirming that the behaviour in question does, or may, constitute bullying and that alternative remedies have been considered:
(a) the Fair Work Ombudsman;
(b) Safe Work Australia;
(c) an occupational health and safety organisation of a State or Territory prescribed by the regulations pursuant to subsection (1B).
(1B) The Governor-General may make regulations prescribing an occupational health and safety organisation of a State or Territory. However, if the Governor-General makes the regulation, the regulation must include at least one occupational health and safety organisation from each State and Territory.
(12) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 3), omit "worker bullied ", substitute "worker or employerbullied ".
(13) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 4), omit "A worker", substitute "A worker or employer".
(14) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 5), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(15) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 8), at the end of subparagraph 789FD(1)(a)(ii), add "or".
(16) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (after line 8), after subparagraph 789FD(1)(a)(ii), insert:
(iii) an official of a registered organisation;
(17) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 9), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(18) Schedule 3, item 6, page 18 (line 10), omit "group of workers of which the worker is a member", substitute "group of which the worker or employer is a member".
(19) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 12), omit "a worker", substitute "a worker or an employer".
(20) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 14), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(21) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 16), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(22) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 18), omit "order it considers appropriate", substitute "order it considers appropriate, including an order revoking a union right of entry permit,".
(23) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 20), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(24) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 27), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(25) Schedule 3, item 6, page 19 (line 30), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
(26) Schedule 3, item 6, page 20 (line 7), omit "a worker", substitute "a worker or employer".
(27) Schedule 3, item 6, page 20 (line 8), omit "the worker", substitute "the worker or employer".
The Senate divided. [22:08]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
(2) Schedule 4, page 23 (line 1) to page 31 (line 29), TO BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 7, Part 5, page 54 (line 22) to page 55 (line 9) TO BE OPPOSED.
The Senate divided. [22:12]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7), omit the table item.
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013
I grow tired of saying this—Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.
Labor is committed to the maintenance of this rebate and I have given an iron-clad guarantee on that on a number of occasions.
The truth is that I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate …
On many occasions for many months, Federal Labor has made it crystal clear that we are committed to retaining all of the existing Private Health Insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, including the 30 per cent general rebate and the 35 and 40 per cent rebates for older Australians.
The private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.
The Government is firmly committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates.
… exclusions and restrictions have become much more prevalent.
… … …
… the increased use of exclusions may … work against the policy objective of private health insurance in easing the burden on public hospitals.
In response to the reform, many insurers promoted prepayment options to maximise their customers’ opportunity to claim a rebate in respect of premiums paid. As a result, policy holders were able to ‘lock in’ premiums for up to the specified prepayment period, which saw prepaid premiums increase by $1.2 billion.
… … …
… the impact on policy holders’ choice in respect of cover will emerge as prepayment periods end.
… the number who could face a debt may be even higher because a further 25 per cent did not know what difference it would make to their tax return.
'This means that almost half of the 1.7 million Australians on incomes captured by the means test could be in for a surprise come tax time,' said Galaxy's research director Peter Matthew.
'The loading will differ from person to person, but I'm 74 and that is a difference of $937,' Mr Peters said.
'With the rates and everything else going up, it's just another cost.'
Mr Peters said once the change went into effect, it would result in more people turning to the public health system.
'It will just blow out the waiting list again,' Mr Peters said.
… the removal of the rebate on the Lifetime Health Cover loading component of Private Health Insurance premiums will result in a further 1% to 18% (average of 10.6%) price increase from the 1 July 2013 for those with Lifetime Health Cover loadings. This will impact approximately 17.9% of GMHBA memberships (approximately 40,000 individuals). In simple terms the removal of the rebate means a 42% increase in the loading for these members.
According to Private Healthcare Australia - the Australian Taxation Office & Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3.4 million people with private health insurance live in households with incomes less than $35,000 per annum. A staggering 5.6 million people with private health insurance live in households with gross annual incomes below $50,000.
The decision to increase the rebate each year in line with the lower of the CPI or the Government-approved increase to premiums is discouraging to older Australians who have attempted to provide for their own health care.
For consumers, health insurance will be more expensive and more opaque because of the proposed legislative changes. To determine their costs, consumers must now apply the relevant (Australian Government Rebate) percentage to the ‘base premium’ for the relevant product, which is directly linked to general CPI. After determining their AGR entitlement, it is deducted from the ‘commercial’ premium to finally calculate the level of direct contribution they are required to make to their health insurer.
The situation is further complicated for consumers who incur a lifetime health cover (LHC) loading. The LHC loading is calculated with reference to the ‘commercial premium’, not the ‘base premium’ and added to the direct contribution the consumer must make.
The private health insurance rebate policy remains unchanged and will remain unchanged.
Both my Shadow Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, and I have made clear on many occasions this year that Federal Labor is committed to retaining the existing private health insurance rebates, …
The impact increases with the higher the level of rebate policyholders currently receive, resulting in lower income earners (those not in the means tested tiers) being the most disadvantaged by the proposed changes. It has been estimated by a typical HIRMAA fund that this impact will amount to an average 8.4% premium increase in the first year of implementation (commencing 1 July 2013). For those with significant loadings, the premium increases will be much higher.
… … …
The measure provides a disincentive to everyone without PHI who is over 31 years of age from purchasing PHI. … For those policyholders who are paying a LHC loading, removal of the rebate on the LHC loading component for those who are close to having held hospital cover for 10 years will most likely be perceived by these policyholders as being grossly unfair …
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 5 (line 7).
The Senate divided. [22:59]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [23:03]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
It's true, some are being challenged economically at the moment, but there is plenty to be excited about in our community at the same time. "The Here & Proud" campaign is designed to bring into focus the great things that are happening and the great people we have in our region.
The north-west and west coasts of Tasmania are rich in history, diversity, our communities and our people. We live in one of the most beautiful parts of the earth, have a great lifestyle and fresh clean air to breathe, every single day.
We have communities who care for our own, our children grow up in relative safety and we have produce the rest of the world can only dream of. Sure times are tough, but they've been tough before and we have come through.
We have new industries rising, innovative and passionate people who care about taking this region to the world. We love this place.
Please join our call, we are here and proud.