The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 3 (Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related bills).
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011
These measures were agreed to support the government's broader package of telecommunications reforms, implementation of the NBN and, most importantly in this context, the structural separation of Telstra.
This is a vexed question that you have obviously had quite a few people raise with you, as they have with us over the full course of these negotiations.
This is a vexed question … We think that we did a good job in negotiating a price with Telstra. … As to the actual cost of delivering them—
all I can say is that the negotiations with Telstra were very difficult. Whether there is a margin in there for Telstra I simply do not know. Telstra would not tell us and they did not tell you. Nobody else knows, so I cannot answer your question definitively. All I can say is that we did our best to negotiate a minimum price and we had some independent reassurance.
That government business order of the day No. 2 National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 be postponed to the next day of sitting.
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents.
Not for Pub—we have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.
Assange is going to make a nice bride in prison. Screw the terrorist. He'll be eating cat forever.
Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tool we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ [Al Qaeda]. Thank Cheney & 43—
Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse.
Ferreting out [Julian Assange's] confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside [sic]. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.
… pursue [c]onspiracy and [p]olitical [t]errorism charges of declassified the death of a source someone which [he] could link to Wiki.
… [b]ankrupt the arsehole … ruin his life. Give him 7-12 years for conspiracy.
… that they are going after the confederates, they are going after the network, they are after everybody who has ever had anything to do with WikiLeaks.
The soils and groundwater of the Basin release salts into the rivers. This salinity is natural and, under natural conditions would be transported down the system and out the mouth during times of high rainfall.
… the MDBA estimate that two million tons of salt would need to be flushed out of the system each year to balance the entry of salt into the rivers.
Droughts tend to see less salt regularly flushed from soil profiles or flowing through depleted aquifers. Flows move salt through the river system. Flows out of the Murray mouth prevent the accumulation of salts in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. During the drought, the Murray mouth has been dredged open. The mouth of the Murray was regularly sand blocked prior to river regulation by structures and lochs. The health of the entire Murray-Darling Basin is not indicated by the open or closure of the Murray mouth.
The saline nature and propensity for blue-green algal outbreaks are inherent in the character of the ephemeral Basin streams. Ensuring there are adequate flows to move and flush salt and nutrients out of the system is a responsibility of all who depend on its waters
Constantly I hear that emotive calls, emotive language, emotive pleas, emotive people should be dismissed as the lunatic fringe because they exaggerate, they misrepresent, they do not produce balance nor facts in dealing with the plan.
I would say how can one not be emotive if your livelihood, and all that is important to you, is at stake. I see no reason for us to need to apologise for being emotive.
The Committee heard of grave mistrust of this department—
across Basin communities resulting from the failure of the department to identify and respond to community concerns on a range of issues. In addition, this department has demonstrated a consistent failure to deliver water programs, including strategic water buyback, which is in the best interests of productive communities. This department should no longer be responsible for delivering these programs.
The notion this initiative is in any way strategic is just nonsense; it’s quite clear the real purpose is about buying water as cheaply as possible and being seen to be ticking-off on one of the Windsor Inquiry’s recommendations and little else.
What’s doubly galling is that this announcement should come as it has – out of the blue; so much for commitment to recovering water in smarter ways and the promise of improved engagement and transparency.
… decisions … were taken, in my absence often, and then announced and implemented, often without my knowledge, in the case of various decisions like the Malaysia solution for example, and then off they went only to discover they didn't work.
That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
She questioned why I would take a job that lasted only six years and suggested I consider taking a more secure job as a bank teller.
From 2020, all nations face binding obligations to reduce emissions and our major regional trading partners … will expect us to deliver along with them.
Senior Japanese diplomatic officials in Tokyo have told The Australian there is 'no chance' of the country adopting a scheme similar to Australia's carbon tax or emissions trading scheme in the foreseeable future.
China is still likely to consume 4.4 billion tonnes of coal in 2030, when its carbon emissions are expected to have increased from 6.8 billion tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent in 2005 to 15 billion tonnes.
Let us deal with a few facts. Let us have a scientific debate about climate change and its potential impact on the tourism industry. Globally, aviation contributes just two per cent of greenhouse gas emissions but eight per cent of world GDP—that is, 28 million jobs and $US3 trillion. Recently, the less than august Australia Institute—an organisation for which I have no respect because it seems to pride itself on belting low-income people in Australia—proposed a carbon tax, an elitist tax, on domestic flights and called for an end to the promotion of the aviation industry. Never mind that, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office’s National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, civil aviation contributes just 0.9 per cent of Australia’s emissions. If we got rid of the entire aviation industry, as the Australia Institute would have it, we would still be left with 99 per cent of Australia’s emissions.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to Mr Julian Assange.
Not for Pub—We have a sealed indictment on Assange. Pls protect.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional 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 14 March 2012.
Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill (No. 1) 2012
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Native Title Act 1993 to further the interests of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and now be read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill (No. 1) 2012 is the second iteration of Native Title reform proposed by the Australian Greens.
The Bill seeks to address key failures of the Native Title Act 1993 (NTA). We want to provide meaningful rights and a basis for economic and community development to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Something the Act has failed to do in the 18 years since it came into force.
By introducing this Bill and any further reforms we intend to contribute constructively to a debate about native title reform that can ultimately lead to simpler legislation which produces more meaningful outcomes in a more timely fashion for all those involved.
In March 2011, I introduced the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2011. The Bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee in May last year. Over 35 submissions were received, from a range of stakeholders and government agencies during the course of the inquiry. The majority of these were supportive of the intent of the legislation – many noting the great need for the Native Title Act to be reformed. The submissions contained many useful suggestions on how the Bill might be strengthened and improved.
This new Bill builds on those suggestions. We have closely examined the submissions and incorporated numerous revisions, creating a more robust and effective piece of law.
In the original Bill we sought to address some of the 'low-hanging fruit' of native title reform – by targeting some of the areas of native title law where relatively simple amendments could have far-reaching implications for addressing some of the current barriers to effective native title outcomes. In this Bill we have chosen the most important and most urgent of those areas and drafted amendments which we hope will gain broad support.
We are still committed to incorporating aspects of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the Native Title Act. We are currently exploring the best way to do this and intend to introduce another Bill later this year.
As I said when I introduced the original Bill, if we do not work together to traverse the "impenetrable jungle"1 that is native title litigation, there is little hope for just outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The second reading speech for the original Bill is still relevant for this current revised Bill:
... nearly two decades after the introduction of the NTA it is clear that native title has failed to deliver on its promises.
The Preamble states that …
"The people of Australia intend:
(a) to rectify the consequences of past injustices by the special measures contained in this Act… for securing the adequate advancement and protection of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders; and
(b) to ensure that Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders receive the full recognition and status within the Australian nation to which history, their prior rights and interests, and their rich and diverse culture, fully entitle them to aspire."
We hope that by the time we reach the twentieth anniversary of the NTA in 2013, the process of native title reform will be seriously underway, and we will be able to see native title delivering on some of the seemingly forgotten promises contained in the preamble to and objects of the NTA.
In practice, the people who the Act recognises and describes as "…the most disadvantaged group in society…" as a consequence of the dispossession of their lands, have had to rely on one of the longest and most complex pieces of Australian legislation to try to "…secure their advancement…" and to recognise and protect (not establish) their pre-existing rights.
In nearly two decades since its introduction, only a handful of native title claims have been resolved, with many of these being in remote areas which had been of little interest to European colonists. For the majority of our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly those in urban areas and regional centres, native title has offered little and delivered less.
Meanwhile the promised complementary measures have also been a grave disappointment – the land fund has only been able to help out a limited number of communities, and the social justice package never eventuated.
It is clear that in the application and judicial interpretation of the NTA a huge gap has emerged between these original promises and intentions, and the on-the-ground experience of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities seeking to have their native title rights recognised and protected.
Justice Kirby characterised the barriers to the recognition of native title rights as comparable to an impenetrable jungle, saying:
"It would be easy for the judicial explorer to become confused and lost in the undergrowth to which rays of light rarely penetrate. Discovering the path through this jungle requires navigational skills of a high order. Necessarily, they are costly to procure and time consuming to deploy. The legal advance that commenced with Mabo v Queensland, or perhaps earlier, has now attracted such difficulties that the benefits intended for Australia's Indigenous peoples in relation to native title land and waters are being channelled into costs of administration and litigation that leave everyone dissatisfied and many disappointed." 2
There are many who still believe that the recognition of rights to land, culture and resources through native title could provide a strong and sustainable basis for 'advancement' by underwriting and enabling community and economic development.
The former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, for instance, spoke of the capacity for respect for native title to provide a sturdy foundation for durable economic and social outcomes in his Apology speech.3
It is a tragic shame that neither his government nor its successor have done anything to seek to strengthen and facilitate recognition of the native title rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to help make that vision a reality. Instead the only changes to native title laws we have seen in these two terms of Labor Government have been those that either diminished native title rights or at the very least have failed to enhance the capacity of traditional owners to participate in securing meaningful outcomes.
This of course comes on the back of over a decade of Coalition Government under John Howard that systematically wound back the rights of Indigenous Australians, diminished native title rights, and saw the scrapping of all the existing avenues for representation and decision making with the removal of ATSIC.
The challenge for this government in moving forward to make the vision of the apology a reality is to put aside the paternalism of the Howard/Brough years and to actively engage Aboriginal communities in policy development, decision making and community development instead. This also means recognising, as the Cape York Land Council put it, that "[m]eaningful respect for native title as a valuable property right is part of the solution … not an impediment"4.
The impetus for reform
The impetus for this bill arose from the interactions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and native title experts that took place in and around the 2009 inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs into the Native Title Amendment Bill 2009. A Bill which in and of itself had little to do with reforming native title to deliver better outcomes.
The discussions that took place around that Senate inquiry crystallised many of my long-standing concerns with the NTA which lead to a continuing dialogue on broader native title reform that has ultimately led to these reforms.
At the time of the introduction of the first 2009 bill, the Attorney General Robert McClelland stated that the intent of the Australian Government in introducing the bill was "… achieving more negotiated native title outcomes in a more timely, effective and efficient fashion"5.
The vast majority of the evidence tended to that Senate inquiry supported the need for native title reform that would achieve more effective native title outcomes in a more timely and resource efficient manner but disagreed with the Attorney General's suggestion that the Government's reforms came anywhere near achieving those outcomes.
As Tony McAvoy of the National Native Title Council put it at the time:
"…the amendments that are proposed in this amendment bill are not controversial. They may make some small difference but they are not going to make any vast change in the way in which native title matters are dealt with. There is not going to be any rush of settlement of native title applications as a result of any of these amendments."6
The submissions to that inquiry identified a number of other possible reforms to the NTA that promised to address the barriers to timely and meaningful native title outcomes and went beyond the narrow agenda of the government's first 2009 bill. These included addressing the 'burden of proof' through a rebuttable presumption of continuity7, strengthening the requirements for parties to 'negotiate in good faith', and raising the threshold on extinguishment, among others.
Many of the issues raised in this inquiry were further discussed and developed in the Native Title Report 2009 of the Australian Human Rights Commission by the then Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma. This report made an important series of recommendations for native title reform, many of which have provided the basis for the reforms proposed within this bill.
I note that this bill does not cover all of the reforms recommended by Tom Calma, and includes a number of measures that he did not discuss at the time. While many of the good ideas can be attributed to Mr Calma and to others, I take full responsibility for the way they have been interpreted as legislative amendments. I commend the work of the former Commissioner and thank him sincerely for his efforts.
I would also like to thank the native title experts, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations, land councils and representative bodies that have contributed their thoughts, ideas and comments to us in response to our inquiries and as part of the consultation process we undertook around the discussion paper and draft amendments proposing these reforms.
