The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
BILLS
Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (09:31): It is a great honour to stand here today and speak in favour of the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013. We have had many debates about removing the current discrimination against same-sex couples in the Marriage Act, discrimination which prevents same-sex couples from having their love recognised under federal law. Today's bill focuses on a very specific part of that discrimination—discrimination against couples who are legally married in other countries. It needs to be pointed out that this discrimination was only inserted into the Marriage Act as recently as 2004. Until then, this ban did not exist.
There are countries all around the world where it is now accepted that marriage equality is not a threat to the institution of marriage. Indeed, marriage equality is a way of building on the very strong foundation of the institution of marriage and of progressing as a fair and equitable society. It is worth pointing out that the debate in the United Kingdom has been led by Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron. Same-sex marriage has been legal on Canadian soil for many years now. There are various states in the US where same-sex marriage has been legalised. Most famously of those, New York legislated for marriage equality just under a year ago.
Our own closest neighbour, New Zealand, legalised same-sex marriage just a few months ago. New Zealand is only three hours away and, since the historic announcement by the New Zealand parliament of that exciting move to adopt marriage equality, we have seen thousands of Australian couples book their tickets, book their photographers and start organising their suits and wedding dresses in order to get married legally in New Zealand. When the legislation passed through the New Zealand parliament, it was such a joy to see the love, respect and celebration which filled the chamber. People were singing with joy about the fact that, finally, same-sex couples were to be treated equally under the law—that the law was going to recognise their love.
So Australian couples can fly three hours to New Zealand, land on New Zealand soil and have New Zealand give equal legal recognition to their relationship, only then—after the celebrations, getting back on the plane, flying home to Australia and disembarking at the Sydney international airport—to have to check in their marriage at the customs gate. It is almost as if it should be on that little piece of paper they give you telling you what you have to drop into the quarantine bin when you walk through the customs gate—'fruit, cash amounts over $10,000, gay marriage'. That is how ludicrous it is that here in Australia we do not legally recognise the laws of one of our closest allies.
Couples from Australia are organising to have their weddings in the City of Love, Paris, because France recently adopted marriage equality. There are few other places which evoke the same connotations of romantic love and there are few more romantic settings for a couple to have their loving relationship recognised than under the Eiffel Tower. Again, however, they arrive back home in Australia and find that we do not recognise the laws which France upholds. We do not recognise the legal institution that exists in that country.
Many thousands of couples here in Australia have already taken these steps and made their vows to each other, many in front of their friends and family. Some, however, have not been able to do it in front of their friends and family, because they have had to travel long distances—often to the other side of the world—just to have their relationships considered equal under law. The relationship status of these couples is not legally recognised in their home country, in the country that they love.
This legislation is a step towards marriage equality in Australia. We know the majority of the public support that. A large percentage of the population believe it is inevitable that marriage equality will become legal here in Australia—that finally, one day, same-sex couples will be able to have their love recognised like everybody else. Until then, even those couples who are already considered legally married in other countries are not considered to be married here. Dr Kerryn Phelps, who many people would know as the former AMA president, has been married to her wife for 15 years. Her and Jackie live happily with their family in Sydney—they live in every way as a married couple. And they are legally married in many places around the world, but not here in Australia. Kerryn and Jackie have been married for 15 years, yet in Australia they are not considered to have been married for even one day. We need to change that.
This is not just morally the right thing to do; it is the right thing to do to clear up a bureaucratic nightmare. They are marrying not just because they want to see their love for each other celebrated in a formal way through marriage but also for the security that comes from the recognition of their union—insurance, immigration rights, a variety of issues in relation to property. It is a symbolic act, yes, but it is a very important symbolic act. It is important within a community to be able to say that you are in a married relationship with your partner, but it is also about giving these couples certainty and security in putting their lives together, building their lives and wanting to spend the rest of their lives together. It is not just about progressing the rights of LGBTI Australians—although that is very important—it is also about the individual security and assurance of each of the people in a relationship.
As I have said, thousands of Australian couples are already in this predicament. It was not until 2004, when John Howard as Prime Minister effectively did a dirty deal to get the legislation changed to ban same-sex relationships, that legal same-sex marriages in other countries were no longer recognised here in Australia. It was a change of the law then and this bill is changing it back. It was the wrong thing to do in 2004 and it is the right thing to do now in 2013.
This issue has been debated in this place and in the other place consistently over the last three years and with that the public's support for equality in marriage has grown. We have seen a change of heart and a change of mind from many not just in the community but also within our chambers of parliament. Conservatives like Barry O'Farrell, the Liberal Premier of New South Wales, have come out in support of same-sex marriage. If a Liberal Premier can allow his view to evolve, and a former Prime Minister such as Kevin Rudd, who is a forthright Christian, can allow his position to evolve, if they can open their hearts and open their minds, then surely the bulk of our chamber here today can do that as well. Recently on a plane I was talking about this issue with Jeff Kennett, a former Premier of Victoria. Jeff and I, as you can imagine, do not agree on a lot of things—but on this issue I could not fault him. He said to me: 'I thought about this issue, I considered the facts, I listened to the experts and I thought, "What the heck, who am I to say that somebody else's happiness is not as important as my own? Who is the parliament to say that just because of somebody's sexuality, just because they happen to be in love with somebody of the same gender but are equal in all other ways, their love and their happiness should be denied?"' I have been reflecting on that conversation ever since, because it is an important illustration of how far our community has come in speaking up for this change in the law. They want it done and dusted.
This is, as I have said, a halfway house. It is a step towards marriage equality. It is not full equality, and I accept that. Many of the countries where marriage equality has finally become law took this step first—the step of recognising marriages that had taken place in foreign lands. Neither Israel nor Japan allow for same-sex marriages to be performed on their home soil, but as a gesture of goodwill and understanding of other countries' sovereignty they are good enough and big enough to recognise the laws of other countries that do believe that same-sex marriages are legal.
It strikes me as strange that people would not want to support correcting what is becoming a bureaucratic nightmare: couples getting married overseas, thinking that their relationships will now be recognised and understood, only to return home and finding that their marriages are null and void. Here in Australia, we have the power today to change that and we should be changing it. We should act today. We have debated this issue a long time in this chamber and I have enjoyed listening to the speeches from both sides. I accept that there are some people who feel very strongly about this on either side. But I am encouraged every day because every day I hear stories about somebody else supporting the idea that love is love and that equality matters. I am encouraged that our younger generations do not understand why we have this discrimination. If we can accept that women have equal rights and that people in interracial relationships can be legally married, they cannot believe that in 2013 Australia should be standing in the way of this type of equality, which is fundamentally important to the relationships of same-sex couples but also to strengthening the institution of marriage.
We will hear views in this place today from those who are strongly opposed to removing this discrimination. We will hear today that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that that is the way it has always been and that that is the way it should stay. That argument does not acknowledge that social institutions, and important institutions that as communities we take hold of and own and hold up with such pride, do change over time. The institution of marriage has always been changing. The fact that we allow Aboriginal women in Australia to marry white men has not always been the case. Yet to think that today we are standing against the type of discrimination of a couple in that circumstance seems ridiculous. No-one would argue that that is the right thing to do in 2013, just like in years to come when people wonder what took Australia so long to accept that love between two people regardless of their gender should be seen as equal. I reflect on the conversation I had on the plane.
Who are we to stand in the way of two other people's happiness, to make them feel as though their relationship is somehow less equal than other people's just because they happen to be gay or lesbian? There are thousands of Australians who are sitting in hope today that their friends, their family, their loved ones and their work colleagues will finally be able to have the relationship with the person they love recognised as equal.
This debate has come so far in the last few years and it is down to the hard, tireless work and very heartfelt stories of family members and friends of gays and lesbians right around this country who have advocated for the rights of their loved ones to be seen as equal. What about the parents who knock on our doors in this place?—we all know them. They knock on our doors and sit in our offices, and they say, 'Why is it that my gay son does not have the same rights as my straight son?' 'Why is it that my sister does not have the same rights as me?' Why is it that, despite bringing up our children to believe that they can be all and anything and make the world whatever they want, that they are equal in all ways, when it comes to one of the most fundamental unions as human beings that we make with another person, that is not equal and they are not given the same rights?'
When I have those meetings with family members in my office, all I can reflect on is that there is goodwill amongst the Australian community to rid our law books of this discrimination and that there is growing support for this change to happen, and it is finally being reflected here in this place. I urge all members today, regardless of what your leaders have told you, to think with your hearts, open your minds and vote the way you know is right. Do not let anyone say you do not have the right to speak up for what your constituents want, for what you know in your heart is the right thing to do just because your leader has told you to stay put. This is your chance to make a difference before the next election to show the Australian people that you do not have a tin ear on this issue, that you indeed will stand up for what is right and have the courage to do the right thing.
Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (09:51): I rise today with somewhat mixed emotions to offer a few comments on the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013, because it does bring me a great deal of distress that this parliament has failed to make progress on this issue and that we are debating today a somewhat compromised version of what should be full marriage equality. My views that all couples, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, should have access to marriage are well known. I have repeatedly stated my strong support for full marriage equality both inside and outside parliament and have campaigned on this issue in the community. I have argued passionately for equality on this issue on the basis of both my personal experience and equal treatment and fairness for all Australians. That equal treatment and fairness for all Australians is the driving force behind my political engagement.
I was very, very pleased and proud when the government, under then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, moved to ensure that certificates of no impediment would be issued to Australian same-sex couples wishing to marry overseas. It is clear that many couples who are, sadly, unable to access marriage here in their home country of Australia have availed themselves of those certificates and gone overseas to marry. Many thousands of couples have done so and, as more and more countries put Australia to shame by introducing marriage equality, those numbers are going to continue to grow, as we can see from the recent moves in New Zealand. I was speaking to a friend just this week who is planning to go to New Zealand to get married at the end of this year.
There is no doubt that Australia's ongoing nonrecognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into overseas by Australians imposes unnecessary hurt and hardship on these couples, and I have some good examples. My friends Judith and Angela recently emigrated to Australia. They are making a wonderful contribution to our nation. They found the process of demonstrating the existence of their relationship for immigration purposes was significantly more difficult, due to the fact that the one piece of paper that clearly and categorically recognised their relationship—namely, their marriage certificate—was not recognised by authorities here. Then there are my dear friends Daniel and Bryan, who got married in South Africa; Jo and Nova, who got married in Canada; and Stephen and Dennis, whose overseas wedding I missed due to parliamentary sittings and whose reflections on the importance of having their relationship recognised I would like to share with the Senate today. They say:
We both went overseas thinking the ceremony was all about us, but half way through the ceremony we looked around and realised that the public recognition of our love and commitment was as much, if not more, important to our family and friends, many of whom had travelled to the other side of the globe to be with us. It is absolutely important that the country we choose to call home also recognises our commitment as well.
So, to the extent that this bill succeeds in allowing couples like Judith and Angela, Stephen and Dennis, and many thousands of couples like them to have their relationships recognised, I welcome the bill and urge senators to vote in favour of it. I fear it will not be successful, because marriage equality will only succeed when all parties in this parliament work together to see it done. We require more consensus-building across parties and cooperation between members of the parliament to see this reform through—and we are a long way behind community expectations on this issue, a very long way behind, and it is time for people in this place to catch up.
I would hope that Mr Abbott would allow the coalition to have a conscience vote on this issue. That would give this bill a much better chance of success. As I said, in order to achieve marriage equality in this country, we will need to work across the parliament and move beyond treating this as an issue designed to score political points. LGBTI Australians are not your political playthings. Our relationships are not to be used as political footballs, and we expect better than this. So I implore the Greens, the Nationals and the Liberals, particularly those of you who have said to me that you are committed to achieving marriage equality: let us work together across the parliament and across parties to see this done.
I call on Mr Abbott to give the Australian people some confidence that the country can move forward on this issue. Mr Abbott, the man who earlier this year assured the Australian community that his faith would never dictate his politics, has stubbornly refused to allow members of his party the right to follow their conscience, whatever it might say on this issue. The party of individual freedoms seems to be entirely devoid of that conscience when it comes to this issue. What is the Leader of the Opposition afraid of? He has said his party would consider allowing a conscience vote after the election, but I have no faith that this represents any kind of commitment at all to allowing his colleagues to express their views on marriage equality on the floor of this parliament. This is no position to take to an election; it is not a position at all. I know that there are many members of the coalition who do support marriage equality, so the position of the Leader of the Opposition is simply a matter of weasel words designed to buy the coalition some space on an issue on which they are woefully out of step with and very, very far behind the Australian community. It is time you caught up, because this issue is not going to go away.
We see more and more members of parliament—of this and the other place—come forward to express their views in favour of marriage equality. Indeed, I am very pleased to see that the state of South Australia looks like it is going take further steps in support of marriage equality. LGBTI Australians and their families are not going to stop advocating for their full rights under Australian law until those rights are achieved. LGBTI Australians are going to keep getting married; they are going to keep getting married overseas and they are going to keep getting married at home here in Australia. They have the right to expect that those relationships will be recognised in just the same way as those of other Australians are. As an LGBTI Australian myself and as a member of this place, I am not going to stop fighting until our equal rights are achieved. To the extent that this bill moves us a step closer to marriage equality for all Australians, I commend it to the Senate, but I also look forward to the day when we can debate and have a genuinely free vote in this place on a bill for full marriage equality for our nation—one that is supported by members of all parties in this place—then it will have a fighting chance of success.
Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:01): Senator Hanson-Young, in a characteristically highly emotive but essentially content-free speech, said that the issue before the chamber this morning is all about love, but for me the issue in fact before the chamber is something much more prosaic than that. The issue before the chamber this morning is the proper application of the rules of private international law when it comes to the domestic treatment of foreign marriages. That might seem to be a pedantic point to some, but it is an essential point, because we as legislators—particularly legislators sitting in a house of review—have an obligation when dealing with bills that come before us to be technically competent. So, all the fine effusions of sentiment that we have heard from Senator Hanson-Young do not answer the point that this bill is defective from a technical point of view. This is not a debate about gay marriage at all, although Senator Hanson-Young and others would like to characterise it as being so.
There is a large and complex body of legal principle which governs the way in which nations deal with marriages solemnised in other jurisdictions. It appears that Senator Hanson-Young is not acquainted with the relevant principles of private international law, but if she is going to essay into this area perhaps she should make herself acquainted with them. There are relevant legal rules, and they come from both the Marriage Act and a body of common-law principles. The relevant legal principles are that Australia will only recognise a foreign marriage if two criteria are met. First of all, the marriage must be formally valid according to the law of the foreign jurisdiction—what private international lawyers call the 'lex loci celebrationis'—and, secondly, it must be essentially valid according to principles of Australian law. Only if both of those legal criteria are met can a state recognise a marriage celebrated overseas.
Australian law does not recognise same-sex marriage. We have had a debate about same-sex marriage in this country for some years now and there are divided views on the subject, but the issue presented to the chamber today is not that debate, even though in a clumsy and intellectually careless way Senator Hanson-Young tries to characterise it as being that debate. The real question that is posed to the chamber by this bill concerns the circumstances in which Australian law should recognise foreign marriages that Australian law does not recognise. The bill as drafted—and I do not wish to reflect upon the draftsman—is not competent even to achieve the objective that Senator Hanson-Young prescribes, because although the bill would repeal from the Commonwealth Marriage Act section 88 EA—which provides that a union solemnised in a foreign country between a man and another man or a woman and another woman must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia—it does not repeal from the Marriage Act section 88E, which provides:
(1) Subject to subsection (2), a marriage solemnised in a foreign country that would be recognised as valid under the common law rules of private international law but is not required by the provisions of this Part apart from this subsection to be recognised as valid shall be recognised in Australia as valid, and the operation of this subsection shall not be limited by any implication arising from any other provision of this Part.
Senator Hanson-Young probably does not appreciate this, but section 88E, which her bill does not seek to repeal, invokes the common-law principles of private international law, to which I have referred, and about which many scholars have written at great length. This is a complex field. It is a complex and a technical field. This morning's debate is an object lesson in the principle that, if we are to deliberate intelligently in this chamber on legislation, we should know what we are talking about, and Senator Hanson-Young does not have a clue. Rather, she represents this as being, as it were, a proxy debate about whether there should be same-sex marriage.
Apart from the technical problem that I have indicated of the fact that her bill would leave section 88E of the Marriage Act unaffected, were it to be passed it would produce this bizarre result that Australian law would recognise marriages between same-sex couples solemnised overseas but would leave unaffected the prohibition of the solemnisation of such marriages in Australia, because Senator Hanson-Young's bill does not purport to legislate for or to legalise same-sex marriages solemnised in Australia. In fairness, on previous occasions she and her Greens colleagues have brought bills to that effect to the chamber, but this is not one. So we would have this preposterous result: leaving aside the technical arguments, which are beyond Senator Hanson-Young's comprehension, Australian law would recognise same-sex marriages solemnised overseas while continuing to prohibit same-sex marriages in Australia. That is a bizarre result.
As I said a moment ago, we have had for some years now a debate about whether Australia should legalise same-sex marriage, and the community has divided views on this matter. There are different views within different political parties. But the way to approach this issue for those who are proponents of same-sex marriage is to deal with it directly, not to deal with it in the anomalous and bizarre and, from a technical legal point of view, incompetent way that this bill would do.
Let me address for a moment the broader issue. There is something chillingly unpleasant about hearing Senator Hanson-Young give one of her emotional speeches and claim, as she does, that her point of view is the only morally legitimate point of view. How dare you. How dare you be so puffed up with moral vanity that you claim that your point of view is the only morally legitimate or decent point of view. Because, Senator Hanson-Young, there are millions and millions of Australians who vigorously dissent from your view, who have a commitment to the definition of marriage, as that has always been understood until very recent days across western civilisation, as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for life—the traditional definition of a marriage in English law now repeated in the Marriage Act. I am sure those people—the people who adopt a traditional view of marriage—would not be so bigoted, would not be so contemptuous, would not be so authoritarian as to say to you, Senator Hanson-Young, your view is illegitimate; you are not allowed to entertain your view. But that is what you say to them. With every plangent utterance that falls from your lips, Senator Hanson-Young, that is what you say to them, to the people who do not share your view. You seek to delegitimise their right to hold a different opinion, and that is disgusting. That is disgusting. There is no role in a liberal democracy for the moral authoritarianism that underlies the approach that Senator Hanson-Young and some, though not all, of her colleagues take on this issue—the posturing self-righteousness that says: 'There is only one side to this argument and it is mine.' If you want a decent and reasonable discussion of this issue, because there are people, Senator Hanson-Young, in all political parties who might agree with your ultimate conclusion, then have the courtesy and have the respect for your fellow citizens to acknowledge the other point of view, something I have never, in all the years I have served with you in the Senate, seen you do, whether it be on the issue of same-sex marriage, whether it be on the issue of refugees, whether it be on the issue of climate change, whether it be on any of the shibboleths with which the Greens like to garland themselves.
As I said before, there are two views in the community on this issue and they are strenuously contested. The Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, claims to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, so does the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr Abbott, so does the Leader of the National Party, Mr Truss, so does the Leader of Katter's Australian Party, Mr Bob Katter, and so, I believe, does the Leader of the DLP, Senator Madigan. With the exception of the Greens, the leader of every political party in this country at the moment adopts the traditional view of marriage. I see Senator Penny Wong has just walked into the chamber. I remember many an occasion on which Senator Penny Wong supported what was then the Labor Party's line that marriage is between a man and a woman only, because that was the Labor Party's position until a couple of years ago. It beggars belief that when the leaders of every political party in this country, bar yours, have one view and you have a different view that you can treat their views as being somehow morally illegitimate. So, by all means, put your opinion, Senator Hanson-Young, but have the decency to treat those who do not agree with you with the respect with which they treat you.
The coalition's position on this issue is perfectly clear. Our position is, and always has been, to support the traditional definition of marriage. That having been said, we all know that there are many people in the coalition parties who are of a different view. This is not a party political issue in that sense. Our colleague the member for Higgins, Ms O'Dwyer, has recently declared her support for gay marriage, as has my colleague from Queensland, Wyatt Roy, the member for Longman, and many others as well. As you and I know, Mr Acting Deputy President, one of the glories of the Liberal Party is that people are entitled to take a different view from the party's official position, and they do, and nobody is ever chastised or punished for doing so. This is one of the great differences between the Liberal approach to politics and the authoritarian approach to politics which we see among parties of the Left.
Senator Wong, who strongly believes in same-sex marriage, was for years forced to defend the traditional definition of marriage against her own beliefs because she is a member of a political party that is governed by authoritarian principles. Until the Labor Party decided to move its position to a conscience vote, had she dissented under the Labor Party's constitution she would have been expelled from the Labor Party in the twinkling of an eye. That has not happened to those in the Liberal Party who do believe in a change to the definition of marriage.
Let me conclude where I began. This is a difficult issue. There are two sides to that issue and nobody of either side should delegitimise the right of a person to an alternative view to their view. If it is to be dealt with, it should not be dealt with in this form because, as I said at the start, this is not a bill about gay marriage; it is a bill about private international law drawn by somebody who simply does not understand the relevant legal principles. Were it to be passed, it would leave unaffected entirely inconsistent provisions in the Marriage Act, particularly section 88E, and it would produce the ridiculous conclusion that Australia will recognise foreign marriages which would be unlawful if contracted in Australia under our existing laws. That is a preposterous, a ludicrous, piece of law reform. No doubt Senator Hanson-Young is using this bill merely as a vehicle to agitate the broader issue. I suppose she is entitled to do that. But those, particularly in the Labor Party, who might be inclined to vote for this bill should be smart enough to work out that this is not the way to achieve the objective to which many of them subscribe. What this bill would do, were it to be passed, would be to leave Australian law in an inconsistent, anomalous and plainly ridiculous state.
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (10:21): I will not take up too much time addressing this bill; I believe we have spent plenty of time on this issue already. It is just on nine months now since we discussed a bill very similar to this one. The first point I would like to make is that everybody is entitled to their view, and people should not be bludgeoned into any view on any matter. Everybody is entitled to make a decision on their conscience, and every person is entitled in this place, having been elected to express their views, to have respect for their views, whether we agree or disagree. When we debate this issue, we should leave people out of it. We should discuss the issue without playing people or individuals.
I believe this bill calling for us to recognise foreign same-sex marriages is basically a backdoor attempt to force same-sex marriage onto Australians. I have already said that I do not support same-sex marriage and I will not be changing my position. Like many of you, I have had numerous emails and phone calls on this bill—both for and against—and the issue of same-sex marriage. However, unlike the apparent flood of support the Greens seem to have received, I have found the flood to be coming from ordinary Australians who are sick of this issue being raised again and again in different forms and in different forums. They are also sick and tired of being told to feel guilt and shame for continuing to uphold their belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.
Guilt and shame, along with fear, are the arsenal of virtually every Greens campaign. The issue in this bill is not same-sex marriage or recognition of foreign same-sex marriage. The issue here is marriage itself, because we cannot agree to this bill without changing the very understanding of marriage itself. As I have said on many occasions, and as has been proven again and again, the will of parliamentarians does not necessarily reflect the will of the people. Quite frankly, the definition of marriage is something that cannot be left to the will of the parliament. It is for this reason that I have notified that I will be introducing a bill calling for a referendum to alter the Constitution and confirm that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
I am not bludgeoning the parliament and I am not bludgeoning the nation into accepting a position through guilt. I am saying, 'Let the people decide.' We can legislate all sorts of things in this parliament and we do, but we cannot legislate the conscience of the nation. Marriage is a cornerstone of human society, predating any religious or political system. If we can have a referendum on things like local government, we deserve to have a referendum on officially defining this institution in our Constitution. I believe that this is an issue that every Australian should have a vote on. That is why I am calling for a referendum.
Rather than having this issue raised again and again, with the intention of eventually wearing down some wavering parliamentarians until it eventually gets through, this issue must be decided by the Australian people. We can tell them how much tax to pay, where their schools should be, what they can grow and what they can build. We intrude into virtually every aspect of their lives, but if we tell them that we as a parliament can make a decision that will fundamentally alter the very basis on which our society is built on, and which civilisation has been built on for millennia, then we are clearly taking on the role of little tin gods. We are not here to tell the Australian people what their society will be. That is their choice and their choice alone. I will not be supporting this bill. But, having sat here this morning, I acknowledge the contributions of Senators Hanson-Young, Pratt and Brandis. They are all entitled to have their view, as are the people who are going to contribute to this debate after me. We are all people that respect that they have their opinions and they are entitled to their opinions.
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (10:27): I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate, an issue on which I have spoken previously. It is an issue of principle that is before us which I support. This bill is one aspect of a broader principle. Whilst I do support it, it is obviously not the central issue. The central issue that this parliament will not deal with but a future parliament must and will deal with is the principle of equality for all Australians. It is a principle that is as simple as it is enduring and a principle which I have supported all my life.
I do want to respond very briefly to some of the comments which have preceded me in that debate, in particular from Senator Madigan and Senator Brandis. I acknowledge that Senator Madigan, whilst I disagree with his views, at least contributed them in a respectful way. It is disappointing that Senator Brandis did not follow suit. Both Senators Madigan and Brandis talked about the importance of recognising that there are differences of opinion on this issue here in Australia—and, indeed, there are. Whilst I do not agree with those who have an opinion contrary to mine, they have a right to hold it.
What I do disagree with, however, is their right to impose that opinion upon me and upon others in my situation—that is, upon gay and lesbian Australians who wish to demonstrate, through ceremony, their love and commitment to their partner. The issue here has never been whether or not people have different opinions about the institution of marriage. The issue is whether a secular state should impose a particular set of opinions in order to exclude some Australians from the institution of marriage.
My view is that equality is a fundamental right. Whilst Australia has not always been an equal society, over the span of our social programs, it is ultimately the direction in which we have moved. Calls for equality in this nation have been persistent and, generally, they have ultimately been successful. Over the decades we have seen changes to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against, at least explicitly, on the basis of their gender, race, religion or age. To me, this demonstrates the resonating power of the principle of equality, of saying and affirming that all of us are equal and society should treat us as such, of believing that we should judge people on their principles, their ethics, their capacities and such characteristics rather than on the colour of their skin or the gender of their partner. Embracing diversity and inclusion and knowing that our community is diminished by marginalisation is a principle in which I believe.
So pursuing marriage equality is part of an ongoing struggle for a more equal Australia, because if you subscribe to the principle of equality, and I am sure that most in this chamber would say that they do, then simply substitute words such as 'interracial' or 'different age' in lieu of 'same sex' in this debate and see if it changes your view. Can you imagine if anyone in this parliament actually asserted that a couple in Australia could not get married because the person that they loved or one of them was of a different skin colour? Can you imagine if we as a parliament told Australians that they could not get married because the person they loved was of a different religion? These notions are not only anachronistic; they are in fact offensive. So, in 2013, it is sad that the freedom of an Australian to make a commitment to the person they love through marriage is not permitted.
I do not want to spend too much time on the argument that has been put in this place that marriage is unique, but I would say: it is unique, it is special, it is a bedrock institution and that is why those of us who are in same-sex relationships also want to be able to demonstrate our love and commitment through marriage. When the right of entry to such an institution is barred to some of us, it is nothing other than discrimination. It is a discrimination that will one day come to an end but it will not be this parliament, the 43rd Parliament, that rights this wrong. Let us not forget while we are debating the bill today before the Senate that we are debating this bill because the 43rd Parliament has already failed in its obligations to serve all Australians. Last year, we had an opportunity to right a wrong that had continued for far too long and, in failing to do so, we failed to live up to the expectations of millions of Australians. We failed to call discrimination what it is and remove a highly discriminatory law. We failed to deliver marriage equality.
In my speech on the marriage equality bill last year, I hoped for a better Australia—an Australia where division and hurt were no longer features of the public debate in this the most personal of debates. It is deeply regrettable that the debate on this issue has, if anything in that time, become more hurtful and more divisive. When members of the Australian parliament seek to do things such as link marriage equality with polygamy and bestiality, they are doing nothing other than promoting bigotry, and we should not shy away from calling it what it is. And when the political party of those who speak those words elevate them to the top of the Senate ticket, it speaks volumes for their leadership or lack thereof. We should never overlook the fact that words spoken by people in this place, people who have the privilege to be in this chamber, carry a special weight. We should not overlook the hurt and the distress these statements can cause. So I say to young gay and lesbian Australians and those in the LGBTI community who are still struggling with their identity who hear these words: these words do not reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of Australians. They do not speak to the Australia we want. They may hurt, but do not take them to heart.
The bill before us today seeks to recognise the marriages of same-sex couples in foreign countries here in Australia. As I said, I support this bill not as an end point but as another step on the road to equality. It would recognise the progress made in other countries and ensure that Australians who are married in other countries can be accepted and recognised in full here in Australia. But we should be clear on the chances of this bill passing the parliament. When those opposite denied a conscience vote on this issue—an act of deliberate obstruction from their leadership—this bill was always going to fail. We know ultimately that change on these issues can only come with a bipartisan approach, and we know that it is only when both the opposition allows a conscience vote and members on that side exercise their conscience in favour of equality that this issue will have a chance to succeed. Putting up legislation that is doomed to fail will never be enough. What we will need to do in the years to come is build cross-party support to work within our own parties and across the parliament. That is the approach I will take and that is the approach I have taken.
I am a proud member of the Australian Labor Party, and I understand that change is won by carrying the many. I am a member of a party that has done more to progress the interests of gay and lesbian Australians than any other, a party that in my own state first decriminalised homosexuality in 1975 and has consistently continued to reform legislation since that time. I am very glad to have been part of a government that: in 2008, amended so many Commonwealth acts to give equal rights to same-sex relationships and greater legal recognition to children of these couples; allowed the same-sex partners of those in Commonwealth superannuation schemes access to superannuation; allowed the issuing of certificates of nonimpediment to same-sex couples wishing to marry overseas; announced the development of the first LGBTI Ageing and Aged Care Strategy; extended paid parental leave to same-sex couples; and, this week, in the South Australian parliament, with the support of the Premier and my friend Dr Susan Close, again argued for marriage equality legislatively.
I remember in 2004, inside the federal Labor caucus, arguing against the position that was then ultimately adopted by the federal Labor Party to support the amendments to the Marriage Act that Prime Minister Howard moved. Whilst that was a difficult time, one of the things that does give me hope is that, since that time, a number of people in our party who at that time opposed the position I was arguing have since changed their minds and opened their hearts to the principle of equality. This is the nature of political change and this is what reform demands.
I look forward to the day when the substantive issue that is before us, the recognition of equality, receives broad support across this parliament and across all political parties, because it is only then that we will see progress, it is only then when the Australian parliament will live up to the expectations of our community and it is only then that we will be able to deliver equality. In doing so, we would give expression to the best of who we are—a nation confident and proud in our diversity, as well as our unity, and a nation unafraid of equality.
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (10:37): I shared the joy of many people in Australia when New Zealand followed Britain and passed legislation enabling same-sex marriages in that country. I can imagine that if this legislation, the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013, were to be passed we would see a whole new tourism industry develop. I am not sure what New Zealand's residency requirements are for getting married in New Zealand, but I am sure that a lot of people would set out to try to meet those requirements should we get this legislation through.
I am not normally in favour of backdoor ways of doing things, which is what this bill is—it is a backdoor way to try to increase the pressure for same-sex marriage in Australia. As I said, I am not normally in favour of that, but I think that in this circumstance, and given what Senator Wong said earlier about attempts of this house on a number of occasions to enable same-sex marriage in Australia, there is a valid reason to support this legislation. I would also point out a rather long list, which I will read into Hansard, of countries and provinces that allow same-sex marriage and the date on which they first allowed same-sex marriages to be performed. It is a very long list and it starts in 2001 with the Netherlands. Then came Belgium in 2003 and Canada also in 2003 for some provinces and 2005 nationally. Massachusetts in 2004 was the first American state to allow same-sex marriage. Spain allowed same-sex marriage in 2005; South Africa in 2006; California in 2007; Norway and Sweden, and Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Washington and Oregon in 2009; Mexico City, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, New Hampshire in 2010; New York state, Quintana Roo in Mexico and the Squamish Indian Nation in Washington all in 2011; and Maine, Maryland, Uruguay, New Zealand, Delaware, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians in Michigan, Rhode Island, Minnesota and France in 2013. It is a very comprehensive list of countries and states that support same-sex marriage and allow same-sex marriage to occur.
Countries that recognise same-sex marriage, although it is not performed there, include Israel, which has recognised same-sex marriage since 2006, and Mexico, all states of which recognised same-sex marriage in 2010. As well, some states of Mexico perform same-sex marriage. The list of countries that are currently looking at the situation goes on. I note that South Australia may well be the first Australian state to legalise same-sex marriage. I think that would be a good move.
I am appalled to see that, at the same time, it is being suggested that our Constitution should be changed to enshrine the idea of marriage as being between a man and a woman. I would have thought that in 2013 enough people would have understood sexual orientation and sexual identity to know that it is no longer acceptable to talk about a binary state of man or woman. One in 200 people in Australia is born with both male and female attributes. Some of those people, who are now referred to as having intersex status, will know from birth that they have male and female attributes. Some may not discover it until they have an unusual puberty. Some may not discover it except inadvertently through a blood test or some other medical procedure they undertake. There is an example given of a South Australian man—he is a married man with children—who almost died of ovarian cancer because no-one thought to check his ovaries. That is not an unreasonable thing, of course, but it is something that we now know is a possibility in medical terms. It means that we know we should not be looking medically at people simply as a man or a woman. It is possible for people to have, unbeknownst to them or to anyone else, male or female characteristics. So even in terms of physical health and safety we need to get past the idea of a binary view of male and female. That is just on the medical-physical side.
Let us talk about the moral side. Surely in 2013 we are past the homophobic, scared-of-difference, scared-of-diversity view that would be implied by any sort of attempt to put into the Constitution the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. My only hope is that the appalling record of referenda in Australia—their complete lack of success—means that that would go down. But it would not go down just because we are not very good at passing referenda; it would go down because in 2013 it is a disgusting and immoral idea to want to take that point.
I know that my view on this topic differs somewhat from that of the coalition, which quite reasonably has made the point that the commitment of the coalition is to the idea of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, although it is open to rediscussion and redefinition after the election. I look forward to that time, but in the interim I am pleased that I have the option within the Liberal Party to exercise a free vote, an option that, I would point out, is not available to those in the Labor Party or the Greens unless a conscience vote is agreed to by the party. Within the Liberal Party, one always has the option of exercising a free vote. If we are to vote on this legislation, I will be voting for this bill, because I think it advances the cause of same-sex marriage in Australia.
I do not know what we can do, other than something like this, to try to persuade others that same-sex marriage is not going to be the end of the world for anybody, especially not for children or couples in Australia. I concur with these thoughts of Dr Andrew Sullivan:
The truth is I'm not at all indifferent to the fate of marriage as a whole, but I cannot for the life of me see what terrible damage same-sex marriage would actually do to it. Would it accelerate divorce rates? I cannot see how. The only country with anything like comparable legal protections for gay couples, Denmark, has actually seen lower divorce rates among same-sex couples than among heterosexual ones. In many ways, I think, the inclusion of more people into the institution might actually have the opposite effect, sending a message about matrimonial responsibility and mutual caring to the entire society, rather than to merely 97 percent of it. Would it harm children? Why on earth should it? Are the kids of a heterosexual family going to be harmed by meeting other kids who are the legitimate children of a gay couple down the street?
… … …
These aren't appeals to sympathy; they're arguments that same-sex marriage would be good for all of us--and for conservative reasons to boot.
Those reasons are the same reasons that those who support marriage as the union between a man and a woman espouse for their marriages. A marriage is a special commitment. A marriage provides more security for those in it, including the children who would be in it. There is no reason not to allow same-sex marriage in Australia. I believe that this bill will assist us in moving towards that. If we are to vote on this bill, I will be supporting it.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (10:47): I rise to support the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013, which my colleague Senator Hanson-Young has brought before the chamber as part of a long and somewhat arduous campaign in favour of something that we in the Australian Greens believe is completely obvious. I want to acknowledge and congratulate Senator Boyce for the contribution that she just made. Those sorts of contributions are all too rare in this place. When people are considering matters and voting on their conscience, the quality of the debate is measurably improved. So thank you, Senator Boyce, for having the courage to do what you have just done. The only qualification I will make is that, in the Australian Greens, we do have a conscience vote on all matters. You have to go back quite some time in the Hansard record to find that being exercised, but we do vote with our conscience on all of these matters. I think it is part of the reason for our success.
This in fact is a rights issue, and they should not have been hung up inside the Labor caucus on whether or not it was a conscience issue. This matter should really have been dealt with many years ago. What we are attempting to do here is undo a grave mistake that was legislated by the Howard government nearly a decade ago. So of course we support this amendment. As Senator Hanson-Young has so ably pointed out, this is not the whole picture; this is a piece of the puzzle. It is also something that we consider to be self-evidently a worthy amendment, because this is straightforward discrimination. We in this parliament need to respond to the fact that people are fired for who they fall in love with. People are unable to speak up at work. They can have their children turned away at school. There are all kinds of other forms of subtle and much less subtle discrimination, up to and including homophobic violence. We cannot build full equality in parliament alone. We know that we cannot do it by this simple amendment, or by a straightforward amendment to the Marriage Act, but we here are called to do our part and to do what we can to remove legislated black-letter discrimination on the Australian statute books. That is one thing that we can do. We should show that kind of leadership here on Capital Hill.
We know now that in all parties in this parliament there are strong undercurrents of support for this measure and the broader measure that it implies—the straightforward legal recognition of marriage no matter what your sexual orientation. This form of discrimination is still legal in Australia, under laws that senators from the other parties have chosen not to change—with the honourable exception perhaps of Senator Boyce, as she has just indicated. This is something that we can remedy. Homophobic violence is real. Being young and LGBTI in rural Australia remains a difficult way to start your life and something that, tragically, some people do not make it through. We parliamentarians cannot make every Australian understand the imperative for equality overnight, but we can make our laws equal. At the moment, they are not. Not only are our marriage laws unequal and discriminatory here; they are also unequal and discriminatory for couples married overseas who come here. That is what this straightforward bill seeks to address.
I want to acknowledge Senator Hanson-Young for her long and tireless advocacy for this cause. As a senator representing Western Australia, I also acknowledge the remarkable advocacy, persistence and straightforward bolshiness of the marriage equality movement and the equal love movement in Western Australia. My colleague Lynn MacLaren MLC has moved for legislative change in the Western Australian parliament in the event that this national parliament should fail in its obligation to remove discrimination from the statute books. We are all, in here, representatives of a much larger movement and undercurrent in society. It is not a simple breakdown by age. It is not simply a generation gap thing, although you can see the very large numbers of younger people coming out for whom this is quite simply self-evident. We know therefore that this is really only a matter of time. So my question to you, colleagues, through you, Acting Deputy President, is: if not now, then when? This is something we could remedy this morning should we choose to. I strongly commend this bill to the chamber.
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (10:52): I believe, as do the majority of Australians, that our laws should not be discriminatory; they should not discriminate against any of our citizens. I believe, as do the majority of Australians, that our marriage laws should be amended to allow Australians to marry partners of the same gender here in Australia. This bill addresses only one aspect of the discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships but it is nonetheless an important one.
Historically, jurisdictions have recognised the public interest in accepting the legitimacy of both marriages and divorces performed in other places. Australia has long accepted that the decision of two adults to form a family should be recognised by our laws regardless of religion, of race or of the country in which that decision was made. It has long been understood that failing to do so leads to the unjust and discriminatory treatment of individuals who may migrate from one country, one jurisdiction, to another. It has also long been understood that failing to accept the legitimacy of marriages solemnised elsewhere leads to highly undesirable public policy outcomes.
Before 2004, Australia recognised as valid marriages between consenting adults who were not already married. However, in 2004 passage of the Howard government's Marriage Amendment Act changed the law to include a discrimination which had not previously existed, that marriages valid in the jurisdiction in which they were performed ceased to exist at our national border based purely on the gender of the individuals concerned. As a result, Australians who are legally married in another country and whose marriage is recognised in many other countries find themselves in legal limbo in their own country. Can they divorce if their relationship breaks down? Can they have their marriage annulled under our laws? Can they marry again in Australia? These are already concerns for a number of Australians who are legally married to a same-sex partner in another country. The number will only increase as more and more jurisdictions end discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
If we believe that marriage is an important personal commitment and not merely a geographically specific convenience, we must recognise marriages as valid, as real, wherever they are performed. I believe that the best solution would be for our parliament to remove discrimination from the Marriage Act, allowing Australians to marry here regardless of the gender of their partner. But we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and this bill removes at least one aspect of the discrimination against Australians in same-sex relationships. I support the bill.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (10:58): I rise to oppose the Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill 2013 and want to put before the chamber my reasons for my opposition to it. It was only in September of 2012, some nine months ago, that the Senate dealt with a very similar matter to the one we are dealing with today. Whilst this one is a variation on a theme, that is all it is. It is yet another attempt to bring in through the back door a capacity that this parliament voted in September last year to not allow. I want to go back and revisit some of that, if I can. At that time it was the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012.
I wish to repeat and place on the record what the coalition supports as the definition of marriage. It is prescribed in the Marriage Act 1961 and it states that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. That is the position of the coalition. It is the position the coalition took to the last election as the definition of marriage, it is the definition and the platform we will take to the next election on 14 September this year and I believe it was the position the Labor Party took to the 2007 and 2010 elections.
The coalition made an undertaking to the Australian people in the 2010 election that we would support the existing definition of marriage. Having made that undertaking, we are not going to vary it. The people of Australia can be very clear about where the coalition stands. It is disappointing that the Labor Party appear to have changed their position for what they perceive to be some electoral advantage. Ms Gillard, the Prime Minister of Australia, gave a similar undertaking to the Australian people at the 2010 election but has subsequently facilitated a retreat from that position.
Why are we debating this bill? The Senate's bill list, prior to the commencement of this week, comprised some 236 bills, and we have seen the Greens join with the government in applying the gag and the guillotine. The carpet is not quite red enough yet, but based on previous experience—and we all know that past behaviour is the best predictor of future behaviour—by the end of next week the blood on the carpet, as a result of the use of the guillotine, will necessitate it being replaced.
There is very important legislation to be addressed and it is not going to be. A matter which you and I, Acting Deputy President Marshall, have a great interest in is the Australian Education Bill, loosely referred to as 'Gonski'. It is a bill which involves billions and billions of dollars and will affect the education of children now and into the future. However, while it has been referred to the Senate committee of which you and I are both members, only three days are being allowed for interested parties to put in submissions, there will be no hearing and the secretariat will prepare their report over the weekend. Next Monday, without any inquiry and without any hearings, the Senate will be asked to accept the report of that committee.
That is what causes my anger. There is important legislation to be addressed, but instead today we are addressing a matter which was the subject of robust discussion in September last year. It is only a very minor change we are looking at.
It has been disappointing to hear previous speakers today—people for whom I have a high regard, having listened to them over the time I have been in this place—arguing that, somehow or other, this bill is removing discrimination. I will make the same points I made the last time we were caused to waste, from my point of view, the time of the Senate in debating a similar matter. I will distinguish between the terms 'discrimination', 'deprivation', 'disadvantage', 'difference' and 'equality'.
The principle of equality requires treating all similar cases alike, but the judgement that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are alike with respect to marriage and should therefore be treated alike by marriage laws is of itself a false proposition. The fact that they are not treated alike by marriage laws does not mean there is discrimination. In 2009, this parliament removed discrimination against same-sex couples. There were four bills, the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 and the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008. Those bills went through this parliament, as indeed they should have, with bipartisan support. They were designed to remove discrimination against same-sex couples from a raft of legislation. Matters associated with superannuation, trustees, same-sex couples and their children, and eligibility for superannuation revisionary benefits—these were addressed.
It is surprising and disappointing to me that here we are in this place on this day, with an absolute plethora of legislation important to this country to deal with—important for good governance as we move towards the end of this financial year and the commencement of the next—and this bill is being given precedence and priority. Hopefully on 14 September the people of Australia will have the common sense to replace this government with a government which will actually know how to manage the country, its economy and its people.
In my contribution last year, I reflected on the term 'propaganda' and how it relates to what we have seen in this debate. We have seen it again in the debate today and we saw it in the debate prior to the parliament last year voting down the previous incarnation of this legislation—as, I believe, the legislation before us today should also be voted down. What are the elements of propaganda to which I refer? The first is attacking one's opponents as opposed to attacking their arguments. Once again we have seen that in this chamber today. The second is the tireless repetition of an idea, a slogan or a variation of it.
I say again that this Marriage Act Amendment (Recognition of Foreign Marriages for Same-Sex Couples) Bill is merely a reincarnation of the bill we debated and voted down last year, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. This points straight at the issues which propagandists have used for so long. The third element of propaganda is appealing to fear, or seeking to build support by instilling anxieties and panic. The fourth is using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to the proposition. We hear again this morning reference to people buying their wedding dress, rushing off to New Zealand and coming home deeply disappointed because when they get back they have to leave their marriage certificate with customs. What is the logic of all that in this argument?
The fifth pillar of propaganda is inviting those who are not already on the bandwagon to join it so that those who are on the road to certain victory can be part of it and make a contribution. I find that offensive. In less than nine months since both houses of the parliament made a decision on these issues we have them back again. The sixth principle is presenting only two choices—with of course one idea being propagated as the better choice. It is not convincing to me that this legislation is the better choice. We have dealt with the question of discrimination—it has been dealt with by this parliament in the laws of this land. That argument is not one upon which this issue turns.
The seventh principle is making individuals with opposing viewpoints appear to be out of touch with the reality of today. We have heard statements about the comments that have been made in email traffic—that the majority of Australians support marriage equality, and that this majority includes Australian Christians. There is reference to a Premier of New South Wales who has changed his views and therefore so should we. I do not find this to be in any way relevant and I find it grossly objectionable that, because Mr Abbott is apparently required to change his position, I can change my position. I have to tell those in this chamber and people listening beyond that I am not in any way dictated to by that argument. I will hold my views, I will express my views and I will vote according to my own views on issues such as this.
The eighth principle of propaganda is using euphemisms, including suggestions of perceived quality or credibility or credence. In the time available I will go to some of the issues associated with other countries, because that is the invitation that has been given to us—because you can go to Paris and you can be married in your wedding dress to a person of the same gender under the Eiffel Tower, that in some way diminishes Australia. It does not diminish Australia in my view, or New Zealand or any other country. I find insulting the argument that Australia in some ways is deficient. The last of the principles of propaganda about which I will comment is using generalities which are deliberately vague with the intention of moving an audience by undefined phrases. I find this to be a circumstance which is unacceptable.
Let me look at some laws in other countries that are not laws in this country. There is no good reason to believe that because they are the law of the land in another country somehow we should bend or change or turn our laws in this country, especially on a matter that has been the subject of so much recent debate and decision. Let me speak about women's voting rights in other countries—Saudi Arabia, other Middle Eastern countries and other countries around the world. Is anyone suggesting that because they are the laws of those countries they should somehow or other be transmitted to Australia? Nobody would find that to be an acceptable argument.
Look at gun laws in the United States of America—a close friend and ally of this country. Following the horrific events in 1996 at Port Arthur in Tasmania, and after strong debate and bipartisan support, as I understand it, Australia brought in the gun laws that we have today. Yet we have seen in the United States of America a lamentable reluctance and inability to enact laws in any way similar to our laws, despite the horrific events that have taken place in recent times. Our former Prime Minister Mr Howard went to the United States earlier this year I understand not to lecture to the Americans but to put the Australian case for why we did what we did and to outline how successful our gun laws have been in reducing homicides due to weapons. There is no suggestion at all that because gun ownership is legal in America it should be here, or that if Americans came to this country and wanted to continue to have the legal rights that they enjoy or experience in their country, or in my view have the disadvantage of, they should be able to apply those rights here in Australia. There is no case for that. This is our country, this is our sovereign state and we will determine these issues.
Another example is speeding laws. They vary considerably. In Europe there is no speed limit on the autobahns. Are we suggesting for a minute that people who come from Europe, who are used to driving on roads without upper limits on their speed, should be able to do so in this country? Of course we are not. The proposition is a nonsense. The drinking age in other countries also varies significantly from the drinking age in Australia.
The Senate should be dealing with far more important legislation in the next five sitting days before we rise on Thursday or Friday of next week. There are 226 items on the Senate bills list, most of which are not going to see the light of day. There are critically important issues that require robust debate today and particularly next week. We know what is going to happen.
Let me just preface my remarks by saying that the Senate is also debating at this time, and on which I am in continuation, the proposal to conduct a referendum at the election on the recognition of local government. If, for any reason at all, the capacity of people to speak—their time and their voice—on that issue associated with the change to the Constitution of Australia were removed by that particular debate being gagged by the Labor Party, with the associated support of the Australian Greens, that would be the worst travesty that could be visited upon this place.
This is a proposed change to the Constitution. Whether people support it or oppose it, they have the right in this place for their voice to be heard. I note that we are going to see the gagging of other legislation that should have been brought on earlier and that should be allowed to have its full prosecution, but I say now: the Australian people will not accept the use of the guillotine in a debate affecting a possible change to the Constitution of Australia.
I oppose this amendment. It should not be here on the Dynamic Red. It should not have been given the aeration that it has been given today and I oppose it.
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:16): I move:
That the question be now put.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Marshall ): The question is that the question now be put.
The Senate divided. [11:21]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The PRESIDENT (11:23): The question now is that the bill be read a second time.
The Senate divided. [11:28]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Advertising for Sports Betting) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator DI NATALE (Victoria) (11:31): I rise today to talk about the Greens bill on sports betting, which aims to separate gambling from sport. Sport has always been a huge part of Australian culture—we are a sporting country; we love to play sport; we watch it; it is a big part of the lives of many Australians—but over recent years we have seen the gradual creep of gambling into most of our major sporting codes. It has resulted in the quadrupling in the number of betting advertisements over the last two years to the point where it is very hard to watch a major sporting broadcast without being bombarded by a barrage of betting advertisements and, until recently, the promotion of live odds through those broadcasts.
There has been some movement on this issue since I last rose to speak about it. We have had an announcement from the government for the first time indicating that it was prepared to put the brakes on gambling in sport. I will talk about that in a moment, but before that I would like to talk about how we got to this point and how we got to finally seeing some action in this area. It really does highlight how critical it is to have an alternative voice—another voice, that of the Greens—in the Senate.
At the start of this year I was sufficiently concerned about the not-so-gradual increase of the influence of gambling in sport in recent years that I referred the issue to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling. Through that committee we heard evidence from the major broadcasters, from the sporting codes themselves and from a range of other stakeholders, including people who, like me, were extremely concerned about the rise of sports betting promotion and advertising in our major sporting codes. Through that inquiry process it became absolutely clear that we needed legislation in this area. I drafted a bill—one that was reasonably straightforward—that focused on three key areas. The first area was around ensuring that we no longer saw the promotion of betting odds through sporting broadcasts. The second area was the issue of advertising through discrete commercial breaks during children's viewing times. We have the situation where we are not allowed to advertise gambling products during G-rated programming and yet we have this enormous, gaping loophole that says, 'If it is a sports broadcast, no matter what time of day it is, we are going to continue to allow the advertisement of betting products.' It is a loophole that we decided needed to be fixed and we drafted legislation that would effectively prohibit gambling advertising before 9 pm.
The third component of the bill was around the issue of gambling promotion embedded not only in sports broadcasts but in the myriad of sports related programs around the major sporting codes—programs like TheFooty Show—where during the actual programs we were seeing a whole lot of cross-promotion around betting products, with betting companies being named regularly in the show. We decided that if we were going to stop the promotion of betting advertising then that needed to include advertising during the broadcast itself. That was the third major component of that bill.
That bill was supported by the community, with several polls demonstrating that there was widespread public support for the notion that betting advertising through children's viewing times needed to stop. We then took the issue to the parliament by putting forward a motion around those components of the bill in an attempt to get support for it. What we saw was some movement from some Labor backbenchers, who essentially took up the major elements of our bill and threatened to put the bill to caucus in an attempt to get it up as a private member's bill. In response to all of that action—action that was initiated by the Greens originally through the referral to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling and later through our private senator's bill—we saw huge community response. The community responded very clearly and very loudly and said they wanted to see it stop, and in response to that we saw some action from the government. We are very pleased that the government did respond, or at least acknowledge, the issue. We are not as pleased with the breadth of their response. The government response was to effectively prohibit the promotion of betting odds through sports broadcasts. That is a good thing and we absolutely support it. However, the proliferation of gambling advertising and gambling advertising during children's viewing hours will continue under the government's proposal. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the issue of gambling sponsorship of sports related programs, so we will continue to see shows like The Footy Show spruik betting products. Finally, it was a proposal that would not be legislated but would continue to remain the responsibility of industry. Our concern is that, with the change in government, we may in fact see industry backslide on that proposal. We are very, very concerned about that, which is why we want to see these changes legislated.
But the point remains that we would not have seen any action had it not been for the continued advocacy of the Greens and some of my fellow crossbenchers, who have also done a lot of work in this area, and, indeed, some of those government backbenchers who took up the Greens proposals and put them to their caucus. It is a very powerful reason why the Australian community continue to vote for the Greens in the numbers that they do, because they know that we need an alternative voice, another voice, in this place to put these issues on the agenda—issues that would not be there without advocates like us.
