The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from noon.
That—
(1) In the week beginning Monday, 21 November 2011, the following government business orders of the day shall be considered:
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011 and Pay As You Go Withholding Non-compliance Tax Bill 2011
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
Navigation Amendment Bill 2011
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011
Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Review of Future Uses of Broadcasting Services Bands Spectrum) Bill 2011
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.
(1A) On Monday, 21 November 2011, the routine of business from 7.30 pm to 9 pm, shall be debate relating to a ministerial statement concerning Afghanistan.
(2) On Wednesday, 23 November 2011 and Thursday, 24 November 2011, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
(3) On Tuesday, 22 November 2011:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 2 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.
(4) On Wednesday, 23 November 2011:
(a) consideration of the business before the Senate be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Sinodinos to make his first speech without any question before the chair; and
(b) consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with.
(5) On Thursday, 24 November 2011:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.40 pm;
(b) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;
(c) the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm, and from not later than 3.45 pm, shall be government business only;
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.
(6) The Senate shall sit on Friday, 25 November 2011 and that:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business shall be:
(i) notices of motion, and
(ii) government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
(7) The bills listed in paragraph (1) be considered under a limitation of debate and the allotment of time for consideration of the bills be as follows:
That the motion (Senator Ludwig's) be agreed to.
That any order of the day relating to the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011 be listed on the Notice Paper as a government business order of the day.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2011
Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011
Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011
Social Security Amendment (Student Income Support Reforms) Bill 2011
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION AMENDMENT (FAIR PROTECTION FOR FIREFIGHTERS) BILL 2011
Purpose of the Bill
This bill seeks to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) to simplify workers' compensation claims by firefighters who have contracted a range of specified cancers, and who have been employed for a certain period, by establishing a rebuttable presumption that the cancers are work-related.
Reasons for Urgency
It is important that this Bill be passed in these sittings to enable firefighters to access the improved compensation arrangements without delay. If the Bill is not passed in the Spring sittings, any eligible firefighters who have contracted a prescribed cancer will be required to comply with more onerous conditions to access compensation payments under the SRC Act.
"Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011".
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business orders of the day relating to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011.
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Family Participation Measures) Bill 2011
… whereby those in receipt of government benefits make some form of contribution to the community in return, where this is appropriate.
An initiative designed to support young parents should not involve any risk of increasing the levels of poverty or children being left without access to food, essential health care and shelter.
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (lines 8 to 21), TO BE OPPOSED.
(4) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (line 22) to page 5 (line 9), TO BE OPPOSED.
(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 26 to 30), TO BE OPPOSED.
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 4 (lines 1 to 5), TO BE OPPOSED.
(5) Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 5 to 8), TO BE OPPOSED.
… make a determination under this section in relation to the person if the Secretary is satisfied that the person is the principal carer of one or more children, and that:
(a) the person is a registered and active foster carer; or
(b) the person is a home educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or
(c) the person is a distance educator of that child, or one or more of those children; or
(d) under a family law order that the person is complying with, a child, of whom the person is a relative (other than a parent), is to live with the person.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
We believe that, for people with a physical disability, an accessible worksite and being able to get to and from work are crucial, particularly for people who work in rural areas where there is no accessible public transport. I live in a rural area myself and I work from home, but if I did not work from home there would be no accessible transport for me to get to work, as I have a disability as well. So I think that those factors need to be taken into account when considering whether a person should qualify for a DSP.
… the DSP assessment process as a whole does not take account of the labour market response to disability, for example whether work of the kind a person is capable of performing is available where they live and whether employers discriminate against people with a particular disability … it is important to acknowledge that the labour market is still hostile to disability. The overall employment rate of people with significant functional impairments in 2009 was 42% compared with 70% for the wider community.
At the end of the motion, add: "but, that for the purposes of certification of advocacy services under amendments made by Schedule 4 of the bill, advocacy services must be as free as possible from conflicts of interest, or the perception of conflicts of interest, with disability service providers".
Several Australian and international studies have shown that people with disabilities such as mental disorders and substance abuse disorders will usually have co-occurring disorders, and a person with co-occurring disorders is likely to have greatly exacerbated negative impacts. A person with two or more moderate level disorders occurring across the tables when combined could result in a total equivalent of a severe impairment, when you combine substance, mental and physical disorders. The current amendment does not allow for cumulative totals across the tables and therefore does not take account of co-occurring disorders.
Schedule 3, page 5 (line 1) to page 8 (line 2), Schedule 3 TO BE OPPOSED.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011.
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
Coalition Senators do not oppose the recommendation of the report that this bill should be passed.
However, Coalition Senators strongly believe that the Government's so-called health reform package is more about creating the political illusion of health reform than any meaningful improvement or guarantees for patients.
Block funding will have to apply in particularly smaller country hospitals and we need the pricing authority to provide a view about that.
We do not have a fixed definition of 'small hospital'. From our point of view, the discussions that we have had—and these are not settled—are really about the volatility of activities in hospitals.
I think an appropriately applied mining tax is a very good thing.
One Liberal, however, suggested the Coalition should support such amendments, then pass the tax to ensure the large minerals companies … paid virtually all of it.
The MP, who did not want to be identified, said public sentiment had swung behind the tax and the Coalition needed the revenue … The MP claimed this was a growing view within the Coalition.
… we are concerned the need for private sector to generate commercial returns will continue to limit broadband development in regional areas.
