The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
…the High Court unanimously held that Rodney Norman Culleton was a person who was convicted and subject to be sentenced for an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer at the time of the 2016 federal election, and therefore was incapable of being chosen as a Senator under s 44(ii) of the Constitution.
The subsequent annulment of that conviction had no effect on that state of affairs.
… is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent …
… … …
shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator …
The prima facie effect of the order of the Court on 23 December 2016 was to cause the vacation of his office as a Senator for Western Australia …
The presence in the Senate of a senator found not to have been validly elected or to be disqualified does not invalidate the proceedings of the Senate in which the senator participated …
That the Senate take note of the statement.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Di Natale moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to the Australia-US alliance.
The Senate divided. [13:42]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Whish-Wilson)
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Petroleum Pools and Other Measures) Bill 2016
… that's what we're about, more jobs and more opportunity.
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 .
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science (Senator Sinodinos) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator Carr today relating to unemployment.
… today I have written to the general manager of Holden, Mr Devereux, asking General Motors to make an immediate statement clarifying their intentions in this country.
Are you seeing this question time attack on Holden? Taunting [Holden] to leave? It's extraordinary.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Lambie today relating to the Renewable Energy Target.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 9 January 2017, of Emeritus Professor Russell Brunell Trood, former senator for Queensland, 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.
Senator Russell Trood only had one term here. In many ways that is a shame because I think he had a lot to contribute and did not get the opportunity to continue to do so in a way that would have been good for the parliament and for the Liberal Party.
I think it was good for the Liberal Party and for the Senate that you were elected … You also behave much more like people's image of a traditional senator.
Rather than being a grubby party politician, he brings free thought, an interest in ideas and a style that reflects that sort of approach. I say that very genuinely. I think the parliament and the Senate have benefited from his academic background and expertise …
… Russell Trood has brought that experience to the parliament and applied it to foreign affairs and international relations issues … to great effect. In a parliament where sometimes we are not known for our interest in ideas, Senator Trood's contribution has been notable for that.
… I have actually found him more effective in estimates than many of you—
because he has used a more reasonable and less aggressive and inquisitorial style that actually puts you under a bit more pressure than perhaps some of the more frontal assaults some of you are known for … Certainly from the government's point of view Senator Trood is well-respected. We thought he was an interesting and valuable addition to the Senate and he has made a contribution that I think the Senate will miss.
Professor Trood entered the Senate at the same time as another more outspoken senator elected from Queensland in 2004.
There's nothing that makes you so aware of the improvisation of human existence as a song unfinished.
Russell is perhaps not a song unfinished so much as a book unfinished—a great classic novel—whose intelligence, capacity and knowledge deserve to be in this place longer and should be making a longer contribution.
That general business notice of motion no. 168 standing in the name of Senator O’Neill for today, relating to the Prime Minister’s annual report on Closing the Gap, be postponed till the next day of sitting.
That leaves of absence be granted to the following senators: Senator Abetz for today for personal reasons, and Senator Reynolds from 7 February to 9 February 2017 on account of parliamentary business overseas.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Waters from today to March 30 for parental leave.
Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a second time.
Mr President, I thank the Senate for the opportunity to introduce the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017. The purpose of the Bill is to make a change to the complaints handling procedure of the Australian Human Rights Commission. Before proceeding to a full inquiry and attempt at reconciliation, the Commission will now be required to contact both the complainant and the respondent or respondents, and consider any evidence that they provide for a preliminary assessment of the case. If the complaint is lacking in substance or otherwise unworthy, it can be terminated at that point. I contend that the work of the Commission is seriously impeded by cases involving alternative facts and unreliable evidence, adding unnecessarily to its workload, and involving people falsely accused of discrimination in serious damage to their reputations and causing them untold expense.
Briefly, the change to the Commission's complaints handling procedure is achieved by removing subsection 46PF(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and replacing it with new provisions to require the President of the Commission to appoint a committee to make a preliminary assessment of every referred complaint. The committee will consist of the President and two other members of the Commission. Complainants will be informed of the proposed preliminary assessment of their complaint and they will be invited to provide further information for the complaint. After receiving the information, the committee may form the view that the complaint should be terminated, or that one or more respondents should be removed from the complaint.
The committee will then proceed to notify both the complainant and the respondent or respondents that an inquiry will be conducted into the complaint by way of a preliminary assessment. At the same time, the respondent or respondents will be invited to provide evidence in relation to the complaint for the purposes of the preliminary assessment. Once the evidence is received from the parties, the committee will consider the complaint and decide whether it could be terminated, or whether one or more respondents should be removed from the complaint. A decision to remove a respondent or respondents will be notified to the complainant by the President in the form of a recommendation with reasons. If the complainant does not withdraw the complaint or remove a respondent or respondents at this point, the President will notify an intention to inquire into the complaint and attempt to conciliate it.
Mr President, I emphasise that the preliminary assessment procedure contemplated by the Bill before the Senate is not intended to mandate that the complainant withdraw the complaint in the event of an adverse finding by the committee. But a decision of the preliminary assessment committee against the complainant could result in the President making a decision under subsection 46PH of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to terminate the complaint. By way of contrast, if the committee decides that a respondent or respondents should be removed from the proceedings, a recommendation to that effect will follow, but ultimately the issue of removing one or more respondents is a matter for the complainant.
The preliminary assessment procedure is not intended to deny a complainant their day in court as it were, but any decision of the committee will necessarily inform the proceedings and in effect add to the burden of proof required of the complainant. It would be a brave complainant who proceeded with a complaint against a respondent or respondents who the President recommended should be removed from a proceeding. I would not presume to give gratuitous legal advice to such a complainant, Mr President, but it may be that a complainant who proceeded with a complaint against a respondent or respondents in the face of a recommendation of the Human Rights Commission that one or more of those respondents should be removed from the proceeding may well be in the unenviable position of losing qualified privilege as a defence under the uniform defamation law.
I turn now to the need for the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017, and I take the opportunity to mention the excellent work of the current inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights which is examining certain procedures of the Australian Human Rights Commission. I am unable to say with any certainty whether my notice of the preliminary assessment process bill was drawn before or after the terms of reference for the inquiry were announced. What I can say is that I had no idea the committee intended reviewing the procedures of the Commission. Be that as it may, a large number of submissions to the inquiry have drawn attention to the risk of respondents being dragged before the commission to answer spurious allegations that severely impact their reputations and wallets.
Last week at a public hearing of the committee in Sydney, Dr Sev Ozdowski, OAM, a former Australian Human Rights Commissioner, gave evidence that people at the Human Rights Commission like to "enforce their vision of the world" implying collateral damage to unwitting respondents who find they must justify words and actions that, in normal circumstances, would be well within the bounds of free speech. Dr Ozdowski had no hesitation in asserting to the committee that the complaints handling procedure at the Human Rights Commission "is biased in favour of the person making the complaint." The former commissioner also made the point that recent high profile cases such as complaints about Queensland University of Technology students and cartoonist Bill Leak have focused public attention on the Commission in a positive way from a public accountability perspective.
