The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013
Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
… what we're actually going to do is take ownership and responsibility of the ALP … We're getting influence in the ALP and that's how we're going to get in there. We're not going to wait for the politicians to come and do it for us …
… … …
We're not going to just ask them to do it, we're going to go in there and demand they do it …
They're not very good … I'd say that the state opposition is very, very mediocre …
… attacks the raison d'etre of the merger.
… very few people in the real world are worried about.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) and the Attorney‑General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Farrell, Chisholm, Moore and Sterle today.
Yes they are … which somewhat attacks the raison d'etre of the merger of the Liberal Party and National Party. I think there might be a revisiting of things as a result of compulsory preferential voting.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney‑General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Mr Dutton).
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to an incident involving members of the Army.
That general business order of the day no. 35, Racial Discrimination Law Amendment (Free Speech) Bill 2016 be considered on Thursday 24 November 2016 under consideration of private senators' bills.
That business of the Senate order of the day no. 2 relating to a reference to the Economics References Committee be postponed to the next sitting day.
That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 June 2017:
(a) the increase in the cost of home, strata and car insurance cover over the past decade in comparison to wage growth over the same period;
(b) competition in Australia's $28 billion home, strata and car insurance industries;
(c) transparency in Australia's home, strata and car insurance industries;
(d) the effect in other jurisdictions of independent home, strata and car insurance comparison services on insurance cover costs;
(e) the costs and benefits associated with the establishment of an independent home, strata and car insurance comparison service in Australia;
(f) legislative and other changes necessary to facilitate an independent home, strata and car insurance comparison service in Australia; and
(g) any related matters.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority Amendment (New Governance Arrangements) Bill 2016
Superannuation (Excess Transfer Balance Tax) Imposition Bill 2016
Treasury Laws Amendment (Fair and Sustainable Superannuation) Bill 2016.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) last year, the Fair Work Ombudsman found evidence of exploitation of 20 per cent of workers on the 457 visa,
(ii) the problems with the 457 visa scheme result from weak regulation and exploitative employers,
(iii) exploitation of foreign workers also increases exploitation of Australian workers, and
(iv) promoting division between workers based on ethnicity and nationality is a common tactic used by conservatives to distract from exploitation by employers; and
(b) calls on:
(i) the Government to reform migrant worker visa schemes to prevent employer exploitation of all workers, and
(ii) all parties to cease promoting division between foreign and Australian workers.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the funding reallocated by the Turnbull Government last week from the now defunct East West Link was directed almost entirely to roads in Victoria, despite the original $3 billion in funding being earmarked for public transport,
(ii) the Turnbull Government is yet to commit funding to any major public transport projects in our urban centres, and
(iii) investment in well-designed public transport infrastructure is essential to tackle congestion in effective, economic, equitable and less polluting ways; and
(b) calls on the Government to prioritise funding for public transport in our major urban centres, which boosts productivity and addresses car-dependence in our cities.
That the Senate calls on the Turnbull Government to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in its entirety, including the additional 450 gigalitres of environmental water that the science shows is the minimum necessary amount of water diversion required to keep the Murray River healthy, flowing and the mouth open at least 9 out of 10 years, as well as the South Australian agricultural sector and environment thriving.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 21 March 2017:
Changes to the Aged Care Funding Instrument announced in the 2015-16 Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) and 2016-17 Budget, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact of these cuts on service delivery and the level of care that older Australians receive, including in regional and remote communities;
(b) the impact of these cuts on the sector including the sector's capacity to deliver complex health care, and the ongoing viability of the sector;
(c) the impact of these cuts on state and territory governments if health systems are required to provide more complex care as a result;
(d) the assumptions and data underlying projections by the Government;
(e) the consultation process with consumers, community groups and aged care service providers in relation to these changes; and
(f) any other related matters.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Di Natale moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to give precedence to general business notice of motion No. 115 relating to the US alliance.
No other election has had the capacity to completely overturn the international order …
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Whish-Wilson)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Turnbull Government's failure to ensure secure, well-paid, jobs for Australian workers.
Cutting the company tax rate is an important step along this road.
This recognises the benefits to investment and growth from lower company tax rates and a trend to lower rates across the OECD over the past 30 years.
Any student of Australian business and economic history since the mid-80s knows that part of Australia's success was derived through the reduction in the company tax rate.
Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment.
More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.
… the United Kingdom, facing a much tougher fiscal situation than Australia's, cut its company tax rate to 23 per cent in April 2013, to be reduced further to 21 per cent in April 2014.
At 30 per cent, our company tax rate is now above the OECD average … it is how the rate compares to that of our competitors that counts.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The Inquiry is grounded in the voices of individuals affected by discrimination, the experiences and perspectives of employers of all sizes and across all sectors, extensive research and the ideas and expertise of advocates, legal practitioners, policy experts, industry representatives and unions.
International comparisons by the OECD show Australia lagging behind similar countries in terms of employment of older people and people with disability.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2016
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report: Review of the Defence Annual Report 2013-14
November 2016
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Jobs Families Project be further developed to incorporate accurate assessments of both qualifications and experience that are required for a given role. The Committee further recommends that, in its implementation of the First Principles Review, the Department of Defence develop its strategic planning and appointment process to ensure employees have task-specific competence for their role, and that opportunities are actively created for personnel to obtain this relevant experience.
Government response
Agree.
The Defence Australian Public Service Job Families Project was completed with the establishment of 20 job families and over 2,100 occupation profiles. The evolution of job families is now part of business as usual. Development of the Defence Strategic Workforce Plan is progressing, which will include consideration of the Australian Public Service workforce. The Defence Strategic Workforce Plan will inform job family workforce plans that will drive workforce management including recruitment, learning and development, performance and talent management.
In preparation for the job family workforce plans, occupation profiles are being reviewed and amended to reflect changing Defence business and to identify key capabilities, key technical and core knowledge and skills, and other requirements such as qualifications and licenses.
