The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Slade Brockman ) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Patrick moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to consideration of the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021 may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.
The Senate divided. [12:40]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
That on Tuesday, 23 November 2021, the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the following instruments be called on together after the placing of business and the question be put after 30 minutes:
(a) Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L00547];
(b) Industry Research and Development (Growing Australia's Cyber Skills Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L00536]; and
(c) Industry Research and Development (Modem Manufacturing Initiative Program) Instrument 2021 [F2021L00539].
Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Amendment Bill 2021
Public consent to intrusive laws depends on people trusting the authorities, both to keep them safe and not to spy needlessly on them.
Trust in powerful institutions depends not only on those institutions behaving themselves (though that is an essential prerequisite), but on there being mechanisms to verify that they have done so. Such mechanisms are particularly challenging to achieve in the national security field, where potential conflicts between state power and civil liberties are acute, suspicion rife and yet information tightly rationed.
Respected independent regulators continue to play a vital and distinguished role. But in an age where trust depends on verification rather than reputation, trust by proxy is not enough. Hence the importance of clear law, fair procedures, rights compliance and transparency …
That the INSLM Act … be amended to provide for an express power for the INSLM to report on a matter or matters within the statutory mandate but more urgently or particularly than by the annual report.
That the INSLM act … be amended to require a formal response by the executive government to INSLM reports to be tabled in the Parliament within 12 months of delivery of the reports.
The INSLM considers that 'an important part of the process begun by conducting a review and reporting, is the timely response of the government of the day'. Given the INSLM's ongoing role (compared to a Royal Commission whose role is over once it has delivered its report), the INSLM submitted that it has an interest in considering the implementation of its recommendations.
The Review agrees with public stakeholders that the Government should give appropriate consideration to the recommendations of independent experts. The Government specifically established the role of the INSLM to provide independent, expert analysis to it, and, therefore, should consider that analysis and respond to it in a timely manner.
However, the Review considers it would be incongruent with the approach to Government responses to parliamentary committee reports to legislate this requirement. There is generally no requirement in legislation for the Government to respond to parliamentary committee recommendations (rather, successive governments have undertaken to respond to parliamentary committee reports, including by way of resolutions).
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 23), after item 5, insert:
5A Section 9
Before "When", insert "(1)".
5B At the end of section 9
Add:
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's performance of his or her functions under sections 29A (special report) or 29B (statutory review report).
(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 24), before item 6, insert:
5C Subsection 11(1)
After "part-time", insert "or full-time".
5D After section 11
Insert:
11A Obligation to fill vacancy as soon as practicable
As soon as practicable after the office of Independent National Security Legislation Monitor becomes vacant, a Monitor or acting Monitor must be appointed under section 11 or 20.
5E Section 14
Repeal the section, substitute:
14 Leave of absence
(1) A full-time Independent National Security Legislation Monitor has the recreation leave entitlements that are determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.
(2) The Attorney-General may grant leave of absence, other than recreation leave, to a full-time Independent National Security Legislation Monitor on the terms and conditions as to remuneration or otherwise that the Governor-General determines in writing.
(3) The Attorney-General may grant leave of absence to a part-time Independent National Security Legislation Monitor on the terms and conditions that the Governor-General determines in writing.
5F Section 15
Repeal the section, substitute:
15 Outside employment
(1) A full-time Independent National Security Legislation Monitor must not engage in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office without the Attorney-General's written consent.
(2) A part-time Independent National Security Legislation Monitor must not engage in any paid employment that conflicts or may conflict with the proper performance of his or her duties without the Attorney-General's written consent.
5G After paragraph 19(2)(b)
Insert:
(ba) if the Monitor is appointed on a full-time basis—the Monitor engages, except with the Attorney-General's written consent, in paid employment outside the duties of his or her office;
5H Paragraph 19(2)(c)
After "if the Monitor", insert "is appointed on a part-time basis—the Monitor".
5J After paragraph 19(2)(c)
Insert:
(ca) if the Monitor is appointed on a full-time basis—the Monitor is absent, except on leave of absence granted under subsection 14(2), for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months; or
5K Paragraph 19(2)(d)
Repeal the paragraph, substitute:
(d) if the Monitor is appointed on a part-time basis—the Monitor is absent, except on leave of absence granted under subsection 14(3), for 7 consecutive days or for 14 days in any 12 months.