… the Coalition Policy risks the possibility of skewing telecommunications infrastructure investment and competition towards densely populated areas as is the case today.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cormann today relating to the carbon tax.
That general business order of the day no. 51 (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 be considered on Thursday, 24 November 2011 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills.
Supplementary Question
Senator Waters: Has the federal government notified UNESCO of the cumulative figures of dredging and offshore dumping up and down the coast in the World Heritage area, and if not why not?
Answer
The Australian Government has not provided cumulative figures regarding dredging and dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area to UNESCO, nor has this information been requested. The department has notified the World Heritage Centre of all current proposals for development that have been determined as likely to have significant impacts on the Great Barrier Reef world heritage values.
That leave of absence be granted to Senators Adams, Boyce and Heffernan for today, for personal reasons.
That the time for the presentation of the reports of the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011 and the Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011 be extended to 29 February 2012.
Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting and Telecommunications Amendment) Bill 2011
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 to encourage healthier eating habits among children by restricting the broadcasting of advertisements for junk food, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
In introducing this bill, the Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting and Telecommunications Amendment) Bill 2011, I note that this will be the third time that I have introduced a private senators' bill on this matter of critical importance to the Australian community.
In March this year the Senate debated Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting Amendment) Bill 2010, which was opposed by both the government and the Coalition. I had previously introduced the bill in 2008, which was also voted down by the Labor and Coalition senators, when the debate occurred in June 2009. I said at the time of those surprising and disappointing votes, I would continue to advocate legislative action in this area.
The bill I am introducing today reflects the broad recommendations of the paper on regulatory approaches to protect children from junk food advertising, released in May by the Obesity Policy Coalition. This highly credentialed group includes the Cancer Council Victoria, Diabetes Australia – Victoria, VicHealth and the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Obesity Prevention at Deakin University. Their work is backed by the Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance (including Cancer Council Australia, Diabetes Australia and the National Heart Foundation), the Australian Medical Association, and the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children.
As the Obesity Policy Coalition state in making their recommendations for a regulatory approach to protecting children from junk food advertising, "The aim of the legislation should be to minimise children's exposure to unhealthy food product and brand advertising to the greatest extent possible, as well as restrict unhealthy food product and brand advertising that specifically targets children."
This bill extends the restrictions placed on junk food advertisers beyond children's free-to-air television to include subscription television, the internet and mobile phone advertising to reflect the rapid change in telecommunications technologies and usage by children in recent years. For example, a study conducted by the Australian Communications and Media Authority in 2007 found that 33% of children aged 8–11 years watched subscription television. The bill also prohibits the promotion of unhealthy food to children via web pages and websites that are likely to appeal to children and via commercial electronic messages, for example email or SMS.
The bill also adopts the recommendations of the Obesity Policy Coalition on restricted viewing times. Weekdays from 6–9am and 4–9 pm, and weekends and public holidays from 6am–12pm and 4–9pm are identified as the key times when a significant number of children or a proportion of children are watching television. These restricted times incorporate G classification periods when material suitable for children is broadcast.
The need to address the growing crisis of childhood obesity has been well established. I will simply set out a few of the most compelling statistics to highlight the case.
Childhood obesity in the 5 – 15 years age group has almost doubled for boys and girls in the last 20 years. Comparing prevalence of obesity for boys and girls in 1985 and 2007, the increase is 11 percent to nearly 24 percent, and 12.2 percent to 21.5 percent respectively. The health impacts and costs of this rising tide of obesity include shorter life expectancy, increased risks of heart disease, diabetes, orthopaedic complications, asthma and high blood pressure. Obese children are 25 – 50 percent more likely to become obese adults, thereby increasing their risk of cancer as well as other psycho-social problems. In addition to the burden of ill health for individuals, the economic and social costs of childhood obesity into the future will be substantial and borne by all Australians. In a report commissioned by Diabetes Australia in 2008, Access Economics estimated that the costs of obesity were $58.2 billion when the indirect cost of loss of productivity and well-being are included. Access Economics estimated the costs of obesity to the health system to be $2 billion in 2008. This is a pressure on our health services which is preventable and there is no excuse for not taking the steps necessary to avoid this health crisis.
Restricting the advertising of unhealthy food to children is a preventative step that has long been supported by public health advocates and health professionals. One of the key recommendations of the National Preventative Health Taskforce to tackle obesity was to "reduce the exposure of children and others to marketing, advertising, promotion and sponsorship of energy-dense nutrient-poor foods and beverages."
There is overwhelming public support for this measure. The findings of the recent study released by the Obesity Policy Coalition were consistent with previous research. This study, Obesity Prevention Policy Proposals: Public Acceptability 2008 to 2010 surveyed a random sample of 1521 adults who were the main grocery buyer, residing in private households in metropolitan and regional areas across all Australian states and territories in 2010 by the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer at Cancer Council Victoria.
As I have said previously, and will say again, the World Health Organization has recognised that food marketing to children, particularly television advertising, is an important area for action to prevent obesity and has called upon governments to implement policies and strategies that reduce the impact of foods high in fat, sugar and salt and promote the responsible marketing of foods and beverages.
