The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Any other papers prepared for the consideration by or for the information of ministers in a Cabinet or committee meeting, such as letters or reports, regardless of whether these documents are circulated in advance of the meeting or provided in the Cabinet Room …
That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.
I hasten to add here, in relation to the report of the Religious Freedom Review Expert Panel, which has been received by the cabinet, that the government has not as yet made any decisions on the way forward. The cabinet continues with its deliberations.
It is accepted that deliberations of the Executive Council and of the cabinet should be able to be conducted in secrecy so as to preserve the freedom of deliberation of those bodies. This ground, however, relates only to disclosure of deliberations.
There has been a tendency for governments to claim that anything with a connection to cabinet is confidential.
A claim that a document is a cabinet document should not be accepted; as has been made clear in relation to such claims in court proceedings…
It should be observed at the outset that the documents for which the Commonwealth claims immunity from disclosure are documents which record the actual deliberations of Cabinet or a committee of Cabinet.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership Implementation) Bill 2018
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 2, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:
The Senate divided. [11:30]
(Temporary Chair—Senator Whish-Wilson)
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (cell at table item 2, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:
[commencement]
The second point is simply to note that three countries—Japan, Singapore and Mexico—have all ratified. Three more need to ratify for the agreement to enter into force. Developments are gathering apace in five other countries—
It is very possible that, if Australia isn't an early mover on ratification, we will not make one of the first six … We do, therefore, commend early ratification to the committee, and we're looking forward to answering any further questions you may have today.
The committee divided. [12:20]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (after line 6), at the end of Subdivision A, add:
153ZKUA Cessation of effect of Division
This Division ceases to have effect on 1 January 2020 unless all of the following come into force for Australia before that day:
(a) bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other Party agreeing that Chapter 9 of the Agreement, which deals with investor-State disputes, does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other Party;
(b) bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other Party agreeing that labour market testing must occur in relation to contractual service suppliers entering, or proposing to enter, Australia from the other Party.
[sunsetting]
(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 19 (after line 18), at the end of Division 4EB, add:
126AKM Cessation of effect of Division
This Division ceases to have effect on 1 January 2020 unless all of the following come into force for Australia before that day:
(a) bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other Party agreeing that Chapter 9 of the Agreement, which deals with investor-State disputes, does not apply in relation to an investment in Australia by an investor of the other Party;
(b) bilateral side letters exchanged between Australia and each other Party agreeing that labour market testing must occur in relation to contractual service suppliers entering, or proposing to enter, Australia from the other Party.
[sunsetting]
The committee divided. [12:32]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Bernardi)
That these bills be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [12:40]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bernardi)
… glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.
… residues in food are so low for all chemicals and glyphosate too, that there is no cancer risk.
exposure to glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans
there are no scientific grounds for placing glyphosate and products containing glyphosate under formal reconsideration
This is the only situation I’ve come across where it is deliberate government policy which is causing the pain and suffering of these children.
… little time to inform affected countries and sparking an angry reaction from foreign diplomats in Canberra who are usually informed of major foreign policy changes weeks in advance.
I know why you're here. It is for the cash. For the Pacific it's always about the cash. I have my chequebook here. How much do you want?
Immunotherapy was my last chance to tackle terminal cancer …
… … …
I was fortunate enough to be given that opportunity … as otherwise there was no chance.
… … …
It is a life-saving therapy. I would just be another number if it weren't for it …
"I was waking up real stiff and sore, and could barely get out of bed …
"I had an MRI and it came up with a heap of inflammation on my hip, in one of the joints."
"It was my first year at Subi, so it wasn't ideal. But I'm back running now, so I'm pretty much 100 per cent."
… I first saw this report not long after I became Prime Minister …
That:
(a) today, the matter of public importance proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) not be proceeded with and instead, at that time, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018 be called on and considered for not longer than 1 hour and 30 minutes; and
(b) on Thursday, 18 October 2018, consideration of general business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be as follows:
(i) the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018,
(ii) from not later than 5 pm, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, and
(iii) from not later than 6.30 pm, orders of the day relating to documents.
(a) notes that:
(i) Anti-Poverty Week is from 14 to 20 October 2018,
(ii) in Australia, which is ranked as the second wealthiest county in the world, there are currently 3 million people in Australia living in poverty, including 739,000 children,
(iii) Australia has no poverty reduction plan, and despite economic growth, poverty levels have remained entrenched at a high level,
(iv) Newstart and Youth Allowance have not had an increase in real terms since 1994, and
(v) the poverty rate for sole parents rose from 35% in 2013 to 59% in 2015, and rates of poverty for sole parents remain high; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to abandon their punitive approach to social policy and the demonisation of those accessing the social safety, and make it a priority to address poverty in Australia by raising Newstart and Youth Allowance by $75 a week.
That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
Having regard to the matters raised by Senator Burston in correspondence tabled by the President on 16 October 2018:
(a) whether, by removing him from positions within Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and pressing him to resign from the Senate, Senator Hanson or any other person has sought to improperly interfere with the free performance of his duties as a senator or to penalise him for his conduct as a senator; and
(b) if so, whether any contempt was committed in that regard.
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 February 2019:
Credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact on individuals, communities, and the broader financial system of the operations of:
(i) payday lenders and consumer lease providers,
(ii) unlicensed financial service providers including "buy now, pay later" providers and short-term credit providers, and
(iii) debt management firms, debt negotiators, credit repair agencies and personal budgeting services;
(b) whether current regulation of these service providers meets community standards and expectations and whether reform is needed to address harm being caused to consumers;
(c) the present capacity and capability of the financial counselling sector to provide financial counselling services to financially stressed and distressed members of the community; and
(d) any other matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 20 October is World Osteoporosis Day and aims to increase awareness of the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis,
(ii) osteoporosis is a fragile bone disease that causes painful and debilitating fractures, particularly of the hip and spine,
(iii) every year in Australia around 165 000 fractures occur, many of which could have been prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment, and
(iv) Australia-wide, 4 million Australians over 50 have poor bone health;
(b) acknowledges that the cost of fractures associated with osteoporosis nationally amounted to $2 billion in 2017; and
(c) recognises that:
(i) early action can be taken through regular exercise, a bone-healthy diet and consultation with a doctor about osteoporosis risk factors,
(ii) diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis can halve the risk of fracture, and
(iii) effective preventative treatments include regular exercise, a bone healthy diet and consultation with doctors about risk factors.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the United Nations declared 17 October as the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty,
(ii) that this year marks the 70th anniversary of the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and
(iii) the fundamental connection between extreme poverty and human rights, and that those living in poverty are disproportionately affected by rights violations;
(b) further notes:
(i) the global commitment in pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal 1 to end poverty in all its forms everywhere, and to recognise the dignity of the individual in the principle of leaving no one behind, and
(ii) that despite global poverty rates halving since 2000, one in ten people are still living below the international poverty line of US$1 a day; and
(c) acknowledges:
(i) that poverty is more than the lack of income and resources, its manifestations include hunger and malnutrition, limited access to education and other basic services, social discrimination and exclusion,
(ii) the struggle of people living in poverty, hears their concerns and recognises that poor people are at the forefront of the fight against inequality, and
(iii) that building a sustainable future requires us to intensify our efforts towards ensuring that everyone can exercise their human rights and to fulfil the needs and aspirations of everyone—not just the privileged few in this generation and those to come.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Appointment of Directors) Bill 2018
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING AMENDMENT (APPOINTMENT OF DIRECTORS) BILL 2018
Threats to the independence of the ABC are nothing new.