The right to negotiate also applies offshore
This item seeks to improve procedural rights over offshore areas for native title holders. In doing so it seeks to address the contradiction between the existing provisions of subsection 26(3) of the NTA (that limits the right to negotiate to acts that relate to a place on the landward side of the mean high-water mark) and the fact that native title rights have been recognised to exist in offshore areas.8
This amendment is consistent with the views expressed by the then Attorney General Robert McClelland, who stated in 2009 that:
"When it comes to behavioural change, I accept that the Australian Government has to lead by example. I believe we are doing just that. For example, last year I announced that the Government will take a more flexible approach to recognising native title in Australia's territorial waters. The Australian Government now accepts that native title can exist out to the limits of the modern territorial sea, generally 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline. Given that the Government is involved in all claims over offshore waters, this approach should help bring about more negotiated settlements."9
The limitation of procedural rights under subsection 26(3) that denies traditional owners a right to negotiate over future acts in offshore areas is clearly inconsistent with this recognition that native title can exist up to 12 nautical miles out to sea, and so item 2 of the bill remedies this by repealing subsection 26(3) to remove this unnecessary contradiction and allow traditional owners the right to negotiate over acts that impact on their sea country.
Strengthening good faith negotiations
The future acts regime plays a crucial role in the manner in which traditional owners are able to exercise their native title rights, by governing the requirements placed on parties negotiating agreements concerning proposed activities. There has been sustained criticism of the manner in which the future acts regime has led to protracted and uncertain outcomes, and calls for the act to be amended to create stronger incentives for beneficial agreements and to achieve greater procedural fairness by striking a better balance between native title and non-native title interests.
To this end the amendments proposed in items 3 to 12 of this bill expand on the current requirements for parties to negotiate 'in good faith' in relation to future acts.
Currently the burden of proof for proving the absence of good faith in negotiations is on the native title party, rather than the proponent of a proposed future act. This appears procedurally unfair as it is in effect the proponent who is effectively asserting that they have negotiated in good faith for the required period when they apply for a matter to be taken to arbitration.
Item 3 of this bill seeks to strengthen the requirement to negotiate in good faith, in line with the recommendations of the Native Title Report 200910.
The NTA as it stands prevents parties from resorting to an arbitral body, such as the National Native Title Tribunal, for a period of six months from the issue of a notice that the government intends to grant a mining tenement. This fixed negotiating period does not take into account the relative scope or difficulty of the proposed negotiations – it is the same irrespective of whether the parties have established previous agreements or are meeting for the first time, and irrespective of whether they are negotiating a single act or attempting to conclude an overarching agreement on a 'whole of claim' basis.
So on the one hand, parties who are undertaking complex negotiations in a genuine attempt to make efficient use of their time and resources to secure wide-scale agreements over large areas of land and multiple future acts need to do so within the six month limit (irrespective of the number of negotiations and the lack of resources of the native title representative body). On the other hand, proponents who are not inclined to enter into serious negotiations with native title holders can effectively stonewall and sit on their hands for six months, knowing they can then force the matter to arbitration without any requirement to demonstrate they have made all reasonable efforts to come to agreements.
To this end item 3 of this bill substitutes a new paragraph 31(1)(b) which requires parties to negotiate in good faith for at least six months and to use all reasonable efforts to come to an agreement about the conditions under which each of the native title parties might agree to the proposed future act. As made clear in the evidence to the Inquiry, this provision does not limit the ability of parties to reach agreement within 6 months but it does require negotiation for at least 6 months before either party can apply to the Tribunal.
Item 4 inserts new subsections 31(1A)–(1C), providing clarification of what the requirement to negotiate in good faith really means.
The good faith negotiating requirements are one of the few legal safeguards that native title parties have to protect their native title interests under the NTA. While section 31 of the NTA seeks to oblige the parties to negotiate in good faith during the negotiating period, in practice it is virtually impossible for claimants to establish that a proponent is not acting in good faith. This is borne out by the decision of the Full Federal Court in the matter of FMG Pilbara v Cox11 - a decision which substantially watered down the right to negotiate, to the extent that any negotiation in which the native title party cannot demonstrably prove bad faith is effectively considered to be a good faith negotiation.
Item 4 strengthens the requirement to negotiate in good faith by including explicit criteria for the type of negotiation activities that are indicative of good faith and clarifies that deceptive or unsatisfactory conduct is not a perquisite to demonstrate a failure to negotiate in good faith. Furthermore, it places a requirement on the arbitral body to consider the financial resources, and in the case of the native title party, the demands of cultural and religious practices, when considering whether a party has negotiated in good faith.
Item 7 reverses the onus of proof so that the party that is asserting good faith is the one that is required to prove it, by inserting a new subsection 31(2A).
Item 10 provides that a party may not apply to an arbitral body (under subsection 35(1)) until the party has first demonstrated good faith negotiations have taken place in accordance with section 31.
Strengthening coexistence by disallowing extinguishment
Another area where the NTA has failed to deliver is the manner in which the bar on extinguishment has been set too low. This has meant that in practice the principle of 'coexistence' of native title rights, which is clearly envisaged within the NTA, is too often brushed aside or ignored.
Item 13 of the proposed amendments seek to address this issue. Item 13 inserts new sections 47C and 47D. The new section 47C provides that in the case of National, State or Territory Parks, extinguishment is to be disregarded. Given the nature of national parks, it is appropriate for the non-extinguishment principle to apply and to allow for the co-existence of native title rights and interests. Chief Justice French has used the example of the vesting of a nature reserve on Crown land as one act which could be determined to have extinguished native title, where it would make sense to be able to disregard extinguishment and provide for an agreement between the traditional owners and the state to recognise native title rights in the interests of managing that reserve.12
New section 47D provides that at any time prior to a determination, the applicant and a government party can make an agreement that the extinguishment (or possible extinguishment) of native title rights and interests can be disregarded.
The current breadth and permanence of the extinguishment of native title through the provisions of the NTA is arguably unjustifiable, unnecessary and in breach of Australia's human rights obligations.13
Section 47 of the NTA provides a model for coexistence of native title and other rights on pastoral leases. The new sections in item 13 are consistent with the current application of the NTA, and allow the existing coexistence provisions to be extended to nature reserves and allow extinguishment to be disregarded by agreement in a wider range of circumstances.
Presumption of continuity
In practice, the bar for the recognition of native title rights has been set too high – with the onus of proof of cultural continuity being placed on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and with evidence standards effectively mandating a reliance on the written accounts of European colonists that deny the predominantly oral nature of Indigenous cultures.
As the Australian Human Rights Commission argued in its submission to the 2009 Senate Inquiry:
"It cannot be disputed that Indigenous peoples lived in Australia prior to colonisation and that the Crown was responsible for the dispossession of Indigenous peoples throughout Australia.
It has also been acknowledged by governments over time through various policies, laws and statements of recognition, including the creation of land rights regimes and other mechanisms, that Indigenous peoples are the Traditional Owners of the land.
It is in this context that the Commission argues that it is unjust and inequitable to continue to place the demanding burden of proving all the elements required under the Native Title Act on the claimants."
The issue of prior occupation and hence the pre-existence of native title rights is not being questioned (as the preamble to the NTA readily acknowledges) and so under these circumstances it seems to be 'fundamentally discriminatory'14 and a gross injustice to place the burden of proof upon the dispossessed. This is particularly true when we consider that it is State and Commonwealth Governments that have granted the rights that have lead to the possible extinguishment of native title, and that it is those governments who hold many of the historic records needed to establish connection.
The intent of providing for a rebuttable presumption of continuity is to shift the burden of proof in a way that encourages government parties (who must now take on the role of adducing evidence in their archives to rebut presumptions) to be more inclined to settle claims with a strong prospect of success – rather than dragging them out in the Federal Court as they are currently entitled to do.
Item 14 of our proposed amendments to the NTA seeks to address this issue, by putting into legislation amendments suggested by Chief Justice French15 that reverse the burden of proof to create a rebuttable presumption of continuity.
Moving to resolve more native title cases by consent determination could result in timelines being 'streamlined beyond recognition' and costs being 'reduced out of sight'16. However, as the Native Title Report 2009 points out17, a respondent would still be able to defeat a native title claim due to the operation of section 223, by providing appropriate evidence.
We have adopted a suggestion from the Law Council of Australia to insert new section 61AB clarifying that a court may determine that section 223 has been met notwithstanding substantial interruption of or significant change to traditional laws and customs if the interruption or change resulted from the action of a State or a Territory or a person or a party who is not an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
Definition of ' traditional '
As described in the second reading speech to my original Bill, in practice, the manner in which 'traditional' culture is defined by section 223 of the Act fails to recognise the dynamic and living nature of Indigenous Australian cultures. Instead it seeks to freeze culture in some pre-colonial past, which defines traditional culture based on a snap-shot of cultural practices at the time of European settlement and an expectation that they should continue unchanged. This ignores the fact that by their very nature the cultures of Australia's first nations were geared towards adapting to and surviving in an often harsh environment, not to mention the substantial efforts and resources expended by successive governments aimed at forcing or encouraging changes in behaviour.
This limited and unrealistic definition of 'traditional' means that in practice it is far too easy for a respondent to rebut the presumption of continuity by establishing a law or a custom is no longer practiced in exactly the same way it was at the point of colonisation. A more sensible and realistic definition of traditional culture would be one that "encompasses laws, customs and practices that remain identifiable through time"18 and allows at law for an appropriate level of adaptation to the changing circumstances brought about by colonisation.
The narrow application of section 223 has created insurmountable barriers to cultural resurgence as clearly seen by the Noongar, Larrakia, Wongatha and Yorta Yorta cases. In practice, the policy decision to narrowly interpret continuity and traditional practice under section 223 in the Yorta Yorta19 case has created a situation which directly contradicts the original objects of the NTA – in that it means that there is no opportunity to raise the role of past injustices in the interruption of cultural continuity in an Act whose every intent is to provide remedy to those injustices.
Where a group has revitalised its culture, laws and customs by actively seeking out and recovering those elements of cultural continuity driven underground by dispossession, forced relocation, or the removal of children, a comparatively minimal interruption to the sharing of that culture across the claimant group should not be sufficient to prevent the recognition of native title rights.
This state of affairs is clearly at odds both with the stated intentions of the NTA and Australia's international human rights commitments. On this basis it would be sensible to empower the Court to disregard any interruption in the observance of traditional laws and customs where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Item 18 of our proposed amendments inserts new subsections 223(1A), (1B), (1C) and (1D) which provide clarification of the definition of 'traditional' to ensure that the interpretation of what counts as ongoing Indigenous culture and law is based on a more realistic understanding of the maintenance and continuity of traditional practices and cultural values over time. This should help ensure that communities who have maintained a strong connection to their lands, laws, cultural practices and values will not have their recognition discounted based on changes which do not fundamentally alter the core of their cultural identity as traditional custodians of their land and sea country.
Commercial rights and interests
As mentioned in the second reading speech to my original Bill, in practice, the rights native title have delivered have also not been strong or complete enough to effectively provide 'for the advancement' of traditional owners or to provide a basis for economic and cultural development as they have not provided an unambiguous and exploitable right to land and resources.
Currently there is no mechanism to provide for the recognition of commercial rights to enable agreement making that delivers on the stated intent of the NTA "for securing the adequate advancement … of Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islanders" by providing a vehicle for social and economic development. Furthermore, courts have appeared to take a view of customary Indigenous laws that does not properly recognise existing cultural economies and effectively distinguishes between customary or cultural rights and commercial ones.
This is at odds with a wealth of existing evidence of customary trade rights and practices which were based in customary rights to resources – including aquaculture, trade in clay and ochres and turtle shells, as well as crafts such as baskets and spears. It also includes strong evidence of a long-term trade relationship with Macassan fishermen from Indonesia.