Critics of this approach have argued that the advertising of unhealthy food to children is a cultural and community issue; that it is a matter of parental accountability and responsibility. Governments of both persuasions have shirked their responsibility by accepting the advertising and food industries' promise of self-regulation and voluntary codes of practice. Let me quote here from the Obesity Policy Coalition summation of this approach: "These codes are effective in creating the appearance of responsible conduct and in achieving advertisers' aim in warding off intervention. However these codes fail to impose meaningful limits on the content of food advertising to children, or the level of children's exposure to this advertising." According to the Obesity Policy Coalition, even the Australian Food and Grocery Council's (AFGC) own report in January 2011 found that one in five food advertisements in children's programs were for high fat, sugar and salt products. Simply, voluntary self-regulation by industry is not working. It is time for a legislative intervention.
No single intervention will combat the problem of childhood obesity. This issue requires a comprehensive approach, and government action is one essential component. In this regard, Norway, Quebec, and the United Kingdom have all banned exposing children to unhealthy food advertising to some degree. Adopting this legislation to restrict junk food advertising to children will provide an effective measure in the tool kit of the National Preventative Health Agency in its role of tackling the biggest public health issues facing our nation today.
There is bipartisan support in this parliament for tackling childhood obesity. This bill provides the opportunity to capitalise on this co-operative intention and demonstrate to Australian parents and children that we are committed to ending childhood obesity. Restricting the advertising of unhealthy food to children is one crucial step in the right direction.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 22 November 2011, from 6 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) formally marks National Asbestos Awareness Week, which this year is being held between 21 November to 25 November 2011, by affirming its support for the historic decision by Australia in 1993 to ban the production, importation and use of asbestos;
(b) notes the terrible legacy that asbestos has left on the Australian community, leaving us with one of the highest rates of asbestos-related diseases in the world;
(c) extends its sympathies to all individuals living with asbestos-related diseases and the friends and families of those who have sadly passed away as a result of asbestos-related disease; and
(d) commends the Government on its efforts to eradicate asbestos from workplaces, homes and the community, including through:
(i) the recent ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Asbestos Convention, as one of the first ILO conventions to be ratified by the Commonwealth Government since 2006,
(ii) its work at the 2011 Conference of the Parties to the Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent to have chrysotile asbestos listed in the convention,
(iii) the $5 million grant made to support the Asbestos Diseases Research Institute's Bernie Banton Centre,
(iv) funding for the new Australian Mesothelioma Registry, which was launched in 2010 to gather more detailed and accurate information on mesothelioma and asbestos-related diseases,
(v) support for the harmonisation of health and safety legislation which will provide, for the first time, a uniform framework for the minimisation of exposure, the removal of asbestos and the management of asbestos materials in the workplace,
(vi) the establishment of the Asbestos Management Review in late 2010 to recommend strategies for the development of a national strategic plan to improve asbestos awareness, management and removal,
(vii) the loan agreement with the New South Wales Government to ensure asbestos victims and their families continue to receive payments through the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund, and
(viii) the $1.5 million Comcare Asbestos Innovation Fund which sponsors programs and research to prevent and better manage asbestos exposure, as well as improving the treatment for asbestos disease sufferers.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the continued financial problems and huge debt levels afflicting many European countries;
(b) asks the Government to call on the European countries that offer farm subsidy programs, to cease these programs immediately to allow more balanced terms of trade; and
(c) agrees that the cessation of farm subsidy programs would assist Australian farmers and the global financial system more broadly.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the report of the Book Industry Strategy Group recommending that the goods and services tax be scrapped from domestic book sales or applied to online purchase of books from overseas; and
(b) calls on the Government to determine in 2011, which is the better option for the $2.3 billion Australian book industry.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice today I propose to move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The recognition that an increasing majority of the Australian community supports marriage equality and believes it is time for the federal parliament to amend the Marriage Act to provide for this.
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The recognition that an increasing majority of the Australian community supports marriage equality and believes it is time for the federal parliament to amend the Marriage Act to provide for this.
The recognition that an increasing majority of the Australian community supports marriage equality and believes it is time for the federal parliament to amend the Marriage Act to provide for this.
… the common-law definition of marriage and the marriage formula in the Marriage Act, to the extent that they excluded same-sex partners from marriage, were unfairly discriminatory, unjustifiable, and therefore unconstitutional and invalid.
The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, accordingly, is not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.
My position flows from my strong conviction that the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and that should continue unchanged.
Australian human rights lawyer Frank Brennan AO, former Chairman of the National Human Rights Consultative Committee, is an expert on discrimination. He says: “In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children. I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother. To date, international human rights law has appreciated this rational distinction.
My parents are married, my brothers are all married, we have a large happy extended family. My partner and I have been together for over seven years, we have a beautiful daughter Matilda and we would like marriage equality.
… … …
It's time for marriage equality. It's time for same sex relationships to be respected and acknowledged as equal in society and in law. It's time to end this discrimination.
My parents are in their 60s and still married. I am a divorced father of 1, having been married for 13 years.
… … …
It's time for marriage equality because we're Australia! Lesser countries have had marriage equality for years. I mean, are we *really* sure that we want to be behind South Africa on social policies like this?! If the land of the apartheid can do it, we certainly should. Arguments such as 'traditional marriage' that my local (Liberal) MP has is nonsense.
My partner of 19.5 years Mal and I are treated in every other respect, by our families friends and colleagues, as a couple. But we can't marry.
… … …
Put simply—we are behind the time with the rest of the civilised world, the choice should at least be available to us …
We own our own home, work for Queensland Health, and pay our taxes. Our son is 21 years old and gainfully employed and has a steady girlfriend. During our time in Queensland we opened our home to children in foster care and have done voluntary work with disabled young adults. Our belief is that everybody is born equal and should have equal rights.