By my estimation, since the mid-1970s no fewer than four of the eleven ABC Board Chairs have had their terms cut short for failing to live up to the expectations of the government of the day — both coalition and Labor.
Three Managing Directors have met the same fate.
Some displeased the government of the day, some were not up to the job.
What unites them all is that they were subject to less than transparent processes which have cumulatively led to a loss of public confidence NOT in the independence of the ABC, but in its ability to withstand attacks on that independence.
Now it has happened again despite the 2012 introduction of new measures for board appointments designed to ensure, as stated by the government of the day, "a transparent and democratic board appointment process that appoints non-executive directors on merit".
But in recent years, the intention and the spirit of this process have been ignored on at least three occasions, leading to public disquiet about the independence and integrity of the ABC.
Three appointees to the ABC Board by this government were not recommended by the independent Nomination Panel; a fourth was highly rated by the Panel, but then withdrew from the process and was subsequently appointed by the Minister.
The National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Act 2012 established an independent Nomination Panel designed to nominate appointments of non-executive directors to the boards of the ABC and SBS based "on merit".
According to the Act the nominees were required to have had "experience in connection with the provision of broadcasting services or in communications or management"; "expertise in financial or technical matters"; or "cultural or other interests relevant to the oversight of a public organisation engaged in the provision of broadcasting".
But the Act also enabled the Prime Minister of the day to ignore Panel nominations as long as he or she tabled "the reasons for that appointment in each House of the Parliament no later than 15 sitting days ... after that appointment is made."
The intention was honourable, but it has turned out to be a substantial deficiency.
As Senator Nick Minchin, then Shadow Communications Minister, said in this place on November the 17th 2009 when the legislation was introduced:
"While the government is establishing a Nomination Panel for the appointment process, at the end of the day the scope remains for the minister and the Prime Minister to ignore Panel nominations and appoint whoever they like."
And so it has turned out to be, setting in train a course of events which once again sees the ABC with a Managing Director whose term has been cut short and a Chair whose actions have forced him to resign.
A bare majority of the current ABC Board was appointed as a result of recommendations from the independent Nomination Panel.
Two of the current board were not nominated as qualified candidates by the Panel; one did not even apply.
The amendment I am proposing is designed to remedy this situation by returning to the spirit and intention of the legislation which set up the independent Nomination Panel and the process surrounding it.
It is a modest proposal -- a multi-stage, graduated process designed to enhance independence, transparency, multi-partisanship and public confidence both in the appointment process and the future independence of the ABC.
What it is NOT is an attempt to impose US Senate-style confirmation hearings on Australian democracy. The Bill is consistent with the principles of Westminster government: the ultimate appointment of a non-executive director remains the prerogative of the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or Minister.
The Bill requires the Prime Minister in the case of the Chair of the ABC or the Minister in the case of the other non-executive directors to publish the name of their proposed appointee if they intend to ignore the recommendations of the independent Nomination at least 30 days before the appointment proceeds.
This strengthens the integrity of the Panel process and of its members.
It maintains the confidentiality of those candidates not recommended by the Panel and enhances the authority of Panel nominations by putting them in the public domain.
The confidentiality of the nomination process before the Panel's announcement minimises the likelihood of well-qualified individuals being deterred from putting their names forward.
It reduces the prospect that the efforts of the Panel will have been a waste of time as former Panel member and former coalition government minister Neil Brown has pointed out when his and other Panel members' nominations were ignored.
The reasons must be published on the website of the Department of Communications and the Arts. The Opposition Leader must be informed in writing and invited to comment within a reasonable period.
If the Opposition Leader informs the Prime Minister (in the case of the Chairman) or the Minister (in the case of other non-executive directors) in writing within the specified period that he or she does not agree with the appointment the Prime Minister must cause a statement of reasons, including an assessment of the appointee against the selection criteria set down for the independent Nomination Panel, to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament.
In that situation, the Prime Minister or the Minister, must not recommend the Governor-General make the appointment until after the end of the 90 day period beginning when the statement was tabled in the second of the Houses.
This strengthens the current legislation which requires the Prime Minister consult the Opposition Leader only in the case of the appointment of the ABC Chair before recommending the appointment to the Governor-General.
Following tabling of the government's statement of reasons in both Houses of Parliament it would be open to the Senate to hold an inquiry into the nomination by the relevant committee.
It is to be hoped that this new final step need never be taken; that the modest, measured and graduated steps I am proposing would be sufficient to encourage governments to accept the nominations of the independent Nomination Panel.
Should they not, the voters would see where responsibility for the consequences of the government's actions lie — with the government and no one else.
And that is where responsibility for the recent episode centring on the former Chair and former Managing Director of the ABC lies — with the government and no one else.
They appointed Justin Milne; he headed the Board who appointed her. Neither process was sufficiently transparent.
We now know that the Minister was informed of the breakdown in relations between the Board and Ms Guthrie on September 12th, 12 days before her dismissal became public.
The Minister denies that he has ever "in any way shape or form sought to involve himself in [ABC] staffing matters."
Clearly, Mr Milne saw it differently.
In the report commissioned by the Minister from his Department Secretary Mr Milne does not deny that he wrote an email to Ms Guthrie about an article by ABC Chief Economics Correspondent Emma Alberici.
That email stated that "they [the government] hate her."
"We are tarred with her brush. I think it's simple. Get rid of her. We need to save the ABC ¬not Emma. There is no guarantee they [the Coalition] will lose the next election."
According to the report of the Secretary of the Department of Communications and the Arts, the former ABC Chair acknowledges that a conversation with Ms Guthrie about ABC Political Editor Andrew Probyn "was around what to do with him".