(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), after item 7, insert:
7AA Subsection 29(5)
Omit all the words after "paragraph (b)", substitute:
to be presented to each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:
(c) 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report; or
(d) 30 days after the day on which he or she receives the report.
(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 32 to 34), omit all the words from and including "to be presented" to and including "report", substitute:
to be presented to each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:
(c) 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report; or
(d) 30 days after the day on which he or she receives the report.
(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (lines 23 to 25), omit all the words from and including "to be presented" to and including "report", substitute:
to be presented to each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:
(c) 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report; or
(d) 30 days after the day on which he or she receives the report.
(6) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 25), after item 8, insert:
9A Subsection 30(6)
Omit all the words after "paragraph (b)", substitute:
to be presented to each House of the Parliament within the earlier of:
(c) 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report; or
(d) 30 days after the day on which he or she receives the report.
(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 29), at the end of section 33, add:
(3) A person referred to in subsection (1) may only assist the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor with the written consent of the Monitor, and the Monitor may, in writing, withdraw such consent at any time.
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 3), after item 7, insert:
7A After subsection 29(5)
Insert:
(6) The Attorney-General must prepare a response (a government response ) to each recommendation, if any, in an annual report given to the Attorney-General under subsection (1).
(7) The Attorney-General must give the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 12 months of the annual report, or the declassified annual report, being presented to each House of Parliament.
(7A) If the Attorney-General considers that the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection (3), the Attorney-General must also prepare and give to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, at the same time as the government response, a version of the government response which does not contain that information (a declassified government response ).
(7B) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of:
(a) the government response; or
(b) if the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection (3)—the corresponding declassified government response;
to be presented to each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the day on which he or she gives the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (after line 34), at the end of section 29A, add:
(6) The Attorney-General must prepare a response (a government response ) to each recommendation, if any, in a special report given to the Attorney-General under subsection (1).
(7) The Attorney-General must give the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 12 months of the special report, or the declassified special report, being presented to each House of Parliament.
(8) If the Attorney-General considers that the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3), the Attorney-General must also prepare and give to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, at the same time as the government response, a version of the government response which does not contain that information (a declassified government response ).
(9) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of:
(a) the government response; or
(b) if the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3)—the corresponding declassified government response;
to be presented to each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the day on which he or she gives the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 5 (after line 25), at the end of section 29B, add:
(6) The Attorney-General must prepare a response (a government response ) to each recommendation, if any, in a statutory review report given to the Attorney-General under subsection (1).
(7) The Attorney-General must give the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 12 months of the statutory review report, or the declassified statutory review report, being presented to each House of Parliament.
(8) If the Attorney-General considers that the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3), the Attorney-General must also prepare and give to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, at the same time as the government response, a version of the government response which does not contain that information (a declassified government response ).
(9) The Attorney-General must cause a copy of:
(a) the government response; or
(b) if the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3)—the corresponding declassified government response;
to be presented to each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the day on which he or she gives the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
(4) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 25), after item 8, insert:
8A At the end of section 30
Add:
Government response
(7) The referring Minister must prepare a response (a government response ) to each recommendation, if any, in a report on a reference given to the referring Minister under subsection (1).
(8) The referring Minister must give the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor within 12 months of the report on a reference, or the declassified report, being presented to each House of Parliament.
(9) The referring Minister must cause a copy of the government response to be presented to each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the day on which he or she gives the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
(10) If the referring Minister considers that the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3), the referring Minister must also prepare and give to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, at the same time as the government response, a version of the government response which does not contain that information (a declassified government response ).
(11) The referring Minister must cause a copy of:
(a) the government response; or
(b) if the government response contains information of the kind referred to in subsection 29(3)—the corresponding declassified government response;
to be presented to each House of the Parliament on the next sitting day of that House after the day on which he or she gives the government response to the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
In its submission, the Law Council noted that government responses to INSLM reports, and implementation of recommendations, had been ad hoc. The Law Council recommended that the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 (the INSLM Act) be amended to require 'formal and prompt government response to INSLM reports (for example, within six to twelve month timeframe)'.
The question is whether the Law Council's recommendation should be implemented. In my view it should.