At the same hearings last week in Sydney, the eminent jurist and former judge, Justice Ronald Sackville, AO, QC, gave evidence that he would like to see a more stringent merits assessment test applied at an early stage in proceedings before the Australian Human Rights Commission. The judge was asked about the risks to the law of being brought into disrepute by unworthy cases receiving too much attention at the Commission. Mr President, may I quote Justice Sackville's response: "I am a proponent of early termination of cases that are without merit…(I)f the mechanisms within the Human Rights Commission for example, were changed so as to allow early termination much more readily, or to compel it much more readily, that would mitigate the risk [of bringing the law into disrepute]."
In making a case for changing the complaints handling procedure at the Human Rights Commission, Mr President, I would like to reflect on the unusual circumstances in which the Commission in its present form came into existence in late 1986. A year earlier, in November 1985, the Hawke Labor government introduced and passed in the House of Representatives the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill 1985 (HREOC) along with theAustralian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 . They were concurrent bills, the plan being that HREOC would be the enforcement mechanism for what was to be Australia's first statutory Bill of Rights. Bob Hawke thought he had all his ducks lined up in the Senate, but then there was a problem for which former independent Senator Brian Harradine is sometimes unjustly held responsible.
A joint debate on the Bill of Rights Bill and the HREOC Bill took place in the Senate in early 1986. According to former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, debate on the Bill of Rights Bill in the Senate was hijacked by the Labor Premier of Western Australia, Brian Burke, who informed Bob Hawke that there would be no money for head office of the Labor Party from Labor's supporters in the west if the Bill of Rights Bill went ahead since the provision for one vote one value in the Bill would put an end to Labor's gerrymander in the Western Australia Parliament. Hawke's government abandoned the Bill of Rights Bill in April 1986 while the HREOC legislation was held over until later in the year. The HREOC Bill was amended to remove all reference to the Australian Bill of Rights Bill – a considerable task given its primary objective was to provide the enforcement mechanism for the rights Bill. A severely mauled HREOC Bill became law in November 1986. The Commission thus established, I would say, was condemned to a role in Australia's justice system as a watchdog with no teeth. Others say the Commission (officially called the Australian Human Rights Commission since 2009) has been trying to justify its existence from the moment of its birth in 1986 with the stillborn Australian Bill of Rights.
People from across the political spectrum in Australia believe our legal system is the poorer for not having a bill of rights either in statutory or constitutional form. Surveys consistently show that once it is explained that a bill of rights is a line in the sand against tyrannical governments and has nothing to do with the rights of one person against another, support for a bill of rights increases dramatically. There are many people in the Pauline Hanson One Nation Party who argue passionately for a bill of rights as there are in other minor parties and in the major parties. In my opinion, the absence of a bill of rights at a federal level in Australia's legal system is like a deep hole we seem to have fallen in and we are unlikely to have any chance of achieving important goals such as legal equality and access to justice until as a nation we take the first important step to climb out of the hole by legislating a statutory bill of rights or human rights charter.
Meanwhile, Mr President, we have to live with the survivor of that difficult birth in 1986, the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission's role today is complicated by its history, but for many Australians it represents a lifeline to justice for alleged acts of discrimination that would otherwise go unpunished. And the deterrent element in a decision of the Commission has immeasurable importance for a person aggrieved by discrimination. I would not want to diminish in any way the valuable work of the Commission in allowing complainants the opportunity to conciliate their concerns before taking on the battleground of the courts system. If the Commission is unable to conciliate a complaint, the complainant has no forum for litigation other than the courts, and this could be another issue for the current Parliamentary inquiry. Should the Commission be given a quasi-judicial function rather than have the complainant litigate the same facts and supporting evidence that the Commission has already considered?
That is a question for another day, Mr President, and I'm pleased to inform the Senate that the Bill now before the Senate is a much more modest proposal. The Bill allows the Commission to conduct a preliminary assessment of the merits of a complaint at an early stage in the proceeding with a view to weeding out unmeritorious complaints. Of the 2,013 complaints dealt with by the Commission in the year to 30 June 2016, more than 75 per cent were successfully conciliated, suggesting there are about 500 complaints that might benefit from the new system. Some cases will involve allegations of self-evident and egregious discrimination, of course, but others will be minor matters that could never justify the reputational and monetary damage caused to innocent respondents, and these are the cases the Bill is targeting. I commend the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Preliminary Assessment Process) Bill 2017 to the Senate.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 9 February 2017 under consideration of private senators' bills: No. 31 National Integrity Commission Bill 2013 and No. 10 Defence Legislation Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2015.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Government's disastrous and inaccurate automated debt recovery process and its refusal to abandon the system.
As revealed in The Australian , an assessment of 52 cases of people publicly claiming they were being harassed by Centrelink with automated debt notices found that 18 people had in fact been identified under a manual system established by the former Labor government.
Of the remaining 34 cases subject to the new system, 60 per cent had been found to have been overpaid for failing to declare other sources of income.
A further 12 per cent who had been found to owe money had asked for a reassessment while the remaining number of aggrieved welfare recipients had not bothered to contact Centrelink.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The five programs under the Strategy reflect the Government’s five priority investment areas …
Clearer links could be established between funded activities and the program outcomes.
Approximately half of the applicants did not meet the application documentation requirements and there may be benefit in the department testing its application process with potential applicants in future rounds.
The department provided adequate guidance to staff undertaking the assessment process. The department developed mandatory training for staff, but cannot provide assurance that staff attended the training.
The department’s assessment process was inconsistent with the guidelines and internal guidance.
The department did not maintain sufficient records throughout the assessment and decision-making process. In particular, the basis for the committee’s recommendations is not documented …
… it is not possible to determine how the committee arrived at its funding recommendations. The department did not record compliance with probity requirements.
Further, the department did not maintain adequate records of Ministerial approval of grant funding.
The list of recommended projects provided to the Minister did not provide sufficient information to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines, or support informed decision-making, and contained administrative errors.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report:
Adequacy of existing residential care arrangements available for young people with severe physical, mental or intellectual disabilities in Australia
November 2016
Introduction
On 24 June 2015, the Community Affairs References Committee released a report outlining the findings from the Senate Inquiry into the Adequacy of existing residential care arrangements available for young people with severe physical, mental or intellectual disabilities in Australia. The report makes twelve recommendations for consideration by the Australian Government (one to six), the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (seven), and the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (eight to twelve).
The Department of Social Services (DSS), the Department of Health, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA), and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) appeared at the Inquiry's hearing in Canberra and outlined Australian Government support available for young people in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care.
According to the Report on Government Services 2016, in June 2015, there were 6,252 young people in nursing homes around Australia. This comprises 555 young people aged 0-49 years and 5,697 aged 50-64 years.