Mr Milne does not recall, but does not deny having used the term "to shoot him" in reference to Mr Probyn in that conversation.
According to the report, Mr Milne "does not consider that either communication was a direction to the MD."
It does not matter what he thinks. What is significant is what Ms Guthrie thought was the import of Mr Milne's communications with her.
According to the report, Ms Guthrie does consider the Alberici email "constituted a direction to take action" and was "consistent with what she regards as an interventionist approach to individual staffing and editorial matters which the Chair adopted.'
Equally, Ms Guthrie regards the Probyn phone call from Mr Milne as providing "significant pressure to terminate Mr Probyn's employment."
"Shoot him", "get rid of her", "bone her", "spear him" — no one who uses colloquial Australian would have any doubt what they mean, whatever Mr Milne believes.
The current processes for appointing non-executive directors to the ABC board may have been well intentioned, but they have failed.
It is time for the Senate to pass the modest, measured, graduated steps I am proposing so that the chances for political interference in the ABC — real or perceived — are reduced and the public can be assured that the pre-eminent cultural institution is not only genuinely independence, but also has the protections to withstand attacks on that independence as well as its autonomy and integrity.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Senate requires the attendance of the Chairman of NBNCo, Dr Ziggy Switkowski, at the Communications and the Arts Portfolio 2018-19 supplementary Budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on Tuesday, 23 October 2018, for as long as the NBNCo is called by the committee.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 14 October 2018 marked the beginning of National Carers Week;
(b) recognises that there are over 2 million carers across Australia providing critical supports to our family, friends and loved ones at an estimated value of $60 billion per annum to the economy; and
(c) encourages all Australians to:
(i) celebrate the role that carers play in our society, and to get involved in the week's activities, and
(ii) participate in events across the country, or on social media, by telling Australians 'Why You Care' and using the hashtag Carers2018.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 11 October 2018 was the internationally recognised Day of the Girl Child,
(ii) since its inception in 2011, the International Day of the Girl Child has:
(A) provided the international community with an opportunity to recognise and celebrate the power and potential of girls around the world, and
(B) played a pivotal role in highlighting the barriers still faced by girls and women,
(iii) the theme of this year's Day of the Girl Child was 'With Her: A Skilled GirlForce',
(iv) according to UNICEF, young women aged between 15-29 are more than three times as likely as young men to not be in employment, education or training,
(v) 131 million girls worldwide are out of school around the world, while completion rates and learning levels of girls are lower than those of boys,
(vi) by 2030, at current rates, more than half the world's girls will not be on track to achieve secondary level literacy and numeracy skills,
(vii) some countries lose more than $1 billion a year by failing to educate girls to the same level as boys,
(viii) 35 per cent of economically inactive young women leave work to have a baby or look after family,
(ix) girls who are married before the age of 18 see higher poverty rates than those who are married later, and
(x) 15 per cent of East Asian and Pacific girls are married before the age of 18;
(b) recognises that young women's participation in education, training and work:
(i) provides women with agency and opportunities, and
(ii) fosters economic growth and stability;
(c) reaffirms its commitment to the empowerment of girls and women, and to the fight against all barriers to their full economic, political and social participation; and
(d) acknowledges the work of advocates for girls and women around the world.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 16 October 2018 represents one year since the Senate debated the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016,
(ii) the bill has been listed on the Senate's draft legislation program at least 5 times since then, including for today, where it is the fifth-placed bill, and
(iii) among other things, the bill attempts to address family violence in migrant families by ensuring character checks of a sponsor are conducted before a visa application can be made, and that the findings are shared with the person they are sponsoring; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to bring the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 on for debate by 15 November 2018.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the ongoing impact past abuse has had on the lives of survivors;
(b) notes that the Prime Minister will be issuing a formal apology to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse on Monday, 22 October 2018;
(c) expresses concern that there are currently no mechanisms within the Governor-General Act 1974 to cease the pensions or ongoing payments to former Governors-General where such a payment is no longer in the interest of the public, for instance when unconscionable or illegal behaviour is committed; and
(d) calls on the Prime Minister to introduce a bill to amend the Governor-General Act 1974 to include provisions to cease ongoing payments to former Governors-General where such a payment is not in the interest of the public, or amend the criteria under Section 4 of the Act dictating the terms and eligibility of ongoing payments to former Governors-General.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on limiting global temperature increase by 1 degrees by 2050:
(i) stated that 'nuclear increases its share in most 1 degree pathways by 2050',
(ii) indicated in some projections that nuclear energy generation could expand by as much as 200 exajoules by 2100 – the equivalent of double the United States of America's annual consumption,
(iii) estimated nuclear energy generation would increase by 2 times by 2050 in 85 mitigation scenarios, and
(iv) the median uptake of primary energy supply via nuclear energy across the 85 mitigation scenarios between 2020 and 2050 was 7 per cent, more than renewable energy (6 per cent) and biomass (5 per cent);
(b) further notes that investigation of nuclear energy generation in Australia has been the subject of a legislative ban imposed at the behest of The Greens for almost 20 years; and
(c) calls upon the Federal Government to take steps to allow the consideration of nuclear energy generation in Australia's energy mix.
The Senate divided. [15:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) ordinary Australians are struggling financially – the cost of living is too high,
(ii) the price of petrol is the highest that it has ever been and is a burden on ordinary Australians, and
(iii) there are calls for a national fuel strike; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to immediately remove fuel excise to lower the cost of living burden for ordinary Australians.