Skills censuses of Australian Public Service staff are to be conducted during 2016 as part of the Defence census, which will enable assessment of individuals' capabilities against those of the occupation that they are engaged in. This information will provide significant input to workforce plans and subsequent initiatives including learning and development.
The Defence census and workforce planning will be part of a regular business planning cycle enabling Defence to monitor progress and adjust plans to address areas of workforce risk. This work is being undertaken, reported and regularly reviewed as an element of the Workforce Work Stream of the First Principles Review.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence collate and periodically publish figures on the effect of Project Suakin, including statistics on:
Government response
In close consultation with the Services, Project Suakin (Suakin) has established a comprehensive evaluation framework based on a broad range of quantitative and qualitative data. The framework has been designed to measure the effectiveness of the Total Workforce Model in generating and sustaining Defence capability, and specifically determining the extent to which the benefits identified in the original case for change and subsequent design activity have been realised. This data would be reported externally via the Defence Annual Report.
With respect to the various components of Recommendation 2:
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence develop more innovative ways to recruit, especially in the science, technology and engineering fields. The Committee further recommends that the Department, together with the Service Chiefs, utilise the following initiatives to better attract people with science, engineering and technical skills:
Government response
Agree.
Defence agrees that further attention to attracting personnel in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields is required and intends to build on existing programs. Defence notes the recommendations of the Committee and advises the work to date in this area is as follows:
o collaboration with the Australian Business and Community Network through its Influence-Her program for high performing Year 10 female students studying culturally and linguistically diverse to improve awareness of technical careers for women in the Defence Australian Public Service;
o implementation of a dedicated science and technology recruitment and development stream in 2016 for Defence Australian Public Service graduates, to attract and train high performing university students for careers in research and innovation in Defence Science and Technology and for technical roles in the Defence Intelligence Agencies; and
o sponsored university study through the Undergraduate Scholarship Program for Female Students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics at the Australian National University, the University of New South Wales and the University of Adelaide; and the Defence Civilian Undergraduate Sponsorship for engineering students to study for free through the University of New South Wales, Canberra, currently comprising 13 students, seven of whom are female.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that, whilst maintaining physical standards, the Department of Defence ensure the standards are fit for purpose and exercise flexibility on a case-by-case basis.
Government response
Agree in principle.
Defence continues to explore ways to enhance and increase the participation of diverse groups in the Australian Defence Force while recognising the unique nature of Australian Defence Force requirements, sometimes under strict parameters.
The aim of the physical employment standards is to identify appropriate physical tests for entry and continued employment in employment categories in order to select personnel best suited for the demands of that employment group. As a second order effect this may reduce injuries, with a consequent increase in personnel availability for operations and training and reduction in costs of health care and compensation.
The physical employment standards for combat roles recently opened to women were reviewed to ensure they are scientifically based, occupationally relevant and do not discriminate based on age or gender. The physical employment standards will be reviewed annually to ensure the assessments still meet the requirements of each employment category. These standards apply a fit for purpose methodology, therefore Defence agrees with the recommendation that the physical standards are fit for purpose.
Defence will apply flexibility with the physical employment standards on a case-by-case basis for specific medical circumstances only. All personnel will be required to pass the physical employment standards in order to be fully qualified in their specific employment group.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs report the progress and results of their mental health programs, including the Longitudinal Australian Defence Force Study Evaluating Resilience.
Government response
Agree.
There are a range of mental health programs which are conducted jointly and separately by Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The Departments will report on the progress and results of these mental health programs through the following reporting mechanisms.
Defence programs., Defence provides a comprehensive range of mental health programs that are available across the career lifespan of a member from enlistment through to operational deployment through to transition from the military. These include programs which are designed to: increase mental health awareness; provide skill-based training to Defence personnel on the management of mental health in Defence; provide clinical up-skilling to Defence health professionals on the assessment and treatment of mental health conditions; and the delivery of mental health and psychology services to Australian Defence Force members. The progress of these initiatives are reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review.
In addition to the above, progress against mental health research projects are reported to the relevant approving ethical review bodies and results are disseminated through specifically designed communication strategies. For example, a comprehensive communication strategy will be developed for the final Longitudinal Australian Defence Force Study Evaluating Resilience report and actioned upon receipt and acceptance of the report by the Commonwealth.
Joint programs. Since 2013, Defence and DVA have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the Cooperative Delivery of Care and Support to Eligible persons. Collaborative projects are managed under the MoU, with Defence and DVA maintaining a strong joint approach to mental health programs and research including the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme, Defence referrals of Australian Defence Force personnel to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) for counselling, and the development of a range of e-mental health smart phone applications. The progress and results of these programs are reported to the Defence / Department of Veterans' Affairs Executive Committee as well as other relevant groups such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs Research Board or the Joint Health Command and VVCS Agreement for Services Steering Committee. Progress and results of joint programs are also reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review where relevant.
The Government also notes that Defence and DVA already provide annual reports to Parliament and are accountable to Parliament, including through the Budget estimates process, for supplying any reasonable request for information.
DVA programs. DVA purchases and provides a range of mental health services for its clients: online mental health information and support through the At Ease mental health portal at
www.at-ease.dva.gov.au, GP services, psychologist and social work services, psychiatric services, pharmaceuticals, posttraumatic stress disorder programs, and hospital services for those who need it. VVCS also provides counselling and group programs to veterans, peacekeepers and eligible family members. VVCS is a specialised, free and confidential Australia-wide service and may be contacted 24 hours a day by calling 1800 011 046. DVA can pay for certain mental health treatment whatever the cause (whether or not the condition is related to service), and the conditions covered are PTSD, anxiety, depression, alcohol use disorder and substance-use disorder. From July 2016, eligibility for these non-liability mental health arrangements is available to anyone who has had permanent service in the ADF, no matter what the service or how long.
