The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2012
Unions are large financial entities. For example, the 2010 financial report of the Victorian Branch of the CFMEU Construction and General Division reported net assets of $42 million. In 2011 the ANF Victorian Branch held $22 million in net assets. The NSW division of United Voice reported $25 million in net assets in 2011.
If these unions were classed as proprietary companies they would be considered large corporations.
Obviously the Whip, there can be no gap between the Whip and the Prime Minister. The Whip has the Prime Minister's back. You know, Joel is an honourable man. He's a good friend of mine, a great defence minister in his time.
Today, today we need him to have the Prime Minister's back. If he can't do that, if he can't be loyal to the boss, well, he should resign. Okay?
REPORTER: Has he been disloyal?
GRAHAM PERRETT: Well, if he can't be 100 per cent loyal to the Prime Minister, he can't draw a wage as the Whip obviously. He needs to get on with the job of looking after the Prime Minister's back. That's what he's paid for and if he's not doing that after five o'clock today, well then obviously he needs to look at his situation.
I actually believe there is a higher responsibility for us as guardians of workers' money to protect that money and to act diligently and honestly.
The reality is I do not have any issue—
I do not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties on trade unions for breaching basic ethics like misappropriation of funds.
… unions should be held to a higher account than the corporate sector and there should be "zero tolerance" for corruption.
… in relation to the discharge of duties – that the same responsibilities should apply to a union boss as to a company boss. At present this is not the case, for example:
Mr Smith is the CEO of The Book Corporation and is found to have misused $50,000 of shareholders' money in contravention of his duties to the Corporation and its membership in an intentionally dishonest manner under the Corporations Act 2001.
Under section 184 of the Corporations Act 2001 , Mr Smith could be subject to a maximum fine of 2,000 penalty units and five years' imprisonment as well as further civil and criminal offences i.e. fraud.
If Mr Smith is the Secretary of the Bookkeepers Union and is found to have misused $50,000 of union members' money in contravention of his duties to that union and its membership in an intentionally dishonest manner under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 , Mr Smith would not be liable for any criminal penalty but may be liable for further civil and criminal offences i.e. fraud.
Sometimes people who associate with union officials can become star struck with the perceived power and status or titillated by the association.
But new evidence uncovered by The Courier-Mail ties Mr Driscoll directly to a scheme under which phone lines used by the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association, also known as the United Retail Federation, were moved to the electorate office last year so staff on parliamentary salaries could help run the lobby group.
Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2013
In light of the importance of robust and accountable democratic processes in the ACT—characterised by high standards of parliamentary debate, a legislative program covering a range of complex issues, and an active Assembly Committee process—and the significant under-representation of the citizens of the ACT, there is an overwhelming case for increasing the size of the Assembly.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Finance) Bill 2013
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Further Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2013
It is with regret that I write this open letter urging you to act on the numerous reports and reviews your government has commissioned to support international education. Your delay threatens organisations like mine, our students and our staff.
Filling an educational niche that a university or TAFE can't fill is part of Australia's innovative edge. Not all students (whether they are Australian or international) want or need to study with a large institution. I urge you to recognise and celebrate small businesses in the education sector when you respond to the National Skills Standards Council proposed changes to the regulatory standards for small providers.
More urgently, I ask you to act on the advice you have received and to extend improved visa processing arrangements to international students in non-university providers, rather than seeking to only reward large, homogenous public institutions.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the committee approves the advances provided under the annual Appropriations Acts as a final charge for the year ended 30 June 2012.
Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report:
Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices
Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report on the Commonwealth Contribution to Former Forced Adoption Policies and Practices (the Report). The Australian Government thanks the Committee members for their efforts in bringing to light widespread practices that resulted in the forced separation of countless mothers from their babies.
Forced adoption policies and practices were widespread throughout Australia particularly during the period from the 1950s to the early 1970s. An estimated 140,000 to 150,000 adoptions occurred in Australia between 1951 and 1975. Many of the babies were born to unwed mothers. The shame and silence that surrounded pregnancy out of wedlock meant that these mothers were viewed as undeserving' and their babies removed and given to married couples.
The number affected by forced adoption practices is even greater when one includes adoptees, fathers and extended family members. The Committee highlighted the ripple effect through families of practices that were unethical and in many cases illegal.
The wealth of evidence submitted to the Committee can leave no doubt that many were treated appallingly. Mothers were not informed of their rights, did not provide informed consent, were given false assurances, denied care and support and endured pressure, mistreatment and coercion. Mothers were left feeling stigmatised and disempowered.