The Senate divided. [15:27]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 11 July 2018, United States President, Mr Donald Trump, told NATO leaders they should increase their defence spending to 4 per cent of their country's economic output,
(ii) the United States spent approximately 3 per cent of its GDP on defence last year,
(iii) Australia spent approximately 2 per cent of its GDP on defence last year,
(iv) we live in a volatile geo-political environment, and Australia ought to have strong defence capabilities to defend the air-sea gap approach to our borders, and
(v) historically, during the 1950s and 1960s, Australia spent on average 3 per cent of its GDP on defence; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to increase its defence spending to a target of 4 per cent GDP to protect all Australians.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) since the last Senate sitting period, there have been 8 women killed by violence in Australia, bringing the total of women killed by violence to 55 in 2018, as reported by Counting Dead Women Australia from Destroy The Joint,
(ii) on average, one woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner,
(iii) 1 in 3 Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15,
(iv) 1 in 5 Australian women has experienced sexual violence,
(v) 1 in 6 Australian women has experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or former partner,
(vi) 1 in 4 Australian women has experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner,
(vii) Australian women are nearly three times more likely than men to experience violence from an intimate partner,
(viii) there is growing evidence that women with disabilities are more likely to experience violence,
(ix) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women report experiencing violence in the previous 12 months at 3 times the rate of non-Indigenous women, and
(x) in 2014-15, Indigenous women were 32 times as likely to be hospitalised due to family violence as non-Indigenous women; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) recognise domestic violence against women as a national security crisis,
(ii) adequately fund frontline domestic violence and crisis housing services to ensure that all women seeking safety can access these services when and where they need them,
(iii) legislate for 10 days paid domestic violence leave, so that women do not have to choose between paying the bills and seeking safety, and
(iv) implement all 25 recommendations of the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee into domestic violence in Australia, tabled in the Senate on 20 August 2015.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the New South Wales (NSW) Government is proposing to raise the Warragamba Dam wall by fourteen metres, which could inundate up to 4 700 hectares of national parks and 65 kilometres of wilderness streams and rivers, irreversibly damaging the integrity of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area (GBMWHA),
(ii) there are 25 threatened plant and animal species which inhabit the proposed inundation area, including the Camden White Gum, Kowmung Hakea and near-extinct honeyeaters, and
(iii) there are alternatives for protecting the region from flooding, and the community is sceptical that raising the dam wall is just a plan to allow a huge increase in inappropriate property developments on the floodplains of the Hawkesbury and Nepean Rivers;
(b) opposes the NSW Government's plans to raise the Warragamba Dam wall; and
(c) calls on the Minister for the Environment to block federal approvals required to raise the Warragamba Dam wall.
The Senate divided. [15:37]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Liberal-National Federal Government has announced it will give an additional $4 billion to the Catholic and Independent school sectors following an intense lobbying campaign, and
(ii) public schools, despite teaching two in three students in Australia, are underfunded and, under the current system, almost 90 per cent of public schools will not receive the funding they need to meet the educational needs of their students; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to cancel the special deal with Catholic and Independent schools, and commit to funding public schools fairly, including diverting the full $4 billion into underfunded public schools.
The Senate divided. [15:42]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Government is deploying a strategy of avoiding accountability, interrogation and scrutiny in relation to Australia's rising pollution levels, and owning up to its hostility towards any climate policy by:
(i) the Minister for the Environment refusing four media requests from 7.30, half a dozen requests for interviews from Sky News and multiple interviews from Fairfax Media and Channel 7,
(ii) the now frequent practice of holding back the quarterly updates of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory reports, merging quarterly reports and releasing them at times to minimise scrutiny and obscure public attention of their contents, and
(iii) most recently, by proposing an estimates schedule for the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee that has pushed back scrutiny of greenhouse reductions to 9pm in the evening; and
(b) directs the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, in relation to its supplementary estimates hearing on Monday, 22 October 2018, to call on program 2 of the Environment and Energy portfolio: Reducing Australia's Greenhouse Gas Emissions by not later than 2 pm.
The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
(1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, by not later than 5 calendar months after each:
(a) 31 March;
(b) 30 June;
(c) 30 September; and
(d) 31 December
the quarterly update of Australia's National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
(2) If the Senate is not sitting when a quarterly update is ready for presentation, the statement is to be presented to the President under standing order 166.
(3) This order is of continuing effect.
The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that there are currently around 100 children being detained by the Australian Government on Nauru,
(ii) that many, if not all of these children, are suffering serious psychological disorders, such as 'resignation syndrome', where children abandon all hopes of a better life, and become suicidal,
(iii) that the Australian Medical Association has called on the Government for "urgent action to prevent further harm to the health and welfare of child refugees and asylum seekers on Nauru, [and that] these children and their families be removed from harm and have access to healthcare of an appropriate standard",
(iv) that nearly 6 000 doctors have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, supporting this call from the Australian Medical Association,
(v) Mr Broadbent's statement that "This is an embarrassing humanitarian crisis that the government needs to resolve in a manner acceptable to the Australian people",
(vi) Mr Laundy's statement that "something must be done as soon as possible",
(vii) Ms Banks' statement that this change-of-heart "comes from the hearts and minds of the Australian people", and
(viii) the agreement of these three Liberal MPs that "these kids have been there far too long";
(b) congratulates and thanks the brave Liberal members who told the Government their focus is only on the welfare of the children; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to immediately bring every child in detention on Nauru to Australia for urgent medical and psychological assessment and treatment, along with the family members of children being assessed and treated.
The Senate divided. [16:09]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion that general business notice of motion no. 1141 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.
The Senate divided. [16:23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) abortion was decriminalised in Tasmania in 2013, and surgical terminations were being provided at private clinics without significant out-of-pocket expenses,
(ii) early this year, this provider closed their clinic, and the Tasmanian Liberal Government ruled out providing this essential service within the Tasmanian public health system, with women forced to travel interstate for treatment,
(iii) in February, the Federal and Tasmanian Ministers for Health gave assurances that this issue had been resolved, with the Tasmanian Minister more recently stating that a new low cost private provider would begin operation by October this year, and
(iv) despite these assurances, evidence has revealed a significant increase in the number of Tasmanian women being forced to travel interstate to access surgical abortions at great cost, and the Tasmanian Government is yet to reveal details of the private provider; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) work with the Tasmanian Government to resolve this issue for Tasmanian women so they can affordably access surgical terminations in the state, and
(ii) directly encourage provision of these essential health services in Tasmania by matching Federal Labor's $1 million commitment to a reproductive health hub.
Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018
I teach at a conservative Catholic primary school. I am constantly afraid that someone will find out and that I will lose my job. I am the main income earner and my employment is incredibly important. I worry that I will lose my job. I worry that my employer won't give me a good reference if she finds out. This could affect my future employment opportunities. I feel like a criminal and I have done nothing wrong.
I have a Masters in Theology and want to teach in religious schools. However, I will never apply. I have absolutely no chance as, though I'm Christian, I am an openly gay man.
Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
If my school had been even remotely LGBTIQ-friendly, my entire life would have been different. If it had not been overtly homophobic, even that would have been a good start. But it was not and I had a very rough time and felt there was no way out. Feeling increasingly disconnected with my body and distressed by the way it was changing, in Year 10 I stumbled across a YouTube video of a transgender man and I thought I might have finally found my answer—but I also knew there was little I could do about it. I stopped eating in the hope that I could stop puberty and I was cutting myself. I cried in the back of the classroom each day, but no one noticed. In Year 12, I tried to kill myself for the first time.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
What's the ultimate goal in not allowing these kids within your school?