The issues faced by young people with severe disability span the responsibilities of a range of Commonwealth agencies and different levels of government, and involve both specialist and mainstream services. The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (the strategy) provides an overarching policy framework for all levels of government to improve the lives of people with disability. Action taken under the strategy to improve the accessibility of mainstream services for people with disability complements specialist disability services and programs currently provided by Commonwealth, state and territory governments, including those provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). The strategy seeks to ensure that both disability-specific and mainstream support services are available to all Australians with disability. The Australian Government is committed to examining how it can work more collaboratively across sectors to improve service co-ordination and outcomes for young people in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care.
The Australian Government agrees with the need to prevent new admissions by encouraging collaboration between state and territory disability services, the NDIA and the health system to better meet the needs of young people in, or at risk of moving into, nursing homes. As the Committee noted in its reports, we are currently in a time of transition, changing the way that disability services are administered and delivered by the states, territories and the Commonwealth. The Australian Government recognises the importance of supporting participants as the NDIS transitions to a national scheme.
The Australian Government believes that the provision of co-ordinated and integrated services that take into account an individual's needs at different stages of recovery or disability are necessary to assist young people with high care needs. Under the National Disability Agreement (NDA), state and territory governments have all undertaken to deliver on-the-ground services that help younger people with disability in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care.
The NDA is an high-level agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories. It is the framework for the provision of government support for people with disability, and explicitly confirms jurisdictional responsibilities in relation to the provision of disability services. Prior to the full nationwide rollout of the NDIS, state and territory governments remain responsible for all non-trial site disability services in their respective jurisdictions, including supported accommodation.
From 2006 to 2011, the Commonwealth provided an additional $122 million to the states as part of the Younger People in Residential Aged Care Initiative (YPIRAC). The aim of the initiative was to reduce the number of younger people with disabilities living in nursing homes and over five years an estimated 1,432 people were assisted. Since 2011, the Commonwealth has provided funding to the states and territories to support younger people with disability in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care as part of the Specific Purpose Payment (SPP) for Disability Services related to the NDA. The Australian Government will work with the states and territories to examine how the needs of young people in, or at risk of entering, nursing homes are being addressed in the lead up to full roll out of the NDIS.
Following NDIS roll out, Australians with significant and permanent disabilities will have improved opportunities to determine what is in their own best interests. They will have increased choice and control over the planning and delivery of their supports, including the ability to take reasonable risks and to select supports that best meet their individual needs and preferences.
When the NDIS commences in their area, young people in nursing homes and their families are able to apply for specialist disability accommodation supports, which will enable them to move to accommodation more appropriate for their needs. Through the NDIS, young people and their families can apply for supports to help them to live independently in the community, including personal and domestic care, home modifications and supports to enable them to access and maintain accommodation. The NDIS will also help people to access other service systems and co-ordinate their supports across systems. The NDIS is currently supporting young people in nursing homes living within areas of NDIS operation. The NDIA is funding the Summer Foundation to work with young people in nursing homes to engage with the NDIS. For those people who have undergone planning, there are a range of capacity building supports and support co-ordination included in plans.
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring people with disability have access to a range of supports that will allow them, their families and carers to participate as valued members of their communities. The Australian Government currently supports younger people in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care through Disability Support and Carer Payments; support for carers; younger onset dementia key worker program; and Commonwealth funding for jurisdictions following the Younger People in Residential Age Care (YPIRAC) initiative.
The Australian Government will continue to work with organisations to provide advice to Government on issues relating to young people in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care, particularly in light of findings from the Inquiry. This will support:
The Young People In Nursing Homes National Alliance has contributed to policy development for the benefit of younger people in, or at risk of entering, residential aged care. Current project work for the Australian Government is focussed on developing practical strategies to address the need for cross‑sector and integrated service approaches for this cohort.
Input into the Australian Government's response to the Committee's report was compiled by DSS and includes input from DSS, the Department of Health, and the ABS.
The Australian Government's response addresses the 12 recommendations and explains why each recommendation is accepted, noted, supported in-principle or not supported. The recommendations of the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee will be taken into consideration as disability service provision is transitioned to the NDIS.
The Australian Government thanks the Senate Committee for its report.
Adequacy of existing residential care arrangements available for young people with severe physical, mental or intellectual disabilities in Australia
Recommendations to the Australian Government
Recommendation 1:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government compile a database of all young people under the age of 65 years living in residential aged care facilities using the data held by the Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) program. This list should be provided in a regularly updated form to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) and to state and territory governments. This data should include the following information:
Response: Noted
The Australian Government is able to respond to such requests, either on an ad-hoc or regular basis, that provide fit-for-purpose data if the request and subsequent use of data meet the requirements of Section 86 of the Aged Care Act 1997.
Components of the data listed in Recommendation 1 are currently made available to the NDIA on a quarterly basis, and to the state and territory governments under the Aged Care Act.
The Aged Care Assessment Program holds assessment and approval related data. As part of their assessment, Aged Care Assessment Teams (ACATs) gather relevant information on a person's medical diagnoses and other background information to support the decision for eligibility for care types under the Aged Care Act. This information is current at the time of the assessment, but may not have ongoing currency, particularly if a period of time has elapsed since the assessment, as the client's care needs may have changed.
While ACAT data does not extend to entry to aged care or length of time in aged care, as part of the Department of Human Services' claims, data is captured on name, age and date of entry to aged care. Length of time spent in the aged care system can also be derived from this information.
The factors that need to be addressed for the person to move out of the aged care facility are complex and would change for individuals over time. As such, it is unlikely that any data system could accurately capture this information. However, should a young person in residential care be eligible for the NDIS, this would be considered as part of the NDIS assessment process. Under the NDIS Specialist Disability Accommodation Pricing and Payments Framework, young people living in residential aged care facilities will be a priority group for access to specialist disability accommodation supports.
Additionally, the Australian Government will work with state and territory governments who are interested in providing pathways for young people in residential aged care who want to transition out of residential care before the NDIS rolls out in their area.
Recommendation 2:
The committee recommends that the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) conduct a Longitudinal Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers in addition to its triennial survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers.
Response: Supported in-principle
The Australian Government supports in principle the committee's recommendation to conduct a Longitudinal Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC). This recommendation highlights the importance and value of the ongoing ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) data in informing policy responses and service planning for those with disability and/or those living in aged care facilities.
In recent times, there has been a growing demand for longitudinal data to allow populations of interest to be tracked—their transitions, pathways and outcomes. Conducting a longitudinal survey has the potential to measure the influence of changes in Government policy, as well as assess the benefits and outcomes of services and programs (for example early intervention programs) on individual population groups, such as young people with severe disabilities. However, the continuation of funding for the SDAC collection remains the priority for the Australian Government before considering funding for any additional surveys.
The ABS has recently released data for the 2015 SDAC, following similar collections in 1981, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2009 and 2012. In recognition of the importance of this collection in underpinning policy development, planning, reporting and service delivery, the Commonwealth and state and territory Governments have committed to providing additional funding to support an increase in the collection's frequency between 2010 and 2020 (from a six-yearly survey to a triennial survey), as well as an increase in the collection's sample size.
