The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Human Services in the Social Services portfolio and a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952 .
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015
My view is the market-based mechanism, the emissions trading scheme, is the most cost-effective.
We don't have a hope of having a fair process to become a republic until we have a republican Prime Minister.
I certainly think we should have a free vote and I've been very public about that.
… the green paper will be the first time when the government actually puts a draft set of proposals on the table for discussion.
… consequential benefits to the economy due to the effectiveness of the ABCC diminishing unlawful and inappropriate conduct were very great indeed.
It's being spent on things we know work: quality teaching, school counsellors, speech therapists. We are giving targeted support to children in kindergarten at risk of falling behind.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Gallacher and Dastyari today relating to school funding..
… fees will increase, schools could close and the quality of education will be compromised.
… you can vote Liberal or Labor and you'll get exactly the same amount of funding for your school …
… the additional investment—
is needed to implement a schooling resource standard. It is necessary because without it—
the high cost of poor educational outcomes will become an even greater drag on Australia's social and economic development in the future. The need for the additional expenditure and the application of what those funds can do is urgent. Australia will only slip further behind unless as a nation we act and act now.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Rural Health (Senator Nash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to proposed changes to bulk billing incentives.
Yes. The relevant regulations are a disallowable legislative instrument. The process for disallowance is explained in this Senate Brief. Broadly once the regulations are registered and tabled in parliament a Senator has 15 sitting days to give notice of a motion to disallow the instrument in whole or in part.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 24 December 2015, of the Honourable James (Jim) Joseph Carlton AO, former minister and member for Mackellar, places on record its appreciation of his long and highly distinguished service to the nation and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Jim Carlton has enjoyed a tremendous friendship with most members of this parliament. He is an exceptionally likeable person. As a consequence, most people like him.
In this sense this chamber is almost worthless and the Senate is having to do a double job of both primary and secondary treatment. It is important that this House becomes a primary treatment area for legislation and that issues are properly aired and legislation cleaned up, including with public hearings, before it goes across to the Senate.
He concentrates a lot more on ideas than on the personalities of the business. In that sense he has made his greatest contribution. Jim will be remembered for the ideas he has generated in a policy sense and the contribution he has made to the development of ideas, much more broadly than just on our side of politics.
That general business order of the day no. 35 (Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014) be considered on Thursday, 4 February 2016 under consideration of private senators' bills.
That leave of absence be granted to Senators Abetz and Ronaldson from 2 to 4 February 2016, for personal reasons.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 23 June 2016:
(a) progress made by the Government to address the recommendations in relation to paper procurement in the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's report, Commonwealth procurement procedures (tabled 17 July 2014);
(b) the impact of procurement connected policies, with particular reference to the ICT Sustainability Plan and the National Waste Policy, on securing manufacturing investment and jobs in the paper sector; and
(c) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2016:
The risks and opportunities associated with the use of the bumblebee population in Tasmania for commercial pollination purposes, including:
(a) the existing distribution and population density of exotic bumblebees;
(b) productivity and economic benefits of the commercial use of bumblebees for agricultural producers;
(c) the potential environmental impacts associated with the commercial use of bumblebees, including whether their use is likely to:
(i) impact the conservation status of a species or ecological community,
(ii) impact biodiversity,
(iii) cause unintended ecological impacts, and
(iv) contribute to a wider distribution of bumblebees;
(d) the implications for Australia’s biosecurity regime of any approval to use bumblebees in Tasmania for commercial purposes;
(e) the potential economic outcomes;
(f) the effectiveness of alternative pollination options; and
(g) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 23 June 2016:
The medical complaints process in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the prevalence of bullying and harassment in Australia’s medical profession;
(b) any barriers, whether real or perceived, to medical practitioners reporting bullying and harassment;
(c) the roles of the Medical Board of Australia, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency and other relevant organisations in managing investigations into the professional conduct (including allegations of bullying and harassment), performance or health of a registered medical practitioner or student;
(d) the operation of the Health Practitioners Regulation National Law Act 2009 (the National Law), particularly as it relates to the complaints handling process;
(e) whether the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme, established under the National Law, results in better health outcomes for patients, and supports a world-class standard of medical care in Australia;
(f) the benefits of 'benchmarking' complaints about complication rates of particular medical practitioners against complication rates for the same procedure against other similarly qualified and experienced medical practitioners when assessing complaints;
(g) the desirability of requiring complainants to sign a declaration that their complaint is being made in good faith; and
(h) any related matters.
That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 5 standing in the names of Senator Simms and Senator Xenophon for today, proposing a reference to the Environment and Communications References Committee, be postponed till 4 February 2016.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the trucking industry consists of approximately 49 000 businesses of which 25 000 are owner-drivers,
(ii) road freight transport delivers more than 2 billion tonnes of goods per year, which is 71 per cent of Australia's domestic freight,
(iii) the industry has had a poor but improving safety record, particularly considering the growth in the number of trucks on the road, and in the 12 months to the end of September 2015 there were 102 deaths in crashes involving articulated trucks and 82 deaths in crashes involving rigid trucks,
(iv) some large companies have been unfairly asking trucking operators to accept extended payment terms of up to 120 days which is not in the spirit of a harmonious business relationship,
(v) the resultant impact on a trucking operator's cash flow may affect their ability to meet their own financial commitments, such as, for wages, lease payments and maintenance of their vehicles, and
(vi) any reduction in maintenance and repair schedules forced on operators by extended payment terms could lead to more serious accidents and fatalities; and
(b) calls on businesses to adopt payment terms not exceeding 30 days consistent with the requirements of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, and in line with the Australian Government policy of making payments no later than 30 days for many contracts.
