The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015
No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.
… the proposal to increase prime time advertising on the SBS equates to the introduction of a fourth commercial television broadcasting network by stealth.
This is not an efficiency dividend … certainly there are cuts.
Certainly there are cuts. He said no cuts to the ABC or SBS—there are cuts to the ABC or SBS.
… we've broken that. And frankly, it's just as well we did …
… no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS.
As a result of the Lewis Efficiency Study, Minister Turnbull announced further cuts to SBS’s funding in November 2014. Of the cuts, $25.2 million was based on back office efficiencies that SBS was already working towards. A further $28.5 million was predicated on successful legislative amendment to the SBS Act, which would provide SBS with additional advertising and sponsorship flexibility and allow SBS to deliver this portion of the funding cut via a modest annual revenue increase. The total funding cut of $53.7 million over five years from 2014-15 has already been reflected in SBS’s forward estimates.
…there will be greater pressure on SBS management to consider the trade-off of delivering on commercial expectations, against delivering those functions described in the SBS Charter.
Free TV is strongly opposed to the bill because it enables SBS to make up cuts in government funding by competing with commercial free-to-air broadcasters for revenues from a finite advertising pie. It is wrong in principle for privately funded broadcasters to have to subsidise a government funded broadcaster.
In practice, it will potentially have a serious impact on our broadcasters' ability to continue to fund expensive Australian content.
We have found ourselves between a rock and a hard place given the current situation. On principle FECCA would not wish to see increased advertising on SBS; however, we are concerned that if this bill does not pass it could mean cuts to programs, to services and to opportunities to invest in additional initiatives that we believe could benefit our multicultural and multilingual Australian community.
As a result of the Lewis Efficiency Study, Minister Turnbull announced further cuts to SBS’s funding in November 2014. Of the cuts, $25.2 million was based on back office efficiencies that SBS was already working towards. A further $28.5 million was predicated on successful legislative amendment to the SBS Act, which would provide SBS with additional advertising and sponsorship flexibility and allow SBS to deliver this portion of the funding cut via a modest annual revenue increase.
It is wrong for a person to bribe, let alone a state. Such an act is definitely incorrect—
It is wrong for a person to bribe, let alone a state. Such an act is definitely incorrect in the context of bilateral relations …
Actually, it's not difficult for Australia to answer my question from Saturday regarding the issue of payment, and not to distract on the issue …
Taking into account Australia’s international obligations, and the national security and counter-terrorism risks posed by Australians engaging in acts prejudicial to Australia’s security, the INSLM—
supports the introduction of a power for the Minister for Immigration to revoke the citizenship of Australians, where to do so would not render them stateless, where the Minister is satisfied that the person has engaged in acts prejudicial to Australia’s security and it is not in Australia’s interests for the person to remain in Australia.
The Abbott Government’s strong support for the NDIS cannot be questioned. They are funding the NDIS and in doing so transforming the lives of people with disability.
After the selection of a short-list of experienced offshore designers, funded project definition studies led to the submission of fixed price tenders for a local build which maximised the involvement of Australian industry. The Abbott government should follow this well-proven, risk-reduction path.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
… a state bribing, that certainly doesn't fit with the correct ethics in state relations.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to proposed amendments to citizenship laws.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 6 OF 2015
1. The committee met in private session on Monday, 15 June 2015 at 7.19 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 June 2015 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(b) the provisions of the Water Amendment Bill 2015 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 September 2015 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Export Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015
Export Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015
Export Charges (Collection) Bill 2015
Energy Grants and Other Legislation Amendment (Ethanol and Biodiesel) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 2) Bill 2015.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement:
Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015.
5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015
Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2015
Imported Food Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2015
Imported Food Charges (Collection) Bill 2015
(David Bushby)
Chair
16 June 2015
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a com mittee
Name of bill:
National Health Amendment {Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 201.S
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow stakeholders to respond to the proposed changes.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Consumers Health Forum, Public Health Association of Australia, Generic Medicines Industry Association, Pharmacy Guild of Australia, Medicines Australia.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
19 June 2015
Possible reporting date:
23 June 2015
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Water Amendment Bill 2015
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The bill imposes a limit of 1500 gigalitres for Commonwealth buybacks of water across the Murray-Darling Basin. This is despite water purchase from willing sellers widely recognised as the most cost effective means of water recovery for the environment.
The Murray Darling Basin Plan mandates the recovery of 2750 GL of water for the environment by 2019. Water recovery to date is 1951 GL - about 70% of the required total.
The government has expressed a preference for recovering the remaining water through infrastructure projects but has not clarified how this will occur. However it is recognised that buybacks of water are 2 to 7 times cheaper than 'other' forms of water recovery.
The bill will significantly impact key stakeholders and have environmental impacts. An inquiry will allow these impacts to be brought to lights.
Possible submissions or evidence from: Environment Victoria; Inland Rivers Network; Water Services Association of Australia; Aboriginal Land Council; WWF; Wentworth Group of Scientists; Wilderness Society; Queensland Conservation; UTS Institute for Sustainable Futures; CSU Institute for Land, Water & Society; eWater.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
September
Possible reporting date:
September
(signed)
Senator Rachel Siewert
That the report be adopted.
At the end of the motion, add, "but,
(a) in respect of the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 and the Medical Research Future Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2015 the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by and 10 August 2015; and
(b) noting that the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Pensions) Bill 2015 are under inquiry by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, that the committee report on the bill by 10 August 2015.
The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That consideration of the business before the Senate on Tuesday, 11 August 2015, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Lindgren to make her first speech without any question before the chair.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public meetings, during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) Monday, 10 August 2015;
(b) Monday, 17 August 2015;
(c) Monday, 7 September 2015;
(d) Monday, 14 September 2015;
(e) Monday, 12 October 2015;
(f) Monday, 9 November 2015;
(g) Monday, 23 November 2015; and
(h) Monday, 30 November 2015.
That the Senate—
(a) commiserates with the 440 workers who will lose their jobs at the Leigh Creek coal mine and Port Augusta coal fired power stations, which are flagged for closure by 2018;
(b) recognises the outstanding leadership of the Repower Port Augusta Alliance and the Port Augusta City Council in working with the community to advocate for solar thermal to replace the outdated coal power stations;
(c) acknowledges solar thermal presents great employment opportunities, as well as economic, health and environmental benefits for the Port Augusta community; and
(d) calls on the Federal and South Australian governments to assist the Port Augusta community in transitioning to a clean energy future, providing jobs and security for the region.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2015:
The handling of a letter sent by Mr Man Haron Monis to the Attorney-General dated 7 October 2014, and the evidence provided during the Budget estimates, including the subsequent correction of that evidence, with particular reference to:
(a) the details of the internal inquiry conducted by the Secretary of the Attorney-General‘s Department, Mr Chris Moraitis, following the discovery that incorrect evidence had been provided and any subsequent changes made to administrative practices between the department and the Attorney-General‘s office;
(b) the consideration given by the Joint Commonwealth and New South Wales review team to the correspondence sent by Mr Monis to various members of Parliament and other relevant documents and the basis for the assertion by Mr Thawley that the correspondence would make no difference to the findings of the review; and
(c) what, if any, changes were made to procedures for the handling of incoming correspondence to the Attorney-General‘s Department and the Attorney-General‘s Office following the raising of the national terrorism public alert level to ‗High‘ on 12 September 2014.
• references committees inquire into matters referred to them by the Senate, other than matters
to be referred to legislation committees
• legislation committees inquire into bills, estimates, annual reports and performance of agencies
The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 15 September 2015:
(a) the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the Arts; and
(b) the suitability and appropriateness of the establishment of a National Programme for Excellence in the Arts, to be administered by the Ministry for the Arts, with particular reference to:
(i) the effect on funding arrangements for:
(A) small to medium arts organisations,
(B) individual artists,
(C) young and emerging artists,
(D) the Australia Council,
(E) private sector funding of the arts, and
(F) state and territory programs of support to the arts,
(ii) protection of freedom of artistic expression and prevention of political influence,
(iii) access to a diversity of quality arts and cultural experiences,
(iv) the funding criteria and implementation processes to be applied to the program,
(v) implications of any duplication of administration and resourcing, and
(vi) any related matter.