Many of those adopted and removed recounted damaging and painful experiences of their childhoods, and ongoing struggles with self-identify, mental and physical health, and seeking to meet or build a relationship with their parents.
The Committee provides a number of insights into the ongoing nature of the trauma caused by forced adoption, and the consequent need for specific counselling services by well-trained and experienced professionals.
The compelling testimonies to the Committee from those affected tell a moving story of the pain and suffering many experienced and continue to experience; of the life-long impacts that they, and their families, continue to endure.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices, found that mothers had a higher than average likelihood of suffering from a mental health disorder compared to the general population.
In addition, the A IFS study found that the longer term effects of adoption (both positive and negative) were significant for many adoptees, with those surveyed having lower levels of wellbeing and higher levels of psychological distress when compared to Australian population estimates. Many had issues associated with attachment, identity, abandonment and the parenting of their own children.
Central to the Australian Government's response to the Committee's report is the national apology to the people affected by forced adoption. The apology will be delivered by the Prime Minister on behalf of the nation on 21 March 2013.
The apology is offered as a significant step in the healing process for those affected. It will also help the community understand the experiences of those affected and the lifelong pain and suffering many continue to endure.
The Australian Government recognises the importance of concrete measures to accompany the national apology as part of the national framework to address the consequences of forced adoption. It has allocated $11.5 million over the next four years for concrete measures to assist those affected by forced adoption practices as part of its response to the recommendations contained in the Senate Report. These measures will provide further support to those affected.
The Australian Government will provide $5 million to improve access to specialist support services, peer and professional counselling support and records tracing support for those affected by forced adoptions. It will also provide $5 million for the development of guidelines and training materials for mental health professionals to assist in the diagnosis, treatment and care of those affected by forced adoption practices and increase the capacity of the Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) program to deliver psychological services to this target group in the immediate post apology period, while specialist support and counselling services are being established.
The Australian Government has provided funding of $1.5 million to the National Archives of Australia to deliver a Forced Adoption Experiences History Project. This will include an exhibition to increase awareness and understanding of the experiences of individuals affected by forced adoption practices and a website to identify and share stories of experiences.
The Australian Government will continue to work with the states and territories to address these issues, in particular through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services and senior officials represented by the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council.
The Government acknowledges the shameful mistakes of the past and is committed to ensuring that all those affected by forced adoption practices have access to sufficient support and counselling services and improved access to information and records.
Response to the recommendations
The Australian Government has considered the 20 recommendations made in the report and provides the following responses.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that a national framework to address the consequences of former forced adoption be developed by the Commonwealth, States and Territories through the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference.
Response to recommendation 1
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation in principle but notes this is also a matter for the states and territories.
The national framework will be progressed through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services (formerly known as the Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference) in 2013 and will comprise the following key elements:
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government issue a formal statement of apology that identifies the actions and policies that resulted in forced adoption and acknowledges, on behalf of the nation, the harm suffered by many parents whose children were forcibly removed and by the children who were separated from their parents.
Response to recommendation 2
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
On 19 December 2012, the former Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, announced that the Australian Government's formal apology on behalf of the nation would be offered to those affected by forced adoption on 21 March 2013 at Parliament House in Canberra.
The former Attorney-General received advice on the wording of the apology and associated events from the Forced Adoptions Apology Reference Group ('the Reference Group'), which was chaired by the Honourable Nahum Mushin, former Family Court Judge and Adjunct Professor of Law at Monash University, and included people directly affected by forced adoption.
The work of the Reference Group was informed by 48 face to face consultations with individuals and groups across Australia and over 300 written and email submissions on what the apology should contain.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that State and Territory governments and non-government institutions that administered adoptions should issue formal statements of apology that acknowledge practices that were illegal or unethical, as well as other practices that contributed to the harm suffered by many parents whose children were forcibly removed and by the children who were separated from their parents.
Response to recommendation 3
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation, but notes that statements of apology from state and territory governments and non-government institutions are a matter for those institutions.
In April 2012, the Attorney-General wrote to state and territory attorneys general and community ministers asking them to consider whether a public apology would be appropriate in their jurisdictions. Apologies for forced adoption practices have been made by the Governments of each state and the Australian Capital Territory.
The Australian Government notes that some non-government institutions have also delivered apologies or announced an intention to apologise.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that apologies by the Commonwealth or by other governments and institutions should satisfy the five criteria for formal apologies set out by the Canadian Law Commission and previously noted by the Senate Community Affairs Committee.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that official apologies should include statements that take responsibility for the past policy choices made by institutions' leaders and staff, and not be qualified by reference to values or professional practice during the period in question.