Recommendation 3:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and implement a comprehensive assessment and placement tool or residential assessment instrument to assess the care and accommodation needs for all young people living in or at risk of entering residential care.
Response: Noted
The Australian Government currently engages state and territory governments to provide Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) services that include aged care assessments for approval of aged care provided under the Aged Care Act 1997. This includes residential aged care.
ACATs conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary assessment of the person's medical, physical, social and psychological needs to determine the person's care needs and the type of services that would be most appropriate to meet those needs. For an ACAT to approve a younger person with a disability entering residential aged care, they must be satisfied that there are no other care facilities or care services more appropriate to meet the person's needs.
States and territories have established collaborative, localised protocols between their relevant disability services and ACATs. These protocols are consistent with the National Guiding Principles for the Referral and Assessment of Younger People with Disability between state and territory disability services and Aged Care Assessment Teams. The principles were developed between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments for the referral of younger people with disability for assessment and co-ordination of their specialist disability accommodation and support services. It is the responsibility of the relevant state or territory disability services agency to initially assess younger people with disability and ensure they are referred to the most appropriate care service available. All options for specialist disability accommodation and support services should be fully explored and utilised before an ACAT accepts a referral for assessment and approval.
As the NDIS rolls out, young people will have the opportunity to be assessed for NDIS services and may become eligible for supports to help them to live independently in alternative accommodation. The NDIA takes a planned approach to look at a range of housing options based on the goals of the participant. In areas where the NDIS has not yet rolled out, the Australian Government is willing to work with state and territory governments who are interested in providing pathways for young people in residential aged care who want to transition out of residential care before the NDIS rolls out in their area.
Recommendation 4:
The committee recommends that supplementary assessment guidelines and tools are developed for the ACAT program to ensure that all young people being considered for an aged care placement are properly assessed. As part of this process, the committee recommends that:
Response: Partially supported
All people entering residential care are already properly assessed regardless of age.
Young people with a disability are eligible for services provided under the Aged Care Act 1997 if they are approved for those services by an Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT), and only when there are no other more appropriate care facilities or services to meet the person's needs. ACATs comprehensively assess the needs of individuals and determine their eligibility for the types of available services most appropriate to meet their care needs.
Some young people in residential aged care may have specific needs that require additional support from the disability system. In these situations, it is the state and territory governments' responsibility to provide "top-up" services to meet those needs. As the NDIS rolls out, young people in aged care may become eligible for supports to help them to live independently in alternative accommodation.
The Australian Government does not support placing additional requirements on providers to intensively case manage young people in aged care. Providers are already required to meet care needs and comply with quality requirements for all residents. Given that residential aged care is generally a service of last resort for young people with a disability, placing additional requirements on providers for this group may remove a young person's last service option.
The Australian Government notes the proposal for an annual review of ACAT placements for young people. As the NDIS rolls out, young people will have the opportunity to be assessed for NDIS services. The NDIS can support young people living in nursing homes through funding of independent support co-ordination in their plans. Support co-ordinators can assist people to connect with services, find alternative accommodation options and engage them with social and community services for capacity building. In areas where the NDIS has not yet rolled out, the Australian Government will work with state and territory governments who are interested in providing pathways for young people in residential aged care who want to transition out of residential care before the NDIS rolls out in their area.
Recommendation 5:
The committee recommends that the accreditation standards for residential aged care are amended to include standards relating to the clinical outcomes and lifestyle needs of young people. In order to assist with meeting these new accreditation standards, the committee recommends that the Australian Government:
Response: Not supported
The Australian Government's quality and accreditation framework already provides assurance to care recipients of aged care services, including young people in aged care. Aged care services must meet their 'accreditation requirement' under the Aged Care Act 1997 to be eligible to receive Australian Government care subsidy for their care recipients. Services meet that requirement by being accredited by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency who assess residential aged care homes against the Accreditation Standards which are detailed in the Quality of Care Principles 2014.
There are four standards that must be met. Within these standards, there are 44 outcomes, or examples of what people should expect when homes meet the standards. This includes clinical care, assisting the aged care resident to achieve active control of their own lives within the residential care service and their community, staffing, health and personal care, resident lifestyle, living environment, catering, cleaning, continuous improvement, and safety and security.
State governments can invest in disability specific training for staff involved in the care of young people living in aged care, consistent with their responsibilities under the 2011 National Health Reform Agreement.
The 2011 National Health Reform Agreement changed the roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth and states and territories (excluding Victoria and Western Australia). The Commonwealth assumed responsibility for planning, funding, policy, management and delivery of a national aged care system and for funding specialist disability services delivered by the states in accordance with their responsibilities under the National Disability Agreement for people aged 65 years and over (50 years and over for Indigenous Australians).
States assumed responsibility for regulating specialist disability services delivered under the National Disability Agreement; funding responsibility for disability services for people under the age of 65 (under the age of 50 for Indigenous Australians); and funding responsibility for packaged community care and residential care delivered through the Commonwealth aged care program to people under the age of 65 years (under the age of 50 for Indigenous Australians).
Recommendation 6:
The committee recommends that the Department of Social Services' current discussion paper on disability housing consider capital funding options for construction of specialised disability accommodation.
The committee recommends that the discussion paper is released as a matter of urgency.
The committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a supported disability accommodation fund similar to the Supported Accommodation Innovation Fund.
Response: Noted
On 1 July 2016, the NDIA commenced funding specialist disability supports in the individual plans of NDIS participants with very high needs who require a specialist accommodation response. The Specialist Disability Accommodation Decision Paper on Pricing and Payments (the Decision Paper), released on 1 June 2016, outlines the benchmark prices which are paid to providers of specialist disability accommodation that NDIS participants choose to live in. These benchmark prices are formulated based on the policy agreed by the Disability Reform Council of Commonwealth and State and Territory Ministers (DRC) in November 2015 through the Specialist Disability Accommodation Pricing and Payments Framework. The benchmark prices reflect the additional costs incurred in providing specialist disability accommodation and are intended to contribute to the lifecycle costs of the land and the dwelling. The benchmark prices vary depending on factors including the building type; number of residents; design category and whether there is accommodation for on-site overnight assistance.
As established under the Specialist Disability Accommodation Pricing and Payments Framework, people living in residential aged care facilities are a priority group for access to specialist disability accommodation supports.
At the 24 April 2015 meeting of the DRC, Ministers also asked officials to work with the NDIA to support the development and testing of innovative accommodation pilots that will help to expand the supply of appropriate and sustainable integrated housing and support models for people with disability. The NDIA expects that these pilots will be designed to encourage a range of housing options that are consistent with the goals and objectives of the NDIS. This may include existing, contemporary and/or innovative supports. Initially this will focus on trial sites in which there are adequate funds to support meaningful activity in this area.
These pilots are intended to begin providing evidence about how different models contribute to outcomes for participants, and will help define a path forward for specialist housing options to support participants as the NDIS transitions to a national scheme. Learnings from the Supported Accommodation Innovation Fund are also being used to inform decisions on funding arrangements for specialist disability accommodation under the full scheme.