The Senate divided. [14:10]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That—
(a) there be laid on the table by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 3 pm on 17 June 2015, all documents containing information pertaining to:
(i) any money paid to anyone on board a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand by any Customs, Immigration or other Commonwealth officer from September 2013 to date, and
(ii) the facilitation or authorisation of the payment of any money to anyone on board a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand by any Customs, Immigration or other Commonwealth officer from September 2013 to date, and
in relation to any such payment, a document containing information pertaining to the details of the interception of the vessel, the amount of money paid, to whom and for what purpose; and
(b) there be laid on the table by the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 3 pm on 17 June 2015, any documents produced by the Office of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection or the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service regarding:
(i) the interception of a vessel en route to Australia or New Zealand in May 2015,
(ii) any orders to turn back or take back that vessel, its passengers or crew,
(iii) any payments made to the vessel’s captain, crew or passengers, and
(iv) any payments made in relation to the passage of the vessel, its passengers or crew.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the United States (US) Court of Appeals ruled in May 2015 That the bulk collection of telecommunications metadata by US Government agencies was unlawful, and
(ii) this case was filed following revelations by Mr Edward Snowden disclosing the scope of US Government surveillance programs; and
(b) recognises:
(i) the critical work that Mr Snowden has carried out in exposing unlawful surveillance programs in the US and its 'Five Eyes' allies, and
(ii) that Australians and the global community have legitimate and ongoing concerns about the erosion of privacy caused by the unchecked growth of government electronic surveillance programs.
The Senate divided. [16:18]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2015.
The Senate divided. [16:22]
The President—Senator Parry
That the Senate—
(a) recognises and applauds the work of the Federal Government's community consultation process in delivering clear and practical country of origin labelling rules; and
(b) further recognises that Australian produce and food processing is of world class standard, and that these labelling rules are an important step in making it easier for consumers to identify locally grown and processed food.
Question agreed to.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
"The crisis of housing affordability in Australia, and the unwillingness of the Abbott Government to consider Negative Gearing and Capital Gains Tax exemptions in its tax review."
Women are being turned away because there's no affordable, safe, long-term housing for those already living at refuges to move on to.
When you look at the housing price bubble evidence, it's unequivocally the case in Sydney. Unequivocally.
Frankly—
whatever the data says, just casual observation can tell you it's the case.
I am very concerned about Sydney, I think some of what's happening is crazy—
but we've got a national focus to manage as well - that just increases the complexity.
Look, if housing were unaffordable in Sydney, no one would be buying it. People are purchasing housing in Sydney, it's expensive. As a multiple of average weekly earnings it is expensive, it's an expensive city to live in …
The starting point for a first home buyer is to get a good job that pays good money. If you've got a good job and it pays good money and you have security in relation to that job, then you can go to the bank and you can borrow money and that's readily affordable.
Noting that housing price growth in other cities—
and regional areas had declined over recent months, members discussed the strength and composition of underlying supply and demand conditions in different parts of the housing market. They also observed that there was a relatively low stock of dwellings for sale in Sydney and Melbourne and that dwellings took only a short time to sell.
… in the 2000s, the resources boom crowded out housing and infrastructure investment. Now a big wave of apartment, road and rail development is trying to catch up, often in the face of anti-development activism.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Mr President, I am pleased to present the Committee's report on its review of the declaration of the Mosul district for the purposes of section 119.2 of the Criminal Code.
Section 119.2 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to enter, or remain in, an area of a foreign country declared by the Foreign Minister.
The Committee is able to review all declarations made under the provisions within the 15 sitting day disallowance period, and this report contains the Committee's findings with respect to the declaration of the Mosul district of northern Iraq.
This is the second time that an area has been declared for these purposes following the declaration of al-Raqqa province in Syria in December last year. Like al-Raqqa, the Mosul district has been declared due to the hostilities of Da'esh in the area.
The Committee supports the declaration and considers it to be well within the scope of what the declared area offence was intended to target.
ASIO's 'statement of reasons' for the declaration provides examples of where Da'esh has committed actions in Mosul that meet the threshold of 'engaging in hostilities' against all of the criteria listed in the Criminal Code.
Among others, atrocities committed by Da'esh in Mosul have included:
• the execution of 13 teenage boys for watching a sports match,
• the mass execution of around 600 mainly Shia inmates at a prison,
• the torture and execution of a women's rights activist, and
• the destruction of many historical and religious sites.
Da'esh has a 'significant and enduring presence' in the Mosul area, which is the 'main base' of its operations in Iraq. Mosul is also a central location for foreign extremists engaging in the conflict in Iraq.
The Committee will continue to monitor the effect of declarations on the actions of individuals over time, including the impact of any prosecutions that take place as a result of the declarations.
The Committee also supports initiatives to counter the propaganda being used by Da'esh to draw young Australians into the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, and considers that sustained effort will be needed by both governments and communities to ensure the facts of the situation in those countries are made known to the persons who are most vulnerable.
Turning to the second report, I am pleased to present the Committee's review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Lashkar-e Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Mohammad as terrorist organisations under section 102.1 of the Criminal Code.
Originally listed in 2003, this is the fifth re-listing of each of these groups. In each case the Committee has supported their ongoing proscription as terrorist organisations.
Ansar al-Islam, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and Lashkar-e Jhangvi have all been involved in recent terrorist acts. This includes two of the ten worst terrorist attacks globally in 2013, on the basis of number of casualties, conducted by Lashkar-e Jhangvi. More than 180 people were killed and around 400 injured in these two attacks.
In the two years between July 2012 and August 2014, Ansar al-Islam claimed responsibility for 53 attacks, including a joint attack with Da'esh in Rabia in December 2013. IMU militants have fought alongside the Taliban, al-Qa'ida, and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is also reported that IMU pledged allegiance to Da'esh in September 2014.
Mr President, the Committee noted that the re-listing of Jaish-eMohammad is the first to be made under the Criminal Code solely on the basis of 'advocating the doing of a terrorist act'. While Jaish-eMohammad has not been associated with an attack for over five years, the Committee accepted evidence of its ongoing advocacy of terrorist acts through the group's leader, Maulana Masood Azhar.
The Committee also noted recent media reports in India, warning of a possible impending attack by the group.
On this basis, the Committee recommends that the regulations for the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Lashkar-e Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Mohammad as terrorist organisations not be disallowed.
Mr President, I commend the reports to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Defence Sub-Committee inquiry report
Review of the Defence Annual Report 2012-13
June 2015
Recommendation 1
Asset management and capital investment program
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence review contract templates and procurement processes to ensure that, to the extent possible, payments flow to small and medium sized enterprises subcontracted by primes in a timely manner.
Government response
Agree
The Suite of Defence Construction Contracts contain provisions that require any payments made by the Commonwealth in respect of construction work, to be made in accordance with the relevant building and construction industry security of payment legislation in the state, or territory, where the construction work is being delivered.
The legislation requires that payments to construction contractors are made within specified timeframes (10 business days in all states and territories except Queensland, where five business days is specified). As a condition precedent to payment, a construction contractor must provide a statutory declaration (or any other such documentary evidence) that confirms that all workers and sub-contractors employed by the contractor (in connection with the contractor's activities) have, at the date of the payment claim, been paid all monies due and payable to them in respect of their employment.
The Governments in New South Wales and Western Australia are conducting pilot studies into the use of dedicated project bank accounts for construction projects as a measure to improve flow of payments to both workers and sub-contractors. Defence will monitor the outcomes of the pilot studies and, if effective, may consider using this process to ensure payment is made to sub-contractors.
Defence established 10 base services contracts in 2014, collectively worth about $10 billion over a 10 year period. The contracts are with industry specialists in the services they provide to Defence. These contracts are in transition to replace the comprehensive maintenance services and base services contracts referred to in paragraph 2.46 of the report, where it was noted that Defence had advised that it was not aware of any outstanding payments to sub-contractors under these contracts.
In the newly established base services contracts, Defence has included clauses that cover requirements in relation to security of payment and gain share. The clauses define a sub-contractor as a person engaged by the contractor, its sub-contractor or any other person to carry out work which forms part of the services.
The security of payment provisions address obligations to promote the flow of payments to sub-contractors relating to the carrying out of work, and supply of related goods and services.
Defence will continue to work with relevant stakeholders to review templates and processes to ensure that business is conducted in a compliant, ethical, efficient and effective manner.
Recommendation 2
Asset management and capital investment program
The Committee recommends that Government review the process by which Defence properties are placed on the Commonwealth Heritage List and ensure that, where properties are listed, they are suitably funded either by a specific appropriation or through a public private partnership.
Government response
2 (a) Disagree
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) sets out the process for establishing the Commonwealth Heritage List. The Environment Minister has responsibility for the list, and deciding whether nominated places should be listed or not, following advice from the Australian Heritage Council.
Defence has in excess of 130 places on the list. Following heritage amendments to the EPBC Act in 2004, which established the list, the majority of these places were transferred from the former Register of the National Estate that was established by the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 .
The Department of the Environment is responsible for administering the EPBC Act on behalf of the Environment Minister. The EPBC Act was independently reviewed in 2008 by Dr Allan Hawke. The EPBC Review recommendations report was released in 2009, with a subsequent government response in 2011.
The Commonwealth Heritage List (CHL) provisions of the EPBC Act were included in the review, with no proposed changes to the listing process that would affect the way that Defence properties are placed on the list. The Department of the Environment has advised that it is not planning to conduct a review of this process.