Response to recommendations 4 and 5
The Australian Government agrees in principle with recommendations four and five but notes that statements of apology and the respective wording from state and territory governments and non-government institutions are a matter for those institutions.
The Reference Group has advised the Australian Government on the content of the national apology. The Reference Group considered the five criteria for formal apologies set out by the Canadian Law Commission during its development of its advice to the Australian Government on the apology content. A major focus of the Reference Group was ensuring that the national apology will not be qualified by the reference to past values or practice.
In April 2012, the Attorney-General wrote to state and territory attorneys general and community ministers asking them to consider whether a public apology would be appropriate in their jurisdictions. Apologies for forced adoption practices have been made by the Governments of each state and the ACT.
The Australian Government notes that some non-government institutions have also delivered apologies or announced an intention to apologise and some have implemented the principles outlined in the recommendations into their statements of apology.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that formal apologies should always be accompanied by undertakings to take concrete actions that offer appropriate redress for past mistakes.
Response to recommendation 6
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The Australian Government's response to the Committee's report will form the basis of these concrete measures (see response to recommendations 8 and 20).
In particular, the Australian Government has committed $11.5 million:
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that a Commonwealth formal apology be presented in a range of forms, and be widely published.
Response to recommendation 7
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The national apology will be accessible to all interested Australians. Comprehensive information about the apology is available on the Attorney-General's Department website. The apology will be publicised and broadcast over various mediums. Additionally, the event will be accessible for people with hearing difficulties and a DVD of the apology will be produced. The exhibition by the National Archives of Australia will also focus on the apology.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth, States and Territories urgently determine a process to establish affordable and regionally available specialised professional support and counselling services to address the specific needs of those affected by former forced adoption policies and practices.
Response to recommendation 8
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
The Australian Government recognises the importance of specialised support and counselling services and will be contributing $5 million over four years to deliver a suite of services for those affected by former forced adoption policies and practices.
In addition, the Australian Government will provide funding of $5 million over four years for the development of guidelines and training materials for mental health professionals to assist in the treatment of those affected and increase capacity of the Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS) program to deliver psychological services to this target group in the immediate post apology period, while the specialist support and counselling services are being established.
The Australian, state and territory governments commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to undertake a National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices. This study was published in August 2012 and found that the availability of one-to-one support and counselling interventions delivered by professionals who had specialised training or experience in adoption-related issues such as trauma, relational and attachment focused theory, was a key service need (2012:9).
All states and territories currently fund some level of services to support those affected by forced adoption policies and practices. The Australian Government will work with state and territory governments to undertake a scoping study of the services currently available and gaps in the service system for those affected by forced adoption practices.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth fund peer-support groups that assist people affected by former forced adoption policies and practices to deliver services in the areas of:
And that this funding be provided according to transparent application criteria.
Response to recommendation 9
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
The Australian Government recognises that peer support groups can be effective in supporting vulnerable people with shared experiences.
The AIFS National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices (2012:185) affirmed that there is a role for peer support models to assist people affected by former forced adoption policies and practices. The study identified that a number of groups have already been established in metropolitan areas and proposed an option of incorporating adoption-related peer support services into existing services such as family support, parenting or phone line services.
All states and territories currently fund some level of services to support those affected by forced adoption policies and practices. The Australian Government will work with state and territory governments to undertake a scoping study of the services currently available and gaps in the service system for those affected by forced adoption practices.
The findings of the scoping study will inform governments' considerations of how to best integrate and complement the Australian Government $10 million support package and existing Australian, state and territory government peer support services.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that financial contributions be sought from state and territory governments, institutions, and organisations that were involved in the practice of placing children of single mothers for adoption to support the funding of services described in the previous two recommendations.
Response to recommendation 10
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
All jurisdictions have some existing post adoption support services and many have funded additional services as part of their forced adoptions apologies.
It is expected that the Australian Government will progress this work through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services and senior officials represented by the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council.
Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth should lead discussions with states and territories to consider the issues surrounding the establishment and funding of financial reparation schemes.
Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that institutions and governments that had responsibility for adoption activities in the period from the 1950s to the 1970s establish grievance mechanisms that will allow the hearing of complaints and, where evidence is established of wrongdoing, ensure redress is available. Accessing grievance mechanisms should not be conditional on waiving any right to legal action.
Response to recommendations 11 and 12
The Australian Government notes recommendations 11 and 12.
Reparation and redress schemes are matters for each state and territory government and relevant non-government organisations.