The concern I have is that, up until this point—and including the response from government—what we are seeing is a response that essentially leaves the responsibility for action with the government. I might be missing something—I am new to this place—but this idea of self-regulation has always been one that I find most intriguing. It is the responsibility of betting companies to increase their market share. It is the responsibility of betting companies to increase the number of customers that they attract. That is what they do. They are companies that exist to make a profit. I do not blame them for doing that. I find it remarkable that we would entrust a company whose primary motivation is to increase the number of customers using their product with the responsibility of actually putting limits around the promotion of their product. It is no wonder that we have seen no action to date. This is not simply an issue that relates to gambling products. It applies to other adult products like alcohol, where we again have entrusted the industry to control and monitor advertising to see whether that is appropriate. We are entrusting them, at the moment, with the development of warning labels on alcoholic beverages. It is no wonder that what we are seeing as a result of that process is action that is almost meaningless.
We think this action is necessary because gambling is not a harmless product. It is fun for some. There are people in the community who enjoy the odd punt, but there are others where problem gambling destroys their lives. It means that kids sometimes do not get fed at night. It means that families break up. It means that some people end up losing their homes. When there is a product with that potential for harm, there is a very clear role for government to step in and legislate. I am not proposing a ban on the activity itself. It is really important we make the distinction between the product—and there are obviously very clear controls around the way the product needs to be sold, and we support those—and the promotion and marketing of the product.
We are not advocating a ban on gambling. In fact, we know in the sports betting arena that a ban on gambling could lead us down a particularly dangerous road. We know that there is the potential for corruption in sport. We have seen that internationally, and that is why we do acknowledge that there is a role for a regulated betting market in this country. The question is: what sort of limits are we prepared to put around the advertising and promotion of that product in an effort to protect, firstly, young children who are exposed to the advertising of an adult product and, secondly, those adults who will get into serious trouble as a result of an addiction to that product? At the moment we have a situation where what we are going to see from both the codes and the gambling industry is an approach of continued advertising and marketing and as little change as possible. To the Greens that simply is not acceptable.
The issue that has generated the most outrage with the sporting community has been the inclusion of bookmakers like Tom Waterhouse as part of the editorial team. I think it is fair to say that the sporting codes lost a tremendous amount of goodwill as a result of that relationship. We saw a huge response from the community, particularly through social media. The response of industry, of course, was just to change the logo on Mr Waterhouse's microphone and to take him out of the commentary box but put him on the sporting ground where he would become, effectively, a commentator from the sidelines. There is simply no way for a young person who is watching a game of rugby or a game of footy to make the distinction between Tom Waterhouse the commentator and Tom Waterhouse the bookmaker. That is why it is important that we step in and legislate in this area.
I genuinely believe that we are at a crossroads when it comes to sport in this country. We heard, through evidence tendered to the joint select committee, that young kids now can recall a number of the major sporting companies, the names of those sporting companies, and some of the names of athletes and other celebrities associated with those sporting companies. In fact we are seeing now young adults integrating their enjoyment of a game of football with gambling. We are seeing now the situation where going to a game of football has become almost like going to the racetrack. That is not a future that most Australians want for their major sporting codes. They do not want watching a game of football to become an interactive gambling experience. They do not want going to a game of football to be like going to a small casino. They want to enjoy the sport for the sake of enjoying sport.
We have to remember that there are many, many good things that sport does bring us. As a young person growing up and playing sport it was an opportunity for me to become a part of my local community. It is an opportunity to keep fit and healthy and it is an opportunity, particularly in regional areas, where I now live, to bring together people from all walks of life in the shared pursuit of doing something that is both healthy and enjoyable. The growing entanglement of gambling and sport cuts against some of those terrific objectives.
Sport is big business—of course it is. Our major sporting codes have huge, billion-dollar television deals. There are huge profits and professionalism associated with most of our major sporting codes, but the most corrosive and the most insidious change to our major sporting codes is not the increasing professionalism associated with those sports. I am not a big fan of the music that comes on after every goal and the marketing paraphernalia such as the new jumpers that come out each year—and I know that other people feel the same way—but that is just a minor annoyance to some of us. What most Australians object to is that, until recently, gambling was on one side and sport was on the other. If you wanted to have a punt you went to the racetrack, if you wanted to gamble you went to the casino and if you wanted to play or watch sport you would go to the local sporting oval. But now, for the first time, sport and gambling are entwined. We are seeing a huge increase in the number of advertisements in sponsorship that occur in all of our major sporting codes. There is a real blurring of the line between commentary and advertising. So the time has come to change it.
As I said when I started, when we began this campaign earlier this year it was clear that there was huge community concern. We took that on through our referral to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform and through the development of this bill, which we will continue to work on to get passed. We are pleased that there has been some response from government, but there is much, much more to do. During this election campaign we will continue to ensure that the issue of sports betting and the entanglement of gambling and sport remains on the agenda and that we get a firm commitment from whoever forms government to legislate and take decisive action.
Senator GALLACHER (South Australia) (11:50): I rise to speak in opposition to Senator Di Natale's bill. I have been thinking on what he is about, and I have a short story to relate. There is an Indigenous community where $20,000 is withdrawn from an ATM on a Thursday night, and the store in that community has receipts for about $14,000 over the next few days. The question is: what has happened to the other $6,000? The answer is: it is gambled by people who lack education and also lack work, so they sit down under the trees and gamble. I was wondering in listening to Senator Di Natale's contribution how this legislation was going to affect those people. Will they be watching the TV at nine o'clock at night? I do not think so.
Debate interrupted.
NOTICES
Presentation
Senator Milne: To move:
That standing order 18 establishing the Committee of Privileges be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph (1), omit “7”, substitute “8”; and
(b) omit paragraph (3), substitute:
(3) The committee shall consist of 8 senators, 4 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 nominated by a minority party and independent senators.
Senator Collins: To move:
That:
(1) On Monday, 24 June, Tuesday, 25 June, Wednesday, 26 June and Thursday, 27 June 2013, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
(2) On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, consideration of:
(a) matters of public interest; and
(b) government documents shall not be proceeded with, and instead the routine of business shall be government business only.
(3) Divisions may take place on:
(a) Wednesday, 26 June 2013, from 12.45 pm to 2 pm; and
(b) Thursday, 27 June 2013, after 4.30 pm.
(4) On Monday, 24 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.40 pm; and
(b) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
(5) On Tuesday, 25 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 11 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business from not later than 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.
(6) On Thursday, 27 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6 pm and 7 pm to 11.40 pm;
(b) the routine of business from not later than 3.30 pm to 4.20 pm and not later than 7 pm shall be government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
(7) The Senate meet on Friday, 28 June 2013, and that:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 3.40 pm;
(b) the routine of business shall be:
notices of motion, and
government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3 pm.
(8) On Wednesday, 26 June 2012:
(a) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Lines to make her first speech without any question before the chair;
(b) immediately after Senator Lines' first speech, valedictory statements may be made relating to Senators Joyce and Humphries.
(9) The following government business orders of the day shall have precedence over all other government business, be called on in the following order and be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be as follows:
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013 |
commencing no later than 7.30 pm until 8 pm on 24 June 2013 |
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 9 pm on 24 June 2013 |
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 9.45 pm on 24 June 2013 |
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2013; Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013; Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013; and Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 10.50 pm on 24 June 2013 |
Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 11.00 am until 11.40 am on 25 June 2013 |
Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 12.20 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Australia Council Bill 2013; and Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.45 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Australian Jobs Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 4 pm until 5.45 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 6) Bill 2012 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 6.30 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2013; and Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 8.10 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Tax Laws Amendment (Countering Tax Avoidance and Multinational Profit Shifting) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 8.50 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013; and Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 10.20 pm on 25 June 2013 |
Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013; Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013; Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013; and Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 9.35 am until 10.15 am on 26 June 2013 |
Australian Education Bill 2013; and Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1 pm on 26 June 2013 |
Malabar Headland Protection Bill 2012 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.20 pm on 26 June 2013 |
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 and Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.55 pm on 26 June 2013 |
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 12.45 pm until 1.10 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013 and Migration Amendment (Offshore Resources Activity) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.40 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.55 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 3.45 pm until 4.30 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Charities Bill 2013 and Charities (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 7.40 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Law Enforcement Integrity, Vulnerable Witness Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 8.20 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 10 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Private Health Insurance Amendment (Lifetime Health Cover Loading and Other Measures) Bill 2012; and Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Base Premium) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 10.55 pm on 27 June 2013 |
Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013; and Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Imposition Bill 2013 |
commencing no later than 9.35 am until 10 am on 28 June 2013 |
Health and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 10.30 am on 28 June 2013 |
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 11 am on 28 June 2013 |
Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 11.20 am on 28 June 2013 |
Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013; Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 2) Bill 2013; and Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until noon on 28 June 2013 |
Higher Education Support Amendment (Asian Century) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 12.40 pm on 28 June 2013 |
Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 1.30 pm on 28 June 2013 |
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014 and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2013-2014; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2013-2014 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 2 pm on 28 June 2013 |
Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013; Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; and Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013 |
commencing immediately after the preceding item until 2.20 pm on 28 June 2013 |
(10) Paragraph (9) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
COMMITTEES
Selection of Bills Committee
Report
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:51): I present the seventh report of 2013 of the Selection of Bills Committee.
Ordered that the report be adopted.
Senator McEWEN: I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 7 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 7.18 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the Telecommunications Amendment (Get a Warrant) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2013 (see appendix for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Rural Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment Bill 2013 Primary Industries (Customs) Charges Amendment Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments— Excise) Bill 2013
Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013 Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Country of Origin Food Labelling) Bill 2013
Interactive Gambling Amendment (Virtual Credits) Bill 2013
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2013
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart) Bill 2013.
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
20 June 2013
APPENDIX
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Telecommunications Amendment (Get a Warrant) Bill 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The relative merits and human rights and privacy implications should be compared for returning to the pre-2007 warrant authorisation procedures for law enforcement and intelligence agencies wishing to access telecommunications data or maintaining the current warrantless system that provides vast amounts of private data without warrant or judicial oversight.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Law Council of Australia
Law Society of New South Wales
Liberty Victoria
Australian Lawyers Alliance
Australian Human Rights Commission
Civil Liberties Australia
Human Rights Law Resource Centre Ltd
Dr Patrick Emerton, Monash University Law School
Justice John Dowd, President, Australian chapter of the Int'l Commission of Jurists
Castan Centre for Human Rights Law
Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of NSW
Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network
Sydney Centre for International Law, Faculty of Law, Sydney University
Australian Federal Police
State and Territory Police Forces
Attorney General's Department
ASIO
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional References Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
July/August
Possible reporting date:
31 October 2013
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee member
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:51): I move:
That:
(a) government business orders of the day nos 2 to 21 be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Question agreed to.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:52): I move:
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 1282 standing in the name of Senator Fifield relating to border protection; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
Question agreed to.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (11:52): I move:
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 27 June 2013 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators’ bills:
No. 111 Migration Amendment (Reinstatement of Temporary Protection Visas) Bill 2013 [No. 2].
No. 102 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2012.
Question agreed to.
NOTICES
Postponement
The following items of business were postponed:
General business notice of motion no. 1272 standing in the name of Senator Rhiannon for today, relating to small-scale food producers, postponed till 24 June 2013.
General business notice of motion no. 1284 standing in the name of Senator Siewert for today, relating to dialysis programs, postponed till 24 June 2013.
MOTIONS
Economics References Committee
Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (11:53): I, and also on behalf of Senators Cameron and Milne, move:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2014:
The performance of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), with particular reference to:
(a) ASIC's enabling legislation, and whether there are any barriers preventing ASIC from fulfilling its legislative responsibilities and obligations;
(b) the accountability framework to which ASIC is subject, and whether this needs to be strengthened;
(c) the workings of ASIC's collaboration, and working relationships, with other regulators and law enforcement bodies;
(d) ASIC's complaints management policies and practices;
(e) the protections afforded by ASIC to corporate and private whistleblowers; and
(f) any related matters.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill 2013
First Reading
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (11:55): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to ensure that minimum standards about workers' rights are included in certain international agreements, and for related purposes. Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Senator MADIGAN: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator MADIGAN (Victoria) (11:55): by leave—I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The speech read as follows—
FAIR TRADE (WORKERS' RIGHTS) BILL 2013
Today I rise to introduce the Fair trade (Workers' Rights) Bill 2013.
This is the first in a series of Fair Trade Bills I intend to introduce in the hope of bringing us closer to that mythical 'level playing field' we are told we enjoy through our international trade agreements.
The Fair Trade (Compliance of Imported Goods of Imported Goods with Australian Standards) Bill which addresses the appalling state of imported goods that are never brought up to meet Australian Standards before being sold to the consumer, should be introduced next Thursday. Two further Bills, on Intellectual Property and Patent Protection & Biosecurity and Food Standards will be introduced in the next session, which I presume will be after the coming election.
All these Bills are aimed at making Australian Manufacturers and Farmers more competitive in the face of a flood of imported goods that are grown and manufactured under conditions against which Australian producers simply cannot compete.
However today sees the introduction of the first of these Bills. The Fair Trade (Workers' Rights) Bill is a simple piece of legislation.
Its basic intentions are twofold.
First it aims to demonstrate that the Australian people care about the rights of workers, not only in Australia but across the world.
Second, it aims to make Australian industries more competitive in our home markets and to protect the jobs of Australian workers and small businesses.
I know some will say this Bill cannot work because we cannot legislate for countries other than Australia. To some extent that is true, however, that is not what this Bill seeks to do. What is constantly overlooked in our trade negotiations is that we can legislate on which products we accept into this country and the circumstances under which we will accept them.
Successive Governments, whether ALP or Coalition have failed to ensure a future for Australian manufacturing and farming.
Politicians of both sides have always been happy to don a hard hat and a high vis-vest and pose for a photo opportunity inside a factory or sitting astride a tractor but once the cameras go, so does the zeal of the politician.
How many times have we heard the cry that Australian manufacturers and farmers are on a level playing field with our competitors, that our international markets are growing and that our Free Trade Agreements are bringing us prosperity and a bright future?
Well, Mr President, I don't know where this vision of prosperity is coming from unless they see it at the bottom of the ever deepening holes we are digging around this country. I can guarantee that most Australian workers have a different vision, and no amount of political rhetoric will change that.
Put simply, there is no level playing field. We know it and the Australian people know it. And what's worse our international competitors know it and are only too glad to exploit it.
Today, instead of raising the standards of imported goods to the levels of quality equal to that of Australian manufacturers, we are expecting Australian producers to compete against low quality goods that are produced under under-regulated conditions and in many cases using workers who are afforded few if any basic workers rights. The idea seems to be, that since those workers are out of sight they should be out of mind.
Fortunately most Australian workers, unions, manufacturers and farmers are appalled at the idea of our workers conditions being eroded because our governments support trade agreements that deny basic rights to fellow human beings.
How is it that almost every Australian can see the injustice, not to mention the economic stupidity, of this tactic while governments of both persuasions cannot?
I agree this tactic will result in a level playing field; but do we really want it if it's achieved by making Australian workers as poverty stricken as their overseas counterparts. Better to bring them closer to the conditions we enjoy.
Mr President, I don't think we should be playing with the lives and livelihood of our manufacturers and farmers.
I introduce this Bill in the hope it can address some of these vitally important issues and will seek the agreement of all parties to improve our competitiveness while addressing the rights of workers both here and overseas.
Senator MADIGAN: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013
First Reading
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (11:56): I move:
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for protecting animal welfare in Commonwealth regulated activities, and for related purposes. Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2013.
Question agreed to.
Senator RHIANNON: I present the bill and move:
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (11:57): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speech read as follows—
VOICE FOR ANIMALS (INDEPENDENT OFFICE OF ANIMAL WELFARE) BILL 2013
It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill. My colleague Adam Bandt recently introduced a similar bill in the House of Representatives.
Establishing an independent Office of Animal Welfare is long overdue.
It is long overdue from the point of view of improving the welfare of animals, obviously.
It is also a long overdue promise from Labor.
While the animal rights movement has been working hard to improve animal welfare for decades in Australia, the call for an Office of Animal Welfare became very loud following the 2011 live export scandal.
As Former High Court Judge and patron of Voiceless, The Hon Michael Kirby recounts:
" On the ABC ' s Four Corners program in May 2011, we collectively learned the uncomfortable truth about live export to Indonesia. More than 500,000 Australian cattle are sent to Indonesian slaughterhouses each year, and many face brutal treatment. We watched these animals have their eyes gouged, tendons cut and tails broken, and we heard the guttural bellowing of intense pain.
Confronted by this disturbing reality, the Australian public demanded change from their political representatives.
In November 2011, two and a half years ago now, the ALP National Conference baulked at a motion calling for an end to live exports.
This no doubt disappointed the millions of Australians who are concerned about animal welfare and were appalled by the exposure of the cruelty involved in the live export trade.
What instead gained the support of the ALP National Conference at that time was a motion calling for the establishment of an Independent Office of Animal Welfare.
As a result, in November a year later, the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party Caucus endorsed the Caucus Live Animal Export Working Group to develop a model for an Office of Animal Welfare. Its functions were proposed to include developing and reviewing domestic animal welfare standards, harmonising domestic laws and monitoring and reporting on surveillance and enforcement of domestic and live animal export regulation.
The Working Party was directed to report back to caucus by the end of February 2013, with a model for an independent office.
In March 2013 the Agriculture Minister Mr Joe Ludwig informed Greens Leader Christine Milne during question time in the Senate that he had received the report from the Working Party.
But what has happened since that time, and where is the political will to deliver on the wishes of Labor's National Conference? That is anyone's guess.
Minister Ludwig employed the time honoured tool of buck-passing to the states in his response to Senator Milne. His lack of enthusiasm was palpable when he said:
" I recognise that there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories " .
There are indeed complex constitutional issues involved when it comes to jurisdiction over animal welfare issues, but this bill shows they can be accommodated.
A handful of Labor backbenchers, including Kelvin Thomson and Melissa Parkes, have been strong advocates for an Office of Animal Welfare.
Yet they appear to be voices in the Labor wilderness.
On May 15 Labor and the Coalition voted down my motion calling on Minister Ludwig to immediately report to Parliament on what progress had been made to set up the Office. The motion also asked the Minister to commit to legislation to establish the Office before the September 2013 election.
The failure to move on the ALP National Conference's resolution has disappointed many. Particularly as costing from the Parliamentary Budget Office obtained by the Greens show its establishment would be virtually cost neutral - $0.5 million in 2013/2014.
There is nothing stopping the Government from acting now to establish the Office except political will.
It is interesting to compare the inaction of the Gillard government in establishing an Office of Animal Welfare to its response in May 2011 after the Indonesian live export scandal broke.
In the face of massive public dismay at the animal cruelty that had been exposed in the live export industry it took a mere five months for the government to announce a new regulatory scheme for live exports, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System or ESCAS scheme.
Yet we have seen two and a half years of feet-dragging by Minister Ludwig when it comes to the relatively simple job of establishing an independent Office of Animal Welfare.
In recent months Animals Australia have done more outstanding work to expose the cruel practices in many overseas abattoirs where livestock from Australia are slaughtered.
These tragic developments are a further reminder why we need the Office of Animal Welfare.
The Greens back an end to live exports. An end to this cruel trade can deliver a win win – we can lift animal welfare standards and increase the number of jobs in regional Australia by processing the meat here.
The Gillard Government likes to trumpet its new ESCAS system as transformative when it comes to protecting the welfare of live animals exported overseas, claiming that "Australia is the only country to introduce reforms that require specific animal welfare conditions for its exported livestock".
Yet the reality is that expose after expose shows that the system is failing animals.
It is clear that the shipment from Australia and the slaughter of livestock in overseas abattoirs cannot be controlled from a desk in Canberra.
As the Australian Greens animal welfare spokesperson I have a bill to end live exports, the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2012, currently being debated in the Senate. This is the same bill my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert introduced in the Senate in 2011, and the Greens MP for Melbourne Adam Bandt introduced in the House of Representatives.
In the days leading up to the vote in the house, more than 20,000 Australians took to the streets to call on the government to ban live animal exports and around 350,000 people signed a petition calling for a ban. Yet only Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie supported the Greens bill and it was voted down by the major parties.
To advance an end to live exports I published a position paper identifying five key issues the government must address to end the live export trade, grow Australia's meat processing and gain the benefits of creating jobs and expanding regional economies.
Processing animals in Australia protects them from inhumane treatment and ensures our laws and standards regarding animal welfare can be upheld.
Because of the failure of the Gillard government to act to transition away from live exports, a key function of the new Office of Animal Welfare is to review and monitor the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System and to undertake inquiries and prepare reports on these matters.
Recommendations of the office arising from this function must be publicly responded to by the Minister.
Other key functions of the Office are to establish it as a Centre of Excellence for the collection and dissemination of information about animal welfare issues that impact the Commonwealth. It will undertake inquiries, commission research and prepare reports about issues, including the effectiveness of Commonwealth laws that apply to the export of live animals, scientific and legal issues that arise in respect of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy, and the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and the Model Codes of Practice for Animal Welfare.
The Office will seek to harmonise animal welfare laws of the Commonwealth, States and Territories and will be handed an oversight role examining the activities and effectiveness of the Live Export Advisory Group and the Australian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
The Office will scrutinise the Department of Agriculture's activities in areas such as monitoring the effectiveness of the Commonwealth's animal welfare laws and the Department's compliance with these laws.
The Office will also be charged with considering the effectiveness of the Department's implementation of the Commonwealth's animal welfare policy.
To assist the Office perform these duties to a high standard the CEO of the new Office of Animal Welfare will be guided by the advice of an Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. On this Committee will sit representatives of animal welfare organisations, consumer groups, scientists and ethicists specialising in animal welfare issues, the Department and commercial producers or purchasers of animals or animal products.
The Office's key functions, including reviewing and monitoring live export standards and the ESCAS system, and reviewing and reporting on mechanisms capable of improving animal welfare at Commonwealth, State and Territory levels are supported by the ability of the CEO of the Office to report and make recommendations to Parliament which the Minister is required to publicly respond to.
The abuse of animal welfare uncovered in the live exports trade is just one of many issues driving the Greens to establish an independent watchdog for animal welfare.
Cruel practices undertaken as part of factory farming are motivating many Australians to campaign for improved conditions for animals.
While animal welfare is the responsibility of Federal, state and territory agriculture departments, experience shows it is often given short shrift.
Charging departments of agriculture with responsibility for animal welfare has proven to be a failure. Their focus has been on assisting the very industries which put profits before the humane treatment of animals.
This is clearly illustrated by the fact that it has been animal welfare groups which have acted as the watchdogs and champions of animal rights, not agriculture departments.
It has been Animals Australia and the RSPCA which have been so effective in exposing the string of scandals in the live export industry.
I would like to congratulate these organisations as well as tenacious bodes like Animal Liberation, the Humane Society International Australia and Voiceless, which have been relentlessly and strategically campaigning for the better treatment of animals in Australia.
The Australian Greens believe creating an Independent Office of Animal Welfare would be another step towards improved animal welfare, protection and rights.
The establishment of this Office will help put animal welfare firmly on the federal government's agenda, at a time when big agribusiness and factory farming predominates.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
Senator RHIANNON: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
MOTIONS
Kingdom of Bahrain
Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:58): I, and also on behalf of Senator Milne, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 14 February marked 2 years since the outbreak of the 2011 period of major unrest in the Kingdom of Bahrain,
(ii) this period has been characterised by a mass protest movement calling for constitutional, political and election reform,
(iii) since then, there have been reports of ongoing human rights violations against opposition figures, demonstrators and medical practitioners at the hands of the authorities, including fatalities and arbitrary political arrests, and
(iv) there have also been reports of acts of violence against the state, resulting in injury, and in some cases, fatalities;
(b) welcomes the resumption of Bahrain's National Dialogue on 10 February 2013 as a positive step towards political and related reform and reconciliation and urges all parties to commit fully to the process and to reject violence; and
(c) appeals to the Australian Government to call on the Kingdom of Bahrain to:
(i) follow through on its commitment to full implementation of the recommendations of the November 2011 Report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry on human rights violations during the 2011 unrest,
(ii) release political prisoners who were arrested arbitrarily, investigate new reports of human rights abuses and bring the perpetrators to justice,
(iii) respect the human rights of its people, including the right to freely protest, and the right of medical staff to give unhindered treatment to those injured while protesting, and
(iv) commit to genuine reform that addresses the legitimate concerns and aspirations of the people of Bahrain.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Biosecurity Bill 2012 [2013] and the Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bill 2012 [2013] be extended to 27 November 2013.
Question agreed to.
Environment and Communications References Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the protection of Australia's threatened species and ecological communities be extended to 4 July 2013.
Question agreed to.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Reporting Date
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (11:58): I move:
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiry into sports science in Australia be extended to 10 July 2013.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
World Refugee Day
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (11:59): I move:
(a) acknowledges that 20 June 2013 is World Refugee Day, when all nations recognise the resilience and humanity of forcibly displaced people around the world;
(b) notes that when Australia signed the Refugee Convention in 1954, one of the earliest countries to do so, Australia's delegate said That the Government regards the adoption of the Convention as a necessary step towards alleviating the conditions facing large numbers of people whose plight is one of the saddest facts of our unhappy world; and
(c) reaffirms Australia's strong commitment to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol.
Question agreed to.
Fisheries
Senator WHISH-WILSON (Tasmania) (12:00): I, and also on behalf of Senator Thorp, move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the uncertainty about the environmental impacts of the operation of large mid water trawl freezer vessels in the Small Pelagic Fishery, and
(ii) a temporary ban on this new method of fishing is in place along with funding to perform further scientific research; and
(b) commits to supporting the completion of this scientific research, its funding, and the associated temporary ban.
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator WHISH-WILSON: One of the biggest environmental campaigns we have seen in the last few years in this country has been on the back of a supertrawler coming to this country to employ industrial-scale fishing in the small pelagic fishery. We managed to get a temporary ban put in place on supertrawlers entering our waters, subject to some scientific research and studies which are now underway. Approximately $1 million has gone into looking at the uncertainties evident in this fishery, which will certainly guide us on future fisheries management in this country. I note that, with four to five days left of parliament and the possibility—some say 'likelihood'—of a change of government, a new federal environment minister can remove this ban. I would like to make it very clear that the recreational fishers, the scientists, the people who supported this ban being put in place—and many of them have recently spoken on the Catalyst program—would like to see the opposition today make a clear statement of their support for maintaining the science— (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (11:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator COLBECK: Senator Whish-Wilson talked about the campaign that was run. I would have to say that it was one of the most dishonest campaigns that I have seen run by the Greens for a long time. The opposition does dispute the uncertainty surrounding this issue. If the minister had taken the time to inform himself, he may very well have been more certain. If you do not inform yourself, you certainly will be uncertain. The motion talks about the science. We know that the Greens are actually anti science, and that is supported by statements such as 'I don't care about the science; I just don't want the boat.' I note that the quota—
Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I would like Senator Colbeck to state exactly where that—
The PRESIDENT: No. That is debating the issue. You have got to have a point of order. You cannot debate the issue now.
Senator Whish-Wilson: Mr President, it is actually incorrect. I would like the senator to withdraw that statement.
The PRESIDENT: No. That is not a point of order. There is no point of order there.
Senator COLBECK: The senator seems to be adopting the Howard Sattler defence now. I note that the quota for that fishery has just been reset at very similar levels to what was set previously. So there stands the coalition's position.
Asylum Seekers
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (12:03): I move:
That the Senate calls for all asylum seekers and refugees who are released into the community on a bridging visa to be granted the right to work and support themselves.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
National Parks
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (12:10): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Australians are outraged that our national parks are under threat from logging, grazing, shooting and tourism developments, and
(ii) it is too late to secure by regulation national protection for national parks in this parliamentary term; and
(b) calls on the Government to act on its promise to protect our national parks by amending the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 before this Parliament rises.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:11]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Environment
Senator WATERS (Queensland) (12:13): I move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia's national environment laws only regulate this country's most environmentally destructive projects which threaten our most precious species and wild places; and
(b) calls on the Government to amend our national environment laws before this Parliament rises to ensure these responsibilities cannot be handed to state or territory governments.
The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Parliamentary Zone
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (12:16): I move:
That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone:
(a) the installation of pay parking infrastructure; and
(b) the relocation of the Torsional Wave outdoor exhibit.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (12:16): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator HUMPHRIES: The policy which is being implemented today with this motion to begin works in the Parliamentary Triangle on paid parking infrastructure is bad government policy. It amounts to an imposition of a very heavy cost on a large number of users of the Parliamentary Triangle, particularly public servants and others using national institutions in that area. It comes for an area of Canberra in which there is a general lack of commercial or community services available to users of the zone. Services which are provided are difficult to access and usually come with a cost premium. The public transport alternatives available to workers in the zone are slow and inflexible, insufficient in frequency and stops, disorganised in peak times and wholly inadequate out of peak times. However, the coalition will not be opposing the motion, because it has been linked to the raising of $73 million in revenue and it is irresponsible to oppose the government's achieving that goal.
Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:18): I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
Senator RHIANNON: The Australian Greens do not oppose this motion. However, we do wish to make our position clear. We believe the revenue raised from the parking fees should be provided to the ACT government to improve public transport in Canberra. There is a clear link here. Public transport needs to be developed as Canberra is growing. It is already a wonderful, livable city, but that can be lost if the congestion is allowed to increase. By linking the revenue from parking fees to public transport, we can have a great advance here, benefiting the social livability of the city as well as the environment.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Regulations and Ordinances Committee
Delegated Legislation Monitor
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:19): On behalf of Senator Furner, the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present the Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 6 of 2013.
Human Rights Committee
Additional Information
Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:19): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Social Security Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee
Report
Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (12:20): I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on justice reinvestment, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.
Ordered that the report be printed.
Senator WRIGHT: I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I am pleased to speak about the findings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee inquiry into the value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia, both as the chair of the committee and as the legal affairs spokesperson for the Australian Greens and the initiator of this inquiry. The Senate referred this matter to the committee on 26 November last year. In moving for the inquiry, I was responding to very serious concerns throughout Australia about the growing rate of Indigenous incarceration and unsustainable spending on prisons in this country. It followed great concern amongst academics and social groups and from the Indigenous community in Australia. I will talk more about the contributions of these groups later.
I want to briefly explain the concept of justice reinvestment first. Justice reinvestment involves redirecting or reinvesting resources from prisons into programs and strategies that are proven to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. These programs and strategies are focused on the communities which have been identified as giving rise to the greatest concentration of offenders who end up in prison. Not surprisingly, these are communities where there is poverty and disadvantage. The results are less crime, safer communities and large financial savings—win, win, win. It is an old idea with a new name effectively, the idea that prevention is better than cure. But what is new is the rigour that is brought to the process, with scrupulous data collection, analysis, consultation and evaluation. It is evidence based policy, not just intuitive, and it has been proven to work.
The justice reinvestment approach originated in the United States, which had a 700 per cent increase in its prison population between 1970 and 2005. Despite the number of prisoners being locked away, people were not feeling safer. Budgets were blowing out. In the end it was the spiralling costs that focused the minds of decision makers and have helped convince both Democrats and Republicans, in a rare display of bipartisanship, to embrace the concept. Since then there have been phenomenal results in many US states, including Texas—hardly known for a warm and fuzzy approach to crime.
Australian prison statistics may not be as bad as those in the United States, but they are still alarming. Over the last 30 years, the number of people in Australian prisons has tripled. Our prison population is growing well above general population growth. Each year, our prisons across the nation cost us $3 billion just in operating costs, let alone payroll and building expenses. Add to that the costs to government through welfare, health and other services and the social costs borne by communities and families and you see that this is an immense challenge we cannot ignore.
It is in Indigenous communities that the real costs of prisons are felt most keenly. On any one day in Australia there will be almost 8,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in jail, at a rate 14 times higher than the rest of the population. If this rate of increase continues, the number of Indigenous adults in prison will double in just 12 years. And the situation is even worse amongst youth. Less than five per cent of young Australian people are Indigenous, but in 2011-12 almost half of all young people in detention were of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. These figures reflect a total failure of public policy and are a national shame.
Prisons will always be necessary for some, but for most offenders they are only a temporary solution to criminal behaviour. Most people leave prison and return to the same communities from which they came but often in an even more dysfunctional state than when they entered prison. Forty-four per cent of those will then be back in prison within two years. This revolving door is unproductive and expensive. As one of my colleagues on the inquiry—Senator Humphries—observed, prisons are a failed institution.
Given this context, there is a clear need for a new approach to crime and justice in Australia and there is a broad political will for change. This inquiry received 131 submissions. They were overwhelmingly in favour of a justice reinvestment model. We heard from groups as diverse as the National Congress of Australia's First Peoples, Red Cross Australia, the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Chief Magistrate in the Northern Territory. Mental health, youth, legal advocacy and church groups were also strongly represented.
The inquiry has made a number of recommendations. Before going into these in detail, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention some compelling evidence which gives an example of overincarceration and use of prisons as a first, rather than last, resort. I refer to the testimony of Mr Peter Collins, Director of Legal Services of the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia, which illustrates a culture of incarceration, particularly among Indigenous youth. Mr Collins told the committee:
In 2005, I appeared for a 16-year-old boy from a place called Onslow who spent 12 days in custody for attempting to steal a $2.50 ice cream. In 2009 I appeared for a 12-year-old boy who had never been in trouble who was charged with receiving a Freddo frog worth 70c. In 2010 I appeared for a 16-year-old boy with a serious intellectual disability who had never been in trouble. He was charged with receiving a soft toy. He spent four days in custody before he was released again by a magistrate. In 2011, we appeared for an Aboriginal girl from Roebourne in the Pilbara who was charged with trespass. She was found on the weekend playing in playground equipment in the local primary school. This year we have acted for an Aboriginal man from Perth who is homeless and a chronic alcoholic. He was charged with robbery involving a $1 packet of noodles taken from another homeless man. He up until yesterday had spent three months and two weeks on remand because he could not get bail.
That was the testimony that we heard in Western Australia.
The core theme of this inquiry's recommendations is for action at a federal level to change the trajectory of our justice system—to save money and create safer and stronger communities. The Commonwealth must take a leading role. We need excellent, reliable, comprehensive data to identify the at-risk communities where resources need to be directed. Huge gaps and inconsistencies in data were identified by many stakeholders. As such, we have specifically recommended that the Commonwealth—which is best placed to identify, coordinate and distributed nationally consistent data—consider establishing a justice reinvestment clearing house to promote good data research and program evaluation.
The committee acknowledges that it is states and territories which have primary responsibility for criminal justice, but increasing incarceration rates are occurring in all jurisdictions. As such, the committee is of the view that there is a benefit in a national approach to tackling this problem through justice reinvestment and that there are many ways the Commonwealth can encourage and support the concept. Justice reinvestment also offers significant economic benefits to the Commonwealth, particularly through a decrease in the need for welfare services and income support. Justice reinvestment also aligns with the Commonwealth's role in promoting human rights and the aims and initiatives of Closing the Gap.
Broad changes to Australia's justice system are not possible without the support and advocacy of the Commonwealth. We anticipate the central role of the Commonwealth would be in setting a policy landscape and encouraging state and territory buy-in through mechanisms like COAG. We want to see Commonwealth leadership. As such, I am pleased the committee has recommended the Commonwealth take an active role in advocating for justice reinvestment at COAG, establishing and funding trials of justice reinvestment and promoting the establishment of an independent central coordinating body for justice reinvestment.
Finally, the committee has also recommended that the Commonwealth to seek the establishment of justice targets for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people as part of the Closing the Gap initiative. This has long been neglected, but closing the gap will not happen without reducing the imprisonment rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
This inquiry has involved a great deal of hard work from a number of people and organisations. For this reason I would particularly like to thank those who made submissions and those who gave evidence to the inquiry. I also wish to give my sincere thanks to the secretariat of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, who have put an immense amount of work into crafting the report. It is one of the longer committee reports that I have had the pleasure to read, and it involved many hours of work on the part of the secretariat, particularly Ms Christine McDonald. I am very pleased to be able to commend this report to the Senate.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (12:30): I want to make a brief contribution to the debate. Because of the pressure of time, I do not want to detain the Senate for long, but I do want to put to the Senate the perspective of coalition senators who participated in this inquiry. Let me make it clear that the proposition that a diversion of resources and focus in our justice system away from reactively dealing with the incidents of crime and proactively transferring those resources and that focus to preventative approaches which attack rates of offending, rates of imprisonment and recidivism is a very worthwhile concept. It is almost so obvious as to be unarguable.
In that spirit, on behalf of coalition senators I want to commend the many people involved across Australia at the present time in programs to provide examples of justice reinvestment—where attempts are being made to prevent, particularly, younger Australians getting on the treadmill of crime and imprisonment. We also thank the many submitters to the inquiry, who often described such programs. We believe that much good work—particularly at the state and territory level—is being done in this space.
But in the opinion of coalition senators there were two crucial gaps with respect to the delivery of concrete outcomes from this inquiry. Firstly, there is a dearth of evidence of any particular justice reinvestment programs operating in Australia to date which are sufficiently successful to allow that paradigm—that is, the transfer of resources from the criminal justice system, the court system and our prison system into preventative programs—to be achieved. In other words, it is likely that an investment—a heavy investment and regrettably a growing investment—in both areas will be necessary for a very long time to come.
Secondly, the problem is that the criminal justice system for the most part, and the penal system in its entirety, are the responsibilities of the states and territories—not of the Commonwealth. We saw a significant problem in the Commonwealth proposing to take leadership in this area and, in effect, steering and presumably funding important new programs collecting data, coordinating activities and perhaps trialling new forms of justice reinvestment. All of that entails a role which greatly exceeds the constitutional responsibilities of the Commonwealth in this area.
The courts and the prisons are the responsibilities of the states, and it is there that the cockpit for justice reinvestment approaches need to be trialled. It is there that justice reinvestment needs to be funded to succeed. I believe that much work is being done which points to possible future success in that area. But it is premature, as the committee majority recommends, for the Commonwealth to take over responsibility in those areas, because it lacks the constitutional responsibility for doing that and it lacks, with respect, the experience of operating a criminal justice system and a prison system sufficient to give it the kind of gravity necessary to properly provide leadership in that area. The complications that are evident from the Williams case in the High Court, which made it clear that there is a problem with the executive power of the Commonwealth supporting control of the Commonwealth for a number of schemes which are not directly the constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth, constitute one further complication in this area.
The Attorney-General's Department appeared before the inquiry and was asked whether it believed there were any outstanding programs capable of beginning this transfer of resources away from a reactive approach to a preventative approach, and, to quote the officer of the Attorney-General's Department:
I think the answer is no: there are no stellar examples about which you would say, 'Wow, if we rolled this out across the country, this would be fantastic'—out of those evaluations.
So the concept is sound. The will to explore this area further is much to be commended. But the recommendations suggesting an investment by the Commonwealth and the assumption of leadership by the Commonwealth in this area are far too premature to be supported. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
DisabilityCare Australia
Membership
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (12:36): The President has received a message from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of the appointment of Ms Brodtmann, Ms Hall, Mr C. Kelly, Ms Marino and Mr Marles to the Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia.
BILLS
Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Banking Amendment (Unclaimed Money) Bill 2013
Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (12:36): I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed on the Notice Paper as indicated on today’s Order of Business. I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (12:37): I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2013, and move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2013
Through the comprehensive amendments to the Australian Education Bill 2012 the Government is enshrining in law a new nationally consistent approach to funding school education based on the needs of schools and students.
This is the Government's commitment to ensure that the nation supports our schools so that every child gets the best possible start in life.
This legislative framework will make certain that Australia's schooling system is fair, appropriately supported and based on a culture of improvement and good practice.
We are ensuring that there is a plan for our children to be taught well in schools that are funded well.
This new national approach to schools funding is in response to the first comprehensive review of Australian school funding in almost 40 years.
Through the Australian Education Bill 2012, the Government's purpose is to ensure a high quality and highly equitable schooling system for all students, to achieve a national goal of being placed in the top five countries in reading, science and mathematics, quality and equity in recognised international testing by 2025.
For the first time all recurrent Commonwealth funding for participating schools will be delivered through fair and transparent needs-based arrangements, providing new investment linked to reforms that will help to improve each student's achievements at school.
For participating schools, additional investment will support the evidence-based reforms in the National Plan for School Improvement that are focused on quality teaching, quality learning, transparency and accountability, meeting student need and empowering school leadership.
No matter how rich or poor your parents are, the school you attend or the circumstances of your birth, school funding should be based on what it takes to ensure every student gets an excellent education.
The Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 would amend certain Commonwealth laws and contains transitional arrangements consequential to the enactment of the Australian Education Bill. It forms part of the Government's national school education reform agenda.
The Government has agreed that Commonwealth recurrent funding for all Australian schools and capital funding for non-government schools will be provided under the proposed Australian Education Act from 1 January 2014. This includes funding for schools participating in the reform arrangements and for government schools in States or Territories that choose not to participate.
The Australian Education Bill when enacted will succeed the provisions for recurrent funding under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 for government schools and recurrent and capital funding under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 for non-government schools.
Commonwealth funding to States and Territories for the administration of school systems and their associated recurrent expenditure, the national specific purpose payment for schools, is currently provided under section 11 of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. The funding is determined on a financial year basis, indexed and apportioned between the States and Territories by determination by the Treasurer under that Act. The estimated financial year payment, based on the latest available estimates of relevant growth parameters, is paid to the State in advance under section 19 of that Act. By convention, and consistent with the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations, these payments are made in monthly instalments. The Minister makes a final determination after the end of the financial year and any adjustment is made in the subsequent financial year.
Schedule 1 of the bill would repeal section 11 of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 in relation to national specific purpose payments to schools and transitional provisions would enable a smooth transition from a financial year appropriation under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009, to a calendar year appropriation under the proposed Australian Education Act.
Schedule 1 would also amend the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to cease calendar year funding for non-government schools for capital purposes under this Act from the end of the 2013 calendar year. Commonwealth capital funding for non-government schools is currently appropriated under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 through to December 2014 but is intended to be appropriated under the proposed Australian Education Act from January 2014.
Schedule 1 would also repeal a number of provisions of the Federal Financial Relations Act that deal with the total amount of financial assistance for the 2008-09 financial year, as these provisions are spent.
Schedule 2 of the bill contains transitional provisions, including providing for certain approvals and determinations required by or referred to under the Australian Education Bill to be deemed to have been made in reference to schools and authorities existing prior to 1 January 2014.
These provisions will ease transition and reduce the administrative burden for existing schools and systems moving to the new arrangements.
Specifically, these provisions would allow an approved authority for a non-government school or system under the Schools Assistance Act 2008 as of 31 December 2013 to be deemed an approved authority under the proposed Australian Education Act as of 1 January 2014. A similar provision applies in relation to block grant authorities who administer capital funding for non-government schools. The Minister will also be taken to have approved a State or Territory to be the approved authority for government schools located in their State or Territory.
Further, these transitional provisions also suspends requirements for an approved authority to be a body corporate and have a school improvement plan for each school until 31 December 2014, meaning compliance is not required until 1 January 2015, rather than immediately on 1 January 2014.
The changes in this bill support the implementation of the Government's schools funding reform and the National Plan for School Improvement.
BANKING AMENDMENT (UNCLAIMED MONEY) BILL 2013
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the Banking Act 1959 to exclude ‘reactivated accounts’ (accounts that have been assessed unclaimed but are transacted prior to be transferred to the Commonwealth) from being transferred to the Commonwealth and to allow the Commonwealth to return moneys collected unnecessarily to authorised deposit-taking institutions (ADIs).
The Government provided a transitional arrangement to ADIs assisting them to implement the legislative changes made late last year, which allow them to choose an assessment date between 31 December 2012 and 30 May 2013 for unclaimed bank accounts.
I am advised that some ADIs have implemented the changes on the basis of an assessment date that has already passed but have subsequently allowed transactions on accounts were unclaimed as at the assessment date. The holders of these accounts may think that they have reactivated their accounts and consequently they would not be transferred to the Commonwealth. However, under the current legislation, ADIs are required to report and transfer unclaimed moneys, including reactivated accounts, to the Commonwealth as at the reporting date.
The legislation amendments will allow ADIs to exclude reactivated accounts from their reports and transfers of unclaimed moneys to the Government. This will ensure reactivated accounts are not transferred to the Government unnecessarily.
The amendments will also allow the Government to provide refunds directly to ADIs for moneys collected unnecessarily.
Full details of the amendments in this Bill are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.
REGULATORY POWERS (STANDARD PROVISIONS) BILL 2012
The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012 will cut legal 'red tape'. This bill will cut up to 80 pages from Commonwealth acts and regulations.
It is an important initiative. The bill is part of the government's Clearer Laws project. The Clearer Laws project is designed to increase access to justice and improve the accessibility, equity, efficiency and effectiveness of the federal justice system by simplifying and streamlining the statute book.
This bill is a bill of general application. Perhaps the most well known act of general application that is currently on the statute book is the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, which contains definitions and statutory interpretation rules that are referred to across the Commonwealth statute book. The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill, like the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, is an act of general application for the enforcement of regulatory regimes that other acts can refer to and trigger.
This bill has two main aims. Firstly, to reduce the length of the statute book, as provisions relating to the enforcement of a regulatory regime can easily add 30 pages to an act.
Secondly, the bill will provide greater clarity to those agencies that use regulatory powers. It will make the law easier to understand for Australians and Australian businesses that are the subject of a regulatory regime.
Currently agencies with a regulatory function may enforce a number of different regulatory regimes, each of which may have different governing legislation. Similarly, businesses may be subject to a number of different regulatory regimes, each of which has slightly different enforcement and investigatory powers.
It is important to note that the powers that the bill provides will only be available to a regulatory agency if their governing legislation triggers or engages the bill. The powers contained in the bill can be triggered in whole or in part by a regulatory agency's governing legislation. For example, a regulatory agency's governing legislation may be amended to trigger only the part of the bill that deals with enforceable undertakings.
The bill will be rolled out carefully in three stages. In stage 1, new bills that require investigation or enforcement powers of the kind available under the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill will be drafted to trigger the relevant provisions.
In stage 2, acts that have been drafted over the past 18 months using precedents based on the Regulatory Powers Bill will be amended to remove those provisions and instead trigger the relevant provisions.
In stage 3, where substantial amendment is required to existing investigation and enforcement regimes, those regimes will be reviewed and, if appropriate, amended to instead trigger the relevant provisions in the Regulatory Powers Bill.
In some cases the powers contained in this bill will not be appropriate or sufficient for some regulatory agencies' requirements. For example, law enforcement agencies that deal with national security will continue to require their specialised powers. Similarly, some regulatory agencies may have specific requirements that are not met in this bill and consequently they may choose to not trigger the bill. Alternatively, they may choose to only trigger certain parts.
All three stages of the bill's application will still be required to undertake the scrutiny and approval processes of the parliament. For the regulatory provisions in the bill to be activated, new or existing legislation would need to be amended to remove its existing regulatory powers and incorporate the Regulatory Powers Bill's provisions. This also ensures that individual assessments of human rights engagement and compatibility will also be apparent in the drafting and scrutiny process.
The Regulatory Powers Bill provides a framework of standard regulatory functions carried out by agencies across the Commonwealth. The key features of the bill include monitoring and investigation powers as well as enforcement provisions through use of civil penalty, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions.
The monitoring powers in the bill are based on the standard monitoring powers that can already be found across the statute book. The bill provides for monitoring whether legislation is being complied with, or that information given to the Commonwealth in compliance, or purported compliance, is correct.
Similarly, the investigation powers contained in the bill are also commonly found across the statute book. The powers allow investigation of suspected contraventions of offences and civil penalty provisions. The suite of investigation powers provided in the bill include the powers to search and seize evidential material as well as inspect, examine, measure and test anything on the premises.
The bill also provides for the use of civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable understandings and injunctions to enforce provisions.
In conclusion, the Clearer Laws project will make Australian laws and legal system simpler. By improving the accessibility and consistency of the Commonwealth statute book, the law can be better understood, complied with and administered.
The Regulatory Powers Bill is integral to achieving this goal. By providing a consistent and central suite of regulatory powers provisions, this bill ensures that laws affecting agency oversight are both consistent, to ensure that the law is sufficiently certain and predictable, as well as flexible, to effectively take account of differences in agencies' functions.
This bill will cut legal 'red tape' and reduce the length of statutes by up to 80 pages in some cases.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013
First Reading
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (12:38): I move:
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a first time.
Second Reading
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (12:39): Firstly, I table a replacement explanatory memorandum relating to the Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013 and a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, and, secondly, move:
That these bills be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The speeches read as follows—
SUGAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BILL 2013
The Australian sugar industry, comprising more than 4 000 farms across Queensland and northern New South Wales, is an important contributor to regional economies in these areas and the Australian economy in general.
It produces on average 34 to 38 million tonnes of cane per season which equates to approximately 4.5 to 5.5 million tonnes of raw sugar, with a gross value of production of $1.5 to $2.5 billion.
More than 80% of this sugar is exported, making Australia the third largest raw sugar supplier in the world.
As with all industries, particularly those that are heavily export dependent, research and development underpins the competitiveness of the Australian sugar industry. It drives productivity improvements and ensures the economic viability of the industry. It also generates significant flow-on effects to the broader community and economy in terms of regional development, exports and employment opportunities.
It is vital that research and development is delivered in the most effective and efficient manner.
With this in mind, the Australian Sugar Industry Alliance undertook a review of research and development arrangements and recommended reform of these arrangements to best meet current and future needs.
On 22 September last year, it submitted a proposal to the Australian Government asking it to restructure research and development arrangements.
Under these reforms, the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC) and BSES Limited will be wound-up and their assets and research and development functions, along with the research coordination activities of Sugar Research Limited, transferred to the industry-owned company Sugar Research Australia Limited which was established on 8 May 2013.
Under the proposal, the statutory levy will increase from 14 cents per tonne to 70 cents per tonne of sugar cane that is processed or sold for processing, shared equally between growing and milling businesses. 35 cents a tonne will be paid by the growing business and 35 cents a tonne by the milling business.
While this is a significant increase, the new statutory levy will also replace the BSES Limited service fee for both growers and millers.
In considering the proposal, the government looked at other options, including continuation of existing arrangements. It also took account of objections received during the formal six week objection period, of which there were eight, and other representations on the issue.
The government determined that, on balance, this proposal represents the best mechanism for long-term delivery of research and development to the sugar industry.
This view is supported by industry. All levy paying businesses had the opportunity to vote on the new arrangements, including the increase in the levy, in a poll of all levy paying businesses run by the Australian Electoral Commission in August 2012. 84 per cent of those growers who voted supported the proposal. This represents 64 per cent of all cane growers. Seven of the eight milling businesses also voted in favour.
The changes will build on, rather than replace, current arrangements.
The knowledge and expertise of BSES Limited will not be lost but will transfer across to the new industry-owned company. Similarly, the research and development knowledge that has been facilitated and funded through SRDC will remain publicly available, as will that generated by Sugar Research Australia Limited.
Operating one industry research body should deliver increased efficiencies. The new company should have the capacity to better integrate and avoid duplication of research and development activities across the sugar industry supply chain, leading to a wider range of research opportunities and increased industry and public good benefits.
Incorporating the existing sugar statutory levy and voluntary contributions under a new statutory levy will eliminate free-rider problems as all industry members that benefit from research and development services provided by Sugar Research Australia Limited will now contribute the same amount to its operation through the new statutory levy.
The change should, therefore, create a stronger national research and development capability, establish equity in the industry in relation to financial contributions to R&D and provide certainty to growers and millers about their liabilities and the amount of funding that will be available for research and development.
There will also be reduced compliance costs for levy payers with growers and millers paying fewer individual levies and fees.
The bills before you today, the Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013, and its companion bills, the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013 and the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, provide the mechanism to implement key elements of reform of sugar R&D arrangements.
The Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013, which commences on the day after it receives Royal Assent, provides the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with the power to enter into a funding contract with an eligible company, currently proposed to be Sugar Research Australia Limited, to enable it to receive and invest levies collected by the Commonwealth for research and development. It will also allow it to receive the Commonwealth's matching funding for eligible research and development expenditure, up to a determined funding cap.
Once the funding contract is in place, and the minister is satisfied that Sugar Research Australia Limited will comply with its contractual and statutory obligations, the minister can declare the company with which the contract is made to be the industry services body.
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013 amends the imposition of the levy to ensure that all future uses of processed sugar cane will be captured by the levy. It also increases the levy rate from 1 July 2013.
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure the new arrangements operate as intended in respect of the collection of the levy.
It also covers matters arising from the transition to a new industry services body such as the transfer of assets and liabilities from SRDC to the industry services body and the wind-up of the SRDC on 30 September 2013.
While the government supports the proposal, it is also conscious of the need to make sure that appropriate governance arrangements are in place and, where appropriate, are reflected in Sugar Research Australia Limited's constitution.
In this regard, the government has made sure that issues such as accountability to government and members, protecting the rights of levy payers, appropriate consultation and the operation of Sugar Research Australia Limited as both a funder and provider of research have been addressed.
The government worked closely with the Australian Sugar Industry Alliance in the development of the constitution for Sugar Research Australia Limited to make sure it supports, among other things, a suitably skilled and independent board and the rights of all levy paying members to be treated equitably.
Sugar Research Australia Limited will be unique among rural research and development corporations as both a purchaser and provider of research. Sugar Research Australia Limited's constitution requires it to ensure the sugar industry is supported by research capability from a range of providers. In addition, and noting the potential for conflict-of-interest, there will be explicit governance oversight of this issue by the Audit and Risk Committee of Sugar Research Australia Limited.