The current Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, has stated that the Government considers that Indigenous communities should be able to use their native title rights to leverage economic development.20 However, as yet, this government has not sought to amend the NTA to strengthen the rights of native title holders in this or any other matter, and have largely confined themselves to amendments to the act that reduce the rights of native title holders.
The Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, recently spoke of his "determination to ensure that the Aboriginal people of Australia finally get a fair go where their land is concerned" and went on to say that "the land which Aboriginal people have secured is obviously a cultural and spiritual asset but it should also be an economic asset." On the face of it, it would seem in principle that there is cross-party support for these measures.
To this end, item 19 the bill provides that native title rights and interests can be of a commercial nature, removing what is an unnecessary impediment to Indigenous economic development.
Conclusion
As with our previous bill, the reforms contained in this legislation put forward clear and specific measures to address a number of key areas of interest to native title claimants.
They address the barriers claimants face in making the case to demonstrate their pre-existing native title rights and interests and they tackle some of the procedural issues within the future acts regime that restrict the ability of native title holders to assert and exercise their native title rights.
As we stated before, native title has the potential to play an important role as a basis for the economic and community development of those of Australia's first peoples who have been able to maintain their connection to their traditional lands and culture in the face of dispossession.
It is clear that the original intention of the Parliament was that the Native Title Act would 'rectify the consequences of past injustices' and secure their 'adequate advancement and protection', however, it is equally clear that in its application this complex area of law has failed to deliver on those hopes.
The strong relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their land and sea country should provide a firm basis on which to strengthen their culture and build their future. To make this happen, native title reform is needed.
The Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill (No. 1) 2012 is an important first step on that path – I commend it to the Senate.
—————
1 Justice Kirby in Wilson v Anderson, High Court of Australia (2002) 213 CLR 401.
2 Justice Kirby in Wilson v Anderson, High Court of Australia (2002) 213 CLR 401.
3 Hon. Kevin Rudd, Apology speech, Address to the Opening of Parliament, 13 February 2008.
4 Cape York Land Council, Submission 2, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009, p6.
5 Attorney General Robert McClelland, second reading speech, 19 March 2009, Hansard.
6 Transcript, p20.
7 As recommended by Chief Justice Robert French.
8 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p106.
9 R McClelland (Attorney-General), speech to the Third Negotiating Native Title Forum. http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/
10 pp 104-107.
11 FMG Pilbara v Cox (2009) 175 FCR 141. AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, Chapter 1.
12 Chief Justice French, Lifting the burden of native title, 2008.
13 HREOC, Native Title Report 2002.
14 Les Malezer, 2009 Mabo Lecture.
15 Chief Justice French, Lifting the burden of native title, 2008.
16 Justice North & T Goodwin, Disconnection the gap between law and justice in native title, 2009.
17 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p82.
18 AHRC, Native Title Report 2009, p85.
19 Yorta Yorta v Victoria, High Court of Australia (2002) 214 CLR 422.
20 Hon. J Macklin, Beyond Mabo: Native title and closing the gap speech at 2008 Mabo Lecture.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012
That the provisions of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Obligations and Prudential Standards) Bill 2012 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services for inquiry and report by 13 March 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 8 March is International Women's Day (IWD) and that the theme for IWD 2012 is 'Empower Rural Women – End Hunger and Poverty';
(b) acknowledges the work that UN Women, the United Nations (UN) organisation dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women, undertakes to improve the conditions of women, both domestically and internationally;
(c) notes the statement made by Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General on International Women's Day 2005 that 'study after study has taught us that there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women. No other policy is as likely to raise economic productivity, or to reduce infant and maternal mortality. No other policy is as sure to improve nutrition and promote health – including the prevention of HIV/AIDS. No other policy is as powerful in increasing the chances of education for the next generation';
(d) acknowledges:
(i) that despite the many rights and privileges Australian women enjoy, there remain challenges that we must strive to overcome, and
(ii) that rural women with disabilities are particularly at risk;
(e) notes, with concern, that in Australia, violence against women is still far too common, with Australian Bureau of Statistics data continuing to show that 1 in 3 women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15; and
(f) recognises that Australians have a fundamental obligation to speak out and protect the human rights of women, both in Australia and overseas.
That the Senate notes that Australian citizen Julian Assange has been recognised as a journalist by the:
(a) Queen's Bench Division of the British High Court ruling of 2 November 2011;
(b) Australian Walkley Award for Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism 2011;
(c) Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism 2011;
(d) Italian International Piero Passetti Journalism Prize of the National Union of Italian Journalists 2011;
(e) Spanish José Couso Press Freedom Award 2011;
(f) Spanish Voice of the West Freedom of Expression Award 2011; and
(g) Amnesty International UK Media Award 2009.
The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the public protests in Malaysia against the establishment of a rare earth processing plant by the Australian company Lynas Corporation Ltd,
(ii) the protests are supported by the Malaysian Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, and
(iii) the concerns of the protestors include the radioactive by-product that will be produced by the plant and disposed of in Malaysia, the lack of benefit to the local communities particularly given the 12 year tax break granted to the project and the threat from the plant to the local environment, including the Balok River; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to report to the Senate by Thursday, 1 March 2012 on what assistance has been provided to Lynas Corporation Ltd and what due diligence has or will be done on Lynas Corporation Ltd.
The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the presence of the Women for a Living Basin delegation in Canberra on Wednesday, 29 February 2012, representing women and families from Murray Darling Basin (MDB) communities in southern New South Wales;
(b) recognises:
(i) the widespread concern that the draft Basin Plan is having on MDB communities, and
(ii) that these concerns include mental stress, job and business uncertainty, loss of skills, bank pressure, impact on land prices and equity, families relocating and pressure on schools; and
(c) supports:
(i) the call for more comprehensive consultation in all MDB communities by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) than allowed for by the number of meetings held so far,
(ii) the call for the MDBA to publicly release details of planned consultation meetings weeks in advance to allow communities to plan ahead so that they can attend,
(iii) deeply held community concerns at the MDBA's decision to hold consultation meetings during various harvests making it difficult for farmers to attend,
(iv) the call on the Parliament by communities, such as those represented by the Women for a Living Basin, to recognise the importance of MDB communities and their long-term survival, sustainability and certainty,
(v) the call to ensure the final plan does not lead to significant economic impact in terms of loss of jobs, skills and the impact on families,
(vi) the call by MDB communities to ensure a final basin plan balances the needs of communities with those of the environment, and
(vii) the call on the Government to listen to, not ignore, community and farmer concerns about non-strategic water buybacks.
That the Senate take note of the report.
A mother whose child has been stolen does not only remember in her mind, she remembers with every fibre of her being.
I'd lie in bed every night with my arms wrapped around my baby inside of me knowing that I would never hold him after birth. I'd feel his feet and hands through my own stomach as he moved around, knowing that I wasn't ever going to feel them after he was born. I'd talk to him and tell him that I would find him again one day and that I and his father loved him and always would. I'd pray to God every night for him to send [someone] to get me out of there and show me a way to keep my baby, but no one did. I'd think of running away, but where would I run to, who would I run to.
The committee received evidence from hundreds of women who gave birth in hospitals and other institutions between the late 1950s and the 1970s. Overwhelmingly, these women alleged that laws were broken or that there was unethical behaviour on the part of staff in those institutions. The common failings included applying pressure to women to sign consents, seeking consent earlier than permitted by the legislation, failing to get a consent signature or obtaining it by fraudulent means, and denial of reasonable requests, particularly for a mother to have access to her child. As explained—
certainly after new laws were enacted in the mid-1960s, actions of these types would in some cases have been illegal. Other experiences that reflected unethical practices included failure to provide information, and failure to take a professional approach to a woman's care. It is time for governments and institutions involved to accept that such actions were wrong not merely by today's values, but by the values and laws of the time. Formal apologies must acknowledge this and not equivocate.
We had a situation where women who became pregnant outside of a marital relationship fundamentally had three options. One was a shotgun wedding, one was an illegal abortion and one was adoption. There were no benefits or supports to enable women to keep their children with them. When one looks at some of the other literature … the state of orphanages and children's homes through the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s was pretty shocking.
Yes, we had taken babies from their mothers at birth, without them holding or even seeing their child. The mothers were then admitted into wards without their babies and ostracised in many different ways, finally being discharged about 1 week later … I felt very sorry for what I had done even though at the time we believed what we were doing was "right" for the child and the mother. However I now believe that the process was very cruel, unjust and very dehumanising to both mother and child.
I was treated inhumanely. A nurse even told me the pain I was experiencing was punishment for getting pregnant before marriage. I was ignored and left alone with the contractions until the birthing began. I had no idea what to expect. They shouted at me, and then pushed a gas mask onto my face. They made comments about me, but didn't talk to me at all.
They created an unbalance of power: the power of hospital staff was lined up alongside that of married prospective adoptive parents who wanted a baby—my baby. Staff allegiance was to them, not to me. They did not hear or see me. I was nothing and no-one. I was in a place where I was supposed to be cared for—hospital—but I was ignored. I was guilty of nothing, yet I was made to feel ashamed, guilty, inferior and bad.
In relation to adoption the question needs to be asked: In what other period of human history did young mothers willingly defy nature and give away their babies en masse to strangers?
Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
ANTARCTIC TREATY (ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2011
Antarctica has a unique place in Australia’s national identity. We are tied to Antarctica through our history, our geology and our climate.
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the departure of the first Australasian Antarctic Expedition led by Sir Douglas Mawson. Mawson stands alongside other giants of Antarctic discovery, like Scott and Shackleton, for his remarkable endeavours to explore Antarctica and claim a sizeable portion of the continent on behalf of all Australians.
It was Mawson who established Australia’s first scientific research base at Cape Denison in Antarctica. Over the past century, Australia has built on that legacy, establishing a strong reputation for Antarctic science in areas such as climate change, conservation, astronomy and geoscience.
Antarctica’s unique environment offers major opportunities for this scientific research. The continent is recognised as a key indicator of global climate change. Better understanding of Antarctic ecosystems, weather and climate is crucial to environmental protection in the region as well as understanding global climate trends.
Australia has also become a world leader in Antarctic protection. We were one of the 12 original signatories to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which enshrines the principle of peaceful use of the Antarctic. Fifty years on, the Antarctic Treaty remains a model for global cooperation.
Australia actively engages in the international governance of the Antarctic. We played a key role in the development of the broader system of international arrangements for the region, known as the Antarctic Treaty system.
Just two decades ago, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke worked with former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard to prevent mining in Antarctica. For the first time, we recognised that the last pristine continent on earth should remain untouched. The opportunity was nearly missed, but the decision changed the world’s way of thinking just in time.
Their efforts led to the Madrid Protocol, which now protects the Antarctic environment, bans mining in Antarctica and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.
In October this year, I was honoured to join Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard in Hobart to commemorate the 20th anniversary of that Madrid Protocol.
We will continue to build on protections for this unique and special part of the world.
This Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 will amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, which gives effect to our obligations under the Madrid Protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.
The Bill will align the Act with Australia’s new obligations in relation to three measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid Protocol, namely:
1. Measure 4 relating to insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non- governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in June 2004;
2. Measure 1 relating to liability arising from environmental emergencies that was adopted in June 2005; and
3. Measure 15 relating to the landing of people from passenger vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in April 2009.
These Measures will establish more stringent arrangements to protect human and vessel safety in the Antarctic, and the Antarctic environment.