The NDIA ran a Request for Information process, commencing on 30 November 2015, to seek information on a range of innovative models to refine the commissioning approach and requirements for a specialist disability accommodation pilot in the Barwon area. A number of submissions were received and the NDIA is considering these responses. The NDIA intends to approach the market later this year in an open and competitive process.
Additionally, the Specialist Disability Accommodation Initiative (SDAI) was established to help address immediate community need for specialist disability housing in areas outside NDIS trial sites by providing 'top up' funding to increase the availability of accommodation for people with a disability and identify project initiatives with self-sustaining specialist disability housing models which could be scaled up in the future. Funding of up to $10 million will be offered through grants of up to $1 million to organisations for projects which meet these needs and which have a particular focus on those housed in inappropriate accommodation settings and those with ageing carers who are in need of a long-term, sustainable arrangement. The Department of Social Services concluded a grant round in February 2016. Twelve organisations presented successful applications to deliver specialist disability accommodation and the Department has entered into negotiations with these organisations.
Recommendations to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme
Recommendation 7:
The committee recommends that the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) conduct an inquiry into the issue of disability housing after the release of the discussion paper on disability housing.
Response: Noted
The Australian Government acknowledges that there are few issues more important to ensuring the welfare of Australians than housing. Housing provides the stability and certainty needed for individuals and families to deal with the many challenges they face.
As outlined in the response to recommendation 6, the NDIS will provide funding for people with very high needs to access specialist disability accommodation. However, most NDIS participants will have their housing needs addressed through mainstream arrangements, with the NDIS assisting participants to navigate mainstream housing systems where reasonable and necessary. For example an NDIS participant may receive assistance with navigating rental markets, tenancy obligations and short-term transitional accommodation. The NDIS may also ensure the home a participant chooses meets their needs by providing home modifications, assistive products for household tasks, food preparation, linen services, cleaning, and house and yard maintenance.
Recommendations to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)
Recommendation 8:
The committee recommends that the COAG develop and implement a national rehabilitation strategy including a framework for the delivery of slow stream rehabilitation in all jurisdictions.
Response: Not supported
In a health context, rehabilitation is commonly understood to refer to treatment designed to facilitate the process of an individual's recovery of function following a disabling injury, illness, or disease. This treatment, which typically involves specialised health professionals including doctors, nurses and allied health professionals (such as physiotherapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists) is provided within a planned, supervised and progressive program aimed at enabling an individual to achieve their optimal degree of physical and psychological capability. Rehabilitation's emphasis on therapeutic restoration distinguishes it from maintenance therapy which focuses on maintaining an individual's existing level of functioning.
Planning for the rehabilitation needs of particular geographical catchment populations is a responsibility of Local Hospital Networks, which are established under state and territory legislation. Such planning takes into account not only the current and projected health status of the resident population, but also the existing range of services available across the public, not for profit and private health sectors. Drawing on expert clinical advice and evidence of best practice generated by national and international clinical research, Local Hospital Networks then identify any gaps in service delivery and opportunities for service improvement, and use this information to inform their priority setting and resourcing decisions.
It is considered that the research evidence and clinical guidance available on best practice rehabilitation is now sufficiently mature to provide the necessary framework for rehabilitation specialists, as well as state and territory governments, to deliver necessary and appropriate care.
Recommendation 9:
The committee recommends that the NDIS, in all NDIS trial sites, and the relevant state or territory government in all other areas:
Response: Noted/not supported
Advocacy and other services similar to those recommended by the Committee are already provided through several channels. Young people living in residential care are eligible to access free, independent and individualised advocacy services through two Australian Government programs: the National Aged Care Advocacy Program; and the National Disability Advocacy Program (NDAP). A young person may choose to access either program depending on what their need is for advocacy support. Both advocacy programs can provide support and information to the young person and their families about care options available to them and can advocate on their behalf in raising issues about the care they are receiving. It is important to note that access to advocacy services is voluntary, and the independence of advocacy programs is a key feature.
The National Disability Advocacy Framework, which guides disability advocacy services, is currently under review. This review will, in turn, inform a review of NDAP. The coverage of advocacy services, including to key groups such as young people in residential care, is an important issue in these reviews.
People with disability entering an individually-funded plan through the NDIS may also have access to decision-making supports as part of that plan. If a person with a disability is unhappy with a decision made by the NDIA, they can pursue this through the NDIA's internal review process. If a person is not satisfied with a decision following an internal review, they can apply to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and may access assistance with this process through the External Merits Review—Support Component.
The NDIA provides support to people through Information, Linkages and Capacity Building (ILC). ILC is a key component of the NDIS insurance model and will contribute to the sustainability of the NDIS by building the capacity of the community, people with disability, their families and carers which in turn will reduce the need for funding of supports for people with disability through Individual Funded Packages.
The NDIA has supported peer advocacy in some trial sites using Community Inclusion and Capacity Development (CICD) funds. The NDIA is working in collaboration with the Summer Foundation's NDIS Connections Project to engage and assist young people in nursing homes in trial sites.
This grant will support work to engage with young people in residential aged care facilities and to increase community capacity for young people in residential aged care facilities to move to community housing and community supports (if this is the choice of the young person concerned) in four NDIS trial sites.
The Summer Foundation will also:
engaging with young people in nursing homes;
preventing young people from entering nursing homes;
best practice activities;
information for workers from disability, housing, health and aged care sector; and
Discharge Planners checklist;
NDIS plans are developed based on the goals of participants. Where accommodation is identified as a need for a participant, the NDIA considers a range of housing options that support the participant's goals. Funding can be provided for independent support co-ordination to assist participants to connect with social and community services and for capacity building.
The Australian Government does not support the recommendation to extend the Younger Onset Dementia Key Worker Program (YODKWP).
The YODKWP was established for providing individualised information and support to improve the quality of life for people with younger onset dementia. It was never intended for supporting people with other disabilities. Young people may be in residential care for a variety of reasons of which younger onset dementia is only one. As the NDIS rolls out, young people in residential care will have access to an extended range of choices, control and supports.
Access rates for this program have not been high and performance statistics do not support expansion of the program. An evaluation of the YODKWP is currently underway and although initial reports suggest that the program has resulted in some good outcomes so far, it would be inappropriate to expand the program based on preliminary findings without the analysis of longer term, more meaningful data.
Extending the YODKWPto cover all young people identified at risk of placement in residential care to provide collaborative case management before placement commences would duplicate support services such as the NDIS which provides individualised support for eligible people with permanent and significant disability, their families and carers. The NDIS also deploys Local Area Co-ordinators, which provide services similar to those provided by the YODKWP, such as helping people to access supports and build connections within the community.
Compelling all young people with a disability to use a third party to access services which many are capable of and prefer to access themselves would restrict client choice and may make it difficult for those most in need to access a service.
The YODKWP is scheduled to transition to the NDIS.