That, on International Day of People with Disability, the Senate calls on state, territory and Commonwealth governments to demonstrate their commitment to people with disability by signing the remaining bilateral agreements for the full rollout of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Australia-wide.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the findings of the Economics References Committee in its report Out of reach? The Australian housing affordability challenge (received 8 May 2015) containing 40 recommendations, and
(ii) that the Government supported nine of these recommendations, including:
(A) to commit to ensuring adequate funding so that women and children escaping domestic violence are housed in secure and appropriate housing,
(B) investigating housing supply bonds and tax increment financing to fund infrastructure for new housing developments, and
(C) to look closely at its aged care policy in relation to the difficulties confronting older Australians in the rental market; and
(b) calls on the Government to update the Senate on Wednesday, 3 February 2016, on any progress, if at all, on implementing those nine recommendations.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the success of Tambo Teddies as the inaugural winner of Google and the Regional Australia Institute's 'Online Heroes' competition,
(ii) that Tambo Teddies have been making bears and wool products since 1993 in the regional community of Tambo, and in 2015 celebrated bear number 40 000, and
(iii) that this company developed from a government Future Search Workshop, a program to create jobs in country towns in 1992, whilst Western Queensland was suffering a crippling drought and devastating wool prices,
(iv) That the original bears were established by three women, Ms Mary Sutherland, Ms Helen Sargood and Ms Charm Ryrie, and That the business is now a major national and international company; and
(b) acknowledges the enterprise and inspiration of this local business.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the 2003 committee report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, Every picture tells a story: Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, which recommended that a new non-adversarial system be created; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise that thousands of Australian children continue to be harmed by a family law system that is not fit-for-purpose,
(ii) recognise That the Family Law Act 1975 should be revised, simplified, shortened and based on core principles of the paramountcy of the long-term welfare of children, gender equality, and equal parental care and responsibility, when neither parent has been proven unfit, and
(iii) undertake a root-and-branch review of the family law system with a view to creating a new mechanism that is not adversarial in nature and deals with family separation in a way that has a tangible and primary focus on the welfare of the child, including an urgency for decisions, education and fairness.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 3 December is International Day of People with Disability,
(ii) the theme for 2015 is 'Inclusion matters: access and empowerment for people of all abilities', and
(iii) the three sub-themes are:
(A) making cities inclusive and accessible for all,
(B) improving disability data and statistics, and
(C) including persons with invisible disabilities in society and development;
(b) acknowledges International Day of People with Disability is an opportunity for the community to make positive changes to the lives of 4 million Australians;
(c) urges government at all levels to take action to develop inclusive and accessible communities; and
(d) encourages all Australians to get involved in the celebrations in their local community by visiting www.idpwd.com.au.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Right Honourable Patricia Scotland on her selection at the 2015 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) as the 6th Commonwealth Secretary-General; and
(b) notes the 2015 CHOGM Communique which states:
(i) the Commonwealth Heads of Government reaffirmed their shared and enduring commitment on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth to the values and principles of the Commonwealth Charter,
(ii) that young people, who comprise sixty percent of the Commonwealth's population, have an important role in building stable, secure and prosperous societies, and that Commonwealth programs can help raise awareness of the risk of radicalisation and prevent young people from embracing violent extremism, radicalisation and terrorism in all its forms,
(iii) That the Commonwealth recognises that freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and freedom of religion and belief are cornerstones of democratic societies, and important for the enjoyment of all human rights, and
(iv) that good governance and respect for the rule of law are vital for stable and prosperous societies.
Question agreed to.
That the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Senate had begun debate on mandatory data breach notification legislation prior to the 2013 election;
(ii) the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) committed to introduce data breach notification laws before the end of 2015 during the debate over the national data retention scheme;
(iii) the Attorney-General again committed to introduce such laws to the parliament before the end of 2015 in an answer to a question without notice on 13 October 2015;
(iv) contrary to these commitments, the bill has not been introduced; and
(b) calls on the government to make a statement to the Senate on 3 February 2016 explaining why such legislation has not been introduced, and clarifying the government's intentions.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) complaints by Western Sydney Wanderers fans that a heavy-handed approach to crowd control has been adopted, and that this is deterring fans from attending games,
(ii) that football fans may be banned from stadiums by Football Federation Australia with no opportunity to appeal against the banning order,
(iii) the publication of a list of the names of allegedly banned football supporters in the Sunday Telegraph on 22 November 2015, which apparently included individuals who were not banned, and others who were under 18 and had not been charged with any offence, and
(iv) football fans from a number of clubs have staged walkouts at recent games to protest alleged excessive policing and security, as well as Football Federation Australia's policy regarding banning;
(b) acknowledges Football Federation Australia's:
(i) recent undertaking to develop an appeals process for banned supporters, and
(ii) assurances that it was not responsible for making private information about banned supporters available to the Sunday Telegraph;
(c) calls on Football Federation Australia, police, stadium security, active supporter group leadership and A-League clubs to develop an accord, with a view to ensuring:
(i) Football Federation Australia's banning procedures comply with the rules of natural justice,
(ii) individuals engaging in anti-social behaviour are appropriately dealt with, while other football fans are allowed to enjoy the game in peace,
(iii) exuberant fan behaviour should not be unreasonably interpreted as anti-social or harmful, and
(iv) football supporters are not over-policed; and
(d) calls on the Minister for Sport (Ms Ley) to consider becoming involved in this matter.
That the resolution of appointment of the Select Committee on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan be amended by omitting from paragraph (1) ", on or before 26 February 2016," and substituting "by 17 March 2016".
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2016:
Carbon risk disclosure in regard to:
(a) current and emerging international carbon risk disclosure frameworks;
(b) current carbon risk disclosure practices within corporate Australia;
(c) Australian involvement in the G20 Financial Stability Board discussions on carbon risk impacts for financial stability;
(d) current regulatory and policy oversight of carbon risk disclosure across government agencies; and
(e) any other related matters.
The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne), no later than 3.30 pm on Monday, 22 February 2016, a copy of the Defence White Paper 2015.