Key amendments included in the Bill include:
1. providing the ability for the Minister to grant a safety approval, an environmental protection approval, and to impose conditions on such approvals;
2. implementing new offences and civil penalties regarding unapproved activities, activities carried on in contravention of the conditions imposed by an approval, and offences and civil penalties related to environmental emergencies;
3. establishing a liability regime for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic;
4. establishing an Antarctic Environmental Liability Special Account to receive payments from operators for the costs of response action to an environmental emergency caused by their activities in the Antarctic;
5. implementing new offences and civil penalties applicable to tourist vessels operating in the Antarctic;
6. making minor and technical amendments to the Act; and
7. amending the long title of the Act to extend the scope of the legislation;
As Australia prepares to host the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hobart in June 2012, this Bill marks another chapter in Australia’s history of involvement in Antarctica and maintains our commitments under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid Protocol.
I am pleased to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2011, representing the second tranche of legislation implementing the Government's reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system.
The package of reforms announced by the Government in June are designed to provide better access to remedies for Australian industry, and to ensure those remedies are available as quickly as possible. They aim to improve the robustness and transparency of anti-dumping decisions and introduce stronger compliance mechanisms.
The elements of the reforms that I am introducing into the House today are focussed on improving the robustness and transparency of anti-dumping decisions.
In particular, I am proposing a new appeals process to replace the existing mechanism, and provide more flexibility in seeking extensions of time during the course of investigations.
This Bill also provides a legislative basis for the International Trade Remedies Forum, which met for the first time in August this year.
These amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Office of International Law within the Attorney General's Department, and the Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade, to make sure that they are consistent with Australia's international law obligations.
New Appeals Process
The Bill implements a number of changes to the process for appealing decisions of the Minister or the Chief Executive Officer of Customs and Border Protection.
Presently decisions may be appealed to the Trade Measures Review Officer, who was an employee of the Attorney-General's Department. The Review Officer will be replaced by a 3-member review panel able to take on a greater case work load. Members of the Panel will be appointed by the Minister based on their relevant expertise. Panel members will no longer be an employee of the Attorney General's Department, so will be independent of government.
The Government will make available resources in the form of administrative and research assistance, to support the effective functioning of the Panel.
Presently the Review Officer must accept an application for review, unless the applicant has failed to provide sufficient particulars of the findings to which the review application relates. This has resulted in approximately 80 per cent of Ministerial decisions being appealed to the Trade Measures Review Officer by one of the parties to the proceeding. The Government is proposing a higher threshold for appeal. Now, in order to initiate an appeal, the Panel will need to be satisfied that the applicant has established that the Minister did not make the correct and preferable decision.
Presently there is a perception that International Trade Remedies Branch is conflicted in reinvestigating its own decisions. When the Review Officer reviewed a decision, the officer would recommend a reinvestigation to the Minister who referred it back to the Branch which reinvestigated and made recommendations to the Minister as to whether to overturn or amend the original decision.
To address this, the Panel will now make recommendations directly to the Minister as to whether the original decisions should be affirmed, revoked or substituted. Where reinvestigation of a particular finding is required, the Panel will direct the Branch to reinvestigate that finding, and to report back to the Panel to inform their recommendation to the Minister.
Parties will now be able to appeal the Minister's decision to continue or not continue measures, and also the Minister's decisions to vary or revoke measures (or not) on review.
As part of the appeals process reforms, the Customs Act will be amended to allow for important stakeholder groups, such as downstream industry and trade unions to participate in administrative reviews.
The changes to the appeals system allow for a more robust system which is better able to identify and process meritorious applications for review.
Extension of Time— Investigations
Second, these reforms will allow for more flexible extensions to the timeframes of an investigation, review of measures, continuation inquiry or duty assessment.
Australia's anti-dumping system contains one of the shortest investigation timeframes in the world, at 155 days. At present only one extension to that timeframe can be sought, and it must be prior to the publication of the Statement of Essential Facts at day 110. This can mean that extensions, where required, tend to be for significant periods, to anticipate any possible further need for an extension.
Consistent with a recommendation of the Productivity Commission, the Bill will allow for more flexible extensions of investigation timeframes.
The Minister will still have to approve all extensions of time. Implementation of this proposal will be carefully monitored to ensure it does not result in a blow out of investigation periods, and that extensions are only sought in complex cases, not routinely.
The International Trade Remedies Branch will continue to provide in its annual report a consolidated summary of the timeliness of its investigations in the preceding 12 months.
This proposed change will improve decision making by allowing extensions to accommodate complex cases and to allow for the consideration of critical new information that could not reasonably have been provided earlier.
International Trade Remedies Forum
There is currently no stakeholder body to provide feedback to Government on the operation of the anti-dumping system.
The Government has established the International Trade Remedies Forum to provide strategic advice and feedback on the implementation of the reforms, the ongoing operations of the anti-dumping system as well as reporting to Government on opportunities for further improvements.
The Forum, which met for the first time in August, comprises representatives of manufacturers, producers, and importers, as well as industry associations, trade unions and relevant Government agencies.
The Government is establishing the Forum in legislation to ensure that this valuable dialogue with industry continues into the future.
The Forum will meet a minimum of two times a year.
Concluding remarks
This second tranche of reforms directly respond to stakeholder concerns about enhancing the appeals process, providing adequate time for investigations and ensuring stakeholder consultation going forward.
These amendments will further strengthen the anti-dumping system by enhancing the appeals process to allow for a more streamlined process better able to process meritorious applications, provide greater independence and afford new opportunities for parties to seek review for decisions they disagree with.
The International Trade Remedies Forum will provide a greater opportunity for Australian industries and other stakeholders to play a role in the development and operation of Australia's anti-dumping system.
The changes to extension of time for reviews will allow Customs and Border Protection more flexibility in dealing with complex matters and scope for consideration of new information.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
PERSONALLY CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS BILL 2011
If you asked Australians if we should create a system where their health information can be easily transferred between their health practitioners– many would be surprised that such a system doesn't already exist.
The sad truth is that our medical information is not connected – despite how logical and possible it is to achieve.
In many ways, the absence of a system of electronic health records in Australia demonstrates the difficulties of health reform – the fragmentation, the vested interests and the balancing priorities.
But we clearly know the evidence of why we need to act.
Currently health information of individuals is fragmented across a range of locations rather than being attached to the patient. Consumers need to retell their story each time they visit a different clinician. This outdated approach can result in poor information flows, unnecessary re testing, delays and medical errors.
Studies in hospital environments have indicated that between 9% and 17% of tests are unnecessary duplicates.
Medication errors currently account for 190,000 admissions to hospitals each year. Up to 18% of medical errors are attributed to inadequate patient information.
There are situations demonstrating every day in Australia why the introduction of eHealth records will lead to improved care for patients.
These scenarios reflect the kinds of real-life situations that occur all around Australia every day.
EHealth records can change all these situations for the better.
That's why clinicians, health consumers and the health technology industry are all united in the call for electronic health records.
The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommended to the Government in 2009 that "by 2012 every Australian should be able to have a personal electronic health record that will at all times be owned and controlled by that person"
This is a proposition that had widespread support in the extensive health reform forums and consultations that the Government held throughout 2009 and 2010 around Australia.
Australians saw the value in preventing errors and misdiagnosis. They saw the benefits in managing their own health and the health of their family members. And they saw the benefits in creating a more efficient and effective health system.
Our analysis shows that the net economic benefits of eHealth records are estimated at $11.5 billion until 2025.
To put it bluntly – there is widespread support for dragging the management of health records into the 21st century.
That's why this Government committed $467 million in the 2010 Federal Budget to a two year program to build the national infrastructure for personally controlled eHealth records.
Records will have the capacity to contain summary health information such as conditions, medications, allergies and records of medical events created by healthcare providers. The records will also be able to include discharge summaries from hospitals, information from Medicare systems and some information entered by consumers.
Australians rightly do not want their privacy threatened. They do not want one single massive data repository for all their records. They also want the right to participate, but not be forced to do so.
That's why we are designing this project to take heed of privacy from the ground up.
It is how our system will strike the right balance between security and access. Many of these protections are about ensuring that patients have the same protections over the access to digital records that they do over paper based records.
The bias is placed upon linking data sources around the country - much of which exists already in various forms in general practices, at the pharmacy, with pathology groups or at hospitals. This also means that we won't be building every technology solution – but providing the national infrastructure that only the Commonwealth Government can do.
Already there have been significant achievements made in the past few years towards the implementation of eHealth.
This Parliament passed legislation last year to implement the Healthcare Identifiers Service which provides the backbone identification system for eHealth.
There's now 1.1 million of these identifiers downloaded – across jurisdictions and lead implementation sites.
Twelve lead implementation sites have been established and are working with clinicians and patients to deploy eHealth solutions.
Partners have been appointed and are busy working in the key areas of building the national infrastructure, change management and evaluating the success and effectiveness of the solutions.
The implementation approach is both swift and careful. We are developing infrastructure in a set period of time, but the rollout will happen in a staged manner.
All through the process there has been extensive consultation with clinicians, consumers and the health IT industry.
The finalised Concept of Operations released in September is the result of much of this consultation – but the engagement work now continues as the fine details are completed.
This consultation is important because establishing eHealth records is not an end in itself. It has to deliver for clinicians and patients. This is why we have embedded e-health within our health reform agenda.
We want to know what is going to work for the patients – as well as the doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and others who have to deliver care.
Now this legislation I am introducing today will deliver the legal basis for this new system from when it starts registrations from 1 July 2012.
To develop this legislation we have had two rounds of public consultations – both on the legal issues for the system, and then on an exposure draft version of this Bill.
The central theme of our system and this Bill is that any Australian will be able to register for an eHealth record, and they will be able to choose the settings for who can access their record and the extent of that access.
When registered, consumers may be represented by authorised and/or nominated representatives. This allows minors and persons with limited or no capacity to have an eHealth record which details their medical history. Patients can choose to have a carer, family member or friend assist them with their record.
Apart from consumers, the other participants who can choose to register include healthcare provider organisations and repository and portal operators.
A registration framework will ensure regulation of all these parties, verification of identity, assurance that minimum technical, security and administrative requirements are met, and system accountability.
The Bill prescribes the circumstances in which eHealth record information can be collected, used or disclosed and imposes civil penalties for knowing or reckless unauthorised collection, use or disclosure.
All registered consumers and organisations will be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 or state or territory privacy laws as prescribed. The Privacy Act will also apply to the System Operator including the ability of the Information Commissioner to investigate an interference with privacy and to penalise an offending party.
The Bill also sets out requirements which apply to protect the privacy and security of patient health information. This includes notification of data breaches and storing all information and in Australia. These requirements are also subject to civil penalties.
The System Operator will be responsible for the operation of the system. The Department of Health and Ageing will initially perform this role. The Bill allows for the System Operator to change in future to a statutory authority. This will be the subject of future discussions, both with states and territories and with stakeholders.
The System Operator will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the basic infrastructure of the system – including a register of participants, index service for documents and national repositories where appropriate.
There will also be important safeguards that the System Operator will deliver including audit logs for access to records, reports on the performance of the system and mechanisms for handling complaints.
An Independent Advisory Council will provide expert advice on the operation of the system and on clinical, privacy and security matters.
The membership will include consumers, health providers and people with experience in critical areas such as rural health, indigenous health, administration, technology and legal or privacy issues.
A Jurisdictional Advisory Committee will include representatives of the Commonwealth, states and territories and will provide advice regarding their perspectives of the system.
The Australian Information Commissioner will be the key regulator for the system and will have the capacity to conduct audits, commence investigations and impose a range of sanctions, accept enforceable undertakings and investigate complaints.
To ensure transparency of the system, the System Operator and the Information Commissioner will be required to provide annual reports on the practical operation of the system to the Minister and the Ministerial Council. The system is to be reviewed two years after the Bill commences.
This legislation being introduced is yet another sign that this Government is getting on with the job of rolling out eHealth records.
This stands in stark contrast to the record of the Opposition in this area, and particularly its current leader. When he was the Health Minister he committed to establishing eHealth records. This of course didn't occur.