Recommendation 10:
The committee recommends that the NDIS, in all NDIS trial sites, should consider how it supports those with Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).
The committee also recommends that the NDIS, in all NDIS trial sites, and the relevant state or territory government in all other areas work closely with community health services to provide the following for those with FASD:
Response: Accepted
The NDIA has recognised the need to identify and address issues related to Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Early in 2015, the NDIA funded a project to specifically inform the NDIA on FASD. The project has assisted the NDIA to develop a best practice evidence base that is supporting decision-making within the requirements of legislation governing the NDIA. The project report also supports parent/carer access to relevant information to improve decision making in the selection of appropriate services for children with FASD and the project itself has brought together experts who have now formed the Australian FASD Clinical Network. The new Australian FASD Clinical Network aims to enhance national communication between those involved in assisting those with FASD and further develop the research and evidence associated with diagnosis and interventions.
A group of leading researchers from the Telethon Kids Institute led this work, and draw on the expertise of a broad Expert Reference Panel which included key representatives of practitioners and people with disability, families and carers, including Indigenous Australians and those from rural and remote settings.
The project included a comprehensive literature review and series of consultations, and the final report for the project was reviewed and refined in cooperation with the Expert Reference Panel. The report findings have been utilised by the NDIA in the preparation of its revised Early Childhood Early Intervention (ECEI) Approach. The report thus informs planning and implementation of appropriate supports for people with FASD. In particular, the inclusion of information on domains of functional impairment across the life course, and current best practice guidance on interventions will continue to assist providers and the NDIA to prepare plans and supports (including their outcomes measurement) for each individual participant.
In line with the legislation and insurance nature of the NDIS, early intervention is considered an important factor which applies to consideration of life course intervention for people with FASD. The NDIS ECEI approach will provide support to children with disability or developmental delay and their families through organisations and services in their local community.
Organisations with ECEI expertise will support children and families in their initial engagement with the NDIS, identify the appropriate level of early intervention required by the child and their family. The service will also be able to assist children to be supported in a broad range of settings such as preschool, playgroups and other early childhood services.
This approach will lead to greater inclusion for children with developmental delay and disability in preschools and other mainstreams settings, allowing them to be children first through increased opportunities for positive social relationships.
This approach is currently being trialled in the Nepean Blue Mountains and will commence in the Queensland Early Transition site in Townsville and Charters Towers and will be adopted in South Australia
The NDIA continues to work with rural and remote communities to develop appropriate workforce development. This will ensure community responses to functional impairment related to FASD are individualised and available when needed. Community and individual support will also be developed as part of the ILC framework. NDIS plans already include provision of early intervention services including and as well as allied health services such as speech pathology, physiotherapy and occupational therapy.
The NDIA is in communication with the Department of Health, which is funding work related to diagnostic tools for FASD. The NDIA FASD Research Project was conducted within this context and has been tailored to be appropriate to current and emerging developments. Australian work on a diagnostic tool will inform future consideration of assessment to support eligibility determination for the NDIS around FASD and guidance as part of the recommend individualised planning and intervention. Direct involvement in diagnosis of conditions is not within the role of the NDIA.
While the NDIA is not the appropriate funder of diagnostic work, liaison with the Department of Health and researchers carrying out diagnostic work will continue. The link between diagnosis, identification of functional impairments and funding of appropriate supports, including early intervention will require understanding and communication between the relevant groups involved, including participants, families and carers. No clear data is yet available to indicate numbers of NDIS participants with FASD. Many participants will be identified under other diagnoses. When an agreed Australian diagnostic tool is developed, further work will be undertaken by the NDIA to identify FASD as part of NDIS data. This will be ongoing work as planning for full Scheme rollout continues.
Recommendation 11:
The committee recommends that the COAG establish a joint taskforce for young people living in residential care. This taskforce will:
This process should collate all information and tools developed by the states during the Younger
People with Disability in Residential Aged Care (YPIRAC) program and lead to the development of a standardised national information pack and make available to all state and territory governments for deployment.
The joint taskforce will also be responsible for oversight of the following for young people living in a Residential Aged Care Facility (RACF):
Response: Noted
The COAG Disability Reform Council (DRC) provides a forum for member Governments to discuss matters of mutual interest and progress key national reform in disability policy, including the NDIS.
DSS has funded a project to investigate elements of this recommendation. The project will advise on practical strategies to address the need for co-ordinated and integrated service delivery across specialist and mainstream programs. Outcomes from this exercise will be reported to the COAG DRC for its consideration.
Recommendation 12:
The committee recommends that the joint taskforce issues a half yearly report on the progress of Recommendation 11 to the COAG.
Response: Noted
The establishment of a joint taskforce and how it could report will be considered after research into co-ordinated and integrated service delivery for young people with complex needs is completed and the findings are analysed.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services'report:
The 2014-2015 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act
January 2017
Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services ' Report on the 2014-2015 annual reports of bodies established under the ASIC Act
Recommendation 1
The Government supports this recommendation in principle.
Under subsection 631(2)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act), a person must not publicly propose to make a takeover bid if they are reckless as to whether they would be able to fund a substantial proportion of the offers under the bid. This is an important market integrity provision which recognises that the announcement of a takeover bid will often have a significant effect on the market for target securities even before offers are made.
The Federal Court recently held in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Mariner Corp Ltd [2015] FCA 589 that the test for 'recklessness' in s 631(2)(b) of the Actis a subjective test, not an objective test. This conflicts with the objective test outlined in the Takeovers Panel'sGuidance Note 14: Funding Arrangements , which states that a takeover bid gives rise to unacceptable circumstances if the bidder does not have areasonable basis to expect that it will have funding in place to pay for allacceptances.
Further consideration of this recommendation will occur when other substantial reforms to takeover laws are next considered by the Government.
Recommendation 2
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Financial Advisers Register (Register) was launched by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in March 2015. Its purpose is to enable consumers to verify the credentials of financial advisers, including whether they have been banned or disqualified from being financial advisers.
The Register only contains information about financial advisers who were practising on or after 31 March 2015.
Consumers seeking financial advice are able to verify that a person is not authorised to provide financial advice by the fact that they do not appear on the Register.
The Register will accumulate information about advisers who have been banned or disqualified after 31 March 2015 over time. Consumers can obtain information about banned advisers who ceased practising prior to 31 March 2015 by checking the banned and disqualified register.
Government response to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report:
Shipping Legislation Amendment Bill 2015
[Provisions]
JANUARY 2017
Australian Government response to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report:
The Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016
Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee's report on the introduction of the Transport Security Amendment (Serious or Organised Crime) Bill 2016 (the Bill). The Australian Government would like to thank the Committee members for their work in delivering the report and associated recommendation.
The Bill introduces an additional purpose to the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 (the Aviation Act) and theMaritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 (the Maritime Act) to reduce criminal influence at Australia's security controlled airports, security regulated ports, and security regulated offshore oil and gas facilities. The additional purpose applies solely to the aviation and maritime security identification card (ASIC and MSIC) schemes.