That the motion (Senator Siewert's) be agreed to.
That consideration of each of the government responses to committee reports just tabled be listed on the Notice Paper as orders of the day.
That the Senate take note of the government response to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee inquiry's report Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee .
The Government notes that as part of the decision making process, National Management Group members already consider biodiversity consequences of the establishment and spread of a pest or disease.
The Government notes that as part of the decision making process, National Management Group members already consider biodiversity consequences …
… reconvened on 12 May 2011 to consider the impact of the Consultative Committee deliberations on the original decision on eradicability. Although consensus was not reached, the Group determined that it is not technically feasible to achieve eradication.
That the Senate take note of the government response to the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on the welfare of international students.
(1) from Tasmanian Minister for Health (Ms O'Byrne) and the ACT Chief Minister (Ms Gallagher) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 September 2011 concerning hearing health in Indigenous Australians; and
(2) from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 12 October 2011 concerning Iranian actress, Marzieh Vefamehr.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011
Personal Property Securities Amendment (Registration Commencement) Bill 2011
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
The Rudd Government has made a pre-emptive strike on one of its health reforms, even before the measure saw the light of day.
The Federal Government has been accused of axing a health funding watchdog, which was supposed to oversee payments to the states under its new health and hospital network.
… … …
A spokeswoman for the Minister says the decision to scrap the funding authority removes a layer of bureaucracy, and she says the Commonwealth's investments in health will be transparently reported in the Budget papers.
… we've made it … clear we don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy—it's not appropriate for us to establish an authority where there is not a need to do so.
It is a very strong principle through the agreement that the aim here is to have the amount of funding, the source of funding, the destination of funding and the basis upon which the quantum was arrived at all publicly reported. This would mean that, to the extent that a state's contribution to activity-based funding for a particular local hospital network was less than or more than the national efficient price or the same as the national efficient price, it would be visible for people to see in the reporting that is required. That includes not only the reporting to parliament but also the public reporting that is required.
The indiscriminate creation of new bodies or failure to adapt old bodies as their circumstances change increases the risk of having inappropriate governance structures. This in turn jeopardises policy outcomes and poses financial risks to the taxpayer.
(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 19 (after line 18), after subsection 144(4), insert:
(4A) The Minister must ensure that at least one member of the Pricing Authority has:
(a) substantial experience or knowledge; and
(b) significant standing;
in the provision of services in hospitals other than hospitals owned and operated by the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Very specifically, senators will be aware that Catholic Health Australia represents about 10 per cent of the nation's hospital beds. Within that there are 2,700 public hospital beds operated by Catholic hospitals, mostly on the east coast, but broadly around Australia. For the bill to be effective it needs to have regard to the unique nature and the slightly different legal status under which those 2,700 public hospital beds actually operate. We do not see that reflected in the bill at present, but we think minor amendments can adequately incorporate the impacts of the differing legal structures that operate those 2,700 public hospital beds, and we have proposed that to you in our submission.
That the Senate take note of the ministerial statement.
Each day, Afghans are learning new skills, working to provide for their families, standing up for their communities, and labouring to build a new, more hopeful Afghanistan. With each step of progress, our shared enemy has come to realise that they cannot tear down what the Afghan people are building up. The enemies of peace are not mujahidin or martyrs, but murderers, and their violence, assassinations and attacks will not frighten the Afghan people into submission. Taliban fighters, too, are growing weary of their leaders—who stay off the battlefield, deciding instead to issue orders from the comforts of foreign lands. Because they have lost territory, support, morale, and the will to fight, many of these fighters are considering reintegration and choosing a future of hope and promise for themselves, their families, and their communities.
The spectacle of politicians from both parties agreeing to send our finest Australians to their deaths and then appearing on television offering their condolences to grieving widows and relatives is sickening.
The policy that we can train the Afghan army to take over security in Afghanistan is laughable. The Afghan government is corrupt, and its army has been penetrated by Taliban forces whose main activity is killing allied forces operating in their country.
Elements of the Australian Defence Force have now been in Afghanistan for over 10 years—surely this is long enough.
Three years is too much time for the Australians to stay here …
Hambali (the planner of the Australian Embassy attack and also the 2002 bombing—currently held in Guantanamo Bay) went to the training camps in Afghanistan that they ran back in the '90s, subsequently received funding from al Qaeda, went back then to Indonesia, and was behind some of the major attacks there. So you've got this sort of home-grown, but nonetheless affiliated, extremist operation going now in Indonesia. You'll find the same thing if you go to Morocco, where they had the attack in Casablanca; in Turkey, Istanbul, and so forth.
One way to stop the next war is to continue to tell the truth about this one.
Two men were executed for sodomy in the western Afghanistan province of Herat, the Taleban-controlled Voice of Sharia announced March 23. Bismellah, age 22, and Abdul Sami, 18, had a wall bulldozed onto them in a traditional Islamic method of executions used only for sodomy convictions.
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
... we have to account for capital, depreciation, insurances, council rates, long-service leave and information technology, even down to whether or not a Microsoft licence per user is applied to each cost of patient admission. Different states and territories use different accounting systems, which affects whether or not these various components will ultimately make their way into what is an efficient price. For an NGO provider of hospital services, all of these form the component of what is the price or the cost of delivering a service. Some states and territories account for these things differently; indeed, within states different areas at present can account for them differently.
... we argue that the governance of this new authority should allow for the appointment to its board of someone who has experience in the delivery of NGO hospital services.