He recalled in 2005 (and I quote):
"Failure to establish an electronic patient record within five years, I said, would be an indictment against everyone in the system, including the Government. I hope to be judged against that somewhat rashly declared standard; not because it is likely to be fully met but because it would mean that, come next year, I remain the Health Minister!"
Of course this was a standard that he failed, much to the detriment of patients and clinicians alike.
However he failed a second test when in the lead up to the 2010 election, he promised that a Government he led would cut every cent of the $467 million that this Government had committed to eHealth.
This legislation presents another test. Will he do what is the right thing for this country and support bringing our health system into the 21st Century, or will he continue his well trodden path of just saying no.
For the sake of the future health care of Australians I hope that the Opposition can finally come on board.
Many people may see this system and legislation as being about technology. That's a mistake. It is about health care. It is about helping patients and doctors to prevent, cure and treat.
It also builds upon the other advances that are happening because of this Government's investment – namely the National Broadband Network and telehealth. Investments that are rolling out now and helping to better the lives of Australians.
The use of technology to improve care will have a similar effect to the other great advances in health care technology – such as antibiotics or x-rays. This is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver these important reforms.
I encourage this Parliament to support this improved health care through the passage of this Bill.
PERSONALLY CONTROLLED ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2011
This Bill makes a number of minor, consequential amendments to existing Acts to support the introduction of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011.
The system will enable patients who register to access their health information and make it available to participating healthcare providers, online, where and when it is needed.
To manage the information from different sources, a consumer's individual healthcare identifier number is used to ensure that only information relating to that consumer can be viewed through their eHealth record.
This Consequential Amendments Bill will ensure that the system is able to operate appropriately and effectively.
In order to enable the system to operate, a number of amendments to existing Acts are required, including to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 to allow the system to take up and use healthcare identifiers. Using healthcare identifiers will allow more accurate matching of health information to the correct consumer record and allow more accurate identification of healthcare providers.
The amendments to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 will authorise the System Operator, and other entities such as Medicare acting on behalf of the System Operator, to handle healthcare identifiers in various ways including the capacity to:
There will also need to be amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 to allow a range of health records stored by Medicare to be included in a consumer's eHealth record if the consumer so chooses.
The consequential amendments proposed in this Bill will allow a range of records created by Medicare to be included in a consumer's eHealth record. Consumers will be able to choose to have their Medical Benefits Scheme, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, organ donor and childhood immunisation information included in their eHealth record. Both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 contain certain prohibitions regarding the linking of Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme information, and the amendments will displace those prohibitions only for eHealth records system purposes.
This Bill seeks to make these amendments so that consumers can have the health information they choose included in their eHealth record to support their better coordinated and better informed ongoing healthcare.
Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011
This Bill makes amendments to social security law to improve the operation of the income management system, and to improve school attendance.
In regards to income management, the Government believes all Australians should be able to share in the benefits of this strong economy, and enjoy the financial and social benefits of work.
The Government's Building Australia's Future Workforce package addresses entrenched disadvantage in targeted locations by helping to stabilise families and remove barriers to participation in work and the community.
The amendments in this Bill will expand income management in five of the most disadvantaged locations in the country.
They will give greater flexibility to the operation of income management. For example, the refinements would allow the Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipients Measure to be activated on its own in a particular area, instead of in conjunction with theLong-term Welfare Payment Recipients Measure and theDisengaged Youth Measure , as is currently the case.
A new external referral income management measure, known as Supporting People at Risk , is being introduced. This will allow referrals from a wide range of State and Territory authorities on a similar basis to referrals under the currentChild Protection Measure , and will help ensure income management assists those people most likely to benefit.
For example, to support the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory alcohol measures, this Bill will enable people referred by the Northern Territory Government's Alcohol and Other Drug Tribunal to be placed on this new measure of income management, thus reducing the proportion of income available for alcohol.
Additionally, the rules applying to a person who is subject to income management in a declared area and who moves to another location will be clarified, as will the school exemption criteria for the Long - term Welfare Payment andDisengaged Youth Measures .
A second measure in the Bill amends the provisions in social security law that underpin the Government's Improving School Enrolment and Attendance through Welfare Reform Measure, or SEAM.
SEAM is one aspect of the Australian Government's strategy to improve school attendance and engagement. The amendments allow the possibility of an income support suspension to be integrated into the Northern Territory Government's Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy.
School attendance in parts of the Northern Territory is unacceptably low – as low as 40% in some schools. With such a level of absence, a child cannot build a sufficient foundation in literacy and numeracy to enable them to succeed in later schooling and in the modern world.
The Gillard Government has invested significantly to improve the quality of education in schools in the Northern Territory. On top of base funding provided to government and non-government education authorities, our additional investments in the Northern Territory include:
In four years we have made substantial progress in addressing shortages of early childhood services, teachers, teacher housing and classrooms in Northern Territory schools. The COAG Reform Council's recent report shows progress in being made in pre-school participation and early years literacy. The recent evaluation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response found that some 57% of people surveyed strongly agreed that the school in their community was better now than it was three years ago.
This work must continue, but it is clear that for these improvements in schools to translate into improvements in educational outcomes for students, regular school attendance is essential.
Improving attendance can never be done by governments and schools alone. For all the funding that governments invest and all the skills that teachers bring to their schools, we still ultimately rely on parents to get their children ready and to the school gate each morning.
While the overwhelming majority of parents understand the value of education and are making sure their children are in class and learning for their future every day, there are a number who do not.
The overwhelming opinion of Aboriginal people who participated in the Stronger Futures consultations in the Northern Territory was that they wanted action to hold to account those parents who do not send their children to school.
The amendments in the Bill enable a new, integrated approach to managing cases of poor school attendance in the Northern Territory.
According to this approach, if a child is not attending school regularly the school will convene an attendance conference with the family to talk through barriers to the child's education. The conference will agree on an attendance plan.
The attendance plan will include actions that the family commit to undertake, for example, walking the child to school in the mornings or providing a place for the child to study at home. Support from a social worker will be available to help the family meet their obligations under the plan.
Importantly, the attendance plan can also include actions that the school or other parties will undertake, for example, providing a school uniform or resolving an issue around bullying that may be contributing to the child's disengagement.
This is a collaborative approach that attempts to improve attendance in partnership with the family.
However, it is important that there be a lever to ensure families engage in this process. If a family refuses to participate in the attendance conference, or refuses to agree to an attendance plan, or fails to live up to their agreed actions in the attendance plan when other parties to the plan fulfil their commitments, then their income support payments may be suspended until they do.
If the family complies within 13 weeks, their income support payment can be reinstated with full back pay.
This is a sensible approach that apportions responsibility for school attendance appropriately between the school and family.
STRONGER FUTURES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY BILL 2012
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012 is being introduced alongside its companion, the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which complements measures set out in these Bills, is being introduced separately.
Together, these Bills form a part of our next steps in the Northern Territory, undertaken in partnership with Aboriginal people and the Northern Territory Government.
These are steps taken with a clear eye to the future.
A stronger future which sees a substantial and significant change for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Where people live in good houses, and in safe communities.
Where parents go to work, and children go to school each day.
A stronger future, grounded in a stronger relationship between government and Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
A relationship built on respect for Australia’s first peoples, for their custodianship of the land, for their culture and for their ongoing contributions to our shared nation.
This is a respect that is about much more than sentiment. It is about the approach we take to our work, and the approach we take to working together.
This is the approach we took to consultations after we first came into government.
These conversations revealed the depth of hurt felt by Aboriginal people by the sudden and rushed implementation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
And informed our amendments, including the reinstatement of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 in the Northern Territory.
As we have built houses, as we have built health services and preschools, we have also set about rebuilding the relationship with Aboriginal people.
Let me be very clear: we must achieve real change for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Because the situation in the Northern Territory remains critical.
Yes, important progress has been made.
The independent evaluation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response shows that there have been real and positive improvements over the last three years.
People have said that their communities are safer than they were three years ago. New police stations and night patrols have improved community safety.
The introduction of the basics card has been positive, showing that income management is a useful tool for people.
It has helped them to stabilise the family budget and make sure that money is being spent on housing, food and clothing for children.
More than 350 new houses have been built and another 275 are underway. More than 1,800 rebuilds and refurbishments of houses are also complete.
Our investment is delivering improved living conditions – better and safer houses – to more than 2,000 Aboriginal families in the Northern Territory.
And more people are working – in properly paid jobs – than three years ago.
But the fact remains that Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory continue to face significant levels of need on a daily basis.
Some children are still not receiving proper care, and that is completely unacceptable.
The child protection substantiation rate has doubled for Indigenous children in the Northern Territory since the start of the Emergency Response.
Three in four of these cases related to child neglect.
The increased rate in reporting reflects our increased investment, with the Northern Territory Government, in child protection services.
This includes additional funding from both governments delivered in response to the Bath Report last year, which recommended additional child protection workers in remote communities, stronger alcohol controls and new intensive family support services for families referred for child protection income management.
We have enabled referrals from the child protection system for income management in the Northern Territory to ensure all the tools are available to child protection workers in ensuring that children are not neglected, that they have food and clothing and housing.
With increased visibility of the extent of child neglect in the Northern Territory must come our reaffirmed commitment to do all that we can to ensure that children are safe.
Similarly, with our increased visibility of school enrolment and attendance, we must do more to ensure that children are going to school.
The Evaluation Report shows us that there has been no overall improvement in school attendance – and while we are starting to see good signs in reading, the Northern Territory still lags behind the national standards for reading, writing and numeracy.
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory still experience the widest gaps by a large margin across the Closing the Gap indicators.
They have a lower life expectancy than anywhere else in the country.
And a higher infant mortality rate.
We see that much more needs to be done – and we hear it too.
Across the Territory, people have told us that more needs to be done to achieve the change we all want to see for Aboriginal people there.
People in the Northern Territory want for their children what each of us, right across the country, want for our children:
That they will grow up healthy and safe and get a good education.
That they have a bright future that includes a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a good job.
That they will be strong people, proud of who they are.
It is clear that, if we are to see these stronger futures take shape, we must not walk away and we must continue to work hard.
Existing legislation for the Northern Territory is due to cease in August next year.
But our efforts cannot cease, because we know – and Aboriginal people have told us – that much more work needs to be done.
Work to consolidate our progress to date.
And work to build on these achievements, to build a stronger future with the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory.
The measures I bring forward in these Bills today reflect our determination to continue this work.
All of the measures in this Bill have been designed to comply with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975.
They reflect our understanding that our efforts cannot cease with the existing legislation.
They reflect our appreciation of just how critical the situation in the Northern Territory is.
And they reflect the many conversations we have had with Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory over the past few months, and the past few years.
Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory
In the six weeks of our Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory consultations, we held meetings in one hundred communities and town camps and public meetings in major towns.
Hundreds of smaller discussions with individuals, families and other groups took place across the Territory.
The consultations were overseen by the independent Cultural and Indigenous Research Centre Australia, who agreed that the discussions were fair, open and accountable.
The outcomes of these consultations have been recorded in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Report on Consultations, which was released last month and which forms an important part of this Government’s policy statement on our path forward.
I personally participated in a number of these discussions, and want to place on the record my appreciation for the openness and the frankness with which people shared their stories and their hopes for a stronger future for themselves and for their children.
What is clear from these conversations is that we are united in our desire for change; and that there is much more work to be done.
What we heard in the course of our conversations is that the path to change is laid with barriers, which we must break down if we are to create that change.
The barriers people described to us in this consultation were about the lack of services, yes.
But they were also about attitudes.
They said that we as government had to do more, but that we must also expect more – that people would find a job and keep it; that children would go to school; and that people would sober up.
Because if children don’t go to school, the best teachers and the best classrooms can’t give them a good education.
The strongest work ethic and the most driving ambitions will be wasted if there are no jobs.