Religious schools, their bigger purpose is to provide environments where kids can interact with their faith and so by excluding the students they lose that opportunity. To me, it seems nonsensical.
All young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential.
Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools with respect to students on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Heavy trucks are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes on our roads and the trucking industry represents the highest number of work related fatalities across all industries in Australia.
During the 12 months to the end of March 2008, 184 people were killed in 163 fatal crashes involving heavy trucks, with fatal crashes involving heavy rigid trucks increasing.
I've been in the industry for over 40 years and, yes, we had accidents back in the early days, 40-odd years ago, but nowhere near as many as what we're having now, and it is because of the undue pressure put on the drivers through the corporations or the companies they subcontract to do the work.
… … …
I have known of over 50 deaths in the industry because I've been in it such a long time. I don't want to see one more.
What we're seeing is latent illnesses; cancer clusters and these sorts of things—long-term exposures to chemicals. It's different industries. For whatever reason, as you're aware, Senator, your government did the things it did around manufacturing and we have less of that now. So it's a different risk profile. I think what the statistics show is that change; they don't show a decline.
It's not that I don't accept the figures; I just think that they mischaracterise the circumstances. We have a significant increase in the change of the modes of employment, for example, and the way that that might get counted, as opposed to someone being deemed an employee or not deemed an employee. We also have issues around the way Safe Work Australia captures that data. All the jurisdictions don't feed the same data in. So what's classed as a workplace fatality in one jurisdiction isn't necessarily classed as a workplace fatality in the Safe Work Australia statistical data capture—the datasets that they gather.
Over the past two decades, business operators have continued to find new ways to avoid their responsibilities under Fair Work legislation and other legal and regulatory structures, including WHS and workers’ compensation frameworks. ‘Gig economy’, sham contract and labour hire arrangements require the service provider to be a self-employed independent contractor, rather than an employee, thereby abrogating the business operators of employer responsibilities.
… … …
By insisting that people who work for them be self-employed independent contractors, business operators avoid having to take responsibility for the provision of safety nets that Australians have come to expect, including the right to be safe at work.
The boat he was working on sank and he swam for 5½ hours before dying of hypothermia. He was a wonderful person who did not deserve to have his life stolen from him. Losing a child this way is unlike any other type of grief and it is permanent. A part of our soul is missing. We live a divided life: the time before the workplace accident and the time after.
I'm here with my wife and also representing my two sons, Mitchell Brownlee and Jack Brownlee. Jack was 21 years old, and he will always be 21 years old. He will never age. He went to work on 21 March and was caught in a trench collapse that covered the boy up to his neck, with one arm free. About 9.30 on that day was the last time they—
were seen and they weren't found until 11.30. They weren't rescued until 2.30. In the first two hours, Jack would have had the most horrific time. His mate—
was dead beside him, metres away.
Jack would have been screaming for help, and the other boys were at smoko. They were left on their own. There was no supervision of these boys. There was nothing. At the time, I was at the hospital with my wife, who was suffering severe migraines. We received no phone call from the company until 5.30 that afternoon.
Beforehand, I had a friend who worked in Geelong. He rang me and informed me. Things were on Facebook about a trench collapse in Ballarat and he thought our son Jack was involved. I raced up there to the site and was met at the roadblock by the police. We weren't allowed in. Jack had just been evacuated, they said, and they were putting him in an induced coma. I was informed by the police that the best thing to do was to hightail down to Melbourne and meet him at the hospital. We still had not heard from the company.
The hardest thing for us was to leave our son and drive home. The hardest thing was to drive there in the first place, getting updates telling us, 'Hurry up. Your son mightn't make it.' And then the hardest thing was to drive home the next day, leaving our boy at the hospital. That was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do: knowing he was there on his own; leaving my baby there … Things need to change. How we were treated was so wrong.
I am a doctor of veterinary science and I am married to Charlie Howkins, who was a registered building practitioner and worked in civil construction at the time of his death. I am—and we were—parents to two small children: Sophie, who is four, and George, who is one year old. Charlie went to work one day in March and he never came home. He became just another of the dead bodies which are carried out of a workplace every second day in Australia. Words simply cannot do justice to the devastation which has followed. His death is a result of a failure in the culture, values, systems and laws of our country. What is left in the wake of this failure is our broken family.
My dad lived for almost an hour in the most horrific conditions while being cradled in the arms of a colleague before succumbing to his injuries. Despite the efforts made by the first responders and emergency services, his injuries were so catastrophic that he was never going to survive. My father should never have sustained even a paper cut whilst he was on the job, let alone injuries so severe that his life was ended. My dad was a son, a brother, a husband, a father, a grandfather, an uncle and a friend to many.
Luke was 22 when he was killed. He was killed in an unsafe work environment where inexperienced workers were instructed to do an unsafe lift. The unsafe method was quicker and therefore it was cheaper. There was no meaningful deterrent for the employer to do it safely. He put the dollar before safety.
I'm here today not by choice. I'm here because my son Ben, who was 21 years old … was killed when a 39-metre, three-tonne concrete boom collapsed and crushed his skull in 2012. You senators have chosen this career to represent the Australian people first and foremost, to listen and to protect all Australians and take responsibility for their health and wellbeing in our ever-changing world, and we need to unite regardless of which party we belong to. We are all the same. We are human beings. We have the right to live our lives without fear of going to work and not coming home.
My son Jason Garrels aged 20 was fatally electrocuted on the 27th February 2012 in Clermont, Queensland. My son was employed as a labourer for approx 9 days with Daytona Trading Pty Ltd … I went to assist at the resuscitation not knowing it was my son. Words cannot describe the impact that it has had on me and my family; I was thrown into a life that was a surreal nightmare which became my reality.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' Human Rights Scrutiny Report 11 of 2018 .
Of the new bills examined in Chapter 1 of this report, 21 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns as they promote, permissibly limit, or do not engage, human rights. The committee has also requested further information in relation to the human rights compatibility of 3 bills and has concluded its examination of a number of other pieces of legislation.
A number of bills examined in chapter 1 are scheduled for debate this week, including the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018. As set out in the report, this bill includes provisions relating to public interest disclosure of personal information by the proposed Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. The committee has sought further information from the minister as to the compatibility of these measures with the right to privacy.