It is therefore understood that whereas the authority will determine a national efficient price, it will remain a responsibility of state and territory governments to determine the actual amounts paid for hospital services. There may not be certainty on how much the states or territories will actually contribute.
It is likely that debates about the adequacy of public hospital funding by each level of government will continue for some time.
It is silent, however, on what actions jurisdictions must take if they are found to be complicit in either cost shifting or in a cross border dispute. In the event of a cross border dispute, the IHPA may provide advice to the Commonwealth about funding adjustments to relevant jurisdictions.
The Commonwealth has limited powers with regard to the operation and management of public hospitals and is unable to compel a jurisdiction to make payments to other jurisdictions or to alter their policy settings.
APHA believes these provisions fall a long way short of the practice of the board of the Reserve Bank of releasing its decisions and its monthly minutes publicly with no prior commitment by the executive.
There is very little integration between the statutory bodies. There is a risk of duplication or even triplication, which could create a significant burden for health services. Their isolation from each other is counterproductive.
The Authority will have strong independent powers: it will be for public hospitals what the independent Reserve Bank is for monetary policy. This is unprecedented for the public hospital system.
The result will be a thorough and rigorous determination without fear or favour to Governments. The Government is confident that the Authority will provide the health system with the stability and robustness that the Reserve Bank has provided for monetary policy for decades.
… must cause a copy of any advice given or recommendations made in undertaking the CEO’s functions … to be published on the … web site within 12 months of providing the advice or making the recommendations.
(1) Schedule 1, item 21, page 47 (lines 1 to 8), omit section 211, substitute:
211 Conditions to be met before public reporting
(1) The Pricing Authority must not report publicly (whether on the internet or otherwise) unless:
(a) if the report has been given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister—a period of 30 days has elapsed since the report was so given; or
(b) if the report has not been given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister—a period of 3 months has elapsed since the report was completed.
(2) If:
(a) a report is given to the Minister and each State/Territory Health Minister under paragraph (1)(a); and
(b) the report contains one or more recommendations; and
(c) the Minister or a State/Territory Health Minister does not agree to adopt one or more of the recommendations;
the Minister or State/Territory Health Minister must publish on the internet his or her reasons for not adopting the recommendation or recommendations.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a report under section 212.
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
Navigation Amendment Bill 2011
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
... a central element of domestic violence is that of an ongoing pattern of behaviour aimed at controlling one's partner through fear (for example, by using violent or threatening behaviour) ... the violent behaviour is part of a range of tactics used by the perpetrator to exercise power and control ... and can be both criminal and non-criminal in nature.
Each culture has its sayings and songs about the importance of home, and the comfort and security to be found there. Yet for many women, home is a place of pain and humiliation.
… violence against women by their male partners is common, wide-spread and far-reaching in its impact. For too long hidden behind closed doors and avoided in public discourse, such violence can no longer be denied as part of everyday life for millions of women.
… the only national violence prevention campaign, and it is unique in that it aims to raise awareness among Australian men and boys about the roles they can play to prevent violence against women …
In swearing and wearing a white ribbon, men and boys can act as positive role models and advocates for change by challenging behaviours and attitudes that have allowed of violence against women to occur.
As Sex Discrimination Commissioner I am often asked what is the greatest challenge for women's human rights in Australia—the answer has to be violence against women. If women cannot expect to be safe in their own homes and communities, how can they expect equality in society?
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism should establish and fund a special unit tasked with establishing a regulatory framework model for the mining and resources sector which African countries could consider adopting according to their requirements
I assure honourable senators that I have not attended a university or a high school and, for that matter, I do not know that I can say that I have spent very much time at a primary school. But this does not mean that as a Senator from Queensland I am not able to cope. I have graduated through the university of hard knocks. My teacher was experience. However, I shall play the role which my State of Queensland, my race, my background, my political beliefs, my knowledge of men and circumstances dictate. This I shall do, through the grace of God, to the benefit of all Australians.
I look forward to my association with my fellow senators. I trust that our deliberations will be, in fact, for the true welfare of all Australians.
In regard to the Clean Energy Future document, 'What a carbon price means for you', which was sent to all households:
(1) In relation to the paper used for the document:
(a) where was the paper sourced;
(b) was the paper made in Australia, if not, where was it made;
(c) where did the pulp that made the paper originate;
(d) what was the type of paper used;
(e) what was the total cost of the purchase of the paper; and
(f) which company was successful in providing the paper.
(2) With reference to the statement 'China is now the world's largest manufacturer of both solar panels and wind turbines' (p. 5), what quantity of these solar panels and wind turbines are manufactured for export to other countries in the world, including Australia.
(3) With reference to the statement that 'by 2020 the carbon price package will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year'(p. 6), does that statement take into account the possibility of any carbon leakage whatsoever from manufacturing moving from Australia to other countries.
(4) With reference to the statements 'average incomes grow strongly' and 'national employment is projected to increase by 1.6 million jobs by 2020' (p. 7), does this modelling indicate that the growth in average incomes and employment will be slower than if there had not been a carbon price imposed; if so, why was this not stated in the document.
(5) With reference to the statement 'some businesses will pass on the carbon price' (p. 8), can a detailed list be provided of businesses which are anticipated will not pass on the carbon price.
(6) Does the document refer to the increased marginal tax rates increasing:
(a) if not, why not; or
(b) if so, by how much will the marginal tax rates increase.