… when the latter has delivered its report it is functus officio : its role is over and it has no role or legal 'interest' in considering implementation of its recommendations.
In contrast, I have an ongoing role which the Parliament has itself provided for, to continue to monitor counter-terrorism and national security laws.
We fight here. There must be limits, there must be containment, because conflict without any limit risks destroying too much. It risks damaging the polity, the people, the community, the institution, too much.
… let's be clear about what the plan says. When you get to 80 per cent, what it says is domestic restrictions on vaccinated persons should be lifted. We're not talking about willy-nilly movement of people who are unvaccinated …
That the Senate take note of Minister Birmingham's response.
Since the decision in Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Freedom of Information) [2021] AATA 2719 was handed down on 5 August 2021, how many Freedom of Information requests has the Department received relating to National Cabinet documents.
I am aware of and have considered the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) decision delivered on 5 August 2021 by Deputy President (Justice) White in Patrick and Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet [ 2021 ] AAT 2719 (Patrick) . Justice White was of the view that, on the evidence available to him, the National Cabinet was not a committee of the Cabinet for the purposes of the FOI Act.
In view of all the evidence available to me (not all of which was available to the AAT in making its decision in Patrick ) and as set out below, I have formed the view that National Cabinet is a committee of the Cabinet for the purposes of the FOI Act, and therefore National Cabinet documents are exempt from disclosure under s 34 of the FOI Act.
The respondent,—
who has the relevant onus, did not adduce formal evidence of adoption by the members of the National Cabinet of the principles of collective responsibility and solidarity. I am willing to accept, however, that, by the adoption of the Terms of Reference attached to the minutes of the National Cabinet, it did resolve to act in accordance with such principles.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Birmingham) to questions asked by Senators Marielle Smith, Wong and Grogan.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Families and Social Services and Minister for Women's Safety (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cox today relating to the Western Australian gas industry.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Polley for 22 November to 2 December, for personal reasons.
That the Industry Research and Development (Carbon Capture, Use and Storage Development Program) Instrument 2021, made under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 , be disallowed [F2021L00547].
The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 , 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.
This bill is designed to provide health consumers with more transparency, self-determination and the ability to make an informed choice when considering a health procedure.
The Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Transparent Patient Outcomes) Bill 2021 will enable the Minister to create and maintain Transparent Patient Outcomes registers for a range of medical specialties that will allow consumers to view the performance of individual practitioners and patient outcomes for procedures they are poised to undergo.
Public disclosure of surgical performance outcomes, in the transparent way intended by this bill, began with the YourIVFSuccess database launched in February 2021. The portal allows Australians considering fertility treatment to objectively view the performance of fertility clinics across Australia. This is an Australian first. That database empowers prospective patients to make an informed choice about their treating clinic by allowing them to view and compare objective and standardised data rather than forcing them to rely on referrals, selective self-reported data from clinics, and hearsay.
This vastly improved transparency is a model that should be applied to other surgical specialties, whether it be gynaecological surgery, orthopaedic, cardiothoracic or plastic and reconstructive surgery. Any surgical speciality would be appropriate for a public register of surgical performance and outcomes.
This bill would enable the Minster to make rules to create a Transparent Patient Outcomes register that would include information such as the number and type of surgical procedures performed by a practitioner, their surgical revision rate, their patient mortality rate, any prosthesis device they may use, patient data and any other information deemed relevant to that specialty. This information would also be available at the facility level.
There is research to demonstrate that practitioners who perform fewer surgeries of particular types compared to their peers have increased revision rates and poorer patient outcomes - see for instance, 'Relation between surgeon volume and risk of complications after total hip arthroplasty', published in the BMJ in May 2014 [ ] , which found that patients whose surgeons had performed 35 or fewer such procedures in the previous year had an increased risk of dislocation and early revision.
As such, it would be of value for a prospective patient to know whether or not their intended surgeon has extensive experience in the particular surgery they need to undergo - and in particular, whether the surgeon has a comparatively high revision rate. Having this information before undergoing surgery is in the patient's own best interests.
Such a database would provide objective comparable statistics and would provide prospective patients factual information through which they could exercise greater self-determination in their choice of practitioner (rather than relying on trust, assurance or referrals) and the database could also serve to reassure an anxious patient.