The Aviation and Maritime Acts establish the framework for the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005 (the Aviation Regulations) and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Regulations 2003 (the Maritime Regulations) to create the ASIC and MSIC schemes.
The ASIC and MSIC schemes are an important part of securing the aviation, maritime and offshore oil and gas sectors. ASICs and MSICs are nationally consistent identification cards that show the holder has met the minimum security requirements to remain unmonitored within an aviation or maritime security zone. All individuals who require an ASIC or MSIC must have a valid background check.
The purpose of the background check is primarily to establish whether an applicant may pose a threat to aviation and maritime security. The background check does not currently consider whether they pose a criminal risk.
A number of inquiries and reports have identified vulnerabilities in the ASIC and MSIC schemes. These have focused on the limited purpose of the schemes, in particular their inability to address serious criminality at airports and ports. Notably, the 2011 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement (PJCLE), Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime , highlighted that because the ASIC and MSIC schemes were never originally designed to harden the transport environment against serious and organised crime, organised crime groups have exploited gaps, weaknesses and inconsistencies in the application of the regimes.
The Bill will:
The amendments to the Aviation and Maritime Acts provide for the implementation of new eligibility criteria for ASICs and MSICs that better target serious or organised crime.
The new eligibility criteria, to be specified in the Aviation and Maritime Regulations, will introduce new offence categories such as offences arising from: anti-gang or criminal organisation legislation; illegal importation of goods; interfering with goods under Australian Border Force control; and foreign incursion and recruitment.
Australian Government response to the Final Report
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Bill be passed.
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation and thanks the Committee for its consideration of this complex issue.
Additional Comments
The Australian Government disagrees with the assertion that the Bill potentially risks confusing the purpose of transport security legislation, weakening the schemes ability to prevent terrorism.
The Bill does not affect the national security assessment component of the background check, undertaken by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. The national security assessment is independent to the applicant's criminal history and will not change the existing processes. Including new offences, such as foreign incursion and recruitment, will in fact enhance the schemes' ability to exclude persons from secure zones and areas where they have been convicted of offences of the highest severity.
Dissenting Report
The Australian Government notes the dissenting views of the Hon Senator Janet Rice.
The Australian Government disagrees with the Senator's comments and provides the following to help clarify the intention of the proposed ASIC and MSIC criteria.
Tax evasion is listed as a tier 5 offence - an adverse criminal record is found only where the sentence of imprisonment is at least 30 months, ensuring that only the most high-risk offenders in this category are captured. Arson is listed as a tier 4 offence - an adverse criminal record is found only where the sentence of imprisonment is at least 12 months, ensuring the offence will capture only the higher risk offenders within this category.
The existing criteria regularly sees applicants with minor drug offences, including fines for possession of a drug, found initially ineligible to hold a card unless through a discretionary review. The proposed changes will lift the threshold for less serious and lower-level criminal offences. As a result, more applicants are expected to be found initially eligible for an ASIC or MSIC, reducing the impact to their employment and increasing the staff available to employers.
All existing appeals processes remain available for applicants. Furthermore, under the proposed changes, ASIC applicants will be able to seek reconsideration of decisions by the Secretary (as per the current process available to MSIC applicants). This is in addition to the discretionary review and their ability to appeal a decision by application to the Australian Government's Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Dissenting Report Recommendation 1
That the Bill not be supported in its current form.
The Australian Government does not agree with the recommendation.
Dissenting Report Recommendation 2
That the Government consult further with the sector to develop alternative solutions.
The Australian Government undertook extensive stakeholder consultation across the aviation and maritime sectors. Consultation began as early as August 2011, immediately following the release of the PJCLE's final report in June 2011.
This consultation concluded that extending the current ASIC and MSIC regimes is more efficient and effective than developing a new and separate scheme to counter serious or organised crime at our airports and ports.
The existing ASIC and MSIC schemes are well understood by industry. Introducing a new scheme would likely impose additional costs and lead to confusion and inadvertent non‑compliance.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Carr to replace Senator Dastyari for the committee's inquiries into Australia's steel industry and into the future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry
Participating member: Senator Dastyari
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Waters
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the oil or gas production in the Great Australian Bight
Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson
Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Kakoschke-Moore
Participating members: Senators Di Natale, Hanson-Young, Ludlam, McKim, Rhiannon, Siewert, Waters and Whish-Wilson
Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Kakoschke-Moore
Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World—Select Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Xenophon
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Carr to replace Senator McCarthy for the committee's inquiry into the state of Australia's rail industry
Participating member: Senator McCarthy
Strengthening Multiculturalism—Select Committee—
Appointed—
Senator Di Natale
Participating members: Senators Hanson-Young, Ludlam, McKim, Rhiannon, Rice, Siewert, Waters and Whish-Wilson
I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service …
This ban isn't abstract. It's hurting real Australian families … I've been living and working in the US for the last few years. I met an incredible man. We got married and are expecting our first child in 10 weeks. Every time I think of our child's shared Jewish and Muslim heritage it makes me smile.
Last week I booked a ticket for my mum to be here for the birth of our baby. Like me, my mum is an Australian citizen who was born in Iran. The ban applied to her - because of where she was born.
Had it stood, she wouldn't have been able to come here and see me. And had I left the country, despite being an Australian citizen and a Green Card holder, I may not have been able to re-enter the US.
In Donald Trump's mind, the fact that I was born in Iran is a crime that means I'm less worthy of basic dignity or the rights that others enjoy.
My son was 28 years old, gainfully employed, living independently with strong friendships.
I am writing to you as a mother who has been alongside her son as he navigated the mental health care system. My ultimate hope would be that the number of individuals and families affected by suicide is reduced through the timely and intensive treatment management approach to individuals affected by depression and other mental health conditions across the board but particularly for our young men who statistically are one of the highest at risk groups in our community.
Age 8 he was diagnosed and treated for attention hyperactivity disorder (14% go onto develop Borderline Personality Disorder, versus 3% for general population), highlighting the need for skilled early assessment and intervention for children diagnosed with this condition.
Age 13 he experienced his first episode of depression and was treated by child and adolescent mental health services. He required a term off school and medication and short term therapy to which he responded well.
In September 2013, aged 25 my son was taken by me to a hospital after a failed suicide attempt. At that time after being assessed and deemed safe he was discharged and admission was not recommended. He commenced anti-depressants and anxiolytics and was supported by local community mental health services with follow up psychiatric appointments, which I attended with him.
But his mood continued to deteriorate and the CAT team became involved with a home supervision plan that included twice daily visits for a 2 week period. At this time he was being managed and treated for a major depressive episode. He had significant weight loss and a very strong and ruminating wish to die. This was an extremely difficult time for me as his mother to sit with and see the mental anguish of your only child and to feel powerless to affect change.
At the end of the 2 week supervision I had returned home (he was living with his father) and he attempted suicide again at his first opportunity. The CAT team were called, and he was taken again to hospital. This time, he was to be admitted under the mental health care act as an involuntary patient, at which I felt an enormous relief. Unfortunately, they had no available beds, and he was transferred to another hospital where there was a vacancy.