Defence works closely with the Department of the Environment in managing CHL nominations related to its estate.
2 (b) Disagree
The Defence estate is managed and maintained to meet current and future Defence capability and Government priorities. The day-to-day maintenance of the Defence estate is funded from the Estate Maintenance Program. This includes costs associated with the maintenance and management of heritage buildings across the Defence estate.
The Government does not agree to partitioning part of the existing Defence estate maintenance budget allocation to specifically manage heritage values. Defence's current practice for funding maintenance works ensures that key factors, including heritage value, work health and safety risks and contribution to capability, are considered when allocating funds. This process ensures that the budget is allocated on a risk-based method, with funding going to the highest priority works to support Defence capability and manage Defence's highest heritage values.
The Government considers the management of heritage values on the Defence estate does not meet the principles of a private financing arrangement. Delivery through a public private partnership would not present a viable option for the private sector as opportunities to apply whole-of-life innovation and efficiencies (for example, in the design and construction phase) are limited. As such, no further consideration has been undertaken in relation to potential financing through a public private partnership.
Recommendation 3
Navy combat capability
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence consider utilising independent subject matter experts in a system of Gate reviews, starting with project conception in the Capability Development Group and continuing through life of type, as part of the seaworthiness system.
Government response
Agree in principle
The Defence seaworthiness system has facilitated significant improvements to the seaworthiness of Naval capability, with initial effort focused on the in-service phase of the capability lifecycle. The focus of the Defence seaworthiness system is being expanded to include the earlier phases of the capability lifecycle to provide a risk-based, whole-of-life, assurance program. These assurance activities will be aligned to existing capability development milestones with the desired outcome being to provide the capability managers (Chief of Navy and Chief of Army) with justified confidence in the seaworthiness of maritime capabilities.
The Government agrees that higher risk activities and considerations may usefully engage independent subject matter experts in a system of Gate reviews to individual risks and issues. However, the utilisation of subject matter experts as part of the seaworthiness system for lower risk activities can be managed effectively, without the time and resource implications of independent review.
While the seaworthiness system allows for tailoring the level of controls and assurance based on risk to any particular project, the derivation of capability needs flows from direct consideration of Government policy/direction, strategy and strategic risk—a process that precedes project conception.
Recommendation 4
Navy combat capability
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence provide the Committee with a specific update on the implementation of each Coles review recommendations prior to the tabling of the Department's next annual report.
Government response
Agree
The Government will provide the Committee with an unclassified update on the implementation of the Coles review recommendations.
Recommendation 5
Defence Materiel Organisation and Capability Development Group
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence increase the use of private sector expertise, particularly in the areas of test and evaluation, risk management, review and business case development, in order to enhance the capability development process and new capability proposals.
Government response
Agree
Capability Development Group's industry partnership with Nova was replaced by a new commercial support arrangement with multiple private sector suppliers in November 2013. The new arrangement serves to expedite and streamline the Group's access to industry expertise, capability and capacity, in support of key capability development activities. Throughout 2014, the Group has increased its use of private sector expertise to progress Defence Capability Plan projects, particularly in the areas of project definition and development, project scheduling, test and evaluation and risk management. Further, the Group is investigating the feasibility of securing increased specialist commercial support in the areas of systems engineering and cost estimation.
Recommendation 6
Defence Materiel Organisation and Capability Development Group
The Committee recommends that the Vice Chief of the Defence Force own a process that harnesses and coordinates the oversight and review functions currently exercised by the Capability Development Group, the Defence Materiel Organisation and the Services in order to integrate a whole of life approach to capability assurance.
Government response
Agree in principle
The Government agrees with the intent of the recommendation. The First Principles Review was released on 1 April 2015. The report has made 21 recommendations that involve establishing a single end-to-end capability development function within the Department to maximise the efficient, effective and professional delivery of military capability. Twenty of these recommendations have been agreed by Government and will be implemented in the next two years.
The emphasis of the recommendations is to create a more integrated and holistic process with greater and more transparent alignment to future and joint force requirements, supported by an integrated capability delivery function and subject to stronger direction setting and contestability.
Recommendation 7
Defence Materiel Organisation and Capability Development Group
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence continue to build on the capabilities and processes that have been developed within the SEA 1000 industry Integrated Project Team (IPT) and ensure that the views of the IPT are transparently communicated to the National Security Committee of Cabinet as part of procurement decisions.
Government response
Agree in principle
The Government acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Integrated Project Team is a critical component to the development of Australia's submarine capabilities as they have, and will continue to provide, in-house specialist technical and engineering advice to the Government via the appropriate mechanism.
Recommendation 8
Other issues
The Committee recommends that Defence Annual Reports include appropriately detailed information on the direction and development of the Department's cyber security capabilities.
Government response
Agree in principle
Detailed information about the direction and development of the Department's cyber security capabilities would give potential adversaries information that would actually enable them to effect successful compromises of the Department. The Government agrees with the intent of the recommendation and will, in the unclassified Defence Annual Report, ensure Defence report high-level detail of what is planned at an unclassified level.
The Defence Information and Communication Technology (ICT) environment is larger and more complex than other departments — in fact it is one of the largest ICT environments in the country, supporting a wide range of specialist military, general administrative and management functions. Defence is currently embarked on a wide-ranging ICT infrastructure transformation program that is making substantial improvements to technologies, sustainability, security and currency of the Defence ICT environment.
Defence takes the protection of information, capabilities and cyber security obligations very seriously. Defence has dedicated teams of highly specialised, well trained operators who monitor Defence ' s cyber environment, conduct vulnerability scanning and assessments, and provide advice and assistance to capability delivery areas to ensure that security is an essential element of everything Defence does. Defence is ensuring that attention is directed to areas of highest need to ensure the protection of its ICT environments.
Defence has also centralised its ICT security elements within one area, the Defence ICT Security Branch, enabling increased governance of cyber security measures and providing Defence, and Government, decision makers with a coordinated capability to understand risks and prioritise actions accordingly.
Defence ICT Security Branch continues to work closely with other areas of Defence and government such as the Australian Signal's Directorate and the Australian Cyber Security Centre, and is focused on building deeper and more strategic relationships with Defence Industry, in order to deliver greater national security outcomes within a framework of more timely and commercially viable engagement.
Australian Government response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report:
Processes to support victims of abuse in Defence
May 2015
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Government extend the activities of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce to support victims of abuse in Defence, including allowing new complainants to make claims up to 30 June 2015.
Government Response
Disagree.
As announced in December 2014, the Taskforce will continue its work until 30 June 2015, however, it is not the Government ' s intention to open the Taskforce up to new complainants. It remains the Government ' s view that allegations of abuse by Defence personnel after 11 April 2011 can be adequately dealt with through existing means such as the ADF Investigative Service, Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response Office and the Values Behaviours and Resolutions Branch, as well as health professionals, chaplains, legal officers and/or Psychologists. In addition to this, independent avenues exist through which complainants can make allegations of abuse by Defence personnel.
Defence will continue to support the Taskforce in achieving its outcomes and fund its activities until its work is concluded.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response Office (SeMPRO) develop resources to clearly advise persons considering contacting SeMPRO regarding options for the collection of forensic evidence and support options for former members of Defence.
Government Response
Noted.
SeMPRO ' s policy is to discuss options for the collection of forensic evidence with clients only where the collection of that evidence is possible (i.e. the disclosure is made within the 72 hour window required for primary forensic collections). SeMPRO will facilitate support for clients who have agreed to a medical check.
SeMPRO accepts contact from both current and former members of the ADF. The SeMPRO website has been redesigned and includes clear advice that former ADF members can contact SeMPRO, as well as the fact that, in some instances, forensic evidence can be collected. SeMPRO ' s webpage can be found at www.defence.gov.au/sempro.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government provide additional resources to SeMPRO to facilitate further outreach activities and personal support to victims of sexual assault in Defence.
Government Response
Noted.
SeMPRO is one of a range of responses to managing sexual misconduct in Defence. Defence strives to achieve a holistic approach to delivering support in response to sexual misconduct, which may include health professionals, the ADF Investigative Service, chaplains, legal officers or Psychologists, as well as SeMPRO support staff.
SeMPRO was established in July 2013 and resourced at that time to support its identified Initial Operating Capability. These levels may or may not remain appropriate for SeMPRO's ongoing activities, and this will need to be considered with reference to the uptake of SeMPRO's services to date and its planned future activities.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that following the next interim report of the Taskforce, the Minister for Defence table a formal substantive response to the systemic issues identified in the DLA Piper Review.
Government Response
Noted.
The establishment of the Taskforce was the formal Government response to the DLA Piper review. The Taskforce's terms of reference include a requirement to assess the findings of the DLA Piper review and the material gathered by that review, and any additional material available to the Taskforce concerning complaints of sexual and other forms of abuse by Defence personnel alleged to have occurred prior to 11 April 2011.