One option for such a registry may be joint replacement surgery. Orthopaedic surgeons perform a significant proportion of all surgeries and thus affect a significant proportion of patients. According to the AIHW's report on elective surgery waiting times, 15% of all hospital admissions in 2017-18 were for orthopaedic surgery (including knee and hip replacements).
Given the life impacts of poor prostheses and surgical revisions on patients, there is substantial public value in a Transparent Patient Outcomes register for joint replacement surgery, among other surgical specialities.
Orthopaedic surgeon performance data and patient outcomes data is already collected in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR). It holds information on all hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, wrist, ankle and spinal disc replacement surgery performed in public and private hospitals as well as patient reported measures of pre- and post-surgery pain and outcomes of surgery.
Public and private hospitals submit their joint replacement data to the AOANJRR monthly using specific forms which are completed in theatre at the time of surgery.
Core funding for the Registry is provided via the Department of Health on a cost-recovery basis through a levy on prosthesis manufacturers and distributors.
However, reuse of the AOANJRR data is currently prohibited. This data is unable to be shared or used for any purpose beyond the AOANJRR database as it is collected as part of a Quality Assurance Activity under the Health Insurance Act 1973 .
Under the Health Insurance Act 1973 , data or documents 'brought into existence solely for the purposes of a declared quality assurance activity' cannot be shared or repurposed for any other use. The intention behind this is to provide protection from civil liability claims but it also blocks other useful purposes, such as that intended by this bill.
The Transparent Patient Outcomes bill overcomes this administrative hurdle by creating an exemption for disclosure of information that is made in accordance with the Transparent Patient Outcomes rules while retaining the core liability protections intended by the Act's disclosure prohibitions. This minor amendment avoids the need for the same data to be collected twice.
The bill also makes clear that data on a registry cannot be used in court proceedings. This is to ensure that the database is used as intended - to allow consumers to make an informed choice - and not for further unintended purposes. In addition, FOI applicants or other recipients of registry information (which may or may not be in the public domain) could not later attempt to use registry data in legal proceedings. The bill also seeks to provide an exemption for secondary disclosure of quality assurance data contained on a registry in order to avoid any risk that public servants and others handling registry data may inadvertently breach the law should they, for example, supply quality assurance data collected under the rules as part of a Freedom of Information request.
To ensure the data contained on a registry does not breach privacy laws, the bill requires the Minister to consult with the Information Commissioner on the making of the rules, and the bill will also provide for corrections of inaccurate information.
The bill will also operate prospectively and will only apply to quality assurance activity data which is gathered or which becomes known from commencement.
The bill endeavours to strike a balance between providing useful information to guide patients, providing ongoing protections to those who, in good faith, provide, collect and manage performance and outcomes data, and also endeavours to ensure registry information is not appropriated in unintended ways, such as for court proceedings.
Australians have a right to data that allows them to make the most informed choice possible in the interests of their own health. We should not shy away from such public accountability and transparency.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services and the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Northern Australia (as the two federal members of the Food Ministers' Meeting), by 5 pm on 29 November 2021, all correspondence with alcohol industry representatives regarding Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), and details of all meetings sought or held with alcohol industry representatives and ministers or their offices regarding FSANZ, including meeting briefs and minutes, since 13 June 2020.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Water, by no later than 9.30 am on 25 November 2021, the Australian Government response to the Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry report on the impact of seismic testing on fisheries and the marine environment.
That the second reading of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2021 be restored to the Notice Paper .
That the Senate—
(a) has rejected public interest immunity claims made on the grounds of cabinet confidentiality with respect to documents or information related to the 'National Cabinet';
(b) will not countenance public interest immunity claims made on the grounds that provision of a document or information related to the National Cabinet ordered by the Senate, or sought by a Senate committee or a senator, would reveal cabinet deliberations;
(c) directs the chairs of committees to draw this resolution to the attention of witnesses who seek to raise claims on this unacceptable ground;
(d) requires those witnesses to:
(i) provide the documents or information, or
(ii) articulate a public interest immunity claim on a ground which may be acceptable to the Senate and to specify the harm to the public interest that could result from the disclosure; and
(e) resolves that a response to a Senate order for the production of documents that relies on this unacceptable ground is not compliance with the order nor does it constitute a satisfactory explanation for why the order has not been complied with, including for the purposes of standing order 164(3).