The contract between the Commonwealth and Sugar Research Australia Limited, commonly referred to as the Statutory Funding Agreement, will also play a key role in achieving this objective.
The Statutory Funding Agreement will set out the expectations of the government in relation to the prudent management of industry and Commonwealth funds and the development of strategic and annual operating plans.
The Statutory Funding Agreement also requires the development of an agreed industry consultation plan and priority setting process. It is important that this is in place to both guide and ensure a broad industry consultation process. It is appropriate for all industry levy payers to be consulted on the operation of the company and to contribute to its priority setting processes.
In line with government policy, the Statutory Funding Agreement will require Sugar Research Australia Limited to identify extension pathways that will facilitate the adoption of its research and development outcomes. Every three years, it must undertake a performance review to assess the company's effectiveness in meeting the priorities, targets and budgets outlined in its plans, and its performance in meeting the obligations of the funding agreement. Final performance review reports will be publicly available.
With the Statutory Funding Agreement and the revised constitution, the government is confident that the governance arrangements for the new organisation will satisfy transparency and accountability requirements and support an efficient and effective organisation. This, in turn, should contribute to increased productivity and profitability for the sugar industry.
SUGAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2013
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, is one of the companion bills to the Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013. The other companion bill is the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013.
These bills provide the mechanism to implement key elements of reform to sugar research and development (R&D) arrangements.
The Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013, which comes into effect the day after it receives Royal Assent, provides the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with the power to enter into a funding contract with an eligible company to enable it to receive and administer levies collected by the Commonwealth for research and development. It will also allow it to receive the Commonwealth's matching funding for eligible research and development expenditure. Once the company has entered into the contract, and the minister is satisfied that the company will comply with its contractual and statutory obligations, the minister can declare the company to be the industry services body.
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013 amends the imposition of the levy to ensure that all future uses of processed sugar cane will be captured by the levy. It also increases the levy rate from 1 July 2013.
This bill makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure the new arrangements operate, as intended, in respect of the collection of the levy. These amendments will start taking effect from 1 July 2013.
It also covers matters arising from the transition to a new industry services body such as the transfer of assets and liabilities from the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC) to the industry services body and the wind-up of SRDC on 30 September 2013.
SRDC will continue to operate until this date to finalise wind-up activities such as its annual report, but its R&D activities will be transferred to the new industry services body from the date its is declared as such.
Industry has requested Sugar Research Australia Limited be declared as the industry services body by 1 July 2013 which is dependent on a funding contract between the Commonwealth and Sugar Research Australia Limited being in place.
The research and development activities of the Sugar Research and Development Corporation, and 75 per cent of its assets, will be transferred to Sugar Research Australia Limited on the date it is declared as the industry services body. This will ensure there is no break in existing research projects. The remaining assets will be held by the Sugar Research and Development Corporation to cover wind-up costs until it is abolished on 30 September 2013. Any remaining Sugar Research and Development Corporation assets and liabilities will be transferred to the industry services body on 1 October 2013.
SUGAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS—EXCISE) BILL 2013
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments—Excise) Bill 2013, is one of the companion bills to the Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013. The other companion bill is the Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013.
These bills provide the mechanism to implement key elements of reform to sugar research and development (R&D) arrangements.
Under the reforms, the Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC) and BSES Limited will be wound-up and their assets and R&D functions, along with the research coordination activities of Sugar Research Limited, transferred to Sugar Research Australia Limited (SRA). SRA is an industry owned company recently established by the sugar industry.
The Sugar Research and Development Services Bill 2013 provides the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, with the power to enter into a funding contract with an eligible company, currently proposed to be SRA, to enable it to receive and invest levies collected by the Commonwealth for research and development. It will also allow it to receive the Commonwealth's matching funding for eligible research and development expenditure, up to a determined funding cap.
Once the funding contract is in place, and the minister is satisfied that SRA will comply with its contractual and statutory obligations, the minister can declare the company to be the industry services body.
The industry services body will be funded by a statutory levy of 70 cents per tonne of sugar cane that is processed, or sold for processing, to be paid equally by growing and milling businesses—35 cents per tonne each.
The Sugar Research and Development Services (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 makes consequential amendments to existing legislation to ensure the new arrangements operate as intended in respect of the collection of the levy.
It also covers matters arising from the transition to a new industry services body such as the transfer of assets and liabilities from SRDC to the industry services body and the wind-up of the SRDC on 30 September 2013.
This bill amends the imposition of the levy to ensure that all future uses of processed sugar cane will be captured by the levy. It also increases the levy rate from 1 July 2013.
Section 55 of the Constitution states that laws imposing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.
Consequently, this bill is required to ensure that the sugar reform legislation does not contravene section 55 of the Constitution.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111.
Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (12:40): Finally this matter has been brought on. As shadow minister for ageing I am very pleased that this debate has finally begun. We have been ready to debate the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and the associated bills since Tuesday. I say on the record that the choice of how to order the business of the Senate was a matter for the government and the Greens alliance partners. I say this because the government has chosen to give priority to affording union officials access to work lunch rooms over matters like aged care. That says it all. To Minister Butler's carping supporters on the sidelines, who have chosen to be critical because these bills have not yet passed, I categorically say: this is not the coalition's fault. This has been a long, protracted and appalling process at every stage. Now, today, we have four minutes of debate today for these important bills.
The coalition at every step of the way have sought to facilitate the passage of these bills, but our priority has been to ensure that they receive proper scrutiny. They are very complex bills. We understand that, until these bills are passed, we are not going to get to the real substance, the detail, of this legislation, which is in the 18 pieces of delegated legislation. They contain the bulk of the issues which have caused the greatest angst to the coalition and to the sector.
The minister has told us that we will not see those instruments in final form until these bills are eventually passed. This process is nothing more than political blackmail by a minister showing disdain for the ageing and aged-care sector in general and a real lack of demonstrated interest in older Australians. After 18 months of staged consultations, mostly in ALP seats, and industry briefings with periods of only one week for the sector to respond, the minister has produced his legacy legislation at the eleventh hour of the Gillard government.
The government have stalled, played games and simply failed to get their act together and deal with this important matter, a matter so important to many people—older Australians, their families, their carers, aged-care providers, community care services and the hardworking staff in all those individual organisations. I once again say: do not blame the coalition. This is the government's fault. Of course, next week, we will have to join the queue with 100 or so other bills that this government have left until the last minute. It just shows the dysfunctionality of this government.
Back in 2010, when facing an election as the newly installed Prime Minister, Julia Gillard told us:
… aged care … will be a second term priority for my government.
We now know the meaning of those words is exactly the same as the meaning of, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Not only did the government lose the plot over the carbon tax but aged care also got lost somewhere in the last three years, until the final days of this parliament. The Productivity Commission review, resulting in the report Caring for older Australians, was initiated on 20 April 2010. The report was provided to the government on 28 June 2011 and released publicly on 8 August 2011. After sitting on the Productivity Commission report for more than 250 days, the government announced its Living Longer, Living Better package, on 28 April 2012. The government then waited another 327 days—that is 46 weeks and five days—before tabling their five bills in the House of Representatives, on 14 May this year, with only 16 days of parliamentary session remaining for debate. That was 18 months of procrastination, with 16 days for any action. This really shows us the value of Labor's second term priority for ageing Australians.
The coalition immediately referred these five bills to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee to examine the full impact of the changes, including how they would affect providers and older Australians, their families and their carers—even though the bills were still in the lower house. We did not wish to delay the process and wait for the bills to get to the Senate. The reporting date was initially set for 17 June. However, a majority of Labor and Greens senators on the committee voted to bring the reporting date forward to 31 May, thereby contracting further the period for meaningful consideration of the evidence before the committee.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! It being 12:45, the Senate will now move to non-controversial bills.
BILLS
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:45): The Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 establishes a national agency known as the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency, as recommended by the Asbestos Management Review. The coalition indicated its support of the Asbestos Management Review and its recommendations very early on. Now that we as a community are fully aware of all the dangers of asbestos and the effects that it has on people exposed to it, it makes good sense for all sides of politics and for unions and employers to join together to try to overcome the legacy issues that are clearly out there. Those legacy issues will remain with us as a country for at least another 30 years.
We in Australia have the highest reported per capita incidence of asbestos related disease in the world. It is estimated that by 2020 there will be 13,000 cases of mesothelioma in Australia. A further 40,000 Australians will contract asbestos related cancer. Mesothelioma and asbestos related cancer differ in the way that they affect families. These cancers do not affect you today or tomorrow but 10, 20 or 30 years or even longer after exposure. Over the years, we have all seen and heard of too many cases of people who have passed away or who are living with a disability because of exposure to asbestos. These are the stories of cases that not only cripple the families and friends but impact entire communities.
While Australia has had a nationwide ban on the production, importation and use of asbestos since 2003, we still have many serious legacy issues, as exposed by the recent NBN debacle. Many buildings in Australia still have asbestos or asbestos products within them, which put at risk do-it-yourself homebuilders and renovators in particular. Regulation of asbestos issues is vital and is a matter for all levels of government in Australia. The prevalence of asbestos in our built and natural environments also means that asbestos regulation spans multiple areas of government, including health, environment, urban planning and workplace health and safety. The involvement of multiple governments across these diverse areas means that efforts to date to address asbestos issues have been fragmented and duplicative.
Turning specifically to the bill, the coalition identified a number of issues with this bill and I recognise that Minister Shorten and Labor took steps to ensure that our concerns were addressed through certain amendments that were passed in the other place. One of those concerns was that, despite a clear recommendation from the management review that all states be involved in the council, the government sought to restrict membership to only include two representatives from the states and local government. We welcome the minister's decision to expand the membership of the council. It is our view that in order to ensure that the council works well and that all levels of government work together across the nation you need to have everyone at the table. The one-size-fits-all approach does not usually work. Direct input of each state will give direct purpose and direct responsibility to each state. We welcome the step in the right direction that are the amendments in the other place put forward by the minister, but we believe that it would be advantageous to have everyone at the table. Nonetheless, we recognise that the government did take a step in the right direction.
We also urge the expansion of the powers of the council so that its deliberations could be more broad-reaching within the confines of asbestos related issues and not limited by the minister of the day. I might also point out that the coalition is disappointed that the agency funding has been slashed. On 20 March 2013 Mr Shorten introduced the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill, which pledged, on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, under the financial impact statement heading:
The cost to establish a new statutory agency will be $12.3 million over the forward estimates.
Yet in the budget just weeks later, on 15 May, we have this:
The Government has introduced legislation and will invest $10.5 million over four years to establish the agency.
And that is on page 18 of the education, employment and workplace relations portfolio budget statement.
So, in just six weeks, Labor has cut $1.8 million from its own asbestos regulator before it is even established. I invite the minister, in the summing up, to explain the cut and detail the services that might not be available as a result of this cut. This cut needs to be explained, especially in light of the NBN asbestos debacle—an issue the coalition and I personally raised at Senate estimates over two years ago. The issues, the problems and the debacle were foreseen and warned about yet foolishly ignored in what appears to be the priority being given to the government's political NBN agenda over the health and wellbeing of Australian workers and Australian citizens. And, as is typical with this government, they always have money for their political agendas. They will have $22 million for the NDIS advertising campaign. They even found $10 million out of the normal budget process to fund the ABC's hopelessly biased and compromised fact checker before the election. They found that money. And how did they find it? They found it by cutting the asbestos agency. That says everything anyone ever needs to know about this government's funding priorities, and it is not pretty.
Nonetheless, the coalition supports this bill. To conclude, I will say that I commend the Australian trade union movement, which has taken a very proactive role in dealing with the issues of the hazards of asbestos. It would be fair to say that, without their active campaigning, things may not have progressed as far as they have and as quickly as they have. The coalition commends the bill to the Senate.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (12:53): I too support the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 and commend the government for introducing it, but I share the reservations Senator Abetz has raised in relation to what appear to be funding cuts to this agency. This is an important bill. I also should declare that I have been, for many years, a patron of the Asbestos Victims Association in South Australia. I was a co-patron with a number of other people, including former South Australian premier Mike Rann. I was very happy to be part of that, and I still am. I want to pay tribute to the selfless voluntary work of Terry Miller, who received an Order of Australia medal, and his team over many years to support victims of asbestos, to advocate for changes in the law. I was immensely proud to introduce legislative changes in the South Australian parliament back in November 2005 that were eventually passed with bipartisan support to significantly improve the compensation payable to asbestos victims. I want to pay tribute to Melissa Haylock, then a relatively young woman—in her early 40s—who suffered from mesothelioma and who has since, sadly, passed away, and to her family. I pay tribute to her courage in speaking out. She was instrumental in changing the law in South Australia.
This bill is important. It is important to acknowledge how serious an issue asbestos is in this country. I note from the information provided by the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia back in 2005 that with a latency period of between 20 and 50 years post exposure, mesothelioma cases and deaths are not due to peak in South Australia until 2020, with up to 2,000 South Australians dying from mesothelioma and up to double that number dying of other asbestos related diseases, including asbestosis and asbestos related lung cancer.
So this is a serious issue, and this is something that could have been avoided in the sense that we have known about the dangers of asbestos for many years now. But it was still being marketed and still being sold up until the late 1980s. That is why the book Killer Company, about James Hardie, was quite illustrative of the problem of there being knowledge yet the product is still being sold.
I share with Senator Abetz the concerns raised about the funding cuts. Also, if we are spending money on promoting, for instance, the National Broadband Network, in a huge advertising campaign—and it is something that the coalition has done perhaps even bigger and better with campaigns in the past, and Work Choices comes to mind—then I think that is not a good use of money; it should be spent here. And the other issue is that asbestos victims' groups and research groups around the country actually need the money to push research that could end up saving lives. Gene-splicing therapy has been tried in the United States with some mixed success. But we need to get a breakthrough, because at the moment mesothelioma is almost invariably a death sentence.
That is why I would like to think that this council will provide that research role. And my question to the parliamentary secretary representing the government is: to what extent does the government see the research role of this agency being important? And I do not just mean in preventing exposure: if someone does have an asbestos related disease, what role does this council play in advocating, in pushing for research, for if not a cure then at least medication or treatment that can prolong life in an appreciable and significant way? Right now, some of the experimental treatments may prolong life by a few precious months, but at the moment it is largely a death sentence, usually within nine months, to be diagnosed with mesothelioma.
Having said that, I support the legislation. I would like to think that this is part of a broader effort to reduce significantly the impact of asbestos in this country. I note the controversy recently in relation to the NBN and Telstra and the questions of asbestos exposure. It is an issue that has been brought to my attention by a number of constituents in South Australia. I think this is an issue that will not go away, and it is important that we do not have that next wave of mesothelioma sufferers or other asbestos victims in the next 20, 30, 40 or over 50 years time. That is why it is so important that we get it right now. But it is also important that we have enough funding, enough research to actually find a cure—or at least something that will extensively prolong the life of mesothelioma sufferers. I support this bill.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (12:58): I will begin by thanking senators for their contribution to this debate on the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 and indeed by thanking them for supporting this bill. Before concluding, I will just address some of the questions and points that have been raised by Senator Abetz and Senator Xenophon.
Firstly, with respect to Senator Abetz and the question of funding, I guess I would be keen to make the point that the Australian government has indicated that it will be providing some $10.5 million over the forward estimates. This funds the agency's 10 staff, together with the costs of the council and its research and communications activities. Further, the government has said that the agency will have sufficient funds to deliver the outcomes of the national strategic plan. I think it is worth noting, for the benefit of the Senate, that this agency—the Office of Asbestos Safety—has commissioned Allen Consulting to undertake an analysis of asbestos removal approaches. This report is now being revised in the light of consultations on the draft National Strategic Plan. Until that information is provided and assessed and the report is finalised, an estimate of its costs cannot be provided.
I would also make the point—perhaps it is a little partisan, but I do not think it is out of keeping with Senator Abetz's own partisan remarks—that, while Senator Abetz is supporting this bill and is eager to accuse this government of not adequately funding the agency, he, of course, made absolutely no commitment with respect to funding.
I thank Senator Xenophon for his remarks and his support. I am pleased to be able to give you quick comfort on your question. Clause 8(1)(f) of the bill states that part of the agency's function is to commission, monitor and promote research about asbestos safety. So research into these issues is very much part of the agency's function.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator require that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole? If not, I call the minister.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:01): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (13:01): I rise to speak on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013 and to indicate the coalition's support for the bill. In this bill the government proposes to amend the Citizenship Act 2007 to enable the granting of citizenship within a shorter qualifying period in exceptional cases where it is in the national interest to do so.
Currently it is a requirement under the Citizenship Act 2007 that a person must live in Australia for four years before they are eligible to apply for citizenship under the general residence requirement. The 2007 act also provides for several special residence requirement criteria for persons engaging in activities that are of a benefit to Australia, or persons engaged in particular kinds of work requiring regular travel outside of Australia. These special residence requirements allow for the conferral of citizenship under reduced residency requirements, as set out in section 22(a) and 22(b) of the act. This is intended to apply to exceptional circumstances where it is in Australia's national interest for greater flexibility and discretion to be available in the qualifying period applying for citizenship. Currently, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has no discretion in these cases. If the special residence criteria currently specified in the act are not met, then citizenship cannot be conferred. This can result in outcomes inconsistent with Australia's national interest.
The bill provides for the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to invite a person to apply for Australian citizenship under extended special residence requirements. The decision made by the minister would be non-compellable, non-appellable and non-delegable. Our immigration and citizenship system occasionally requires some flexibility, but where that flexibility is used it is important that there are clear, transparent processes where the minister using those powers musts disclose to the parliament his or her decision and the reasons for doing so. That is what this bill does.
Under this bill the minister is required to table in each house of parliament, within 15 days after the date the applicant becomes an Australian citizen, a statement that the power has been exercised, a statement that states the type of activity or work concerned and a statement that sets out the reasons for the exercise of the power, including why the minister considers engagement in that activity would be of benefit to Australia.
As stated by the shadow minister for immigration, in supporting this bill the coalition has had discussions with the government. In these discussions we have sought to ensure that this bill deals broadly with the potential uses of this new non-compellable power for the minister so that it is not limited just to areas of sporting endeavour, but also goes right through the cultural, scientific and business fields.
The coalition is pleased to support this bill. We are pleased to have been part of the process that has brought it to the parliament and we endorse this bill.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:04): I thank Senator Cash for her contribution on the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013 and commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:05): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:05): I move:
That these bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:05): The coalition supports the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013. This is a housekeeping bill. It repeals 84 redundant appropriation acts from July 1999 until 30 June 2010. While the coalition supports the bill, let me just point out, though, that it is rather disingenuous—dare I say hypocritical—of the government to state that this bill is part of its deregulation agenda. We all remember the government's 'one in, one out' promise regarding new regulation. However, we also know that since 2008 the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments have added about 21,000 new regulations and repealed only 104. That is, the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments have imposed massive additional red and green tape on our economy, driving up the cost of doing business, putting more lead into our saddlebags, making it harder for us to compete internationally and undermining our capacity to grow our economy more strongly. The coalition believes that we should be creating an environment for greater investment and productivity, not continuing to strangle business with more red tape and costly regulation. The coalition supports this bill but is very conscious of the fact that after six years of Labor red and green tape much more needs to be done in this area.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:07): I thank Senator Cormann for his effusive support for this very important government bill and commend it to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:05): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Tax Laws Amendment (Medicare Levy) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:07): The coalition supports this bill. This bill increases the Medicare thresholds for individuals and families in line with increases in the consumer price index. The provisions maintain the thresholds for low-income earners. To not provide this indexation would in effect be a tax increase for low-income earners and pensioners. Similar bills have been introduced by the previous coalition government and the current government in every year since 1996-97 and we have always supported these changes in the past.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:08): I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution to the debate and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:05): No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:05): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:09): The coalition is supporting the DisabilityCare Australia Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. This bill is another step in implementing a national disability insurance scheme. The coalition has long been on the record as supporting the establishment of a national disability insurance scheme.
This bill contains a series of consequential amendments which will enable the effective operation of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. The fund has already been established to hold revenue from the increase in the Medicare levy from 1.4 per cent to two per cent. This enables reimbursements to the states and territories for DisabilityCare activities through the COAG Reform Fund. The bill also extends the Future Fund's guardianship to the management of the DisabilityCare Australia Fund. It is anticipated that the fund will hold $11.4 billion over the forward estimates from the Medicare levy increase commencing in 2014-15 and an estimated $20.4 billion through to 2018-19. The coalition support the passage of this bill in extension of our support for a national disability insurance scheme.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:10): I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution and for his support for this very important Labor initiative. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:10): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:10): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:11): The coalition is supporting the Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2013. This bill amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the function of preparing a report, including costings, of the publicly announced policies of designated parliamentary parties within 30 days after a government forms following a general election. The establishment of a parliamentary budget office was a coalition election commitment in the 2010 federal election. On 23 March 2011, following the 2010 federal election, the government established the Joint Select Committee on the Parliamentary Budget Office to inquire into the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office, which subsequently recommended that a PBO be established. The coalition introduced its own version of a PBO on 22 August 2011 and the government immediately followed and introduced its own legislation. The government introduced its own bill into the parliament on 24 August 2011, and it is this bill which is now being amended.
This bill seeks to make an amendment to the Parliamentary Budget Office's functions by adding a sixth function. This function will be to audit election costings of all parties within 30 days after a government is formed. Specifically, the Parliamentary Budget Office will be required to prepare a report before the end of 30 days after the election for each parliamentary party on the costings of publicly announced policies and the total combined costs, the impact those policies would have on the Commonwealth budget. The coalition views this as a sensible initiative and is supportive of this change.
In summary, the coalition welcomes these amendments to the operation of the Parliamentary Budget Office. They apply equally to all parties. They will ensure that all parties are honest in their policy commitments and that all policies are fully and accurately costed. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:13): I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:13): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I call the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:10): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:14): The coalition will not oppose the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013. This bill amends the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to provide a standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the International Monetary Fund under a bilateral agreement entered into by Australia and the IMF on 13 October 2012. The loan agreement will come into force following royal assent to this bill.
The loan agreement will provide for Australia to lend to the IMF up to the equivalent of 4.61 billion special drawing rights, which is approximately A$6.8 billion. Special drawing rights are a weighted currency basket of four major currencies—the US dollar, the euro, the British pound and the Japanese yen. The bilateral loan will have a term of two years, extendable by the IMF for up to two additional one-year periods, making a maximum total term of four years.
There is a lesson which must be learned from the current financial stresses in much of the western world—if debt is the problem, more debt is clearly not the answer. The coalition understands this. It is clear that the Rudd and Gillard Labor governments have not understood this. But the coalition will not oppose this bill.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (13:15): I will make a very short contribution on the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2013. I support the bill but I think it is worth expressing the concerns of a number of leading economic commentators, including Ross Greenwood from the Nine Network. I know this issue was canvassed by Mr Greenwood on the Leon Byner program on 5AA not so long ago. I think it is worth asking some questions on notice. I am not suggesting that there should be an answer now. With the conditions attached to a loan, as I understand it—
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Senator XENOPHON: I am conscious—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ): Order! Do not respond to the interjection, Senator Xenophon.
Senator XENOPHON: I will not. Thank you for your protection, Mr Acting Deputy President. The position is this. This is supposed to be non-controversial government business and that is the spirit in which I am taking it. I am quite happy for my questions to be taken on notice.
I think it is fair to say that there have been criticisms of the way the IMF has operated. There are issues of sovereignty. I note that Jeffrey Sachs, an eminent economist and the head of the Harvard Institute for International Development, was critical of a lack of transparency and of the IMF imposing policies with little or no consultation with the affected countries. For instance, Professor Sachs says:
In Korea the IMF insisted that all presidential candidates immediately "endorse" an agreement which they had nodrafting or negotiating, and no time to understand. The situation is out of hand …
I understand the importance of the IMF's role in stabilising the international monetary system but, as I said, I have some questions—on notice, in a sense. What will the level of rigour of scrutiny be if the IMF calls in this contingent loan? Will we know what the money will be spent on? What conditions can we as a nation impose on such a loan? If the parliament is minded to disallow it—it is a disallowable instrument, I understand—will the government be able to put all the relevant information before us? Those are my concerns and I think it is worth noting that a number of eminent economists around the world have criticised the IMF for the way it has gone about implementing some of its policies.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:18): I thank senators for their contributions and their support. Senator Xenophon, we are happy to take those questions on notice and respond. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:18): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:19): The coalition will be supporting the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013, but first I will make a few observations—because this bill has been a very long time coming. It implements recommendations arising out of the former Howard government's 2004 review into the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. The review panel's main conclusion was that the Insurance Contracts Act was generally working satisfactorily to the benefit of insurers and the insured. However, it also found that some changes would be beneficial given the passage of time since the Insurance Contracts Act had originally been enacted and given developments in the insurance market since that time.
The changes foreshadowed by the review were put into an exposure draft by the Howard government in February 2007. More than six years later, in the last days of this government, we finally get to deal with this legislation. It is just another indication that we have been dealing with a part-time Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation in recent times. As well as no doubt being very busy with his significant workload—noting that he is also the minister for unions and union funds—I understand that he has been severely distracted by some other matters. He has apparently been on the phone quite a bit lately, but I do not think that much of that had anything at all to do with the important conclusions of the review into the Insurance Contracts Act. So here we are, more than six years after this legislation was first put forward, finally getting to deal with it in the last few days before we go to an election.
The review conducted by the Howard government into the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 attracted a series of submissions from the industry. The main changes proposed by this bill are covered in seven schedules. These deal with the scope and application of the act, electronic communications, the powers of ASIC, disclosure and misrepresentations, remedies of insurers in the context of life insurance contracts, third parties and subrogation.
The changes in this bill are all sensible and noncontroversial, and it is extraordinary that it has taken this government nearly six years to deal with them—but such are the chaos, the dysfunction and the incompetence of the Rudd-Gillard Labor governments. The coalition will be supporting this bill. Clearly it is a bill that is long overdue. Industry stakeholders have been waiting for this bill to be introduced for some time. They are happy with the provisions that are in this bill and with the level of input they previously had in the process under the previous very sound and very competent Howard coalition government. Industry has been consulted at numerous stages in the development of this bill, beginning all the way back in 2003-04.
I will not hold up the progress of this legislation any further, given that it has already taken us this long to get here. I am sure that Minister Shorten will be glued to the television to make sure that the Insurance Contracts Act changes are going through the Senate in a speedy fashion, given that he has not had much time to deal with these things in recent years. He will be wanting to get back to his various mobile phones so he can deal with the weightier matters that are currently occupying the collective minds of the Labor Party.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:23): I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution and I thank the coalition for their support for the bill—a veritable vote of confidence in the minister. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:24): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:24): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (13:25): The coalition will not oppose the Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill. Following the global financial crisis the G20 endorsed a global transition of over-the-counter derivatives, which of course are products that are currently traded through bilateral arrangements between two parties. This change recognises exchanges or trading platforms where appropriate in order to boost market transparency. The G20 also agreed that certain trading activities should be cleared through a central counterparty to reduce systemic risk and should be reported to trade repositories in order to enhance market information.
This bill amends various acts in order to assist central counterparties in managing defaults of clearing participants; to improve the allocation of resources by ASIC and the RBA in assessing the compliance of Australian market licence and clearing and settlement facility licence holders with their legal obligations; to allow certain Australian regulators, including the RBA, to exchange protected information with other entities in Australia and overseas in the execution of their duties, subject of course to appropriate safeguards; and to allow ASIC to gather and share protected information with regulatory entities overseas for supervision and enforcement purposes and require ASIC to report on the use of those powers.
The coalition is broadly supportive of the approach taken by the G20 in order to improve the risks associated with the trading of derivatives in light of the issues which have arisen from the global financial crisis. The coalition was supportive of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Derivative Transactions) Act, which provides the legislative framework to implement Australia's G20 commitments in relation to over-the-counter derivatives reforms, and the coalition will not oppose the passage of this bill either.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:27): I thank Senator Cormann for his contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Bernardi ) (13:27): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (13:27): On behalf of the coalition I indicate support for the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill. It establishes a new payment, the disaster recovery allowance, but in fact that payment is a replacement of a current payment, the disaster income recovery subsidy. For technical reasons this requirement has emerged and the government has responded by bringing forward this legislation, which amends the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.
The disaster recovery allowance consists of a short-term fortnightly income support payment for individuals whose income has been affected by a major disaster, whether natural or otherwise. Payments under the DRA are paid at the maximum rate of Newstart allowance, or for those under 22 the youth allowance. Maximum rates are payable depending on a person's circumstances and are paid for a period of up to 13 weeks. The measures replace those which are currently in place and so, if a person operates a small business or is an employee of a small business or farm, that person can receive income support for the period when the business has been flooded out or damaged by fire and recovery action is taken.
I make two points about this change. First, the DIRS is not a measure that was very well promoted or advertised by the government and following some of the recent natural disasters inflicted upon Australia in the last few years relatively few people were aware of the payment being available. I certainly came across a number of businesses which had laid off employees, unaware that they could actually keep them on and pay them this allowance. So it is important that the government take steps to make sure that this new allowance is well known to parties affected by natural disasters in particular.
Although I welcome the $100 million made available in the most recent budget for a number of measures to improve resilience in the Australian community to natural disasters, there is a need to put much greater amounts on the table, one way or another, to allow resilience to be built across the community. I note that this morning the Australian Business Roundtable for Disaster Resilience and Safer Communities produced a white paper entitled Building our nation's resilience to natural disasters, which made that very point and which was made here in Parliament House. I commend both the message in that white paper to the government and the bill to the Senate.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:30): I thank Senator Humphries for his contribution to this debate and support for this very important bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Disaster Recovery Allowance) Bill 2013—and I commend him on his blue tie! I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:31): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I will call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator FEENEY (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) (13:31): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Statute Law Revision Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (13:31): The Statute Law Revision Bill 2013 is a bill to correct technical errors caused by drafting and clerical mistakes, to repeal obsolete provisions and acts and to make other technical amendments to legislation.
Bills of this nature are traditionally non-controversial and receive the support of the parliament because they are regarded as an essential tool in the process of keeping the Commonwealth statute books accurate and up to date. The acts to be repealed relating to air passenger ticket levies, imposed as a result of the collapse of the Ansett Group, are self-evidently obsolete. The levy was discontinued in 2003 and all of the mandated distributions have been completed.
Of the acts to be amended, most of the proposals relate to spelling, grammatical and technical errors. A small number of obsolete provisions will be repealed. The bill also proposes amendments to provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, which have been rendered redundant by other enactments. The bill is not controversial and has the support of the coalition. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:32): I would like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate and support for this important bill. I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:33): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I will call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Court Security (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (13:33): On behalf of Senator Brandis, shadow Attorney-General, I rise to speak on the Court Security Bill 2013 and associated bill. I indicate that the coalition supports the passage of these bills. They seek to amend current legislative frameworks for court and tribunal security arrangements for all Commonwealth courts, including the Family Court of Western Australia and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The bills expand the range of powers available to security officers and authorised court officers. The legislation removes the courts and tribunals currently covered by the provisions of the Public Order Act and replaces it with an updated security framework.
The Court Security Bill 2013 responds to concerns raised by the heads of jurisdiction of the federal courts that the current Public Order Act does not meet the security needs of the modern court environment. The bill aims to ensure that the courts are able to reduce the risk of security incidents where possible and, if needed, respond appropriately to incidents that do arise.
The consequences of a breach of security in these circumstances is a serious issue. It is vital that all cases before these courts are heard without fear, intimidation and/or violence. It is unclear how frequent security incidents are arising on court premises and how adequate the court security arrangements are, but these bills provide the necessary powers so that the security needs of the modern court environment are sufficient and clear. They ensure that our courts and tribunals are safer and secure places for members of the public to have their disputes heard. I commend the bills to the Senate.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:35): I would like to thank senators for their contribution to the debate and support for these important bills. I commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:35): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I will call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in the Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:35): I move:
That these bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (13:36): The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013 extends the interim regime established by the Military Justice Interim Measures Act (No. 1) 2009, following the High Court's invalidation of the legislation establishing the Australian Military Court in the case of Lane and Morrison, of 2009. The interim regime provides for the appointment and remuneration of the Chief Judge Advocate and other statutory office holders on a fixed tenure of four years. That tenure expires in September this year. The purpose of the bill is to extend the tenure for an additional two years or for a lesser period specified by the Minister for Defence by legislative instrument. That legislative instrument would not be subject to disallowance.
The Attorney-General's and Defence departments are currently working on a bill for the successor to the Australian Military Court. The relevant ministers have advised that they intend to introduce that bill in the winter sittings—although, at this stage, it is very late in the piece and we have plenty of other legislation to be getting on with. There are, however, several unresolved legal issues with the proposed bill, and it seems likely this will be a matter for the next parliament. Recognising the desirability of maintaining the status quo until that is resolved, the coalition is pleased to support this bill.
Senator BACK (Western Australia—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:37): I rise to support Senator Humphries's comments and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2013, which amends the act to extend statutory appointments for a further two years. The reason this became necessary was the decision of the High Court in August 2009 that the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006 took the AMC, the Australian Military Court, beyond what is authorised by section 51(vi) of the Constitution. Subsequently, in September 2009, I think, Senator Conroy incorporated the second reading speech, which made the observation:
… it will also allow time for the establishment of a military court which meets the requirements of Chapter III of the Constitution including the introduction of appropriate legislation for this purpose.
The expectation, of course, would have been that two years was an adequate interim period for the legislation to be passed. It is my understanding that, within the Australian Defence Force, there has not been much reaction to the issues associated with this extension—nor, indeed, to date, to the inability of the parliament to arrive at a permanent solution.
My reason for speaking in this debate is to make sure all in the parliament are aware that these are matters that affect ADF officers and other personnel, particularly those in the field—those involved in combat operations in combat zones. I do not think it is beneficial and I do not think it is fair that the parliament delay, by even a day longer than it needs to, giving a sense of surety to these young people whom we send away on our behalf to represent this country, particularly those in dangerous areas where, quite often, they have to make instant decisions in terms of engagement with an enemy or a suspected enemy. Whilst they themselves might not be focusing too much on these matters, I think it is only fair that they have a degree of surety so that, should they be in circumstances where the justice system has extended to cover their actions and their actions have been the subject of scrutiny as a result—which, as we know, has happened in the recent past—we are very clear on the mechanisms and the processes, and the judiciary is in place to adjudicate without delay, to give them a sense of both surety and honour in the way in which this process takes place. It starts here in the parliament: we must delay this process no longer.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:40): I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:40): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (13:41): Again on behalf of Senator Brandis, I rise to speak on the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2013. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Customs Tariffs Act 1995 to incorporate the measures contained in the tariff proposal which took effect on 1 March 2013. These amendments were recommended by industry and through departmental feedback on the Customs tariff bill that passed the parliament last year.
The bill revises certain items in schedule 4 of the act by replacing them with clearer definitions and correcting typographical errors. Schedule 4 lists a variety of goods and circumstances for which concessional rates of import duty are granted. Following a review of schedule 4 by the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, the Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012 was passed by the parliament last year. The bill before us will incorporate minor amendments that were contained in the Customs tariff proposal that was tabled in the House of Representatives on 14 February 2013.
The items to be amended in schedule 4 are items 20, 21, 27, 30 and 35. The bill makes technical amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to specifically reference goods as part of the batch repair process in item 20; to remove references to 'industrial processing' in item 21; to remove the reference to 'value' and 'amount' in item 27; to reinsert 'wheelchairs' and remove a reference to 'invalid carriages' in item 30; and to reinsert 'tonnes' and remove references to 'tons' in item 35. The bill also streamlines the assessment of concessional duties in relation to goods imported for industrial processing and subsequent export.
The proposed amendments will alter wording and fix typographical errors in the bill so it is consistent with the intentions of schedule 4. The coalition warmly supports these amendments as uncontroversial.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:43): I thank senators for their contributions and I commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:43): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:43): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:44): The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 is a crucial bill. It is about the efficiency of shower heads, and it is worth noting what this means in our nation. This really is a housekeeping bill; it is about getting our labelling system correct. We have been through it a number of times, actually, so I will just commend the bill to the Senate.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:44): I commend Senator Joyce for that insightful contribution and commend the bills to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:44): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:45): I move:
That the bills now be read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) Bill 2013
International Interests in Mobile Equipment (Cape Town Convention) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (13:45): It is a good day, indeed, when I have two bills in a row. The bill and its associated consequential amendments bill will ratify two international treaties, known collectively as the Cape Town convention—the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment and the Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Aircraft Equipment.
The Cape Town convention, which came into force internationally in 2006, has now been ratified by 51 countries, including the United States of America, New Zealand, China, Singapore and Canada. It is an international legal system to protect secured creditors of aircraft, including many helicopters, engines and other components, by reducing the risk and costs associated with financing these valuable pieces of equipment. These creditors can access a voluntary international register to list their security interests and then receive priority ranking in case of default. This is very important when you have engines that might be owned by one airline, get repaired, dropped off and then make their way to another part of the world and then the airline goes broke. Someone goes looking for that engine and then there is an issue of its ownership. For the Australian airlines the net effect of ratifying the convention will be better access to cheaper aircraft and asset financing. They will also be eligible for discounts on finance arrangements for the purchase of aircraft and related equipment. For example, depending on the credit rating of the borrower and the purchase price of the aircraft, airlines can save up to $2.5 million on the purchase of a new Airbus A380 and $330,000 on the purchase of new ATR 72s or Dash 8s, which are common on regional flights. That is why I have such a strong interest in it.
There are potential benefits to regional and general aviation operators as well, because the Cape Town convention applies to aircraft carrying as few as eight passengers or as little as 2,750 kilograms of goods. As we all know, airlines are capital intensive businesses that operate in a highly competitive environment and stakeholders are appreciative of a financial advantage to the businesses, particularly when many of the main overseas competitors are already taking advantage of the benefits of the convention. The Cape Town convention has been supported by the parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and by state governments, which have some jurisdiction under this bill. The coalition will support the bills as drafted.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:48): I thank the senator for his contribution and commend the bills to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:49): As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:49): I move:
That the bills be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.
National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (13:49): It is a pleasure to make my contribution to the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2013. I did work very hard to try and find something I could say that was really quite exciting about this piece of legislation, but, unfortunately, I have to admit my failure in that sense. It does, however, make some important changes to the current legislation. It does clarify some of the measures that were put in place in legislation that was passed through this chamber a couple of years ago, and in that context it is important that those things are clarified. It does bring into line some of the provisions in this legislation with current practices and powers within state legislation that were inadvertently not transferred from the previous state and territory Uniform Trade Measurement legislation. It also clarifies certain offences around, for example, not obliterating an existing verification mark if an instrument is repaired or adjusted in a way which would affect its meteorological performance. With that, Madam Acting Deputy President, and acknowledging my failure to make this piece of legislation exciting for all who are listening, the coalition indicates its support for the bill.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:51): I thank the senator for his contribution and I commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) ( 13:51 ): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:51): I move:
That the bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator JOHNSTON (Western Australia) (13:51): This bill amends the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963 to allow for the enactment of regulations to confer privileges and immunities on the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC, and the International Criminal Court, the ICC. This legislation will allow for the arrangement between the government of Australia and the International Committee of the Red Cross on a regional headquarters in Australia to take effect. Signed in 2005 under the former Howard government, this arrangement confers legal personality on the ICRC in Australia and other privileges and immunities needed to facilitate its work in Australia and the Pacific region. The ICRC is internationally recognised for its work in providing humanitarian assistance to people affected by armed conflict. In the Pacific, its main focus is the promotion of international humanitarian law and other humanitarian issues with governments, security forces and civil society. The legislation will also provide a basis for implementing the 2002 Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court.
In 2002 the Howard government ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It was the government's view that it was in Australia's national interest for there to be a permanent international judicial body which could deal with grave crimes, as occurred in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Given the potential implications associated with extending immunities and privileges to organisations, the coalition referred the bill to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for further consideration. That report was delivered in June this year, and the committee has reported back and recommended that the bill be passed. I commend the committee for their timely and judicial deliberations. Obviously, the opposition is in support of this legislation.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:54): I thank all senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:54): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:54): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (13:54): I rise to make a contribution on the Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill of 2013. Whilst we support the bill, the Northern Territory government, the Northern Land Council and the local Aboriginal land trust support scheduling three pieces of land. ERA is anxious to avoid what would undoubtedly be a painful native title negotiation. I think it is of credit to all the parties that they acknowledge having a settlement in this way and having rescheduling under the act of the township of Jabiru, even though there has been some criticism from other parties. When you have the support of the party that owns the community, the native title holders, the traditional owners of country, the grida, we would, of course, support this legislation.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:56): I thank the senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the chamber.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Moore ) (13:56): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (13:56): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (13:56): We will support this bill and, of course, the coalition is committed to closing the gap. We have all committed to ending the disparity between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians across the six Closing the Gap measures which we would all be familiar with. But we should also reflect on some of the more sophisticated and larger indicators. The breakdown of one of those indicators is the NAPLAN indicator in education. Quite clearly, whilst we are assured that things are going quite well across the six measures, and whilst that might be a cornerstone of any involvement, the significant involvement, of course, is education. Between 2011 and 2012, in 14 out of the 20 assessment programs in literacy and numeracy, Indigenous education across the board was in fact going backwards. If we look at some of those indicators we will see that the average gap between Indigenous education outcomes and mainstream outcomes is 23.8 per cent, 37.5 per cent remotely, 61.1 per cent in very remote areas and the shocking 80.8 per cent in very remote schools in the Northern Territory.
At a higher level, we can say that one of those six indicators is the number of people who complete year 12. In year 5 reading in very remote NT schools, only 8.6 per cent of students actually meet the national average, so in seven years time, by year 12, those students will not show up there. With only 8.6 per cent of them meeting the national average, the remaining 90-plus per cent of students will not make it and will never have access to the opportunities that so many other children simply take for granted.
So, whilst we think this is an important bill, it is also important that most of these processes are about providing for additional funding, but that additional funding is only over one year. So what sort of security of tenure does this give in ensuring that the programs will have a real effect against some of the changes, for example, in how we approach our funding with Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory?
Debate interrupted.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Advertising
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:00): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. Minister, the Independent Communications Committee chaired by Mr Allan Hawke has found that the government's $22 million NDIS advertising campaign is in breach of the guidelines on information and advertising campaigns. Mr Hawke's advice of 13 June said:
The Committee is concerned that running the proposed national campaign in Western Australia may not fully comply with Principle 4 of the Guidelines, specifically the need for campaign information to clearly and directly affect the interests of recipients.
The Committee considers that the need to run the proposed campaign advertising in Western Australia at this time requires a specific and strong justification given there is not currently a negotiated agreement to co-fund and implement the DisabilityCare scheme in that state.
Why is the government defying the advice of Mr Hawke and breaching its own advertising guidelines, and will the government now cease the advertisements in Western Australia?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:01): I thank the senator for his question. When we were elected in 2007, this government committed to cleaning up the taxpayer funded spending spree that was the Howard government's system. We have delivered on that commitment. When we were elected, this government was faced with a system that had next to no independent oversight and no integrity. Before Labor introduced the Independent Communications Committee there was simply no scrutiny of government advertising. Labor introduced tough guidelines which governed the content and presentation of campaigns, removed ministers from an active role in campaigns and significantly reduced costs.
Advertising is driven by the legitimate need to inform the public about their rights, their entitlements and their obligations, including advertising for: the census campaign; ongoing Defence Force recruiting; health campaigns like Quit Smoking and on obesity and illicit drugs; and the digital switchover. We have increased reporting requirements and, unlike the Howard government, we have set out exactly how much taxpayer money is spent on campaign advertising.
Senator Fifield: I rise on a point of order on relevance, Mr President. I have let the minister go for a minute and a half and he has not been in any danger of straying close to the specific question, which was: why has the government defied its own advertising guidelines and why has the government ignored Mr Hawke's advice?
Senator Wong: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I understand that those on the other side might think that the guidelines are irrelevant to a question about advertising, but they clearly are relevant, and the minister is going through an explanation of the guidelines.
The PRESIDENT: Order! I do draw the minister's attention to the question.
Senator CONROY: Schools and DisabilityCare Australia campaigns have been reviewed by the Independent Communications Committee and certified by the relevant departmental secretaries as being in compliance with the guidelines. Feedback was given by the ICC, as is normal, and it was taken on board. In fact, the Independent Communications Committee has never issued—
Senator Fifield: I rise on a point of order, Mr President. Senator Conroy is actually misleading the Senate. The government communications committee did not approve the campaign.
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is debating the issue; it is not a point of order.
Senator CONROY: Feedback was given by the ICC, as is normal, and it was taken on board. In fact, the Independent Communications Committee has never issued a negative compliance report against a Labor government campaign. (Time expired)
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:04): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank Senator Conroy for confirming that the government has defied and ignored Mr Hawke's advice. I ask the minister: why do the NDIS television advertisements contain no details about eligibility, and what is the purpose of television advertisements that make little effort to explain the NDIS and, like all advertisements under this government, simply contain slogans and a reference to a website?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:05): Hypocrisy has reared its head today. In 2007, the Howard government spent a whopping $254 million on advertising with no independent oversight. In 2012, the government spent less than half than the Howard government did in 2007 when the member for North Sydney was trying to convince Australians that Work Choices was their friend. The high-water mark for government advertising will always be the $84 million Mr Hockey spent on media placement for Work Choices alone, including $31.8 million over just three weeks in October 2005. (Time expired)
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! That is disorderly, and you know that. There is a discussion taking place in front of me which should not take place. When there is silence we will proceed. Senator Fifield is entitled to be heard in silence.
Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (14:06): Mr President, I ask a second supplementary question. Isn't the public entitled to be a little cynical about the government's intentions in spending $22 million between now and August, including $7 million over the next 10 days on advertisements with little information about a scheme that will not be completed for another seven years?
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! When everyone is finished, we will go on with question time.
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:07): As I was saying, the member for North Sydney spent $31.8 million on media placement for Work Choices alone over just three weeks in October 2005. For the fifth year in a row, the government has spent over $100 million less than the $254 million that was the Howard government's advertising spend in 2007. We will continue to spend significantly less than the Liberal-National coalition. When those opposite stand up they do not have any credibility whatsoever. You just have to think back to the outrageous misuse and abuse of taxpayers' funds that the Work Choices campaign represented. Do not just sit there and snigger, Senator Sinodinos. I know you had left the building by then, but— (Time expired)
National Broadband Network
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:09): My question is to Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. Can the minister advise the Senate on the rate of take-up for Labor's National Broadband Network?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:09): I thank the senator for her ongoing interest in the National Broadband Network and for the question. Her interest is in how the Australian people are embracing the opportunities created by the NBN. Of the many methods that are being peddled by those opposite, one is that Australians neither want nor need high-speed broadband. The story that gets peddled by the media is the claim that take-up is slow.
Let me give you just two examples. The Australian Financial Review, on 10 August last year, editorialised about supposed slow take-up rates. As recently as 21 March, the Australian claimed that slow take-up rates by consumers was a problem for NBN Co. But nothing could be further from the truth. Last December, I first compared take-up of the NBN to the take-up of fibre networks around the world and previous technologies here in Australia. In Europe, after three years of fibre in the home being available, the average take up is 21 per cent. In Singapore, up to 3½ years after it has had fibre to the home, it has a take-up rate of 20 per cent. After six years here in Australia of ADSL, the ABS found in 2006 that there was a 28 per cent take-up rate.
Compare that to what we are seeing around Australia today. Take-up of the NBN is now over 37 per cent in areas that have been connected for just six months. NBN Co.'s take-up rates here in Australia are world records. Given the opportunity to connect to fibre, Australians are signing up in droves. But those opposite—
Senator Brandis: How many?
Senator CONROY: Sixty thousand plus to date. (Time expired)
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:11): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for his answer. Can the minister provide details on how take-up rates are changing as the NBN is rolling out?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:11): At Senate estimates in May, NBN Co. provided a full update on NBN take-up rates. The first release sites of Kiama and Willunga are still the areas with the highest take-up rates of 66 per cent and 65 per cent respectively. The more Australians see of the NBN, the faster they are signing up. One of the areas here in the ACT, Gungahlin, switched on just six months ago. Fifty-two per cent of households have already chosen an NBN service. In six months it has been 52 per cent.
Senator Abetz: A service. Which one?
Senator CONROY: I will get to that. In another part of Gungahlin, which was switched on just over two months ago, 40 per cent of premises have already elected to take an NBN service. This is a pattern right across— (Time expired)
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (14:12): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister update the Senate on what services customers are selecting on the NBN?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:13): At the joint committee on the NBN in April, NBN Co. noted that 36 per cent of end users were selecting a speed of 50 megabits per second or more. But these people are clearly misguided, according to the Leader of the Opposition. That is because, at Mr Abbott's policy launch, this is what Mr Abbott told all Australians:
… we are absolutely confident that 25 megs is going to be enough, more than enough, for the average household.
Just three years ago, Mr Abbott, on national television, could not even explain the difference between average and peak speeds. But now Mr Abbott claims to know exactly what Australian households need: 25 megs. That is all families need! At the launch of the Digital Careers program last week, I met 12-year-olds who knew more about IT than Tony Abbott. (Time expired)
Carbon Pricing
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:14): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I remind the minister that, since Labor's carbon tax was introduced almost a year ago, 30,000 Australian manufacturing jobs have been lost. These jobs include more than 1,000 jobs lost at Ford and Holden, 790 jobs lost at Boral, 300 jobs lost at Amcor, 170 jobs lost at BlueScope, 160 jobs lost at RPG Australia, 150 jobs lost at CSR in Sydney, 130 jobs lost at Queensland Alumina in Gladstone, 100 jobs lost at Kerry Ingredients in Melbourne, 100 jobs lost at Caterpillar in Bernie, 70 jobs lost at Windsor Farm Foods in Cowra, 70 jobs lost at Rosella, 60 jobs lost at Grain Products Australia in Tamworth, 30 jobs lost at Cigweld in Preston—and I could go on and on and on. Will the minister take any responsibility for the 30,000 jobs lost due in part to a carbon tax that has only made it harder for Australia to make things while making absolutely no difference to the temperature of the globe? (Time expired)
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:15): I thank Senator Joyce for that question. The facts about the carbon price, jobs creation and business success seem to be completely lost on those opposite. The scare campaign, as we have just seen again, is alive and well. After nine months of a carbon price that is working to bring emissions down—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! If senators on both sides wish to debate this, the time is after three o'clock, not now.
Senator CONROY: The scare campaign is alive and well. After nine months of a carbon price, it is working to bring emissions down, working to create clean energy jobs and working to support families, pensioners and businesses. The fact is that, in the last 12 months, 186,000 new companies were registered, according to ASIC figures. That is an average of over 14,000 new companies created each month. The fact is that, since the introduction of the carbon price, the number of companies going into administration went down, not up. The facts are that, since the start of the carbon price on 1 July last year, more than 158,000 jobs have been created. That is more than 20 every hour since carbon pricing started. Australia has retained one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world. The economy grew at an annual rate of 3.1 per cent in the year to December, and average weekly earnings grew by 4.6 per cent last year. Business investment has continued at very high levels, with almost $270 billion confirmed investment in Australia's resources industry alone. It is in the pipeline, according to the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics. (Time expired)
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:18): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. We know what pipeline the Labor Party have put into Australia's economy. Given that the carbon price in Europe is just $6 per tonne, given that the minister cannot explain why persisting with the price will do anything to affect the climate, why is the government increasing our price from $23 per tonne to $24.15 per tonne? Why is this government putting Australian jobs even further at risk by paying this higher price?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:14): The wrecking ball is back. The python is back. The wrecking ball and the python are back. There is an article that the Leader of the Opposition often refers to. But if you read past the misleading headline of the article—and I understand that for those opposite reading is not in their nature, other than reading the front pages of the Australian, as if that is research—what you find is a government committed to supporting jobs and the transition to a low-carbon economy. The response of those opposite is to bury their heads in the sand. Putting a price on carbon and starting the transition now is the most cost-effective and fair way of reducing pollution—and those opposite know it. The clean energy future package represents one of the most important industry and innovation policies this nation has ever seen. It will drive a deep economic transformation. (Time expired)
Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (14:19): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. How can the minister, who owes his place to the Transport Workers Union and Tony Sheldon, support a tax that its own union calls a 'death tax'? Does he have the same views as his own union, or does he have different views to his union? Does he believe in people who actually drive trucks, or does he only believe in people who sit on seats in Canberra?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:20): Around $15 billion will be invested in creating the jobs of tomorrow, most notably in manufacturing. For example, the $1 billion clean technology investment programs have provided over $120 million worth of grants to manufacturing companies to lower their pollution and improve their competitiveness. For example, JBS Australia will slash energy costs by $1.1 million a year—
Senator Joyce: Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. We are actually asking about an issue. I know he has evaded relevance on everything else, but this is actually about the industry that he is supposed to represent, which is the trucking industry, which is the transport workers. Can he guide his answer to something vaguely to do with the group that he is supposed to be here representing?
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. The minister is representing the Prime Minister and answering the question.
Senator CONROY: If I could just make it absolutely clear to Senator Joyce: I am here representing the people of Victoria, who have elected me. I am a very proud member of the Transport Workers Union and have been for many, many years, Senator Joyce. And I want to wish you luck—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, resume your seat! When there is silence on both sides, we will continue. If you want to chew up question time by interjecting that is your choice. You are not doing yourselves any justice with the interjections that are taking place. They are disorderly.