The Government has committed to an annual Ministerial statement to Parliament on key issues impacting upon the veteran community and the performance of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This will be a transparent process which will measure the performance of the Department and increase accountability to the veteran community. Tackling the mental health challenges for veterans and their families is a pillar of the Government's plan for veterans' affairs and will feature in this annual Ministerial statement.
The Government announced on 11 August 2016 that the National Mental Health Commission in conjunction with clinical experts and a reference group comprised of current and former members of Defence, will analyse the effectiveness of existing suicide and self-harm prevention services.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence develop methods to collect and collate data on the On Base Advisory Service to measure its effectiveness.
Government response
Agree in principle.
The On Base Advisory Service is administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs with the support of Defence. On Base Advisory Service activity data is reported to the Defence Links Steering Committee, a joint Defence and Department of Veterans' Affairs committee. The Department of Veterans' Affairs is in the process of refining the On Base Advisory Service performance framework. This work will enable the Defence Links Steering Committee to more effectively monitor the performance and effectiveness of the On Base Advisory Service.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends the reporting to Parliament on the Joint Strike Fighter Program be more comprehensive and equivalent to that made available to the United States Congress.
Government response
Disagree.
As a partner in the United States led global F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program, Australia gains insight into the Program through a range of mechanisms and forums. While we are a partner with a level of influence, the United States leads the F-35 Program and is directly responsible for the conduct of the global F-35 Program.
In the United States context, the delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter capability attracts a high level of scrutiny as the largest global Defence acquisition project to date. Reports by the Director Operational Test and Evaluation and United States Government Audit Office are produced by organisations independent of the United States F-35 Joint Program Office and are made publicly available. Defence analyses these US reports and includes specifics as it relates to the Australian JSF Program.
As part of the Major Projects Review, the Australian National Audit Office conducts an annual audit and report of the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program. This report is equivalent to the reports produced by the United States organisations. In addition, Defence reports to Government annually on the status of the F-35 Program and regularly provides evidence to Senate Estimates and the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The Joint Strike Fighter Division of the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group is also required to provide annual advice to the Australian Government as an update on the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program, including specific briefings on the more classified elements of the Program.
Defence believes the current level of reporting of all major programs, including the Australian Joint Strike Fighter Program, closely mirrors United States congressional reporting, with some exceptions like the Director Operational Test and Evaluation report which has no equivalent organisation or report in the Australian context.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that, to aid transparency and accuracy, the Department of Defence record and periodically report the quantum of unfunded liabilities held by Defence, including:
The Committee does not expect this reporting to form part of Defence's annual financial statements.
Government response
Disagree.
Defence's actual and contingent liabilities, as defined by Australian Accounting Standards, are accounted for and disclosed in the annual financial statements. Underinvestment in Defence capabilities is considered in the preparation of the annual financial statements when identifying whether assets may be impaired in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards.
The Framework for the Preparation and Presentation of Financial Statements issued by the Australian Accounting Standards Board notes that an essential characteristic of a liability is that an entity has a present obligation. A decision by management to acquire assets in the future does not, of itself, give rise to a present obligation.
As part of the White Paper process Defence has rebalanced the funding assigned to Defence in the budget and over the forward estimates against the Government's future requirements. This rebalance has allocated funding to Defence capability, including major capital equipment, facilities and infrastructure, and information and communication technologies. This rebalance has been rigorously cost assured by external assessors. Any future variations to the funded commitments in the White Paper will be considered through the mechanisms developed in accordance with the recommendations of the First Principles Review. As such, any additional commitment will be managed transparently in an enterprise-wide approach across the Defence portfolio, with in-year commitments managed by the Enterprise Business Committee, and future commitments managed by the Investment Committee. Any changes in planned expenditure across Defence programmes which may result in unfunded capabilities will subsequently be detailed in the Portfolio Statements which are open to scrutiny through the Senate Estimate Committee process.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Defence Annual Reports include appropriately detailed information on the Fuel Services Branch, in particular the progress of fuel farm remediation and remaining work to be done. The Committee further recommends that the Department of Defence actively explore options to engage and collaborate with industry on fuel management and security.
Government response
Agree in principle.
Future Defence Annual Reports will provide more detail on the reform of the Defence Fuel Supply Chain and initiatives to enhance its operational resilience.
The establishment of the Fuel Services Branch in early 2015 was a key recommendation of the Wraith Review (commissioned by the Secretary of Defence in late 2013) to support the appointment of Commander Joint Logistics as Head of Defence Fuel Supply Chain, creating a single point of accountability for the on-time and in-full delivery of fuel to meet the needs of capability managers. This replaced a fragmented and dysfunctional management structure that did not have clear roles or lines of responsibility.
Throughout 2015, Fuel Services Branch focused on remediating the issues identified by the Wraith Review as being of greatest concern, notably the asset integrity of Defence fuel installations, working relationships between facility operators and maintenance contractors, safe work practices, staff training, and capital estate management for existing and new fuel infrastructure. An extensive Hazard Risk Assessment program commenced in mid-2014 to identify key risks and issues across the primary Defence fuel installations, leading to these now being managed in a more coordinated and structured way with key stakeholders across Defence. The Hazard Risk Assessment program has also assisted in focussing specialist fuel engineering expertise on the asset integrity of the Defence Fuel Supply Chain, which will be further assisted by the design and development of a centralised Defence Fuel Supply Chain Engineering Management System during 2016. The Hazard Risk Assessment program will be completed by 30 June 2016.
Commander Joint Logistics promulgated the Defence Fuel Supply Chain Strategic Plan 2015-2022 internally on the Fuel Services Branch intranet site in November 2015. The Plan sets out the key strategic goals for Defence to develop end-to-end management within the Defence Fuel Supply Chain and also to optimise the safe, effective and efficient delivery of fuel to meet capability. A complementary Defence Fuel Supply Chain Operational Plan for 2015-16 has also been promulgated internally that will address all of the key recommendations of the Wraith Review.