The Senate divided. [16:46]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
That the Senate directs the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to suspend the inquiry into the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and the Special Broadcasting Service complaints handling until the independent review of the ABC's complaints system has been completed, in line with the request made to the Senate on the 14 November 2021 by the independent Chair of the ABC, Ms Ita Buttrose AC OBE.
The Senate divided. [16:54]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for Mr Morrison to deliver real action on climate change by delivering a climate change policy and legislating net zero by 2050, instead of releasing nothing but another glossy document, and undermining confidence in low emissions technology like electric vehicles by incorrectly stating that "it's not going to tow your trailer. It's not going to tow your boat. It's not going to get you out to your favourite camping spot with your family" and that electric vehicles will "end the weekend".'
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The need for Mr Morrison to deliver real action on climate change by delivering a climate change policy and legislating net zero by 2050, instead of releasing nothing but another glossy document, and undermining confidence in low emissions technology like electric vehicles by incorrectly stating that "it's not going to tow your trailer. It's not going to tow your boat. It's not going to get you out to your favourite camping spot with your family" and that electric vehicles will "end the weekend".'
The government will continue to partner with industry to invest in enabling battery charging and hydrogen refuelling infrastructure for road transport to give Australian consumers and business confidence to purchase low emission vehicles that work for them.
… the most important role governments can play is to provide clear direction to the market on what the short, mid- and long-term objectives should be. This provides direction to industry across auto, energy and infrastructure sectors, provides certainty for investment and most importantly provides clear direction to consumers.
You've got a series of body hire firms now that essentially trade on being able to constantly undercut wage rates. We have workers who are sacked one day and rehired at the next, doing exactly the same job, with less money and worse conditions.
The Senate divided. [18:04]
(The President—Senator Brockman)
That the Senate adopt the recommendation contained in the report, proposing an order for the production of documents.
The proceeding has exposed a shameful chapter in the administration of the Commonwealth social security system and a massive failure of public administration. It should have been obvious to the senior public servants charged with overseeing the Robodebt system and to the responsible Minister at different points that many social security recipients do not earn a stable or constant income, and any employment they obtain may be casual, part-time, session, or intermittent and may not continue throughout the year … It should have been plain that in such circumstances the automated Robodebt system may indicate an overpayment of social security benefits when that was not in fact the case.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Mr President
On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I rise to table the Second Interim Report.
The First Interim Report was tabled on 1 May 2020, and following its release the Committee has continued its work on various matters relevant to the maturation of the National Redress Scheme.
Since its establishment in 2018, the National Redress Scheme has made both a symbolic and practical contribution to delivering justice to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.
The Scheme acknowledges the many children who were sexually abused, recognises their suffering, holds institutions to account, and helps survivors secure access to counselling, a direct personal response, and a redress payment.
The Committee agrees that the Scheme requires continuing improvements reform to meet the needs and expectations of both survivors and the wider community.
The Scheme is not failing as some have claimed.
The focus of this Second Interim Report is to identify reforms that will have the greatest, and most timely, potential for improving survivor participation and experience.
The Second Interim Report makes 21 recommendations that reflect well understood concerns expressed by all stakeholders including survivors, redress support service partners, advocates, the Department of Social Services, and the Independent Reviewer, Ms Robyn Kruk AO.
The Report recommends that the National Redress Scheme, through the Department of Social Services, acts immediately to ensure that all aspects of the Scheme, including community education materials, are culturally informed for First Nations peoples, and accessible to care leavers and people with disability. Reform must extend to ensuring that all survivors are able to make an application and be appropriately supported throughout the application process, including direct personal responses.
Critically, the Committee recommends that key operational aspects of the National Redress Scheme be urgently reconsidered to ensure procedural fairness, including:
The Committee also heard that there are some unscrupulous legal practitioners targeting survivors. The Committee has recommended that more be done to prevent the exploitation of survivors by some law firms and survivor advocacy businesses through legal reform. This requires collaboration between the Australian Government and all States and Territories.
It is pleasing to note that over the last year, Scheme reform has included encouraging institutions to join by removing tax concessions and Federal grants, legislating $10,000 advance payments to elderly and terminally ill applicants, and expansion of the Funder of Last Resort provisions for defunct and financially incapable institutions.