The Taskforce's Report on abuse in Defence was tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2014. This report deals with the Taskforce's conclusions in relation to the systemic issues identified in the DLA Piper review.
The Government is currently considering the findings and conclusions of this report and notes that these findings are relevant to informing Defence's cultural change program, Pathway to Change , which is now in its third year.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends the Australian Government introduce amending legislation to remove the three year minimum service requirement for eligibility for Non-Liability Health Care (NLHC) and to make NLHC available to any person who has had completed any service.
Government Response
Noted.
An expansion of eligibility for NLHC along these lines would enable a greater number of victims of abuse to access treatment for specific mental health conditions. This proposal will need to be considered in the context of the Government ' s broader budget priorities.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Minister for Veterans ' Affairs direct the Department of Veterans ' Affairs (DVA) to commence consultation with veterans ' representative organisations and to report back on:
Government Response
Noted.
The Government currently engages with a number of veterans ' representative groups and ex-service organisations on a range of issues affecting the veteran community. The Government is committed to ongoing consultation with veterans ' representative groups and to reviewing its consultative mechanisms and will consider options to broaden engagement in order to better support abuse victims.
The findings of the consultation will be reported back to the Minister for Veterans ' Affairs.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends the Department of Veterans ' Affairs examine options to provide financial assistance to support a national, sustainable community-based approach to assisting veterans who have suffered abuse.
Government Response
Noted.
The Government agrees to examine options to provide financial assistance to support a national, sustainable community-based approach to assisting veterans who have suffered abuse. This proposal will need to be considered in the context of the Government ' s broader budget priorities.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Taskforce and the Australian Government assess the appropriateness of a range of responses to abuse in Defence, in addition to determining whether a Royal Commission should be established. The welfare of victims of abuse in Defence should be the primary consideration in any decision made.
Government Response
Noted.
Defence has a range of resources to support victims of abuse. In particular, Defence is working closely with the Taskforce to conduct Restorative Engagement conferences and learn from the experiences of these conferences to incorporate the lessons learnt into alternative dispute resolution measures within Defence.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that no further parts of Volume 2 of the DLA Piper report should be released in summary or redacted form.
Government Response
Agreed.
Other matters — dissenting reports and additional comments
Dissenting report of Senator Jacqui Lambie, Palmer United Party
Recommendation
A. I recommend the Government immediately call a Royal Commission into the ADF and the sexual and physical abuse suffered by their staffs by other employees of the ADF since 1970. The Commission should be given wide ranging terms of reference which would give it sufficient powers to take and collect evidence from the ADF, the Department of Veteran Affairs, the State and Federal Police Services and any other relevant source in relation to the cases of sexual and physical abuses and tortures, as well as ADF management's response to those events.
B. I recommend that the Royal Commission should be given wide terms of reference which would enable it to gather and take evidence from any relevant source necessary, including the ADF to establish what the overall management response was, and has been by management of the ADF to this problem (which has been well known to them by at least the 1970's).
C. I recommend that the Royal Commission should be given wide terms of reference which would enable it to gather and take evidence from any relevant source necessary to identify the personal and public costs suffered by ADF staff who were victims of sexual and physical abuses in the ADF and the true number of ADF staff members who have suicided as a result this abuse. The ramifications of the effects on the community and individuals of this would be learning for other agencies in the future. Learning designed to proactively encourage that these terrible chain of events is never allowed to again prosper as it has in the ADF for so long.
D. I recommend the Royal Commission which is established be headed by an appropriately qualified judicial officer who has no direct or indirect connect, past of present with the ADF. This will provide confidence to the public and the men and woman of the ADF in its true and perceived independence.
E. I recommend that the Royal Commission be given powers to prosecute people it finds has, or may have (to the relevant criminal standard of proof) committed offence/s; or alternatively
F. Immediately refer the matter to the relevant State or Federal police for prosecution, any persons it finds during its investigation and hearing of this matter, is responsible for commission of any State or Federal criminal offences.
Government Response
Noted.
The Government notes Senator Lambie's dissenting report and that the recommendations contained within the report are premised on the establishment of a separate Royal Commission into matters of abuse within Defence.
The Government notes that the Taskforce's Report on abuse in Defence was tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2014. This report deals with the Taskforce's conclusions in relation to a general Royal Commission and notes that the Taskforce does not make a final recommendation.
The Government has issued revised Terms of Reference to the Taskforce which require it to make a recommendation in relation to this matter by 30 June 2015.
Additional comments by Senator Xenophon
The Government notes Senator Xenophon's additional comments.
Recommendation
The Minister of Defence should direct Defence to report to the committee on what specific decisions have been made by the ADF and the Government about each of the 35 systemic issues identified in the DLA Piper Review report within 30 days of tabling of this report.
Government Response
Disagree.
The Government notes that the Taskforce's Report on abuse in Defence was tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2014. This report deals with the Taskforce's conclusions in relation to the systemic issues identified in the DLA Piper review.
The Government is currently considering the findings and conclusions of this report and notes that these findings are relevant to informing Defence's cultural change program, Pathway to Change , which is now in its third year.
Recommendation
That there be a Royal Commission to inquire into:
Government response
Noted.
The Government notes that the Taskforce's Report on abuse in Defence was tabled in Parliament on 26 November 2014. This report deals with the Taskforce's conclusions in relation to a general Royal Commission and notes that the Taskforce does not make a final recommendation.
The Government has issued revised Terms of Reference to the Taskforce which require it to make a recommendation in relation to this matter by 30 June 2015.
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014
Second Reading speech
The Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 repeals the second round of carbon tax-related personal income tax cuts that are due to start on 1 July 2015.
This measure has been introduced to the Parliament twice under the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 as part of the package of carbon tax repeal bills.
The Senate has now twice voted down this budget repair measure put forward by the former Government.
In its final budget handed down on 14 May 2013, the former Government deferred a second round of personal income tax cuts, resulting in a $1.5 billion saving over the then forward estimates.
But the former government never followed through by unwinding legislation they put through the Parliament that implemented the personal income tax cuts which are due to take effect from 1 July 2015.
The 1 July 2015 round of personal income tax cuts were originally introduced to provide additional assistance to households following an expected increase in the carbon price from a fixed price of $25.40 in this financial year to a floating price of $29 next financial year.
In their final Budget, the former Government revised their carbon price estimates for the next financial year, and this had fallen to around $12—less than half of what was originally expected.
Subsequently they announced that they would defer the second round of personal income tax cuts due to take effect from 1 July 2015, banking $1.5 billion to the Budget bottom line over the then forward estimates period to 30 June 2017.
The former Government did not reverse their decision to defer the second round of personal income tax cuts in the 2013 Economic Statement or in their document outlining their costings for the 2013 Federal Election.
This is important because since coming to Opposition, they have now twice voted against legislation which implements their own Budget repair measure, without outlining an alternative plan to pay for the measure they are now choosing to keep.
The cost to the Budget for the second round of personal income tax cuts is now worth $2.2 billion over the current forward estimates period to 30 June 2018.
The Government inherited an unsustainable budget position from the previous Government.
The deficits inherited from the former Government that were outlined in the 2013-14 MYEFO for the four years to 30 June 2017, totalled $123 billion.
Government debt, if left unchecked and allowed to continue on the inherited trajectories of Government deficits and excessive spending would have been $667 billion at the end of the medium term.
Without action, the Budget outlook is deficits and rising debt for at least another 10 years. The budget would never get to surplus and the debt would never start to be repaid.
There is a strong economic and moral imperative to change course and put the budget back onto a secure and sustainable footing.
But do not just accept the word of this Government that it is important to repair the Budget, and to get to a point where the Government is living within its means.
The former Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister, the Member for Lilley, in his Budget Speech in 2011 said that:
'.. meandering back to surplus — would compound the pressures in our economy and push up the cost of living for pensioners and working people .'
In a doorstop interview on 8 May 2012, the Member for Lilley also said that:
' Importantly by coming back to surplus we give the Reserve Bank maximum flexibility to cut interest rates, should they decide to do so independently of the Government. Coming back to surplus is about making sure we help those people sitting around the kitchen table when they ' re figuring out how they will make ends meet '
Whilst we all now know that the former Government never delivered on their promise of a surplus last financial year, they did once believe in the principle of returning the Budget to surplus.
Recent comments from a wide range of economic officials and independent third parties support the Government's strategy to return the Budget to a sustainable footing, and to reduce our nation's debt burden.