The Senate divided. [16:44]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Defence (Senator Payne), no later than 3.30 pm on Monday, 22 February 2016, a copy of the Lazard Scoping Study completed on the future ownership and operations for Defence Housing Australia.
Notice of motion altered on 28 January 2016 pursuant to standing order 77.
The Senate divided. [16:49]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate calls on the Government to engage the Productivity Commission to review the Australian domestic shipping industry, to report on:
(a) the impediments to productivity in the sector;
(b) any consequential impacts on the productivity of the Australian agricultural, resources or other sectors arising from those impediments; and
(c) whether aspects of the European 'Motorways of the Sea' system could deliver productivity benefits to the Australian economy and domestic shipping.
The Senate divided. [16:54]
(The President—Senator Parry)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
"Despite the change of Prime Minister, the Turnbull Government has adopted former Prime Minister Abbott's misplaced priorities and broken promises".
I support unreservedly and wholeheartedly every element in the budget. Every single one.
I support every element, of course, including the Medicare co-payment.
I support the reforms to higher education.
I support the changes to family payment reform.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The 2013-14 report attributed the fall in DSP growth over the past five years to changes in the DSP assessment process. However, supporting evidence is limited and timing indicates that other factors are more likely to have impacted on the flows of DSP across this period;
…to date, DSS has not undertaken any formal review or evaluation of the eligibility changes. A focus on the evaluation of the efficiency and effectiveness of the changes would provide assurance of whether the current results are in keeping with the legislation.
That the time for presentation of the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the use of flag-of-convenience shipping be extended to 25 February 2016.
Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report:
Blind agreement: reforming Australia's treaty-making process February 2016
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee Report
Blind Agreement: reforming Australia ' s treaty-making process
Tabled 25 June 2015
Government Response to the Committee ' s Recommendations
The Government believes that Australia's existing treaty-making system is working well and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the different approaches needed for the wide variety of treaties to which Australia becomes a party. The existing system allows for extensive consultations and enables briefing of stakeholders where appropriate.
Recommendation 1:
The committee recommends that parliamentarians and their principal advisers be granted access to draft treaty text upon request and under conditions of confidentiality throughout the period of treaty negotiations. The committee recommends that the government provides an access framework and supporting administrative arrangements.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. The Government already considers whether to provide parliamentarians with access to draft text under conditions of confidentiality on a case-by-case basis. There is sufficient flexibility in the current treaty-making system to facilitate such access when the Government decides to do so.
Recommendation 2:
The committee recommends that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties adopt a process of ongoing oversight of trade agreements under negotiation. This process is to include:
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) is already mandated by Parliament to provide treaty oversight. The Government considers JSCOT's current terms of referenceto be sufficiently broad for it to perform effectively this oversight role.
Recommendation 3:
The committee recommends that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights consider the human rights implications of all proposed treaties prior to ratification and report its findings to parliament.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Human rights implications are already considered at appropriate stages in the treaty-making process. Any domestic implementing legislation is examined for compatibility with human rights by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Recommendation 4:
The committee recommends that on entering treaty negotiations, Australia seeks agreement from the negotiating partner(s) for the final draft text of the agreement to be tabled in parliament prior to authorisation for signature. In the absence of agreement, the government should table a document outlining why it is in the national interest for Australia to enter negotiations.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Under the Constitution the power for entering into treaties rests with the Executive. Under Australia's existing treaty-making system the Parliament, through JSCOT, already has the opportunity to review and make recommendations on treaties prior to the Executive taking binding treaty action.
Recommendation 5:
The committee recommends that, subject to the agreement of negotiating countries, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade publish additional supporting information on treaties under negotiation, such as plain English explanatory documents and draft treaty text.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation with respect to draft treaty text. In respect of the provision of other supporting information, this is already done on a case-by-case basis where the Government considers it appropriate.
Recommendation 6:
The committee recommends that stakeholders with relevant expertise be given access to draft treaty text under conditions of confidentiality during negotiations. The committee recommends that the government develop access arrangements for stakeholders representing a range of views from industry, civil society, unions, consumer groups, academia and non-government organisations.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Under the existing treaty-making system extensive consultation is undertaken with relevant stakeholders, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
Recommendation 7:
The committee recommends that the government, prior to commencing negotiations for trade agreements, tables in parliament a detailed explanatory statement setting out the priorities, objectives and reasons for entering negotiations. The statement should consider the economic, regional, social, cultural, regulatory and environmental impacts which are expected to arise.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Under Australia's existing treaty-making system extensive information is already made publicly available both in the lead up to and during the course of trade agreement negotiations, including detailed feasibility studies where appropriate.
Recommendation 8:
The committee recommends that a cost-benefit analysis of trade agreements be undertaken by an independent body, such as the Productivity Commission, and tabled in parliament prior to the commencement of negotiations or as soon as is practicable afterwards. The cost-benefit analysis should inform the government ' s approach to negotiations.
The committee further recommends that:
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. Under the existing treaty-making system it has been common practice under successive governments to conduct a feasibility study prior to the commencement of trade negotiations and for this study to be made public.
Recommendation 9:
The committee recommends that the government develop a model trade agreement that is to be used as a template for future negotiations. The model agreement should cover controversial topics such as investor-state dispute settlement, intellectual property, copyright, and labour and environmental standards and be developed through extensive public and stakeholder consultation.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. The Government will continue to approach each negotiation on a case-by-case basis, in order to secure the best possible overall outcomes for Australia.
Recommendation 10:
The committee recommends that National Interest Analyses (NIAs) be prepared by an independent body such as the Productivity Commission and, wherever possible, presented to the government before an agreement is authorised by cabinet for signature. NIAs should be comprehensive and address specifically the foreseeable environmental, health and human rights effects of a treaty.