Senator CONROY: As I was saying, JBS Australia will slash energy costs by $1.1 million a year and reduce its carbon price liability by almost $800,000.
Senator Joyce interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Conroy, resume your seat; Senator Joyce is on his feet. I will not give you the call, Senator Joyce; I will give you the call when there is silence. If people want to continue to interject they are taking up your time, Senator Joyce.
Senator Joyce: Mr President, I raise a point of order, once more on relevance. If the minister has to Google how many wheels are on a B-double he should table his laptop.
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Joyce. That is not even funny.
Senator CONROY: In the budget the government announced it would bring forward $160 million. (Time expired)
Asylum Seekers
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:24): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. The Prime Minister announced late yesterday that she would be visiting Indonesia next month to meet with the President on topics of—
Senator Brandis: As a private citizen?
The PRESIDENT: Order! You on my left get the opportunity to ask questions and be heard in silence. Senator Hanson-Young has the same entitlement.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG: The question is in relation to the Prime Minister's announcement that she will be visiting Indonesia and will meet with the President in relation to asylum seekers and refugees. Will the Prime Minister be offering the $70 million as required and recommended by the Houston panel for protection and care programs that were expressly advised were urgent at the time of its report in August last year?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:25): As the senator noted, that was an announcement made yesterday. I do not at this stage have the full details of the itinerary or of the matters that will be discussed. But, unlike Mr Abbott, I am sure the Prime Minister will have the courage to raise a whole range of issues and not slink off back home, pretend that a discussion that did not happen did happen and then background journos—
Honourable senators interjecting—
Senator CONROY: Yes, it did. Someone else chatted to somebody else who chatted to somebody else's butler. That is Mr Abbott's style. As to the substance of your question, Senator, I will take that on notice.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:26): I thank the minister for his answer and I appreciate the offer to take it on notice. I look forward to the answer. Mr President, I ask a supplementary question relating to the urgent allocation of at least 3,800 extra resettlement places that the Houston report specifically asked for. Will the Prime Minister be offering those to the Indonesian President when she meets him?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:26): Australia's relationship with Indonesia is in excellent shape. Our two nations enjoy close cooperation across a broad spectrum of political, security, commercial, environmental and cultural issues. It is one of our most important relationships—a point that was emphasised in the government's white paper on Australia in the Asian century, released in October last year. There have been considerable developments in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia in recent years, and this trip will further strengthen those links. Both governments are working to unlock new opportunities for business and investment and to take advantage of the size, proximity and complementarities of our economies. Of course the Prime Minister will discuss people smuggling. The government has ongoing discussions with Indonesia about this important regional issue. On the single issue you raised: I will take that on notice.
Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (14:27): I appreciate the minister's taking my question on notice. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Could the minister explain how the government proposes to justify and explain the nearly 2,000 children being detained in Australia during its bid for the UN Human Rights Council?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:28): I appreciate that that was a very broad supplementary question to the original question. Possibly Senator Bob Carr might have been able to help. I utterly reject the premise of your question. Those opposite, who seek to take advantage of the situation and to manipulate it for their own cheap political advantage, are once again shamed in this chamber today. People smuggling is a serious issue and those opposite, who unfortunately do include the Greens, who refuse to get behind—
Senator Hanson-Young: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I would like clarification as to which premise of the question the minister is rejecting: the facts or that he does not want to explain.
The PRESIDENT: This is now debating the issue. There is no point of order.
Senator CONROY: Unfortunately, it is not just those opposite who will not support the Houston committee's recommendations. Those in the Greens' corner have also passed up the opportunity to help put people smugglers out of business.
Senator Hanson-Young: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister has referred to the Greens as rejecting recommendations of the Houston panel. I point out that I have just asked two questions in relation to the rejection—
The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order. You are debating the issue. The time to debate the issue is after three o'clock.
Senator CONROY: I do not know there is really much I can add to that. The raw nerve was exposed.
Asylum Seekers
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:30): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Conroy. I remind the minister that, under the Gillard Labor government, Australia has now seen an average of more than 100 people arriving illegally by boat every day this month, and, in the last six years of the Howard government, fewer than 200 people arrived on illegal boats. Under this government, Australia has seen more arrivals in just three days than in 2,190 days under the former Howard government. Why is this government at war with itself rather than at war with the people smugglers?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:31): Well, back to the cant and the hypocrisy from those opposite. It is good to get you back on the record, because, whether it is to the home port or the sea boundary, Indonesian authorities have continually confirmed they will not reach an agreement with Australia to turn back boats. That leaves a massive, gaping credibility gap in those opposite. We have seen the weasel words in recent months from Mr Abbott: 'No, we won't stop the boats immediately; it may take us three years or we may have to change the rules a few times.' Under the existing rules, the High Court rulings, we need to change the laws. Those opposite know that. They are engaged in the most rank hypocrisy. When Indonesia's ambassador to Australia was asked about this on 31 May this year, this is what he said:
I think it's not possible for the Coalition to say that it has to go back to Indonesia because Indonesia is not the origin country of these people.
… … …
… no such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia [to] bring back the people to Indonesia.
What was the coalition's response? We had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Bishop, say:
I would expect the ambassador to say those things publicly.
Before the ambassador's statement, the shadow minister for foreign affairs, that arch diplomat in waiting, had said to Lenore Taylor:
… professional diplomats are paid to present, ahh, particular views but what goes on behind the scenes can be quite different - what people say privately can be different to what they say publicly …
The coalition might think it is okay to say one thing and mean another. That might be the standard operating manual for those opposite, but it is outrageous— (Time expired)
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:33): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to Prime Minister Gillard's promise to the Australian people that she had a plan to stop the people smugglers' despicable trade. Why then, Minister, have more than 38,000 people on 589 illegal boats arrived under the Prime Minister's watch, 2,044 of them in this month alone, despite the fact that we are only 20 days in? Isn't it the sad reality that this government is the best friend that a people smuggler will ever have?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:34): It is true that not every member of the opposition in this building is a rank hypocrite, because the member for Pearce, Judith Moylan, used a Sky News interview to publicly denounce Mr Abbott's policy and express concerns about what would happen to the asylum seekers left at sea. Here is what Ms Moylan had to say:
I think if we want to build neighbourly relationships we have to use our best diplomatic skills to deal with this and that means engaging with Indonesia, not trying to solve our immediate domestic political problems by pushing people back over in the international waters back to Indonesia.
The other thing is we don't know what happens to those men, women and children on the boats once those boats are pushed back in the water.
So if we're going to cry about deaths at sea, people getting on boats, what are we thinking about when we say well let's push the boats back.
(Time expired)
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (14:35): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister now concede that, no matter what the Prime Minister says, the government continues to ignore a worsening crisis on our borders, stubbornly sticking to policies that have failed, and the only way to stop the boats is for the government to adopt the coalition's proven border protection policies, which stopped the boats, and finally return integrity to our borders?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:35): You have nothing to say whatsoever about Ms Moylan? Ms Moylan said:
So if we're going to cry about deaths at sea, people getting on boats, what are we thinking about when we say well let's push the boats back.
She went on to say:
Because once they've pushed them back our patrol boats go back to Christmas Island and we don't know what happens to those people. Do they ever reach the mainland of Indonesia?
Not everybody on that side is engaged in rank hypocrisy, deceit, fear and smear. There are still some lights burning on the opposition side. There are still some who actually want to end the people-smuggling business, who actually want to try and stop the people-smuggling ring, but no-one there will stand up and be counted like Ms Moylan was. We know there are a few of you hiding over there. We know there are a couple of members on that side who despise their own party's policies in this area, just like Ms Moylan does. So do not come in here and pretend you are— (Time expired)
Tourism Australia
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania) (14:36): My question is to the Minister Assisting on Tourism, Senator Farrell. Can the minister inform the Senate about the importance of Tourism Australia's Best Jobs in the World—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I need people to show the proper respect to those who are asking questions.
Senator URQUHART: Can the minister inform the Senate about the importance of Tourism Australia's Best Jobs in the World campaign as an international tourism marketing tool?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:37): I say thank you to Senator Urquhart for her very good question. I know about her ongoing interest in the Australian tourism industry. Tourism Australia's Best Jobs in the World campaign is part of an important international push to increase awareness of Australia as a working holiday destination. Working holiday makers are targeted because they are responsible for a significant amount of the tourism sector's key overall contribution to Australia's economy. At eight per cent of total exports, tourism is Australia's largest services export industry. The sector generates $107 billion in consumption, employs more than 500,000 Australians and directly contributes $41 billion to our economy. More than $25 billion is generated by international tourists and about 10 per cent of that comes from working holiday makers. Working holiday makers also deliver benefits to regional Australia, with 75 per cent of international backpackers spending time in our regions. Regional stays account for 40 per cent of nights spent in backpacker accommodation.
This government is committed to support through Tourism Australia high-quality marketing of our nation as a tourist destination for overseas visitors. As I mentioned earlier, the Best Jobs in the World campaign aims to increase awareness of Australia as a working holiday destination, but with its strong online and social media focus it also has broad appeal to the youth tourism market more broadly, which makes up more than a quarter of Australia's international tourism contribution to our economy. The Best Jobs in the World campaign is an exciting, interactive and extremely effective way to support continued growth in this important key tourism export market. The campaign supports the great work of Australia's tourism operators, with the support of this government, towards meeting— (Time expired)
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania) (14:39): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister inform the Senate what the response has been to the campaign so far?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:39): I once again thank Senator Urquhart for her question. The campaign has already been a big win for Australia's tourism industry. There were more than 620,000 applications and about 46,000 video entries from people in 196 countries. Many applicants ran social media campaigns as part of their entries and the 18 finalists have been busy blogging about their activities in Australia this week. Tourism Australia's survey shows that 70 per cent of entrants plan to apply for an Australian working holiday visa, 40 per cent within the next six months; 78 per cent have researched an Australian holiday; 77 per cent have recommended Australia to others as a working holiday destination; and 61 per cent have visited Australia's immigration website for more information on our working holiday maker program. Australia's working holiday maker Facebook page— (Time expired)
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania) (14:40): I have a further supplementary question, Mr President. Can the minister provide an update on activities occurring as part of the Best Jobs in the World campaign and what its next steps are?
Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Minister for Science and Research and Minister Assisting on Tourism) (14:41): Yes, I can, Senator Urquhart. The campaign is a global competition with six state and territory tourism organisations offering their own unique best jobs in the world as a prize. The jobs up for grabs are these: wildlife caretaker in South Australia, chief funster in New South Wales, park ranger in Queensland, tastemaster in Western Australia, outback adventurer in the Northern Territory and lifestyle photographer in Victoria. This week the 18 finalists have been taking part in tasks and challenges that will help the state and territory tourism organisations select the six ultimate winners. These activities will also help prepare the finalists for the work they are doing. The winners will promote Australia's unique destinations and experience to potential working holiday makers from around the world. The winners will be announced in Sydney tomorrow.
National Broadband Network
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:42): My question is to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy. I refer the minister to information he tabled in the Senate yesterday which said that—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham is entitled to be heard in silence. The exchange across the chamber does not help Senator Birmingham present his question. Order, on both sides!
Senator BIRMINGHAM: I was referring the minister to the information tabled in the Senate yesterday which said:
Until such time as the new national standard is agreed and the training course is up and running, NBN Co. will transfer the important task of handling and removing asbestos in pit and pipe and disposing of asbestos waste from its tier 1 contractors to specialist asbestos removal firms.
Can the minister advise the Senate what gaps exist in existing training for NBN Co. contractors that necessitate the suspension of asbestos handling by those particular contractors?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:43): Thank you for your question, Senator Birmingham. The agreement that was reached when Minister Shorten and I convened a meeting of the companies involved—subcontractors, Telstra, NBN Co. and the unions involved—was for remediation work on asbestos. Telstra had already halted their asbestos handling and NBN Co. agreed to halt theirs while these issues were being worked through. I believe there is another meeting taking place today at some stage—it could even be finished by now—that is resolving these issues so that everyone can be sure that all of the standards are being followed.
Senator Abetz interjecting—
Senator CONROY: You had the opportunity to ask some questions about this at Senate estimates, and I think you did. As Mr Quigley has said consistently, asbestos was a known factor before—
Senator Abetz: And you didn't do anything about it.
Senator CONROY: 'You didn't do anything about it,' says Senator Abetz. You should listen to the answer rather than just mindlessly interjecting. Since it was a known factor, it was built into the NBN Co.'s training manuals. There were training courses and there were requirements. So NBN Co. have taken the asbestos issue seriously from day one. As I have said before, across the 18 months or so since we signed the agreement with Telstra, there have been 29 incidents of asbestos issues reported to Comcare—some of which have nothing to do with the National Broadband Network build in any way, shape or form. That is 0.02 per cent.
But that is still too many. So, to ensure the safety of the public and to ensure the safety of the workers— (Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:45): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. If, as the minister has just contended, the asbestos concerns were a known factor at the commencement of the build and were built into the training manuals and other documentation, as he just asserted, why then has it been necessary for the government to strip its original contractors of their responsibility for asbestos handling and engage specialist asbestos removal firms instead?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:46): NBN Co. is working through these issues. We intend to ensure that there are no shortcuts. If some subcontractors of the prime contractors have taken shortcuts, they should feel the full force of all the relevant authorities and laws. We are working with the contractors and, through the contractors, the subcontractors to remind all workers involved that there are to be no shortcuts. Minister Shorten and I left everyone in that room under no illusions. The government does not accept shortcuts when it comes to dealing with asbestos. So, as a precaution, we are ensuring that everybody gets a reminder— (Time expired)
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:47): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate how many of these new specialist contractors are being engaged? How long does the government anticipate needing to use such specialist contractors? What will the additional cost to NBN Co. be of engaging these specialist contractors in addition to its existing contractors?
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (14:47): My understanding is that NBN Co. do, as I think we discussed earlier in the week, augmentation of some Telstra pits. That means we come into contact with some asbestos. It is a very small portion of the total NBN work. I will have to take on notice the question of how many contractors we are using. I do not have a figure. Similarly, I do not have the figures for the cost, but I am happy to take that on notice for you as well.
Let us be clear. Despite the outrageous reporting by The Australian, your bible, and your attempts to smear the National Broadband Network, NBN take these matters very seriously. They have done so from the beginning—unlike those opposite, who pretend to have amnesia about the fact that their own government— (Time expired)
National Security
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:48): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Bob Carr. Under the United States Signals Intelligence Directive 18, interception refers not to the fact of all phone calls, emails and electronic data being collected and stored but to a human listening to or reading the phone calls, emails and electronic data content. My question is: what is the equivalent directive or legislation in Australia and how is interception defined?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:49): All communication interception activities carried out by government agencies are conducted in strict accordance with Australian law. In Australia, the privacy of communications is protected by the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, referred to as the interception act.
For the purposes of the act, interception of a communication passing over a telecommunications system consists of listening to or recording, by any means, such a communication in its passage over that system without the knowledge of the person making the communication. The interception act prohibits the listening to, the copying or recording of a communication as it passes over an Australian telecommunications system.
Agencies such as the police must obtain an independently issued warrant for the investigation of serious offences. ASIO has to obtain the authorisation of the Attorney-General for its warrants on matters pertaining to national security. There are limited circumstances in which information can be lawfully obtained through covert means. These include murder, organised crime and drug trafficking, as well as protecting our national security. Access to these powers is governed by significant accountability to and oversight by the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.
Commonwealth agencies are required to maintain records relating to interceptions and the use, dissemination and destruction of intercepted information. This is the framework which governs any interception in the Australian context. This is the legal architecture. These records, I should add, must be inspected—and I emphasise 'must'—by the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security on a regular basis.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:51): Mr President, I think the minister is confused in that the act he refers to is not the same as the Defence Signals Directorate. My supplementary question relates to metadata. Are any email addresses exempt from the MAINWAY, MARINA, NUCLEON or PRISM programs? For example, are the official or unofficial email addresses of members of parliament exempt? What about internet metadata or content from parliamentary logons?
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:52): As a matter of principle and long-standing practice the government does not comment on intelligence matters. I do reiterate, however, that we have a strong legal framework to protect Australians. Intelligence Services Act agencies such as the Defence Signals Directorate, to which Senator Xenophon refers, are required by law to obtain specific authorisation either from the Minister for Defence or the Minister for Foreign Affairs to produce intelligence on an Australian. In matters relating to threats to security, the Attorney-General must also support the approval. All such activities are independently examined by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to ensure that authorisations are conducted in accordance with this law.
Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (14:52): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm whether under the legislative powers metadata is being obtained in relation to members of parliament? The minister has not directly answered that question.
Senator BOB CARR (New South Wales—Minister for Foreign Affairs) (14:53): I did answer the question, and I would not choose words beyond those I have shared with the Senate.
Indigenous Employment
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (14:53): My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, Senator Wong. I refer the minister to the current rollout of the new Remote Jobs and Communities Program. Given that the RJCP starts on 1 July, why were six remote Indigenous communities still waiting to learn who had been awarded funding deeds at the time of budget estimates on 7 June, and why were others only told in the recent weeks before that who their new employment services provider would be? Now that we are barely 10 days from the start date, can the minister advise whether all of these six remaining providers have now been confirmed?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:54): I thank Senator Payne for another very specific question in this area, and I will attempt to provide her with as much information as I can. If there is more information that we can provide subsequently, I am happy to do that. As the senator would be aware, the government did announce some significant reforms in employment participation and community development. These commence on 1 July 2013. The reforms will see a flexible and integrated service being delivered to people who live in remote areas of Australia, 85 per cent of whom are Indigenous. The reforms are the result of extensive community and industry feedback since 2011 and represent a $1.5 billion investment by the government over five years.
I am advised that providers have been announced in 56 of 59 remote regions. I think the senator indicated a slightly different number. I am also advised that the remaining announcements will be made shortly. Whilst there has been some delay in the announcement, I understand it was critical to the long-term success of the program that the review committee was able to have adequate time to best assess the detailed applications, and the care taken by the government and the committee in selecting providers underscores the importance the government places on providing people in remote Australia with the opportunities to get jobs and to fully participate in their communities.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (14:55): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for that information. For the remaining three areas, can the minister advise as of today, 20 June, what infrastructure, what physical offices and what staff are in place in preparation for a 1 July commencement—in 10 days time?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:56): It would be unsurprising to know that in a representing portfolio I do not have the information on three out of 59 contracts, but I am happy to take the question on notice and respond to the chamber.
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (14:56): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister indicate how she thinks there could be any infrastructure, offices or staff in place for three unannounced providers for a program which starts in 10 days? Given that the Indigenous Employment Program itself was oversubscribed, underresourced and badly managed, how can stakeholders in this area—especially Indigenous jobseekers—have any confidence that the RJCP will be any different?
Senator WONG (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Finance and Deregulation) (14:56): I think that is an expansion plus some comment on the first supplementary. I do not have the information, as I indicated previously, on the contracts to which Senator Payne has referred. I will take the question on notice and provide the information.
Great Barrier Reef
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (14:57): My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Ludwig. Can the minister outline to the Senate how the Gillard government is supporting the Great Barrier Reef?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (14:57): I thank Senator Furner for his continued interest in Reef Rescue in Queensland. The Labor government is proud to support the health of our Great Barrier Reef and the productivity of our farmers through Reef Rescue. Reef Rescue supports and protects land managers by encouraging them to improve their practices and in turn improve farm productivity. Since 2008 more than 3,200 canegrowers, graziers and other land managers from Cape York to Bundaberg have benefited from Reef Rescue, and at the same time we have stopped the equivalent of over one million wheelbarrows worth of run-off entering the reef.
Farmers believe in this program. For every dollar the Gillard government has put in the farmers have put in around $1.80 of their own money. It is important to recognise that contribution of farmers The program works, and that is why the Prime Minister and I announced in Mackay a further $200 million to extend the program.
Over the many decades that graziers were losing paddocks from significant riverbank erosion, which in turn caused significant damage by run-off into the reef, using Reef Rescue funding graziers were able to reinforce riverbanks, stopping the erosion and run-off, which is a real win-win for not only the reef but graziers as well.
Reef Rescue is a great partnership between government and local land management and it is a partnership that only Labor could ever have delivered for Queensland and for the reef. It has provided significant benefits not only across North Queensland—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator LUDWIG: I know those opposite do not support environmental protection, do not support protecting our reefs—all they want to do is make a joke of how much we have— (Time expired)
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (15:00): Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise the Senate the importance of the Reef Rescue program to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, particularly in the light of yesterday's UNESCO's report?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (15:01): UNESCO's World Heritage Committee determined not to list the reef as in danger and this was a welcome decision. The final UNESCO report makes particular mention of Reef Rescue as part of the government's work to protect the reef. There are new and emerging environmental challenges for the reef and Reef Rescue has recognised that.
In our new funding we have included dedicated resources towards managing the crown-of-thorns starfish and, as would be clear, the program enjoys widespread support. The Queensland Farmers Federation has congratulated the government on its continued commitment and continued investment in the Reef Rescue scheme. Similarly, the Cane Growers Association has described Reef Rescue as 'jet powered' due to the impact of the groundswell of change that it has brought across the entire region. There are many types of strong environmental and agricultural outcomes as you get to— (Time expired)
Senator FURNER (Queensland) (15:02): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any risk to the protection of Australia's reefs?
Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister Assisting on Queensland Floods Recovery) (15:03): You will see that Reef Rescue, like the entire $1.9 billion agricultural budget, is at risk right now from those opposite—
Opposition senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order! I remind those on my left that interjections are disorderly. When you are ready, we will proceed. You are doing yourselves a disservice with interjections all the time.
Senator LUDWIG: Mr Abbott will do to Reef Rescue what his state colleagues have done to agricultural departments. Let me quote Senator Back from recent estimates hearings, where he said:
My observation is that most of the state departments have been sort of gutted—diminished.
I could not agree more. That is what we have observed in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. The state agricultural departments have been gutted by Liberal governments, under Premier Campbell Newman, Premier Barry O'Farrell and Premier Napthine.
It is clear that Mr Abbott does not believe in investing in the future of Australia's food industry or in the future of rural and regional economies. All Mr Abbott wants to do is gut spending, cut to the bone and make sure that there is not an agricultural portfolio. (Time expired)
Senator Conroy: Mr President, I ask further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS
Mount Gellibrand Wind Farm
Senator CONROY (Victoria—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on Digital Productivity) (15:04): Mr Deputy President, for the information of the Senate, I table additional advice on a question asked of me yesterday by Senator Madigan. I seek leave to incorporate the information into Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
On 19 June 2013 during question time, Senator John Madigan asked me the following question as Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities:
Mt Gellibrand Wind Farm
Minister, what are the details of the expert and other checks conducted by the department during the four week period in 2005 when the department was in possession of the environmental consultant's original referral documentation and site assessment were undertaken?
ANSWER:
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (then the Department of the Environment and Heritage) received a referral for the Mt Gellibrand Wind Farm, near Colac (EPBC Act reference 2005/2131) on 18 May 2005. The referral was placed on the department's web site for a 10 business day public comment period, and no public comments were received.
The referral was also sent to the Victorian Minister for Planning for comment, and no comments were received.
The department evaluated the information provided in the referral and attachments, against the EPBC ActAdministrative Guidelines on Significance (July 2000) and other relevant material.
The main issues for consideration related to listed threatened species, listed migratory species and the Western District Lakes Ramsar wetland. The department advised the Minister's delegate that significant impacts on matters protected under the EPBC Act are not likely to occur. On 15 June 2005, the Minister's delegate determined that the proposed action is not a controlled action under the EPBC Act.
The referral documentation and the referral decision instrument for this project are available on the department's website.
Parent and Community Engagement Program
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:04): In response to a question from Senator Siewert yesterday, I seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The answer read as follows—
Dear Senator Siewert
I refer to your question to the Hon Senator Kate Lundy during Question Time yesterday regarding Wyndham Early Learning Activity Centre Inc. (WELA) and the Parental and Community Engagement (PaCE) Program.
The Australian Government is committed to improving the engagement of parents and communities in their local schools. I recognise how important it is for families and communities to 'reach-in' to schools and other educational settings to engage in their children's learning with the aim of improving the educational outcomes of their children. The PaCE program supports this goal and is a community driven program for parents and carers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.
My department provided $269,000 to WELA under the PaCE program for the Engaging Parents to Build Leadership and Support their Children's Learning project. The project was funded from 21 December 2010 to 31 December 2012 and focused on connecting and engaging with isolated Aboriginal parents and caregivers to build the leadership required to support their children's learning at home, and to support high expectations for their children's educational outcomes.
The project was initially provided with $165,000 for the period 21 December 2010 to 31 December 2011. In December 2011, WELA requested an extension to their contract until 30 April 2012; however they did not request additional funding. The extension was approved and a contract variation was executed amending the contract period to 30 April 2012.
In April 2012, WELA requested a further extension of the project to the 31 December 2012, in addition, they also requested additional funding of $104,000. The extension and the additional funds were approved, bringing the total funding for the project to $269,000 for the period 21 December 2010 – 31 December 2012.
The final performance report for the project was submitted by WELA on 25 February 2013, and the audited financial acquittal was submitted in April 2013.
Earlier this year my department had informal communications with WELA regarding further funding for the Centre, however there have been no discussions and no formal request for additional PaCE funding for the Engaging Parents to Build Leadership and Support their Children's Learning project or for PaCE funding to commence a new project.
The PaCE program commenced in 2009 and under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act (IETA) 2000. As announced in the 2013-14 Budget, the Australian Government will continue to support a number of programs at the national level for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, including the PaCE program.
The Australian Government expended over $80 million for the PaCE program for the period 2009 to 2012 and a further $22 million has been allocated for the program in 2013.
Since the program started in 2009, 583 diverse projects across all States and Territories have been initiated, aimed at approximately 53,000 parents and carers and a further 28,000 community members. As at May 2013, 168 projects were operating in 2013 to a value of $13.9 million. Of these projects 97 are continuing from 2012 and 71 are new projects.
I encourage WELA to contact Ms Jillian Matthews from my department's WA State Office on (08) 9464 4107 regarding the lodgement of an application for PaCE funding.
I trust that the above information will be useful.
Yours sincerely
Peter Garrett
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS
Indigenous Employment
Senator PAYNE (New South Wales) (15:05): I move:
That the Senate take note of answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development (Senator Wong) to a question asked by me relating to Indigenous employment.
The answer that we received during question time in relation to Indigenous employment just shows us that the government are continuing to take responsibility for what is just abysmal management of Indigenous employment services in this country. The Remote Jobs and Communities Program will start in 10 days time, on 1 July. At estimates hearings we spent a lot of time talking about which providers were already in place and which providers would be ready to go. That was on 7 June. We find ourselves today, on 20 June, just 10 days before the start-up date, with three providers still, as yet, unannounced. They are the three providers in Queensland: western Cape, central Cape and Cook. Another three in Tiwi, Galiwinku, Yirrkala and the Torres Straits islands have only been announced in the past few days.
If we were dealing with the centre of an Australian capital city CBD and we were talking about announcing providers that needed to be in place in the next 10 days, we might pause and think: 'Are they going to be ready to go in 10 days?' But we are not. We are actually talking about three of the most remote regions in Australia where Job Services providers have yet to be announced in a $1.5 billion program that this government intends to roll out in 10 days time. How can providers who have yet to be announced—we do not even know whether they have been confirmed or not—possibly have adequate infrastructure, adequate staff and adequate offices ready to help job seekers in the most remote areas of Australia within the next 10 days? It is simply beyond the bounds of credulity. In fact, based on the government's current performance, whether you are talking about the IEP or the Remote Jobs and Communities Program, their target of halving the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous employment outcomes by 2020 is going to go the same way as their commitment to halve homelessness by 2020: we have actually seen homelessness increase by 17 per cent on their watch. They are never short of targets, they are never short of rhetoric, but they are very, very short on delivery.
This story sounds terrifyingly like that of the Indigenous Employment Program, a very worthy initiative that Labor has effectively mismanaged so badly that it is almost at the point of being dismantled—by a government that claims that it is a leader in this particular area. It is mind-boggling. In fact, it would be funny if it were not so terribly serious. Under the IEP, we had job placement providers who had their funding frozen midway through last year. Some even had to close their doors at the end of last year, and others are still trying to stay afloat, because there was no certainty provided by the government on the IEP under its bureaucratically entitled 'pause on funding'. So the minister, Minister Julie Collins, has been desperately trying to save face. She has announced a new streamlining of the IEP—because, if you keep making announcements about streamlining and you review and you have a 'pause', then hopefully you can confuse everybody so completely that no-one can see that it is a completely dysfunctional operation.
I think, and I am very concerned, that the Remote Jobs and Communities Program is out of control before it even starts. That is a very, very serious problem for the many thousands of unemployed Indigenous Australians in the most remote parts of this country. If you live in Cook, if you live in the central cape or the western cape regions of Far North Queensland, what are you supposed to do in 10 days time? Who are you supposed to turn to? The government have also announced a two-month funding extension this week relating to CDEP providers for the transition to the RJCP. But apparently they did not even manage to consult properly with the providers in that case because a number of them have reportedly closed their doors in anticipation of the winding down of the CDEP. So any extension is too little, too late, and useless to them.
It is just a patch-up job. It might get headlines; it might not—but it does not make any meaningful process on closing the gap on Indigenous employment outcomes. For the sake of Australia's Indigenous job seekers in our most remote areas and in those areas served by the continuing Indigenous Employment Program, the IEP, this farce just has to stop.
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (15:10): This week in the parliament there have been, quite pleasingly, a number of young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander boys and girls doing work experience with various members of parliament as part of the Learn Earn Legend! program.
Senator Payne interjecting—
Senator THISTLETHWAITE: Senator Payne is right; it was an initiative of former senator Mark Arbib. It provides a wonderful opportunity for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to come to Parliament House to gain work experience with members of parliament, to learn how our system of government works and, hopefully, to aspire to one day becoming members of this parliament themselves, and to be, in their words, legends within their communities. That follows on from a number of intensive intervention and employment programs that this government has developed to close the gap in living standards between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and other Australians.
There has been mixed success. Objective analysis of the program indicates that there has been mixed success. On some indicators, we are making significant progress, particularly when it comes to halving the gap in the numeracy and literacy rates of primary school students. In other areas, progress has not been as significant, particularly when it comes to issues such as rates of incarceration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. But one area where the government are committed and working seriously hard with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander representative organisations, within their communities, to ensure that we are making progress on reducing the gap, is Indigenous employment. The Australian government have a strong record of working with Indigenous communities to ensure that we are providing training opportunities through the vocational education and training system and opportunities for young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders to get a tertiary education at university; and, if they are unemployed, opportunities to gain employment through a number of the Job Services providers that contract with the government.
The government has also introduced significant reforms in employment participation and community development services in remote Australia to help more people get into work and participate in their communities and to better meet the labour needs of employers. From 1 July this year, Job Services Australia, the Disability Employment Service, the Community Development Employment Projects program and the Indigenous Employment Program will transition to the new Remote Jobs and Communities Program, or the RJCP. That will build on the strengths of the existing programs, providing a more streamlined and flexible employment and participation service in remote Australia. The RJCP will operate in 59 remote regions across Australia.
The changes are being made because many people in remote Australia said that, while the existing services provide short-term help, they are not delivering long-term results. So these changes come about as a result of a serious process of consultation with leaders and participants in programs in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander remote communities. Those who spoke to the government wanted local people to have the training and support that they need to get local jobs, and that is reflected in the design of the RJCP. It reflects the government's view that everyone who can work should have the opportunity to work.
Remote job seekers, including those on CDEP wages, will be given the personalised support that they need to take up opportunities and those who cannot get a job will participate in meaningful activities that will contribute to their communities as well as providing them with work-ready skills. There will be a single service provider with a permanent presence in each of these 59 remote regions. It is part of the government listening to the wants and needs of leaders in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, particularly those in remote areas— (Time expired)
Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (15:15): I enter this debate as a Senator for Queensland, and I ask the Labor Party: what have you got against North Queensland? The three communities that are still to get one of these providers are all in North Queensland—the western Cape, central Cape and Cook communities—and would normally have the Indigenous Employment Program. I can only ask the Labor Party: why is it that you are picking on Cape York? Perhaps it is because, for the first time almost in living history, the people of Cape York and the state electorate of Cook voted to return a Liberal-National Party member to the state parliament. It is almost unheard of. It has happened only once before in the history of the Queensland parliament, and that was when Mr Eric Deeral, an Indigenous person, won the seat for the National Party back in the 1970s, but since then it has been held by Labor continuously. Why? I will quote some Indigenous leaders, who said this to me in a public meeting I attended recently: 'We blackfellas have been promised everything by the Labor Party for decades. We've always gone along with their promises but we have eventually worked out that all the Labor Party does for us is promise. They never deliver.' And here is a classic example of it.
People on Palm Island, just off the coast of Queensland at Townsville, have for years voted solidly for the Labor Party. Why? Because at every state and federal election, whatever they wanted they were promised. And they were taken for granted. The Labor Party used to get about 80 per cent of the vote on Palm Island. Would you believe, Mr Deputy President, that at the last state election the Liberal National Party got 48 per cent of the first preference vote on Palm Island? Just incredible! Look at what happened in the Northern Territory election. I only raise these things to say that eventually Indigenous people are working out that the Labor Party is all talk. And this program is typical of that.
We have 10 days to go before the program starts, and three of the providers have not yet been appointed. As Senator Payne pointed out, how can you start a program in 10 days time when not only have the providers not been appointed but there has been no infrastructure set up? I can only presume that this is payback from the Labor Party. That perhaps may be going a little too far; perhaps it is just the typical Labor Party inefficiency, incompetence and incapability of managing any government program. Good heavens, you do not need me to elaborate on that—have a look at the pink batts program; have a look at the school halls fiasco. Whatever the Labor Party touches it destroys.
Mr Deputy President, do you know what the Labor Party could do to provide real jobs for Indigenous Australians? This is what Indigenous leaders right across the north and I assume right across Australia are telling me every day: they want to be treated as normal people; they do not want welfare; they want the government to stop this paternal way of dealing with Indigenous people; and they want the government to stop succumbing to the Greens demands to stop every element of progress that could provide real jobs in these communities. Through the Greens the Labor Party is trying to lock up half of Cape York in a World Heritage listing. Do the Indigenous people and local people want that? Of course not. Have they been consulted? Of course not.
Mr Deputy President, if you want real jobs for Indigenous people, get rid of the green tape and get rid of the influence of the Greens political party. Who could tell you better than anyone in Australia? Indigenous leaders say to me all the time, 'Get rid of the Greens, because they are the ones that are stopping us from having real jobs.' Up around Weipa, Indigenous people want to do things, but they are prevented by the Labor government relying on Greens preferences to stay in power. That is why there is a real problem with Indigenous employment in Australia. I plead with those who have it in their hearts to do something positive for Indigenous people— (Time expired)
Senator MARSHALL (Victoria) (15:20): I listened carefully to Senator Payne's contribution and in no way do I doubt her very genuine and real concern for these issues around Indigenous employment. These are incredibly difficult issues which governments of both persuasions have struggled with for decades. I have listened to some of my colleagues who have spent their whole lives dedicated to progressing the cause of our Indigenous people with programs. We only had to listen to Senator Crossin the other night as she explained that we cannot impose these things on Indigenous people: we have to talk to them, to consult with them, to enter into partnerships with them and to work with them to get the best results. I will not say that everything this government has done has been perfect in this regard, because it has not been. But, as I say, all governments have struggled very sincerely with these issues. I do not doubt for a second this government's intention to try to get the best possible outcomes. Often implementation is incredibly difficult. The process of consultation and working with different communities is very problematic. I have chaired Senate estimates where I have heard Senator Scullion talk about a whole range of issues in remote areas. We have explored some of the incredible difficulties about consultation in remote areas, getting people on board and getting commitments from the local community to get some of these things to happen.
I do not want anyone to think that there is not a very genuine attempt by this government to make a real difference in Indigenous employment, because that genuine attempt is absolutely there for all to see. As I said, is it perfect? It is not. But it has been a problem for many, many years, and I know Senator Payne comes to this debate with very genuine intentions. Senator Macdonald's contribution was not worth listening to at all. But let me—
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator MARSHALL: That is being generous, I must say, after listening to that. He just wanted to completely politicise the whole issue and I think it does this issue a significant injustice.
Significant reforms to employment participation and community development will commence on 1 July 2013. These reforms will see flexible and integrated services being delivered to people living in remote areas of Australia, 85 per cent of whom are Indigenous. The reforms have been as a result of extensive community and industry feedback since 2011 and represent $1.5 billion of investment by this government over the next five years. By any measure, that is a significant investment. It goes to the point I was making earlier about the consultation with communities to ensure that we get this right. I agree with some of the comments that have been thrown around in these debates that simply throwing money at the problem, in itself, does not fix the problem. Fixing the problem takes money, but it also takes good plans with communities onside. It is a very significant investment, and we are very keen to get it right.
As has been discussed, announcements have been made in 56 of the 59 remote regions, and the remaining announcements will be made shortly. While there has been a slight delay—and the government acknowledges that—in the announcements, it was critical to the long-term success of the program that the RJCP recommendation review committee was able to have adequate time to best assess the detailed applications. The care taken by the government and the RJCP recommendation review committee in selecting providers underscores the importance this government places on providing people in remote Australia with the opportunities they need to get jobs and to participate fully in their communities. While the government congratulates the successful RJCP organisations, it is also conscious that unsuccessful applicants have made a significant investment into their applications. As part of the announcement process, the government has asked the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to contact these applicants to advise them of the outcome and offer debriefing processes on their applications.
The government is committed to Indigenous employment. (Time expired)
Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (15:25): Education and employment are very much what I regard as the key to the door to the modern world for Aborigines. It is the way they are going to fit into modern Australian society, and it is absolutely essential that the government should be there providing opportunities for education and job skills training so that Aborigines can get employment and can fit into modern Australian society. Something like 85 per cent of Aborigines now live in the large cities and towns of Queensland, New South Wales and WA, in big cities like Sydney, Brisbane and Perth and in the larger regional centres of the states. They are just part of mainstream Australia. They access mainstream services like education; they attend schools; they access Medicare; and, increasingly, they are just there as part of our society.
But the group of Aborigines who we really have to be concerned about is not the 85 per cent who live in our large cities and towns of eastern Australia and who are really just part of the Australian community; it is the 15 per cent who live in remote areas like the Kimberley, the eastern Pilbara and way up by the Northern Territory border in communities like Punmu and Kiwirrkurra; in parts of the Northern Territory where it is possible for them not to encounter the rest of the Australian community for almost the whole of their lives; and in parts of Queensland. It is very important that Aborigines living in these areas have access to services which can provide them with job skills training and education.
I was told at a Kimberley economic forum that I went to a couple of years ago that there were something like 6,000 unemployed Indigenous youth, mostly boys, in the East Kimberley alone. That is a very frightening statistic because it means that, while the hotels and tourist trade in the Kimberley at that forum were looking to bring in guest workers from East Timor, there was no suggestion that they could access the pool of 6,000 unemployed young Indigenous people in the East Kimberley, right on their doorstep. That is why Indigenous employment and training programs for remote areas are very, very important.
These people have been able to access CDEP payments for a very long time. But CDEP has been a kind of mickey mouse training scheme. Nobody really expects to get a job because they have had some sort of CDEP training. It is regarded very much as sit-down money. One welcomes the initiative of the government in seeking to set up a remote area training program of the kind that we are talking about. But, like many other programs under the Gillard government, this Remote Jobs and Communities Program has been already somewhat stuffed up.
What has happened is that, in anticipation of this program being put in place, the CDEP were supposed to start the Remote Jobs and Communities Program on 1 July, which is not very far away. The CDEP were told that they would be closed down. They have closed down, but unfortunately no money has come through for the Remote Jobs and Communities Program, and no money is expected for several months. This means that Indigenous people living in remote communities, who have been talked up to believe that there would be a great employment training program beginning for them in the near future, are now faced with the fact that not only is that program not going to start on time but the CDEP, which was providing them with funds to cover their living expenses and so on, has ceased. So there we are. This government has put these Aboriginal people totally in limbo, and I think that is disgusting. (Time expired)
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Melzer, Ms Jean Isobelle, OAM
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:31): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 18 June 2013, of Jean Isabel Melzer OAM, a senator for Victoria from 1974 to 1981. I call on the Manager of Government Business in the Senate.
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:31): by leave—I move:
That the Senate record its deep regret at the death, on 18 June this year, of former Senator Jean Isabel Melzer, and place on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service, and tender its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
Jean Melzer was the first ALP woman elected to the Senate to represent Victoria. She was a senator for seven years from 1974 until 1981. In 1978 she was the first woman appointed as secretary of the caucus of the federal parliamentary Labor Party. Jean was a remarkable woman who lived through and was part of remarkable times.
Jean was born in the Melbourne suburb of Elsternwick on 7 February 1926. Academically gifted, Jean left school to help support her family in 1941 following the death of her father. Jean was principled and politically minded from a young age. Her concern for the disadvantaged and her commitment to the peace movement, feminism and the environment were constants throughout her life.
Jean joined the Communist Party as a teenager and remained a member until 1957. Her interest was applying the theory of communism to Australian society to address poverty and the absence of equality. In the 1960s she joined the Australian Labor Party, acknowledging that she was interested in changing the way we were governed. Her passionate opposition to the reintroduction of conscription and to the escalating Vietnam War added further fire to her commitment to social justice. From 1971 to 1974 Jean was secretary of the Victorian branch of the ALP and was responsible for organising the ALP's Victorian campaign for the 1972 election.
In the double dissolution election of 1974 Jean won a position in the Senate. As a senator, Jean was a direct speaker and a vigorous and constructive participant in committees. Always plain speaking, she promoted the issues of discrimination in the workforce, the inadequacies of child care, the inequality faced by Aboriginal Australians and the unequal distribution of superannuation benefits. She rightly saw the establishment of Medibank after the 1974 election as a major achievement for the Whitlam government.
Many of the issues that Jean sought to see addressed remain familiar to this parliament. Her contribution on these matters was groundbreaking. She was part of a social movement which changed Australian society. In part, the number of women in the chamber today is due to the work, 40 to 50 years ago, of Jean and others like her.
Jean was a single mother of six children. How she fitted everything into her life I can barely comprehend. She was a notable advocate of women in working life, especially in the political realm. Throughout her life Jean remained a fervent critic of nuclear proliferation and uranium mining. In 2004 she was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia and the Victorian Premier's Senior Achiever Award.
On behalf of the government I offer condolences to her family.
Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:35): The coalition joins in supporting the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. Jean Melzer described herself as having been born liberated, and that was way back in 1926. When her father died there was no money and Jean had to leave school and go to work. Her first job was as a clerk with the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission, which I understand made her one of the first four women clerks employed in the public service. She subsequently worked as a clerk in the office of the Building Workers' Industrial Union, as a secretary, as a market research and as a hotel cashier.
Jean Melzer joined the Communist Party as a teenager and kept her membership until 1957, so she saw the light before Senator Rhiannon did. She later became involved in organisations like the peace movement, the Council for Civil Liberties and Save our Sons, which it has to be said were all to some degree satellites of the Communist Party or its broader movement.
After Labor lost the 1966 federal election, Ms Melzer joined the Camberwell branch of the ALP and worked her way up the party hierarchy. Prior to entering the Senate, Jean Melzer was the secretary of the Victorian branch of the Labor Party. She described her preselection for the Senate as a sheer accident. I do not know how that happened, because usually you have to nominate but, nevertheless, good on her. As we have had recorded to us, she was the first female Labor senator from the state of Victoria and, of course, followed the Liberal Party, which had achieved that prior to the Labor Party achieving such a result. She described her situation as the Centre Unity faction wanting a woman to stand for the Senate. After the 1974 double dissolution, she was allotted an unwinnable position on the ticket but moved up to the fifth spot when one of those nominated before her stood down. In May 1974, Jean Melzer became a senator.
At the time, Senator Melzer dismissed the Senate as:
… an anachronism which should be abolished.
That was, of course, the official ALP policy at the time. But, since there was Buckley's of getting rid of it, she found a role in it. In June 1974, Senator Melzer said:
I don't see why we need a House of Review, but the Senate has played a more effective role, particularly with committees of inquiry, over the past two years.
She served as a senator for Victoria for six years. During this time, she contributed in the areas of health, social welfare, the environment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs, women's issues and family law. In 1976, she told the Senate:
I have sat with my friend Neville Bonner—
who was a Queensland Liberal senator and, in fact, the first Indigenous senator or member of this parliament—
in Aboriginal camps and I have cried with him over the conditions that Aborigines live in in his State of Queensland.
Senator Melzer was particularly active in committee work.
In 1979, she was demoted to the unwinnable third position on the ALP Senate ticket, behind Robert Ray, who was given her second spot. I think it is fair to say that Jean Melzer was an early victim of the gender wars, although her implacable opposition to uranium mining was also out of step with the changing mood in the Labor Party. She had also gone against her Centre Unity faction's position in two preselection contests.
At the time, Senator Melzer said:
A lot of people don't see this as a woman's job—they see it as an aberration to have woman in the Senate. If I'd been a man, people would have said 'poor bloke' he's lost his job. Because I am a woman, there's a tendency to believe I can find a man to support me.
What is known is that, despite considerable pressure, including an overwhelming vote at the Victorian ALP state conference, Robert Ray refused to give up his second spot on the ALP ticket. One wonders if Robert Ray was wearing a blue tie at the time!
The Financial Review reports that:
… the decision of the ALP conference was a direct rebuff for candidate for Wills and ACTU President Hawke, who had campaigned strongly against the push to have Senator Melzer given a winnable position on the Senate ticket.
At the time, Melzer defiantly exclaimed:
You may win the battle today, but we will win the war.
I think it is worthy of note that by the time of her valedictory speech in June 1981, Senator Melzer had mellowed and obviously come a long way in her political journey. While still resorting to describing colleagues as 'comrades', she finally did see some good on the coalition side of the chamber. She said:
I will remember the people I have met here with at a great deal of warmth and pleasure. I will remember my comrades on this side of the House who are, I must say, as close to me as my family in many respects because of the support, warmth and comradeship that has flowed. But I must say that I have discovered that some honourable senators opposite, who I always imagined had two heads or horns and a tail, underneath are warm, caring human beings. They are a little misguided and take the wrong path at times. Nonetheless, I treasure the friendships that I have made in this place.
After leaving the Senate, Senator Melzer remained active in ALP politics. However, after the 1984 ALP conference supported the development of Roxby Downs, she resigned from the ALP and became a Senate candidate of the Nuclear Disarmament Party at the December 1984 election. A major split engulfed the fledgling Nuclear Disarmament Party because of an influx of members of the Socialist Workers Party, or the 'Trots' or 'Trotskyites', into its ranks, leading to the NDP's most prominent leaders—Senator elect Jo Vallentine, who of course was a relative of former senator Mary Jo Fisher, and unsuccessful Senate candidates Peter Garrett, who is now a Labor minister, and Jean Melzer—walking out of the party's inaugural national conference. The three of them walked out because of the overwhelming dominance by the Socialist Workers Party. Clearly, they have now been incorporated into the Australian Greens.
After a brief association with the Nuclear-Free Australia Party in the 1990s, Melzer kept up an interest in groups such as the Rationalist Society and the Union of Australian Women—which, it must be noted, were also subject to Communist influence. As well, she was active in the Council on the Ageing in Victoria and the University of the Third Age network in Victoria, of which she was president from 2001 to 2006. On 26 January 2004, Australia Day, Jean Melzer was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for service to the community, to education, particularly through the University of the Third Age, and to environmental conservation in the Cape Paterson area, which had become her permanent residence after 1994.
The coalition extends to her extended family and especially her children our condolences on her passing. Her obituary in the Age contained a statement which seems apt:
A short battle that saw her will outlast her body. Feisty to the end.
May she rest in peace.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I ask senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion.
Honourable senators having stood in their places—
The PRESIDENT: I thank the Senate.
BUSINESS
Rearrangement
Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) (15:44): I move:
That the routine of business for Thursday, 20 June 2013 be varied to allow consideration of government business order of the day No. 21, commencing immediately.
Question agreed to.
BILLS
Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Amendment Bill 2013
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Senator SCULLION (Northern Territory—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) (15:45): I rise to continue my remarks on the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Bill 2013. I was reflecting on the importance of maintaining consistent funding so that individuals, communities and educators can sensibly plan to ensure that we close the gap in education. For those who are thinking about the gap in this area, I will put a couple of statistics on the record. In the Northern Territory, year 3 reading for non-Indigenous in very remote areas is 95.8 per cent; for Indigenous, it is 22.1 per cent. Year 3 persuasive writing for mainstream individuals is 93.8 per cent and meets the national benchmark; for Indigenous, it is 17.2 per cent. Year 3 spelling for mainstream individuals in remote schools is 96 per cent and meets the benchmark; if you are Indigenous, it is 26 per cent. For grammar and punctuation, only 12.6 per cent of Indigenous students in very remote areas meet the benchmark. For year 3 numeracy, 23.3 per cent of Indigenous students in very remote areas meet the benchmark and do not have any chance of going on to most of the sciences. Year 5 reading for students in very remote areas is 8.6 per cent against 94.1 per cent for mainstream students in exactly the same schools. For year 5 persuasive writing, only 9.9 per cent of Aboriginal students in Northern Territory very remote schools meet the national standard and, in the same schools, it is 94.1 per cent for mainstream students—and the list goes on. It is very similar in other areas: there are massive gaps.
On this short-term approach, where we are now only funded for one year and only for three programs over that one year, I would certainly like to provide the government with some feedback. I, along with the communities and the individuals in the education system who are subject to the vagaries of this government's approach to education funding, think this is appalling. They are confused—and I can understand that. This bill does provide funding. It is an appropriation bill that will allow some adjustment to the education component of Stronger Futures and the national partnership that is specifically for the nutrition program, additional teachers and some other programs. This is typical of Labor's approach: a short-term approach for no practical reason. We have Stronger Futures. Instead of having a one-year approach, we have 10 years—out of the blue. Stronger Futures is a 10-year program, so we can say that in this particular area the sums look bigger. Whether they will possibly be doing the same things in 10 years time, who would know? You can only guess.
There is a stark contrast in the government's policy in the very important provision of these appropriations. In last year's budget, Labor cut $22 million off the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program—a program, I have to say, that succeeded very much in closing the gap. We sent our best and brightest Aboriginal and Islander youth to the nation's best boarding schools. That was fantastic. But $22 million was cut from the program. Cynically, when the government were announcing Stronger Futures—isn't that wonderful?—I wondered where that money came from. Of course, we found out later through the estimates process that it actually came from the Indigenous Youth Leadership Program. After a lot of hard work and some intense pressure from my colleagues and from me, but mostly from the NGOs and the communities lobbying the government, this week Garrett, in another shameless ploy, had the audacity to trumpet a $22 million—remember that figure—investment in exactly the same programs that he cut the year before.
Whilst I support these appropriations—and I support the bill because it is going to have some value—in this matter, where we normally have a bipartisan approach, I would call on the government to have less spin and more substance.
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:50): I thank senators for their contribution and commend the bill to the Senate.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
Third Reading
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Before I call the minister to move the third reading, does any senator wish to have a committee stage on the bill to ask further questions or clarify further issues? If not, I call the minister.
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:50): I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Afghanistan
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:51): On behalf of the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, I table a ministerial statement on Afghanistan.
COMMITTEES
Government Response to Report
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:51): I present five government responses to committee reports as listed on today’s Order of Business, as well as the government's response to the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on its inquiry into the operation of the South Australian and Northern Territory container deposit scheme. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The documents read as follows—
JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL BROADBAND NETWORK
Review of the Rollout of the National Broadband Network
Fourth Report
Australian Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of 28 February 2013
May 2013
INTRODUCTION
In March 2011, the Parliament established the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network (the Committee) to enable the ongoing parliamentary scrutiny of all aspects relating to the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN). The Committee is required to report to the Parliament on the rollout of the NBN on a six monthly basis until the completion of the project.
The Committee has been asked to provide progress reports on:
the rollout of the NBN;
the achievement of take-up targets as set out in NBN Co Limited's (NBN Co) Corporate Plan;
network rollout performance including service levels and faults;
the effectiveness of NBN Co in meeting its obligations as set out in its Stakeholder Charter;
NBN Co's strategy for engaging with consumers and handling complaints;
NBN Co's risk management processes; and
any other matter pertaining to the NBN rollout that the Committee considers relevant.
The Committee tabled its first report on the Review of the Rollout of the National Broadband Network on 31 August 2011, its second report on 24 November 2011 and its third report on 25 June 2012. The government's responses to the Committee's first, second and third reports were tabled in the Parliament on 1 March 2012, 16 April 2012 and 9 October 2012 respectively.
On 28 February 2013, the Committee tabled its fourth report, entitled Review of the Rollout of the National Broadband Network: Fourth Report. The Committee's fourth report was informed by public hearings and public consultation which attracted 28 submissions and three exhibits. The report made eight recommendations ranging across: the provision of information on the NBN including key performance data on forecasts and actual results; reporting arrangements that facilitate earlier submission of the government's six monthly performance report on the progress of the NBN rollout and the inclusion of audited financial statements; the potential of NBN Co's fixed wireless network to improve mobile telecommunications, especially for regional and remote Australia; initiatives to address the operation of medical alarms over the NBN; private equity funding and Telstra workforce issues.