Governor Glenn Stevens of the Reserve Bank of Australia, in a recent speech, warned of the importance of bringing the Budget back to surplus, where he said:
' … the fact that the real issues with public finances are medium-term ones is not a reason to put off taking decisions to address them. On the contrary, as experience in so many other countries demonstrates, by the time these sorts of problems have gone from being out on the horizon to on our doorstep, they have usually become a lot more difficult to tackle. Early, measured actions that have effects that build up over time are a much better approach than the much tougher response that might be required if decisions delayed 1 . '
Secretary to the Treasury Dr Martin Parkinson is also on the record calling for action on the Budget, he recently commented that:
' It ' s quite another thing to exhort to vague notions of fairness to oppose any form of reform. If you do that, if you use such an argument to defend what is an unsustainable status quo, what you are doing is consigning Australia to a deteriorating future 2 . '
The Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Phil Bowen is also on the record stating:
' It is time to start coming out [of debt and deficit], otherwise the longer you leave it the more exposed you become and the harder it is to wind it back…Sure we ' re currently at a very low level relative to the rest of the developed world, but frankly we don ' t want to find ourselves where the rest of the world is…You ' ve got to have a buffer. One of the reasons we came through the global financial crisis so well was because we started with assets….If the rate of the increase [in debt], if allowed to go unchecked, would mean that net debt would increase quite rapidly to the point where that fiscal buffer . . . would not be available. 3 "
Secretary General, Angel Gurria, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development had the following comment on the Government's Budget strategy:
' We have seen with very great interest, and I think really with great expectations, that they are dealing very directly and decisively with the budget deficit 4 . '
This Government is committed to living within its means. It is not sustainable for a Government to continue to borrow money to pay for consumption today, at the expense of generations of taxpayers into the future.
Our first Budget outlined a path to return the Budget to a more sustainable footing.
Because of this plan, in our first four years to 2017-18, deficits are now estimated to total $60 billion.
Our policies aim to reduce debt by almost $300 billion over the next decade.
This improvement is built off a significant reduction in payments growth.
At the 2013 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, average real growth in payments over the four years to 30 June 2017 was 2.6 per cent. The average over the four years to 30 June 2018 is now 0.8 per cent.
The Government will redirect spending to measures that will boost productivity and workforce participation, to build a stronger economy.
This includes the Infrastructure Growth Package—the Asset Recycling Initiative and other new investments in infrastructure—to which have committed nearly $11.6 billion in our first Budget. It includes building a new Medical Research Future Fund within the next six years. This will be the largest of its kind in the world.
We are also eliminating waste and targeting government assistance to those who need it most.
This accords with our plan to reduce the Government's share of the economy over time, which in turn will free up resources for private investment.
It will see payments as a percentage of GDP fall over time.
And it will allow us to start to pay down public debt.
We want to reduce the amount Australian taxpayers spend on interest repayments. Our country's Gross interest bill this year is currently $14.7 billion, and this will rise to nearly $18 billion by 2018.
We want to ensure that more of their tax dollar is spent on the delivery of front line services.
The benefit of making these decisions now is that, in the years ahead, we will be able to afford a sustainable quality of life.
Every generation before us has helped to build the quality of life that we enjoy, and we can do no less for future generations.
Budget repair is about government living within its means and ensuring the sustainability of government services.
This Government believes the best way to immediately assist individuals is to repeal the carbon tax.
Without a carbon tax, average retail electricity prices should be around nine per cent lower, and average retail gas prices around seven per cent lower.
The government understands households will continue to face cost-of-living pressures.
That is why we will keep the current personal income tax thresholds and the fortnightly pension and benefit increases, while still repealing the carbon tax.
This Bill delivers on a budget repair measure put forward by the former Government in their final Budget.
This Bill amends the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Act 2011 to repeal the personal income tax cuts that were legislated to commence on 1 July 2015.
It also amends the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Act 2011 to repeal associated amendments to the low-income tax offset that were also legislated to commence on 1 July 2015.
After the repeal of these amendments the tax‑free threshold will remain at $18,200.
The second personal marginal tax rate will remain at 32.5 per cent and the maximum value of the low-income tax offset will remain at $445.
Full details of the Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
______________
1 Glenn Stevens, Governor, RBA, Speech to The Econometric Society Australasian Meeting and the Australian Conference of Economists, Hobart, 3 July 2014.
2 Secretary Martin Parkinson, Quoted in: Parkinson takes veiled swipe at Labor over Budget attacks, James Massola et al, 30 June 2014.
3 Phil Bowen, Parliamentary Budget Officer, in The Australian Financial Review, 26 May 2014.
4 ABC News, OECD boss praises Australian budget for gradual return to surplus, 10 June 2014.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
CRIMES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PENALTY UNIT) BILL 2015
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015 will ensure that the penalties imposed under Commonwealth legislation remain effective deterrents of crime to make our communities safer.
Penalty units are used to set the maximum fines which can be imposed for Commonwealth criminal offences, as well as those in Territory ordinances. Commonwealth penalties are generally expressed in terms of penalty units rather than specific values to allow penalties across the statute book to be easily updated.
The bill will increase the amount of the Commonwealth penalty unit from $170 to $180, and will provide a mechanism for the amount to be indexed every three years according to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These measures will apply to all offences across the Commonwealth statute book.
Maintaining the value of the penalty unit over time is necessary to ensure that financial penalties for Commonwealth offences keep pace with inflation and continue to remain an effective deterrent to unlawful behaviour.
This bill gives effect to a measure in the 2015-16 Budget. The increase in the penalty unit amount will take effect from 31 July 2015. The first indexation of the amount based on inflation will occur on 1 July 2018, and then again every three years following that.
The increase to the penalty unit amount will strengthen financial penalties for all Commonwealth offences, including those related to white-collar crime and serious and organised crime.
Strong financial penalties are important for deterring unlawful behaviour and making Australia a hostile environment for serious organised crime.
This Government places a high priority on tackling crime and keeping our community safe.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015 will further our efforts to do this, by ensuring that our financial penalties remain an effective deterrent to criminal behaviour.
SECOND READING SPEECH
Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
The Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill implements the Government's Budget measure to amend the cost recovery arrangements for the National Joint Replacement Registry (the NJRR) to a utilisation based calculation.
The Commonwealth has funded the NJRR since its initial development in 1998. The NJRR collects demographic data related to joint replacement surgery in Australia and monitors the performance of all joint replacement prostheses used in Australia by collecting information on all joint replacement surgeries, including revisions , complications and other outcomes from device use. This results in improved quality of care for patients receiving joint replacement surgery.
In fact, thanks to the NJRR, Australia was the first country in the world to recognise, and subsequently take regulatory action to remove, ASR Hip replacements from the market. This happened eight or nine months before anywhere else in the world. Members of the House may remember that the ASR Hip had extremely poor outcomes. As a result of this early evidence, fewer Australians were implanted with this dire device.
Since 2009 the NJRR has been funded on a cost recovery basis by a levy payable by manufacturers and distributors of those joint replacement prostheses listed in the Private Health Insurance (Prostheses) Rules. This ensures ongoing funding for the registry.
Under current arrangements, joint replacement prostheses manufacturers and distributors currently contribute to the cost recovered funding on a proportional basis. This is based on the number of different prostheses models they have available for sale compared with the total number of models available on the market. This methodology does not take into account utilisation or the revenue derived by a manufacturer or distributor from the sale of prostheses.
For example, under the current cost recovery arrangements, a joint replacement prostheses that is included in the Prostheses Rules, but has never been provided to a patient and never reported to the Joint Replacement Register will attract the same amount of levy as a prosthesis that generates a much higher volume of work because the prostheses is frequently provided to patients and reported to the register.
Over time, consultations with industry have indicated a strong preference for changes to the cost recovery arrangements of the National Joint Replacement Register, to determine individual companies' contributions using a utilisation based calculation. This bill allows for the implementation of that change.
Under the changes proposed in this bill, the NJRR levy will now be collected by taking into account the number of times a joint replacement prosthesis is recorded on the NJRR in a particular period.
Importantly, the current rules set a maximum levy of $5,000 for sponsorship of any one joint replacement prosthesis in any one financial year. The amendments made by this bill will similarly restrict the maximum amount of levy that a sponsor may pay for any individual joint replacement prosthesis to $5,000.
These changes will mean that over 85 per cent of companies will now be paying smaller individual contributions, and will result in a more equitable distribution of the cost recovery across the industry.
The number of joint replacement surgeries taking place in Australia is increasing every year, and these changes to the cost recovery arrangements will ensure that this important resource will continue to be available in the future.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015
SECOND READING SPEECH
This bill will introduce three measures in the Social Services portfolio.
Firstly, the bill will amend the social security law to streamline the current income management programme under a two-year continuation.
Income management and the BasicsCard will continue for two additional years to maintain support for existing income management participants. The streamlining amendments made by this bill will enable more effective operation of the income management programme.
In particular, the bill provides for the abolition of certain incentive payments relating to income management, amends the operation of the vulnerable measure of income management, and makes minor streamlining amendments to remove ambiguities and improve the programme’s effectiveness.