A number of other bills scheduled for debate this week have been assessed by the committee as not raising human rights concerns, including in relation to:
Chapter 2 of the report contains the committee's concluded examination of a number of bills. In relation to three of these bills, following further correspondence from the relevant minister, the committee has been able to conclude that the legislation may be compatible with human rights. Of these, I would like to highlight the Court and Tribunal Legislation Amendment (Fees and Juror Remuneration Regulations) 2018. As set out in the report, these regulations increase the court fees payable in the High Court of Australia. The committee had sought further information from the Attorney-General as to whether the increase in fees was compatible with the right to an effective remedy and fair hearing, as an increase in fees may preclude persons from being able to access the court and access justice. The Attorney-General's response provided useful information as to the safeguards in place to minimise the impact on persons facing financial hardship, which enabled the committee to conclude that, on balance, the measures may be compatible with the rights to a fair hearing and effective remedy. This illustrates the constructive process of liaising with legislation proponents to assist the committee in its assessment of legislation.
I encourage my fellow Senators and others to examine the committee's latest scrutiny report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.
With these comments, I commend the committee's Report 11 of 2018 to the Senate.
Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018
Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together, and may be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (COLLECTING TOBACCO DUTIES AT THE BORDER) BILL 2018
The Australian Government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market.
In October 2017, the Black Economy Taskforce delivered their final report to Government. The 2018-19 Budget Black Economy Package – combatting illicit tobacco gives effect to the report's recommendations, including establishing a new framework to protect tobacco duty, a permit system to import tobacco, and the Australian Border Force-led Illicit Tobacco Taskforce.
Together, these measures will disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities.
To give effect to the new framework to protect tobacco duty, the Government is introducing the Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill.
Current legislation allows duties on tobacco to be paid at the point that tobacco products leave licensed warehouses, as well as when it is imported. Leakage from these warehouses to the black market contributes to around a quarter of illicit tobacco in Australia.
From 1 July 2019, tobacco importers will be required to pay all duties on tobacco upon importation. From that date, the option to enter imported tobacco into a licensed warehouse and delay the payment of duties will no longer be available. This will deny criminal groups the opportunity to defraud the Commonwealth of revenue that secures essential services for all Australians, prevent criminals from undermining Government strategies to improve public health outcomes, and it will protect law-abiding local business operators.
The Bill will also include transitional arrangements for the treatment of tobacco that is in warehouses at 1 July 2019.
By tackling black economy activities in the tobacco warehousing environment, the Government will protect Australian revenue, protect the health of Australians, reduce criminal activity, and provide an estimated $3.3 billion in revenue to the Commonwealth.
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (PRODUCT SPECIFIC RULE MODERNISATION) BILL 2018
The Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2018 amends the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act) to streamline the implementation of our free trade agreements (FTAs) and help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our FTA partners.
The Bill does this by changing the way the product specific rules (PSRs) of Australia's FTAs are given effect in domestic legislation.
Australia's in force FTAs contain Rules of Origin and PSRs. PSRs define the minimum requirements that must be met for goods that are comprised of materials that do not originate in a party to the FTA — to be considered eligible for a preferential rate of customs duty in accordance with the FTA. The PSRs are based upon the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (Harmonized System).
The Harmonised System is an international naming system for the classification of traded products. It currently covers thousands of commodity groups, and is used by more than 200 economies as a basis for customs tariffs and the collection of international trade statistics. Over 98 per cent of merchandise in international trade is classified in terms of the Harmonised System.
Each FTA has a separate PSR Annex, which is currently (with the exception of the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)), implemented domestically in Rules of Origin regulations (ROO regulations) for each FTA. Five yearly revisions of the Harmonized System by the World Customs Organization usually compel FTA parties to update their agreements' PSRs, which, in Australia's case, mean subsequent amendments to the FTA's ROO regulations. The size of these regulations ranges from 257 to 1,977 pages. Due to their size and the steadily increasing number of FTAs (currently 10), amendment of the ROO regulations to update the PSRs requires considerable time and resources for what are essentially technical changes that do not alter the operation of the treaty and do not have any direct financial implications for government, traders or consumers.
The proposed amendments seek to simplify this process by amending the Customs Act to apply FTA PSR annexes agreed by Parties by direct reference and remove the need to replicate PSR annexes in ROO Regulations.
The proposed amendments to the Act are technical in nature. They will not affect the practical operation of the legislation or the agreements that are the subject of the Bill.
Parties to the Agreement to Establish the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area, otherwise known as the `AANZFTA' (pronounced: `Anz-F'Ta') have agreed to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the HS2017 PSR schedule into force domestically on 1 January 2019.
These amendments will ensure that Australia is able to meet its AANZFTA deadline, to minimise the administrative burden on Australian businesses and officials in trying to juggle new and old HS codes, and will further streamline trade between Australia and our FTA partners. In 2017, trade with Australia under AANZFTA totalled AUD120 billion.
ChAFTA and JAEPA PSR annexes are also included in the amendments, which will simplify the transposition process for these agreements once the FTA Parties have agreed them. Further similar amendments to the Customs Act will be brought to Parliament to facilitate the update of the PSRs of Australia's other existing FTAs in the foreseeable future.
The Bill before this Chamber will allow the revised PSR schedules of these FTAs to enter into force in a far more efficient and timely manner. Once these amendments are made, future changes to the PSR annexes for AANZFTA, ChAFTA, and JAEPA will be able to be made simply by the completion of any provisions contained in the agreement pertaining to such updates, and completion of Australia's domestic treaty-making process.
The Bill also refers to and applies the Annex containing the Chemical Rules of the SAFTA, which were not included in the amendments to the Customs Act that implemented the Agreement to Amend the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement in 2017. The Bill also makes minor amendments to existing FTA Divisions in the Customs Act. These minor amendments will ensure consistency between our legislation and the FTA text in the Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Chile and ASEAN-New Zealand FTAs.
The Government is committed to the passage of these amendments in 2018. They will greatly reduce the administrative burden of the current transposition process, cutting costs for business and taxpayers, with flow on benefits to consumers and households.
In passing this Bill, the Government honours its commitments to its FTA partners to ensure our agreements remain up to date, supporting our jobs and growth agenda, reducing red-tape for Australian businesses, and helping to keep costs down for Australian households.
I commend the bill to this Chamber.
TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (GIFT CARDS) BILL 2018
This Bill amends the Australian Consumer Law , contained in Schedule 2 of theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010 , to introduce a national regime for the regulation of gift cards.
It introduces a minimum three year expiry period, requires expiry date information to be disclosed and bans the charging of post-supply fees to provide consumers with greater confidence and make gift cards simpler and fairer for all consumers.
At the same time, the reforms will ensure Australian businesses have one set of clear rules to follow relating to the regulation of gift cards.
Gift card terms and conditions vary widely, making it hard for consumers to understand what their rights and obligations are. Consumers often experience frustration and financial loss from an expired gift card.