Key to both the Defence Fuel Supply Chain strategic and operational plans is the roll out of the Defence Fuel Management System during 2016 and 2017. The Defence Fuel Management System will provide a comprehensive and integrated system for identifying and managing all Defence Fuel Supply Chain related risks. It describes what controls are to be implemented for Defence Fuel Supply Chain functions and minimum requirements related to those controls. System level requirements also describe key roles and responsibilities for each function (aligned to the Defence Fuel Supply Chain organisation) and related performance measurement and evaluation requirements.
The Defence Fuel Management System is designed so far as possible to operate seamlessly with whole-of-Defence, Joint Logistic Command and single Service safety and environmental management systems. It seeks to contextualise the requirements of those systems into one set of documents focussed exclusively on Defence Fuel Supply Chain related activities and operations. An important element within the Defence Fuel Management System is performance monitoring and governance, which is being designed to provide a multi-layered and robust performance monitoring and governance framework to ensure risk control performance is monitored at all levels.
Chief of Defence Force in July 2014 and seeks to identify opportunities for greater industry participation through reduced costs of ownership, reduced enterprise risk and rationalisation of certain military-specific fuels in favour of commercial grade products. The Fuel Network Review is focusing on bulk fuels only and is due to be completed by December 2016.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Department of Defence, in partnership with Defence Housing Australia, prepare an effective consultation and communication framework with the community for use in ongoing and future redevelopments.
Government response
Agree.
Defence Housing Australia has a strong record of establishing and maintaining relationships with the communities in which Defence Housing Australia developments are constructed. In addition, Defence Housing Australia continues to review its practices to ensure they are tailored to meet the specific needs of each development.
Defence Housing Australia aims to make information about development projects publicly available wherever possible, in line with the requirements of the applicable local council or authority. Community engagement can occur in various forms, from listening to the community in the early stages of planning through to keeping local residents and community groups informed as the project advances. Community engagement is conducted in line with Defence Housing Australia process instructions for Development Marketing and Defence Housing Australia Development Marketing Community Engagement guidelines.
Defence Housing Australia has well practiced and successful procedures in place to engage with the community and stakeholders regarding its developments. These involve communication strategies such as letter drops, internet sites, newsletters and community meetings. Consultation with the community is broad and feedback is considered as part of the planning process for every development.
The ways in which Defence Housing Australia consults and communicates with the community for developments, as per Defence Housing Australia Development Marketing Community Engagement guidelines, are shown as follows:
That the Senate take note of the document.
… the Job Families Project be further developed to incorporate accurate assessments of both qualifications and experience that are required for a given role.
There are a range of mental health programs which are conducted jointly and separately by Defence and the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA). The Departments will report on the progress and results of these mental health programs through the following reporting mechanisms.
Defence provides a comprehensive range of mental health programs that are available across the career lifespan of a member from enlistment through to operational deployment through to transition from the military. These include programs which are designed to: increase mental health awareness; provide skill-based training to Defence personnel on the management of mental health in Defence; provide clinical up-skilling to Defence health professionals on the assessment and treatment of mental health conditions; and the delivery of mental health and psychology services to Australian Defence Force members. The progress of these initiatives are reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan and in the Joint Health Command Annual Review.
In addition to the above, progress against mental health research projects are reported to the relevant approving ethical review bodies and results are disseminated through specifically designed communication strategies.
Since 2013, Defence and DVA have operated under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the Cooperative Delivery of Care and Support to Eligible persons. Collaborative projects are managed under the MoU, with Defence and DVA maintaining a strong joint approach to mental health programs and research including the Transition and Wellbeing Research Programme, Defence referrals of Australian Defence Force personnel to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS) for counselling, and the development of a range of e-mental health smart phone applications—
The progress and results of these programs are reported to the Defence / Department of Veterans' Affairs Executive Committee as well as other relevant groups such as the Department of Veterans' Affairs Research Board or the Joint Health Command and VVCS Agreement for Services Steering Committee. Progress and results of joint programs are also reported against the Australian Defence Force Mental Health and Wellbeing Action Plan—
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Kitching
Appointed—
Senator Bilyk
Participating member: Senator Kitching
Publications—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bilyk
Appointed—Senator Kitching
Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World—Select Committee—
Appointed—Senator Gallacher.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2016
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Assistance Alignment and Other Measures) Bill 2016
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2016
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.
CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (EXPANDED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2016
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Expanded Information Technology Agreement Implementation and other measures) Bill 2016 implements commitments made in the 2016‑17 Budget to reduce customs duty on certain information technology products.
This Bill contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to reduce the customs duty on certain information technology products to Free. These reductions will occur incrementally over time, commencing on 1 January 2017.
The customs duty for the majority of products included in this Bill, including printing ink and certain types of equipment used in the manufacture of printed circuits, will become Free on 1 July 2019. A small number of products, including certain types of audio speakers, will become Free on 1 July 2021.
Australia is a net importer of information technology products. The progressive elimination of customs duty on certain information technology products will benefit Australian industries and consumers through lower costs.
SOCIAL SERVICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FAMILY ASSISTANCE ALIGNMENT AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2016
This Bill introduces amendments to align the time period for income reconciliation for certain Family Tax Benefit recipients for the 2012‑13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years and to correct an unintended consequence generated by the Youth Allowance Rate Calculator.
Specifically, amendments will be made to the date of effect provisions to clarify longstanding administrative practices in relation to the payment of arrears of family tax benefit. In effect, the amendments will ensure it is clear that an individual cannot be paid Family Tax Benefit supplements and top-ups where they notified that they were not required to lodge an income tax return more than one year after the end of the relevant income year.
These amendments ensure consistency with the equivalent timeframe currently applying to families who were required to lodge a tax return for the 2012‑13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years.
These amendments strengthen existing provisions to ensure that their interpretation is beyond doubt. There will be no material effect on Family Tax Benefit recipients for these years given the one year timeframe has been in effect since the 2012-13 year and has been communicated to recipients clearly since this time.