The bill also makes amendments to reflect two measures relating to aged care, which were included in the 2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook announcement.
From 1 July 2015, the bill will cease payment of residential care subsidy to residential aged care providers for holding a place for up to seven days before a care recipient enters care. This will ensure the subsidy is appropriately targeted to people actually receiving care.
Currently, this subsidy is paid to providers at a reduced rate of 30 per cent of the full residential care subsidy that will be payable once the care recipient enters care.
When the subsidy is ceased under this measure, the provider will not be able to recoup any lost residential care subsidy from the care recipient. However, the provider will still be able to charge the care recipient the standard resident contribution for the pre-entry period.
Lastly, the bill will reflect the Government’s decision to abolish the Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees as part of the Smaller Government initiative.
The Smaller Government reforms are reducing the size and complexity of government. They are eliminating duplication and waste, streamlining services and reducing the cost of government administration.
The Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees’ role was to provide advice in relation to the distribution of aged care places. However, the last of these committees expired in September 2014. These amendments repeal the now-redundant relevant provisions in the Aged Care Act 1997.
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015
SECOND READING SPEECH
Today I introduce a bill to amend the Superannuation Guarantee Administration Act 1992 to simplify when a standard choice form—which allows an employee to nominate their chosen superannuation fund—has to be offered by an employer to an employee.
The Government's commitment to cut $1 billion a year in red and green tape will result in more efficient government and more productive businesses. To date this commitment has seen us remove $2.45b. But our conviction is to go further and tackle overreaching excessive and unnecessary compliance burdens. This bill is part of a package of measures that will further contribute to exceeding progress by reducing the superannuation compliance costs for employers.
These changes play an important role in further delivering on this conviction of reducing red tape, particularly for small businesses.
Small businesses play an important role in the economy. Around 97 per cent of businesses are small businesses (as of 30 June 2014—ABS). However, as they are small, often these businesses lack economies of scale. While a big business may have overall higher compliance costs, we need to remember that small businesses have fewer staff than big businesses and often have less expertise dealing with complex regulation.
For example, a big business may have a number of expert staff performing specialised functions, whereas small business owners may be responsible for not only the core business but all the general administrative tasks that go along with running a business, such as managing the accounts, the payroll and superannuation. These tasks are important but the time a small business has to spend managing these tasks can take a small business away from the key task of running their business and become a barrier to employing more staff.
Reducing red tape and making life easier for these businesses to comply with the superannuation guarantee regime is a vital step in encouraging these businesses to grow.
Businesses that do not meet their superannuation guarantee obligations risk harsh penalties so it is important that we make it as easy as possible for all employers to pay their workers' superannuation on time.
In January 2014, we made a public commitment to the Australian people that the Government would make life easier for small business by reducing their superannuation compliance burden.
Part of this commitment was to move the government operated small business superannuation clearing house to the Australian Taxation Office.
The clearing house is a free online service that helps small businesses meet their superannuation guarantee obligations by allowing employers to pay superannuation contributions in one transaction to a single location to reduce red tape and compliance costs.
By moving the clearing house to the ATO we ensured this free service is within the agency that knows who is eligible for this free service. This means the ATO can help increase awareness of the benefits of the service to eligible businesses, this will in turn increase the take up rate of the clearing house.
We have already seen an increase in the number of small businesses registered to use the service since we moved it into the ATO. Between 1 April 2014 and 30 April 2015, around an additional 42,500 employers registered with the superannuation clearing house service. This brings the total number of employers registered to use the service to over 100,000 (as at 30 April 2015).
By increasing the use of the superannuation clearing house, we are also helping small businesses comply with SuperStream. Under the new SuperStream arrangements all superannuation contributions from employers must be made electronically from1 July 2016. Businesses who are registered with the superannuation clearing house will automatically meet their SuperStream obligations.
In January 2014, we also made a commitment to consult extensively on the drivers of superannuation compliance costs and develop options to reduce this burden on small businesses.
To help us meet this commitment, in 2014, the Treasury undertook two rounds of public consultation. This consultation explored these compliance costs and canvassed options to reduce the regulatory compliance burden. The changes in this bill were developed during this consultation process.
One of the changes this bill brings about is that employers will no longer have to provide a standard choice form to temporary residents. A standard choice form allows employees to nominate their superannuation fund. Generally employers have to give this form to employees within 28 days of the employee starting their job.
I would like to emphasise that the Government is not taking away the right of a temporary resident to choose a superannuation fund. What we are doing is simplifying the paperwork requirements for businesses that employ temporary residents such as those on a working holiday visa.
Under these changes, employers will no longer have to supply a standard choice form to temporary resident employees. It also means time poor small businesses will no longer have to spend time explaining how to complete the form.
This change will also make it easier for employers to pay their workers' superannuation on time.
As I have already mentioned, temporary residents will still be able to choose their superannuation fund if they wish to do so.
This change may be especially beneficial in industries that are reliant on large numbers of working holidaymakers to meet peak workloads, such as in the hospitality and agricultural sector.
The majority of businesses in these sectors are small businesses. Around 92 per cent of businesses in hospitality and 99 per cent of businesses in agriculture are small businesses (as of 30 June 2014 — ABS).
This means that although these changes will benefit all businesses, they will be of particular benefit to the many small businesses in those sectors that often employ people on working holiday visas for short term and intermittent work.
By removing these requirements employers will no longer risk incurring a choice shortfall penalty if they do not supply a standard choice form to temporary residents.
To make this change streamlined across all visa classes, we have also included New Zealand residents in the definition of a temporary resident even though these workers can generally stay indefinitely in Australia as Australia has a special relationship with New Zealand. We made the decision to include New Zealand residents in the measure as exempting New Zealand residents would have added complexity for time poor small businesses. By including New Zealand residents in this measure, employers won't have to keep track of whether or not an employee is from New Zealand when relying on this exemption to provide a standard choice form.
This bill also introduces a second change to the superannuation choice regime. Currently, when a superannuation fund mergers with another superannuation fund, there is an obligation on employers to reoffer a standard choice form to employees.
This obligation is an unreasonable burden on employers. It is also an obligation that many employers may not be aware of. Currently, employers may incur the choice shortfall penalty if they don't comply with this requirement. This bill removes this requirement on employers.
An employee whose superannuation fund has merged with another fund will continue to be notified of their new fund – this is a requirement under the Corporations law.
We are not limiting an employee's right to choose their fund. An employee's whose fund has merged with another fund will still be able to choose a different superannuation fund and rollover their money if they are dissatisfied with this new fund.
This bill balances the need to protect choice for employees while at the same time reducing red tape and making the superannuation guarantee regime easier to comply with.
Both of these changes to the superannuation guarantee regime will commence from 1 July 2015.
As I have mentioned before, this bill reduces the compliance costs of businesses, especially small businesses. These changes will result in around $45 million in annual compliance costs savings for business, which will help meet the Government's target to reduce red and green tape by $1 billion annually. These changes also complement other measures the Government is implementing to reduce the compliance costs for small business.
The Government will expand the eligibility of the government's superannuation clearing house service. From 1 July 2015, small businesses with a turnover under the small business entity threshold, which is currently $2 million, or that has less than 20 employees will be able to use this free online service to pay their workers' superannuation. Currently only businesses with fewer than 20 employees can use the service.
This change means around an additional 27,500 small businesses will be able to access to the clearing house from 1 July 2015. Expanding the clearing house also means businesses that exceed the current employee threshold by hiring temporary or casual staff to cover peak work periods, such as seasonal work, will still be able to access this service if their turnover is under $2 million.
Simplifying when a standard choice form has to be provided by an employer and expanding the clearing house is the first part of a package of reforms that the Government has announced to reduce superannuation red tape. The second phase of the reforms will be changes to reduce the harshness and simplify the superannuation guarantee charge. The changes to the superannuation guarantee charge will commence from 1 July 2106.
The full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS) BILL 2015
The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to implement measures in the PBS Access and Sustainability Package.
The bill contains changes to medicines supply and services designed to deliver a more sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), cheaper medicines for consumers, better value for money for Australian taxpayers, and continued and improved access to innovative medicines. It also includes measures from the successful negotiation of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement (6CPA)—the new five-year agreement with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, as well as the Strategic Agreement reached with the Generic Medicines Industry of Australia.
Cooperation and consultation
This package is the result of extensive consultation and negotiation across the whole PBS supply chain. The Government has worked constructively over the past four months with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Generic Medicines Industry Association, the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, Medicines Australia and other key stakeholders to develop a strongly supported package of measures that will ensure ongoing access to innovative medicines through a sustainable PBS. Not all stakeholders agree with all components of the package. However, all components have a solid body of support from across the stakeholder groups recognising that everyone must contribute in order to share the benefits.