(7) With reference to the statement that '9 in 10 households will receive tax cuts, increased payments, or both' (p. 14):
(a) is it acknowledged that not all of those 9 in 10 households will in fact be better off; and
(b) is it a fact that less than 50 per cent of the population will be better off if Treasury's modelling and assumptions are accepted.
(1) In relation to the paper used for the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document:
(a) The paper was sourced from Australia.
(b) The paper was made at the Australian Paper Mill in Maryvale, Victoria.
(c) The pulp originated in Australia and was manufactured at Australian Paper Maryvale from wood sourced from VicForests and Hancock Victorian Plantations. Both suppliers hold Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification chain of custody and both suppliers are accredited to the Australian Forestry Standard.
(d) The type of paper used was 100 grams per square metre Envi offset Carbon Neutral.
(e) The total cost of the purchase of the paper was $1,080,000.00 (GST exclusive).
(f) Australian Paper was successful in providing the paper.
(2) According to the International Energy Agency document Technology Roadmap: Solar photovoltaic energy, 95 per cent of China's photovoltaic systems are manufactured for export. According to the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century document Renewables 2011: Global status report, China was the top installer of wind turbines and by the end of 2010 had the largest renewable energy capacity (including hydro) in the world.
(3) The statement, 'by 2020 the carbon price package will take 160 million tonnes of pollution out of the atmosphere every year', refers to the reductions in Australia's net national emissions.
(4) As stated in the Treasury modelling report Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a carbon price, the modelling shows that with a carbon price real wages grow slightly more slowly than without a carbon price and the level of employment is largely unaffected. However, this exercise modelled the impact of a carbon price on the economy but did not model the impact of climate change on the economy. For a net assessment of the impacts of climate change policy on both the economy and people's welfare, both would need to be taken into account. Previous studies which have done this, such as the Garnaut Review (2008) and the Stern Review (2006), both conclude the costs of action are smaller than the costs of inaction. The Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document only provides a summary of the modelling results. The reader is directed to the Treasury modelling report, Strong Growth, Low Pollution (2011), for more information.
(5) The Treasury modelling was undertaken at an industry level. As a result, it is not possible to provide details of individual businesses. However, businesses which are not anticipated to pass on carbon price impacts are in heavily trade exposed industries and for this reason will recieve assistance through the Jobs and Competitiveness Program.
(6) Page 12 of the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document, says, 'While some statutory tax rates will be higher, the combined changes mean this will better match the effective rate that a lot of taxpayers are actually paying at the moment. All taxpayers under $80,000 will pay less tax, and those on higher incomes will pay no more tax than they do now.' The document further directs readers to the Clean Energy Future website at: www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/What_a_carbon_price_means_to_you.pdf, where more information about the changes to the statutory personal tax rates and thresholds is available.
(7) (a) Page 14 of the Clean Energy Future: What a carbon price means for you document states that 'around 90 per cent of households will receive assistance to help meet the impact of the carbon price on their costs of living'. The inside cover states that, 'almost 6 million households will be assisted to meet their average price impact', of which, 'over 4 million households will get assistance that is at least 20 per cent more than their average price impact'.
(b) Two in three households will get some combination of tax cuts or increased payments that cover their expected average price impact.
(1) How many asylum seekers were transferred in the first group, and can a detailed breakdown be provided of the cost of transporting the first group to the centre.
(2) What is the anticipated total cost of transporting asylum seekers to the centre.
(3) Will the centre still close in October, as initially committed to by the Government; if not, why not, and when.
The first group of 35 asylum seekers were transferred to Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) 1 September 2011.
The total cost for transporting this group via charter flight from Curtin IDC to Pontville IDC was $185 900.
Decisions to transfer asylum seekers between immigration detention facilities are based on careful consideration of a range of factors, including individual client circumstances; the overall capacity and occupancy of facilities within the detention network; staffing; interpreter and service provider requirements; the good order and safety of each facility; and appropriate management of any health or security risks to the community.
Due to the dynamic nature of the immigration detention population, and associated accommodation requirements, it is difficult to estimate specific anticipated transport costs for asylum seeker transfers to particular facilities.
As the Minister has said, Pontville IDC will close on 1 March 2012, six months from when it opened on 1 September 2011.
In relation to the Minister's media release entitled 'New health and safety regulations to boost national productivity' issued on 14 September 2011:
(1) On what date and time was the media release placed on the Minister's website.
(2) On what date and time was the attachment, the Decision regulation impact statement for national harmonisation of work health and safety regulations and codes of practice uploaded to the website.
(3) Why does this statement not appear on the Safe Work Australia website.
(4) On what date and at what time was it decided to release the report to the public and who made the decision and on whose advice.
(5) Did the Minister or his office receive any requests for a copy of the report on 14 September 2011; if so, how many requests were there received and in each instance, were copies of the report provided; if not, why not.
(6) Which industry stakeholders were provided with advance copies of the statement and when were they provided.
(7) Did the Workplace Relations Ministers Council resolve to release this report; if not, under whose authority was the report released.
(8) What consultation with other members of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, if any, was done on the release of the report prior to release.
(9) Under whose direction was the report released to select journalists prior to the public release of the statement, and in each instance, on what date and time was the copy provided and what was the name of the journalist.
(10) Had any party or stakeholder requested an advance copy of the report; if so: (a) who and how many; (b) were any of these requests granted; if so, on what grounds, who received an advance copy and on what date was it provided; and (c) for those requests that were not granted, on what basis were they rejected.