One year is considered a reasonable amount of time for families to notify Centrelink that they are not required to lodge and/or provide details of types of income not included in a tax return in order for reconciliation of their Family Tax Benefit entitlement to occur.
These amendments will ensure that full effect is given to the original 2013 Realignment of Time Period for Income Reconciliation Budget measure and that the intent of the family assistance programme is met, which is to deliver financial assistance to families to help with the cost of raising children when it is needed.
The Bill also includes contingent amendments to remove reference to Family Tax Benefit supplements in the event they are phased out as part of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Family Payments Structural Reform Bill and Participation Measures) Bill 2016, designed to improve the sustainability of the family payments system.
The Bill also introduces amendments to correct an unintended consequence of amendments that were made in Part 3 of Schedule 1 of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Generous Means Testing for Youth Payments) Act 2015 to the Youth Allowance Rate Calculator in section 1067G of theSocial Security Act 1991 .
It is intended that the rate calculator produce a fortnightly rate. Currently there is an inconsistency in that step 1 of the rate calculator is expressed as an annual amount while subsequent steps are expressed as fortnightly amounts. The result is that comparing the outcome of the subsequent steps from the calculation in step 1 does not generally provide the correct threshold test outcome, and in most cases will result in a harsh outcome.
The error occurred because of introducing complex maintenance income rules from A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (which are predicated on annual amounts) to theSocial Security Act 1991 (where payments are based on fortnightly amounts). The change that is proposed amends step 1 in the rate calculator to reduce the figure to a fortnightly amount consistent with the original intent of the changes as announced by the Government in the 2015-16 Budget.
This amendment ensures that the aim to align the parental means testing arrangements for youth allowance more closely with those for Family Tax Benefit Part A will be met.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (BUDGET & OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2016
The Government is pleased to present legislation that will give effect to three Veterans' Affairs' 2016-17 Budget measures.
This government continues to honour its strong commitment to veterans and the veteran community by recognising the unique nature of military service.
The Veterans ' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget & Other Measures) Bill 2016 contains three important measures to support veterans. It:
Non-Liability Health Care
Expanding access to Non-Liability Health Care is a very important component of mental health treatment for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). In the 2016‑17 Budget, this Government committed $37.9 million to extend eligibility for Non-Liability Health Care to all current and former permanent members of the ADF for five mental health conditions:
In addition to expanding the range of conditions for which Non‑Liability Health Care may be provided, accessing this treatment has also become easier:
The treatment is known as Non-Liability Health Care because it need not be linked to a condition arising from the service of the eligible person. Further, it is completely separate from any claim for compensation.
Non-Liability Health Care is available via a legislative instrument made under the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 . This has been in place since 1 July 2016 and I am encouraged by reports from the Department of Veterans' Affairs that there has been a marked increase in the number of requests for Non‑Liability Health Care between July – September 2016. This is to be strongly encouraged and I urge any ADF members in need of mental health treatment to get in contact with the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
Interim Incapacity Payments
In the 2016‑17 Budget, this Government committed $0.2 million for this measure. It will allow interim incapacity payments to be paid to former ADF members immediately upon discharge at a level that matches their regular salary.
This is important because, currently, when a member discharges from the ADF there can be a period of time - sometimes several months – before incapacity payment amounts can be determined while superannuation entitlements are finalised.
Some members can experience financial hardship during this period. These amendments will enable veterans to receive their pre-discharge salary during this period and the Department of Veterans' Affairs will make an adjustment to a person's incapacity payments after the superannuation component has been finalised.
Align cut-off age for incapacity payments to pension age
The Government committed $5.5 million to this measure in the 2016-17 Budget to improve support for veterans by increasing the incapacity cut-off age to align with age pension eligibility.
The amendments will enable veterans to continue to receive incapacity payments up until they become eligible for the age pension. Approximately 120 veterans per annum will benefit from this change.
Currently, payment of incapacity entitlements under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (MRCA) ceases when an employee reaches 65 years of age or, if the injury occurred on or after the age of 63, after a maximum of 104 weeks of incapacity entitlements have been received.
However, the legislation needs to be amended to keep pace with the scheduled age pension increases, otherwise injured veterans may be without adequate means of financial support upon reaching 65 years of age once the age pension eligibility changes take effect.
These amendments align the cut-off age for incapacity payments to "pension age" as defined in the Social Security Act 1991 . Rather than defining a set age, this approach means incapacity payment cut-off will remain in alignment with age pension eligibility age into the future.
Conclusion
This Bill will support our veterans in real and tangible ways from increasing access to vital mental health treatment, to better financial support for ADF members transitioning to civilian life and ensuring access to incapacity entitlements through to pension age.
Social Services Legislation Amendment (Transition Mobility Allowance to the National Disability Insurance Scheme) Bill 2016
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill introduces the 2016-17 Budget measure to transition the Mobility Allowance program to the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Mobility Allowance is being transitioned to the NDIS to ensure that the NDIS is the main program of support for people with a disability who need assistance to enable them to fully engage in the workforce and other economic activities.
The NDIS is the new way of providing individualised support for eligible people with a permanent disability or a significant functional impairment. The NDIS will provide about 460,000 Australians with a disability under the age of 65 with the reasonable and necessary supports they need to live fruitful and successful lives.
As part of the previous Labor Government's decision to commit to the NDIS in the 2013-14 Budget, it was agreed that Mobility Allowance would be one of 17 Commonwealth programs that would be transferred to the NDIS to help fund its implementation.
Implementation of this decision would have required the progressive closing of Mobility Allowance in NDIS sites from 2016-17 in order to align the Mobility Allowance payment settings with NDIS funding estimates.
There are currently around 60,000 Mobility Allowance recipients. However, the NDIS trials have demonstrated that around 30 per cent (or 18,000) of these Mobility Allowance recipients will be ineligible to receive an NDIS package of support. This group includes around 4,000 recipients who will be aged 65 years or older and 14,000 recipients aged under 65 years.