BACKGROUND
The NBN is a telecommunications network that will provide access to high-speed broadband to 100 per cent of Australian premises using a combination of fibre to the premises, fixed-wireless and satellite technologies. NBN Co's objective is to provide 93 per cent of premises with access to a high-speed fibre network capable of providing broadband speeds of up to one gigabit per second (Gbps) download and 400 megabits per second (Mbps) upload. Seven per cent of premises will be served by a combination of next-generation fixed-wireless and satellite technologies providing peak speeds of up to 25 Mbps download and 5 Mbps upload.
The NBN will be Australia's first national wholesale, open access broadband network offering equivalent terms and conditions to all access seekers or service providers. The Australian Government has established NBN Co to design, build and operate the new high-speed NBN. NBN Co will roll out the network and sell wholesale services to internet and telephone service providers. In turn service providers will offer retail services to consumers. This is a significant structural change to Australia's telecommunications industry, aimed at encouraging vibrant retail competition.
On 7 March 2012, the Definitive Agreements between NBN Co and Telstra came into force. The Agreements pave the way for a faster, cheaper and more efficient rollout of the NBN. They include the reuse of suitable Telstra infrastructure, avoiding infrastructure duplication and for Telstra to progressively structurally separate by decommissioning its copper network during the NBN rollout. The Definitive Agreements will mean less disruption to communities, less use of overhead cables and faster access to the NBN for Australians.
Planning and construction of the NBN is well underway. On 11 January 2013, NBN Co announced that it had exceeded its target to have construction commenced or completed in areas covering 758,000 premises before the end of 2012. The total number of premises in areas where construction had commenced or completed was 784,592 by year end.
On 21 March 2013, NBN Co reported that it has updated its short-term fibre rollout timeline expecting to pass 341,000 premises with fibre about three months later than the June 2013 target, with between 190,000 and 220,000 premises now forecast to be passed by fibre by end June 2013. NBN Co will also assume direct responsibility for the Northern Territory fibre rollout.
NBN Co has advised that this short-term issue will not affect the long-term delivery of the NBN or the overall cost of the project. NBN Co remains on track to deliver fast, affordable and reliable broadband to every Australian by 2021 as set out in NBN Co's 2012-15 Corporate Plan.
On 5 May 2013 NBN Co released an update to its indicative three year fibre rollout plan, which will see NBN construction either commence or be completed by mid-2016 for more than 4.8 million homes, businesses, schools and hospitals across Australia. The three year rollout plan will be updated each year.
By 30 June 2016, the numbers of homes, businesses, schools and hospitals that will see construction commence or be complete include:
An additional 406,100 premises in New South Wales, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 1,416,800;
An additional 303,000 premises in Victoria, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 994,600;
An additional 255,700 premises in Queensland, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 934,300;
An additional 181,500 premises in Western Australia, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 610,700;
An additional 117,700 premises in South Australia, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 445,000;
An additional 45,000 premises in the Australian Capital Territory, bringing the total number of premises with construction commenced or complete to more than 180,300;
In the Northern Territory, the rollout of the NBN will be complete for more than 65,400 premises by the end of 2015;
In Tasmania, the rollout of the NBN will be complete for more than 208,400 homes and businesses by the end of 2015; and
More than 7,303 schools, 663 hospitals, 120 university campuses and 1,415 aged care facilities across the country.
Construction of the national fibre network rollout will begin between 1 April 2013 and 30 June 2016 in these locations, under NBN Co's three year rollout plan.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The government has considered the Committee's Fourth Report and provides the following response to the recommendations.
Performance Reporting
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the key performance indicator information presented in the Shareholder Ministers' six-monthly National Broadband Network (NBN) performance report list and detail:
(1) established Business Plan targets and
(2) actual results which track the progress of the NBN rollout over each six month period as well as yearly, to enable the comparison of actual physical NBN rollout results with published NBN Co Corporate Plan targets.
The government supports this recommendation.
The government and NBN Co are committed to publishing as much information as possible on the NBN rollout. Six monthly results and Corporate Plan targets have been included in the past government reports to the Committee and now that NBN Co has reached volume rollout, NBN Co is considering what additional information can be provided on an ongoing basis.
The government's six-monthly report to the Committee is based on information from NBN Co and provides:
a summary of the key milestones achieved by the company, including details around awarded contracts and their value;
year to date financial reports, comprising profit and loss statements, balance sheets and a consolidated statement of cash flows; and
measurement against agreed key performance indicators for the Company, including, actual results for construction commenced or completed, premises passed/covered, and premises activated for brownfields, new developments and satellite/fixed wireless.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to date have provided detail on the actual results for the six months to June and December and have been presented in tables and graphs to facilitate comparability of information over time. The KPI reporting framework has been broadly consistent across each of the three progress reports provided to the Committee.
NBN Co's 2012-15 Corporate Plan, released on 8 August 2012, includes NBN rollout targets for premises passed and premises activated for brownfields, new developments and satellite/fixed wireless. The 2012-15 Corporate Plan targets are published on financial year basis and were included in the government's third progress report on the NBN rollout reflecting NBN Co's performance up to 30 June 2012. These targets are under review in the 2013‑16 Corporate Plan and will be included in the next six-monthly report to the Committee for the reporting period up to 30 June 2013. As reported at the Committee's 19 April 2013 hearing, NBN Co's underlying business case around the NBN rollout remains fundamentally unchanged from that outlined in the 2012-15 Corporate Plan.
The government supports the provision of quality information to the Committee to inform its review of the NBN rollout. In addition to the data contained in the government's reports to the Committee, NBN Co provides updated deployment metrics on its website and through other parliamentary reporting processes. Further information on the progress of the rollout, for example the number of premises expected to be ready for service in certain areas, can be found on NBN Co's website at www.nbnco.com.au
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Shareholder Ministers' six monthly performance report on the progress of the National Broadband Network rollout include audited financial statements with accompanying explanatory notes, and where it is not possible to provide these in the first instance, that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network when prepared, as an addendum to the Performance Report.
The government notes this recommendation.
As a publicly-owned entity, NBN Co maintains regular reporting to the Parliament through Parliamentary Committees including the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, Senate Committees and audit by the Auditor General. Separately, it reports regularly to Shareholder Ministers.
The government has undertaken to provide the Committee with an update on the status of the NBN rollout based on information provided by NBN Co covering the six months to the end of June and the end of December. These reports contain unaudited financial statements.
Undertaking an audit as requested by the Committee, would be a departure from both Australian commercial practice and from the long-standing reporting requirements that successive governments have established for Government Business Enterprises under the existing frameworks.
As part of the annual report process, NBN Co prepares financial statements and explanatory notes that are audited, or reported on, by the Auditor-General. The NBN Co annual report is tabled in the Parliament each year. Where the audited financial statements are not available to be appended to the government's six-monthly report for June, they will be forwarded to the Committee as requested.
NBN Co will undertake reviews of half yearly financial statements consistent with Australian corporate and commercial practice.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that subsequent Shareholder Ministers' six monthly performance report on the progress of the National Broadband Network rollout be provided to the committee no less than one month before the scheduled biannual hearing with the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network.
The government supports this recommendation in part.
The government's response to the Committee's first report supported the recommendation for NBN Co and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the department) to provide a six-monthly report on the progress of the rollout of the NBN using established KPI and performance measures, no later than three months before the Committee is due to report to the Parliament i.e. end March and end September.
Shareholder Ministers recognise the importance of providing quality information to the Committee to inform its review of the NBN rollout and that is why the government, in consultation with NBN Co and the Committee, has established a reporting framework which provides for the development of six monthly progress reports on the NBN and the necessary due diligence processes of NBN Co and the government.
The Committee's first report on the Review of the NBN rollout included advice on reporting intervals and key performance measures and indicators. In terms of the timing of receiving NBN rollout performance information and KPIs, the Committee implemented an amendment to its original resolution of appointment to allow it to report to the Parliament biannually in June and December. This has allowed for NBN Co and shareholder departments to prepare reports for the Committee in line with more streamlined reporting timeframes and following appropriate review and analysis by government.
The government is unable to determine the practical effect of this recommendation at this stage as no hearing date has been set for future hearings of the Committee. The government will endeavour to meet the Committee's requested timeframe for the submission of the six monthly progress reports on the NBN subject to meeting due diligence requirements.
Regional and Remote Issues
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Government support the NBN Co to continue to:
explore the synergies between fixed and mobile telecommunications networks with a view to using the National Broadband Network to improve mobile telecommunications; and
facilitate private providers use of NBN Co infrastructure to provide and improve mobile telephone services and coverage across Australia, particularly in regional and remote areas.
The government supports this recommendation and notes that progress has already been made to leverage NBN Co wireless infrastructure to improve mobile coverage in regional areas.
The government understands the importance of mobile telephony to Australians. More than ever, people are using mobile telephony to communicate and participate in the digital economy. Since the privatisation of Telstra, the government does not own a mobile carrier and therefore is not able to direct where Australia's mobile phone network should be extended. These are commercial decisions made by private companies, responsible to their shareholders. The government and NBN Co however are working with the carriers to encourage them to expand the quality and extent of their coverage.
The 2011-12 Regional Telecommunications Independent Review Committee found that regional stakeholders see the NBN as the most significant government commitment to improving telecommunications in regional Australia. The NBN will see fibre-to-the premises technology rolled out to more than 70 per cent of homes and businesses in non‑metropolitan Australia, and a combination of next generation fixed-wireless and satellite technologies to the remaining premises.
The government supported the launch of NBN Co's Interim Satellite Service in July 2011 to provide eligible rural and regional Australians with immediate access to enhanced broadband services ahead of NBN Co's long-term satellite service in 2015. Over 30 000 customers have already taken up this service; a clear indication of the strong unmet demand for affordable and reliable broadband services in regional Australia.
The rollout of the NBN will see the construction of new fixed wireless towers that are designed to provide broadband services to certain locations across less populated areas of Australia. The construction of the NBN fixed wireless tower network provides mobile carriers with an opportunity to negotiate access to these towers and improve their mobile phone coverage in locations where NBN Co is delivering fixed wireless services.
Decisions about whether to seek access to NBN Co's fixed-wireless tower network infrastructure are ultimately commercial decisions for mobile phone carriers. NBN Co has recently entered into agreements with Optus and Telstra to share tower infrastructure. This is a positive development towards improved mobile coverage in regional and rural Australia.
In addition, NBN Co has negotiated with carriers to secure further mutually beneficial
arrangements which involve NBN Co accessing or constructing towers on sites that have
been set aside for future development. This would apply when a carrier has a site for which
it has all or some of the necessary approvals, but are not planning to build a tower in the
near future. If such a site is considered appropriate for the fixed wireless network, NBN Co
will initiate the construction process. This has the potential of seeing the networks expand
at a quicker rate than they otherwise would.
Additional Issues
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) and NBN Co continue to work with the Personal Emergency Response Services Association, the Communications Alliance and retail service providers to
implement a range of initiatives to address concerns with the operation of medical alarms for aged and at-risk persons under the National Broadband Network rollout. This process should be in consultation with the Australian Communications and Media Authority, with the DBCDE to report back to the committee on specific progress in this area.
The government supports this recommendation.
During 2011 NBN Co held complex services workshops with relevant industry stakeholders, including the Personal Emergency Response Services Association (PERSA) and Tunstall Healthcare, to assist in the design and development of the User Network Interface Voice (UNI-V) product so that it is fit for purpose to support a range of legacy services, including medical alarms.
NBN Co met with PERSA in September 2012 to discuss how medical alarms will be supported over the NBN. Analogue medical alarms will be fully supported on the NBN via the UNI-V port, which is in turn supported by a battery backup.
Many Australians are already using medical alarms and other personal response services over the NBN. For example, the Peninsula Grange aged care facility in Victoria is connected to the NBN and has a fully functional medical alarm system through the UNI-V port.
In addition to supporting legacy alarms, Internet Protocol (IP) based medical alarms will also be supported over the UNI-D port. NBN Co is currently developing battery backup functionality for the UNI-D and once this is implemented, IP-based alarms will be fully functional over the NBN.
NBN Co is also working to extend the run time of the battery for both the UNI-V and UNI-D ports. Both ports have Traffic Class 1 functionality, meaning that the highest traffic priority over the network is available for medical alarms.
The department continues to engage with the Communications Alliance and PERSA, NBN Co, retail service providers and other stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition of medical alarms to the NBN. The department has encouraged Communications Alliance and its members to work closely with NBN Co to ensure legacy services continue to be supported on the NBN and for Communications Alliance members to provide necessary assistance to end users to enable them to make accurate and informed decisions regarding their telecommunications needs.
In December 2012 a workshop was held with the department, Communications Alliance, PERSA, retail service providers, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, NBN Co and other key stakeholders, including the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It was agreed at the workshop that a working group be established to closely examine the implications of the transition of 'over-the-top' (OTT) services (such as security alarm services, visual monitoring services and energy management services) that currently operate on the copper telephone network to the NBN fibre-based network.
The NBN OTT Services Transition (NOST) working group met for the first time in February 2013 and agreed to establish a sub-committee focussing on developing a communications plan around the transition of medical alarms to the NBN. The sub‑committee met for the first time in early April 2013.
The NOST working group has a number of items in progress, including the development and implementation of a responsibilities matrix. This identifies the parties responsible for key tasks such as developing device discovery and network testing capabilities, and producing installation standards to ensure that the wiring in end user premises can continue to support medical alarms and other personal emergency response services.
Similarly, members of the sub-group have developed a project plan that will support end user education. This plan identifies the main stakeholder groups, anticipates their key information needs and questions, and outlines the necessary documentation that should be distributed. Both the working group and communications sub-group will continue to meet on a monthly basis to ensure the needs of medical alarm users are met and facilitate a smooth transition of these services from the copper to fibre networks.
The department will update the Committee on progress at future hearings.
Private Equity Engagement and Workforce Issues
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Government:
seek to gauge investor interest in the National Broadband Network; and
investigate the optimum capital structure for the NBN Co.
The government does not support this recommendation at this stage.
The existing policy framework provides for a capital structure that supports engagement with the private sector when NBN Co's cash flows are sufficient to support private sector debt without explicit government support. Prior to this, as set out in the Statement of Expectations, NBN Co will be funded with government equity.
The government notes that the NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan contains an assumption of debt-raising. It is assumed that peak debt funding equivalent to 31 per cent of total funding required over the period FY2011 to FY2021 would be raised. NBN Co assumes it will commence raising debt from FY2015 onwards1. Peak debt funding is forecast at $13.7 billion in FY2021, with initial debt-raising assumed in FY2015. Average issuance per annum would amount to $2 billion over the 7 year period (FY2015 to FY2021 inclusive)2.
Private equity funding prior to the completion of the NBN rollout was explicitly advised against in the NBN Implementation Study3. This is for a number of reasons.
The government has a 100 per cent coverage objective for NBN Co, which includes supplying regional and remote areas on the basis of uniform national wholesale pricing. The government is also committed to the affordability of NBN services for all Australians. This means that the government is prepared to accept a lower rate of return than private equity may be satisfied with—approximately 7 per cent, sufficient to cover the finance costs with a small risk premium.
In such circumstances, a mixture of public and private ownership prior to the completion of the NBN rollout in June 2021 may create conflict that would impose restrictions on the government's flexibility to achieve these policy goals. In seeking to reduce risk, private sector investors may pressure the government to lock in policy choices that could be more advantageously made in the future. As former DBCDE Secretary, Peter Harris, noted at the 26 June 2012 hearing of the Joint Committee:
" The government clearly has a policy objective in mind with the NBN. It has a detailed set of instructions that accompany the statement of expectations and a series of policy decisions and the parliament has a set of instructions for the company, with legislation. If a private investor convinced itself that it was prepared to take the risk and accept what is impliedly a low rate of return for long-term strategic gain purposes and did want to make an investment then the company, first, and then the government as 100 per cent owner, second, would both need to satisfy themselves that this owner would not get in the way of, if you like, the statement of expectations and parliament ' s own intentions as expressed in legislation. " 4
For these reasons, at this stage, the government is the most natural owner of the risk versus return trade-off prior to the completion of the NBN rollout5.The government remains committed to the sale of NBN Co at an appropriate time. The existing NBN Co legislative framework sets out the preconditions in which the Commonwealth can dispose of or transfer shares in NBN Co. Separately, there are provisions placing restrictions on the nature of capital that can be applied in NBN Co.
By the end of the rollout in June 2021, NBN Co will have demonstrated a strong track record in the delivery of its key objectives and established investor confidence in both the rollout and take up of this critical infrastructure. Once fully established, NBN Co will be a profitable and attractive business that could benefit from private sector ownership.
Following completion of the rollout the government will consider the optimum capital structure for the Company. The benefits of sale will be fully explored before a sale takes place.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that, in providing an annual statement to the committee on the progress of the Telstra Retraining Funding Deed (RFD), the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) include in this information an update on:
ongoing company retention rates for employees in the Automatically Eligible Workgroup, retrained under the RFD;
the current numbers and roles of employees in the other eligible workgroup under the RFD and an overview of the current reasons for eligibility or exclusion in terms of this group.
The government supports this recommendation in part.
In response to the Committee's third report on the Review of the Rollout of the NBN, the government agreed to include information about the progress of the Telstra Retraining Funding Deed in an annual report. While information will be sought from Telstra with respect to training opportunities for potentially eligible employees, it is expected that the report will focus on training outcomes achieved and direct and indirect employment benefits of the NBN.
The government notes that data on retention rates may prove misleading as a proxy indicator of the effectiveness of Telstra's Retraining Funding Deed, given one of its objectives is to train workers to assist in the delivery of the NBN. Accordingly, a retrained staff member who subsequently leaves Telstra for employment with one of NBN Co's construction partners would be in line with the Deed's objectives, but would negatively impact on retention rates. The government will consider alternative indicators that could measure the effectiveness of Telstra's Retraining Funding Deed and provide updates on an annual basis.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that, in providing an annual statement to the committee outlining the major areas of emerging National Broadband Network (NBN) workforce demand and training need, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) include in this information a more detailed report on:
the workforce development strategy supporting the NBN rollout, including current workforce modelling and outcomes from work with training organisations and industry skills boards, to identify skills gaps in this area and develop training programs;
how the development and implementation of this overall workforce strategy is being coordinated.
The government supports this recommendation.
As outlined in the government's response to the Committee's third report on the Review of the Rollout of the NBN, NBN Co has developed and is implementing an overall workforce development strategy that involves:
identifying the gap between supply and demand of appropriately skilled resources;
determining relevant training programs and qualifications, providers, and funding to support skills development; and
a skills assurance program to confirm workers have the necessary regulated and required skills to perform work.
The workforce development strategy also recognises the dispersed nature of the rollout which will enable it to leverage workers from both regional and metropolitan areas.
In providing an annual statement to the Committee, the department will provide an overview of this workforce development strategy and how the strategy is being implemented. In the interim, information can be found at NBN Co's website (www.nbnco.com.au) which provides an outline of the workforce development strategy activities.
______________
1 NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan, page 16
2 NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan, page 80
3 National Broadband Network Implementation Study, 2010, page 41
4 Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network, Hansard 26 June 2012, page 10
5 National Broadband Network Implementation Study, 2010, page 42
SENATE COMMITTEE ON L EGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Inquiry in to the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012
Government Response
Recommendation 1
2.36 The Committee recommends that the Bill be amended to remove the power to trigger the provisions of the Bill by regulation
Government response:
Accepted The Government proposes to accept the Committee's recommendation. The purpose of this recommendation is intended to enhance Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed legislation triggering the model regulatory powers by removing the ability to activate those provisions by regulation and should be supported.
Recommendation 2
2.37 That the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill be revised and reissued to stipulate that each time a bill is introduced into the Parliament that provides for the triggering of the Bill's provisions, this must be explicitly articulated and explained in the Explanatory Memorandum to the relevant bill
Government response:
Accepted in principle The Government expects that departments will set out clearly in Explanatory Memoranda the contents of a Bill and its intended effects.
Recommendation 3
2.38 That, in the future, each time a bill is introduced into the Parliament which seeks to trigger the provisions of the Bill, the Explanatory Memorandum to that bill must clearly set out the relevant agency's current regulatory powers, a comparison with the powers in the Bill that will be triggered, and, in the case of any expansion of the agency's powers, a detailed explanation of the reasons for the expansion of powers
Accepted in principle The Government expects that departments will set out clearly in Explanatory Memoranda the contents of a Bill and its intended effects.
Recommendation 4
2.39 That the three bills currently before the parliament and the 15 Acts passed by the parliament, identified by the Attorney-General's Department in its answers to questions on notice to the inquiry, be reviewed. Where the legislation contains scope for regulations to provide regulatory powers to an agency which are analogous to those in the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012, the committee recommends that the legislation be amended so that the provisions are contained in the principal Act.
Government response:
Accept in principle The Office of Parliamentary Counsel has advised my Department that the enforcement powers in bills presently before the Parliament will not take effect until enactment and commencement of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill.
In respect of Acts passed by the Parliament that have been drafted using precedents based on the Bill, these have been reviewed and one only has a regulation making power trigger the Bill. The Government response amends the Bill to remove the ability to trigger its provisions by regulation, rendering such a provision ineffective.
Recommendation 5
2.40 That the Bill be passed subject to Recommendations 1 and 2.
Government response:
Noted
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ELECTRICITY PRICES
Report: Reducing energy bills and improving efficiency
Government Response to Senate Select Committee on Electricity Prices
INTRODUCTION
The Senate Select Committee on Electricity Prices presented its report 'Reducing energy bills and improving efficiency' on 1 November 2012 which contained 15 recommendations. In addition to the Committee's recommendations, the Coalition, the Greens and Senator Xenophon have made separate recommendations in the report. The Government has prepared a response to each of the recommendations in the report.
In April 2012, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) identified energy market reform as one of its six priority areas for major reform, identifying concerns over rising electricity costs and the increasing pressures placed on households and business. On 7 December 2012, COAG endorsed a comprehensive energy market reform package aimed at ensuring energy markets and regulations are operating in the long term interests of consumers. The package builds on the existing cooperative reform agenda and was developed through COAG's Standing Council on Energy and Resources (SCER), which has policy responsibility for energy market reform. This reform agenda addresses many of the issues raised in the Committee's recommendations and is referenced in the responses below.
The Australian Government's official response to each of the Committee's recommendations is provided below.
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the AER provide an annual report including detailed quantitative analysis of the components of and contributors to electricity prices.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that the existing reporting processes are adequate.
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) already fulfils this role through its annual reporting on household electricity prices, as directed by the Standing Council on Energy and Resources (SCER). This reporting provides detailed and comprehensive analysis of movements in electricity prices and associated cost components across jurisdictions and nationally.
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) also reports annually through its 'State of the Energy Market' publications. These reports provide some information on retail electricity prices across jurisdictions within the National Electricity Market (NEM), although not to the same level of analysis as the AEMC's reporting.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that ongoing arrangements be put in place to more effectively scrutinise prices in the overall electricity system, and ensure that price setting for individual components and factors is done in the context of keeping overall electricity prices at a more acceptable level.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation and considers that it will be addressed by the implementation of COAG's energy market reform.
The electricity supply system has a number of interrelated components that can impact on the overall prices paid by electricity consumers. The Australian Government, through SCER, is committed to ensuring that consumers are not paying more than necessary through the introduction of competition in non-monopoly sectors (retail and generation) and through incentives to minimise costs where competition is not possible (transmission and distribution).
Electricity prices, and the underlying cost components, are determined through a combination of regulatory and market processes. The ongoing energy market reform agenda, including SCER's reform package endorsed by COAG on 7 December 2012, is based around ensuring that these energy market and regulatory frameworks are operating efficiently to avoid unnecessary cost pressures for consumers. The extensive package of reforms endorsed by COAG is available at: www.coag.gov.au/node/481.
The Australian Government notes that with respect to the particular issue of retail "price setting" or regulation, COAG has endorsed SCER tasking the AEMC to develop a consistent methodology for determining retail prices, with particular regard to time varying network tariffs and wholesale electricity costs whilst maintaining reliable supply. This work is due to be completed by September 2013.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that:
• rates of return for network service providers are estimated using a robust process based on guidelines developed and reviewed every three years in consultation with stakeholders;
• the proposed amendments in the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) Economic Regulation of Network Service providers rule change regarding methods for forecasting return on capital, return on debt, opex and capex are implemented as part of that rule change process;
• the AER should also be required to consider forecast total expenditure (totex) when making network determinations; and
• SCER direct the AEMC to examine arrangements for AEMO to be the single planning agency for the National Electricity Market (NEM) with responsibility for forecasting, network planning, national reliability standards and operating
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes these recommendations and considers that they are being addressed by a number of reforms underway.
On 29 November 2012, the AEMC, as independent Rule maker for energy markets, published the final Rules relating to the economic regulation of network service providers. The new Rules provide greater scope to the AER to adapt its approaches to the nature of the business it is regulating, clarify the powers of the regulator to benchmark and publish information on the relative efficiency of electricity network businesses, and change how the rate of return on capital is set. SCER is currently addressing barriers in the national energy laws to the AER undertaking its new functions resulting from the rule changes, specifically around the requirement to publish an annual benchmarking report.
In determining the rate of return under the new Rules, a common framework will apply to transmission, distribution and gas determinations that will require the regulator to take into account market circumstances, estimation methods, financial models and other relevant information to tailor specific decisions to a particular network business. A key aspect of this reform is the development by the AER of a rate of return guideline to promote transparency around decisions. The regulator is required to undertake an open and consultative process at least every three years to develop and update this guideline.
With regards to total expenditure, a consequence of these changes to the Rules is that the AER now has a range of new tools to incentivise Network Service Providers to invest more efficiently, with the overriding objective of ensuring that only capital expenditure which has been assessed as efficient by the regulator will form part of the regulated asset base, which in part drives network tariffs. These include the use of capital expenditure sharing schemes and efficiency reviews of past capital expenditure. The AER will be able to apply the tools as it considers appropriate to each network business.
The Australian Government supports the introduction of the new Rules to the fullest extent possible in advance of the next round of the network regulatory determinations beginning in mid-2014, so that potential benefits can flow to consumers within that determination period. The Government also notes the December 2012 SCER commitment to remove any barriers in the national energy laws for these new rules to have full effect. SCER aims to identify and address any barriers to the AER benchmarking network businesses by the end of 2013.
SCER has also agreed to accelerate improvements in the appeals process for revenue and price decisions made by the AER for network businesses, to ensure this process is focused on delivering overall outcomes that are beneficial for consumers. A consultation process on options to improve the regime commenced on 14 December 2012 through the release of a consultation Regulation Impact Statement, with SCER intending to decide on the structure of the new regime by mid-2013. A revised regime is expected to be in place by 2014.
The Australian Government notes that the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) undertakes a National Transmission Planner role for the NEM. Issues around planning have been considered by the AEMC in its Transmission Frameworks Review. In relation to reliability standards, SCER has agreed to task the AEMC with developing a nationally consistent framework for expressing, delivering and reporting on distribution and transmission reliability outcomes. In doing so, the AEMC will ensure that the approach taken to meet reliability standards by network businesses reflects economically efficient outcomes that reflect consumers' willingness to pay. Accordingly, COAG agreed in-principle to transfer the application of this framework, following due consideration of the AEMC's advice, to the AER. Jurisdictions will report to SCER by the end of 2013 on their decisions on the transfer of this responsibility.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that:
• the AEMC implement the rule change proposed in the Power of Choice draft report to amend the pricing principles of Chapter 6 of the NER so that greater guidance is provided on how network businesses should set their tariffs to reflect costs; and
• the AER implement measures to decouple network revenues and energy volumes.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle, and will work with SCER to initiate appropriate rule change proposals based on the AEMC's final (rather than draft) report.
At the SCER meeting on 14 December 2012, Ministers agreed to progress work on the final recommendations of the AEMC Power of Choice review, including that officials should prepare Rule change proposals for consideration by the AEMC. In March 2013, SCER provided its formal response to the recommendations in the Power of Choice review, reiterating this agreement. Two of these rule change proposals will address the intent of the committee's recommendations, namely:
Reform of the distribution pricing principles to provide better guidance for setting cost reflective distribution network charges; and
Reform of the demand management and embedded generation connection incentive scheme available to distribution businesses.
In the Power of Choice Review final report, the AEMC explained that these measures together will contribute to decoupling network revenues and energy volumes as follows:
Where network charges better reflect the cost of delivering electricity, lower sales revenue would also reflect lower costs to the business and therefore would not affect its profits.
Since there are practical limitations to applying fully cost reflective network charges, the demand management incentive scheme should remove any remaining disincentives to develop cost-effective initiatives that result in lower volumes, by allowing network businesses to recover lost profits resulting from these projects. Businesses would continue to recover their allowed revenue in each regulatory period, with the benefits of lower network investment returned to customers in the next period.
The AEMC is the final decision maker on implementing the rule changes. The AER is then responsible for implementing measures in accordance with the new rules.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the AEMC set and AEMO implement national reliability standards that take into account consumers' perceived value of reliability and in a way that is independent of businesses that derive income from network infrastructure.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation in the context that SCER has work underway which will inform the detail of decisions on how to set and implement improvements in delivering reliability outcomes.
At its December 2012 meeting, SCER noted that consumers, large or small, place a high value on being confident of a reliable supply of electricity and that providing this reliability requires investment in network infrastructure. The costs associated with this investment get passed on to consumers through their electricity bills. As a result, it is important that the level of reliability that networks provide reflects the price that consumers are willing to pay.
As reflected in response to recommendation 3, SCER has agreed to task the AEMC with developing a nationally consistent framework for expressing, delivering and reporting on distribution and transmission reliability outcomes. COAG has subsequently agreed in-principle to transfer the application of this new framework once developed to the AER (rather than AEMO as proposed by the committee). Jurisdictions will report to SCER by the end of 2013 on their decisions on the transfer of this responsibility.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the proposal in the AEMC Economic Regulation of Network Service Providers rule change to give the AER ex post scrutiny powers is implemented as part of that rule change process.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
As outlined in response to Recommendation 3, on 15 November 2012 the AEMC released its final determination on the rules governing the economic regulation of network businesses.
The Government notes that the new rules introduce regulatory tools so the AER can incentivise network service providers to invest capital efficiently. This includes the ability of the AER to review the efficiency of past capital expenditure when assessing expenditure proposals from network businesses and setting future expenditure allowances and preclude inefficiently incurred expenditure from being rolled into the regulatory asset base (RAB). It is important to recognise that this only affects the capital expenditure, which is one of several components of network revenues, with the return on the regulated asset base and the operating expenditure also contributing to network revenues.
Under this approach, the AER's ability to preclude expenditure being rolled into the RAB is limited to capital overspends incurred during a regulatory period and does not extend to the whole revenue determination. The Government considers that the application of ex post reviews to the entire revenue determination is not consistent with best practice regulation, as it would undermine the certainty in regulatory outcomes needed to support prudent investment in long-lived assets. Limiting ex post review to capital overspends, as specified in the AEMC's final determination, introduces an incentive for network businesses to only undertake efficient investment, thereby ensuring consumers are not paying more than is necessary to support their long term interests.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the AER receive additional funding, expertise and accountability including that in recommendations of the Limited Merits Review Regime Stage Two Report in relation to appeals processes.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The Australian Government has committed to additional funding of $23.2 million (over four years) to the AER to deliver a stronger, better resourced and more accountable regulator. The extra resources will allow the AER to access greater expertise when undertaking a determination and clear powers to collect and publish information. This will help the AER to benchmark network businesses and improve network efficiency.
At its December 2012 meeting, COAG welcomed a proposed independent review of the AER and its operational requirements by the Commonwealth in 18 months' time. The review will ensure that the AER's resourcing is adequate, and its operational arrangements are effective, to meet the demands of the new regulatory regime.
At its December 2012 meeting, SCER agreed to accelerate improvements in the appeals process for revenue and price decisions made by the AER, to ensure this process is focused on delivering overall outcomes that are beneficial for consumers while providing an effective back-stop for network businesses. SCER is currently testing the options for changes to the limited merits review regime as recommended by the Expert Panel through a consultation process (see response to recommendation 3).
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the AEMC consider how broader environmental considerations could better align with the operation and regulation of the NEM.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
This issue has previously been the subject of detailed analysis by the AEMC in conjunction with the other energy market institutions. In 2009 the AEMC undertook a Review of Energy Market Frameworks in light of Climate Change Policies and concluded that there was no cause for fundamental reform of the NEM. The AEMC's functions relate to market development and rule change in the NEM. It does not assess environmental policies themselves.
Judgements on the relative value of the environment as against other social and economic factors are appropriately made by parliaments. The National Electricity Objective is already flexible to take account of judgements about the economic value of environmental objectives, where made by the appropriate institutions. For example, with respect to the environmental impacts of climate change, the Australian Government has developed a Clean Energy Future plan that includes a mechanism to price carbon emissions. Electricity market institutions will take the carbon price into account in their judgement about what would promote efficient investment and use of electricity services.
The Australian Government's policies, as articulated in the Clean Energy Future plan and the Energy White Paper, including the carbon pricing mechanism and the Renewable Energy Target, will drive the transformation of the sector to cleaner electricity. While the Government does not support initiating another broad review by the AEMC on these issues, the AEMC will take the effect of these policies into account in its ongoing Rule change and market development work.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that SCER agree to introduce cost reflective pricing for electricity in conjunction with smart meters in all jurisdictions in the NEM:
• based on the model proposed in the Power of Choice draft report comprising three consumption bands for large (band 1), medium to large (band 2) and small to medium (band 3) consumers;
• where smart meters are mandated for consumption band 1, opt-out for band 2 and opt-in for band 3; and
• accompanied by a comprehensive consumer information and education campaign funded by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments during both the planning and implementation phases.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports the recommendations on pricing reform in principle, and will work with SCER to initiate appropriate models for implementation based on the AEMC's final (rather than draft) report.
COAG's new energy market reform agenda includes agreement that a transition to more cost reflective pricing structures is likely to be an important enabler of demand side participation.
At the December 2012 SCER meeting, Ministers agreed to develop the market settings to allow for jurisdictions to provide customers with the option to move to time-varying pricing and, in states without an existing widespread roll-out, an opt-in policy for the supporting metering infrastructure.
The new energy market reform agenda also includes agreement to develop arrangements necessary to encourage the market-driven (business-led) competitive roll-out of smart meters and other advanced metering, while accommodating arrangements in jurisdictions where a widespread roll-out is underway. This means that businesses will be able to compete to provide meters that support the products and services chosen by customers.
At the December 2012 SCER meeting, Ministers agreed that officials should prepare a Rule change proposal for consideration by the AEMC which reflects this agreement.
The Australian Government notes the importance of consumer education and information on any such reforms, however considers the form and resourcing of any campaign is a matter for consideration once the detail of policy is progressed.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that SCER examine incorporating the accreditation and regulation of third parties offering demand management services in the National Energy Customer Framework (NECF).
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The Energy Market Reform Working Group of SCER officials has established a sub-group which is examining a range of issues arising from the National Smart Meter Consumer Protection and Safety Review Officials' Report, including the scope of any energy-specific regulation of third party service providers. This group will take in to account the recommendation from the AEMC's Power of Choice review that the regulatory treatment of third party providers of demand side participation energy services be clarified. SCER is due to report to COAG on the implementation and forward plan for a comprehensive demand side participation package, based on the recommendations of the AEMC's Power of Choice review, by June 2013.
Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that SCER:
• examine current barriers to embedded generation, particularly those related to network design, connection and costs, as well as Feed in Tariff (FiT) payments;
• empower relevant state and territory ombudsmen and / or tribunals to intervene where embedded generators and NSPs are unable to resolve disputes;
• standardise connection processes for embedded generation in the NEM and include a requirement for a standard connection protocol and licencing regime for embedded generation within the NEM;
• direct the AEMC to develop a rule change requiring the release of annual maps of network constraints and their value by network businesses; and
• direct the AEMC to develop a rule change to establish a default system of location-specific network support payments for embedded generation.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The headings underlined address each of these recommendations in turn.
Examine barriers to embedded generation
The AEMC considered the development of the distributed generation sector (also known as embedded generation) as part of the Power of Choice review; the final report of the review was published on 30 November 2012. The Australian Government does not consider there is a need for an additional review at this point while these rule change processes and reviews are being implemented.
In the Power of Choice review, the AEMC found that issues faced by the distributed generation sector in the National Electricity Market can be addressed through existing processes, including the option of Rule change proposals. The Australian Government agrees with this view, and notes that a number of reforms are in place or underway to support distributed generation, as noted below.
Through SCER, the Australian Government has advocated that payment for electricity exported to the grid from embedded micro-generation should more accurately reflect the true value of that electricity, regardless of the form of micro-generation technology deployed. Several jurisdictions have completed or are in the process of reviewing feed-in tariff arrangements for micro generators with the view to determining fair and reasonable value of exported energy and eliminating cross subsidisation by other electricity consumers. COAG agreed that the National Principles for Feed-in Tariff Schemes be amended to state that all forms of micro generation technologies should be offered a fair and reasonable tariff and to close premium schemes to new participants by 2014.
Empower ombudsmen or tribunals to intervene to resolve disputes
The Ministerial Council on Energy (now SCER) has developed a new national framework for distribution network connections for retail customers, including those with distributed generation. The framework includes provisions for dispute resolution by the AER. The framework will form a new Chapter 5A of the National Electricity Rules (NER), which will be adopted in each jurisdiction at the same time as it adopts the National Energy Customer Framework. To date, the NECF has been adopted by Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia. New South Wales is expected to implement the NECF on 1 July 2013 and Victoria on 1 January 2014. Queensland is considering its position on the matter.
Standardise connection processes for embedded generation in the NEM
Chapter 5A will also establish a consistent connections framework for retail customers with embedded generation. Distribution Network Service Providers (DNSPs) will be required to provide a model standing offer to connect customers with micro-embedded generation such as domestic photovoltaic systems, and have the option of developing standard offers for other classes of connections, such as larger embedded generation systems. The framework also streamlines processes for negotiated connections.
The AEMC is also considering a Rule change proposal from stakeholders intended to improve the connection process, technical requirements and charging regime for embedded generation connections.
A Rule change requiring the release of annual maps of network constraints and their value by network businesses
New, nationally consistent network planning and expansion Rule changes commenced on 1 January 2013 that require DNSPs to publish annual planning reports, including information on network constraints, which will help identify opportunities or limitations for embedded generator connections.
A rule change to establish a default system of location-specific network support payments for embedded generation
As part of their demand management practices, DNSPs currently have the option of contracting with an embedded generator to provide network support in order to avoid or defer the need for network investments. These are commercial arrangements that take advantage of specific opportunities for avoided or deferred network investment.
Through SCER, the Government is working to develop market frameworks that create appropriate incentives for DNSPs to identify and invest in demand side projects, including embedded generation, where this is the most efficient option. This includes the network planning and expansion Rule changes noted above, which will provide more information to project developers on the opportunities for embedded generation to address network constraints.
These Rule changes also include a new Regulatory Investment Test for Distribution, which will require DNSPs to assess the costs and benefits of each credible option, including non-network solutions, to address a specific network problem. DNSPs will also be required to develop a demand side engagement strategy setting out their processes and procedures for assessing non-network options and interacting with non-network providers.
The Australian Government considers that this framework will enhance opportunities for efficient investments in embedded generation and is not considering new market arrangements to pay embedded generation for network support at present.
Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that SCER direct the AEMC to:
• review the NER so that network charges for embedded generators reflect the cost of using only the relevant section of the network; and
• implement changes to the regulatory framework in order to provide incentives for generators to build in locations where the costs associated with transmission are reduced.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The headings underlined address each of these recommendations in turn.
Network charges for embedded generators
Under the National Electricity Rules, embedded generators do not face a charge for exporting electricity to the grid.
The Standing Council on Energy and Resources is not presently considering arrangements which would allow embedded generators to export electricity to private customers over the public grid.
Incentives for generators to build in locations where the costs associated with transmission are reduced
Issues around generator location decisions have been considered by the AEMC in its Transmission Frameworks Review, which was publicly released on 11 April 2013 and is now being considered by SCER.
The National Electricity Rules require that distribution networks pay embedded generators for transmission costs which the distribution network can avoid because the generator is present. This provides embedded generators with a signal about the impact of their location decisions on transmission costs.
Transmission costs are generally paid by distribution networks, and include a component that signals the cost of connecting to the transmission network at a particular location.
When an embedded generator connects to a distribution network and is operated appropriately, the distribution network may draw less power from the transmission network upstream, resulting in lower costs for using the transmission network.
The distribution network is required to pass any such lower costs back to the embedded generator.
Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that the AEMC investigate ways in which greater transparency can be introduced in negotiations between transmission businesses and generators.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Issues around negotiations between generators and network businesses have been considered by the AEMC in its Transmission Frameworks Review, which was publicly released on 11 April 2013 and is now being considered by SCER. The Australian Government will examine what additional work is required on this issue in light as part of these considerations by SCER.
Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that National Energy Customer Framework (NECF) is implemented in all states and territories in the NEM in a way that does not diminish from existing consumer protections and to take effect on or before 1 July 2013.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle.
The Australian Government agrees it is important to commence the NECF consistently, and as early as possible, in keeping with previous commitments. However, it notes the timing of the commencement of the NECF in a state or territory is a matter for the participating jurisdiction to determine. On 14 December 2012, SCER reiterated COAG's commitment to ensure that remaining jurisdictions implement the NECF by no later than 1 January 2014, subject to the resolution of any outstanding issues. Tasmania and the ACT implemented the NECF from 1 July 2012. South Australia implemented the NECF on 1 February 2013. NSW aims to implement the NECF from 1 July 2013. Victoria aims to implement the NECF from 1 January 2014 subject to the resolution of outstanding issues around smart meters and related consumer protections. The Queensland Government is considering its position on NECF implementation through its Inter-Departmental Committee on Electricity Sector Reform (IDC).
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that SCER consider establishing a national consumer advocacy body to represent and support consumers in the NEM.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
SCER is currently examining options to increase consumer engagement across the energy sector generally, in the NEM and Western Australia (WA) and the Northern Territory (NT). In recognition of the need for a more efficient approach to national advocacy for energy consumers, SCER has requested advice on an implementation model for a national energy advocacy body. On 22 January 2013, the SCER Energy Market Reform Working Group appointed two expert advisors—Dr John Tamblyn and Mr John Ryan—to provide a written report on an implementation model for a national energy consumer advocacy body for consideration by SCER by mid-2013.
In addition, the Australian Government has established a Consumer Challenge Panel to provide expert advice to the AER in relation to specific network business determinations. AER aims to establish the panel by July 2013.
Under the COAG energy market reform agenda as agreed on 7 December 2012, the Australian Government is working with SCER to amend the criteria for Consumer Advocacy Panel (CAP) grant allocation within the AEMC Establishment Act regulations. The aim is to ensure that the allocation of consumer grants is done in a manner which most benefits energy consumers generally.
COALITION RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
That the government act immediately to reduce the upward pressure on electricity prices on consumers and business by repealing the carbon tax.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government is committed to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The most environmentally and cost effective way to achieve this is through a carbon price.
A market based approach allows businesses to make decisions on how best to manage their emissions—including by investments in low emissions technologies or energy efficiency measures—while still supporting Australia's economic growth.
The Government's Clean Energy Future plan provides an economically responsible pathway to achieve this balance. The Government, through its Household Assistance Package, will ensure that those Australians that need help the most, particularly pensioners and low and middle income households, will get assistance to help manage increases in the cost of living from the carbon price.
The $23 per tonne carbon price has added around 10 per cent to household electricity prices in 2012-13, increasing household expenditure on electricity by around $3.30 per week on average. Households will see overall cost increases of $9.90 per week, on average, while the average assistance will be $10.10 per week.
Over half of the revenue from the carbon price will be used by the Government to cut taxes and increase payments for millions of Australians. The rest will be used to support jobs and competitiveness and build a new clean energy future. This will assist households in managing increases in the cost of living from the carbon price, and help industries transitioning to a clean energy future.
Recommendation 2
That the government act immediately to reduce the upward pressure on electricity prices on consumers and business by repealing the carbon tax.
Australian Government Response
As per the response to the above recommendation.
GREENS RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation G1
That the National Electricity Objective be re-written to include an environmental objective and an Objective there are no regulatory barriers to demand management, energy efficiency and distributed generation.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The National Electricity Market Objective—the aim of which is the promotion of the long-term interests of energy consumers, with regard to price, quality and reliability of electricity and gas services, as contained within the National Electricity Law, the National Gas Law and the National Energy Retail Law, remains appropriate to the operation of Australia's National Electricity Market.
The Australian Government's Energy White Paper (released October 2012) noted that the Objective and its underlying principles, "as currently defined, remain appropriate to current and future energy policy needs and that they provide a robust basis for market regulation and development." The White Paper also stated that "[g]iven that no regulatory or market failure associated with the overall objectives in the Australian Energy Market Agreement has been identified, making such changes would risk introducing unnecessary complexity and potential confusion for market operators, regulators and participants. It is also unclear how non-energy policy goals, which differ across jurisdictions, could be coherently reflected in a single set of national market rules. These issues are best dealt with outside the market settings through direct and targeted policy, as this allows for properly targeted, efficient and effective outcomes."
Recommendation G2
That the Standing Council on Energy and Resources, in consultation with the AEMC and AEMO, develop reforms and rule-changes to establish AEMO as a single NEM-wide planning agency.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
See response to Recommendation 3. This matter has been considered more broadly as part of the AEMC's Transmission Frameworks Review, which was publicly released on 11 April 2013 and is now being considered by SCER.
Recommendation G3
That the AER implement revenue caps for all Distribution networks to de-couple network revenue and energy consumption.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
Reviewing network frameworks in light of changes in demand is being considered by SCER as part of its energy market reform program. In December 2012, SCER committed to assess whether the forecasting and investment frameworks within the current regulatory regime are sufficiently flexible and dynamic to adjust to changing demand conditions. This commitment is designed to ensure that any benefits associated with reducing demand can be shared between network businesses and consumers.
In the Power of Choice Review, the AEMC considered the incentives for distribution businesses under revenue and price caps to undertake demand side participation projects. Under a revenue cap, a distribution business is certain of the revenue it will recover and so will be indifferent if a demand side project lowers its volume of sales. However, the AEMC considered that a distribution business under a revenue cap has very little incentive to set efficient prices that will signal costs of supplying electricity, because consumer responses to its prices have no impact on the revenue it earns. The AEMC considers that efficient prices are a key driver of demand side participation. The Productivity Commission adopted a similar position in the draft report of its review of network regulation.
In the Power of Choice Review, the AEMC has proposed options to compensate distribution business for lower sales from specific demand side projects through the Demand Management and Embedded Generation Connection Incentive Scheme.
Recommendation G4
That the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, in partnership with the Australian Energy Regulator, commission an independent study into the costs and benefits of a peak demand target and design options.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The AEMC considered the issue of demand side participation targets or peak demand reduction targets for distribution businesses as part of the Power of Choice Review. The AEMC did not support this option, since it is difficult to identify the optimal level of the target and avoid overinvestment in demand side peak reduction simply to meet the target. The AEMC has proposed an alternative option which provides distribution businesses with an appropriate return for their demand side projects which deliver a net cost saving to customers across the supply chain. At the December 2012 meeting, SCER agreed that officials should prepare a Rule change proposal which gives effect to this recommendation.
As part of the Energy Savings Initiative (ESI) investigation, a report was commissioned which considered a number of options for addressing peak demand through an energy efficiency scheme. One of these options was peak demand targets for supply-side entities. For the purposes of assessing the merits of a possible national ESI, the ESI Working Group decided not to further investigate peak demand targets. Instead, for the purpose of their investigation, the Working Group considered that a practical approach to address peak demand through a possible national Energy Savings Initiative could be to weight activity value to reflect the likely impact of each activity on peak demand and network productivity.
Recommendation G5
That the SCER directs the AEMC to review the costs and benefits of introducing a capacity-market, or capacity-elements, into the NEM to facilitate higher levels of demand-side participation.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The AEMC considered the introduction of a capacity market as part of its Review into Energy Market Frameworks in light of Climate Change Policies and concluded that there was no cause for fundamental reform of the NEM. In addition, evidence from WA indicates that having a capacity market in addition to an energy market can result in inefficient costs for consumers, where they are faced with paying for costs associated with capacity that is not fully utilised.
In the Power of Choice review of demand side participation in the National Electricity Market, the AEMC recommended an additional option for demand side resources to participate directly in the wholesale market and receive the spot price for energy not consumed, measured against a baseline of normal consumption. At the December 2012 SCER meeting, Ministers agreed that AEMO should begin work to further develop this option.
Recommendation G6
That a standard connection, fair pricing and licencing regime for distributed generation be established, supported by a distributed generation ombudsman within the Australian Energy Regulator.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government is pursuing reforms to the regulatory regime for distributed generation, including on connection and fair pricing, as outlined in the response to Recommendation 11. This includes a role for ombudsmen and the AER in resolving disputes. While there is no requirement for distributed generators to be licenced as such, recent rule-changes establish new registration arrangements for those distributed generators that participate in the wholesale market. The Australian Government considers these reforms meet the intent of recommendation G6.
Recommendation G7
That the Federal Government implement a national energy intensity target and the National Energy Savings Initiative.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in part.
An aspirational national energy intensity target and a national Energy Savings Initiate (ESI) were recommended in the October 2010 report of the Prime Minister's Task Group on Energy Efficiency (PMTGEE). In July 2011, the Government responded to the PMTGEE report in the 'Clean Energy Plan' and decided not to support proceeding with an aspirational national target. The Government has decided to investigate the merits of a possible national ESI. Subject to economic modelling and analysis of potential regulatory impacts, which is expected to be finalised by mid-year, the Government will make a decision on whether to seek to negotiate the adoption of a national ESI with COAG. A national scheme would be conditional on the endorsement of COAG and agreement that existing and planned state schemes are folded into any national scheme.
SENATOR XENOPHON RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
The AEMC conduct a thorough investigation into the impact renewable energy schemes, both federal and state-based, have had on electricity prices since 2008, with a view to maximising the environmental benefits at the lowest cost to consumers. Further, such a review should investigate the long-term benefits of encouraging investment in baseload renewables.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
During 2011 the AEMC undertook a review entitled: Impact of the enhanced Renewable Energy Target on energy markets. Analysis included the cost impacts and abatement benefits of the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target, the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and also considered state and territory based premium feed-in tariff arrangements (see www.aemc.gov.au/market-reviews/completed/impact-of-the-enhanced-renewable-energy-target-on-energy-markets.html).
Modelling undertaken in the review estimated the total compliance costs of the enhanced RET would decrease from 0.93 c/kWh in 2011/12 to 0.64 c/kWh in 2015/16 and then increase slowly to 0.77 c/kWh in 2019/20 in the presence of the carbon price. Compliance costs for the enhanced RET are substantially lower with a price on carbon compared to no carbon price.
In the second half of 2012, the independent Climate Change Authority completed a statutory review of the RET scheme. The modelling conducted for the review showed the impact of the RET scheme on retail electricity prices to be modest, particularly as wholesale electricity prices are suppressed by the additional supply of renewable energy. This downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices at least partially offsets the RET certificate costs and therefore the costs of complying with the RET. The modelling estimates that over the period 2012/13 to 2030/31 the impact of the RET scheme on the average household bill (assumed to be consuming 7 MWh per year) would be less than 1 per cent (or $15 per year).
State and Territory Governments have largely closed their premium feed-in tariff (FiT) schemes to new customers such that FiT payments to new participants will avoid cross subsidisation by other electricity users. Several jurisdictions have recently reviewed FiT arrangements with the aim of determining fair and reasonable value (cross-subsidy free) for micro generated energy, further analysis is considered unnecessary at this time. In December 2012 COAG endorsed the amendment of the National Principles for Feed-in Tariff Schemes which includes the phasing out of premium schemes by 2014.
It is acknowledged that there will be legacy costs for some premium schemes into the future as existing premium FiT scheme participant's contracts are honoured and these costs will generally be met by all consumers in the respective jurisdiction.
In 2012, COAG committed to developing a national approach to assessing the complementarity of existing and future climate change measures with the carbon price mechanism, as well as to fast track and rationalise policies and programs that are not complementary to a carbon price, or are ineffective, inefficient or impose duplicative reporting requirements on business.
In early 2013, the Select Council on Climate Change (SCCC) provided a report to COAG prepared by the Complementary Measures Working Group providing outcomes of reviews undertaken by the Commonwealth, States and Territories of carbon reduction and energy efficiency measures for their complementarity with a carbon price. Jurisdictions reported that 5 measures will be, or have been, rationalised and 18 measures will be discontinued, resulting in reduced compliance costs for business, including for the electricity supply sector, which may flow through to electricity prices.
In addition to this review activity, in 2012 COAG agreed that the Business Advisory Forum Taskforce, established following the Business Advisory Forum held in April 2012, would provide advice to COAG on the overall review outcomes of the SCCC process and whether any further reform action is required. In April 2013, the Taskforce advised COAG that based on advice provided by jurisdictions, the COAG agreed reform outcome appears to have been met for all measures reviewed by the SCCC. In terms of measures not considered by the SCCC process, the BAF Taskforce advised that the majority of identified remaining measures do not appear to impose mandatory or regulatory obligations on business or, where regulatory obligations are imposed, these do not appear to be significant and that few of these remaining measures appear to be non-complementary to the national carbon price.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE COMMUNIT Y AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Report on the: Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 [Provisions] and related bills
Introduction
On 14 March 2013, the Senate referred the Living Longer Living Better reform bills to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the Committee). The Committee sought submissions from and undertook hearings with stakeholders.