The Committee notes that the applications received by the National Redress Scheme have been more complex than originally anticipated. This has had a significant impact upon the operation of the Scheme. Now that this is well understood, the Scheme needs to be reformed to ensure that it sufficiently equipped to serve the people it exists for, the survivors.
The work of this Committee has been pivotal in driving improvements to the Scheme.
Mr President, during this inquiry the Committee has had the privilege of speaking with many survivors, advocates, and the staff who work tirelessly to support the National Redress Scheme.
On behalf of the Committee, I would like to thank all those who made contributions. The Committee has had regular and meaningful engagement with the Department of Social Services, and we appreciate the manner in which they have made themselves available to inform the work of the Committee.
I would like to thank my fellow Committee members for their collegial and the non-partisan approach during the work of the Committee.
Amidst a global pandemic, lockdowns, and the closure of state and territory borders, the Committee has delivered a worthy and timely report to further advance survivor access to the National Redress Scheme.
I would also like to acknowledge the work and commitments by a former member of the Committee, Senator Rachel Siewert, who retired from the Senate earlier this year.
Her commitment, energy, and passion for helping survivors with their pursuit for justice is well recognised and appreciated by all.
Most importantly, the Committee extends its deepest appreciation to the many survivors and survivor groups who have continued to share their stories—these insights have been invaluable.
The Committee cannot express its appreciation strongly enough.
The work of the Committee is always for your benefit, and through our work to improve the National Redress Scheme we hope to honour your honesty and bravery.
Thank you Mr President, I table this interim report.
Multiple and serious concerns were raised by submitters including but not limited to:
directing state legislatures.
Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Report : Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021
Inquiry into the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No . 1 ) Bill 2021
The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the provisions of the Courts and Tribunals Legislation Amendment Bill (2021 Measure No. 1) Bill 2021.
The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation and notes that the Bill was passed by the Senate with amendments moved by the Opposition (as noted below) on 2 September 2021.
Minority Report — Labor Senators
Recommendation 1:
Labor senators recommend that the bill be amended to remove:
Recommendation 2:
Following the implementation of Recommendation 1, Labor Senators recommend that the Senate pass the Bill.
Response:
The Government notes that the Bill was passed, including three Opposition amendments to reflect Recommendation 1, in the Senate on 2 September 2021.
Dissenting Report - Australian Greens
Recommendation 1:
The Australian Greens recommend that the government reject the proposed amendments to subsections 7(2)(c) and 7(3)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from the bill to remove the role of the Governor-General in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) appointment processes. Instead the government should abolish the IAA and establish a fairer process for persons seeking asylum.
Response:
The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to subsection 7(2)(c) and 7(3)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from the Bill.
The Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) provides automatic review of fast track reviewable decisions. Fast track reviewable decisions are those decisions made by the Minister for Immigration, or delegate, to refuse to grant a protection visa to a fast track applicant. The IAA must conduct a review that is efficient, quick, free of bias and consistent with the procedural requirements set out in Division 3 of Part 7AA of the Migration Act 1958.
The review process employed by the IAA is rigorous and includes:
The IAA's efficiency in reviewing fast track matters is clear. The median time for a matter to be finalised in the IAA in 2020-2021 was between 4-6 weeks as opposed to 99 weeks in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the same period. This recognises that fast track applicants are facing challenging personal and financial circumstances that warrant fast and fair decisions. Further, the IAA remits approximately 10% of decisions to the DHA for reconsideration and its decisions remain subject to judicial review. The option to seek judicial review remains open to applicants after the IAA process.
The Government therefore does not agree with the position that the IAA should be abolished and a fairer process be established for persons seeking asylum.
Recommendation 2:
The Australian Greens recommend that the Senate reject proposed amendments to section 60 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from the bill to grant High Court judge privileges and immunities to IAA reviewers.
Response:
The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to section 60 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 19 75.
Recommendation 3:
The Australian Greens recommend that the Senate reject proposed amendment to section 28(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, which would allow the Federal Court to provide short form judgments. Instead, the Government should properly resource the AAT, and appoint more relevantly qualified and experienced AAT members to address the current backlogs.