For the first time, the negotiations regarding access to, and sustainability of, the PBS were not confined to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Medicines Australia. Instead, there was cross-sector consultation with over 20 stakeholder groups. Inputs and ideas were canvassed from all sectors, about all sectors. Meetings ranged from a roundtable, to group discussions, to one-on-one meetings. Ideas canvassed in these meetings have resulted in a broad package of over twenty measures which will achieve net savings of $3.7 billion over five years.
Key components of the package
The key components of the Access and Sustainability package will modify the operation of the PBS to reduce costs for innovative and generic medicines via new PBS pricing policies; increase pharmacy competition by allowing pharmacies to discount the co-payment for subsidised medicines; create capacity to list new medicines by removing certain over-the-counter medicines from the PBS; change the structure of pharmacy remuneration to remove the link to PBS prices; and provide for pharmacy to expand its role in the community.
Together, the measures provide a fair and balanced approach, where all participants in the PBS contribute to the required savings, risks are managed, efficiencies are gained, and access to medicines and pharmacy services for consumers is improved. The changes will allow the PBS to respond to the increasing demand for very expensive medicines and allow pharmacy to continue to evolve.
Savings— Pricing policy changes
F1 medicines— one-off 5% reduction
The majority of savings achieved by the measures will come from PBS pricing changes. The changes affect single-brand innovator medicines in the F1 formulary and multiple-brand medicines in the F2 formulary.
For medicines on F1, there will be a one-off statutory price reduction of five per cent on 1 April 2016 for all medicines which have been PBS-listed for at least five years. A similar one-off five per cent reduction will apply every April from 2017 to 2020 for other medicines when they reach their five year anniversary on the PBS.
This is the first time the Government has proposed statutory price reductions for F1 medicines. However, this is the fastest growing part of the PBS by price for individual medicines and by cost to the PBS. Every new drug is an additional investment by Government in companies in the innovative medicines sector, and contributes directly to that sector's growth.
Every four months, Government invests new money in this sector by actioning the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). In May 2015, this Government announced that $1.3 billion of new high cost listings had been approved to fund high cost cancer treatments and medicines for the treatment of blindness associated with diabetes. The positive outcomes from the March 2015 PBAC meeting mean the Department of Health is currently negotiating another $2.5 billion of listing recommendations from that meeting.
This is a significant and continual pipeline of reinvestment and revenue for the innovator sector. It is reasonable that after a period of time, a small percentage is recouped to help support further new listings. Delaying the reduction until five years after PBS listing recognises that manufacturers need time to recoup the investment in developing and bringing new medicines to market.
Price disclosure— remove originator
Price disclosure is important to the PBS as it allows market forces to play a part in the PBS, in a way that would not otherwise occur for subsidised prices. It makes medicines cheaper not only for Government, but also for consumers.
Price disclosure will be accelerated for medicines that have been listed on the F2 formulary for three years or more. This will be achieved through the removal of the originator brand as part of the calculation of the weighted average disclosed price. Calculations will then be based on sales data for generic medicines only.
Removing the originator from the price disclosure calculation will result in increased price reductions for Government and consumers because the weighted average prices will be lower. This is because originators tend to maintain higher prices than other brands, and therefore draw the weighted average up.
The first price reduction day under this policy will be 1 October 2016.
It takes time for generic brands to acquire market share. In Australia generic medicines tend to achieve 50 per cent market penetration by year three. To ensure free market competition principles have a chance to be established and multiple supply sources secured in the Australian generics market, all brands of a drug will be retained in price disclosure calculations in the early years of brand competition. This is why the originator will be removed from the calculation after three years. With less than 50 per cent of F2 medicines undertaking discounting after three years due to market dynamics reaching a floor price, this measure will only affect those medicines that are still engaged in significant market competition. In this way, medicines not undertaking significant discounting are still protected by the existing safeguards in the system.
My Department will consult with pharmaceutical companies regarding implementation well in advance to ensure they understand the effect of the new calculation method for their brands.
Price disclosure—protection for low volume medicines
The bill will also provide a mechanism to protect low volume, high need medicines, when there is little room for price reductions. This will reduce the risk of essential medicines becoming unviable and being withdrawn from the Australian market.
Price disclosure— flow on reductions to drugs in F2 combination items
For combination medicines on the F2 formulary, flow on pricing rules will be changed to enable price disclosure reductions to be proportionately flowed on from single molecule medicines to combination items.
At present, there is a loop hole in the price disclosure framework. It has allowed some companies to avoid flow-on price reductions of component medicines by listing a second brand of their own combination drug. Under the current policy, combination items in F2 have price adjustments only if there is a price disclosure reduction due to direct competition between brands of that item. It has resulted in an inconsistency between the pricing of component medicines and the combination item, providing companies with a revenue windfall at the expense of Government. This practice has already cost the Government, that is, taxpayers, some $250 million.
This change will address the anomaly by ensuring appropriate price reductions are applied to combination items on the PBS and ensure that the PBS pays the right amount for the same drug treatment.
Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement (6CPA)
For the pharmacy sector, the 6CPA provides revised remuneration arrangements that will enable pharmacy to innovate and transition from a focus on medicines supply to medicines management and pharmacy services.
The terms of the agreement increase the transparency and accountability of community pharmacy remuneration and remove linkages to drug prices; introduce mechanisms to ensure that expanded health services are cost effective and clinically appropriate; and provide for a review of pharmacy remuneration and regulation arrangements.
Extension of expiry for pharmacy location rules
The current Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement expires on 30 June 2015, as does the legislation which underpins the use of pharmacy location rules. Amendments in the bill will enable location rules, and for the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority which administers them, to continue until 30 June 2020.
Pharmacy location rules
Pharmacy location rules have been in place since 1990. Their purpose is to ensure a suitable geographic spread of pharmacies approved to supply PBS medicines, including in rural and remote regions of Australia.
There has always been considerable interest in the regulation of community pharmacy. There has also been frequent criticism of the existence of pharmacy location rules. Most recently the National Commission of Audit, the Competition Policy Review by Professor Ian Harper, and the Productivity Commission's Research Paper on Efficiency in Health, have all suggested that the location rules affect competition and that they should be revised or removed.
The Australian National Audit Office's review of the administration and negotiation of the 5CPA also questioned whether the Government receives value for money for expenditure on remuneration for community pharmacy.
Review of pharmacy remuneration and location rules
Because the details of the pharmacy location rules are determined separately, the effect of extending the expiry is that current arrangements can continue without interruption past the end of June.
Pharmacy location rules have been reviewed in the past and have been updated several times as a result. Whether they should remain in their current form, or be updated for the future, will be considered as part of the independent review of pharmacy location rules and remuneration.
This comprehensive and publicly accountable review will be conducted over the next 18 months and its findings published within two years of the 6CPA commencing. It will cover pharmacy remuneration, pharmacy location rules and wholesaler arrangements. The review will allow the Government to be better informed about components of PBS supply chain and to ensure distribution and supply of medicines is cost effective, and regulations are appropriate to their purpose.
Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement — investment and changes
Through a robust negotiation process the Government and the Guild have come to an agreement on a package of additional funding and structural reforms that will benefit the sector and most importantly consumers, and in the long term will demonstrate value for money for taxpayer dollars.
The 6CPA is a strong package which will deliver up to $18.9 billion to community pharmacy and wholesalers over the next five years. This is an increase of over $3 billion on the 5CPA. And this does not include an estimated $4.8 billion in under co-payment scripts that provide additional revenue to community pharmacy. In total, the potential revenue for this sector from the PBS is $23.7 billion over the next five years.
This investment will be vital to manage changes that may arise from the review of pharmacy remuneration and to transition to new models for dispensing medicines and pharmacy services.
Increasing pharmacy competition by allowing discounting of co-payments
This bill will also allow pharmacies to discount the patient co-payment for PBS medicines by up to one dollar per prescription. This discount is not mandated. Pharmacies can choose whether to offer a reduction and they can also decide the level of the discount, up to the one dollar maximum.
This will be the first time that PBS legislation will allow pharmacists to offer reduced PBS patient co-payments. The change will increase competition between pharmacies and benefit patients by reducing out of pocket costs at the point of sale.
At present there is inequity in the system. General patients (that is non concessional patients), already access over 70 million scripts per year for less than the patient co-payment amount of $37.70 and those prices are discounted by pharmacists based on market competition. The final price paid by the general patient can be counted towards their safety net.
But concessional patients cannot benefit from these practices as all PBS prescriptions are priced above the concessional co-payment amount of $6.10 because we, the Government, pay pharmacy a dispensing fee of $6.76 plus mark ups. To offer a concessional patient a medicine such as amoxycillin at the discounted price of $5.90 that could be offered to a general patient, the payment would not count towards their safety net. Alternatively, they must pay the higher price of the concessional co-payment ($6.10) in order to register the payment towards their safety net. This is not a fair outcome.