The Regulation Impact Statement for the Model OHS Regulations and First Stage Codes of Practice was prepared by Safe Work Australia. Safe Work Australia consists of representatives of the Commonwealth, state and territory governments as well as ACCI, Ai Group and the ACTU.
Consistent with the requirements of the Office of Best Practice Regulation, the Minister provided copies of the approved Regulation Impact Statement for the Model OHS Regulations and First Stage Codes of Practice to members of the Workplace Relations Minsters' Council (WRMC) on 13 September 2011.
At 8.38am on 14 September 2011, Safe Work Australia provided its members with a copy of the approved Regulation Impact Statement. At 9.18am on the same day, the Minister issued a media release announcing the findings of the Regulation Impact Statement.
The approved Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) was attached to the media release on 15 September 2011 at 10.45am.
As is the usual practice, the Office of Best Practice Regulation will publish a copy of the approved Regulation Impact Statement on its website once WRMC has made its decision. At this point, Safe Work Australia will also publish a copy on its website.
The approved Regulation Impact Statement is not a confidential document. If members of WRMC wish to provide copies of the Regulation Impact Statement to stakeholders, then that is a matter for them.
In regard to cost estimates of the Coalition's direct action scheme:
(1) Given that on 2 March 2011, the Minister put out a press release on cost estimates of the 'Coalition's Direct Action policy', citing analysis undertaken by the Department, is the Minister familiar with that analysis?
(2) Given that the Minister's statement claimed that the department's figures showed that the Coalition's Direct Action policy would cost more than $30 billion by 2020 rather than the claimed $10.5 billion, is the Department comfortable that the figures in its analysis are reliable?
(3) With reference to evidence given in a Senate hearing on 10 August by Treasury officials that, on Treasury advice, the Gillard Government had not prepared fiscal impact estimates of the Clean Energy Future package beyond the forward estimates (e.g. beyond 2014-15), and in particular, Ms Luise McCulloch, General Manager, Industry, Environment and Defence Division at Treasury who stated that estimates of fiscal impact beyond the forward estimates were 'unreliable' and 'misleading':
(a) does the Department agree with Treasury that any fiscal estimate of climate policy proposals beyond 2014-15 would be 'unreliable' and 'misleading'; and
(b) why has the Department issued cost estimates of the Coalition/Direct Action policy through to 2020 when Treasury has concluded that any fiscal estimate of climate policy proposals beyond 2014-15 would be unreliable and 'misleading'?
(1) The Minister is aware of the analysis contained in his media release of 2 March 2011.
(2) The Department considers that, based on the information available at the time, its analysis that the Coalition's Direct Action policy would be unlikely to achieve sufficient abatement to meet Australia's 2020 emissions targets remains valid. The Department's estimates of the fiscal cost of the Direct Action policy were based on the following public information sources from the Coalition and the Department:
The Department's analysis of the cost of the Coalition's Direct Action policy comprised two elements: the estimated cost of the Emissions Reduction Fund and the cost of purchasing international abatement to achieve the 5 per cent reduction.
(3) (a) The Department agrees with the Treasury that longer-term fiscal costings have a lower reliability than those over the forward estimates. The Department agrees with the Treasury that the fiscal estimate of climate change policies can only be prepared to budget quality over the forward estimates period.
(b) The Department analysed the Coalition's Direct Action policy to the year 2020 in order to determine whether the policy would deliver Australia's 2020 bipartisan greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. The Department's analysis showed that the Direct Action policy could achieve approximately 25 per cent of the required emissions reduction. In the absence of further action, the Department considered the cost of achieving the shortfall in abatement through the purchase of international carbon permits.
Are all aspects of the Fair Work Act 2009 working as intended; if not:
(a) what sections or aspects of the Act are not working as intended;
(b) what has the Government done to correct these areas; and
(c) how does the Government intend to correct any areas of concern.
Available evidence indicates that the Fair Work Act is working as intended. However, the Government notes concerns raised by some stakeholders. The scheduled review of the Fair Work Act will provide an opportunity to further examine the evidence relating to the operation of the Fair Work Act.
(1) What preparatory work is being done by each of the following for the review of the Fair Work Act 2009:
(a) the department;
(b) Fair Work Australia;
(c) Fair Work Ombudsman;
(d) Australian Building and Construction Commission; and
(e) Safe Work Australia.
(2) Will the review occur as foreshadowed in the Fair Work Act, as a review on the principles of the Act or as a review with separate terms of reference.
(3) Who will conduct the review, and will it be conducted independently.
(1) The preparatory work being done by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the post-implementation review (the 'Review') of the Fair Work Act 2009 includes:
Fair Work Australia, the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman, the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and Safe Work Australia have not undertaken specific preparatory work for the Review.
(2) The Review will involve an evidence-based assessment as to the operation of the legislation. Terms of reference for the Review will be settled in due course.
(3) The Review will be conducted independently, with further details to be announced in due course.
Can the Minister confirm no judicial consideration has been given to sections 357 to 359 inclusive of the Fair Work Act 2009 ?
There has been some judicial consideration given to these provisions. My Department is aware that section 357 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) has received judicial consideration in the following cases:
My Department is not aware of any judicial consideration of sections 358 and 359 of the FW Act.