Some 112 submissions were received by the Committee and published on its website from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee published its report on the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 [Provisions] and related bills on its website on 31 May 2013, making 13 recommendations.
The Australian Government welcomes the Committee ' s report and thanks the Committee for its considered approach to the recommendations made in the report. In developing this response the Government has also considered the comments and recommendations from the Australian Greens ' and Coalition Senators who were members of the Committee.
Currently, over one million older Australians receive aged care services subsidised by the Australian Government. By 2050, over 3.5 million Australians are expected to use aged care services each year.
Australia's ageing population is placing significant pressures on the aged care sector. With an increase in demand for aged care services, older Australians are also seeking greater flexibility in aged care, including independent living arrangements and increased choice. Additionally, there is a greater expectation regarding the quality of services being provided.
The Living Longer Living Better aged care reform package was announced on 20 April 2012. It provides $3.7 billion over five years to build a better, fairer and more nationally consistent aged care system. The Living Longer Living Better reform package was developed based on the work of the Productivity Commission and the National Aged Care Alliance's Blueprint. It represents a 10 year plan, with a major five year review point to ensure Australia's aged care system meets the changing needs of an ageing population. The reforms being pursued in the first five years deliver important benefits for older people and the aged care sector, while also laying the foundation for longer term, sustainable reform of the system.
Government Response to Recommendations
Recommendation 1
3.55The committee recommends that, as part of the arrangements for ACFA monitoring of the reforms that are recommended by the committee in chapter 4, evidence be sought on any impacts of the design of the fee scales on care recipient welfare.
Recommendation 3
4.65The committee recommends that the Minister direct the ACFA to report regularly to the Minister on the impact of the reforms on providers (for example, the number and distribution of care recipients choosing DAPs and RADs). ACFA's brief should include specific consideration of the impacts on different types of providers (e.g. current low-care-only providers, small providers, and rural providers).
Response:
The Australian Government accepts the above recommendations.
The Living Longer Living Better aged care reforms represent a significant change to the aged care sector and can be expected to bring substantial benefits to industry over the long term. As with any significant change, it is important the transition to the new system is managed efficiently and effectively. The Government acknowledges the need for mechanisms to support the sector in transition and to monitor the impacts of the reforms as identified by the Committee.
The Aged Care Financing Authority (ACFA) was established on 1 August 2012 to provide independent advice to the Government on pricing and financing issues in aged care. The ACFA has already provided advice to inform the Minister's decisions on the definition of significant refurbishment, and the framework for accommodation payments.
The ACFA's Operating Framework currently requires the ACFA to provide advice to the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing on:
the impact of the aged care financing arrangements on access to care, sustainability and industry viability, including an analysis of revenue, cost and productivity movements in the aged care sector, to inform the Minister's annual review of pricing policy across the sector;
the level, and impact on access to care, sustainability and industry viability, of any Accommodation Payments that are levied by Approved Providers for entry to residential aged care; and
the level and impact on access to care, sustainability and industry viability, of any additional amenity fees for additional services that are levied by Approved Providers for aged care services.
In response to the above recommendations, the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing has referred the following matters to the ACFA.
1. As part of considering the impact of the aged care financing arrangements on access to care, the ACFA should consider any impacts of the design of the means testing fee scales on care recipient welfare, for both residential care and home care. This will include considering whether there is any evidence that the fee scales are creating barriers to access for some client groups (such as self-rationing), and if so, how these could be addressed.
2. As part of considering the impacts of new Accommodation Payment arrangements, the ACFA should specifically examine the number and distribution of care recipients choosing Daily Accommodation Payments (DAPs) and Refundable Accommodation Deposits (RADs). ACFA has been asked to give specific consideration to the impacts on different types of providers (e.g. current low-care-only providers, small providers, and rural providers).
3. Monitoring the take up of measures to provide support to the sector during the transition, particularly among smaller and regional services. This will include ensuring the early detection of any transitional problems. See response to recommendation 4 for further information on the support and monitoring measures to be introduced.
4. Specifically considering the viability of rural, regional and remote services and providers when monitoring the impact of the range of reforms. This will include contributing to reviewing and reporting on the operation of the viability supplement.
The Government notes stakeholder calls for further consideration of Government-backed measures to enable older people to draw upon the equity in their homes as a means of contributing to the costs of aged care. The Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Act 2012 introduced new requirements, effective from 1 March 2013, to provide consumers with greater protection in relation to existing private sector home equity release schemes (including the introduction of a no negative equity guarantee).
In addition, in the 2013 Budget, the Government announced that it would be investing $112.4 million over four years in a trial program to support Aged Pensioners choosing to downsize their home, without immediately affecting their pension. Seniors who downsize their family home will be able to have up to $200,000 of the sale proceeds quarantined from the means test for the age pension.
The outcomes of the trial as well as ongoing monitoring of the impacts of the new fee arrangements by the ACFA will feed into the five year review of the aged care reforms included in the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013. The review includes specific consideration of the effectiveness of means testing arrangements for aged care services. Any further consideration of Government-backed equity release options would be best considered in this context.
Stakeholders and the Australian Greens also raised concerns regarding the effect on household budgets of taper rates for income tested fees and charges in home care, and recommended that these taper rates be revised. The Government notes these concerns, also noting that to fund such changes to the taper rates would result in a significant drop in the number of home care packages made available over the next decade. ACFA has been tasked by the Minister with considering the effect of fee scales on recipient welfare and take up rates of home care packages.
Recommendation 2
3.64 The committee recommends that the government closely monitor the take up of home care packages and any signs of changes to demand for HACC-type packages.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
Over the first two years of the new Home Care Packages program, the arrangements will be closely monitored and evaluated. This will be undertaken in partnership with key stakeholders to monitor implementation and understand the challenges. The evaluation activities will focus on the impact of the new home care arrangements, including the new supplements, on:
consumer experience and outcomes;
provider operations;
Aged Care Assessment Team processes;
the interface between the Home Care Packages Program and other programs, such as the Home and Community Care Program and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS); and
the effectiveness of the new arrangements in delivering a graduated continuum of care.
The evaluation will also consider whether Consumer Directed Care (CDC) has supported increased access to digital technology by consumers and providers.
Any lessons learned during this time will be used to refine the Home Care Packages program (including the CDC arrangements) prior to all existing Home Care Packages being provided on a CDC basis from 1 July 2015. The evaluation will also contribute to the establishment of the Commonwealth Home Support Program from 1 July 2015. The Commonwealth Home Support Program will deliver basic home support services on a more consistent and equitable basis, including more national consistency in what people contribute to the costs of these services.
Recommendation 4
4.66 The committee recommends that the Government immediately put in place arrangements to monitor the impact on low care providers, and prepare to make available transitional support along the lines recommended by the Productivity Commission, including support services for providers seeking assistance in transitioning to the new system.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in part.
To support the sector in transition the Government will make available $6.9 million over three years for:
Government subsidised business advisory services for residential aged care providers to assist providers to prepare for and manage the transition to the new accommodation payments system in residential aged care; and
independent monitoring and advice to Government, through the Aged Care Financing Authority, on the impacts of the reforms to the accommodation payments system and the changes to means testing in home and residential care on providers and care recipients.
Approved providers will also be encouraged to access assistance through existing mechanisms such as the Aged Care Workforce Innovation Network (WIN). The Aged Care WIN has been developed to support the sector in its reform preparations and implementation, at both regional and individual-enterprise level, by providing an opportunity to redesign their business models and skills mix. It is funded through the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (DIICCSRTE) and undertaken in partnership with Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA) and Leading Aged Services Australia (LASA).
The Government's view is that these mechanisms provide appropriate support to the sector during this period of change. The Government does not consider further strategies to be warranted ahead of evidence of negative sector impacts.
Recommendation 5
5.21 The committee recommends that the government consider amending the legislation to create a statutory timeline to make a decision regarding whether industry will be subject to a levy to recoup a loss.
Response:
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Accommodation Bond Guarantee Scheme (Guarantee Scheme), which included levy arrangements, was supported by industry when introduced in 2006. The arrangements benefit all approved providers by maintaining the public confidence in the aged care sector and the security of more than $13 billion in residents' savings which is essential to maintaining this source of funding.
The Government did propose in the original reform package to require aged care providers to privately insure bonds (and refundable deposits) from 1 July 2014. However, after further consideration of the matter, including industry and consumer feedback, the Government decided that neither the sector nor the insurance market were ready for an insurance-based solution at this time. Instead the existing Guarantee Scheme is being continued and expanded to ensure that the lump sums paid by consumers now and in the future continue to be protected, providing certainty for providers and consumers.
This decision reflects a number of considerations, including the lack of a private insurance market which could provide cover in the time and of the type required to insure lump sum accommodation payments and potential cost impacts on industry and consumers.
Consultation will continue with the industry and consumers in coming years to assess the capacity to move to a privately provided insurance model in the future, with this issue given explicit attention in the five year review of the aged care reforms.
The legislation currently provides that the Minister may decide to levy the industry to recover costs incurred by the Commonwealth in refunding accommodation bonds to consumers in the event of a provider default. To date, while the Guarantee Scheme has been triggered on five occasions and the Commonwealth has paid out approximately $24 million, the levy arrangements have not been used.
The decision on whether to levy approved providers to recoup the costs of the Guarantee Scheme is a decision for the Government. It is important to note that a liability is only created if a levy is imposed.
It would not be appropriate to impose a time limit as this may constrain the Government's capacity to pursue defaulting providers to recover costs of the Guarantee Scheme. It is essential to seek to take action against these approved providers as this reduces the moral hazard impact of the Guarantee Scheme and holds the defaulting provider accountable for their failure to refund bonds. However, this can take time. A time limit would also increase the risk of there being a shortfall which might then be met by the imposition of a levy. Should the Government decide to levy the industry in the future, the legislation provides for flexibility in how and to what extent the levy would be applied.
Recommendation 6
6.24 The committee recommends that the dementia supplement be renamed as the Dementia and Behavioural Supplement, in both residential and home care.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government will move an amendment to change the names of the two dementia supplements to:
the Dementia and Cognition Supplement (for home care); and
the Dementia and Severe Behaviours Supplement (for residential care).
These names better reflect the purpose and targeting of the two supplements as suggested by the Committee.
While it is expected that some consumers with a mental health condition will be eligible for these supplements, it is important to note that these supplements are not intended to fund the provision of mental health services. Older people living with mental health issues continue to be eligible for mental health services like anybody else in the community. The Government notes that whether older people in residential aged care have adequate access to mental health services was raised as part of the Inquiry. These issues will be considered further in the review of the reforms provided for in the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013.
Recommendation 7
6.28 The committee recommends that the bill be amended to include parents separated from their children by former adoption practices.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government supports the inclusion as a special needs group in the Aged Care Act 1997 of parents separated from their children by forced adoption or removal.
Inclusion of this group would recognise the traumatic experiences, health issues and socio-economic disadvantage that parents affected by those adoption practices are disproportionately likely to face.
Recommendation 8
6.40 The committee recommends that the government create a Homeless Supplement.
Response:
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
In the 2011-12 Budget, the Australian Government introduced changes to the Viability Supplement. This change included additional funding for providers that specialise in homelessness following a finding from the Aged Care Funding Instrument (ACFI) review. Recent monitoring of the changes suggests that additional assistance above that already provided is required to support the ongoing viability of these services.
In recognition of the additional costs of caring for people with a history of, or at risk of, homelessness, the Australian Government supports the introduction of a new supplement that provides additional funding for those providers who specialise in caring for people with a history of, or at risk of, homelessness.
Recommendation 9
6.53 The committee recommends that the Senate amend the bill in the terms described in the government's tabled amendment.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
From 1 July 2012 lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people were specified as people with special needs for the purposes of the Aged Care Act 1997 by amendments to subordinate legislation. The Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 incorporates these amendments in the Act from 1 July 2013. In December 2012, the Government launched the National Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (LGBTI) Ageing and Aged Care Strategy. The Strategy will help inform the way Government responds to the needs of older LGBTI people and better support the aged care sector to deliver care that is sensitive and appropriate.
The Australian Government accepts the committee's recommendation that the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 be amended in the terms described in the Government's tabled amendment AG264. The amendment provides that the exemption for bodies established for religious purposes from the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of protected attributes, including sexual orientation and gender identity, will not apply to an act or practice connected with the provision of Commonwealth-funded aged care unless the act or practice is connected with the employment of persons to provide that aged care. The amendment strikes an appropriate balance between the rights to freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.
The amendment will reinforce the rights of care recipients as set out in the Charters of Rights and Responsibilities under the Aged Care Act 1997. In accordance with the Charters, approved providers are required to treat each care recipient with dignity and respect and to accept each person as an individual, with the right to select and maintain social and personal relationships with anyone else without fear, criticism or restriction.
Recommendation 10
6.67 The committee recommends that the ministers responsible for Disability Care Australia and the aged care reforms acknowledge the issue identified in the both Senate committee inquiries into these reforms, and urges ministers to continue their work to ensure that the two systems meet the needs of all people ageing with disability.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
Both the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing and Minister for Disability Reform have made a commitment to stakeholders that they will continue to consult and work with their colleagues to monitor the implementation and interface of the aged care reforms and disability systems.
Both Ministers agreed to closely monitor the DisabilityCare Australia launch sites in Barwon and the Hunter, including the impact of aged care reforms such as new CDC Home Care Packages, to ensure interface issues are understood.
The Government is ensuring that relevant departments are also working closely with DisabilityCare Australia, particularly on the issues relating to the interfaces between the scheme and health, mental health and aged care systems to ensure that people's care needs are supported in the most appropriate care setting, regardless of their age.
People aged over 65 years will be able to access existing supports through the health and aged care system. For example, existing services for older Australians such as hearing and vision services will continue to provide supports to people who develop a disability after age 65.
The NDIS Act 2013 is also scheduled for an independent review after two years of operation. It would be appropriate for the interface of the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and the NDIS Act 2013 to be considered as part of this review. It will be important that the interface between these two systems be reviewed as they evolve to reflect reforms occurring in both systems.
Recommendation 11
7.31 The committee recommends that the government examine whether it may be appropriate to revise the Supplement Guidelines to permit in some circumstances the use of the workforce supplement in meeting employee entitlements.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government will amend the Workforce Supplement Guidelines to provide that excess supplement funding after the provider pays a 1 per cent wage increase to their employees must be used to provide further wage increases, or to support the additional workforce commitments of the Addressing Workforce Pressures Initiative. This may include contributing towards the costs to the employer of implementing the supplement.
Recommendation 12
7.55 The committee recommends that references to the workforce supplement be retained as they appear in the proposed legislation.
Response:
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
Recommendation 13
8.25 It is recommended that ACFA be established by the Minister for Mental Health and Ageing as a committee under section 96-3 of the Aged Care Act 1997.
Response:
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
The Aged Care Act 1997 provides for the creation of statutory committees via subordinate legislation. The Aged Care Financing Authority will be established as a statutory committee utilising these provisions.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOR EIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
R eport: More than just talk: Australia's Human Rights Dialogues with China and Vietnam
MAY 2013
Government Response to the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade ' s Inquiry, " More than just talk: Australia ' s Human Rights Dialogues with China and Vietnam "
Australia ' s Human Rights Dialogues
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support the human rights dialogue process.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee.
Australia's bilateral human rights dialogues are an important mechanism for conveying Australia's human rights concerns in a regular and systematic manner, and as a means of enabling frank discussions on sensitive issues. These dialogues are one of a number of tools the Government uses in its human rights advocacy. Other measures include bilateral representations, statements and resolutions in multilateral fora, including the United Nations (UN), and support for the work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions.
The dialogues also provide other states with an opportunity to constructively discuss Australia's domestic human rights policy, giving the Government an opportunity to not only promote policy in an international context, but also inform future domestic reforms.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider re-establishing its bilateral human rights dialogue with Iran.
The Government notes the recommendation of the Committee.
As the Committee itself emphasised, a key component of human rights advocacy is government-to-government dialogue aimed at genuinely cooperative efforts to improve human rights. At this stage, we do not believe that Iran would engage in a dialogue aimed at genuinely cooperative efforts to improve human rights.
The Australian Government supports multilateral efforts to highlight human rights abuses and to encourage reform in Iran, including the work of the UN Secretary-General, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Iran and through resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council and UN General Assembly. The Australian Government also raises human rights concerns, including on individual cases, directly with the Iranian Government through the Australian Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian Embassy in Canberra, as well as in the course of other bilateral contacts.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney General ' s Department ensure that all relevant staff receive human rights education and training. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should also ensure that human rights monitoring is an integral part of the duty statement for its diplomatic staff.
The Government agrees with the Committee that ensuring relevant staff have exposure to human rights education and training is important.
Developing a human rights culture within the public service helps ensure rights are protected and promoted through policy, legislation and service delivery.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade already provides human rights training and briefings for graduate trainees joining the Department, and briefings for staff proceeding to certain overseas postings. Monitoring of and advocacy on human rights issues is an existing function of all bilateral posts and therefore forms part of the duty statements of diplomatic staff. The Department will continue to identify and provide additional training opportunities, subject to available resources.
The Attorney-General's Department undertakes a range of human rights education and training activities for public sector officials—one of the key education initiatives under Australia's Human Rights Framework. The Public Sector Human Rights Education Program, launched on 7 September 2011, aims to:
assist public sector officials to understand human rights obligations;
strengthen the capacity of legal and policy officers to develop policies, programs and legislation that are consistent with human rights; and
provide guidance to administrative decision-makers on relevant human rights considerations to take into account.
Measures to achieve these aims include general human rights awareness training, Statements of Compatibility training, an e-learning package, and a range of materials to support these training packages.
Parliamentary participation and oversight
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, or their nominees, participate in the Human Rights Dialogues as members of Australia ' s delegations. Participation must be properly funded and facilitated.
The Government agrees with the Committee on the importance of parliamentary participation in Australia's human rights dialogues. The Government supports the participation of the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (JSCFADT), or their nominees, in Australia's human rights dialogues with China, Laos and Vietnam. The Government issues invitations to the Chair and Deputy Chair or their nominees to participate in the dialogues, noting that the request for participation is considered in the context of the overall parliamentary delegation program for that year. The Government notes, however, that the participation of the Chair and Deputy Chair or their nominees in Human Rights Dialogues overseas remains subject to the agreement of the relevant foreign government. Costs associated with participation by Parliamentarians in Human Rights Dialogues in Australia or overseas are a matter for Parliamentarians.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney General ' s Department provide a briefing to the Human Rights Sub-Committee, of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, as soon as practicable prior to and after each human rights dialogue.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee.
The Government provides briefings to the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the JSCFADT as soon as practicable after each human rights dialogue with China, Laos and Vietnam. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will also undertake to brief the Human Rights Sub-Committee prior to each human rights dialogue.
As noted in response to Recommendation 4, the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the JSCFADT or their nominees are also invited to participate in the dialogues.
Involvement of non-government organisations
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a human rights web portal that provides a central access point for all human rights matters for the Australian Government, non-government organisations, civil society, the diaspora communities in Australia, and concerned individuals.
The Government notes the recommendation of the Committee. A substantial amount of information is available on human rights matters with respect to Australia on the websites of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade1, the Attorney-General's Department,2 the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in New York3 and the Australian Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva4. This includes information on:
Australia's Human Rights Framework
the human rights grants scheme
the human rights dialogues
national human rights institutions and regional bodies
the UN Human Rights Council
the Universal Periodic Review
the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly
reports to United Nations bodies and treaty bodies' lists of issues and concluding observations
human rights communications
human rights publications
human rights and education for the public sector, and
United Nations Human Rights Recommendations Database.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney-General's Department administer email addresses for general inquiries and the provision of information by Australian public and civil society groups on international and domestic human rights matters respectively, which are monitored regularly.5 Both departments will identify opportunities to publicise further the existence of this email address.
The Australian Human Rights Commission also maintains a website with extensive information about human rights issues in Australia.6
Resources do not currently permit government departments to establish a separate, comprehensive web portal on all human rights matters. The departments will progressively add information on human rights matters to their existing websites with a view to further facilitating and enhancing public access to such information.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a biennial meeting, to be held alternately in Melbourne, Sydney, and Brisbane, with non-government organisations, civil society, the Diaspora communities in Australia, and concerned individuals to discuss Australia ' s human rights dialogues.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation.
Existing consultation mechanisms provide appropriate forums to discuss Australia's human rights dialogues with non-government organisations and civil society. Government departments consult with non-government organisations, civil society and the diaspora communities in Australia prior to and after each human rights dialogue. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's Department hold an annual forum with non-government organisations to discuss human rights issues more generally. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also meets with non-government organisations and Diaspora communities in Australia on request.
The departments will continue to explore opportunities to consider a broader range of venues for those consultations, subject to resources.
Reporting requirements and mechanisms
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade enhance its reporting of Australia ' s human rights dialogues in its Annual Report. At the very minimum the report should include:
a list of dialogue participants;
a list of issues raised at the dialogues about each country; and
a note of the key outcomes or achievements.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation. The annual report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade includes information on the human rights dialogues held the preceding year, including topics raised and discussed with the partner country. The Department will include in the Annual Report a list of organisations that participated in each of its human rights dialogues and will consider what additional information can be included in the annual report, bearing in mind the need to keep the reports concise.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade convene a panel of experts to produce a report that outlines a clear set of principles, aims and benchmarks for each of Australia ' s human rights dialogues. The panel should conduct an overall review of the effectiveness of the dialogues every three years.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation.
Changes to human rights situations on the ground are often incremental and cannot be attributed to any single factor. The Government judges the success of these dialogues through qualitative, rather than quantitative, measures, such as the frankness of the dialogue, and our ability to raise and pursue all issues of concern, including individual cases of human rights violations. The key benefits of the human rights dialogues are to raise human rights issues in a regular manner, and to exchange information, technical assistance, capacity-building and awareness raising with receptive governments. Overall, we consider that it is the cumulative impact of the dialogues, along with multilateral and bilateral representations, that produce beneficial outcomes for human rights. It would therefore be difficult to create aims and benchmarks by which the effectiveness of the dialogues could be measured.
Government departments routinely meet with non-government organisations, civil society and the diaspora communities in Australia prior to and after each human rights dialogue and seek written submissions in advance of each dialogue. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Attorney-General's Department hold an annual forum with non-government organisations to discuss human rights issues more generally. These meetings provide an opportunity for non-government organisations and civil society to propose objectives and identify issues which could be addressed in each human rights dialogue.
The Government notes the important role of the Australian Human Rights Commission, including as a regular participant, in the human rights dialogues. In this context, the Government will seek the Commission's views on how the dialogue process can be enhanced.
Adopting a bilateral human rights dialogue with other countries
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government should make representations to the Sri Lankan Government to open a formal human rights dialogue. A human rights technical cooperation program should also be established in conjunction with the dialogue.
The Government notes the recommendation of the Committee.
The Government does not consider that holding a formal human rights dialogue would add value in addressing human rights challenges with Sri Lanka. Australia already has robust and regular discussions on human rights with Sri Lanka at the highest level, and has regularly raised its concerns about the numbers of civilian casualties during the final stages of the conflict there. The Government closely monitored Sri Lanka's Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) process and is following carefully implementation by Sri Lanka of the LLRC recommendations and the National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights.
The Australian Government consistently funds programs to promote and protect human rights in Sri Lanka, including through the Human Rights Grants Scheme.
Complementary human rights advocacy
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government assist interested Asia-Pacific countries in the establishment and development of a National Human Rights Institution within their respective country.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee. Australia has already engaged with interested Asia-Pacific countries to begin development of National Human Rights Institutions. With Australian support, the Asia-Pacific Forum for National Human Rights Institutions has provided advice and expertise to assist with the establishment of national human rights commissions in the region. This has contributed to the growth of the number of internationally accredited national human rights institutions in the Asia Pacific from four to seventeen since 1996.
______________
1 http://www.dfat.gov.au/issues/human-rights/index.html
2 http://www.ag.gov.au/Humanrightsandantidiscrimination/Pages/default.aspx
3 http://www.unny.mission.gov.au/unny/home.html
4 http://www.geneva.mission.gov.au/gene/un.html
5 Humanrights@dfat.gov.au and humanrights@ag.gov.au
6 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/index.html
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND COMM UNICATIONS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
R eport: Operation of the South Australian and Northern Territory container deposit schemes June 2013
CONTEXT
On 11 October 2012 the Senate referred an inquiry on the operation of the South Australian and Northern Territory container deposit schemes to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee. The Senate Committee was to have particular reference to:
The pricing and revenue allocation practices of the beverage industry in the container deposit schemes operating in South Australia and the Northern Territory, including:
a. management of the operation of container deposit schemes in South Australia and the Northern Territory;
b. the cost structure of the beverage industry's involvement in these container deposit schemes;
c. the use of unredeemed deposits and unused handling and transport fees;
d. alternative scheme structures which ensure beverage producers cannot pass on unreasonable costs from these recycling schemes if such schemes are implemented in additional states or nationally;
e. structures to ensure schemes managed under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 do not result in producers passing on unreasonable costs; and
f. Any other related matters.
The Senate Environment and Communications References Committee tabled its report, Operation of the South Australian and Northern Territory container deposit schemes on 22 November 2012. The report outlines six recommendations; two directed at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Packaging Impacts Decision Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) process, two directed at state and territory governments should they decide to introduce their own container deposit schemes, and two directed at the South Australian and Northern Territory governments relating to the operation of their schemes. The inquiry also produced a dissenting report by Senator Xenophon and Senator Whish-Wilson which contained three recommendations.
INTRODUCTION
The management of waste is primarily the responsibility of state, territory, and local governments. The role of the Australian Government in this area has evolved in the past few years, a particular focus of which has been harmonising national approaches to waste management through forums such as the COAG Standing Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) (previously known as the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC)). Through SCEW Australia's environment ministers endorsed the National Waste Policy which provides a coherent, efficient, and environmentally responsible approach to waste management in Australia. At the EPHC meeting on 5 July 2010 the Packaging Impacts Regulation Impact Statement process was announced which addressed Strategy Three of the National Waste Policy:
"The Australian Government, in collaboration with state and territory governments, industry and the community will better manage packaging to improve the use of resources, reduce the environmental impacts of packaging design, enhance away-from-home recycling and reduce litter (EPHC 2009, p. 10)."
The Packaging Impacts Consultation RIS was released on 7 December 2011 and provided a three month consultation period (closed on 30 March 2012) for interested parties and individuals to contribute comments and feedback. There were also public forums organised in all capital cities across Australia, along with three regional areas. Hundreds of submissions from individuals, industry, environmental groups, and local governments were received.
At the SCEW meeting on 24 August 2012 Australia's environment ministers agreed to move ahead with a Decision RIS. The Decision RIS will further analyse the seven options from the Consultation RIS, as well as three new options based on feedback from consultation from the Consultation RIS including: a container deposit scheme based on the model that is operating in South Australia, and two additional co-regulatory product stewardship options.
The Decision RIS will be presented to Australia's environment ministers for consideration on the best approach to harmonised action across Australia from all levels of government.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
3.36 The committee recommends that should a national container deposit scheme be agreed to and implemented through the COAG process, steps similar to those used during the GST and carbon pricing policies be taken to ensure it is not used as a justification for price rises beyond those warranted by the scheme.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
The Commonwealth notes the recommendation of the committee which relate to issues currently under consideration by the Standing Council of Environment and Water through development of the Packaging Impacts Decision Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). The Packaging Impacts Decision RIS process is a Council of Australian Governments process involving state, territory, and local governments, as well as the Commonwealth.
Recommendation 2
3.37 The committee recommends that should any other state implement a container deposit scheme, they be mindful of taking steps to ensure it is not used as a justification for price rises beyond those warranted by the scheme.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
This is a matter for state and territory governments.
Recommendation 3
3.72 The committee recommends that should a national container deposit scheme be agreed to and implemented through the COAG processes, there should be appropriate measures to ensure transparency in estimating and reporting return rates for various products and appropriate measures to assist in dispute resolution between any beverage manufacturers and super collectors.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
The Commonwealth notes the recommendation of the committee which relate to issues currently under consideration by the Standing Council of Environment and Water through development of the Packaging Impacts Decision Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). The Packaging Impacts Decision RIS process is a Council of Australian Governments process involving state, territory, and local governments, as well as the Commonwealth.
Recommendation 4
3.73 The committee recommends that should any other state implement a container deposit scheme, they be mindful of implementing appropriate measures to ensure transparency in estimating and reporting return rates for various products and appropriate measures to assist in dispute resolution between any beverage manufacturers and super collectors.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
This is a matter for state and territory governments.
Recommendation 5
3.74 The committee recommends that the South Australian and Northern Territory governments should review their schemes to ensure confidence in estimating and reporting return rates for various products and that appropriate measures are in place to assist in dispute resolution between any beverage manufacturers and super collectors.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
This is a matter for state and territory governments.
Recommendation 6
3.80 The committee recommends that the South Australian and Northern Territory governments give consideration to removing products that are sold in containers less than 100 millilitres and that need to be kept refrigerated from being included in their container deposit schemes.
Commonwealth Position: Noted
This is a matter for state and territory governments.
RESPONSE TO DISSENTING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The committee should initially request and if necessary compel beverage companies to provide in-confidence time series information (over a period of 18 months) on wholesale prices in South Australia and the Northern Territory and a non CDL state as a comparison.
2. The committee should also request and if necessary compel the ' super collectors ' to provide in-confidence information on their annual profits, including a breakdown by state.
Commonwealth Position: Not supported
The Commonwealth notes that beverage companies and 'super-collectors' participated in this Senate Inquiry through both written submissions and oral evidence at the public hearing.
3. If a national container deposit scheme is established or any other state introduces a container deposit scheme, evidence from this inquiry — relating to the existence of inefficiencies and profiteering -suggests that serious consideration should be given to excluding beverage companies from involvement with future super collection operations (ie co-ordinator roles).
Commonwealth Position: Noted
The Commonwealth notes the recommendation relates to issues currently under consideration by the Standing Council of Environment and Water through development of the Packaging Impacts Decision Regulation Impact Statement (RIS). The Packaging Impacts Decision RIS process is a Council of Australian Governments process involving state, territory, and local governments, as well as the Commonwealth.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:52): In accordance with the provisions of the Auditor-Generals Act 1997, I present the following reports of the Auditor-General:
Report No. 49 of 2012-13—Performance audit—Interim Phase of the Audits of the Financial Statements of Major General Government Sector Agencies for the year ending 30 June2013: Across Agencies.
Report No. 50 of 2012-13—Performance audit—Administration of the GP Super Clinics Program: Department of Health and Ageing.
BILLS
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (New Mandate and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013
Explanatory Memorandum
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:52): I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (New Mandate and Other Measures) Bill 2013 and an additional statement relating to the water efficiency legislation passed earlier today.
Further to the summing up speech on the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 and the Water Efficiency Labelling andStandards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill2013, I wish to add a few more comments:
The government will review the parties financially participating in the scheme and develop options for administrative mechanisms needed to enable wider participation.
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The Clerk: Documents are tabled pursuant to statute. Details will be recorded in the Journals of the Senate and on the Dynamic Red.
Details of the documents also appear at the end of today’s Hansard.
COMMITTEES
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee
Membership
Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Minister Assisting for Industry and Innovation, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Sport) (15:53): by leave—I move:
That Senator McKenzie replace Senator Boswell on the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the effectiveness of NAPLAN, and Senator Boswell be appointed as a participating member.
Question agreed to.
MOTIONS
Asylum Seekers
Senator CASH (Western Australia) (15:54): At the request of Senator Fifield, I move:
That the Senate notes Labor’s failure to secure the borders and stop the boats.
Without a doubt, the Australian people have come to learn that when it comes to border protection in this country their current Prime Minister—I think we on this side and the public use that term 'current' very loosely, given that we are coming to the end of what is known as the killing week; we have one more week to go, and it may well be a killing week—is very long on rhetoric, but when it comes to the actual policy delivery of stated goals she fails at every stop.
The Prime Minister needs to understand that, despite her announcement yesterday, which came with a lot of fanfare, that she is off to Indonesia to meet with the Indonesian President, she cannot pull the wool over the Australian people's eyes. When it comes to border protection in this country, the Australian people gave up on Labor a long, long time ago. It is very convenient that the Prime Minister, knowing that an election is but a few months away, has suddenly found a renewed interest in border protection in Australia.
You might recall, Mr Deputy President, that prior to the 2010 election we had not heard a lot from Ms Gillard about border protection. Suddenly, when she realised that the Australian people were going to cast a vote she found a renewed interest in this policy. What did she do? She raced off to the Lowy Institute and announced what has gone down in history as the Labor Party's failed East Timor solution. There is a pattern of behaviour: consistent failure after failure after failure and then, suddenly, weeks before an election there is a renewed interest in border protection policy and a grandiose announcement is made. We know what happened to the East Timor plan—it fell flat on its face like so much when it comes to border protection under a Labor government. We know that the only reason the Prime Minister is going to Indonesia is so that she can say to the Australian people, after so many years of doing absolutely nothing to secure Australian borders: 'It's election time. Guess what? I am finally doing something.'
As the shadow minister for immigration said, I think the Australian people see right through this Prime Minister on this issue. They know that she not only cannot be trusted to come up with a plan on this issue; she cannot be trusted to implement one either. The trust quotient for this government on border protection is in deficit—ironically, just like the Labor budget—and no amount of grandstanding by the Prime Minister is going to change that fact.
When Australians read the front page of the Australian this morning they saw that Dennis Shanahan had written an article entitled 'Kevin Rudd's date with destiny looms'. In his article, Mr Shanahan says:
The Labor Party is heading towards a change of leadership next week.
Julia Gillard's supporters and defenders are slipping away, and Kevin Rudd faces increasing pressure to drop his unrealistic conditions of being drafted and to stand.
Mr Shanahan goes on to predict:
Right now it looks like Rudd by Friday week.
The Australian people and, quite frankly, those Gillard supporters who have not quite made the move over to Mr Rudd need to remember one thing. If they do change to Mr Rudd next Friday, thinking that will make a change to border protection policy in this country, they are going to be sadly disappointed. Mr Rudd in a speech to the parliament in June 2002, commenting on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Further Border Protection Measures) Bill and reflecting on national security under the then Howard government, said:
It depends on concrete measures taken in each of these substantive domains so that this nation is truly secure, not simply projected to be secure through the political rhetoric of this government.
Isn't it funny? You can say one thing in this place when in opposition and then find that, when you get into government and fail time and time again, as Mr Rudd did when he was Prime Minister, your words come back to bite you:
… this nation is truly secure, not … projected to be secure through the political rhetoric of government.
When it comes to Ms Gillard we know it is all political rhetoric, because these are the facts.
In just the last two days that we have all been here in Canberra—and I am going to have to discount today because I have not yet been brought up to speed on the number of boats that have arrived—on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week, we have witnessed the arrival of two more illegal boats, with a total of 140 people on them. That is on Tuesday and Wednesday of this week alone. What does that translate into? In this month alone—and remember we are but 19 days into this month—Australia has witnessed the arrival of more than 2,000 people. In this month alone, because of this government's border protection failures, Australia has witnessed the arrival of just over 2,000 people. We are currently seeing arrival rates of 100 people per day. One hundred people per day are arriving illegally in this country by boat because of the failure of those on that side of this chamber in relation to border protection policy.
Contrast that with the record of the Howard government. There are 100 people per day arriving currently. How is this for a compare and contrast? Fewer than 250 people arrived in the last six years of the Howard government. And those on that side have the audacity to stand up in this place and say that we are not dinkum when it comes to securing the borders of this country. In the last six years of the Howard government, 250 people arrived. When we lost office in 2007, four people were in immigration detention who had arrived here illegally by boat. In the last three days under this government, the boat arrivals for the last six years of the Howard government have been well and truly exceeded. If that is not a policy failure of the most grotesque kind, I do not know what is.
Almost 45,000 people have now arrived illegally by boat in Australia since August 2007. Numbers do not really mean a lot sometimes. You need to put them into context. So let us put boat arrivals under the Gillard-Rudd Labor government into context. Forty-five thousand people have arrived here, at a cost to the Australian taxpayer now in excess of $10 billion, because of the failed policies of those opposite. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that 32,085 people live in Gladstone. So they have exceeded the population of Gladstone. In Tamworth, there are 36,157 people, the ABS say. They have exceeded the population of Tamworth. In Devonport, Mr Deputy President, in your home state of Tasmania, there are 22,770 people. So the number of illegal boat arrivals under this government is double the population of Devonport. In my home state, Geraldton has a population of 31,364. We have well and truly exceeded the population of Geraldton. That is the very sorry factual history of border protection failure under the Rudd and Gillard Labor government.
With Dennis Shanahan's predictions looming, everybody knows the mood in this place has just gone dead this week. We all read the news. We hear what the Labor Party people say to us quietly behind closed doors. Why would you go back to Mr Rudd? We all know what you think of him, because you told the Australian people that earlier this year. Crikey! The people of Australia know exactly what you think of Mr Rudd. You yourselves went on record to tell the Australian people what you thought of him. Why would you go back to the man whom you politically executed almost three years ago, with one of the reasons for the execution being that he failed to stop the boats coming to this country? If he was such a failure three years ago, how has he changed in any way? Has he suddenly had an epiphany and gone: 'You know, I was wrong. I was wrong to wind back the proven border protection policies of the Howard government.' Has Mr Rudd had that epiphany? No, absolutely not. The Australian people have the right to ask those opposite.
You are playing with our Prime Minister. We may not elect the Prime Minister directly like they do the President in America, but I can tell you that Australian people think they do, and they did not look kindly on those opposite when the person that the Australian people believed they voted for as Prime Minister was taken out during a backroom deal one late night, on 24 June 2010. If next week those on the other side determine that they want to take out Ms Gillard, just to save their own political skins, the Australian people again will judge them very, very harshly. What the Labor Party need to understand—and the Australian people understand this, because Australians are not stupid; Australians are actually very smart when it comes to policies in this country—is that, if they take out Ms Gillard next week and replace her with Mr Rudd, the only thing that will change in the Labor Party will be the person at the top.
The Labor Party need to understand that, when it comes to border protection in this country, if you are not going to change your policies, if you are not going to revert to the proven policies of the former Howard government, then nothing changes. Mr Rudd has made it quite clear he is not apologetic for the rollback. He is not apologetic for setting the policy framework in Australia that has now directly contributed to what is widely considered to be the grossest dereliction of duty by a government in our history. Why would you, honestly, go back to him?
The Australian people are not stupid. You can change Ms Gillard next week, you can put in Mr Rudd, but at the end of the day if you are not going to change your policies, if you are not going to get a spine, if you are not going to show some backbone, if you are not going to reintroduce the former proven policies of the Howard government, then, quite frankly, nothing will change.
Going back to Ms Gillard, though, honestly why would you stay with her given her failures? Do you remember, Mr Deputy President, when the Prime Minister was the shadow minister for immigration and the Howard government was going through the process of tightening Australia's border protection laws? It was a very tough thing to do but we on this side like tough policy; we rise to a challenge. So we introduced our former tough border protection policies, which the Australian people know, because we have been consistent since August 2008, when the wind back began, we will do again. But what did Ms Gillard say at this time? Those on the other side say we have catchcries. Ms Gillard was very famous for her catchcry: another boat, another policy failure.
When you want to talk about boats arriving under the former Howard government, these are the statistics. This is from the department's own website; this is not from Senator Michaelia Cash, senator for Western Australia. These are the department's statistics. When we introduced our proven border protection policies, what was the result of them? Every time we stand up and say we are going to reintroduce the proven border protection policies of the Howard government, those on the other side say, 'But you will not stop the boats.' Hold on, because these are the statistics. We introduced the policies and in 2002-03 zero boats arrived. Compare that to when those policies were not in place under the Howard government—and we admit boats arrived under us. We do not resile from it like they do on the other side; we admit it. The fundamental difference between us on this side and those on the other side is that we stand up and we say, 'You are right.' When we got into office, boats were arriving. But we took tough decisions. We said that the No. 1 responsibility of a Commonwealth government is the security of the nation. The No. 1 responsibility of a Commonwealth government is to ensure the security of our borders. So we introduced the Pacific solution.
As I was saying, these are not my statistics. This is not Michaelia Cash making these statistics up. These are the facts. Those on the other side do not like them but it is their department who published these statistics. In 2002-03 zero boats arrived. How can you argue that our policies did not stop the boats when that is a fact? In 2003-04 one boat arrived—one whole boat in an entire year. Contrast that with the situation under the current government. They can snigger all they like on the other side but the Australian people know that under the current Gillard government 100 people are arriving per day. It was one boat in one year in 2003-04. In 2004-05, lo and behold, under the former Howard government we reverted back to zero boats arrived.
What do we have currently under this government? Almost 45,000 people have arrived, and under Ms Gillard herself, the Prime Minister who gave us the reason that she had to execute the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, in the dead of night of 24 June 2010. We all remember that night well because the third anniversary is coming up shortly. The reason that was given when they fronted the cameras afterwards and said they had to take out Mr Rudd was that Mr Rudd had failed to solve the border protection policy that he himself had created. It was another boat, another policy failure—under the current Prime Minister's own catchcry. But 589 boats carrying 38,115 people have now arrived since Ms Gillard politically executed Mr Rudd. So much for stopping the boats.
But it is not just the people; it is the financial cost to the Australian people. Those on the other side could not care less about that. They all smile because it is not their money they are spending; it is the Australian taxpayers' money. Like the good socialists they are, unfortunately for them one day they just run out of other people's money and there is nothing else to spend. In the last four years the grotesque border protection failures of that government have cost the Australian people in excess now of $6.6 billion. Under the former Howard government in the year that we lost office this portfolio was costing the Australian people $85 million per year, and in the last four years under those opposite it has cost the Australian taxpayer in excess of $6.6 billion. There is only one political party in this country that is committed to stopping the boats. We have done it before and we will do it again. (Time expired)
Senator THISTLETHWAITE (New South Wales—Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs) (16:14): I must say that this is probably the most difficult policy issue that the parliament and the people of Australia have had to deal with certainly in my time in this place. Having just heard Senator Cash's contribution to this debate, I think this is also the saddest policy debate that we have had over the last three years in this parliament. It is sad because today is World Refugee Day. Today is the day when the world should be celebrating the fact that, after World War II—with the atrocities of the Holocaust and the mass persecution and genocide of people from other nations for reasons of their colour or their race and through no fault of their own—the world came together and said, 'We must stop this. It can never happen again.' The world spawned the refugee convention in 1954 and the protocol in the early 1970s. On a day when we are meant to be celebrating the fact that the world can open its arms to people who flee persecution and to parents who decide to put the interests of their kids and their safety before anything else, we have to listen to that. Those opposite could say on World Refugee Day that they are committed to supporting the United Nations refugee convention and the principle that Australia is a place where people can seek refuge; but they come in here and again try to score political points on this issue because they see an opportunity to win an election around it. I think it is downright sad.
We are a wealthy nation. Our living standards are some of the best in the world. Our real incomes are some of the highest in the world. We have the third highest minimum wage in the world. For generations in this country we have recognised that we as a collective and as a people have a duty, a moral responsibility, to care for others who are fleeing persecution. We have opened our doors to them—and look at the nation that it has built. Arthur Calwell, the immigration minister in the 1940s and 1950s, said we must populate or perish. Since then, seven million Australians have come to this country as migrants and refugees. They have settled in peace, harmony and mutual respect. They have made a better life and, importantly, contributed to our nation. They built the nation that we are today. They built the economy that we have today.
It is something that I feel strongly about because my wife's grandparents came here as postwar migrants from Italy, seeking to flee the devastation of World War II in their country. They are two of the seven million who have come to this country and made a contribution. They had children. Their children became doctors and lawyers and factory workers. They had grandchildren. They became nurses and other people who contribute to this country.
Of those seven million Australians, 800,000 have been refugees who have come here seeking to flee persecution and find a better life. They have done so legally because the world said in 1954 that people have a right to safety, to protection and to live with their families without the threat of war and without the threat of persecution and genocide because of the colour of their skin or their background.
We have welcomed migrants from all corners of the globe. Traditionally, they came from the UK; then they began to come from the Americas, from postwar Europe, from Asia and, more recently, from the Middle East. We have welcomed them—and we have welcomed them because there has been bipartisan leadership. There has been a collective understanding by the leaders of our nation since we got rid of the White Australia policy that it was not only the right thing to do but was also beneficial for our economy, that if we were going to grow as a nation this would be the right thing to do.
And look what it has spawned. Our nation's greatest asset now is not our natural resources, not our institutions; it is our people, our diversity. If you go into any Australian home now, you will generally find an ancestry different from the traditional one. We boast about 260 different ancestries in this country now. We speak 400 different languages at home. We practise many different religions and theologies. We do it in peace, in mutual respect for each other, in harmony and, importantly, in a way that grows our economy, makes us all better off and gives us all greater living standards. And we only ask one thing of those people who come here: that they respect Australian values and laws, and that they make their contribution—and 99 per cent of them do.
This government is committed to immigration. We are committed to multiculturalism and we are committed to the United Nations refugee convention. That commitment is symbolised by the fact that over the last 12 months we have implemented a policy of increasing our humanitarian intake of refugees. We have increased the humanitarian intake from 13,000 refugees per year to 20,000. We have worked with neighbours in our region to deal with this issue. We have worked, through the UNHCR, to ensure that we are doing our bit as a nation to settle those who are seeking asylum throughout the world. And we have done so to the tune of 800,000 people over the course of our history.
The issues that have dominated the political debate in recent times have been asylum seekers and boat people—people getting on boats, paying people smugglers and coming to this country. In the context of us welcoming refugees and in the context of our history and of the contribution that refugees make to this country, Australia has been a welcoming place for refugees and has been generous in the spirit of the United Nations refugee convention. But in these times you simply cannot have vulnerable people, particularly children, getting on a boat and coming here in unsafe conditions. You cannot have policies that encourage that, unfortunately. I did have a sympathetic approach to this issue, until I saw those shocking, horrifying images of people drowning on the rocks at Christmas Island a couple of years ago—particularly children, flailing in the water, in the rough surf. Bystanders watching, yet unable to do anything, saw kids drown. You just cannot have a policy that encourages that. We cannot allow helpless, vulnerable people, particularly children, to get on unsafe boats anymore. We just cannot do it.
But we still want to be sympathetic to refugees. We still want to meet our commitments through our humanitarian intake. I do not think you can persecute anyone who is trying to do the best thing by their kids, really, and ensure that their kids remain safe. But, as a surf lifesaver for 28 years, it saddens me that we have to see those images of people in the water, with children, having to be rescued or, in certain tragic circumstances, drowning.
So the issue becomes: how do we maintain that generous history, that generous disposition to refugees, that tradition of resettlement—resettling those who are seeking asylum, as they are legally entitled to do in accordance with international law—and do that safely? How do we do that without encouraging people to get on boats?
It is not a policy failing. It is not an unwillingness to deal with this issue. It is not, as Senator Cash says, a willingness to waste taxpayers' money by those on the Labor side of politics. It is not that at all. We want to solve this issue. And we would like to be able to do it in consultation—in partnership, really—with those opposite.
Unfortunately, we could not get that outcome because of the nature of this parliament. Because of the nature of the hung parliament we could not get a resolution on the floor of the parliament to this issue. We tried: we put a resolution to the parliament that would have got around the problem of the High Court decision regarding the Malaysia people-swap agreement. It did not work. I am not going to go into the reasons why it did not work, but it did not work. In the wake of that, the government said: 'Let us try to take the politics out of this issue; let us ask some people who do not come with any political baggage to this debate but have some experience with it. Let us ask them to advise this parliament—not the government, importantly, but the parliament: the elected representatives of the people of Australia. Let us ask them to come up with a workable solution to this issue.'
That is what the expert panel on this issue was entrusted to do. The panel was headed by Angus Houston, a very well respected military leader in this country. It also had Paris Aristotle, a very well respected refugee advocate, and Michael L'Estrange, who has also worked in this area for many years. They came up with a series of recommendations. They tried to take the politics out of this issue. The panel came up with 22 recommendations advising the parliament on what they thought was the best course to deal with this issue, to ensure that we met and continued to meet the commitments that we had made through international treaties and agreements to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—the commitments that we, like many other nations, made to the rest of the world in the wake of World War II. How do we continue to meet those commitments but ensure that people do not get on boats and risk their lives?
The panel came up with 22 recommendations. The key point that they outlined and underlined in that set of recommendations was that, if it was going to work, you needed to adopt all 22 of them; you could not pick one, pick the other and say, 'We're not going to do a few of the others.' They needed to be adopted as a whole package. That is the key point. One of those recommendations was the Malaysia people-swap agreement. Unfortunately, again because of politics, we have not been able to implement all 22 of those recommendations. Of course, the expert panel said: 'Well, if you cannot implement all of those 22 recommendations then this will fail.' And, unfortunately, we have been unable to get that agreement. I think we have been unable to get leadership from some members of parliament on this issue.
The saddest thing on this is that, unfortunately—I have got to say this—I think that those opposite see this as an opportunity: a political winner. They see this as something that can win them the election. The truth is that, regardless of who wins the election, this problem will go on into the future.
The reason that this problem will remain is that there is a human catastrophe of catastrophic proportions occurring in Syria at the moment. Our nation's foreign minister, Bob Carr, has outlined the magnitude of the devastation that is occurring in Syria at the moment. Close to one million people are now in refugee camps bordering Syria, in Jordan and Lebanon. They are not going to go away. They are not going to disappear into thin air. That problem is going to remain beyond the election. People are still fleeing persecution in Afghanistan. They are still running away from the Taliban. There are still problems in Iraq that people are fleeing. There are still problems in Burma. We cannot stop that. Those refugees who exist because of that persecution are going to do what any human being would do, and that is: try to protect their kids. So that is the fact about this. You cannot ignore that. Just as those opposite seek to ignore the effect of the global financial crisis on the world economy over the last five years and the reasons why our budget is still in deficit, you cannot ignore the fact that there are people who are fleeing persecution.
There has been a level of debate in this country about how we deal with the issue, and the coalition have said that they will stop the boats—they will turn back boats on the high seas. That is their prerogative; they can come up with that policy as an attempt at a solution. But when you analyse this issue—when Australian people have a look at the issue in detail—the argument is wafer thin. The reason the argument is wafer thin is that people who have experience in this area of trying to implement a policy like this—the likes of former Admiral Chris Barrie, the former head of the Navy—have said that it will not work, because it has not worked in the past. Unfortunately, some of these people smugglers are ruthless. When they are confronted with a turn-back on the high seas, they disable the boat, and we have all seen what the terrible consequences of that are.
The second point to make is that the Indonesian ambassador himself—the Indonesian government's representative in this country—has said publicly to the Australian public that the Indonesian government will not cooperate and will not cop the Australian government turning boats around on the high seas. Why would they? Those on these boats are generally not Indonesian nationals. The Indonesian government have made it very clear that they will not cop boats being turned around on the high seas.
So the question that remains to be answered and that those opposite, unfortunately, have not been able to answer—not one of them: not Mr Abbott, not the opposition spokesperson, Scott Morrison, and not Senator Cash—is: if you turn around on the high seas a boat that contains refugees, where do they go? Perhaps someone on the other side of this chamber, throughout this debate, can answer this question: if you turn refugees around on the high seas, where do they go? Where do they go if Indonesia is saying, 'You can't come here and we won't cop that, because you're not Indonesian nationals'? Where do they go? More importantly, what does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees think about turning around boats that are unsafe—they generally do not have enough life jackets or enough food or water, and they generally have children on them—on the high seas? That is the political reality of this issue. That is why the rhetoric might be fine but, when you dig down and analyse the policy, it will not work. That is why the great tragedy and the great shame of this whole thing is that there has not been political leadership on it.
In 2001, when the Tampa turned up on our shores, there was in some respects a political crisis. It stopped the nation. It was the issue that everyone was talking about. John Howard developed a policy to deal with that, and he got bipartisan support for many of the elements of that policy. He got political leadership from the Leader of the Opposition at the time, Kim Beazley—much to Kim Beazley's detriment, I must say. Kim Beazley received numerous motions from Labor Party branches and letters from members of the public saying, 'Don't do this; it's the wrong thing to do.' But he put the nation's interests first. He showed political leadership on this issue, and he worked in a bipartisan manner with the government of the day to solve the crisis. The great shame about this whole debate is that in this 43rd Parliament we have not had that political leadership from the Leader of the Opposition.
Senator MASON (Queensland) (16:34): There has been a lot of talk about what is Labor's greatest policy failure, and there have certainly been plenty of policy failures to choose from. I used to think the carbon tax was Labor's greatest policy failure. Who else except Labor and the Greens could think that it was a good idea to unilaterally impose a tax on our most successful sector of the economy, a tax more severe than any other major economy has inflicted on its citizens, a tax that everyone now knows will have no effect on temperature or climate? I thought that was Labor's greatest policy failure. We were told how much the rest of the world was doing to address the issue of climate change. Remember when we were told that? But none of our trading competitors were doing too much at all. Brazil, Russia, India and China were not doing too much at all, let alone the United States and Canada. They are in fact doing very little. China, we always hear about. We are still hearing from the government today about how much China is doing with respect to climate change. But we now know they are building three new coal-fired power stations a week and their emissions increase every year by the same amount that Australia emits every year. With the collapse of the price of carbon in the European Union, Labor's carbon tax has again been exposed as a millstone around Australia's neck. How anyone could seriously think that by tying its own hands and going on its own Australia could do anything for the climate in the absence of a genuine global agreement involving the world's economies and major emitters is literally beyond me.