There is currently no uniform regulation for minimum expiry periods and post-supply fees, with different rules applying across jurisdictions. The inconsistencies have created uncertainty for consumers and a regulatory burden for businesses.
On 18 October 2017, the New South Wales Parliament passed the Fair Trading Amendment (Ticket Scalping and Gift Cards) Act 2017 . This law commenced on 31 March 2018, introducing a minimum three year expiry for gift cards sold in New South Wales.
Similarly, the South Australian Parliament recently introduced the Fair Trading (Gift cards) Amendment Bill 2018 to impose a three year minimum expiry date for gift cards sold in South Australia.
Three years has generally been considered a reasonable period for consumers to use gift cards and simultaneously provides businesses with sufficient certainty to manage their liabilities. To date a number of national retailers have already adopted the three year minimum expiry period or longer terms following the introduction of gift card laws in New South Wales.
The Bill imposes a three year minimum nationally, balancing consumer rights and business compliance. It will also require the expiry date information to be prominently displayed on the card itself. This will ensure consumers are able to make informed purchasing decisions by having access to this information at the time it is needed and on the gift card itself, rather than on accompanying packaging or on a website.
When a gift card is given, it is not necessarily the case the expiry date information is clear to the gift recipient. The form of disclosure provides the needed flexibility to businesses while being clear for consumers.
Further, under the national regime the charging of post-supply fees, such as inactivity and balance checking fees, after the gift card has been supplied will be prohibited. The Bill's regulation-making power will also allow the Government to provide an exhaustive list of fees for gift cards that can be charged post-supply.
In addition, regulation-making powers contained in the bill allow for certain gift cards, persons and gift cards supplied in particular circumstances to be exempt from all or some of the requirements imposed by this reform. This will provide flexibility to support industry to adopt innovative marketing techniques to encourage demand and manage stock levels. It will also allow the law to adapt to changes in technology and business activities to ensure essential activities involving gift cards are not curtailed to the detriment of businesses and consumers.
It is an offence to contravene the reforms contained in the bill. This will act as a strong deterrent against misconduct that can have serious detriment for consumers, thereby enhancing the integrity of the regulatory regime.
A contravention of the minimum three year expiry period, disclosure of expiry information and post-supply fee requirements carries a maximum penalty of $30,000 for a body corporate and $6,000 for persons other than a body corporate. The maximum penalties are consistent with similar consumer protections in the Australian Consumer Law.
Compliance with these reforms will be monitored and enforced by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
To provide industry with time to adapt to the new regime, the reforms will commence on
1 November 2019. This will also ensure that these important protections for consumers are in place for the 2019 Christmas period.
Consumers and businesses support this reform as it improves consumer outcomes, provides consistency and is workable for business. The states and territories have also shown their support for a national regime.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (OMNIBUS) BILL 2018
The Veterans ' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018 demonstrates the commitment this Government made in 2016 and 2017 to put veterans first and continues on measures we introduced earlier this year under theVeterans ' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No.1) Act 2018 andVeterans ' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Veteran-centric Reforms No.2) Act 2018 .
The Bill is designed to improve outcomes for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families and will ensure that essential services are available to veterans when they need it. This Bill will:
and
Schedule 1 of the Bill would amend the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to enable the Chief of the Defence Force to make a claim for liability on behalf of a current serving Australian Defence Force member, where the member suffers a service injury or disease and agrees to the Chief of the Defence Force or his delegate making the claim. This amendment would provide an alternative way that a claim for liability may be made. In some cases, it may facilitate an earlier acceptance of liability.
The amendment is intended to benefit veterans by minimising some of the difficulties that may be encountered when making an initial claim for liability some time after the injury was sustained or the disease contracted.
Veterans will also benefit in having their future claims for related diseases and conditions that manifest after their service more easily accepted. For example if DVA accepts a knee injury at the time of the injury via a claim from the CDF, accepting osteoarthritis of the knee in the future will be much easier.
DVA will be able to use the additional claim data at the point of injury to better inform decisions around trends in injuries and onset of other conditions. This may inform later policy on simplifying and streamlining the claims process.
Schedule 2 of the Bill would enable the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to obtain information in determining a claim for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related) Claims Act 1988 (DRCA).
Veterans can be adversely affected when information critical to their claim is not provided by third parties. These provisions will provide veterans and their families with easier access to information relevant to their compensation claims.
The provisions will require Commonwealth, State or Territory Departments, authorities and other persons such as current or former treatment providers or other parties to provide information, on request of the Commission. This will ensure that the Commission has access to all the information necessary to make decisions on claims.
The amendments would bring the DRCA in line with the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 and theVeterans ' Entitlements Act 1986.
Schedule 3 would improve administrative practices in the Department of Veterans' Affairs concerning income support clients and the exempting of certain lump sum payments from the income test.
The amendments to the Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 would allow certain exempt lump sum determinations made by the Secretary for Social Services to apply to income support clients, where the determination is consistent with Department of Veterans' Affairs legislation and policy.
Currently, the Repatriation Commission makes separate, yet identical, exempt lump sum determinations for payments that have already been exempted under the Social Security Act 1991 by the Secretary for Social Services.
Under the new arrangements, DSS will advise DVA of its determination, which will be applied to DVA income support clients without the requirement to register an additional instrument.
The Veterans ' Entitlements Act 1986 will retain the authority for the Repatriation Commission to make a determination to specify an exempt lump sum is an amount that the Repatriation Commission determines to be an exempt lump sum. The amendment will not change the current exclusions of the determination as it applies to companies, trusts and primary production.
Each of these amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families.
I commend this Bill.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018
That this bill be read a first time.
That this bill be read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018 will provide further tax relief for small and medium businesses in Australia.
This Bill will continue our work of delivering a stronger economy and supporting the three million small and medium businesses which employ around seven million Australian workers.
It will bring forward by five years already legislated tax cuts for small to medium companies and un-incorporated businesses.
Under Schedule 1 of this Bill, companies with a turnover of up to $50 million will benefit from the tax rate being reduced from the current rate of 27.5 per cent to 26 per cent in 2020-21 and 25 per cent in 2021-22 and subsequent years.
This will benefit around 940,000 small to medium size companies (with turnover of up to $50 million), employing around 4.8 million Australians.
Schedule 2 of this Bill will provide an enhanced tax discount for sole traders and other unincorporated businesses which have a turnover of up to $5 million. The unincorporated tax discount will increase from its current rate of 8 per cent to a 13 per cent discount in 2020-21 and to 16 per cent in 2021-22.
This will benefit around 2.35 million unincorporated businesses (with turnover of up to $5 million), employing around 1.8 million Australians.