The Australian Government led discussion about these recommendations at the Standing Council on Law and Justice (SCLJ) meeting on 5 October 2012. At that meeting, these recommendations were referred to the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services (formerly known as the Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference) for further consideration.
Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that:
Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that:
Response to recommendations 13 and 14
The Australian Government agrees in principle with recommendations 13 and 14, but notes that birth certificates and births, deaths and marriage registers are the responsibility of state and territory governments.
The Australian Government led discussions with the states and territories about these recommendations at the Standing Council on Law and Justice on 5 October 2012. At that meeting, agreement was reached for an officer level working group to examine these recommendations. The Group will report back with progress in early 2013.
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference agree on, and implement in their jurisdictions, new principles to govern post-adoption information and contact for pre-reform era adoptions, and that these principles include that:
Response to recommendation 15
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation, but notes that this is also a matter for the states and territories.
As recommended by the Committee, it is expected that the Australian Government will progress this work through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services and senior officials represented by the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council.
Recommendation 16
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth provide funding to extend the existing program for family tracing and support services to include adoption records and policies, with organisations such as Link-Up Queensland and Jigsaw used as a blueprint.
Response to recommendation 16
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies National Research Study on the Service Response to Past Adoption Practices (2012:175) found that over half of the adopted individuals and almost 70 per cent of mothers had used search and contact services. The study suggested the need for improvements to the navigation of the search and contact service system and the need for support and guidance from experienced professionals.
The scoping study of the current service system (as proposed in response to recommendations 8 and 9) will include an exploration of family tracing and support services such as Link-Up Queensland and Jigsaw.
The findings of the scoping study will inform governments' considerations of how to best integrate and complement the Australian Government $10 million support package and existing search and contact services.
Recommendation 17
The committee recommends that the states and territories extend their Find and Connect information service to include adoption service providers.
Response to recommendation 17
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation, but notes this is a matter for the states and territories.
The Australian Government has established the Find and Connect network of support services to provide specialist trauma informed counselling as well as records tracing, supported release and peer support tailored to the needs of Forgotten Australians and Former Child Migrants. Foundational to the Find and Connect network of support services is the Find and Connect web resource. This web resource demonstrates an effective model for making information and records relating to past providers of care' available to care leavers.
The scoping study of the current service system (as proposed in response to recommendations 8, 9 and 16) will include an exploration of existing Australian, state and territory government information services supporting those affected by forced adoption practices.
The findings of this exploration will inform governments' considerations on improving information services and actioning this recommendation will require consideration of the response to Recommendation 10.
Recommendation 18
The committee recommends that non-government organisations with responsibility for former adoption service providers (such as private hospitals or maternity homes) establish projects to identify all records still in their possession, make information about those institutions and records available to state and territory Find and Connect services, and provide free access to individuals seeking their own records.
Response to recommendation 18
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation, but notes this is a matter for the non-government organisations.
The Australian Government acknowledges that access to records is of critical importance to those affected by forced adoption practices and that the organisations that hold these records need to make every effort to ensure records are made available, free of charge, to individuals who are seeking them.
With the regard to making these records available through the Find and Connect web resource, it should be noted that the Government's response to recommendation 17 looks to identify the most appropriate mechanism for information sharing for those affected by forced adoption practices. The findings of recommendation 17 and consultation with key stakeholders will inform the final direction of recommendation 18.
To this end, the Australian Government supports the recommendation that former adoption service providers establish projects to identify all records still in their possession, make information available to the information sharing service agreed under recommendation 17, and provide free access to individuals seeking their own records.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that the Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference, in consultation with non-government organisations that had responsibility for adoption services and hospitals, agree on and commit to a statement of principles for access to personal information, that would include a commitment to cheaper and easier searches of, and access to, organisational records.
Response to recommendation 19
The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
As part of the scoping study that will be undertaken to guide the composition of the specific service response, a Past Adoption Practices consultative forum, led by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, will be convened. The study would be undertaken by an independent consultant and would be supported by a national consultation group involving people affected by forced adoption practices, Commonwealth and state and territory government officials, archival experts and existing service providers
This work will be progressed through the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services.
Recommendation 20
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth commission an exhibition documenting the experiences of those affected by former forced adoption policies and practices.
Response to recommendation 20
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The Australian Government is funding National Archives of Australia $1.5 million over three years to deliver a Forced Adoption Experiences History Project. This will include an exhibition to increase awareness and understanding of experiences of individuals affected by forced adoption practices and a website to identify and share stories of forced adoption experiences.