My Department is aware that the provisions have also been referred to, but without substantial consideration being given to their meaning and effect, in:
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 689 (Senate, Hansard, 17 August 2011, p. 4762) and specifically (a) (viii):
(a) what was provided for the sum of $7 880;
(b) did this include the camera and camera personnel; and
(c) can a list be provided of all that was bought for the sum of $7 880.
(a) Production support on 30 occasions in respect of information and training videos for Department of Human Services customers and staff. Services provided are a package which includes autocue operation and make-up services for major audio visual productions.
(b) No.
(c) See (a).
(1) In regard to expenditure, can a breakdown be provided of total expenditure (departmental and administered) by program component and service within outcome 5 for:
(a) the 2010-11 financial year; and
(b) the forward estimates.
(2) In regard to staff, for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years can a breakdown be provided of the number of staff that worked within each program, program component and service within outcome 5 by Australian public service level.
(3) In regard to regulations, can a breakdown be provided of the number of regulations that are associated with each program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(4) In regard to staff travel, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided for each program, program component and service within outcome 5 of the following:
(a) the total value of flights (domestic and international) flown by employees who have the entitlement to travel, broken down by class (economy, premium economy, business, first); and (b) the total value of accommodation expenditure by employees employed who have the entitlement to travel.
(5) In regard to advertising, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of advertising expenditure by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(6) In regard to hospitality and entertainment, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on hospitality and entertainment (food, beverages, alcohol, catering, room hire) by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(7) In regard to information and communications technology, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on information and communications technology including equipment (computers, ipads, phones) and services (contractors), by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(8) In regard to consulting, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on consulting by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(9) In regard to staff education and training, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on staff education and training (university courses, classes, seminars, workshops) by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(10) In regard to external accounting, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external accountants by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(11) In regard to external auditing, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external auditing by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(12) In regard to external legal advice, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on external legal advice by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(13) In regard to memberships, for the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided of the total value of expenditure on memberships to stakeholder organisations by program, program component and service within outcome 5.
(14) Can a list of all office locations used by the department under outcome 5 be provided, by program, program component and service, indicating:
(a) whether the office location is leased or owned;
(b) its size (in square metres);
(c) the value and depreciation of the buildings that are owned; and
(d) the rent per square metre of the buildings that are leased.
(1) (a) and (b), (2) to (3), (4) (a) and (b), (5) to (13) and (14) (a) to (d) To provide the information sought would entail a significant diversion of resources and I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
In regard to the Fair Work Ombudsman, has any advice been provided to Fair Work Inspectors on their 'ethical obligations'; if so, what ethical obligations are Fair Work Inspectors advised to observe.
Section 700(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 provides that the Fair Work Ombudsman may appoint a person as a Fair Work Inspector only if the Fair Work Ombudsman is satisfied that the person is of good character.
In order to meet this requirement, nominees for appointment as Fair Work Inspectors must sign a 'Good Character Declaration', a declaration that they have been informed of, and will perform their duties as inspectors in accordance with, their obligations under the Public Service Act 1999 , theFair Work Act 2009 and the APS Values and APS Code of Conduct. They must also declare that they are not engaged in any activities which would constitute any potential conflict of interest with respect to their duties as inspectors and that they are aware of the need to disclose any potential conflict of interest in relation to a particular case to their supervisors. They must also declare that they are not aware of any personal activities which, if made public, would bring their good character into question or compromise the activities of the Fair Work Ombudsman.
The nominee's reporting manager must also sign a declaration that to the best of his or her knowledge the nominated Fair Work Inspector is of good character. The manager must also declare that the applicant is aware of the powers and responsibilities in exercising the powers of a Fair Work Inspector under the Fair Work Act 2009 .
'Fair Work Inspectors must also attend an induction training program which teaches the general skills, expectations and knowledge required of a Fair Work Inspector.' The training includes a practical exercise regarding ethical challenges faced by Fair Work Inspectors.'
The Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct, set out in section 13 of the Public Service Act 1999 , specifies the standards of behaviour and conduct that are expected of all APS employees. The APS Code of Conduct incorporates the APS Values set out at section 10 of the Act. The APS Code of Conduct and APS Values apply to all APS employees including Fair Work Inspectors.
The Australian Public Service Commission's Ethics Advisory Service provides advice and resources to APS employees for the application and interpretation of the APS Values and Code of Conduct. It is available to all APS employees seeking advice on ethical issues in the workplace. All Fair Work Inspectors can contact the Ethics Advisory Service either directly or via the Fair Work Ombudsman's Ethics Contact Officer.
The Fair Work Ombudsman has a policy on 'the APS Code of Conduct' and a guide on 'Handling Breaches of Conduct'.
All Fair Work Inspectors are required to identify and manage conflicts of interest.
Under the Fair Work Ombudsman ' s Risk Management Policy, all managers and staff are required to integrate risk management procedures and practices into their daily activities.
All SES employees, including those acting in SES jobs for longer than three months, are required to make a written declaration of financial and personal interests. Some non-SES employees whose responsibilities also require them to be particularly transparent about their private financial and personal interests, are required to make the declaration.
The Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a confidential counselling service available to assist all Fair Work Ombudsman employees including Fair Work Inspectors, with a wide range of personal and/or work related concerns. It is a free service. It is available to give assistance for personal and work related concerns, including interpersonal conflicts and work environment problems.
The Fair Work Ombudsman provides ongoing training and education on ethical issues, such as a recent three-part video chronicle published on the intranet, about a fictional character Billy, who was found to be in breach of the APS Code of Conduct for sending inappropriate work emails.