There are arguments that have been canvassed so often in this parliament I have to repeat them because clearly that is a huge policy failure. In the end, you cannot believe that Labor and the Greens would instil a policy across this nation and our economy, but they did it; always style over substance. Labor and the Greens did it, which is a shocking policy failure. Others, less generously than me, say that Labor's greatest policy failure was its mining tax. Once again, Labor homed in on the strongest sector of the economy, our minerals export industry—the only industry that was saving Australia from a recession—and decided it would be a good idea to start killing the goose that was laying the golden egg. That was Labor's idea. In the end, what an appalling policy failure it was, because it turned out that the mining tax was not raising any money. That, even for Labor, was a first. It was another shocking policy failure.
Others still say that Labor's debt and deficit are their greatest policy failure. The carbon tax, the mining tax and shocking public debt from Labor's obsession with spending, with splashing the cash around, with throwing money at every problem with little to show for it at the end have resulted in five record budget deficits in a row. They have also resulted in a record net debt of over $190 billion and the prospect of the $300 billion debt ceiling being breached within the next few years. That is on the cards. Labor's debt remains the greatest threat to the livelihoods of young Australians and those yet to be born. In their social democratic drive to make Australia more like western Europe, the Labor Party and the Greens have saddled our country with a structural debt that never ever goes away. Does anyone believe that this lot would ever pay back public debt? Does anyone in the world believe that? They have not done it in western Europe or in the United States. If this lot had their way, there would never be a repayment of public debt.
The Australian Labor Party always likes to talk about social justice—'social justice' being the key words. Is it socially just for this generation to live on the largesse of Australia's young people and those yet to be born? Is it fair for young people to pay the debt for our generation? Is that socially just? You should ask a Greek teenager what they think about their politicians, about their parents' and their grandparents' generations. They are disgusted. The same would happen in this country if the Labor Party and the Greens got away with it. Public debt remains the greatest potential crisis. Maybe neither carbon tax nor the mining tax nor even public debt are Labor's greatest policy failures. Maybe when historians in the future look at this bizarre interlude called the Gillard-Rudd prime ministerships, they will conclude that Labor's greatest and most tragic failure was its trashing of Australia's immigration system.
Labor's failure to secure our borders and stop the boats might not be as costly as Labor's other failures. It is expensive, as Senator Cash points out, though it may not be as costly as some of the other ones, like the carbon tax, the mining tax and certainly public debt. But what distinguishes this policy from all the others is this: its sheer pointlessness and hubris. That is what makes this policy about how to deal with the boat people very, very different. This was not an issue that Labor had to address. There was no problem when Labor came to power in 2007. John Howard had largely fixed the problem after the spike in boat arrivals in 2001 and in 2002. The Pacific solution, temporary protection visas and strong enforcement have worked. As Senator Cash pointed out, in 2008 only eight boats bearing 179 asylum seekers arrived in our country. That is all.
Mr Rudd, Australia's second worst Prime Minister and the man who wants to be Prime Minister again, I am told, by the end of next week, made a decision to change all that. He decided to soften the rules. In doing so he sent all the wrong signals to countless thousands of people out there—many of whom, I agree, are no doubt genuine refugees; I think we would accept that—who wanted to reach Australia and live in our country, and, of course, to people smugglers, who want to help them achieve those very goals. He sent all the wrong signals and the results are here for all to see. My friend Senator Cash, who knows far more about these issues, has pointed these out. They are worth remembering.
There have been 725 boats since Labor came to power, with over 44,000 people seeking asylum. Two thousand have arrived just this month so far, at 100 people a day on average. Recall that in the whole year of 2008 only 179 people arrived by boat. In June this year, it would take less than two days to reach that entire total. It is an extraordinary change. We have seen $6.6 billion in cost blow-outs, so it is expensive—over $6½ billion in cost blow-outs. Asylum seekers are spilling out over Christmas Island and into mainland Australia because infrastructure cannot house them all. We now know that as well. We know the farce of the Indonesian solution and then the Malaysian solution, which were not solutions at all. There have been numerous other attempts by Labor to fix the problem they created, without acknowledging that there is a problem and without acknowledging that the system put in place by the coalition government had actually worked. That is never acknowledged. Everyone knows it, but it is never acknowledged. Last, but definitely not least, some 1,000 people drowned in the sea while trying to reach Australia. As my friend Senator Cash reminded me, that is 1,000 people that we know of.
So why did we have to go through hundreds of boats, tens of thousands of arrivals, billions of dollars and thousands of lives wasted—all the upheaval, all the embarrassment, all the debate and all the horror? Why did we have to go through it? After all, you would think: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Why did Labor, Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard decide to fix something that was not broken? The answer is actually quite simple, and I have raised this before. This is the problem with social democratic governments: moral vanity—the vain belief that Labor and the Greens and the left know best and are the conscience of the world and the democratic world. That was the problem with Mr Rudd.
The left, the Labor Party, the Greens, all their cheerleaders in the universities and in the media—the media all backed the Labor Party, as always—and all those people in the arts and the not-for-profit sector backed the Labor Party. They are running away now, but they all backed the Labor Party and the Greens. They thought: 'How caring! How sharing! What a great idea!' No-one says that anymore, do they? You cannot find anyone who says it now. There is this sort of insider crowd—those who have a sort of moral conscience that, apparently, we, most Australians, do not have! These are the people that Nick Cater in his recent book Lucky Culture talks about: the insider crowd, those with a well-developed conscience—none of whom, of course, vote for the coalition! That is the argument of Mr Rudd.
In the Labor Party's view of the world, in the left's view of the world, people who disagree with them, who do not share their views or their methods, people on the centre-right of politics, are heartless. We are heartless, our side of politics! We are morally blind; we lack compassion, decency and humanity—that is what they say. That is why Mr Rudd changed the policy and weakened it. That is what Mr Rudd did—because we lack compassion! We lack ethics; we lack a common morality! The left, on the other hand—the Labor Party—of course, as Mr Rudd used to remind us, is enlightened, compassionate, humane, smarter, better, more understanding and more caring than we are! That was always the argument from Mr Rudd. As someone once observed, the left always thinks that the right is not simply wrong but evil.
So, for the Labor Party and for the left in this country, for the insider crowd, Australia's immigration policy became another opportunity to engage in this sort of political psychodrama, another opportunity to show the world how good—oh, how good; oh, how compassionate; oh, how enlightened—we are, and to receive the cheers of the crowd at the United Nations in New York. Oh, how wonderful! It did not matter to them that the immigration policy was working and that the refugee policy was working smoothly, achieving its objective of offering protection for asylum seekers from right around the world, without confronting Australia's government and society with the challenge of a flood of asylum seekers dying—literally dying—to reach our shores. It is all this political psychodrama for the left—sacrificing everyone and everything else for the sake of that warm feeling that they are right and that everyone else is not only wrong but immoral, dangerous and deluded. It is this sort of self-referencing morality that, I have to say, people in the coalition cannot stand. Mr Rudd is playing out a psychodrama right now for the leadership. But far worse is the hubris that attended his weakness on the policy protecting our borders.
So what are the costs of Labor's moral vanity? Firstly, there are the lives lost because of Labor's moral vanity. Softening our border protection policy has sent tens of thousands on a mad dash to reach our shores across dangerous seas and often in unseaworthy boats. Already, at least 1,000 men and women have drowned in the Indian Ocean. Moral vanity actually kills. It is not trendy, it is not sexy, it is not pretty; it actually kills.
Secondly, there is the financial cost of Labor's moral vanity. The budget blowout is about $6.6 billion. Every new boat is costing Australian taxpayers about $13 million. Our refugee infrastructure cannot cope; it is bursting at the seams. And there is no end in sight. How many more boat arrivals can we accommodate? Clearly, tens of thousands more want to come to our country. And why wouldn't they? Just this morning my Brisbane office received a phone call from a gentleman who wanted me to know that a plane full of asylum seekers from Christmas Island and elsewhere now arrives at the Brisbane Airport every night at 2 am, where they are transferred onto minibuses and taken to various locations throughout Brisbane, including a backpackers hostel in West End which has been cleared of tourists for that purpose.
This is now policy on the run. This simply is not sustainable. Perhaps the farthest reaching cost of Labor's moral vanity is the damage to our immigration policy, the point we discussed before. For some time now, there has been a bipartisan as well as a social consensus in Australia about immigration—and that is a good thing. Immigration has been seen as a good thing, something that benefits our country, that enriches us in many tangible and indeed intangible ways. We are rightly proud that Australia has accepted millions of migrants who have helped to build our country. We are rightly proud of our refugee program and the fact that our intake of refugees is the second highest per capita in the world. Both the migrant intake and the refugee intake have steadily increased under John Howard and then under the Labor government—and Australians have accepted that, there has been no argument with that.
But this is now at risk because, in their attempt to demonstrate how much more compassionate and humane they are than the coalition, Labor have thrown open the doors and lost control of our borders. They have outsourced our generous humanitarian migration program to the people smugglers and to the criminals. That is the problem. They have made a joke of our refugee program and our migration policy. Labor's monumental failure in handling the refugee program is now sapping public confidence in our immigration program and destroying that important public consensus on immigration.
Sadly, you cannot blame the average person in the street who feels this way, having been exposed to all the incompetence, hypocrisy and vain moral posturing of this government. The Left does not like the concept of user pays. They are wary of private health and they are wary of private education. They bristle at the concept that a person's wealth and ability to pay should determine the treatment they get or the services they receive. 'It's not egalitarian, it's not fair, it's not just,' they say; Labor does not like that idea. Yet this hostility to user pays disappears when it comes to the refugee program—because what is our refugee program under Labor other than a system whereby those who can afford it are the ones who get to Australia?
What Labor has in effect said to the refugees around the world is this: 'You are welcome in Australia. We will accept you as a refugee, as long as you can afford to fly to Indonesia from the Middle East or from Africa or from wherever you are and then pay another $10,000 to a people smuggler to ship you across the sea to Australia.' That is what Labor is telling the world. What Labor and the Greens have created is a business class refugee program—and this is supposed to be fairer and more compassionate than the coalition's policy. How is that fairer to some penniless widow with three children, rotting in a refugee camp somewhere in Kenya or in Pakistan or in Asia, who will miss out on places in our refugee intake because their spots have been taken by somebody who has been able to pay their way to Australia? How is that fair? Over the past three years 8,000 people in camps, seeking out protection, have been denied a place because those places have gone to boat people. The recent increase in the refugee intake has all gone to boat people. How is Labor's refugee policy more compassionate than before, with the 1,000 people who drowned on the way to Australia? Labor has turned our refugee policy into some sort of reality TV show: The Amazing Race meets Survivor! Somehow if you get here it is all okay. It is not good enough.
Apparently the Prime Minister is off to Jakarta, and she will solve the problem. The certain thing is this: there was not a problem when Labor went into government. It is time they got over their moral vanity and finally conceded that they have to return to coalition policies.
Senator STEPHENS (New South Wales) (16:54): Oh dear! There are many, many times in this chamber when I am really proud to be a representative of the Australian people and the Australian parliament. And today, on World Refugee Day—when everyone's focus is on the global trends report of the United Nations refugee agency—we are reduced to this kind of a nonsense debate about something that is a critical issue and something that we should all care about. We should not be having psychodrama nonsense carrying on. We should not be having people warning us that our words are going to come back to bite us; in fact, I think that is a lesson for everybody here.
It really is quite shameful, because we all know that this debate on border protection is about the political impasse that has been a part of this parliament since 2010. It is an issue that we have been fighting on for 12 years. We have been fighting about this since the Tampa. And, in all of that time, people have been dying. We know that. We have seen, time after time, the horrible tragedy of people who have perished at sea, the distressing footage of men, women and children losing their lives. And it is simply because at a time when all else had failed and the government had asked an independent panel to come up with a solution, a plan that would help us to break this impasse in our parliament, we were not able to get the opposition to agree to the 22 recommendations—in particular, the Malaysia solution—that would allow us to fly people back. That is our conundrum, and that is the huge moral dilemma we have.
No amount of political posturing, psychodrama, stamping of feet or screaming across the chamber is going to negate the fact that, on that side of the parliament, there is no willingness to resolve this problem. If there really was a concern about the people who are perishing at sea, then we would have people come to the table to negotiate some actions. That point was made just this week by Paris Aristotle, who spoke on 7.30. Paris Aristotle is a very decent, honourable man; we all know that. His reputation is unbelievable, and his experience working with people who have dealt with trauma and torture. He understands what motivates people to get on these boats, and he also understands what needs to be done. He made this very salient point. He was so distressed, but what he says was:
… the first thing it's going to take is for the Parliament, as a whole, not just the Government, but the Parliament as a whole to come together and agree on a strategy for addressing this issue. But it has to be a comprehensive strategy, one that builds a better regional system that engages Indonesia and Malaysia and other countries in our region to try to provide an alternative pathway but also to disrupt and intercept the activities of people smugglers. In order to reduce the numbers of people that one, feel compelled that they have to get on boats and two, don't have another option other than doing that at the moment.
So, his plea to all of us is to be a little bit more mature about our role as national legislators, to be able to actually come to the table.
We now have a week of the parliament left. We have one week to resolve this issue before this parliament is dissolved. Paris Aristotle says that this is not moral posturing, that there is an ethical dilemma here—a 'wicked' policy problem that cannot be resolved. His concern really is that because the images have disappeared from our television screens—and because the debate is now a screaming debate of 140 characters on Twitter and 'stop the boats' and all that kind of nonsense—people have lost touch with the humanitarian crisis that is happening in the world and the humanitarian challenge that we as a very developed nation need to take our fair share of. Paris Aristotle says that it does not make it any less serious, disastrous or desperate just because we are not seeing this happening. We should take our understanding that people—babies, children, women and men—are dying in large numbers and deal with that seriously and genuinely.
But I think it is the absence of the vision which is making it easier for people not to address this issue properly. That is really what he is saying. He is saying that it is not having this at the forefront of our minds which is allowing us to diminish this debate to what we are seeing in the chamber today. I am embarrassed that that is the case. I am hugely embarrassed for all of us, for all Australians who are concerned about refugees, that this debate has happened on World Refugee Day.
One of the key elements of the Malaysia solution is the capacity to fly people back. The evidence is clear that that strategy works. If we cannot fly people who are not genuine refugees back, we can at least fly them halfway. That is why the Malaysia agreement is so important. Regardless of the fluffery we hear from the opposition, we need the coalition to allow us to do that.
But we know that this is not really about good public policy, regardless of what we have heard this afternoon. It is all about the politics. On the substance, it is only at the margins that we and the coalition disagree. We both support offshore processing, we both support mandatory detention for the purposes of assessing the refugee status of asylum seekers and we both support working with Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries which are critical to stopping this hideous trade in people. We both believe that, so the substantive differences are only at the margins.
But the politics are being allowed to poison this debate. It is the coalition's overt strategy to exploit this issue for political advantage. If anyone thought that were not true, I will give you a little bit of evidence to support my claim. A quarterly essay by David Marr last year shone a light on how WikiLeaks had revealed the coalition strategy to exploit the boats in a very interesting way. The article said:
In late 2009, in the dying days of Malcolm Turnbull's leadership of the Opposition, a "key Liberal party strategist" popped in to the US embassy in Canberra to say how pleased the party was that refugee boats were, once again, making their way to Christmas Island. "The issue was 'fantastic," he said. "And 'the more boats that come the better." But he admitted they had yet to find a way to make the issue work in their favour: "his research indicated only a 'slight trend' towards the Coalition."
So in 2009, after we had dealt with the issue of the Tampa and moved on, a senior Liberal Party strategist went to the United States embassy here in Canberra and said he thought the increase in boat numbers and boat people was fantastic—the more the better—and how disappointed they were that they had not yet worked out the wedge message.
That is why we are having this debate today. The Liberal Party refuses to allow the government to implement our policies because they see political advantage in having more boats. They see the political opportunities created for people like Senator Cash to come in here and scream nonsense down the microphone, as in the diatribe we just had to listen to.
We do not agree on everything but we should all at least agree that we have a responsibility to try to stop people dying. Senator Mason certainly expressed his concern about the people dying at sea. Nobody has the moral high ground on this issue and nobody has the moral high ground on life or death. But the government of the day should be given the power it needs to stop this from happening. Senator Thistlethwaite nailed it when he said that Kim Beazley had done just that. He gave that authority to John Howard, the Prime Minister at the time. He gave John Howard the power he needed after the Tampa incident.
But this vexatious opposition has denied the government the same rights. That is why we are having this heinous debate began. People are really sick of this. They are sick and tired of this issue. People are very concerned about what is going on, but the misinformation, the fearmongering and the tactics being used are insulting. Enough is enough. If the opposition really did care about the refugee crisis and really wanted to do something for these people who risk their lives at the hands of the people smugglers, they would be at the table seeking a genuine solution and they would be prepared to accept the fine recommendations of the people who produced the Houston report.
I want to remind people of what did work. We know that the fear of drowning at sea has not put people off—the boats keep coming. Frankly, nor has offshore processing in Nauru or Manus. What has stopped them is the threat of flying people home. We saw the group of Sri Lankan economic refugees who were put on a plane and sent home. That would have sent a very strong message to people that this is not the way to seek refugee status. The fear of death does not put people off but being sent home a few weeks after they have set sail at sea certainly does.
So what do we do now? The Prime Minister is going to Indonesia next week. She is going to have some discussions, as part of the regional strategy that came out of the Bali process, about a comprehensive plan to deal with the mass migration and mass refugee issue that is a growing crisis across the world. The UNHCR released its annual report this week, and it amounts to a reality check for the debate in Australia. The report reveals that in 2012 the refugee crisis reached levels unseen in the previous decade. I refer to an article in The Age by Michael Gordon, reporting on the UNHCR's annual report. It says:
By the end of the year, some 45.2 million people were considered forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict and human rights violations, the highest level since 1994.
This is an indicator of the number of people desperately fleeing persecution and why we have boats coming to Australia. The article goes on:
An estimated 7.6 million people were newly displaced, either across an international border or within their own country, during 2013—the highest number in one year since 1999.
Earlier this week we heard the most appalling, devastating statistics from the Minister for Foreign Affairs about the situation in Syria and surrounding areas—a million people fleeing into Lebanon. What is Australia dealing with? A very small number in the overall scheme of things. Those UNHCR numbers equate to about 23,000 people around the world fleeing their homes every day—more than the total number of asylum seekers in Australia throughout 2012. That puts things into perspective. It is a reality check for Australia. We are a generous country, but we are 49th in the number of refugees hosted in 2012 and we ranked 11th in the number of asylum seekers who have lodged claims but have yet to receive a decision. We have to ensure that what we are doing will address this key issue.
I tried to find some alternative propositions from the conservative think tanks—an idea of what Tony Abbott and the Liberals are planning to do. I could not find anything of substance from the Menzies Research Centre or any of the conservative think tanks, but I did find the Australian Conservative Truth website. The Australian Conservative Truth is a blog 'motivated to provide the correct reality of what is going on,' and it does invite people to 'Feel free to leave your comments, and use any articles you find interesting/useful.' There was a very useful article entitled 'How the Abbott Liberals will Stop the Boats'. These are propositions from the conservative side of politics:
1. Australia will cease being a signatory to the UN Convention on refugees ...
That is a helpful one. It goes on:
2. Anyone arriving in Australia or attempting to arrive in Australia illegally will be returned to their last place of port … This would have an immediate effect on the criminal people smugglers currently freely operating out of … Malaysia … and … Indonesia.
3. Abbott will recognise the legitimacy of the democratically elected Buddhist government of Sri Lanka, and all illegal Sri Lankans will be returned without delay.
4. Malaysia and Indonesia will face harsh diplomatic, foreign aid and trade sanctions should they continue to allow the illegal people trafficking operations through their countries …
5. The Australian Crime Commission will advise the Abbott Liberals that proponents of sharia law … are in fact engaged in criminal … activities … in pursuing and advocating sharia Law in Australia. Islam will be outlawed …
6.The Abbott Liberals will stop funding the people smugglers … and will cease all welfare payments to all and any illegal immigrants.
7. The Abbott Liberals will arrest any groups and people associated with organising the illegal people trade.
8. Australia will no longer participate in the worldwide people-trafficking industry, currently masquerading as a humanitarian refugee program.
The article goes on and on. The problem I see in finding something like this as one of the top search results for what an Abbott government would do to stop the boats is that there is no information—there are spurious claims by Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison and members of the coalition that they have the answers. We know that is simply not true. There is no way that we can stop the boats when people are in such a desperate state without addressing the comprehensive framework that has been put in place by the Bali process and which enables us to engage with the Indonesian government, which the Prime Minister is going to do, and with the Malaysian government, which the Prime Minister is seeking to do but cannot get the support of the opposition.
I challenge Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison, if they are serious about trying to address the issue of people smuggling and illegal boat arrivals, to sit down with the government before this parliament rises next week and talk this through.
Senator HUMPHRIES (Australian Capital Territory) (17:14): I had not planned to start in this way but, in my contribution to this debate on border protection, I need to start by addressing the issues that Senator Stephens has just raised. Senator Stephens has engaged in an intellectually dishonest exercise of telling us that she does not know what the policy of the alternative government is with respect to stopping the boats, so she has resorted to going onto the internet and finding a so-called conservative website and, by implication, attributing the policies of that website to—
A government senator interjecting—
Senator HUMPHRIES: I did not mishear. What was the purpose of raising that rather extraordinary contribution about this conservative website except to, by implication, tar the Abbott opposition with the views put forward on that website? That is the purpose for which you engaged in that exercise, Senator Stephens, suggesting that we will revoke our membership or our participation in the refugee convention, that we will outlaw people advocating sharia law and that we will forcibly return everybody who has come from Sri Lanka. Senator, that is beneath you.
Let me make it perfectly clear that the views of that website do not represent the policies of the alternative coalition government. Secondly, the policies put forward by the Abbott opposition have been plain and clear for at least the last five years. If you do not know what we propose to do in this space, then you obviously have not been listening. Because, time and time again, the opposition has set out what it would do differently to this government and to suggest that, somehow, we have a policy vacuum in this space is utterly dishonest. We have made it clear that we will restore temporary protection visas. We have made it clear that we will have an effective offshore program, not the mishmash of policy solutions which has tumbled out of this government over the last five years and that we will turn back the boats when it is safe to do so. Those are our policies. We have made them perfectly plain for a number of years and, to suggest that there is some lack of clarity about that is a claim so disingenuous it could only have come from a government which, on this issue, is utterly desperate. It is a government which has run out of ideas, a government which has failed on every count and a government which is, frankly, no longer trusted by the Australian people. I suspect that, even on the Left, there is a lack of trust in the government to actually solve this problem.
Senator Stephens invited Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison to sit down with the government before the end of next week to talk the talk and sort out this problem. Frankly, why would Mr Abbott or Mr Morrison talk to this government, this government which has lost its way so comprehensively on this question and which has so comprehensively run out of ideas? How many different policy solutions has the Rudd-Gillard government gone through in attempting to solve this problem and stop the boats? How many has it gone through? Let us count them. First of all, when it was in opposition it announced that it was opposed to the policies of the Howard government. We had Senator Stephens making pious statements about how Kim Beazley had authorised John Howard to pursue his policies to repel the boats, as though somehow Kim Beazley had signed up to what John Howard was talking about when in fact the Beazley, Latham and Crean oppositions comprehensively opposed, at every step of the way, the policies of the Howard government in this space.
Senator McLucas interjecting—
Senator HUMPHRIES: Yes, it is true, Senator McLucas. In particular, we recall one media statement by the then shadow spokesperson on immigration, Julia Gillard, with a banner headline 'Another boat, another policy failure'. That was your policy. You opposed the offshore processing that we had executed on Nauru and Manus Island. You were opposed to it. You made political hay out of it. Yet we are getting pious statements today from the government: 'We think it's terrible that this issue is being exploited; we shouldn't make that kind of use of refugees.' You exploited refugees endlessly every day that the Howard government was in office, a government that executed a solution which actually stopped the boats. Do not lecture us on that subject.
You came to office in 2007 and then, in August 2008, you changed the policy: 'We'll have onshore processing from now on.' What happened? Steadily, in increasing numbers, the boats began to arrive—boats which had not arrived for the last six years since the Pacific solution was implemented, in 2001. The boats that had not come during those intervening six years began to return, in 2008. They began to return in increasingly large numbers. More and more people climbed aboard those boats. The shopfronts in Indonesia and elsewhere of the people smugglers were reopened. They got back into business and they began to ply their trade. It was increasingly obvious to the Australian people over that period that the government's policies were failing. The test of success that they had applied—that is, the number of people who arrive by boat; 'another boat, another policy failure,' a quote by Julia Gillard—was failing, on their own admission. Boats were arriving in increasingly large numbers.
Julia Gillard deposed Prime Minister Rudd this time three years ago, very memorably, and said, 'I will fix this problem.' So the next policy alteration came from the Labor government: 'This time we will process unauthorised arrivals on East Timor. We'll send them to Timor—got the problem solved.' That policy fell apart almost immediately, largely because they had forgotten to talk to the parliament of East Timor about processing refugees in that place. In due course, the government of East Timor said, 'No, we're not going to do that.'
So a third policy position had to be developed, in a hurry. What will it be? 'We will have a regional processing centre somewhere in South-East Asia and all the nations of the region will send their refugees to this regional centre and Australia will also be able to direct people to that place.' That policy was announced almost three years ago. When is it going to happen? When are we going to have our regional processing centre for refugees? Of course, it has not happened and it is never going to happen, for reasons that are extremely obvious if people care to give it any thought at all.
Then the government announced its notorious Malaysian solution, a solution which was so utterly inappropriate and so undermined human rights that it began to lose the support of many on the Left, dismayed by Labor's frequent and unpredictable changes of policy. Then, having previously condemned the idea of ever sending refugees to Nauru, the government announced it would send refugees to Nauru. Yet, despite all of these changes of policy, the boats keep coming and people keep dying at sea.
So the suggestion that we should sit down with this government and talk about how we can solve the problem of the boats is just laughable. There is only one way of solving this problem and that is to get a government which has a proven record of being able to deal with this issue. It has been implied or outright suggested in the course of this debate that somehow, whatever its failings in the area of policy delivery may be, it is the Labor government which brings compassion to this debate. It is the one that at least cares about and delivers better outcomes for refugees—and I have heard this claim made in the past on a number of occasions. As a member of the small 'l' wing of the Liberal Party I want to explain to the Senate tonight why I think that the only compassionate approach to dealing with the issue of illegal boat arrivals of refugees on our shores is to adopt the policies that were implemented by the former, Howard government. We can do that by looking at the arguments here in a kind of SWOT analysis, and comparing what Labor is doing with what the Howard government did and what we propose to return to. Let us look at the alternatives in that light.
So where do the strengths of Labor's approach lie? Is it that Australia, by engaging in this policy, essentially, of open borders, obtains a result where more refugees are settled in Australia? Of course the answer to that is no. Many people imagine that, if the boats are arriving, we are at least accepting refugees who would not otherwise get a place in Australia. As has been made clear in this debate, that is not true. Australia has long had a policy of accepting refugees. A target of 13,800 humanitarian resettlements has long been Australia's policy, and that target was met even during the years under the Howard government when the boats stopped coming. So, in fact, there is no link between the number of refugees that are accepted by Australia and resettled on a humanitarian basis, and the number of illegal boat arrivals. However, I note that the government, in an attempt to buy back some of the support that it was losing from the Left previously, has recently announced that it is increasing that target to 20,000, albeit at huge extra cost. So we do not actually accept and process more refugees under the approach adopted by Labor; we simply do so at a much greater cost.
As to which is better on cost, Labor's approach or ours, the cost of processing refugees who arrive by irregular means and dealing with border protection issues this financial year has now climbed to $2.2 billion. That is $2,200 million being spent every year on dealing with this issue, which is four or five times what it was costing Australian taxpayers under the previous, Howard government. That is a blow-out of $10 billion under this government—bearing in mind that that is without one single extra refugee being resettled in Australia as a result of the change of policy. We are not buying another $10 billion worth of humanitarian resettlements by spending this extra money; we are simply resettling people on a much more expensive basis because the thrust of our program is being put into the irregular maritime arrival context rather than into the planned resettlement through organisations such as the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees or the International Organization for Migration. So, again, on the question of cost, Labor's policy is a fiasco, a total failure.
As for public confidence, what can I say? Public confidence in this government's ability to handle border protection has all but disappeared. I think you would be hard-pressed to find even a dyed-in-the-wool Labor voter who is prepared to say they think the government has got that right. It is clearly an utter collapse of public policy, and the public sees that.
On one measure, one extremely important measure, in my SWOT analysis, there is a very, very telling black mark against this government's border protection policies, and that is the cost in human lives. Whatever the supposed lack of compassion that might have been at work under the Howard government in its extended detention of people in places like Nauru—but let us not forget that at the end of the Howard government there were four, not 40 or 400 but four, people still in detention on Nauru—and even if you think that that is a high price to pay for a policy to deter the boats, you cannot possibly argue that that cost is too high if you contrast that with the cost of this government's policy: the 1,000 souls who have died at sea, encouraged by Labor hanging out the shingle saying, 'Come by boat and you will find a place in Australia.' Those are 1,000 deaths which did not happen under the previous six years of the Howard government's policy, and those deaths at sea will continue unless we have a change of policy. If this government cannot execute that change of policy, it should step aside and let another government do just that.
So, on that analysis, there is nothing to recommend this government's approach—absolutely nothing. It is, on every criterion you care to name, a failure, and it has to change.
I mentioned that Senator Stephens, in her contribution, made some extraordinary remarks. She seemed to be implying that it was a lack of bipartisanship, compared to what has happened in the past, that was the problem. This is a government that has had failure after failure after failure in this area, but it wants us to believe that if only it could get the Malaysian solution in place it would solve the problem. At some point we have to be able to say: 'You don't have the capacity to solve this problem. You have a demonstrated lack of performance here. Let's pretend for the moment that you can't produce a solution with the Malaysian solution.' But Senator Stephens, in suggesting that it is all going to be all right as long as we can get the Malaysian solution in place, said that the government of the day needs the power to resolve this problem. I think she was effectively saying: 'Well, just let the government do it. The parliament shouldn't be able to stop this. The government should be able to make this decision unilaterally.' I have to say it is a very strange principle. She went on to say that at least Kim Beazley gave John Howard the authority to deal with the problem when he was in government, implying again, I think, that somehow Labor had waved through the Pacific solution and given its blessing to allow the Howard government to get on with the job.
I was in the parliament at that time, and I know that Senator Mason, Senator McLucas and a number of others in the chamber were also. I do not remember ever having the blessing of the Labor Party for anything that the Howard government was doing in that space whatever—nothing. We were ruthlessly attacked every day on this policy, evidence of which is that notorious headline under the opposition's immigration spokesperson's name: 'Another boat, another policy failure'. Senator Stephens, in her suggestion that many people around the world were fleeing their homes because disruption, civil unrest and so on, seemed again rather coyly to be implying that the push factors were really to blame for the boats coming across the sea. I do not believe that anybody believes that anymore. I think the evidence of the way the boats stopped in 2001 when new policy was applied and the way they started again in 2008 when that policy was reversed makes it amply clear that it is pull factors which are determining the flow of numbers. If anyone has any doubt about that, I suspect they only need to wait until the new government comes to office and changes those policies to see just how true that actually is.
We have a government with a policy in total free fall—a government whose credibility on this issue has been utterly shredded. It has demonstrated through repeated policy failure that it simply cannot solve this problem, and it is urgent and important that we do so. I want Australia to stand as a beacon to other countries of the way we can compassionately and fairly offer people the chance for resettlement here—to deal with what, sadly, is an international problem of people who are refugees and who desperately need a home. I want Australia to be seen as a place which offers people that refuge under a planned humanitarian resettlement program, where all or almost all of our refugees are resettled here by virtue of a decision consciously made by the elected government of Australia that it will identify this group of people in this refugee settlement centre in this part of the world to be the beneficiaries of Australia's largesse and bring them here for resettlement. That is an honourable program and a program that Australians will have confidence in, if we can return to that. We do not have that program now. We have a program which is utterly failing and which Australians almost universally acknowledge as such. It is time this government, which can't even start such a program, got out of the way and let a new government do just that.
Senator BILYK (Tasmania) (17:34): It is really amazing that those on the other side have taken such attitudes to this most serious issue. I do not think they are very serious or very honest in their approach to this important issue. If they were really serious about this motion why did Senator Mason—who I really quite like and respect and spend a lot of time in estimates with—start his discussion on this debate with a discussion on the carbon tax? Why would they raise the carbon tax in this debate, as if this debate was nothing but a shameful act of political opportunism? Why did he then move onto the mining tax? Why did he then talk about debt and Greece? Why did it take Senator Mason six minutes and 20 seconds before he mentioned the substance of the debate?
The opposition in this place today have demonstrated that they have no wish to discuss this issue seriously and they have shown this parliament complete and utter contempt. The Australian people deserve better from those opposite. They preach and pontificate on this issue as though they have the silver bullet to solve the problem of Australia's irregular maritime arrivals. But what they really have is a political strategy to strike fear into the hearts of Australians—with talk of 'illegal boats' and a 'peaceful invasion' at the expense of desperate people who are fleeing persecution and trying to make a better life for themselves.
While people smugglers trade in human misery, those opposite seek to make political capital out of the issue. If the federal opposition were even remotely interested in finding a solution, they would listen to the experts. Three eminent Australians, for example, who have strong expertise in this area, examined all the available evidence and provided advice to the government on what needed to be done to stop the flow of irregular maritime arrivals. The Houston report clearly stated that the old policies no longer worked and that a cooperative regional framework was a key component of the solution. It said that Australia should continue to develop cooperation with Malaysia on asylum issues. But the opposition rejected the Malaysia solution—instead of seeking to strengthen Australia's ties with our region over asylum issues, they sought to undermine them. In the time I have been in this place, I do not think I have ever seen such a brazen exercise in rank hypocrisy.
Senator Stephens mentioned that we on both sides agree on most of the policy. We agree on offshore processing. We agree on mandatory detention for the purposes of assessment. We both support working with countries like Indonesia and Sri Lanka and the other countries that are critical to stopping this heinous trade in people. But those opposite continue to attack the government over irregular maritime arrivals, when the continuation of the problem is a product of their obstruction in this place. Last year they stood in this place and voted against the policy that the expert panel said would work to stop irregular maritime arrivals. They voted against the compromise bill put forward by Mr Oakeshott. They rejected compromise and a solution that the experts said would be effective. Shame on them.
Despite all their excuses, there can really only be one plausible reason why the opposition rejected the Malaysian arrangement. Do you know why that is? It is because they were worried that it might have worked. It suited their opportunistic political interests for the boats to keep coming. The coalition's rejection of the Malaysian solution was a victory for the people smugglers—I admit that. But it was because those on the other side would not support it. Why did they constantly ignore expert advice and reject a regional solution?
When you pick apart their so-called policy on the issue, all that remains is a series of three-word slogans. The policy that the Leader of the Opposition espouses that he would 'turn back the boats' is a complete fantasy. We know what happened in the Howard era when this policy was attempted before. We know that in their desperation to get to Australia, asylum seekers are willing to disable or even sink their vessels, risking not only their own lives but those of the staff on the boats that were sent out there. How many boats were turned back successfully? Only four. Four boats were turned back successfully, and every subsequent attempt had to be abandoned because of riots, fires or threats of violence towards Navy personnel. Australia's Border Protection Commander, Rear Admiral David Johnston, and other experts have warned that turning back the boats presents a risk to the lives and safety of defence personnel and asylum seekers. The policies of those opposite fly in the face of that expert opinion.
I would draw the chamber's attention to comments that Admiral Chris Barrie made very recently—in fact I think I heard him comment this week. He said: 'You can imagine that the opposition in government might be able to secure an arrangement with Indonesia. It might be possible for two armed forces to work together to execute some sort of policy. What worries me is that we have not got that far and we are making statements about what we are going to do without the agreement of the government of Indonesia. I connected the dots on this. When I look at the numbers that are starting to arrive in boats now, I wonder to myself if this is connected to the 14 September election date. Furthermore, it puts our people in the Navy, Border Protection Command and Customs in a very difficult situation—being, if you like, between the jaws of dealing compassionately with these people who want to come to Australia and policy being driven by people who, frankly, really do not want to see the problems for what they are. Putting our commanders and ships' companies in that situation, I think, is a terrible position for us to be in.'
I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to an article published in The Canberra Times on 13 February 2012, which stated:
The Coalition's pledge to turn back asylum seekers' boats is illegal, costly and would expose Australian naval personnel to harm, formerly secret Customs advice says.
The advice also shows the Howard government's attempts to forcibly return boats often failed, and details how the policy had relied on assuming, without evidence, that Indonesia agreed with it.
… … …
It showed Customs and naval staff only tried to return 12 of the 173 vessels they intercepted, and fewer than half of those attempts resulted in the boats returning to Indonesian waters. In at least two cases, the interventions led to deaths, either through drownings or fires on board the boats.
''There were very few benign or compliant boardings under the policy, and a pattern of objectionable and belligerent behaviour quickly became evident ... PIIs [potential irregular immigrants] frequently became hostile and occasionally inflicted self-harm,'' the brief says.
I repeat that the coalition's pledge to turn back asylum seekers boats is illegal, costly and would expose Australian naval personnel to harm and cause potential irregular immigrants to frequently become hostile and occasionally inflict self-harm.
I would like to quote one more section of the aforementioned article, which went on to say:
''Even if there was consent to the vessel being 'turned back', Border Protection Command notes that when it boards these vessels, nearly all of the vessels are found in a poor condition and poorly maintained. It is therefore difficult in many situations to properly determine that the vessel would be seaworthy enough to allow the vessel to continue on without the loss of life.''
Mr Abbott and those opposite know that their 'tow back the boats' policy is in tatters but they are just not game enough to admit it to the Australian people. I would like to know how the coalition plans to tow boats back to Indonesia without the country's cooperation. The Indonesian ambassador made it clear in a statement on 31 May that Indonesia would not cooperate with attempts to return asylum seekers to Indonesia. The Indonesian ambassador said: 'I think it's not possible for the coalition to say that it has to go back to Indonesia, because Indonesia is not the origin country of these people. No such collaboration will happen between Indonesia and Australia to bring back the people to Indonesia.' The ambassador could not have put it more clearly.
When pressed on this in an interview for The Guardian, shadow foreign minister, Ms Julie Bishop, said:
… professional diplomats are paid to present particular views but what goes on behind the scenes can be quite different. What people say privately can be different to what they say publicly…
Maybe in the opposition, but I do not think that the federal opposition is brazen enough to accuse a senior diplomat of being duplicitous—or maybe they are. I think she did. What does this say though about the future of any relationship with Indonesia if the coalition wins government? It is something that I think the people out there listening really need to think about.
We on this side understand the importance of a strong relationship with Indonesia. Indonesia is a major partner for Australian regional border security and in related forums that sponsor Australia's participation in annual consultations between ASEAN directors-general of immigration and DIAC senior officials. Indonesia is also co-chair of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, commonly known as the Bali process. The Prime Minister's visit to Indonesia will build on Australia's strong and productive partnership with Indonesia in combating people-smuggling activities.
As I said earlier, our governments agree on and share the view that people smuggling is an abhorrent activity that has to be stopped. Our governments have worked closely in addressing this serious issue bilaterally and in regional focused initiatives, including the Bali process. The criminalisation of people smuggling in Indonesian law, strongly supported by the government, was a significant step forward in the push to disrupt people-smuggling activity regionally. We have worked cooperatively with our Indonesian neighbours.
Our government has worked closely with Indonesian authorities to combat people-smuggling activities for many years. It has renewed the memorandum of understanding on immigration, cooperation and border control management between the Australian and Indonesian governments. Our government's engagement in Indonesia is focused on supporting whole-of-government efforts to combat people-smuggling activity and irregular people movement. It is focused on collaboration on immigration matters at the operational and technical level and it is focused on ongoing work to increase protection space in the region. This includes: working with the Indonesian immigration authorities to enhance analytical, intelligence and biometric matching capabilities to assist in identifying people who may not be travelling to Indonesia for bona fide purposes; providing training to Indonesian immigration officials on documentation examination, immigration intelligence and facial recognition; and an ongoing border management systems partnership to enable reliable detection of people of concern to Indonesian authorities.
The Leader of the Opposition knows his flawed policy is detested by the Indonesians, which is why he did not have the courage to raise this dangerous policy when he visited Indonesia. It is time for the coalition to give up their political opportunism on this issue. It is time for them to come clean with the Australian people and fess up to a few simple truths—like the truth that this is a complicated challenge without a simple solution, like the truth that a regional framework has to be part of that solution and Australia cannot address this problem by going it alone, like the truth that asylum policy cannot be conducted through a series of thought bubbles and three-word slogans. I condemn this motion by Senator Fifield today, I condemn the rank hypocrisy, and I condemn the opportunism.
I would like to reiterate the words that Senator Stephens quoted from Paris Aristotle on 7:30 earlier this week:
… the first thing it's going to take is for the Parliament, as a whole, not just the Government, but the Parliament as a whole to come together and agree on a strategy for addressing this issue. But it has to be a comprehensive strategy, one that builds a better regional system that engages Indonesia and Malaysia and other countries in our region to try to provide an alternative pathway but also to disrupt and intercept the activities of people smugglers. In order to reduce the numbers of people that one, feel compelled that they have to get on boats and two, don't have another option other than doing that at the moment.
As I said, I strongly condemn this motion by Senator Fifield today and the rank hypocrisy and opportunism taken by those on the other side on this issue. As long as those on the other side think that they can gain any political advantage from this issue, it will take a long time to extract even an ounce of honesty from them.
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (17:49): I rise to address this motion, and I do not intend to cover in any detail things that have been well canvassed by colleagues on this side of the House or things covered in the many articles in the media and by commentators for people who follow this affair. Suffice it to say, having had a former career in the other place when Mr Latham was the then Labor leader, I never thought there would be anything that I would agree with Mr Latham on, but on Q&A recently, when the issue of asylum policy and border protection came up, he was quite forthright and direct in saying that the former Prime Minister, John Howard, and his government got it right. Why did he say that? Because the Howard government recognised that the policy of the Australian government was significant in whether people chose Australia as a destination. The recent articles about people who are making the journey from Africa to Australia through multiple intermediate points highlights the strength of that pull factor.
What I would like to talk about is the fact that border protection is part of our national security policy. The failures that this government have made in this area, which have directly resulted from their ill-advised scrapping of the Howard government measures, have had unintended consequences and costs in a number of other areas to do with national security. Operation Resolute is the Australian Defence Force's contribution to the whole-of-government effort to protect our borders. It is a huge operation that covers things like irregular maritime arrivals as well as maritime terrorism, piracy, robbery and violence at sea. There is a whole raft of areas that we should be putting assets and people towards. At any given time there are over 500 ADF personnel at sea, in the air or providing functions in support of this operation.
Where has the effort been focused in recent years? Clearly, it has been on the border protection task against maritime arrivals. The unintended cost of this has been to the personnel and particularly to the equipment that has been used. The Air Force's AP3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, which provide much of the surveillance capability, are not just something that you decide to fly for countless hours without a burden. That burden comes not only in the usage of the flying hours, which is something so important that the allocation of those flying hours is in the budget. Those flying hours have to cover other operational deployments. For example, we have had P3s in the Middle East, providing operations there. They are training to work up to anti-submarine operations and they are support for submarine training. There is a raft of areas where those flying hours, if they are used in this task, are not available to other operations of the ADF. So we see capabilities—like anti-submarine warfare capability—taking a dive in terms of the number of crews that are worked up to an operational level. That is because resources have been directed into this activity, as a direct consequence of this government's poor management of our borders.
But it is not only the flying hours. Every time you fly aircraft, the airframe itself accrues fatigue and there are a number of components on the aircraft that have a life span. The more they are used, the quicker they wear out and you need to replace them. So there is a direct cost to the additional flying hours that are being flown by the ADF in these aircraft in support of this task.
The Armidale class patrol boats are also an asset that the ADF deploys in this operation—Operation RESOLUTE. There have been a number of media articles highlighting the fact that, because of the increased rate of usage and also the fact that the boats are going further out into unfavourable sea conditions, fatigue has caused cracking. The first vessel where this was noted was HMAS Armidale herself. So, of a 14 boat fleet, they are being worked at such a rate that there is now considerable concern about the ability of these boats to work to their full capacity. They been limited, for example, to operating in seas of less than 2.5 metres, which is about half of their designed capacity.
This is in part because the people smugglers have realised that they can essentially dial a taxi service. When calling for assistance earlier and earlier and setting out in rougher conditions, they know that the Australian Navy will respond, meeting our humanitarian and law of the sea obligations. But that means that our crews are going further out to sea in rougher conditions, which is not only putting them at risk but also causing damage to our assets. Not only are these vessels being damaged but we also seeing others stand by, such as major fleet units and people involved with the transfer of refugees or asylum seekers ashore. So there are a number of direct flow-on effects in the maritime space.
News articles show things like C17 aircraft returning Sri Lankan asylum seekers. On the one hand people say, 'That is a good thing; we are sending some people home.' But, again, there is an unintended consequence here. There is a cost that is absorbed by the Defence department, because it now has to take an aircraft—again, with more flying hours and more fatigue accrual—and that aircraft then cannot be devoted to another task, whether that be supporting land force units or other parts of the ADF that are training. So, again, we see a reduction in capability, which just drives cost later. The use of ADF assets, as an absorbed function, is costing Australia.
When the Howard government was in power, one of the projects that it was looking to go ahead with was procuring unmanned aerial aircraft or unmanned aerial vehicles for surveillance tasks. They are effective because they can remain aloft for long periods of time. They do not have the same manpower costs, because you are not paying to have multiple crewmembers airborne and crews to rotate through. So there are considerable savings. But what was one of the first things that the Rudd government did? In 2009, then Minister for Defence, Fitzgibbon, cancelled the $1.5 billion project for the Global Hawk. We have seen that the Orion aircraft has had to be used for this task because nothing else is available. Again, this is because the Labor Party has not managed our national defence capability well.
Now, some time down the track, we are seeing defence writers in the newspapers saying that Australia has a serious gap in its defence against the timber-hulled refugee boats because of gaps in the various radar systems. So the government is now looking at the Triton, an unmanned aerial vehicle, some years too late. It is better late than never and I am sure it will have good capability, but we could have been developing the expertise in this capability and sparing a far more expensive and resource intensive asset to do this job if the decision had been made earlier.
It is not only our national security here that has been poorly managed and had unintended consequences. One of the things that Australia has always done well, and which I support, is our foreign aid program and our willingness to help those around the world who are less fortunate. But now what we see is that what we thought was only taking $375 million—taking from Peter to pay Paul—out the ODA budget to support what is happening with the processing of refugees, was actually just a cap. That is a year-on-year measure. The budget papers show that the government is expecting to divert nearly $1 billion from the aid budget to cover domestic asylum seeker costs over the four years to 2015-16. That is a disgraceful, unintended consequence. It is a cost that is being borne by the people who can least afford to wear that cost, as a direct result of the poor decisions of this government to scrap the effective border control measures that were in place under the Howard government.
In supporting this motion, I am not going to go over again, at length, all the numbers and statistics. They are quite horrific. But I do want to highlight that, as well as the immediate debate at hand that people are having, there are unintended consequences and there are costs that are being borne by the Australian taxpayer. There are costs to our defence capability and national security and there are costs to people, such as those who would normally be recipients of our overseas development aid, because that money has been diverted. Up to nearly $1 billion has been diverted from that program not to bring additional people to Australia and not to somehow expand our refugee program but just to deal with completely unnecessary costs that are not required to be there. We could have used that money, if we wished to, to far more effectively help people in other nations who needed our help, whether it was directly there or as part of our already well-established and very generous refugee program that did what people are calling for, which is processed them where they were and provide them travel and support to come here to Australia—which is a far safer, humanitarian and sensible approach. The system is in place but it has been undermined by the poor decisions of this government which not only have made life more difficult for refugees but also have had many unintended costs.
DOCUMENTS
Australian Public Service Commission—State of the service—Report for 2011-12
Senator MASON (Queensland) (18:01): I move:
That the Senate take note of the document.
I note with interest the State of the Service report. I am always interested to see how our public servants are being managed. Under section 41 of the Public Service Act 1999, the Australian Public Service Commissioner's functions include: strengthening the professionalism of the APS; facilitating continuous improvement in workforce management in the APS; developing, reviewing and evaluating APS workforce management policies and practices; and maintaining appropriate databases. You might think that an issue of work management that has steadily worsened across the APS over the past decade and that is costing hundreds of millions of dollars should be addressed if the commissioner is to fulfil his statutory duty. But if you thought the commissioner shared your view, sadly, you would be wrong.
The Australian Public Service Commissioner knows very little, I am sad to say, about unscheduled absences within the APS. He knows what the current rate is—11.1 days per employee, or over two weeks a year. He knows that over at least a decade the rate has been steadily increasing from 8.9 days in 2001-02, which makes it a 25 per cent increase in 10 years. But he does not know what is causing the increase, apart from some guesswork about flu epidemics and an ageing workforce. He does not collect any data about absenteeism, except the rate for each department and agency. So, even if he wanted to, he does not have specific data to work out the causes behind the crisis of absenteeism. He does not know how much absenteeism is costing taxpayers. Actually, he does not care because he says it is not his problem, despite his explicit statutory function.
Contrast this with the situation in my home state of Queensland. The Queensland Public Service Commission is more than aware of the problem of absenteeism and its complexities because it collects detailed information about unplanned absences in the Queensland Public Service, including absenteeism rates by gender, age, length of service and, indeed, even where in the state leave is sought. The point about all of this is not that it is quirky and interesting in a nerdy sort of way but that you need to know the sort of detailed information of who, when, how and why if you want to have any chance of tackling the problem of public service absenteeism and to reduce its rate. To put it bluntly: how can you possibly facilitate continuous improvement in workforce management in the APS unless you have this information? Yes, you need the databases and you need to analyse them so that you can know the extent of the problem and then, hopefully, do something about it.
In June last year, the Auditor-General of Queensland released a report titled Managing employee unplanned absence. The Australian Public Service Commissioner was not even aware of that report, which is a pity because it provides some good data and some important lessons which the APS could benefit from. On a back-of-the envelope calculation, if the Australian Public Service were to reduce its unplanned absence rate by even two days a year to that of Queensland—roughly from 11 to nine days a year—Australian taxpayers would save about $340 million a year in direct and indirect costs. This is no small change. It is one-third of a billion dollars a year.
Will we see some action from the commissioner? I would hope so, but I am not at all optimistic. When I asked the commissioner about it during the budget estimates, he told me that he has 'other priorities'. Let me get this straight: our public servants take over 11 days of unscheduled leave a year, which is about 20 per cent more than people do in the private sector, according to the most recent Direct Health Solutions survey, the rate has increased by 25 per cent in the last decade and it is costing billions of dollars a year—and the commissioner has 'other priorities'. As the Direct Health Solutions survey itself concludes:
This points to the need for improved management and reporting systems to proactively manage absence in the Public Sector.
Hear, hear! The commissioner needs to take this problem seriously. Saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year might be more important than his current priorities. He needs to obtain the relevant data from departments and agencies, analyse it, find the reasons why it continues to increase and establish what it is costing Australian taxpayers, work out strategies to address the problem across the whole of the service and provide the leadership for the Public Service to tackle this issue. If nothing else, he at least needs to know the extent, cost and source of the problem to fulfil his statutory functions, and anything less than that will be a dereliction of duty.
DOCUMENTS
Consideration
The following orders of the day relating to government documents were considered:
Australian War Memorial—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Back to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—
Report for 2011-12.
Addendum.
Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
NBN Co Limited—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—Report for 2011-12, including report of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport—Report for 2011-12, including report on the operation of the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Australian National Preventive Health Agency—Report for the period 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2012. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—Report for 2011-12, including report of the Science and Industry Endowment Fund—Correction. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
Tourism Australia—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities—Report for 2011-12, including reports on the operation of Acts administered by the department, report of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, and financial statements of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia. Motion of Senator Back to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Kroger debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Back to take note of document agreed to.
Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Back to take note of document agreed to.
Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC)—Reports for 2011-12—Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme (MilitarySuper), including financial statements for the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation. Motion of Senator Eggleston to take note of document called on. On the motion of Senator Bushby debate was adjourned till Thursday at general business.
Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC)—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
Aged Care Act 1997—Report for 2011-12 on the operation of the Act. Motion of Senator Bushby to take note of document agreed to.