This is in large part due to Mobility Allowance having much broader eligibility criteria than the NDIS. The group of recipients aged under 65 who are expected not to transition to the NDIS includes recipients who have mild to moderate or non-permanent disability and would therefore not qualify for a package of support under the NDIS eligibility rules.
Without additional funding, closure of Mobility Allowance would have resulted in current recipients of Mobility Allowance that are ineligible for the NDIS not being provided with continuity of support as agreed by Governments. This Government is working to ensure that those not expected to transition to the NDIS continue to receive the support they need.
This Bill presents amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 , and related legislation as part of the transitioning of Mobility Allowance to the NDIS. It will ensure that continuity of support is provided to current recipients of Mobility Allowance who may not be eligible for the NDIS.
As a first step, the Government provided $46.5 million in the 2016-17 Budget to ensure that such people continue to receive support through the Mobility Allowance program in the short to medium term.
The Government is also considering how such people, including participants in any of the other transitioning programs, who are assessed to be ineligible for an NDIS package, will be supported over the long term under continuity of support arrangements.
To support the transition of Mobility Allowance funding to the NDIS, this Bill will align eligibility rules for new claimants from 1 January 2017 with the NDIS to ensure that the program is targeted to those who need support the most while they wait to be transitioned to the NDIS.
Under current arrangements, Mobility Allowance is a very broad program which is not well targeted. The payment has not led to any significant increase in the workforce participation of recipients. This is partly because, despite its policy objectives, there is no requirement for Mobility Allowance payments to be spent on transport needs or in ways that directly assist a recipient's workforce participation.
There are several differences in the eligibility requirements for assistance through Mobility Allowance and the NDIS, including age of eligibility and disability requirements. Access to the NDIS is limited to those who apply before turning 65 years, whereas there is no current upper age limit for Mobility Allowance.
NDIS eligibility requires that a person's disability is likely to be permanent and substantially affects an individual's capacity for social and economic participation. Mobility Allowance eligibility requirements are much broader, requiring a disability that affects an individual from using public transport for an extended period of one year or more.
To support the transition of Mobility Allowance funding to the NDIS, Mobility Allowance will only be available to new claimants aged under 65 years, consistent with the NDIS rules. The disability criteria will also be aligned with the NDIS disability criteria which means new claimants must have a permanent or significant disability which prevents them from using public transport without substantial assistance, and be undertaking paid work or vocational training.
These changes will ensure that those who become eligible for the payment from 1 January 2017 are people who are more likely to be eligible for NDIS support.
These changes to eligibility will not apply to existing Mobility Allowance recipients. However, recipients who lose entitlement to the payment and wish to reclaim Mobility Allowance will be assessed under the new rules.
Consistent with the practice implemented during the NDIS trials, a person who receives an NDIS package of support will not be eligible to receive Mobility Allowance payments at the same time.
In addition, and to ensure that eligible participants fully utilise the range of services that will be available to them in the NDIS, this Bill also introduces amendments to prevent a person who receives a package of NDIS supports from being able to opt out of the NDIS in order to claim Mobility Allowance. This means that once a recipient transfers to the NDIS, Mobility Allowance will no longer be an available option for them, even if they discontinued their program of support.
Mobility Allowance recipients currently receive a 12 week continuation period, during which they may continue to receive a payment while not participating in a qualifying activity. For example, a recipient whose casual employment is completed can continue to receive the payment for 12 weeks while they look for another job or seek to engage in another activity. However, the existence of the 12 week continuation period has not led to any appreciable increase in the level of workforce participation of Mobility Allowance recipients.
This Bill will also reduce the continuation period during which a recipient continues to receive Mobility Allowance while they are no longer engaged in a qualifying activity, from 12 weeks to 4 weeks.
Through aligning eligibility of Mobility Allowance with the NDIS and these other additional measures, the vast majority of Mobility Allowance recipients will be receiving individualised supports through the NDIS when it reaches full scheme in 2019-20.
As a result, the amendments in this Bill will result in the closure of the Mobility Allowance program from 1 July 2020, following the full roll out of the NDIS. The closure of the Mobility Allowance program will also be another step towards this Government's commitment to simplifying the welfare payment system.
As Mobility Allowance is a supplementary payment designed to assist with transport costs for eligible recipients undertaking approved activities, closing the program will not disadvantage most recipients as the payment will be replaced with individualised supports provided through the NDIS.
Current recipients of Mobility Allowance, who are still in receipt of the payment as at 30 June 2020 as they have been found to be ineligible for the NDIS, will continue to receive support in the longer term under the Government's commitment to provide continuity of support for existing Commonwealth clients.
It is important to note that there are also a range of other assistance programs available to help individuals who will no longer have access to Mobility Allowance and are ineligible for the NDIS. Some of these assistance programs provide services to address mobility issues faced by individuals. Assistance programs available to these individuals include:
Eligibility for social security pensions or benefits will also not be affected by these amendments. The majority (90 per cent) of Mobility Allowance recipients are currently eligible to receive a primary income support payment, such as Disability Support Pension. Most of these recipients also have automatic access to concession cards and a range of supports, employment services and training opportunities through their jobactive and Disability Employment Services providers.
The objectives of this Bill are consistent with the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the NDIS. Together with the transition of other programs this Bill ensures that the NDIS is the main program of support for people with a disability who need assistance to enable them to fully engage in the workforce and other economic activities.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2016-2017
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2016-2017
… inappropriate and destructive legislative or administrative measures being imposed which have the effect of destroying the independent office of SG—
The appropriate course in the caretaker period was for the secretary of the Attorney-General's Department and the Attorney-General to refer to the shadow Attorney-General that matter.
The committee has resolved it will not insist upon answers, given that many of the questions—
cover ground that has been discussed … and as a result of the large number of questions which were asked.