Consumers, particularly concessional patients, will benefit from paying less for their medicines under this measure. More affordable medicines is an important outcome for patients. It is important to remember that more than 80 per cent of concessional patients do not reach the safety net threshold so they will benefit from cheaper medicines under this measure.
The average concession card holder uses 17 scripts per year. They could save $17 per year, while average concessional patients over 65, could save $43. High medicine users will still have the full protection of their safety net, but could benefit from reduced monthly costs for their medicines in the lead-up to reaching the safety net and thereafter receiving their medicines free of charge.
Extending safety net early supply rule
In conjunction with the changes for patient co-payments, the safety net early supply provisions will be amended to include a wider range of medicines and a wider range of resupply intervals. This will allow the use of a medicine, the listed quantity and the resupply interval for a medicine to be better aligned.
Safety net early supply arrangements have been in place since 2006, when the current policy, known as the Safety Net 20 day rule, was introduced. Under the policy, the financial incentive for patients to obtain excess supplies of PBS medicines in advance of treatment need is removed. If a repeat dispensing of a prescription is obtained earlier than the specified resupply date, the person's usual co-payment applies—not the reduced safety net amount—and the payment does not count towards the safety net threshold.
These rules currently apply to certain medicines used for chronic conditions and for which the resupply interval is 20 days. The changes in the bill will enable early supply rules to apply to PBS medicines as recommended by the PBAC and for any resupply interval appropriate for that medicine.
Early supply rule medicines and implementation
The change to the early supply rules are being made on the basis of recommendations from the PBAC. The Committee has recommended additional medicines it considers suitable for inclusion under early supply rules. It has also advised on medicines it considers are not suitable for inclusion under the extended rule. These include treatments for cancer, palliative care items, and medicines with high dosage variability.
Existing arrangements that allow pharmacists to dispense an early repeat supply with the usual PBS subsidy but with no safety net benefits will continue.
This measure was strongly supported in the stakeholder consultations as experience with the measure for over eight years shows that it is a good quality use of medicine measure, and has not disadvantaged patients. Early supply rules promote responsible use of PBS entitlements, discourage waste, and reduce the quantity of unused medicines in the community.
Removing over-the-counter medicines from the PBS
While it is not part of this bill, this is an important opportunity to mention another measure which will be implemented as part of the PBS Access and Sustainability Package. It is the removal of low-cost over-the-counter medicines from the PBS.
Over-the-counter items are a class of medicines that can be sold directly to a consumer without a prescription from a healthcare professional. Some relieve aches, pains, and itches. Others treat conditions such as athlete's foot.
The majority of subsidised medicines dispensed on the PBS are prescription only medicines. However, around 20 million prescriptions, about 10 per cent of the total, are for over-the-counter medicines.
Most of the PBS prescriptions for these items are dispensed for concessional patients who have reached the safety net threshold. While they are free of charge to the patient, the effect for the PBS is very different.
In 2013-14, there were 6.7 million prescriptions for paracetamol supplied at cost to Government of $73 million; 1.1 million prescriptions for aspirin at a cost of $4 million; and for antacids 219,000 prescriptions for $2.6 million.
The savings on subsidising paracetamol alone would fund the potentially lifesaving drug ipilimumab (ipi-lim-MOO-mab) for late stage melanoma.
In recommending these changes the PBAC was also clear in recommending those over the counter medicines that should remain listed on the PBS. These include medicines listed for use by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and palliative care listings.
It is no longer possible, and it is not in the interests of patients or tax payers, to continue to subsidise relatively low cost, non-essential items that are available directly from pharmacies.
Remove over-the-counter medicines from the PBS—implementation—risks support
There have been claims that this change will increase the risk of adverse drug events and that it will compromise consumer safety because patient demand and PBS prescribing might shift to other more expensive prescription products.
Prescribers are highly aware of those risks and are also aware of their professional responsibility and need for clinical judgment to manage the risks.
The Department will be monitoring usage patterns of prescription therapies to assess whether there are signs of transfer prescribing or inappropriate use.
PBAC changes
This Government came to office promising to respect the independence of the PBAC and to improve listing times on the PBS. We have demonstrated that commitment by actioning all PBAC recommendations and improving the monthly listings from eight per month under Labor to 30 per month since October 2013.
As part of continuing initiatives to improve the operation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, a number of changes are proposed to build capacity for the Committee and streamline processes for listing drugs on the PBS.
PBAC membership changes
The first step to streamlining the process and improve the listing timeframes for medicines on the PBS is to increase the number of PBAC members.
Over recent years, there has been a marked increase in the number and complexity of submissions made to the PBAC. Five years ago, the average number of major submissions considered at each meeting was 19. The average number of major submissions today is more than 30. The agenda for the March 2015 meeting included the largest number of submissions ever with 40 major submissions and 21 minor submissions.
Over the last year, the PBAC has considered an average of nearly $4 billion worth of submissions at each meeting. The estimated cost of new listings from the November 2014 and March 2015 meetings alone is more than $4 billion over five years.
Submissions for new medicines are involving increasingly complex new technologies, biological products, drug-test combinations, and very high treatment costs. Assessing the comparative cost effectiveness of these therapies requires detailed consideration by Committee members skilled in assessing matters relating to health economics, epidemiology, therapeutic options and patient outcomes.
In spite of this dramatic increase in workload and complexity, there has been no increase in the size of the PBAC since 2006. It has been operating with a chairperson and 17 members since that time.
To respond to this, amendments in the bill will increase the number of members by three to a total of 21, and establish a new position of deputy chairperson.
The amendments also provide for industry to be one of the professional groups from which members can be nominated. They also provide for engagement with a broader range of consumer groups through expanding the range of nominating bodies and facilitate the option of a second consumer position on the PBAC. .
Changes to Regulations
For some measures, amendments to regulations and legislative instruments will be required. Consultation with interested stakeholders will be conducted regarding those changes. This will ensure companies, health providers and consumers have an opportunity to provide comments regarding implementation and understand how changes affect their businesses, their prescribing practices, and their access to medicines.
Summary
The Government has worked constructively with pharmacy, the pharmaceutical industry, and medical and consumer groups, to develop a strongly supported package of measures.
The package contains savings contributions from all sectors of the pharmaceutical supply chain, with benefits to consumers through cheaper medicines, enhanced pharmacy services, and funding for access to innovative medicines.
The changes in this bill are sensible and necessary. The savings contributed from price reduction for medicines on F1 formulary are reasonable and the policy is not something we should step away from. All new listings represent new funding, which is a direct reinvestment in the innovator medicines sector.
The changes to price disclosure for originator brands on F2 acknowledge that Australians should be benefiting further from the competition that occurs at the generic end of the market.
Together these will create capacity for the listing of new, expensive medicines which would otherwise be unaffordable for most people. For example medicines such as trametinib (tru-MET-in-ib) for the treatment of BRAF-positive metastatic melanoma, costing $437 million over four years.
The revised PBAC membership structure will provide more flexibility for handling a complex workload and help to streamline consideration of applications for PBS listings.
Closing and acknowledgements
Many people have worked hard to put these measures together and many more contributed their experience and ideas.
I would like to thank all stakeholders who have worked with the Government in recent months to develop the proposals and costings.
This is a balanced package of measures which, taken overall, provide fair outcomes for pharmacy, the medicines industry and consumers. It is also a reasonable deal for the Australian community who, as tax-payers, are the real funders of the PBS.
Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Business Services Wage Assessment Tool Payment Scheme Bill 2014
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the Instrument as contained in the Specification of Income Threshold and Annual Earnings 2015 and made under the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994, be disallowed [F2015L00569].
Fifteen sitting days remain, including today, to resolve the motion or the instrument will be deemed to have been disallowed.
Lowering the market salary comparison threshold from $250k to $180k reflects AMMA's advice that this should be viewed as a safeguard for lower income jobs only.
It is recommended that market rates of pay should be paid to all temporary visa holders with salaries less than $100 000 per year …
… in relation to the specific issue of threshold, no substantial evidence was provided to the panel that supported the need for the market rates exemption threshold to be as high as $250 000. If there are specific occupations and/or regions where the market rates of Australian workers would be undermined by 457 visa holders being paid $180 000 or more, then evidence of these concerns can be taken to the proposed new ministerial advisory council which would have the authority to make recommendations to address this situation for that occupation.
The Senate divided. [19:04]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Communications Legislation Amendment (SBS Advertising Flexibility and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Her indomitable spirit and soul will still be with us, living on in her legacy and the memories we all have about how she affected our lives.
We hope it will not take a death in Bandyup before the government acts on the numerous suggestions, reports and recommendations on women's imprisonment in Western Australia.
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality …
I can understand their anguish but we are still at the early stages of finalising that route into the Port of Fremantle.