Response:
The Government does not accept this recommendation. The National Interest Analysis (NIA) is the Government's own explanation to the Parliament, prepared on a whole-of-government basis, as to why it is in Australia's national interest for binding treaty action to be taken.
Government ' s Response to the Dissenting Report by Coalition Senators
The Government agrees with the Dissenting Report by Coalition Senators.
Government ' s Response to the Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens
The Government notes the comments on specific recommendations contained in the Dissenting Report by the Australian Greens. The Government does not agree with these comments.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That Senator Gallacher replace Senator Collins on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2015, and Senator Collins be appointed as a participating member.
Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) 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.
AGED CARE AMENDMENT (RED TAPE REDUCTION IN PLACES MANAGEMENT) BILL 2015
The Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill is a key component of the Government's deregulation agenda. It makes the business of delivering aged care easier for service providers and removes unnecessary administrative process so that the focus of care delivery can be at the forefront of service provider's attention.
Australia has an ageing population with the life expectancy of older people increasing with advances in technology. With this demographic, comes the need for Governments to support older people with their increasing care needs and make the process of delivering aged care less administratively burdensome than it currently is. This Bill reduces red tape for aged care providers in regards to the management of provisionally allocated residential aged care places and the transfer of residential, home care and flexible care places.
It shifts the focus of the business of aged care back to its roots in care delivery while still enabling the Government to uphold consumer protections around quality of care, as well as appropriate management of financial and prudential risk on behalf of the consumer. This Bill is a positive step forward to reducing red tape for aged care providers.
The two measures in this Bill are part of the election commitment made by this Government to review the administration of aged care places management. They represent the achievement of item 11 of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan. This plan was co-developed by the Government and the Aged Care Sector Committee, and it was approved by the former Prime Minister in 2014. In the plan, the Government committed to a review of aged care places management including the streamlining of the transfer of residential, home care and flexible care places and to revise the service provider obligations associated with managing provisionally allocated residential aged care places.
The commitment to reduce red tape for the aged care sector in these two areas was initially achieved by streamlining the information required to be provided in managing aged care places with new forms released earlier this year. These revised forms reduced the duplication of information sought by the Department in regulating aged care while still meeting legislative requirements. This initial reduction in red tape was the first step in this deregulation agenda of aged care places management however more can be done to support the aged care sector. This red tape reduction achievement has been built upon and it is the foundation of this Bill.
This Bill contains two distinct measures; the transfer of aged care places measure and the amendments relating to provisionally allocated residential aged care places. Both measures are the necessary next step in aligning business realities with the legislative platform in the Aged Care Act, and contribute to a more efficient and effective administration of aged care places.
The transfer of aged care places occurs where approved providers of residential aged care make a business decision, that they no longer have capacity to deliver care to older people who reside at their service and seek out another aged care business to continue this service delivery. At present, both transferee and transferor are required to submit an application form that is then considered by the Department of Health. In approximately 80% of cases, this application form is routinely approved by the Department. Historically, this requirement to submit a form has ensured that the new provider of the residential aged care commits to meeting their quality of care and other obligations.
The Aged Care Act however has a number of different regulatory tools to ensure that quality of care is delivered to a high standard, including strict accreditation requirements, compliance mechanisms and oversight by the Aged Care Complaints Scheme. The approval of this form, to transfer aged care places, is an unnecessary and administratively burdensome component of the Act that this Bill seeks to rectify.
In proposing a new model for the transfer of aged care places, three key concepts have been central to the new approach; firstly, only seeking additional information from the aged care sector that is necessary to provide an informed risk managed perspective of the proposed transfer, secondly, that where the transfer of aged care places is a business decision between two already approved providers of residential care, that there is limited involvement in that business transaction, and thirdly and most importantly, the government retains capacity to review and where necessary veto the transfer arrangement to ensure that a high standard and quality aged care service can be delivered and other consumer protections can be maintained.
The new approach to the transfer of aged care places is to replace the application form with a simplified Notice of Transfer that is signed by the transferring parties. It removes the need for approved providers to seek approval to transfer their places to another provider. They simply notify the Department of the transfer and wait for the transfer to be processed. The Government retains the capacity to review the proposed transfer and where quality of care, prudential, financial or other significant concerns exist, has the right to issue a Notice of Veto to prevent the transfer from proceeding. If additional information is required in reviewing the proposed transfer, a Notice to Resolve can also be issued.
The proposed legislative reforms are a part of a package of changes that will remove 20 out of a total of 93 provisions (in both primary and subordinate legislation) that relate to the material that must be provided to or considered by the Department of Health when approved providers wish to transfer places. A further 17 of the 93 are being merged and/or simplified, and 10 of those 17 provisions will only apply where places are transferring to a new approved provider.
In developing this new approach, important aged care sector input and consultation has occurred with support provided by peak bodies and others consulted. The new approach to the transfer of aged care places was provided to the Aged Care Sector Committee in May this year with a selection of other providers also asked for input and feedback on the model. The response to this measure from the aged care sector was positive and reflective of the business transaction that this component of the Act regulates. This new approach aligns to the fundamental concepts of red tape reduction and meets the objectives of the Red Tape Reduction Action Plan; by ensuring regulation within the aged care sector is fit for purpose.
The second measure within the Bill aligns the period of provisionally allocated residential aged care places with the current business realities of approved providers of residential aged care. In reviewing current practice and assessing the case for a change in the policy setting towards a reduced administrative arrangement, advice from the aged care sector was that the current legislative arrangements did not adequately support providers of aged care.
A provisionally allocated place is a place that an approved provider has not and is not delivering care through. It is a place that an approved provider has been advised will be subsidised by the Australian Government but is not currently operational and has not "taken effect".
Following successful receipt of a provisionally allocated place through the Aged Care Approvals Round, approved providers of residential aged care must then seek planning approval through local governments to construct their new aged care service. Advice from the sector is that sometimes this process alone can take up to two years. The current provisionally allocated period of two years sometimes only permits planning approval to be received before applications for extension commence.