Response:
The Government notes that the Senate passed the Bill on 2 September 2021 with the amendments proposed in the Minority Report by the Labor Senators, including the removal of proposed amendments to section 28(5) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
The Government recognises the significant backlogs which exist in the AAT, primarily in the Migration and Refugee Division (MRD). As at 31 May 2021, the AAT had approximately 66,000 existing matters on hand, of which approximately 57,000 were within the MRD.
The Government acknowledges the work of the AAT in addressing the backlogs in the MRD, finalising over 20,000 matters per year over the last three years. The Government has provided $18.9M in additional funding to the AAT from 2021-22 through 2024-25 to finalise an additional 2,000 matters per year in the MRD.
The Government acknowledges that additional funding and members will only go so far and recognises that applications without merit are contributing to the backlog, especially in the MRD. The Government is committed to ensuring that the migration review system in Australia is not subject to abuse and that meritorious applicants have appropriate access to justice.
The Government therefore does not agree with the position that the AAT is not properly resourced and notes efforts to appoint more relevantly qualified and experienced AAT members to address the current backlogs.
Recommendation 4:
The Australian Greens recommend that the government create an independent body to make AAT appointments to strengthen the independence of the AAT appointment process and ensure that only relevantly experienced and qualified people are appointed.
Response:
The Government is committed to ensuring the AAT has the resources it needs to provide high quality merits review with minimum delay.
In accordance with the Protocol for Appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal 2019, an Expression of Interest process is run each year for appointments to the AAT. The President of the AAT considers the suitability of applicants who have provided expressions to the register and provides recommendations to the Attorney-General as to what positions need to be filled, suitable candidates and advice about members whose appointment is expiring and whether they should be reappointed.
The Attorney-General will then recommend potential appointments to Cabinet. When recommending appointments, the Attorney-General certifies (where required) that the appointees are qualified under sections 7(2)(b) and 7(3)(b) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 by virtue of having specialist skills and relevant knowledge. Following Cabinet consideration, the proposed appointments are considered by the Executive Council and ultimately made by the Governor-General.
The existing process is rigorous with a number of checks to ensure its integrity and that the most suitable candidates are appointed to the AAT.
The Government does not agree with the position that an independent body should be established to make AAT appointments.
Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 197: Minamata Convention on Mercury
Response
The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Minamata Convention on Mercury and provides the following response to the Committee's recommendations:
Recommendation 2
The Committee supports the Minamata Convention on Mercury and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
Response:
The Government welcomes the Committee's agreement that binding treaty action be taken in relation to the Minamata Convention and commits to move swiftly to implement this recommendation.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends the Government reassess the need to seek an exemption to allow for the continued importation of High Pressure Mercury Vapour (HPMV) lamps into Australia, considering such an exemption to be reputationally damaging and of limited practical benefit.
Response:
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Following publication of JSCOT Report 197, the Australian Government further consulted the streetlighting sector regarding the implications of phasing out HPMV lamps.
Feedback from the sector indicated that while the proposed exemption would assist some providers, there is heightened awareness across the sector of the need to complete the transition to other kinds of streetlights as soon as possible. This is driven both by an understanding of the need to prepare for Australia's impending ratification of the Minamata Convention, and by the rapidly diminishing global supplies of HPMV lamps (due to the effectiveness of the Convention).
Noting industry feedback that phase out of HPMV lamp use in the short term is considered achievable, the Government will not pursue an exemption for the continued importation of HPMV lamps.
The Government will continue to work with affected stakeholders to ensure they are aware of the timing and implications of ratification and minimise potential impacts to service provision.
The rarest form of courage, I think, in the world, is moral courage. The courage that a man has when he is prepared to form his view of the truth and to pursue it, when he's not running around the corner every five minutes to say, 'Is this going to be popular?'
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ad hoc meetings of federal and state leaders is no way to run an effective federation. It is a questionable use of the word cabinet. The term cabinet sets up an image of collective responsibility. This body has none of that.
The national cabinet has seen premiers split on lockdowns, vaccines and border closures, and its members have attacked each other's governments multiple times throughout the pandemic.
It's been a great time for the electorate of Grey. It's been a good time to be the member. Obviously, these are good announcements to make back in one's electorate, but I think it is so important to see this rebuilding of the roads.
It's been a great time for the electorate of Grey. It's been a good time to be the member.