Schedules 1 and 2 bring forward reductions in the tax rate by five years. This acceleration of tax relief will allow these small and medium businesses to plan on the basis of the new tax rates and realise the corresponding benefits earlier.
This Bill is an investment in Australia. It is part of our plan that is delivering a stronger economy.
We believe in the more than three million small to medium businesses in Australia employing seven million workers.
Reducing their taxes will allow them to invest, grow and hire more Australians.
Since the Coalition came to office, more than one million jobs have been created, including more women, more young Australians and older Australians.
In the last financial year, more than 100,000 young Australians got a job – the largest number on record.
This is a great outcome and is an example of the real impact of a stronger economy and good macroeconomic policies.
Providing small and medium businesses a lower tax rate sooner will allow them to drive further economic growth, hire more workers and ultimately pay higher wages.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018
Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
That the bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together, and may be read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
AGED CARE QUALITY AND SAFETY COMMISSION BILL
Today I am proud to introduce the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018, which contributes to this Government's commitment to ensure that Australians in the aged care system are better cared for. This Bill gives effect to the Government's announcement in the 2018-19 Budget to establish this new Independent Commission, as part of providing for better quality of care for consumers of aged care services in Australia.
The introduction of this Commission is also a direct response to the findings and recommendations of the Review of National Aged Care Regulatory Processes undertaken by Kate Camel! and Ron Paterson. I would like to acknowledge Ms Carrell and Professor Paterson for the review as it has contributed significantly to the Government's reforms in relation to aged care quality regulation. I would like to express my gratitude to the aged care consumers who gave their time to provide this Review with submissions setting out their experiences of the aged care system. I would also like to thank the consumer and advocacy groups, aged care providers and their peak bodies, and the industry experts who have made themselves available to assist the Department of Health in the development of this Bill.
The Commission brings together the functions of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, the Aged Care Complaints Commissioner, and, from 1 January 2020, the aged care regulatory functions of the Department of Health.
I would like to thank Ms Rae Lamb, the first appointed Aged Care Complaints Commissioner for her outstanding contribution to strengthening the aged care complaints system; empowering consumers to exercise their rights; and working with aged care providers to deliver better care and services. I would also like to thank Mr Nick Ryan, CEO of the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency for his outstanding and tireless contribution to the regulation of aged care and building a better system to protect consumers and promote quality aged care.
This single agency will ensure older Australians and their families have a single point of contact to raise concerns and ask questions about their aged care and to know the new Commission is empowered to respond.
Consumers are at the heart of this reform, and the role of the Commission will be to operate a regulatory framework that will protect and enhance the quality of life, safety, health and well-being of aged care consumers.
The Commission is to be responsible for promoting the confidence and trust of aged care consumers in the provision of aged care services including Commonwealth-funded aged care services.
The Commission will promote engagement with aged care consumers and representatives within the aged care sector about the quality of care and services provided by approved providers of aged care services and Commonwealth-funded aged care service providers.
The role of the Commission, builds on existing government funded consumer-focused support such as the Older Person Advocacy Network (OPAN) that advocates for and supports consumers to know their rights and have a voice about their care and services.
The Commission will be led by an independent Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner. A single statutory office will enable flexible and responsive regulatory powers and build a holistic and joined up risk-based approach to aged care regulation.
The Commissioner will take on the functions currently performed by the Complaints Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer of the Quality Agency, with specific functions also set out that relate to:
The Commissioner will be supported by advice from the Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This Council will be made up of members with significant expertise in relevant fields and will be empowered to provide the Commissioner and the Government with advice concerning the functions of the Commissioner.
This Bill:
A single Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission will ensure that consumers know who to contact when they require assistance with a complaint, a concern or when something goes wrong. Aged care providers will also know who to contact in relation to their accreditation, assessment, quality monitoring and compliance requirements. The Commission's role extends to all Commonwealth funded aged care service types, including residential care and care in the consumer's own home.
I will also introduce the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018, which provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of the existing authorities into the new Commission. Importantly, this Bill provides for the continuation of the appointments of the members of the existing Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, as members of the new
Aged Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This will enable the new Advisory Council to commence operations immediately, and will provide stability and experience in the advice being provided to the Commissioner and to the Government.
These Bills form part of a broader Government's aged care reform agenda announced in the 2018-19, which includes further reforms to improve aged care regulation and the provide greater transparency of quality in aged care, which will continue to be implemented in the coming months and years.
AGED CARE QUALITY AND SAFETY COMMISSION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Today I am pleased to introduce the Aged Care Quality and Safety
Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018.
This Bill is a companion Bill to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018.
This Bill will repeal the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Act 2013 and theAustralian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Act 2013 when the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission comes into effect on 1 January 2019. In addition it will make consequential amendments to theAged Care Act 1997 and Associated Principles to replace references to:
with the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner.
Most importantly this Bill provides for the administrative matters required to transfer the functions and operations of the two existing authorities into the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Importantly, this Bill provides for the continuation of the appointments of the members of the existing Aged Care Quality Advisory Council, as members of the new Aged
Care Quality and Safety Advisory Council. This will enable the new Advisory Council to commence operations immediately, and will provide stability and experience in the advice being provided to the Commissioner and to the Government.
Finally the Bill also provides a degree of flexibility to make adjustments to the new arrangements or prescribe other matters of a transitional nature in the rules.
Government Procurement (Judicial Review) Bill 2017
Labor Senators are concerned that it is premature to legislate a dispute resolution arrangement to meet international obligations in the GPA prior to negotiations on the agreement being finalised. Delaying consideration of this bill would ensure Parliament has the opportunity to consider the agreement in full.
The Joint Standing Committee on Government Procurement report Buying into our Future also expressed concerns that this bill should not be progressed until the GPA negotiations are finalised.
The Senate divided. [19:17]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McCarthy)
While the government is establishing a nomination panel for the appointment process, at the end of the day scope remains for the minister and the Prime Minister to ignore panel nominations and appoint whoever they like.
I have been a full-time carer for my wife since 2010. My wife had a brain aneurysm in 1999, six weeks after my youngest son was born. In 2010 she could no longer look after herself and I had to leave work to take care of her. I would do anything for her. That is what love and marriage is. For better or worse. She would have done it for me. It's hard sometimes but it is the best job in the world.
My sons and I look after my father after recent decline in his health. Although at time it's not easy, due to being his case manager and advocate as well, we wouldn't have it any other way. Caring is exhausting but rewarding in many aspects. I know he is grateful but I always look forward to respite when my brothers take him for a couple of hours. I don't receive a payment for this and carers save government millions of dollars. This is a serious glitch and needs to be addressed.