Departmental data indicates that the median time it takes approved providers to operationalise their places is approximately four years, and that 80% are operational within six years. It is reasonable to amend this provision to reflect how this component of the Act is used by providers of aged care. Under the current approach, a rolling cycle of extensions and quarterly reports is required to be undertaken. This is time consuming and includes unnecessary reporting of information that rarely changes.
The new approach to managing provisionally allocated residential aged care places extends the initial period from two years to four years and permits two twelve month extensions before care is required to become operational. After six years, an extension to the provisionally allocated residential aged care place will only be made in exceptional circumstances. If care does not start being delivered, the aged care place will lapse and be re-allocated through the Aged Care Approvals Round to another provider that has capacity to deliver the care.
This model aligns the legislative platform for regulation with the current business realities of approved providers of residential aged care. It also reduces the red tape for the sector by preventing the unnecessary reporting burden on approved providers of residential aged care by 75%.
This new approach is an important change in the way that we consider aged care as it shifts the focus back to care delivery. This Bill indicates the Government's intention that provisionally allocated residential aged care places cannot be held by service providers indefinitely, but rather it provides more definitive timeframes for providers to start delivering care for older people who require it and where this cannot be achieved, allows those places to lapse and be returned for reallocation to a service provider that does have capacity to deliver additional care.
The Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill demonstrates that the Government is taking the pressure off the aged care sector by aligning the legislative platform with current practice, pursuing the reduction in red tape agenda to reduce unnecessary reporting and shifting the focus back to the business of delivering care for older people. This Bill also implements models that protect the high standard and quality of care provided while enabling business transactions between approved providers of aged care.
Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015
Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 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.
AMENDING ACTS 1990 TO 1999 REPEAL BILL 2015
The Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 is part of the Government's 2015 Spring Repeal Day package.
This Bill continues the Government's efforts to streamline the statute book by removing 877 amending or repealing Acts enacted between 1990 and 1999. This is the fourth in a series of Amending Acts Repeal Bills introduced by the Government. Together, these four Repeal Bills will repeal over 3,500 amending Acts made between 1901 and 1999.
The Bill repeals each Act mentioned in its Schedule. The repeal of these Acts will not alter existing arrangements or make any substantive change to the law. They are no longer required as the amendments and repeals that they provide for have already occurred.
At present, the Acts proposed to be repealed by this Bill are part of current law. Examined out of context, it may not be clear whether they have continuing effect beyond the amendments that they made.
Their repeal will make the statute book easier and more efficient to use.
If an application, saving or transitional provision is included in one of these Acts, any ongoing operation of the provision will be preserved. The Acts do not contain any other substantive provisions with ongoing effect.
People with a specific interest in the text of these spent Acts will still be able to access them on ComLaw, but they will be clearly marked as "Repealed".
[ADDITIONAL TEXT IF REQUIRED: Some Acts being repealed by this Bill amended principal Acts which have already been repealed, such as the Social Security Act 1947 and theAustralian Protective Service Act 1987 . Others were intended to amend a principal Act which never came into force, such as theLegislative Instruments Act 1995 .
Other Acts being repealed by this Bill amended principal Acts that are still in force, in some cases these principal Acts were amended multiple times over the course of the decade. As the amendments have been incorporated into the Principal Act, these amending Acts have no more work to do and their repeal will remove unnecessary and potentially confusing material from the statute book.]
STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL (NO. 3) 2015
The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015 is part of the Government's 2015 Spring Repeal Day package.
The Bill is part of ongoing efforts to repeal spent or redundant legislation and correct minor errors in Commonwealth laws. The Bill improves the clarity and accuracy of the Acts it amends without making substantive changes to the law. These many small changes contribute to reducing the burden of regulatory compliance for individuals, community organisations and businesses.
Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill correct technical errors and incorrect cross references, remove redundant text and renumber text within principle and amending Acts.
Correcting these legislative provisions helps to make the law easier to understand and use.
Schedule 3 to the Bill amends the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 , continuing the work of the previous Statute Law Revision Bill. The amendment makes clear that the Crown in right of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory is bound by the Act in question. It also modernises the drafting of the associated provision about the Crown's liability to be prosecuted for an offence.
This change clarifies the intended operation of Commonwealth legislation.
Schedule 4 to the Bill modernises language used in offence provisions, while Schedule 5 updates indexation provisions to match the current terminology preferences of the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Schedule 6 of the Bill repeals spent or obsolete provisions. For example, a provision of the Do Not Call Register Act 2006 required a review to be conducted and the resulting report to be tabled in Parliament. The review concluded in May 2010 and the report was tabled in September 2010. The provision is therefore redundant and can be repealed.
These ongoing corrections and improvements to legislation are important to ensure that the Commonwealth statute book remains up to date, accurate and user-friendly.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015
Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) 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 (PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2015
I am pleased to introduce the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Proceeds of Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2015, which contains a range of measures to improve and clarify Commonwealth criminal justice arrangements.
Non-conviction based confiscation scheme
Schedule 1 of the Bill contains amendments to the Proceeds of Crime Act to clarify the operation of that Act's non-conviction based confiscation scheme in light of recent court decisions.
The amendments clarify the principles a court should consider in granting a stay of confiscation proceedings where there are related criminal matters, and outlines the grounds on which a stay is not to be granted.
Whilst a court may still exercise its discretion to stay civil proceedings if it considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so, the amendments make it clear that it is not enough for a person to say that they, or someone else, may face charges or have to give evidence in a related criminal trial at a future date. There must be something more than that—the risk of prejudice must be explained to a court.
This Bill recognises that the right to a fair trial is of paramount importance in the criminal justice system. Hence the amendments clarify the civil court procedures available in Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings to reduce the risk of prejudice to an accused in related concurrent or subsequent criminal proceedings.