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Report for 2012—Social justice. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner—Report for 2012—Native title. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation (National Environment Protection Council)—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Research Council—Strategic plan 2012-13 to 2014-15. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Schools Assistance Act 2008—Report on financial assistance granted to each state in respect of 2010. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Digital television transmission and reception—Report for the period 22 August to 31 December 2012, dated February 2013. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post)—Statement of corporate intent 2012-13 to 2015-16. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)—Equity and diversity—Report for the period 1 September 2011 to 31 August 2012. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Tiwi Land Council—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Sugar Research and Development Corporation (SRDC)—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document called on. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation
Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Torres Strait Protected Zone Joint Authority—Report for 2009-10. Motion of Senator Macdonald to take note of document agreed to.
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation—Report for 2011-12. Motion of Senator Abetz to take note of document agreed to.
Fair Work Act 2009—Fair Work Australia—General Manager’s reports for the period 2009-12—Extent to which individual flexibility arrangements are agreed to and the content of those arrangements, dated November 2012. Motion of Senator Abetz to take note of document agreed to.
Fair Work Act 2009—Fair Work Australia—General Manager’s reports for the period 2009-12—Enterprise agreement-making in Australia under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), dated November 2012. Motion of Senator Abetz to take note of document agreed to.
Fair Work Act 2009—Fair Work Australia—General Manager’s reports for the period 2009-12—Operation of the provisions of the National Employment Standards relating to requests for flexible working arrangements and extensions of unpaid parental leave, dated November 2012. Motion of Senator Abetz to take note of document agreed to.
Innovation Australia—Report for 2011-12. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby agreed to.
Snowy Hydro Limited—Financial report for the period 3 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
ASC Pty Ltd—Statement of corporate intent 2012 to 2015. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
Australian River Co. Limited—Report for the period 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
Office of the Inspector of Transport Security—Offshore oil and gas resources sector security inquiry—Government response, dated May 2013. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
Water Act 2007—Murray-Darling Basin Plan implementation: Initial report—Report No. 1, dated 1 March 2013. Motion to take note of document moved by Senator Bushby. Debate adjourned till Thursday at general business, Senator Bushby in continuation.
General business orders of the day nos. 36, 37, 39, 40, 43 to 52, and 54 to 64 relating to government documents were called on but no motion was moved.
COMMITTEES
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Senator FAWCETT (South Australia) (18:09): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
The final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into aviation accident investigations was tabled in May this year. It followed a long period of investigation into the inquiry by the ATSB into the accident in which a Pel-Air aircraft ditched off Norfolk Island in 2009. The Senate report highlighted that the performance of the two government agencies that were primarily involved, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, came far short of the expectations that the Australian taxpayer, this parliament and the aviation community should have.
In 2010 a review was done into the operations of those two agencies. Of the eight desired outcomes of that review, the committee found that actions by ATSB and CASA failed to deliver against six of the main areas. I will list them and then talk in more detail about them. They failed to maximise the beneficial aviation safety outcomes that could have been derived from the investigation into this incident. They failed to enhance public confidence in aviation safety. I think we saw that in the controversy in the aviation industry and the media around the report when it was finally released. They failed to support the adoption of a systemic approach to aviation safety. They failed to promote and conduct ATSB independent no-blame safety investigations and CASA regulatory activities in a manner that assured a clear and publicly perceived distinction between each agency's complementary safety related objectives, as well as CASA's specialised enforcement related obligations; they also failed to avoid to the extent practicable any impediments in the performance of each other's functions. They also failed to acknowledge errors and to be committed in practice to seeking constant improvement. The committee made 26 recommendations to address a number of systemic deficiencies that were identified in both the investigative and regulatory processes but also in funding and reporting.
Safety outcomes is one area that I would like to touch on. Accident investigations are an opportunity for an informed and expert body to sit back and take a considered look at why an incident occurred. That body may be expert but they are not necessarily the best judges of how the lessons from that incident may be applied to other sectors of the aviation industry. The committee found that for various reasons and over time the ATSB processes have got to the point where much evidence can be excluded if it does not fall into the categories that they consider will impact on high-risk future operations. So we have a situation where they are making an arbitrary decision to exclude evidence, and without evidence they are not then investigating or reporting on what actually occurred. That means that other aviation operations are not the beneficiaries of an explanation of occurrences and failures in a system safety approach and what defences failed such that the accident occurred. It has been the traditional approach to identify each of those factors and let the stakeholders make their own assessment. But the safety outcomes are no longer optimised because of this approach of trying to make that arbitrary decision at the front. That is a significant flaw in the current approach which the committee has recommended be revisited.
The report and CASA's statements in name supported the concept of a systemic approach to aviation safety. But what we found very clearly was that the investigation focused very quickly on the pilot in command on the night, as opposed to looking at the raft of other factors. Looking at the James Reason model of system safety, one sees that there are a number of defences which are in place, which include the operating company, the regulator and a raft of things—training et cetera—as well as the pilot. But many of those factors were given, at best, lip-service. They were mentioned in the report so a box could be ticked to say that they were considered, without a detailed consideration of them. For that reason, the report was quite flawed.
What made the matter worse was that, having required both CASA and ATSB to produce documents for the inquiry, which initially they were reluctant to do, we spent some considerable time going through literally boxes and boxes of documents to find information, emails, reports and things that were relevant to the report and, having seen a report that said that the company was applying all of its regulatory requirements and CASA was auditing it and so there were no organisational factors to consider, we found that CASA in fact had done a special audit. Not only had they done a special audit that found a range of problems within the company; they had done their own internal report about CASA's performance of their oversight of the company and found that, in their own words, that was deficient.
So we have a situation where CASA—who have an obligation, under the memorandum of understanding, to disclose to the ATSB when they are aware of or hold, information relevant to an accident investigation—withheld the information of the Chambers report, which is their internal document, and when, as a directly interested party, they were given a draft of the report and the opportunity to say, 'No, this is not correct; there are organisational factors both with the company and the regulator that you should be aware of,' they chose not to do that. That comes very close to breaching, if it does not actually breach, the transport safety act. It certainly does nothing to boost public confidence and it does nothing to enhance the safety outcomes that could have been achieved through this investigation.
It is telling that there were many organisational and systemic measures put in place by the company in order to resume operations. That says that, in their assessment and in the assessment of those people who were auditing the company, clearly the pilot alone was not at fault for the original accident or there would be nothing else they had to change. So the ATSB, in its approach to its report, and CASA, by withholding that information, have done the aviation industry in Australia a great disservice. The aviation industry relies on open, transparent and accurate reporting from the regulator and from the safety investigation agency to make sure that the organisations concerned can be ongoing learning organisations that maximise the safety outcomes for the travelling public and for people operating aircraft.
The regulatory reform process is another thing that came through from this. The air ambulance operation, like the RFDS operation—which also has some emergency aspect to it, certainly for the helicopter emergency services—highlights that we have a category of operation here which has traditionally been put into the air work category, and that is clearly not adequate for all operations in terms of either their planning requirements or the aircraft equipment. To put them into a higher category such as regular public transport or even charter would unnecessarily, in fact prohibitively, restrict their ability to respond and operate in emergency situations to unprepared airfields. There is a very clear case here for industry to have a voice and a role to work with the regulator to establish a new category of operation that provides the guidance required around equipment standards and configuration of the aircraft but also provides the flexibility the operators need to perform their mission in a structured manner.
The last point I would raise is that the Chambers report indicated that CASA felt they were underresourced and their people, in many cases, did not have the requisite insight and, in some cases, skills, knowledge or background to do the auditing. From subsequent discussions, I would argue that, in some cases, they did not have the background to be writing the regulations or standards in the first place. I believe there is a strong requirement to look at the regulatory reform process and the role that industry should have, not just with token consultation but with a powerful voice, even to the point of veto, where they can work with the regulator to highlight what is industry best practice, and that should form the basis of regulation unless there is a very clear safety case to not go down that path. Australia's travelling public and our aviation industries deserve better. I look forward to the reforms that either this government or the next will bring. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Report
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (18:20): I move:
That the Senate take note of the report.
I rise to take note of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report into the provisions of the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013 and four other aged-care bills. I take this opportunity because it is very clear that next week any opportunity to speak on these bills will be severely curtailed. I was afforded five minutes earlier today, and I thought I would take another 10 minutes this afternoon because next week, as is clear from some information that has become available this afternoon, we are likely to have less than 45 minutes on these five very, very complicated bills. And at this point in time we still have not seen in their final form the 18 pieces of delegated legislation that are part of that package of bills.
I will make some comments in relation to this report. The coalition referred these bills to committee inquiry even though the bills were still in the lower house. We were keen to make sure that they did get proper scrutiny and therefore facilitated their examination by the Senate. The reporting date was initially set for 17 June. However, by a majority vote of the committee, this was brought forward to 31 May. From a coalition perspective, we were very concerned because the reduced time did not afford us much consideration of the legislation, particularly the delegated legislation that I have mentioned. The anticipated reporting date did not mean that the bills were considered any earlier in the Senate, and indeed they could not have been listed in the Senate before this Tuesday. I reiterate that, from the coalition's perspective, we have been ready to deal with these bills and we certainly were ready on Tuesday. It has been as a consequence of the government's mismanagement and giving priority to other matters that now we are going to be left with barely 45 minutes of debate on this.
Submissions received by the committee were very critical of the government primarily over the key issues of workforce, financing, bonds and information access. The inquiry heard evidence that some smaller facilities would be worse off financially and some forced to amalgamate to survive or, worse, even close down. Key criticisms in the inquiry focused on the $1.6 billion cut for ACFI from the forward estimates. The minister justified these ACFI changes with assertions that providers had been guilty of alleged rorting, but this spurious allegation was trashed at the estimates hearing in February 2013 when it was revealed that there had been no provider prosecutions in the last five years.
Another key point is that only 40 per cent of residential aged-care providers are currently operating in the black and many providers referred to the negative impact of the ACFI cuts in their submissions, citing reductions ranging from thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. On another front, submissions were critical of the Aged Care Funding Authority which was established last year, another bureaucracy. Indeed, this whole package of bills has added much more bureaucracy and more regulation to what is now one of the most, if not the most, heavily regulated sectors in Australia.
The government then sought to introduce a brand new regime in relation to the whole bond system, allegedly to stop providers ripping off the system with huge bonds. What do we know about these alleged huge bonds? There was the Prime Minister with Minister Butler on 20 April last year tarring all providers with the same brush by leaving the impression that they were charging so-called super bonds of more than $2 million. The Senate inquiry received evidence that totally refuted this nonsense from the government. Presently there are just over 21,000 accommodation bonds in Australia with only 124 of these between $750,000 and $1 million. Despite the minister's expansive allegations last year, there are only 33 bonds in excess of $1 million. We understand that in the whole of Australia there is only one bond of $2 million, paid by somebody in Western Australia who resides in the top floor of a lovely aged-care facility in Perth. Once again, why let facts get in the way of a good story? So much for the rorting.
The issue which has caused the greatest angst in this process has been the workforce supplement. It all started on 5 March this year when gaffe prone Minister Butler not only insulted the people of Western Sydney but also insulted the aged-care sector by announcing wage increases that the whole sector knows will never materialise. It was a hastily put together announcement designed just for the Prime Minister's last-ditch five-day sleepover in Western Sydney. But peak provider bodies boycotted the workforce supplement announcement with the minister forced to make his announcement in front of a church in southern Sydney because he could not find an aged-care facility willing to host his initiative. The front page of the Australian that day revealed that the supplement, which is the so-called flagship of the government's package, was nothing more than a backdoor scheme to increase union membership. So, despite the protestations of the minister, there is no doubt that the cuts in ACFI are linked to the workforce supplement. The icing on this sad and sorry cake is that the minister admitted that he did not know how many of the nation's 352,000 aged-care workers would benefit from the supplement that is now being put up. Isn't that just so inspiring from this minister? But we do know from the Senate inquiry that many providers cannot afford to access the funding and therefore many staff will not get wage rises.
My point to the government is that if you really had the interests of aged-care workers at heart you would have used existing mechanisms to pay to providers funds for increases in wages, not force providers to have to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements with so many strings attached. We know from the Senate inquiry that providers will not be able to afford the cost of the EBAs and the on-costs associated with that and therefore providers will not be able to pay their workers more. But this did not stop the minister from making false and misleading statements such as this one, which I found on page 47 in the winter edition of The Retiree. There is a picture with the Labor logo in the corner. It says that from July $1.2 billion will flow into the pay packets of 350,000 aged-care workers across Australia thanks to federal Labor. Well, that is a blatant lie. You know what? It was actually authorised by none other than Mark Butler with the address which is presumably the electorate office of Minister Butler. What a blatant lie the minister is perpetrating. He knows very well that there are going to be very few—
Senator Moore: I raise a point of order, Acting Deputy President. Constantly stating that the minister is lying is inappropriate. If Senator Fierravanti-Wells wishes to make a point, she can make it without making that direct point, as she well knows.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ): It is unparliamentary language, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, so please desist in your contribution.
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS: It is very clear that that is not going to happen because it was made very clear to us at the inquiry that providers are not going to be able to afford these pay rises. Of the 352,000 aged-care workers, about 130,000 are not covered by an EBA. That is a lot of potential new union members—mostly vulnerable, low-paid aged-care workers. These are the ones the disgraced former HSU official Craig Thomson described in his maiden speech as people who are 'committed and motivated and who strongly believe in the importance of the work they do'. These are the ones who would be forced back into the very union which betrayed them.
Time will not permit me to cover everything tonight. Hopefully I will get an opportunity next week to trawl through some of the major problems with these bills. Those problems are outlined in the dissenting report of coalition senators and include issues such as the payments, the workforce supplement and a whole range of other matters.
Senator MOORE (Queensland) (18:30): I was not intending to speak on the report of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into the Living Longer Living Better package of bills—although it is a very good report—but I felt that I needed to make a couple of points. Senator Fierravanti-Wells was arguing that the community affairs committee's process had somehow curtailed debate. In fact, we had several days of very effective evidence. The committee took evidence for as many days as we do for many of our inquiries.
If you look at the report, you will see the number of submissions we received, the detailed evidence we received in our public hearings and the extent of the consideration of that evidence. It is a large report and that is because there are many issues involved in the changes in aged care being put before parliament. Senator Fierravanti-Wells is quite right—it is a very complex area.
The issue of delegated legislation has again been raised. We do have all the delegated legislation which impacts on the changes to take place from 1 July. The implementation period for this series of changes in the aged-care acts extends across three years. Yes, it is true that we do not have the delegated legislation for things which will happen next year. In a perfect world, I would like to have all that before us. That is a point I have made many times in this place and I have been fortunate enough to be on the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs since the second week I came into this place.
On every inquiry into significant legislation which has come before this committee—both under previous governments and this one—there has been an issue about getting the core legislation and all the delegated legislation in front of the committee, and then in front of the parliament, before the core legislation is considered. I think it is worthwhile to continue making that point. But to imply that this is the only time it has happened under our government is just untrue. I will not go into any further discussion about what 'untrue' might mean, but it is untrue.
When we consider this legislation next week, we will have before us the core legislation and the delegated legislation which will come into effect, should the core legislation pass, from 1 July. That is in front of us now. We raised the issue of delegated legislation with the department both when they came before the committee as well as in a number of discussions we had as we pulled the committee report together.
We have said that all the delegated legislation will be disallowable. These instruments will therefore all come into this place for consideration. If people have a problem with them, there will be time to debate those issues then. That process occurs in the Senate regularly.
Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—
Senator MOORE: As Senator Fierravanti-Wells is saying, we do not have all the delegated legislation in front of us, but the instruments we do not yet have in front of us it will come through this place in the future. That process is in place.
The report covers a range of views put forward on a range of issues. The consultation process on this batch of legislation has been going on for over two years. This final stage was the point when our committee had the chance to look at the draft legislation. We consulted with people from the providers, people from the consumer network and people from the various worker groups involved. If you read the Hansard transcripts of the committee's hearings, you will see that it is quite clear that Senator Fierravanti-Wells has a particular issue, as do some of the witnesses, with the workforce supplement. That is an area of disagreement.
But some things are clear. No-one is being forced to join a union by this legislation—no legislation could do that of course. All that is being said is that enterprise bargains involving the appropriate unions should be a mechanism to look at wage rises, wage security and entitlements for workers in the industry. It was generally agreed that there were significant workforce issues in this industry. That has been a major complaint over a number of years.
The model which the minister has put forward—indeed, the minister has put this forward—is the workforce supplement. To access the workforce supplement, you need to have an enterprise bargain which involves the union. But you do not have to access this funding. There is no compulsion to access the funding. In fact, if you are a smaller facility—and we did hear about the particular issues facing smaller facilities—you are not required to go through this process at all.
So it is not as black and white as has been presented. I urge people who are interested in aged care in our country—and I think that should be all of us—to have a look at the issues which were raised with our committee, the information which came before the committee and, in particular, the clarification points which were included specifically to respond to the workforce supplement issues.
It is clear how this supplement will operate. It is not compulsory. No-one has to use it and we understand that some providers will not use it. That is their choice as it is their choice now. If they choose to access the extra funding, they will need to meet the criteria. This model is intended to ensure that the extra funding which will flow from this legislation will, in fact, go into wages. I think there are a number of people who are sitting around this chamber who know that one of the key complaints over many years has been that, when money is provided to the industry, it does not necessarily flow through to the workers in the industry. That has been a major gap in the way we secure trained professional people in aged care.
We do not have time to talk about all the issues of aged care in a short period. I thank Senator Fierravanti-Wells for taking up the opportunity to discuss this matter, because it was not something I had thought of. I do want to make a couple of points about the state of the industry. It is truly sad that there is a view in the wider community that the aged-care system is under deep stress and that it is not responding effectively to the needs of people who are seeking aged care now, let alone the numbers that we know are going to be flowing into aged care over the next few years. We all know the demographic position in our country—we are an ageing community. We are ageing as we sit in the Senate tonight. Not only do we have the need for greater services as we grow older; the community itself has greater demands. There is an expectation that people in our community will receive effective services no matter what region they live in and no matter what their incomes are.
Changing the culture around both the people who are providing aged-care services in our country and the people who are seeking them has been a huge exercise. I want to congratulate the industry for the way it has been prepared to be involved in these significant changes. One thing that people have agreed on is that there needs to be change. I did not hear one skerrick of evidence from the time we started this process that said we did not need change. Certainly there were different views about what would be the best way to go forward, but there was agreement that the current system was not working. We have an absolute need in this parliament to consider the changes that have to take place. We can look at changes for the future but anyone who pretends that these current changes came from nowhere, that they have been forced on people who did not know about them and that there has not been an opportunity to be involved in the process, has simply deliberately chosen not to be involved.
There will be major change in this industry—there has to be. The way into the future is going to have a new balance, with people across the community being expected to put more into the funding of their own aged care. That is a huge step forward. We have to make sure that there is an effective system that carefully scrutinises the changes and that gives people the security that they will be able to have their own needs serviced and they will not be sacrificed in the process. That is our job—we need to be part of the process.
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (18:40): The Living Longer Living Better package of five bills is yet another indication of how this government cannot use process to fight its way out of a paper bag. Most of this legislation will not come into force until July 2014, so why the great rush to put it through now? It is all very well for there to be conversations suggesting that debate, research and inquiry into this area have gone on forever, but almost none of the recommendations in the Productivity Commission's report have been picked up by the government and other things have been added in a completely cherry-picking way.
The government is undertaking this extraordinary workforce supplement effort. As far as I can see, it is simply about unionising anyone in the aged-care workforce who currently is not a member of the union. Aged-care providers would have to have EBAs and negotiate with a union. This would mean that the one-third of the aged-care sector that is currently not unionised would become unionised. It looks like a backdoor way of unionising the entire workforce in aged care. We also have this sleight of hand going on with the pay involved in this supplement. There is $1.2 billion over four years for the workforce compact, but no-one has mentioned that this has come out of a $1.6 billion cut in funding to the sector. The $1.6 billion has been moved out of funding and the $1.2 billion has been put into a workforce compact, and the government pretends it has somehow improved the industry.
The coalition very much shares the views of everyone in the aged-care sector that people working in the sector are not sufficiently well paid, nor is their training sufficiently concentrated on, but this is not the way to go about fixing those problems. The other bizarre part of this arrangement is that the government expects that aged-care providers will meet the on-costs associated with the increases in staff pay. This means that they will pay for the increases in holiday costs, superannuation and so on. We have evidence suggesting that in many industries it is almost a dollar-for-dollar cost, so that if pays go up by $50 a week then the total costs to an employer will go up by $100 a week.
Much as we support the need for pay increases within the aged-care sector, this is absolutely not the way to go about providing them. The coalition certainly wants to see reform in the aged-care sector but we do not think it should simply be reform that comes down from on high, as this does. It has been suggested that, when the workforce compact was announced in March this year by Minister Butler, some of the peak industry bodies and leading providers were not invited, and some even boycotted the event because they were so concerned that they were going to end up with more red tape, less funding going directly to assisting patients, and unions interfering in the way that every aged-care facility in Australia functions. When we look at the groups involved in the aged-care industry, we have three unions: the Australian Nursing Federation, United Voice—which of course was Minister Mark Butler's former union base—and the HSU, of which, I think, this place is tired of hearing—
Senator Fierravanti-Wells interjecting—
Senator BOYCE: Senator Fierravanti-Wells suggests that perhaps we should mention some of the corruption which went on, particularly in the New South Wales branch of the HSU through Mr Craig Thomson and which appeared to spill into Victoria. These are not unions that we need in this sector. The sector has functioned well. As we all know, the award is low, but unionising the remaining workforce will make no difference in that area. All it will do is increase the costs in the area and that will mean there is less funding to assist people who live in aged-care facilities and people who receive services.
There are a couple of improvements in this bill in terms of the additional home care packages. But there is no need for this legislation to be rushed through at the rate it currently is. The bill will provide funding of $880 million over five years, but it does not start for some time. So there is no need for the rush that is going on with respect to this legislation.
The coalition want to reform the sector, as I said earlier, but we want to actually talk with the sector about how that reform happens, not have a situation where the sector is just simply told from on high what will happen, how it will happen and without any sort of real consultation about the outcomes. It was quite obvious during the inquiry we had that a number of service providers simply had no idea what the effect of some of this legislation would be on the way that their businesses and their services would work.
We can have a Labor government saying that it is iniquitous that an aged-care service provider might make a profit or have a surplus but, unfortunately, without that they will not improve their services or improve the conditions in which people live. So we have to work this out with others. The coalition is intending to have an aged-care providers agreement framework. That will be the first time ever that aged-care providers have actually been asked about how this industry should be structured. There are many things in this industry that you would do differently if you were starting tomorrow. But a workforce compact that takes some money out of funding and puts it into a bucket to assist unions to develop enterprise bargaining agreements with aged-care homes is not the way to go about it.
None of the outstanding viability issues that affect aged-care providers are addressed in this legislation. I am sure a number of people here will remember the Grant Thornton report into the funding of homes, which led to the alleged improvement with the Aged Care Funding Instrument, ACFI, but which did not achieve what it was supposed to achieve. Most aged-care homes are probably making a surplus or a profit for the year of three per cent. No business in Australia will prosper and stay in business if they are making a three per cent return on money. When that happened, the bank rates were probably about eight or nine per cent. But, even now, with a three per cent return on your money for the investments that you must make, to have resources in this heavily regulated area and to have the sorts of resources that meet the requirements, you need a far better return than three per cent to achieve that.
As I said earlier, one of our great concerns is that these bills only cherry pick some of the Productivity Commission's recommendations. They add even more regulation to what is a highly regulated sector and, whilst they contribute very slightly to reform, the procedures are over the top, heavy-handed and inept. With this government's package, things in the aged-care sector will only get worse.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
Report
Debate resumed on the motion:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (18:50): This is quite a troubling process that the committee has had to have a look at. The report of the committee, which was tabled yesterday, on the Auditor-General's reports No. 26 of 2007-08 and No. 22 of 2012-13 in relation to the Tasmanian forest industry, largely mirrors the work that was done by the Auditor-General in the first place, at the request of the committee. It is disappointing that we have a continuation of process where you get very similar recommendations from the Auditor-General in respect of this department over a period of time and yet the same issues continue or appear to continue to arise.
I do acknowledge that the department have put some measures in place to strengthen the processes they have around the administration of these exit grant type programs and do appreciate the work that has been done. But, again, we have a situation where there are legitimate concerns within the community but also wider concerns about the way the process has been managed, including the failure to keep records and changes in the way that program guidelines were assessed. That has seen a number of things occur, including contractors who sought access to the program either not applying, missing out or effectively slipping through the cracks. That has created quite a deal of concern within not only the forest industry in Tasmania but the broader community, and justifiably so.
Much of this comes back to what I have called, for a long time now, the sham forest process that has been occurring in Tasmania. Many of the misconceptions and many of the concerns that have been raised have come as a result of that process, where certain perceptions have been created, through public comment and through the negotiation behind closed doors with a small number of parties over the future of the forests in Tasmania. It is with that process that the blame lies, because there is no question in my mind that the process itself has contributed to the problems that contractors and sawmillers in Tasmania are facing. The process itself has been used as a weapon against the industry in their markets. It has reduced the capacity in the markets, it has cost them markets, it has cost further jobs, it has cost business and it has hurt communities. There is no question that the process is why those things have occurred, and that is still coming through in the broader community.
Of course, the Greens, who moved for this inquiry in the first place, have been part of that process, along with their partners in government at the Commonwealth level and at a state level. They have supported the government as part of their power-sharing agreement. That obviously has not stopped them from grandstanding or continuing to attack the forest industry, and it has not stopped them from making allegations against the forest industry—all of it designed to paint the forest industry in Tasmania and, more broadly, nationally in a negative light.
What we see now, though, is the potential for this process to continue. Just today, I heard concerns from sawmillers, who have said, 'We are not being spoken to about the sawmillers exit process.' That is the next stage in this sham forest deal in Tasmania. They said, 'It looks like we're going to miss out on that and we're going to fall through the cracks again, because we were eligible for the first process but we're not eligible for the small sawmillers grants. We've been told we can turn up to the meeting but that it'd be a waste of time because ''you're going to miss out on that too".' So we have this process of doling out taxpayers' funds—and, as I said earlier, the processes and the guidelines that are leaving people out—and it is going to hurt more people in the community.
It gets even worse. On the back of this sham forest process, there was $93 million available over 15 years for the structural adjustment of Tasmania. Two days after the budget, which highlighted that amount of money over that period of time, the Prime Minister arrived in Tasmania and said, 'We'll add $7 million to that and we'll make it $100 million over four years.' The allocation of that money is now being considered. We have the member for Bass, Mr Geoff Lyons, saying, 'I already know how some of this money's going to be spent.' However, we do not know what the guidelines are, we do not know what the application process is, we do not know what the assessment process is, we do not know any of the details about how these taxpayers' funds are to be allocated to Tasmania.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is nothing more than a $100 million taxpayer-funded slush fund for the re-election of Tasmanian members at the state and federal levels. There can be no other conclusion, because there is no detail on how the money is going to be spent, no detail on the application process, no detail on the assessment process—all things that were mentioned in these Auditor-General's reports and all things that should be part of a proper process. There is none of that detail, yet I have already seen documentation that shows there are people sitting in rooms in areas around the state trying to work out how to dole out this money.
There is no doubt that, in the lead-up to the federal election and then to the state election afterwards, there will be Labor members trotting around Tasmania handing out chunks of taxpayer funds as part of this process. How can that be allowed to occur? As part of this report, we have two Auditor-General's reports complaining about process, with guidelines not being in place, assessment processes not being in place and guidelines not being followed. We now have a $100 million slush fund to try and support this dud agreement. We have Labor members of parliament in Tasmania saying that this puts the forest industry on a sustainable footing. That is a lie. I know the sensitivities around that term in this place, but that is the only conclusion I can draw. This process is all about damaging the forest industry, all about shutting it down. In fact, if you look at the supply projections that come out of this sham forest process in Tasmania, you can see that is exactly what it is about, because there will be no timber left for the industry beyond 2030—no timber left—and that comes out of the government's own documentation.
So we have a situation where Tasmanian Labor members of parliament are talking about the forest industry being sustainable into the future when clearly it is not, and we have taxpayers' money being misused, effectively, as a slush fund for their re-election. It is nothing short of a disgrace that that has been allowed to occur.
The Greens align themselves with the Labor Party and support them in government both here at the federal level and at the state level. They claim to support proper processes, yet they are part of this terrible process that is going on in Tasmania with the forests. It is nothing short of a disgrace that $100 million of taxpayers' funds is being handed to this process effectively to be handed out around two election campaigns. And yet people continue to be hurt by the process. They continue to slip through the cracks. Something that was supposed to help people continues to hurt them. So, in the recommendations of this report we talk about dealing with those issues and setting up processes to ensure guidelines are complied with. We talk about continued oversight of the agriculture department by the ANAO. I have written to the ANAO to asked them to continue that process. I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
Economics Legislation Committee
Report
Senator COLBECK (Tasmania) (19:01): I want to make some very quick comments around the Economics Legislation Committee report on consideration of time critical bills—the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill and the statement in there that there are 'no substantive matters which require examination'. The opposition referred this piece of legislation to a House of Representatives committee, and, unfortunately, in the drafting of that report none of the concerns which were quite legitimately raised around this piece of legislation were actually reflected in the report.
I think it is worth quickly putting on the record the concerns of an organisation that was not consulted in the development of the legislation—an organisation which you might have thought might be consulted in the development of the legislation—the Institute of Patent and Trademark Attorneys of Australia. We are, after all, talking about an intellectual property bill. The group was not consulted. They have serious concerns about the drafting of this piece of legislation. Their complaints are quite legitimate, but they have not been reflected in any of the processes of the parliament. The Senate's legislation committee has basically given this piece of legislation a tick and flick, and in the House members were given one hour for an inquiry and that process did not provide an opportunity for even dissenting comments on the report. The institute is quite legitimately concerned that none of their concerns have been reflected in this process. I would like to read into the record what they said:
We, the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia (IPTA), are extremely disappointed by the mischaracterisation at the public hearing of our concerns in relation to the TRIPS Protocol amendments, and by the Report itself which recommends passage of the Bill by the House in a form which contains significant drafting errors. We have previously drawn IP Australia's attention to these significant drafting errors, and it is of particular concern to us that [the department] did not relay our concerns to the Committee when given the opportunity. While some of our concerns did relate to the question of compliance with our International obligations it is not true to say, as [the department] said to the Committee, that all of the issues raised the question of compliance with international treaty obligations.
There is nothing in the transcript of the Public Hearing or the Report which gives us any reason to believe that our concerns in relation to the erroneous drafting of the Bill were considered by the Committee before they recommended the Bill for passage. We first drew attention to the drafting problems when we commented on a draft of the Bill in September 2012. When we reviewed the Bill as introduced to Parliament we were dismayed that our concerns had not been addressed. We therefore sent an email to IP Australia on 5 June 2013 expressing again our concerns in relation to the drafting of the Bill.
Their email correspondence is part of the record. They further state:
In summary, we remain of the view that, at the very least, the Bill should be amended to correct the erroneous drafting before it is passed. There should be no reference whatsoever to cross licences and ancillary licences in the TRIPS Protocol implementing provisions. We also remain of the view that an important Bill of this type deserves closer scrutiny before passage through Parliament. The errors in the Bill are of such a nature that they are likely to interfere with the ability of the legislation to achieve its worthy objectives.
I just wanted to put that on the record. I think it is an important point to make in the context of the development of this legislation and the way that it has been passed through this parliament.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee
Report
Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (19:05): I would like to make some comments about the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's report, The importance of the Indian Ocean rim for Australia’s foreign, trade and defence policy. The Indian Ocean rim encompasses some 2.3 million people and a vast array of countries with different religions and cultures, but it is there on our doorstep—particularly in the case of Western Australia. We undertook this inquiry into our relationship with the countries of the Indian Ocean rim because Australia is about to become the chair of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation. The inquiry revealed that there is huge potential for Australia in developing trade links in the Indian Ocean rim with countries like India and those of East Africa, where there is a growing middle class with which Australia could involve itself in education and financial services and other such things.
Also, from a strategic point of view, there is a change in what is happening in the Indian Ocean, which has been a very quiet area, and now the Chinese have an increased naval presence there. About a third of the world's energy traverses the Indian Ocean in the form of oil and gas. The committee felt that, while the sense of community in the Indian Ocean is not great, there was great potential in the future for it to develop into a much more closely integrated area. Just as with APEC 20 years ago, we saw the Indian Ocean as having the potential to be of great importance to Australia. Australia is going to take over the chairmanship of the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation in a year's time from India, and then, after Australia, Indonesia will take it over. We felt that the Indian Ocean Rim Association for Regional Cooperation was a vehicle through which we could work to greatly strengthen the links between the countries in the rim and begin to realise the potential that the Indian Ocean rim offers us in economic terms as well as political and other terms.
Western Australia, of course, is very interested in the Indian Ocean, and we found there was something of a cultural divide, in that in Western Australia the need for the interest in the Indian Ocean was immediately recognised but, when we held our first hearings here in Canberra, the witnesses from ANU came and spoke to us afterwards and said, 'But, why are you holding this inquiry? Our interests end at India.' Well, the world is bigger than just India, in terms of the Indian Ocean, and so this has been a very useful inquiry.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ): Do you seek leave to continue your remarks?
Senator EGGLESTON: I do.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
COMMITTEES
Consideration
Orders of the day nos 1, 3 to 8, 10 to 14 and 17 to 20 relating to committee reports and government responses were called on but no motion was moved.
ADJOURNMENT
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Stephens ) (19:09): Order! I propose the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
LBW Trust
Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (19:09): I would like to update the Senate on the important work of a Sydney based charity, the LBW Trust. Whilst I have spoken about the LBW Trust in the Senate previously, I should remind those listening that, although this charity was established by cricket lovers and does the majority of its work in cricket-playing nations and draws most of its support from the generosity of the Australian and international cricket community, in this case 'LBW' stands for 'learning for a better world'.
The LBW Trust's mission is to provide scholarships to economically disadvantaged students in developing cricket-playing countries to help them complete their tertiary or vocational education. The ultimate goal is that, when they graduate or finish their studies, these young men and women will have the opportunity to play an important part in improving their communities and nations. The LBW Trust is unique in that it has no overheads. It has got no office, no employees and no phones. It is run entirely by hardworking volunteers and a very committed board of directors. Every cent raised goes directly to the education of the students it supports.
The trust is currently supporting over 750 students, with a goal of supporting 800 students by the end of this year. All its assistance is delivered through NGO partners. The trust has engaged 10 local NGO partners in seven countries—South Africa, India, Pakistani, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan—in a diverse range of academic pursuits from medicine to business management. A small number of students have been supported to study overseas in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. The LBW Trust encourages those students who have studied or gained work experience overseas to reinvest their newly acquired knowledge and skills back in their local communities.
The work of the LBW Trust is growing. Twenty students supported by the trust through Prerana Nurture Merit in Bangalore, India, graduated earlier this year, many with excellent academic results achieved in very trying circumstances. Twenty-year-old Nancy, whose mother has laboured as a housemaid to support her and her sister, graduated and secured a job with global banking and financial services company Deutsche Bank. Prakash, who lived in a slum with his mother and younger brother, has graduated with very high marks and secured an articleship in a chartered accountants firm. Leelavathy, who was to be married at 16 because her family had no chance of paying for her university education, now, with the support of the LBW Trust, has instead scored full marks on her final maths and physics exams in her Bachelor of Science degree and is pursuing her goal of being employed as a science lecturer.
The unrelenting chairman of the trust, Mr Darshak Mehta, recently announced that 188 students are being supported at new vocational training facilities in the provinces of Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. This program, coordinated in partnership with Yuva Parivartan, specifically targets students who have dropped out of high school or tertiary institutions due to difficult life circumstances. It offers them a second chance of completing their education. In Orissa in eastern India, the trust has, for the second year, renewed its commitment to fund 66 students through the AID Industrial Training Centre. LBW support has helped the AID ITC install necessary equipment so that, next year, courses can be offered in electrical installation, and fitting and turning. A recent external audit of AID ITC's activities reported an impressive expansion of student programs and the positive impact the centre has had on their local community and economy.
In Pakistan the LBW Trust has been working closely with an NGO called The Citizens Foundation supporting 11 scholarship students. These young men and women, mostly based in Karachi, are studying for degrees in a range of fields, including pharmacy, teaching and business administration. Last year the first group of LBW Trust funded students in Uganda graduated. I am delighted to report that all of them found work in their chosen field. This year the trust has committed to supporting 35 students, again, in partnership with the Australian NGO One Village.
In Sri Lanka 50 new scholarships were awarded to students through the Sri Lankan NGO CandleAid. In Afghanistan the trust is supporting three young women—Noornama, Anara and Fatima—who are studying for degrees in medicine. As you would know, Mr President, this is very important in a country striving to empower women and address a severe shortage of female doctors.
Earlier this year it was a great privilege for the LBW Trust to welcome the former Sri Lankan cricket captain and one of the world's greatest players Kumar Sangakkara as a new patron of the LBW Trust. Kumar Sangakkara is in good company. He joins many other distinguished and eminent patrons supporting the great work of the LBW Trust. Kumar Sangakkara, in fact, was the star attraction at the trust's seventh annual dinner, which was held in January this year at the Sydney Cricket Ground. He spoke with great eloquence and conviction at that dinner about his personal life, his cricket and his ambitions for his country.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the LBW Trust on the success of its many programs around the world. They are programs that have positively transformed the lives of so many disadvantaged and underprivileged young men and women and also helped the communities in which they live. I hope that in the months ahead the Australian government will play its part in further supporting the work of the LBW Trust by facilitating its longstanding request to be granted DGR status. The time for that decision is long overdue.
Member for Dobell
Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales) (19:18): I rise to speak in relation to matters regarding the member for Dobell, and to complete some comments which started for me when I sought documents under FOI and via the Senate in relation to the proposed $2.7 million jobs incubator promised to the people of Dobell at the 2010 election, which was to be established as a partnership between the Wyong Shire Council and Central Coast Group Training. Despite repeated requests to and questioning of former Minister Kim Carr, a failed order for the production of documents when Labor and their Green alliance partners shut down the debate, as well as efforts from the member for Dobell to undermine this project for his own vindictive motives, all failed. On 13 June, the Wyong Shire Council issued a media release which said that the funding for the Skills and Employment Centre to train and support the youth of the Central Coast would finally be provided—and hasn't it been a long and tortuous road for the young people of Dobell.
I would remind the Senate that this was the saga when Mr Thomson sought to pressure Central Coast Group Training to give his former wife a job in March 2011. When this did not happen, and after one of the local councillors had gone on the local radio to criticise the Gillard government for its failure to deliver on its promised GP superclinic, Mr Thomson retaliated in July 2011 with the text message threat of 'bye-bye jobs incubator'. Of course, the Australian Labor Party councillors voted against it when it came up for debate at the local council meeting. With youth unemployment on the Central Coast at 16.4 per cent, which is significantly higher than the New South Wales average of 12.8 per cent, this important and long-overdue investment for the future of young people on the Central Coast is a very, very welcome one.
I find it interesting that Mr Thomson tweeted yesterday details of his Craig Thomson defence fundraiser. In his covering letter describing his achievements for his electorate, of course, the Youth Skills and Employment Centre on the Central Coast is a notable absence. Rightfully, it should be absent, given his constant efforts to undermine the project, as I have said, for his own vindictive motives and for failing to represent the youth and their families on the Central Coast. But what was also interesting about this letter is that he talks about the $80 million for a major pipeline to secure the Central Coast's water supply. He fails to say that it was a project that had its origins under a coalition government. Mr Thomson could not turn up to the opening of it because of his own particular difficulties. As former patron senator for Dobell, I took a keen interest in this and other projects. I was able to attend one of the openings. Mr Thomson, at the time, was noticeably absent from his duties as the local member. Then he claims the GP superclinic. He fails to tell people that the Warnervale GP Super Clinic and the processes that went along with it were an unmitigated disaster. It turned out to be only a quarter of its original size and was plagued by a whole lot of problems.
But let me dwell on another part of the invitation to Mr Thomson's fundraiser. Interestingly enough, it is $150 a head. It is to listen to Bob Ellis and Chris McArdle, who is his principal lawyer. He is telling the people of Dobell that he has been accused of inappropriate activities. I think that is quite an understatement. But he is telling people that he has got considerable legal bills, and—
If I am to commit to serving the people of Dobell for another term …
he wants their support. Why the people of Dobell would want to keep Mr Thomson as their local member is beyond me.
But, anyway, what is really interesting about this—it is on the internet—is that it says:
Please come to my legal defense fundraiser. Speakers Bob Ellis and Chris McArdle.
What is really interesting about this invitation is the little thing in the corner. There it is! It has got 'loveagain.com'. It says, 'Date mature women.' So, obviously, the member for Dobell has not quite learnt the lesson! He has not, after all these years. After some of the allegations about his totally offensive and inappropriate conduct, one really wonders whether he has learnt his lesson. I tell the people of Dobell that clearly Mr Thomson, who is seeking re-election in your seat, has not learnt the lessons of the last few years.
I now move to another point. I have previously raised questions on how the member for Dobell was paying his legal fees. I would remind the Senate that we know that at least $250,000 of his legal fees were paid by the Australian Labor Party, but we never actually found out the total amount of costs that the Australian Labor Party has paid to Mr Thomson. I suspect that it will be something that we will never really know. But we know that, in April 2010, Mr Thomson announced that he would sit as an Independent in the federal parliament. One would have thought that being an Independent meant that he would have left the Labor Party. What a surprise when, a month ago, he announced that he was going to resign his party membership. It must be a new definition of 'Independent' to continue to hold your Labor Party ticket but still sit as an Independent in the Parliament of Australia.
Having finally resigned from the Australian Labor Party, Mr Thomson now seeks to run, as I have said, as an Independent. Why would Mr Thomson finally resign from the Australian Labor Party, the party that has paid so much of his mounting legal fees? The only reason why Mr Thomson is standing at the next election is so that he can receive the very generous taxpayer funded six-month severance package which Prime Minister Gillard introduced so that she could stop some of her Labor caucus from jumping ship early and forcing potential by-elections which could potentially bring down her government. Through the generosity of the Prime Minister, Mr Thomson will probably qualify for a redundancy payment of nearly $100,000. The ALP is only now going through its preselection process. One cannot wonder at the unwillingness of people to put up their hands to run for the Labor Party in the seat of Dobell. In the past, I have talked about what I have described as the two-way protection racket for Mr Thomson. I think that we have seen with the Labor Party unwillingness to put up a candidate another classic go slow. I think that part of all of this is—and this is clearly the view of a number of people locally—that it may well help Mr Thomson. It is obviously part of the broader picture, which we are not privy to.
It is like how we are not publicly privy to all of those documents that are still sitting with the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee. There are eight volumes of material which have not been released as part of the Fair Work Australia report. They are documents which, under this government, will never see the light of day. One will hope that, after 14 September, perhaps we will see some transparency in relation to those documents and finally perhaps they may see the light of day. Those documents will be very informative when they do see the light of day. I say to the people of Dobell: you must be sick and tired of everything that you have seen and all the improper comments about your seat. May you, after 14 September— (Time expired)
Crossin, Senator Trish
Senator URQUHART (Tasmania) (19:28): I rise tonight to pay tribute to one of our colleagues, Senator Trish Crossin. If you Google the words 'Trish Crossin' and go to Wikipedia, this is just a section of what you get. It starts off saying:
Patricia Margaret "Trish" Crossin … Australian politician, has been a member of the Australian Senate for the Northern Territory since June 1998, representing the Australian Labor Party …
… Crossin was born in Melbourne and was educated at Deakin University, where she graduated in education. She was a teacher before entering politics. She was Northern Territory Industrial Officer of the National Tertiary Education Union 1996–1998.
Crossin was Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate 2001–2004 …
… Crossin is married to Mark Crossin, and has four children.
This is a very brief, impersonal snapshot of Trish's political life; but, as many of us know, it does not even give a glimpse of what Trish is to many people. There are some omissions in the Wikipedia story referring to Trish's chairing of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—omitted are the many hours she spent here in this chamber during the debates affecting Indigenous Australians and also her consultations with Indigenous Territorians. She led these debates with compassion but also with unsurpassed knowledge of the wide range of issues affecting Indigenous Australians.
I personally have not known Trish for a long time but feel as though I have known her for a lifetime because of the many stories that Amanda Diprose, who works with me, has shared with me. These stories are from a time that Amanda spent sharing some of her life with Trish and her family in the Northern Territory. One memorable story was a time when Amanda was working at Hengyang Company, as a sewing machinist in the Trade Development Zone in the Northern Territory, and Trish was an organiser with the Miscellaneous Workers Union. The business had Chinese owners who brought Chinese workers who could speak little, if any, English to Australia to work in their factory. These workers were brought to Australia on two-year contracts and had their passports confiscated when they arrived. Hengyang purchased a block of flats to house all the workers and provided them with bags of rice and few other necessities. They worked around the clock. The company had a bus to take the Chinese workers to and from the factory. They could hardly ever close the doors of the bus because some of the workers would have to sit on the bus's steps. At the factory, the company provided the workers boxes to sit on. Apparently, you had to bring your own cushion because the only chairs were in the office.
Trish and Amanda arranged to meet the Chinese workers at a church in the middle of the night. They were handed a piece of paper from those workers which contained their work contract. It had been given to them prior to their coming to Australia, and it was written in Chinese. Trish and Amanda obviously had to get it translated. It identified horrendous working conditions, and a couple of those included not to become pregnant within the first two years, not to participate in or be involved with any political organisations—and so the list went on. Through Trish's involvement, the workers received chairs, got the chemicals stored correctly as well as guarding around belts and had the piles of jeans that blocked the fire exits removed. They were among many other things that were improved. I know there are many other examples—thousands, possibly—of areas in which Trish has made a difference to the lives of people she has represented over many years, and this is just one.
Since my time in this place, I have shared the same hallway as Trish but, more importantly, I believe I have shared a lot more. I have shared laughter, anger, comradeship, stories and experiences. I have gained so much from Trish in my short time here. I could go on but I am sure that everyone knows what I mean. So it is with a great deal of sadness that the days of sharing that hallway are drawing to a close. I know that we will keep in touch, and I know that Trish will continue with great work, wherever her path takes her. I, along with Amanda, wish her all the best in the world for whatever her future holds.
Global Motor Neurone Disease Day
Senator BOYCE (Queensland) (19:33): Tomorrow, the 21st, is Global Motor Neurone Disease Day and, as I have done for the past few years, I want to speak on the topic of motor neurone disease tonight. I would like to thank the previous two speakers for wearing the cornflower today, which is the symbol of motor neurone disease. I know that it sends a lot of encouragement to people in the motor neurone disease community—people with the disease and people who care for those with the disease—to know that senators have recognised Global Motor Neurone Disease Day.
This year the Motor Neurone Disease Association of Australia is asking people to sign a charter which sets out what they see as the rights of people with motor neurone disease. The first of the five rights is an early diagnosis and information; the second is access to quality care and treatments; the third is to be treated as individuals and with dignity and respect; the fourth is to maximise their quality of life; and the fifth is that carers of people with motor neurone disease have the right to be valued, respected, listened to and well supported. I think you would agree with me, Mr President, it does not seem to be a very large ask that someone in Australia should have the right diagnosis at the right time and receive the right treatment that maximises their quality of life and that of their carer. It should not be a lot to ask for in Australia in 2013.
This charter, which people are being asked to sign up to, is on the website of the Motor Neurone Disease Australia, which is mndaust.asn.au. I would encourage everyone to sign up to it. It is simply to allow people with motor neurone disease to experience those rights. The charter is being done in association with the International Alliance and the Motor Neurone Disease Association, which includes England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is so that we can have a truly global and basic starting point for people with motor neurone disease.
I have mentioned in the past that my younger brother died of motor neurone disease, after only 2½ years from the time of the diagnosis. Diagnosis of motor neurone disease remains one of the more difficult areas. It is often diagnosed after tests have proved that other problems are not what have caused it. Motor neurone disease is in fact a group of diseases where the motor neurons, the nerve cells that control the movement of your voluntary muscles, progressively die. These are the muscles that are under conscious control. I ask you here to think about losing the ability to control your muscles and how you would feel about it. It includes the muscles in your arms, legs, back, neck and, eventually, the muscles that are involved with speech, swallowing and breathing. In most cases the senses are not affected, which means that intellect and memory are usually not affected. There are very few cases of cognitive change taking place, so not only is your body shutting down on you, you are grotesquely aware that it is doing so. The causes of the majority of cases of motor neurone disease are still unknown. It is thought that about 10 per cent of cases are caused by a genetic fault—a congenital condition—and that it is inherited.
Researchers around the world are working to try to improve the diagnosis and the treatment, perhaps to delay the progression and even perhaps come up with a cure for this disease. There has been some very, very encouraging progress made in the last few years, but the fact remains that, right now, there are over 1,500 people in Australia with motor neurone disease. Six hundred Australians die every year of motor neurone disease. The majority of people are affected by motor neurone disease in their 50s and 60s, although there are people who are younger. One of those people was a woman named Deb Bailey, who was a Sydney journalist who died at the age of 48 because of motor neurone disease. The Deb Bailey Foundation has been set up and works with the Australian School of Advanced Medicine at Macquarie University. It now has over $10 million for the first motor neurone disease-specific research centre in Australia, with five of Australia's leading researchers, including Professor Ian Blair, who would be considered to be one of Australia's leading researchers. Professor Blair received the inaugural Motor Neurone Disease Australia Leadership Grant in November last. As Professor Blair said recently, we are getting closer to a world free from motor neurone disease. There has been some collaborative work going on, not just through Macquarie and the University of Sydney but also with Stanford University in the US, looking at some of the genetic causes of disease. In the US, motor neurone disease is known as Lou Gehrig's disease. It was named after a famous US baseball player, who was probably the person who did the most to promote the problem of motor neurone disease in the US.
Professor Blair said that in the past few years there have been a lot of breakthroughs in the familial form—the congenital form of motor neurone—but sporadic ALS has really been a hard nut to crack. What has long been suspected is that there are genetic mutations behind the cases of motor neurone disease that are not congenital, and it would seem now that, with the next-generation sequencing of genomes that we now have, better testing for neurone disease will become possible.
This is not a cure that will happen tomorrow, but the genomes of 50 cases of motor neurone disease have now been analysed. It would appear that a number of the genetic mutations which lead to the cause of motor neurone are being discovered. There is a lot more work to do here, but there is I think for the first time in a long time some hope in this area. It is interesting to look back to articles written just in 2010 and 2011 which talk about disappointment and slow progress and so forth and then to look at how the mood now, in 2013, has shifted and lifted because there is some hope that some of the work going on in the area of genetic mutations and gene sequencing will be helpful.
One other thing that I think is really useful is that in recent times Neurological Alliance Australia has been developed. The organisation started in 2010, but I think it is really the NDIS that has brought this group together. The alliance includes organisations representing people living with motor neurone disease, Alzheimer's, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's, spinal muscular atrophy and muscular dystrophy—all the neurodegenerative diseases that could benefit from the gene sequencing I am discussing. I am lobbying very hard right now for the NDIS to be extended to those over 65 who have a neurodegenerative condition, because they quite rightly believe that their needs within aged care are quite specialised and specific and that they require the sort of expert help that is not available from staff who are trained simply to look after people with age related disabilities. I commend Global Motor Neurone Disease Day to the Senate.
Senate adjourned at 19:43
DOCUMENTS
Tabling
The following documents were tabled by the Clerk:
[Legislative instruments are identified by a Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) number. An explanatory statement is tabled with an instrument unless otherwise indicated by an asterisk.]
Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Amendment 79—Removal of West Basin Pedestrian Bridge [F2013L01054].
Banking Act—Banking Exemption No. 1 of 2013 [F2013L01069].
Bankruptcy Act—Bankruptcy (Fees and Remuneration) Determination 2013 [F2013L01059].
Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) Act—Bankruptcy (Estate Charges) (Amount of Charge Payable) Determination 2013 [F2013L01058].
Broadcasting Services Act—Broadcasting Services (Events) Notice (No. 1) 2010—
Amendment No. 7 of 2013 [F2013L01061].
Amendment No. 8 of 2013 [F2013L01055].
Competition and Consumer Act—Consumer Protection Notice No. 3 of 2013—Imposition of interim ban on certain consumer goods containing synthetic drug substances [F2013L01053].
Financial Management and Accountability Act—Notice under section 39A—Moorebank Intermodal Company Limited.
Higher Education Support Act—VET Provider Approval No. 23 of 2013—Whitehouse Institute Pty Ltd [F2013L01068].
Migration Act—Migration Regulations—Instruments IMMI—
13/068—Visas attracting a subsequent temporary application charge [F2013L01047].
13/069—Visas attracting a non-internet application charge [F2013L01048].
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Instrument 2013 No. MRCC 7—MRCA Treatment Principles (Miscellaneous Amendments) Instrument 2013 [F2013L01060].
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act—
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2013 [F2013L01066].
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Children) Rules 2013 [F2013L01070].
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Nominees) Rules 2013 [F2013L01062].
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Plan Management) Rules 2013 [F2013L01064].
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Supports for Participants) Rules 2013 [F2013L01063].
National Disability Insurance Scheme (Timeframes for Decision Making) Rules 2013 [F2013L01067].
National Health Security Act—National Health Security (SSBA Standards) Determination 2013 [F2013L01065].
Answers to Senate Questions on Notice will no longer be published in the Senate Hansard. The full text of Questions on Notice and their answers are available online at www.aph.gov.au/SenateQON