These devices are in a woman's pelvis until she dies! We have been fighting tooth and nail for a suspension on mesh until an investigation is carried out but the doors have been closed on us and we believe that a Senate inquiry is the only way we are going to get to the truth of this situation. Transvaginal mesh damage is a worldwide problem and Australia is lagging in providing the help that women need to get their mesh devices out. There are only a few renowned surgeons in the world who can fully remove them. We need one of these surgeons to come to Australia to remove the devices in the women who are desperate to get them out. The pain is so excruciating for some, that suicide has become a normal thought to ease the burden of living with the suffering for the rest of their life. This has become their only hope for pain relief. I tell you, it is THAT bad.
I seriously cannot believe that from one innocent minor day surgery and under the trust of my surgeon and the experts of the Australian medical system, that I am left with a permanent disability. I am unable to return to work as I cannot sit, stand, walk or drive for more than five minutes without excruciating pain.
From the prime of my life I became crippled in less than three months. Thankfully, a world-renowned mesh removal surgeon from the USA removed my faulty and recalled product.
I now have severe incontinence, nevertheless, this the least of my worries. Worse is that I am made to feel like a criminal by my insurance company because their doctor and our government do not believe that mesh causes these types of injuries. It has left me suicidal and abandoned. In this day and age, and in our country, I can't believe that this is happening.
None of us were warned that removal of mesh is pretty much impossible. Few of us were warned that it was polypropylene. None of us were warned that there were over 100,000 legal cases against mesh and warnings throughout the world. None of us were tested for allergy or reaction to polypropylene before surgery. Most of us were only offered mesh as a treatment.
We need action from everyone, everywhere. If Governments, businesses and civil society work together, we can build a world of peace, prosperity, dignity and opportunity for all by 2030.
Human rights defenders, journalists and protesters continued to face arbitrary arrests and detentions. Over 3,200 people were being held in January under administrative detention on executive orders without charge or trial. Authorities also continued to use 'anti-terror' laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and other state-specific laws which do not meet international human rights standards.
… new independent statutory authority be tasked as a comprehensive lead agency for investigation and prevention of official corruption, criminal activity and serious misconduct involving Commonwealth officials …
Each State in Australia now has an anti-corruption body. But by far the largest quantity of money, power and influence is in the control of the Commonwealth Government in Canberra. There is no reason to assume that the corrupting influences that exist in Sydney, Melbourne or Perth do not operate in Canberra, where the Federal government each year purchases tens of billions of dollars of goods and services ...
The arguments for such a body are overwhelming. The litany of corruption and other scandals over a long period of time demonstrates that there is a need for a co-ordinated, national approach to anti-corruption. Past assumptions that corruption was limited to the state and territory level can no longer be sustained.
I am satisfied, based upon my work over four years with the two premier anti-corruption bodies in New South Wales—the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and the Police Integrity Commission—that we are grossly underestimating the nature and extent of corruption, and in our ignorance we are failing to compile sufficient information so that we can understand and assess its effects on our community.
It is only my personal opinion, but I think it would be quite mad not to introduce a specific federal anti-corruption commission. One of the principal arguments put by certain Coalition senators in arguing against the Greens' bill when it was presented in 2013 was that the problem—that is, corruption in the federal sector—does not exist. That claim, if true, makes Canberra the only corruption-free place in Australia and—wait for it—the only corruption-free place in the world.
It is so screamingly obvious that there is a breakdown in trust at the moment. …The only way of maintaining trust or recovering the trust is to demonstrate that there are adequate means of discovering corruption so that the public can be confident that what the Government is doing is not tainted by dishonest behaviour.
I think it's self-evident. The people who go into state parliaments and the major political parties are the same people who go into federal parliament. … I cannot understand why they'd be corrupt at one level, or be corruptible at one level, and not at the other.
The actions of Hastings Frederickson for the offence of the Use Carriage Service to Cause Offence on ADF network.
It is the belief of SF CIVET that the actions of a number of ADFIS staff and other sections of the ADF to deliberately lie, withhold evidence, fabricate information and support the conduct of criminal and serious internal offences without any identification let alone sanction or rectification from the body charged with such duties, then the conduct of future investigations into and with the ADF as whole and ADFIS as a body must be viewed with caution and concern.
It would appear to be a distinct difference in the findings of the original ADFIS investigation which concluded no service offences and undertook no action, to the subsequent NSWPOL/ADFIS investigation which identified 100 persons of interest committing 400 service offences and 3 persons charged with 9 counts of Use of Carriage Service to Cause Offence and 1 count of supply prohibited drug.
This is important when the basis of the majority of these finding were available to the original ADFIS investigation and had a clear opportunity to identify this behaviour and prevent further identified criminal and service offence offences.
The findings of Brigadier Dunn are contrary to the findings of SF CIVET.
It is the belief of SF CIVET that a number of the conclusions and methodology outlined in IGADF Inquiry 28/13 raise serious concerns about the transparency and accuracy of information provided to NSW Police. This could and should impact on future similar investigations in which the sections of the ADF may be required to be dealt with as a partner organisation.
As previously outlined, after request for all relevant documents from the ADF and IGADF, investigators were required to execute a Search Warrant on the ADF to obtain all documents. The wording of the Search Warrant was very specific and was provided to the ADF and IGADF—
prior to its execution in order to facilitate the collection and dissemination of the relevant ADF and IGADF documents.
IGADF Report 31/13
This was the first time that SF CIVET became aware of the existence of a previous IGADF Inquiry Report which in the words of the Brigadier DUNN was a "related IGADF Inquiry (28/13)".
Even in the most conservative interpretation of the items listed in the Search Warrant, the failure to not only identify the existence of, let alone provide the documents as specified, is indicative of a complete failure to understand the most basic of legal requirements or a deliberate willingness to withhold or deny the existence of material being subject to a lawfully obtained and executed search warrant.
The process that led to the failure of the identification and service of IGADF Report 28/13 cannot be determined by SF CIVET. Concerns must be raised of an organisation such as the ADF in general and the IGADF in particular being unable or unwilling to comply with search warrants issued and executed by agencies such as the NSW Police Force without the need for unannounced and physical searches and actual ADF office space or locations.