The amendments also strengthen protections against disclosure and use of material related to the confiscation proceedings in subsequent criminal proceedings.
Where a person is facing both proceeds of crime and criminal proceedings, the amendments reinforce the safeguards against the risk of prejudice. The amendments clarify that where a court makes an order prohibiting the disclosure of information to an authority, the information cannot be disclosed.
In addition, the Bill introduces a new provision to allow a court to order that proceedings under the Act be heard, in whole or in part, in closed court if necessary to prevent interference with the administration of criminal justice.
These measures enable the court to safeguard against the risk of prejudice to an accused in any related criminal proceedings where the court considers it necessary to do so.
The Bill also clarifies that any application for an exclusion order relating to a restraining order must be heard by a court and finalised prior to the hearing of a forfeiture application.
False dealing with accounting documents
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the Criminal Code to create two new offences of false dealing with accounting documents.
This measure will strengthen Australia's compliance with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Article 8 of the Convention requires parties to create offences of false accounting for the purposes of foreign bribery. In 2012 the OECD Working Group on Bribery recommended that Australia increase the maximum sanctions against legal persons for false accounting under Commonwealth legislation.
The offences will criminalise conduct where a person:
The offences will apply both within Australia and overseas where constitutional power permits.
Serious drug offences
The amendments in Schedule 3 will make amendments to improve the clarity and efficacy of the serious drug offences. The amendments will do three things.
First, they will clarify the meaning of a number of terms in the definition of 'drug analogue' to ensure that it operates more effectively. The drug analogue clause ensures that the serious drug offences apply to substances that are structurally similar to listed controlled and border controlled drugs.
Secondly, they will clarify an ambiguity in the definition of 'drug analogue' about the circumstances in which a substance listed as a controlled drug can be a border controlled drug. Under these changes, a substance may be a drug analogue of a listed controlled drug, even if the substance is already listed as a border controlled drug (and vice versa).
Finally, the amendments in Schedule 3 will clarify that a process is 'manufacturing' where it converts a substance from one form into another. This will ensure that manufacturing processes which change the state or physical form of a substance, but which do not create a new substance, are caught within the various manufacturing offences in Division 305 and other associated offences.
These amendments continue to deliver on the Government's commitment to tackle serious and organised crime, including serious drug offending. The amendments will make sure that the serious drug offences in the Criminal Code operate effectively and without unnecessary technicalities. They build on the recent amendments to the serious drug offences contained in the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Powers, Offences and Other Measures) Act 2015 to improve our law enforcement and prosecution agencies' ability to disrupt the supply of illicit drugs.
Stronger, clearer and more effective legal frameworks to deal with illicit drugs are an important part of reducing Australia's growing addiction to drugs like ice. These drugs are mind-eating, personality-distorting and life-ending and their supply must be stopped.
Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing
Schedule 4 of the Bill will make several amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act to remove operational constraints that have been identified by a number of law enforcement agencies.
The existing definition of ' foreign law enforcement agency ' in the Act will be amended to specifically include INTERPOL and Europol, and a new regulation-making power will be inserted to enable additional international bodies to be prescribed in future. This amendment will beneficially affect Australia's relations with foreign countries and international organisations by enabling timely and effective cooperation in the investigation of transnational and multi-jurisdictional crime.
Amendments will also be made to the secrecy and access provisions of the AML/CTF Act to clarify that information or documents obtained under section 49 of that Act can be disclosed onward, including for investigative purposes such as applications for warrants. This will support the proper performance of investigative and law enforcement functions by providing greater legislative certainty.
Schedule 4 will also list the Independent Commission Against Corruption of South Australia as a designated agency under the AML/CTF Act. This will enable ICAC SA to access AUSTRAC financial intelligence information, which will enhance its capacity to investigate corruption in public administration and bring it into line with the abilities of similar statutory bodies in all other states.
AusCheck—Information sharing
Schedule 5 of the Bill amends the AusCheck Act to enable AusCheck to directly share information with state and territory authorities and with a broader range of Commonwealth authorities.
Currently, AusCheck Scheme personal information can only be shared with the Commonwealth and relevant Commonwealth authorities with functions relating to law enforcement or national security. This prevents AusCheck from sharing relevant information with other Commonwealth agencies that are not traditionally considered to be law enforcement agencies, but which may require access to the information for law enforcement or national security purposes.
AusCheck is also unable to directly share information with relevant state and territory agencies. These restrictions are at odds with the significant role these agencies play in law enforcement and national security, and the collaborative approach necessary to combat the cross-border threats of terrorism and serious crime. This causes particular challenges for agencies that undertake law enforcement and national security operations at secure airport and maritime port areas, such as state- and territory-led police taskforces targeting drug importation.
Information sharing will continue to be limited to the performance of functions relating to law enforcement or national security, and be subjected to strong safeguards. Safeguards include criminal offences in section 15 of the AusCheck Act for the unlawful disclosure of AusCheck scheme personal information, the use of privacy notices to inform applicants and acquire consent for the collection and disclosure of their personal information, memoranda of understanding with relevant authorities and the AusCheck Guidelines for information sharing.
Conclusion
This Bill will enhance the ability of Commonwealth agencies to investigate and prosecute criminal offences, and seeks to ensure that the Commonwealth can effectively target and confiscate proceeds of crime. It will better address law enforcement issues and national security risks through improved information sharing, and it will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of various laws relating to criminal justice administration.
OMNIBUS REPEAL DAY (SPRING 2015) BILL 2015
Mr Speaker, today I am introducing the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015.
These Bills are a part of the Government's efforts to clean up the Commonwealth's statute book. Collectively, these three Repeal Day Bills will repeal over 900 Commonwealth Acts, making it easier for users of Commonwealth legislation to find and access regulations.
Mr Speaker, the Omnibus Bill is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation that is not the subject of individual stand-alone bills.