If people can’t get sober, they can’t set the best example for their children – a parent who goes to work each day and brings home a pay cheque each fortnight.
The measures in the legislative package I am introducing to the Parliament today help tackle the barriers to change. They clear the path for us to walk together and to work together for the change we all want to see.
They make clear our expectations of parents – that they will send their children to school to get a good education.
They support more jobs in the Northern Territory.
And they do more to tackle alcohol abuse.
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012 contains measures aimed at breaking the back of alcohol abuse – to help individuals, their families and communities get back on their feet.
When people spoke to me of barriers, they spoke of alcohol and the havoc it wreaks on remote and urban communities alike.
They spoke of the harm caused by alcohol abuse – of loved ones lost to alcohol-related disease, road accidents and the violence it causes in families and communities.
Alcohol abuse is at the heart of dysfunction, violence and abuse in many communities.
There is extensive hard evidence of the harm being caused by alcohol in Aboriginal communities, and of the huge economic and social costs of alcohol to the Territory.
Communities have called for their ‘dry’ status to remain in place.
The hard evidence and what we heard during the consultations have persuaded the Government that the alcohol restrictions must not be relaxed.
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill provides for the current alcohol restrictions to be continued.
It requires respectful signage so that everyone is clear about the alcohol management arrangements in place, and communities will be consulted about signs.
It responds to the concerns people raised – their frustrations with grog runners undermining the restrictions. So we are introducing tough new measures to clamp down on grog runners.
We are proposing to increase the penalty for liquor offences under 1,350 millilitres, to include six months’ imprisonment.
Northern Territory laws will then permit the option of referral to the Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court for this offence.
We have heard from people across the Territory that, if we are to break the back of alcohol abuse, we must empower individuals, families and communities to take control.
This Bill strengthens the ability of communities to take control.
The Bill provides that alcohol management plans established by local communities be directed at minimising alcohol-related harm.
To ensure that alcohol management plans are able to contribute to reducing harm, the Bill includes provision for rules on the minimum standards an alcohol management plan will need to meet before it can be approved.
In future AMPs will be approved by the Commonwealth Minister for Indigenous Affairs.
Where an alcohol management plan is approved and in place, consideration will be given to lifting the restrictions under the Stronger Futures legislation. If the restrictions are lifted, the Northern Territory Liquor Act will continue to apply.
Where communities want to retain these Stronger Futures restrictions, they will be able to.
This measure is designed to support communities get control of the drinking problem and forge their own path – to make the grog, the despair and the violence that comes with it a thing of the past.
To assist the Northern Territory Government to clamp down on alcohol traders who may be linked to substantial alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people, the Bill provides that the Commonwealth Indigenous Affairs Minister may request the Northern Territory Government to appoint an assessor under the Northern Territory Liquor Act to examine their practices and report back on findings.
The Bill also provides for a joint Commonwealth-Northern Territory review to be conducted two years after commencement of the Stronger Futures legislation.
The review will examine the effectiveness of the Stronger Futures and the Territory laws in addressing alcohol-related harm to Aboriginal people.
This will allow both Governments to continue working together to make progress.
The review report will be tabled in this Parliament.
Alcohol-related harm is not confined to the Northern Territory.
The Government is also increasing the tools available to governments across Australia to tackle alcohol-related harm.
We are proposing to amend income management legislation to allow referrals by recognised State or Territory authorities to trigger income management.
This non-discriminatory measure is intended to commence in the Northern Territory as a first step, to support referrals for income management from the Northern Territory Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal.
These proposals are included in the Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.
Alcohol abuse is a serious problem in the Northern Territory.
It is causing real harm to individuals, to families and to communities.
And it is a barrier to the positive changes we all want to see.
We are responding with serious measures.
The Social Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 will also boost our efforts to tackle the barrier created by children not going to school.
A good education is a firm foundation for a stronger future.
And yet, we know that levels of enrolment and attendance for Indigenous children in the Territory remain unacceptable.
Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have made clear their expectation that Indigenous children need to get a good education.
They have been equally clear about their expectations of parents.
Parents have a responsibility to send their children to school.
Parents of children everywhere.
Whether in a remote community in the Northern Territory, a regional town in Victoria or in the middle of Brisbane – parents have a responsibility to give their children the best start in life.
They have a responsibility to send their children to school.
The School Enrolment and Attendance Measure already applies to all parents on income support in some areas in the Northern Territory and Queensland.
The Australian Government will extend SEAM to the townships of Alyangula and Nhulunbuy, and to Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and remaining schools in Katherine and the communities of Yirrkala, Maningrida, Galiwin’ku, Ngukurr, Numbulwar, Umbakumba, Angurugu, Gapuwiyak, Gunbalanya, Milingimbi, Lajamanu and Yuendumu.
Other measures in the Bill
The Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012 paves the way for change by supporting strong communities.
We heard in consultations that remote community stores have improved over the past four years. They now offer healthier food and are better managed.
We will continue to improve community stores licensing arrangements.
Licensing will focus more clearly on supporting food security in remote communities. In the future, a community store may be required to have a licence to operate if it is an important source of food, drink, or grocery items for Aboriginal communities.
We will also introduce a range of new penalties to encourage stores to improve their performance and crack down on unscrupulous practices.
We have long been clear that secure tenure is a foundation stone for our work to improve housing in remote Indigenous communities.
We have been determined not to replicate the mistakes of the past that saw ownership and responsibility for houses uncertain and unclear.
In the past, no one made sure homes were maintained; no one made sure proper tenancy management was in place.
This is now being fixed through systemic reforms in the delivery of remote housing under the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing.
Leases which run for 40 years now form the foundation for housing in 15 larger communities. Tenancy management is now the clear responsibility of the Territory Government.
And tenants now have a clear responsibility to pay their rent, just like tenants anywhere else in Australia.
The Australian and Northern Territory Governments will continue to negotiate leases with Aboriginal land owners to enable the Territory Government to manage public housing in remote communities.
This means that there is clear responsibility for the upkeep of houses – and that no longer will they fall down around peoples’ ears through years of neglect.
In this Bill, we make clear too that the Australian Government will not be extending the compulsory five-year leases acquired under the original legislation, and instead will negotiate voluntary long term leases.
The Bill provides the Australian Government with the ability to make regulations removing barriers in Northern Territory legislation to leasing on town camp and Community Living Area land.
Currently, there are restrictions on how this land can be used – even where the community agrees they want to put it to different uses.
This will enable the Aboriginal land-holders of town camps and Community Living Areas to make use of their land for a broader range of purposes, including for economic development and private home ownership.
This Bill builds on what Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have told us about the change they want to see, for themselves and for their children.
The measures have been designed for the long haul – to reflect our belief that over time these measures will provide better opportunities for Aboriginal people.
Over time, they will break down the barriers.
Over time, they will pave the way for the path ahead.
And, over time, they will achieve their objective.
These measures are designed so that, when they achieve their objective, they will not continue.
Accordingly, we propose that the new Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act sunset 10 years after its commencement.
After seven years of operation, the Government is proposing a legislative review of the Stronger Futures legislation.
The findings of this independent review will be tabled in the Parliament.
The timeframe for the review has been planned so that we could reasonably expect to see changes in the key priority areas that were outlined in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory discussion paper – outcomes such as education, jobs, alcohol related harm, and housing.
Across each of the closing the gap targets, the gap remains the greatest for Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
Progress is being made but much more remains to be done.
This Bill is part of our next steps in the Northern Territory, steps taken in partnership with Aboriginal people.
STRONGER FUTURES IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2011
This Bill is the companion Bill to the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012.
This Bill amends existing Commonwealth legislation, and sets out transitional arrangements, to complement the new primary legislation established under the main Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill.
This Bill seeks to repeal the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act 2007.
The earlier speech described our clear commitment to put new housing on firm foundations through secure tenure – so responsibility for maintenance, responsibility to pay rent and responsibility to build new housing is clear for the first time.
We have made clear our commitment to no new five year leasing arrangements, and our intention to move to long term voluntary leasing arrangements to give communities and governments certainty as we plan for the future.
This Bill includes savings provisions which make this transition possible. These provisions will preserve the current leasing arrangements as necessary until their planned sunset date – so that we can work with communities to transition to new, voluntary leases.
This provision also makes sure that rent can continue to be paid to the Aboriginal land owners of the five-year leases.
The Bill will also allow land owners of Community Living Area land to receive the help of Land Councils in managing their land, including negotiating lease arrangements.
This is designed to support the voluntary leasing arrangements – so that communities and governments have certainty and can accept responsibility for land and housing.
The measures we introduce today reflect our evaluation – of what is working and what is not.
They also repeal those measures in the existing legislation which haven’t worked or which are no longer needed.
This Bill repeals statutory rights provisions that provide rights to carry out works in a construction area, and to occupy, use, maintain, repair or make minor improvements to the buildings and infrastructures in the construction area.
These are not consistent with our approach to voluntary leasing, and have never been used.
This Bill also includes transitional arrangements for the measures to tackle alcohol abuse and to improve licensing arrangements for community stores that are considered in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2012.
This Bill will continue measures which have helped make communities safer and to protect their most vulnerable members, women and children.
The recently released evaluation of our work in the Northern Territory showed that nearly three out of every four people said that their community felt safer than four years ago.
The Bill continues and makes minor changes to the restrictions introduced by the Northern Territory Emergency Response on sexually explicit and very violent material (the pornography restrictions) in remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.
This measure will be subject to the 10-year sunset applying to measures in the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill and the review to be undertaken at seven years after the legislation commences.
The Bill continues the prohibition on taking customary law and cultural practice into account in considering the seriousness of an alleged offender’s criminal behaviour in bail and sentencing decisions for Commonwealth and Northern Territory offences.
However, some changes are proposed to exempt offences that protect cultural heritage, such as offences around damaging sacred sites and cultural heritage objects.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION PARTICIPATION REFORMS) BILL 2012
This Bill introduces two key reforms to the disability support pension announced in the 2011-12 Federal Budget as part of the Building Australia ' s Future Workforce package of measures. These are significant reforms – reforms that will, for the first time, introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pensioners, and allow disability support pensioners to work more hours without having their payment suspended or cancelled.
Other amendments made by this Bill include more generous rules for overseas travel for people with severe disability, and some minor amendments.
The Government is improving support for Australians with disability, to help them into work where possible, while ensuring we continue to provide an essential safety net for those who are unable to support themselves fully through work.
I believe we can do better than a lifetime spent on income support for Australians who have some capacity to work . Many people with disability are great contributors in the workforce, and many more want to do more.
This Government recognises that working benefits people in many different ways . It helps boost people's self-esteem, improves social contact, provides more income, and leads to improved health and financial security . The Government is committed to ensuring that people with disability can access these opportunities wherever they are able to do so.
These reforms introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pension recipients with some capacity to work and more generous rules for existing disability support pensioners to encourage them to work more hours . These measures will be combined with extra support for people with disability, including more employment services, and support for employers to take on more people with disability through new financial incentives.
Many people with disability want to work if they can, but they may need extra support.
In the first of three disability support pension measures in this Bill, all effective from 1 July 2012, more generous rules are introduced to allow all disability support pensioners to work up to 30 hours a week without having their payment suspended or cancelled . These people will be able to receive a part pension, subject to usual means testing arrangements.
Currently, disability support pension recipients granted on or after the previous Government ' s introduction of the Welfare to Work changes on 11 May 2005 can only work up to 15 hours a week before their payment is suspended or cancelled . Recipients granted before this date were ' grandfathered ' under the Welfare to Work changes and can work up to 30 hours a week before their pension is suspended or cancelled.
Disability support pension recipients subject to ' the 15 hour rule ' can find it difficult to find work limited to less than 15 hours a week . Many want to test whether they can work more hours but are worried about losing qualification.