To my absolute disbelief, they discharged him from that facility less than 24 hours later, making their decision based primarily on his 'borderline personality diagnosis' which had not been discussed with us, his parents. I have read the health services policy guidelines re admission for patients with borderline personality and am deeply troubled. There is little accommodation for dual diagnosis. In my son's case, it was clearly evident that his depression and anxiety was an issue that needed an intensive inpatient approach, to provide close supervision, observation, medical review and access to therapeutic interventions in a safe environment. It was also apparent that the psychiatrists at the two hospitals had differing opinions re my son's primary diagnosis on admission, and so their care plans differed. When I tried to voice my concerns regarding the decision made at the second hospital, I was not able to speak with his treating doctor and was told I had no recourse. His diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, if that is what he had, should not have prevented him from receiving an admission and adequate treatment of his depressive episode. On reflection, it seems that decisions at times can be prejudicial and discriminatory when individuals with acute psychological distress present and are in desperate need of care.
He had lived with his undiagnosed mental health issue for some time, but his depressive episode was a distinctly separate issue. My son lived with ADHD disorder every day, and it presented its own unique challenges for him and his family, but this depressive episode was a distinctly different and marked episode that, in my mind, was inadequately managed and treated at this time by the second hospital.
We were not involved in the discharge planning, though we are his next of kin. Yet on admission to the first hospital the family input was highly valued and seen as an important part of my son's welfare. A referral to Spectrum was not made by the second hospital that I am aware of, as I was not involved in the discharge care planning, so services of this specialised organisation were not made available. The experience of having no voice regarding his discharge planning when he was discharged from the second hospital was gut-wrenching and completely unacceptable. It would not be an acceptable practice in any other area of medicine, and psychiatry should not be any different. This was the only period in his life that he accessed the public hospital system for mental health issues.
If my son had presented with chest pain instead, he would have been admitted and been provided with the most intensive care plan under the supervision of a cardiologist and would not have been discharged until his medical condition was assessed, investigated fully and treated. Family and or carers are involved in this process as a universally deemed mode of best practice. They would not prevent his admission based on his borderline personality disorder, and neither should psychiatry.
My son mattered, as do all those sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers who now and in the future will be trying to gain access to the mental health care they deserve.
Australia ranks 26 out of 34 of our OECD countries for psychiatric beds per 100,000 population. One has to ask why that is. The National Mental Health Commission report and the recommended shift of 1 billion dollars away from public acute-care beds to expand community mental health programs is a disaster waiting to unfold. No money should be taken away until the community based sub-acute beds are in place and increased funding is needed urgently for acute inpatient beds to address the current shortages.
I believe if he had received an inpatient stay of sufficient length to monitor, medicate and engage in a therapeutic process with a well-planned and integrated discharge plan, with case managed follow up, I may not be writing this letter today. My son was denied, I believe, optimal care, and now we are left with the results of that. My son's death has impacted his immediate family, friends and wider community. To have this level of care in what is considered one of the wealthiest countries in the world is appalling and behoves change.
I know I am not alone in my perception of our current mental health service being in crisis. One only has to look at the news reports, articles and opinions of those involved directly or indirectly with the system to realise that major review and change is required urgently.
The department's grants administration processes fell short of the standard required to effectively manage a billion dollars of Commonwealth resources … the Department did not :
…concerned at reports that such legal developments are not always implemented in practice, in particular with respect to Palestinian minors accused of security-related offences. In this respect, it is concerned at allegations of many instances in which Palestinian minors were exposed to torture or ill-treatment, including to obtain confessions … The Committee is also concerned that many of these children, like many other Palestinians, are deprived of liberty in facilities located in Israel, thus hindering access to visits of relatives who live in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Committee is further concerned that at the time of the dialogue there were 12 minors in administrative detention and 207 Palestinian minors residents of the West Bank in detention for security-related offences.
(a) Ensuring that the deprivation of liberty of minors, irrespective of the charges brought against them, is a last resort, limited to the shortest possible period, and that it is reviewed daily with a view to eliminating it;
(b) Systematically ensuring that all minors deprived of liberty are afforded all the basic legal safeguards from the very outset of the deprivation of liberty; that they have a lawyer and/or a trusted adult present at every phase of the proceeding, including during interrogations; and that evidence obtained without observing these provisions are inadmissible in court;
(c) Preventing, investigating and adequately sanctioning practices involving torture or ill-treatment. It should also ensure that minors who were victims of torture or ill-treatment are afforded appropriate redress, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible;
(d) Facilitating visits from relatives and friends, in accordance with international standards.
… comply with its obligations under the Convention on the rights of the child and to not arrest or detain Palestinian children unless this is a last resort, and if they are detained, to immediately institute protections for those children including that their safety and best interests are prioritised, and that they are permitted a fair trial.
The children taken to Kishon … detention center … inside Israel, describe being held in isolation in a small cell measuring approximately … (6.5 x 10 feet). The children report either sleeping on a concrete bed, on the floor, or on a thin mattress that is often described as "dirty" and "foul smelling." There are no windows and no natural light. The only source of light comes from a dim yellow bulb that is reportedly kept on at all hours. Meals are passed to children through a flap in the door. Cell walls are reported to be gray in color with sharp or rough protrusions that are painful to lean against.
On the first day of my arrival to Al-Jalame, I was taken to an interrogation room to be interrogated … He accused me of throwing Molotov cocktails and stones. He interrogated me for two hours. He was shouting at me to intimidate me, but I did not confess.
He shouted at me and threatened to beat me. Another interrogator came in, shouting at me and threatening, 'I'll smash your head if you don't confess. And if you don't talk from your mouth, I'll make you talk from your ass.' I was really scared of him.
Abdullah was interrogated three separate times and confessed to throwing two Molotov cocktails during the third interrogation session. His detention was extended at least six times—
… the months ahead, the years ahead it's only going to get worse until eventually there will be a time where policies will change because the only thing that restricts the activities of the surveillance state are policy. Even our agreements with other sovereign governments, we consider that to be a stipulation of policy rather than a stipulation of law. And because of that a new leader will be elected, they'll find the switch, say that 'Because of the crisis, because of the dangers we face in the world, some new and unpredicted threat, we need more authority, we need more power.' And there will be nothing the people can do at that point to oppose it. And it will be turnkey tyranny.
1. Ideological formation and the creation of a party with quasi-military cadres. Talk of national humiliation, lost vigour, and the failures of liberalism and democracy.
2. Entry of the party into national politics. Intimidation of rivals, and planned acts of 'redemptive violence' against suspect minorities and radical rivals.
3. Arrival in government, often in alliance with conservatives.
4. Exercise of power, in concert with institutions and business. The regime expands its control at home: restricting the press and democratic processes, corporatizing business, and collectivizing the people. Abroad, it asserts itself militarily.
5. Radicalization or entropy: Some fascists go down in a …
but most die of boredom.