This Omnibus Bill alone will amend or repeal legislation across 14 Commonwealth departments. Much of this legislation is either spent or redundant and has remained on the Commonwealth's statute book well after fulfilling its purpose.
For example, the Omnibus Bill will repeal the Wool International Act 1993 and theWool International Privatisation Act 1999 from the Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. These two Acts are both redundant because WoolStock Australia Limited was wound up and delisted from the Australian Stock Exchange in 2001.
The Omnibus Bill will also abolish the Medical Training Review Panel (MTRP) and simplify approved provider obligations in the area of aged care within the Health portfolio.
In October 2014, members of the Medical Training Review Panel identified an overlap between their functions and those of the National Medical Training Advisory Network. Part of the Advisory Network's functions is to provide advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employers and educators. Given this focus, it was agreed that the Advisory Network could pick up the Panel's annual reporting obligations on medical education and training and the Panel's role would cease.
We don't need two bodies to do the same job.
The Omnibus Bill will also simplify legislation in the Health portfolio. For example, the Bill will improve the administration of residential aged care by amending provisions in the Aged Care Act 1997. Provisions within the Act require approved providers to notify the Department of Health of changes in key personnel in their employment within 28 days. In cases where an employee leaves and is replaced by another, this would constitute two notifications to the Department even if neither change materially affected the quality of care. Examples of unnecessary regulations can matter – the Department receives in the order of 10,000 notifications from aged care providers each year.
In spite of these amendments, the Aged Care Act 1997 will still require approved providers to notify the Department of changes in circumstances that materially affects the provider's suitability to provide care.
Simple but sensible changes provide scope to reduce the unnecessary notification regime without undermining the quality of care. This will reduce compliance costs for businesses and community organisations who are approved aged care providers. The Department of Health has estimated that this will lead to an annual saving of $1.16 million in compliance costs.
The Omnibus Bill will also repeal Part 3 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 , which establishes the Fishing Industry Policy Council. Why might we do this Mr Speaker? The fact is that the Council has not convened since the legislation was enacted in 1991.
The same consultation and advice functions that the council was supposed to provide have been fulfilled by other working groups and committees. This includes fisheries management advisory committees and ad hoc representative committees, such as that formed for the reviews of the Commonwealth harvest strategy and bycatch policy.
The Omnibus Bill will also amend various Acts in the Communications and the Arts portfolio to remove duplication.
The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 ,Interactive Gambling Act 2001 ,Radiocommunications Act 1992 and theTelecommunications Act 1997 will be amended to repeal duplicative provisions. There exists a range of different, if not confusing, consultation requirements in the portfolio which required rule-makers to consult before making certain legislation instruments.
Consultation is not being affected.
The provisions proposed for repeal involve a variety of inconsistent approaches to the time and method of consultation. In some cases, the consultation periods in question range from 14 to 60 days. Some of the consultation provisions in question require publication on a website; while some require publication in multiple newspapers. There is no policy rationale for this inconsistency and inflexibility.
Not only is this confusing, but the repealed consultation provisions are unnecessary. Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 requires a rule maker to be satisfied that appropriate and reasonably practicable consultation has been undertaken prior to making a legislative instrument.
Mr Speaker, users of Commonwealth legislation should not have to sift through outdated, unnecessary regulations to determine whether they still apply.
The Omnibus Bill will also repeal a number of spent Acts, such as the Statistical Bureau (Tasmania) Act 1924 . The Act approved an agreement between the Commonwealth and Tasmania to integrate the statistical office of Tasmania into the Commonwealth, and for the Commonwealth to compile and issue statistics specifically for Tasmania.
Integration of statistical functions is complete and these statistical services compiled by the Commonwealth are now obsolete. The Act has served its purpose and can be repealed.
Similarly, the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970 is redundant. The Act related to a Commonwealth guarantee on a loan made to Papua New Guinea by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1973. The bank has confirmed that the loan has been repaid in full and hence, the Act can be repealed.
Allowing spent and redundant acts or provisions to remain in force on the Commonwealth's statute book does not serve any purpose. It only makes it harder for businesses, community organisations, families and individuals to find out about the regulations that matter to them.
Mr Speaker, to date and subject to the passage of legislation through Parliament, in total this Government has taken decisions to repeal over 10,000 legislative instruments and around 3,600 Acts of Parliament.
Through the Omnibus Bill, the AAR and the SLR Bills, this Government is continuing to demonstrate its commitment to make steady and consistent progress to reduce red tape.
Proper housekeeping is part of every Government's responsibility to ensure that the rules the Parliament agreed to in the past continue to remain 'fit for purpose'. I call on both Houses to show bipartisan support for the Omnibus Bill and its non-controversial measures. This will clear up the Commonwealth's statute book and remove the redundant and unnecessary legislation that have outlived their purpose.
I thank the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and others for the significant time and effort that went into preparing this important Omnibus Bill.
With this, I commend the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 to the House.
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
Defence Legislation Amendment (First Principles) Bill 2015
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Cargo) Bill 2015
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015
Export Control Amendment (Quotas) Bill 2015
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP Reform) Bill 2015
Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 2) Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2015
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform and Participation Measures) Bill 2015
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (2015 Budget Measures) Bill 2015
Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2015
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Tax Laws Amendment (Gifts) Bill 2015
Courts Administration Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015
That the Senate do now adjourn.
That this State Council release a statement expressing its condolences and deep sympathy to all those affected by the recent fires. Furthermore, this State Council commends the State and Federal Governments for the assistance already provided to those affected by the fires and calls upon the State Government to consider what additional assistance may be provided from the Royalties for Regions funds to assist with the restoration of infrastructure such as bridges in the affected areas.
It is easy to rapidly rebuild houses and bridges. It is impossible to rebuild the Huon pine and King Billy pine forests that make Tasmania so special and attract people from all over the world to admire their beauty.