ASSESSMENT: While Army Headquarters personnel had been told of a group of Army members calling themselves the 'Jedi Council', they did not understand its significance and they did not brief the CA—
on the issue.
IGADF Report No.28/13 Page 7
ASSESSMENT: CA first became aware of the Jedi Council, and its possible significance, on 2 April 2013.
IGADF Report No.28/13 Page 8
The nature of these "Assessments" must raise serious concerns about the conduct of the review as they are patently false or deliberately misleading. These assessments are further contrary to the evidence obtained by Brigadier GAYNOR in its own investigation.
They are in fact contrary to the conclusions drawn by Brigadier GAYNOR in his own summary of his own investigation in which he clearly states the following:
01 August 2012: CA was informed that a reservist W02 is under investigation by NSW Police for offences relating to inappropriate ICT use dating from early 2011. CA was not informed of the 'Jedi Council'.
It would be clear that the NSW Police would not be undertaking any investigations pertaining "ICT" offences which are clearly internal ADF issues. The investigation would only be criminal in nature.,
It is clear that the rational for the assessment of Brigadier GAYNOR is that although the Chief of Army was advised tin 1 August 2012, that a failure for this briefing to be complete or understood is subsequently interpreted as being not advised.
This is very selective logic and would be more indicative of a pre-determined outcome rather than an evidence-based outcome.
It is clear that on the evidence of Colonel FENWICK and Colonel WILTON that the Chief of Army was notified on approximately 1 August 2012 and this was recorded in the "Daily Summary" for this day.
It again should be noted that this Daily Summary was never supplied under the search warrant.
The findings of the report that NSW Police do not appear to have explained the significance of the "Jedi Council" to LT Col FENWICK is wrong. At the time of notification by NSW Police to the office of the Chief of Army NSW Police had been in possession of the documents pertaining to SF CIVET for one month.
ADFIS had been in possession of these documents for just short of two years and had an extensive period of time to conduct its investigation.
Dear Minister Payne,
Reference: meeting with Michael Bainbridge
Thank you very much for agreeing to meeting with Private Michael Bainbridge in my office on Wednesday, 12 October 2016.
I was impressed by the care and attention that you showed to Private Bainbridge as he recounted his disturbing experiences with the Army's Individual Welfare Board. (IWB)
Your staff members and Andrew Hocking, the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Commander of the Army, must also be complimented for their respect and thoughtful attention they gave to Private Bainbridge.
I think you'll agree that Michael Bainbridge is an extraordinary Australian. Surely he displays all the best qualities of our original ANZACs?
He's polite, respectful, unassuming, funny, courageous and motivated by a strong love of Australia, his family and fellow special-forces soldiers.
Mr Bainbridge, as you would expect of a Green Beret Commando and bodyguard to some of Australia's highest ranking military officers in a war zone, to me is also credible, balanced, very intelligent, resourceful, resilient and honest.
Mr Bainbridge's exceptional character, personal and professional qualities (3rd year law student) now pose some very serious problems for your Government and the Australian Army.
If your investigation into Mr Bainbridge's formal complaint and disclosures to you and the Deputy Chief of Staff to the Commander of the Army proves that Private Bainbridge has not provided a misleading sworn statement, then it's likely that a crime or crimes have been committed by CO LTCOL Lawson and others.
It's also likely that a high level cover up of those crimes may have occurred.
These crimes could:
1. Involve a senior army officer knowingly making false claims to civilian police in order to take reprisal action against a whistleblower.
2. The official medical records of that whistleblower being fraudulently altered to cover up the abuse of office and false claims.
Unfortunately this is not the first time credible reports of fraudulent alteration of personal defence records have been brought to my attention.
If Mr Bainbridge's sworn Statutory Declaration is accurate and the raid on his home on the 24th of July (while his wife and child were present) by 10 to12 armed Tactical Police dressed in body armour, then I can only draw the conclusion that CO LTCOL Lawson either deliberately and maliciously or incompetently and negligently, caused this unfortunate event.
Of course this police raid, allegedly instigated by CO LTCOL Lawson, and coming a day after her decision to, in controversial circumstances, take $42,000 per year away from Mr Bainbridge's Special Forces disability payments is one of the most extraordinary public interest disclosures I have ever heard from a military whistleblower.
The only other act I can compare it to was the incident where high ranking members of the military sent 28 images of an autopsy of Army Veteran Mr Saltmarsh's best friend (Mr Jones) to Mr Saltmarsh despite being instructed not to.
Private Bainbridge has disclosed to me following our meeting that the trauma he experienced as a result of the armed police raid on his family home was greater than all his experiences of battle against Australia's enemies in the Middle East.
And making that comparison—as you will no doubt agree after reading Private Bainbridge's distinguished and long military record—gives you a small sense of the deep hurt and betrayal that this great Australian now feels.
Private Bainbridge after joining the ADF just after highschool has been in the thick of action for many years against the Taliban and other enemies. He has described to me extraordinary bloody events in the Middle East that would challenge the imaginations of most ordinary Australians.
I find it extremely sad that he is ready to return all his service medals and dreads the thought that one day his young son could grow and want to join the Australian Military.
I also worry about the trauma and hurt that has been caused to his wife and son, by what was a potentially criminal, vindictive, malicious or careless action by senior ADF officers.
How do you propose to remedy that hurt?
Understandably, Mr Bainbridge and myself are very nervous about the military investigating itself when such serious charges have been levelled at senior officers.
Unfortunately, my experience shows that a culture of cover up and official corruption is beginning to emerge in the senior ranks of the ADF.
Therefore we are happy to have independent law enforcement officers investigate this matter, if that is your recommendation.
In closing, I would also request that CO LTCOL Lawson be stood aside on full pay pending the results of your independent investigation which should be broad enough to review all the Individual Welfare Board decisions that this senior officer has made.