This change will remove the disincentive for disability support pension recipients to take up work or increase their hours if they are able to do so, and will help address the low workforce participation rate of people with disability.
We estimate that this change will encourage around 4,000 disability support pension recipients to take up work, and 3,900 recipients who are already employed to work extra hours.
The Bill ' s second measure will introduce new participation requirements to encourage the workforce engagement of certain disability support pensioners who have some capacity to work.
Disability support pension recipients under age 35 with a work capacity of at least eight hours a week will be required for the first time to attend regular participation interviews – engaging with Centrelink to develop participation plans, tailored to their individual circumstances, to help build their capacity.
Participation plans could involve working with employment services to improve job readiness, searching for employment, or undertaking training, volunteering or rehabilitation .
The participation interviews will also help make sure disability support pension recipients are connected to other services and supports they need to overcome barriers to participation, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, mental health services and other community services.
While attendance at Centrelink interviews will be compulsory, participation in activities identified in the plan will be on a voluntary basis . There will also be exceptions to the new participation requirements for pensioners who are manifestly disabled or have a work capacity of zero to seven hours a week, or while a pensioner is working in an Australian Disability Enterprise or the Supported Wage System.
In the third measure, the Government recognises that the disability support pension is an essential safety net for those who cannot work . New, more generous, rules will allow people receiving disability support pension who have a permanent disability and no future work capacity, to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks, while retaining access to their pension.
In addition, a disability support pension recipient who has a severe disability and is required to accompany a family member who has been posted overseas by their Australian employer will retain their pension for the period of the family member ' s posting . These pensioners will not be eligible for add-on payments such as the pension supplement or rent assistance while they are overseas.
Existing portability rules will continue to apply to disability support pension recipients who may have some ability to work . Other working age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements.
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INCOME SUPPORT AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill will give effect to important reforms contained in the Building Australia’s Future Workforce package announced in the 2011-12 Budget. These measures will provide greater incentives and support for young Australians to engage in education, training and employment, and will reward single parents who re-engage in the workforce.
Around 320,000 or 10 percent of Australians aged 15-24 are not in education, training or employment and many young people face challenges to entering the workforce. Australia’s strong economic fundamentals and balanced approach to the challenges of the past four years has seen the economy growing solidly. With the unemployment rate expected to stay low there is the opportunity for many more young people to find work – given the right encouragement and support.
The Australian Government wants to ensure that our young people get the best possible start to their adult life. A good education and a connection with the workforce are critical to achieving this goal.
Census data shows that people of prime working age who have competed Year 11 or 12 have an unemployment rate less than those whose highest educational level was year 10 or less.
That is why the Australian Government is introducing changes to Youth Allowance and Newstart Allowance that will provide greater incentives for young Australians to engage in study or paid work, and reduce their reliance on welfare.
Under the Building Australia’s Future Workforce reforms 21 year old job seekers will receive Youth Allowance from 1 July 2012. Currently these young people may be eligible for Newstart Allowance. This means that the same rate of income support payment will apply to 21 year olds whether they are unemployed, training or a student.
The Earn or Learn participation requirements will also be extended to include 21 year olds on Youth Allowance who do not have a Year 12 or equivalent qualification.
This will mean that they will have to participate in a combination of education, training or other approved activity, such as paid work, (usually for 25 hours per week) until they turn 22.
Through other measures announced in the 2011-12 Budget, the Government is assisting young people to strengthen their foundation skills, through Transition Support for Early School Leavers and more places in the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program, as well as to take up career opportunities in the trades.
From 1 January 2012, more generous Family Tax Benefit A assistance provides support for eligible families with children in their final years of school.
These changes will provide greater opportunities for these young people through education and training and remove the incentive to stop studying and instead receive unemployment benefits.
Young people who take up work will be rewarded more for their efforts. From 1 July 2012 job seekers receiving Youth Allowance will be able to earn more and still retain their payment. The income free level will be increased from $62 a fortnight to $143 a fortnight and the Working Credit limit will be increased three and a half fold from $1000 to $3500. This means that young job seekers will be able to earn more than twice as much before their income support payments are affected.
To ensure that all young people under similar circumstances are in receipt of the same income support payment, changes will also be made to the age requirements for Sickness Allowance, the Youth Disability Supplement and the Longer Term Income Support rate for students.
The Building Australia’s Future Workforce Package also includes important changes to income support payments for parents to provide greater incentives and opportunities for parents, particularly single parents, to re engage in the workforce and share in the benefits that work brings.
With around 520,000 dependent children in jobless families at risk of the social and economic disadvantage that is associated with joblessness, this is more critical than ever.
The Government is making a number of changes to Parenting Payment to encourage parents with school age children to re-enter the workforce sooner and to ensure greater consistency in the Parenting Payment eligibility rules.
Since 1 July 2011, children born to or coming into the care of parents who have been receiving Parenting Payment since before July 2006 have not extended these parent’s eligibility for payment.
From 1 January 2013, these parents will cease to qualify for Parenting Payment when their youngest eligible child turns 12 or 13 in 2013, or 12 in subsequent years, rather than the current 16.
Current recipients whose youngest eligible child was born before 1 January 2000 will be exempt from this change.
We need to act now to ensure that these parents have the opportunity to benefit from our growing economy, to increase their self-sufficiency and achieve greater financial security, and to provide their families with good working role models.
This is why the Government is reforming the income test that applies to single principal carer parents on Newstart Allowance.
The introduction of a more generous income test will allow these parents to earn over $400 more per fortnight before they lose eligibility for payment.
This will provide stronger incentives for parents to undertake paid work by allowing parents to retain more of their income support as their employment income rises.
To ensure that individuals and families, particularly those affected by the Parenting Payment changes, are not disadvantaged when transitioning to new payment arrangements, the Government is streamlining the claim provisions that apply to Newstart Allowance.
This change will enable claims for Newstart Allowance to be lodged up to 13 weeks prior to the day on which the person will become qualified, in line with the rules that apply to other income support payments.
This will not change the date from which Newstart Allowance is paid; it will however provide a smoother claim process for those transferring to Newstart Allowance.
In recognition that affected parents are likely to have spent significant periods on income support and out of the workforce, the Government is also providing additional support for these parents to ease their transition back into the workforce.
This includes additional training places and community based support for single parents as well as access to professional career advice through Job Services Australia providers.
The Government believes that together these changes provide parents with the right balance of support and incentives to make the most of the employment opportunities available, to find meaningful work and provide themselves and their families with a better future.
An important element in the way that support is provided to job seekers is the job seeker participation requirements and compliance arrangements. These arrangements help job seekers move off income support and into paid employment by reinforcing education, vocational training, and work experience opportunities.
To simplify the compliance framework and reinforce the requirement that job seekers move towards gaining a skill and getting a job, the different daily penalty amounts for short-term financial penalties will be aligned at one-tenth of a job seeker’s participation payment. This will simplify the compliance framework and ensure job seekers are not penalised because a weekend happens to fall before they can re-engage.
The Bill also makes a minor technical amendment to a cross reference in a rate calculator in the Social Security Act.
Finally this Bill will amend the Indigenous Education Targeted Assistance Act 2000 to provide the appropriation to fund the 12 months extension of the Student Education Trusts measure as part of the extension of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trials announced by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in 2011.
The Student Education Trusts are a financial management service which supports and encourages parents and care-givers from the remote Indigenous communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge on Cape York in Far North Queensland to save for their children’s education costs from the early years through to tertiary education. The Trusts are an important part of the Closing the Gap strategy in Indigenous education in Far North Queensland.
The changes in this Bill form an important part of the income support reforms included in the Government’s Building Australia’s Future Workforce Package. These reforms will encourage more Australians to participate in and share in the benefits of paid work, equip them with the necessary skills to improve their future employment prospects and will result in more consistent treatment of income support recipients and better support and assistance to parents and jobseekers.
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2011-2012
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 3) 2011-2012
There are two Additional Estimates Bills this year:
Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4).
The Additional Estimates Bills seek appropriation authority from Parliament for the additional expenditure of money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. These funds are sought in order to meet requirements that have arisen since the last Budget as well as to take into account impacts on Australia’s economic and fiscal outlook that have arisen as a result of the European sovereign debt crisis and instability on the Global financial markets. The total additional appropriation being sought through Additional Estimates Bills 3 and 4 this year is a little over $3.1 billion.
The recent Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook identified several impacts on the Australian economy that have implications to Australia’s near term outlook.
Since last year’s Budget, the European sovereign debt crisis has had an increased impact on International growth and overall market stability. Despite the pressures this has placed on the Australian economic and fiscal outlook, Australia continues to outperform the developed world in economic growth, low unemployment, resources investment and strong public finances. The Government remains on track to deliver a budget surplus in the 2012-13 financial year.
Turning now to Appropriation Bill (No. 3); the total appropriation being sought in this Bill is $2.8 billion. This proposed appropriation arises from: changes in the estimates of program expenditure; variations in the timing of payments; forecast increases in program take-up; reclassifications; and from policy decisions taken by the Government since the last Budget.
I now outline the major appropriations proposed in the Bill:
The Government will provide $1.3 billion in appropriations across several agencies to support its commitment to a Clean Energy Future for Australia.
The Government will provide $1 billion to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to provide cash payments to highly emissions-intensive coal-fired power stations to assist their transition to a carbon price.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will be provided with $106 million to complete remaining complex inspections and rectification services under the Home Insulation Safety Plan.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency will receive $37 million for the establishment of the Clean Energy Regulator which will administer the carbon pricing mechanism. The regulator will be responsible for monitoring and assessing the emissions data as well as enforcing compliance with the carbon pricing mechanism.
The Government will provide a further $100,000 in 2011-12 for the Department of Finance and Deregulation to conduct Gateway reviews of the establishment and operation of the Clean Energy Regulator
The Government will also provide the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency with $6 million to assist the delivery of information about the implications of a carbon price on small businesses and other community organisations.
The Government will provide the coal mining industry, through the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, with $222 million to assist the most emissions intensive coal mines to transition to a carbon price. The assistance includes a Coal Sector Jobs Package and a Coal Mining Abatement Technology Support Package.
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will receive $36 million to establish a Biodiversity Fund. This fund will support the establishment, restoration, protection and management of biodiverse carbon stores, for example reforestation and revegetation in areas of high conservation value including wildlife corridors and action to prevent the spread of invasive species across connected landscapes. The Department will also be provided with $2 million as part of a package to support the Tasmanian Forest Industry as it transitions to a more sustainable and diversified industry.
The Government will provide $49 million to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to support the management of extractive industry activities, particularly coal seam gas and major coal mining developments. This initiative aims to build scientific evidence and understanding of the impacts on water resources of coal seam gas extraction and large coal mines.
AusAid will receive $30 million in Official Development Assistance as part of Australia’s contribution to the Horn of Africa as it deals with drought and famine. This humanitarian assistance will be provided through various organisations such as the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the World Food Programme and other Non-Government organisations.
AusAid will also receive $10 million of funding to implement the International Mining for Development Centre, provide scholarships through the Australian Mining Awards Program and build administrative capacity in Africa.
The Department of Human Services will be provided with $36 million to facilitate payments to assist households in meeting the additional costs associated with a carbon price. This funding supports the Government’s commitment to helping families with children, the aged, pensioners, and people with a disability adjust to the carbon pricing mechanism. The Government will also provide support to other income support recipients and low income earners.
The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry will receive supplementary appropriations to support businesses within the live cattle exports industry. The Government will provide $24 million of assistance to businesses affected by the temporary suspension of live cattle exports to Indonesia and to improve animal welfare outcomes. The assistance will include a combination of assistance payments and the subsidisation of low interest loans to support businesses directly affected by the interruption in trade.
The Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry will also be provided with $30 million to extend the Carbon Farming Initiative to include two new programs, Carbon Farming Futures and the Indigenous Carbon Farming Fund. The Department will also receive $45 million to support the Tasmanian Forest Industry support initiative being led by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
The Government will provide the Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education with $9 million to assist the manufacturing industry transition to a low carbon economy. The assistance will comprise direct assistance to manufacturing businesses with an energy consumption of at least 300 megawatt hours of annual electricity or 5 terajoules of natural gas. The assistance will include grants to trade exposed industries such as metal forging and foundry industries as well as targeted assistance to improve energy efficiencies within these industries.
The Government will provide $14 million to Norfolk Island through the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. The funding will support the Norfolk Island Government in the provision of essential services. The funding will also help the Norfolk Island Government to develop reforms that will improve its efficiency and effectiveness.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will also receive $16 million to support the Tasmanian Forestry Industry support being led by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
The Government will also provide the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport with $15 million for the redevelopment of Bellerive Oval in Tasmania. The redevelopment will include an increased capacity for the venue and upgraded facilities. This project will ensure that Tasmanians will get to see more sporting events in Hobart.
The Department of Human Services will be appropriated $10 million to facilitate payments to strengthen incentives for parents to have their children immunised. This funding supports changes to the eligibility criteria for the Family Tax Benefit Part A as well as expanding the immunisation programme to include meningococcal C, Pneumococcal and Chicken pox vaccines.
Movement of Funds Information
I now outline the major reclassifications proposed in Bill 3:
The Government will reappropriate $45 million across six Departments.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be reappropriated $20 million related to providing employment services to job seekers.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport) will be reappropriated $7 million relating to the sport and recreation program.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will be reappropriated $6 million across several programs including those that support the fishing industry, drought relief programs and sustainable agricultural resources.
The Department of the Treasury will be reappropriated $2 million related to the Education Tax Refund Campaign.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
APPROPRIATION BILL (NO. 4) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill No. 4 provides additional funding to agencies for:
payments direct to local government, and some national partnership payments through the states, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory;
requirements for departmental equity injections; and
requirements to create or acquire administered assets and to discharge administered liabilities.
The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill
(No. 4) 2011-2012 is a little over $341 million, the more significant amounts of which I now outline.
The Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport will be reappropriated $53 million of funds directed to Local Governments and Regional Development. This reappropriation, in part, will be used to offset the amounts provided to the Department earlier in the year through the Advance to the Finance Minister mechanism.
The Government will provide $29 million of capital funding for the establishment of the Clean Energy Regulator which, as outlined in the second reading speech for Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2011-2012, will administer the carbon pricing mechanism.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will be provided with $37 million. This is a result of a transfer of $50 million from Appropriation Act (No. 1) 2011-2012 for the Reward for Great Teachers program, offset by payments to government schools that have been transferred to the Department of the Treasury.
The Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education will provide a $25 million loan to Howe and Company Proprietary Limited and its parent company Howe Automotive Limited. The loan is to be fully repaid over ten years with annual interest and principal payments. The provision of this loan and its subsequent repayment have no impact on the Government’s fiscal balance but affect the composition of the Government’s assets.
The remaining amounts that appear in Bill 4 relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
I would like to turn now to the general drawing right limits for the Nation-building Funds, which specify the maximum limit on payments from the funds in a financial year exclusive of GST. The general drawing rights limits for the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund proposed in this Bill will replace the limits declared in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2011-12. The limits for the Building Australia Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund have been increased. The limit of the Education Investment Fund has been decreased. These changes recognise adjustments in the timing of payments to better reflect project milestones and previously announced funding.
The remaining amounts that appear in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) relate to estimates variations, minor reclassifications and other minor measures.
That the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012, as passed by the House of Representatives on 16 February 2012, be referred to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2012.
Anybody who breaches the law should feel the full force of the law. Each and every breach of the law is wrong and each and every breach of the law should be acted upon.
Anybody who breaches the law should feel the full force of the law.
… there should be absolutely vigorous, hard-edged compliance and no tolerance at all for unlawfulness. … each and every breach of the law is wrong and each and every breach of the law should be acted upon.
The case, as brought and as evidenced by the evidence yesterday, was misconceived, was completely without merit and should not have been brought. There is room for the view that if the commission—
was even-handed in discharging its task of ensuring industrial harmony and lawfulness in the building or construction industry proceedings, not necessarily in this court and not necessarily confined to civil industrial law, should have been brought against a company, Underground, and its managing director and possibly another director.
Senate divided. [17:55]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 10), omit "24 hours", substitute "3 business days".
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 10), at the end of subsection 46B(2), add:
Note: For the definition of business day , see section 2B of theActs Interpretation Act 1901 .
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 9), omit "24 hours", substitute "5 business days".
(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 9), at the end of subsection 47C(2), add:
Note: For the definition of business day , see section 2B of theActs Interpretation Act 1901 .
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 19), omit "Note", substitute "Note 1".
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 19), at the end of subsection 47A(1), add:
Note 2: For an exception to subparagraph (1)(c)(iii), see subsection (3).
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 24), at the end of section 47A, add:
(3) An overseas student or intending overseas student does not default under subparagraph (1)(c)(iii) unless the registered provider accords the student natural justice before refusing to provide, or continue providing, the course to the student at the location.
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (after line 9), after subsection 50A(4), insert:
Student incidental costs
(4A) A call is made on the OSTF if:
(a) a call is made on the OSTF under subsection (2), (3) or (4); and
(b) the Minister determines that the student should be paid an amount in respect of reasonable incidental costs (including accommodation fees and travel expenses) incurred by the student in connection with the course; and
(c) the Minister notifies the TPS Director of the determination and the amount.
(4B) The Minister must consult the TPS Director before making a determination under subsection (4A), and must not make such a determination if the TPS Director advises the Minister that to do so would jeopardise the sustainability of the OSTF.
(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 13), omit "or (4)", substitute ", (4) or (4A)".
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 17), after "OSTF", insert "(other than under subsection 50A(4A))".
(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 15), after subsection 50B(4), insert:
(4A) If a call is made on the OSTF under subsection 50A(4A) (incidental costs), then, as soon as practicable, the TPS Director must pay out of the OSTF an amount equal to the amount determined by the Minister under that subsection.
(4B) The TPS Director must, in accordance with a legislative instrument made under subsection (5), pay the amount to the student.
(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (line 30), after "section 50B", insert "(other than under subsection 50B(4B))".
The committee divided. [18:39]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Fawcett)
(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 31 (after line 17), after subsection 55C(2), insert:
(2A) In appointing a Board member under paragraph (1)(b), the Minister must ensure that the Board members appointed under that paragraph, as a group, have qualifications or experience relevant to the operations of providers from across the international education and training sector, including providers of English language intensive courses for overseas students.
That the committee have leave to sit again at a later hour.
That consideration of government business continue from 6.50 pm to 7.20 pm today.
Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011
(5) Schedule 3, item 2, page 90 (line 10), after "tuition fees", insert "and accommodation fees".
(6) Schedule 3, item 4, page 91 (line 1), after "tuition fees", insert "and any accommodation fees".
(7) Schedule 3, item 5, page 92 (line 12), after "begun the course", insert ", or accommodation fees in relation to a study period before the student has begun the study period,".
(8) Schedule 3, item 5, page 92 (line 25), after "begun the course", insert ", or accommodation fees in relation to a study period before the student has begun the study period,".
(9) Schedule 3, item 5, page 93 (line 6), after "tuition fees", insert "and accommodation fees".
(10) Schedule 3, item 5, page 93 (line 8), after "tuition fees", insert "or accommodation fees".
(11) Schedule 3, item 5, page 93 (line 23), at the end of subsection 29(4), add:
; or (d) the amount is withdrawn to make a payment directly related to the provision of accommodation to a relevant student.
(12) Schedule 3, item 5, page 93 (line 24), after "Tuition fees", insert "and accommodation fees".
(13) Schedule 3, item 5, page 94 (after line 10), after paragraph 30(a), insert:
(aa) accommodation fees for a study period for a course received by a provider, in respect of an overseas student or intending overseas student, before the student has begun the study period; or
(14) Schedule 3, item 6, page 95 (line 14), after "tuition fees", insert "or accommodation fees".
(15) Schedule 3, item 7, page 96 (line 3), before "The amendments", insert "(1)".
(16) Schedule 3, item 7, page 96 (after line 7), at the end of the item, add:
(2) The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to any accommodation fees for a study period for a course that are received, after Division 1 of Part 1 of this Schedule commences, by a registered provider, in respect of an overseas student or intending overseas student, before the student has begun the study period.
(17) Schedule 4, heading, page 97 (line 1), at the end of the heading, add "and accommodation fees".
(18) Schedule 4, page 97 (after line 3), before item 1, insert:
1A Section 5
Insert:
accommodation fees :
(a) means fees a provider receives, directly or indirectly, from:
(i) an overseas student or intending overseas student; or
(ii) another person who pays the fees on behalf of an overseas student or intending overseas student;
that are directly related to the provision of accommodation to the student; and
(b) without limiting paragraph (a), includes any classes of fees prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(c) without limiting paragraph (a), excludes any classes of fees prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.
(19) Schedule 4, item 5, page 98 (line 2), after "tuition fees", insert "and accommodation fees".
(20) Schedule 4, item 6, page 98 (line 4), after "tuition fees", insert "or accommodation fees".
(21) Schedule 4, page 98 (after line 8), after item 8, insert:
8A At the end of subsection 21(1)
Add "or any accommodation fees for a study period for a course provided by the provider".
(22) Schedule 4, item 11, page 99 (line 3), before "The amendments", insert "(1)".
(23) Schedule 4, item 11, page 99 (after line 5), at the end of the item, add:
(2) The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to any accommodation fees for a study period for a course that are received by a registered provider after this item commences.
(5) Schedule 3 , item 5 , page 91 (line 23) to page 92 (line 6) , omit subsections 27 ( 3 ) and ( 4 ), substitute:
Limit on when remaining tuition fees may be required
(3) Once an overseas student begins a course, the registered provider for the course must not require any of the remaining tuition fees for the course to be paid, in respect of the overseas student, more than 2 weeks before the beginning of the student's second study period for the course.
(1) Clause 4, page 2 (line 18), omit "registered".
(2) Clause 4, page 3 (line 1), omit "registered".
(3) Clause 4, page 3 (line 10), omit "registered".
(4) Clause 5, page 4 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraphs (4)(a) and (b), substitute:
(a) the provider's administrative fee component for the year (see section 6);
(b) the provider's base fee component for the year (see section 7).
(5) Clause 6, page 5 (line 2), omit "registered".
(6) Clause 6, page 5 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph (b), substitute:
(b) $2 multiplied by whichever of the following applies:
(i) for a registered provider—the total enrolments for the provider for the previous year;
(ii) for a provider who is not yet registered—the likely total enrolments for the provider for the year (assuming the provider becomes registered).
(7) Clause 7, page 5 (line 10), omit "registered".
(8) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph (b), substitute:
(b) $5 multiplied by whichever of the following applies:
(i) for a registered provider—the total enrolments for the provider for the previous year;
(ii) for a provider who is not yet registered—the likely total enrolments for the provider for the year (assuming the provider becomes registered).
That these bills be now read a third time.
... if there is not an adequate response in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin plan, South Australia will pursue its rights in relation to the river system.
... we will not support a plan that is not in the best interest of NSW, our primary producers and Basin communities.
With reference to the department's review into the situation of holders of the Retirement Visa (subclass 410) and Investor Retirement Visa (Subclass 405) and access to Medicare through Reciprocal Health Care Agreements, when is the final report due.
The Department's review is considering a range of technical matters which require consultation with the Department of Human Services and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. It is anticipated that the Review will be completed by mid 2012.