We need to ensure there are sufficient resources to protect both people and our ancient heritage.
… a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans … And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.
… paying dividends in parliament with Liberal MP Luke Simpkins using question time …
For Azerbaijan the issue of Karabakh is a matter of ambition; for the Armenians of Karabakh, it is a matter of life or death.
I have to travel a 200k round trip to make my 57 second appointment (yes I timed it).
At the moment, he can't walk without assistance, his speech is slurred, he can't always use his hands, he gets sporadic bell palsy, he will randomly shake while standing, has short-term memory difficulties, falls asleep as soon as he sits at a desk and is in constant pain. But according to Centrelink he can work 15 hours a week. So he is on News tart where he has to apply for jobs that he can't read or sometimes comprehend.
My poor mum has to call up Centrelink on two occasions every fortnight one for herself for being a carer and one for my dad, who is disabled. Each and every time I hear her struggle to get a hold of them often having to stay on hold for hours.
I am on Centrelink because I have a bad knee (waiting for surgery), and a special needs child. This morning, while reporting online, I found out my payment had been suspended. Rang Centrelink, on hold for over 2hrs, to be told that I didn't respond to a letter... A letter they sent to the wrong address. Another 50min on the phone to have payment reinstated.
7 Hours one day, I truly wish I was joking, OR exaggerating at all. But I'm not, I think I still have the screenshot on my old phone somewhere. This was about 5 months ago. I was trying to sort out a medical issue and my job network member at the time, it was disgusting..
I suffer from a chronic pain condition called Fibromyalgia. I spend more time in bed with pain and not being able to do the simplest tasks like sweeping my house then I do out of bed. I am in pain on a daily basis and it is only the severity of that pain that changes. I have just been rejected for the disability claim saying I do not meet the criteria.
I recently applied for the disability support pension. I was told the process would take 7 weeks. 6 months later it was finally approved. I spoke to a very helpful officer who explained the processing staff have a grade of service. They need a certain per cent done in the 7 weeks so if your processing goes a day over they let it sit without chasing anything up to focus on 'easier' cases.
If you are a disability pensioner and change your address, the essential medical equipment allowance forms need to be filled in by a doctor again. Wasting the doctor's time and Medicare funding obviously. You find this out when you receive a letter the week following registering the new address when you receive a letter cancelling your essential medical equipment allowance.
I have to make sure I have literally nothing else to do that day and sit there pressing recall for 1-2 hours BEFORE being on hold for an hour and a half average. I'm lucky that I can use the app for most things now but dread having to have direct contact.
Recently spent every day for over a week trying to call Centrelink, as requested in a letter sent to me. Received an engaged signal on both Families and Employment line every time, pressing redial over and over again for the same response. Eventually got through to be told it was a 90 minute wait. My phone (a cordless landline!) ran out of battery before it was ever answered.
We know that if we ever have to call, we have to make sure the home line is charged and that nothing can interrupt us for at least one to two hours because it always takes that long to get served. That said, the staff are always awesome and generally know what to do and are always polite. The online stuff, oh my sweet God. The myGov site is like pulling eyeballs and I cry if we have to use it.
Online services quite often do not work and it takes several attempts even over a couple of days to do what you need to do. If you need to phone them, yes, expect to try to get through for at least an hour first then you are on hold for maybe another hour. The whole thing is sooooooooo frustrating. They want you to do the right thing ie report and update circumstances but they make it near impossible to do it.
We've found that there's a good chance that there'll be more dry lightning in South Eastern Australia in summer in the future with climate change.
It has more than 40 lawyers on staff, and has trained more than 1300 law students and 1700 practising lawyers.
the great thing about laundry is it takes time and that time is the most powerful impact that our service can have.
… … …
you know, one hour is one hour having a chat on our great orange chairs is a really good time for our volunteers but also our friends … to really connect back into the community.
Orange Sky's key mission is to better connect the community and what we've found is that through a really simple thing like having fresh clean clothes we're able to restore respect, raise health standards, and reduce the strain on resources.
We jumped in the car and started driving south, pulled into Rocky—
at around 1am just after the cyclone hit and there was significant damage all throughout the city. We were there in Rocky and Yeppoon for four days and we washed over 1,000 kilos of clothes.
As I passed Grant's laundry back to him, he told me something I'll never forget. He said, 'Nic, I haven't been able to have a conversation with anyone for over three days'.
… it was unlikely that he—
had been shown autopsy photos at his trial, as his defending officer and Colonel Pearce—
had made a conscious effort to keep graphic photographs out of the court.
… Major General Westwood has no recollection of being requested to provide the photographs or any such information after the Court Martial and Board of Inquiry process, nor does he have any recollection or record of having done so.
The Board of inquiry Report entitled "report of the Board of Inquiry into the death of Stuart McMillan Jones on the 9 August 2000 in East Timor (with privacy and security deletions) dated 12 October 2000.
Margaret taught two generations of staff how to allow student voices to be heard and to coax them into independent thinking, even if it came out uninformed.
The university today rightly boasts about its equity and transition programmes – Margaret Henry was one of its flagship operators decades ago, in the 1970s and 1980s …
It is hard to imagine a Newcastle without her.
My despair and frustration is increased by the impotence in being able to do nothing abut it. Emails to politicians, submissions to the light rail authority—nothing.
A desperate phone call to Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's office (he is the federal member responsible) met a very terse and brusque response: "It's a state matter," I was told in no uncertain terms.
Turnbull and his people do not want to know about it. I've tried what an ordinary citizen can, but to no avail against the vested interests of those horse racing fraternity and their planned hotel and the complete intransigence of the government.
If you voted for Mike Baird, take note. I will never vote for this government again.
Josie McSkimming Coogee
… office holders will decide issues not on the merits or desires of constituents, but according to the wishes of those that have made large financial contributions valued by the office holder …