That the Senate support the apology given on this day by the Prime Minister, on behalf of the nation, to people affected by forced adoption and removal policies and practices in the following terms:
Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.
We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers.
And we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members.
We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamental rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children. You were not legally or socially acknowledged as their mothers. And you were yourselves deprived of care and support.
To you, the mothers who were betrayed by a system that gave you no choice and subjected you to manipulation, mistreatment and malpractice, we apologise.
We say sorry to you, the mothers who were denied knowledge of your rights, which meant you could not provide informed consent. You were given false assurances. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest and in many cases illegal.
We know you have suffered enduring effects from these practices forced upon you by others. For the loss, the grief, the disempowerment, the stigmatisation and the guilt, we say sorry.
To each of you who were adopted or removed, who were led to believe your mother had rejected you and who were denied the opportunity to grow up with your family and community of origin and to connect with your culture, we say sorry.
We apologise to the sons and daughters who grew up not knowing how much you were wanted and loved.
We acknowledge that many of you still experience a constant struggle with identity, uncertainty and loss, and feel a persistent tension between loyalty to one family and yearning for another.
To you, the fathers, who were excluded from the lives of your children and deprived of the dignity of recognition on your children's birth records, we say sorry. We acknowledge your loss and grief.
We recognise that the consequences of forced adoption practices continue to resonate through many, many lives. To you, the siblings, grandparents, partners and other family members who have shared in the pain and suffering of your loved ones or who were unable to share their lives, we say sorry.
Many are still grieving. Some families will be lost to one another forever. To those of you who face the difficulties of reconnecting with family and establishing on-going relationships, we say sorry.
We offer this apology in the hope that it will assist your healing and in order to shine a light on a dark period of our nation's history.
To those who have fought for the truth to be heard, we hear you now. We acknowledge that many of you have suffered in silence for far too long.
We are saddened that many others are no longer here to share this moment. In particular, we remember those affected by these practices who took their own lives. Our profound sympathies go to their families.
To redress the shameful mistakes of the past, we are committed to ensuring that all those affected get the help they need, including access to specialist counselling services and support, the ability to find the truth in freely available records and assistance in reconnecting with lost family.
We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated. In facing future challenges, we will remember the lessons of family separation. Our focus will be on protecting the fundamental rights of children and on the importance of the child's right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
With profound sadness and remorse, we offer you all our unreserved apology.
My brother and sister and I were all adopted as babies by our adoptive parents a year apart in Tasmania in the 1950s.
Mum and Dad never hid this from the three of us.
I can't recall when it was that Mum and Dad took me aside and told me but it seems as if I have known that I was an adopted child for as long as I can recall.
I do remember my Mum telling me that on the day she and Dad went to the hospital, there were four or five other baby boys there but they chose me.
For that I will always be grateful. I do sometimes wonder what ever happened to the others that were there on that day.
As my Dad always used to say to the three of us on those long driving holidays we'd take as a family together, 'Never forget, kids, we are a family and what do families do?' In chorus the three of us would reply, 'We stick together like glue.'
I guess it's for this reason that despite Mum and Dad having now passed away I have, out of great respect for my adoptive parents and the chance at life that they gave me, never attempted to try to discover my true identity.
Not that I don't think about it every day and will do for the rest of my life.
A mother whose child has been stolen does not only remember it in mind, she remembers with every fibre of her being.
I became pregnant in a country town and the father was not prepared to help me. I knew my parents, especially my mother, would never cope with the shame of having an illegitimate grandchild so I decided to go to Sydney and have the child there.
If you don't have that child adopted, you can never come home again.
It was quiet and there was time to talk and I found that women over seventy, who might have been coming in for gynaecological problems, would say, 'You're a midwife?' 'Yes.' 'Well, I lost my baby years ago' and it was the first time that they'd plucked up the courage to talk about it, because you had the time to sit there.
And those women have suffered all their lives—they've never forgotten it. It's a real myth to say that it's all over and done with.
I believe that every adoption begins with loss and those who are adopted experience this loss and those whose lose children to adoption experience this loss.
We acknowledge that many thousands of Victorian babies were taken from their mothers, without informed consent, and that this loss caused immense grief.
We undertake to never forget what happened and to never repeat these practices.
We were treated like animals with no feelings for the babies we conceived, carried, gave birth to and love. We were viewed as little more than breeders, unpaid surrogates, fallen women who needed to be punished and rehabilitated, by having our babies taken. We have lived with the injustice of knowing that the perpetrators of this abuse have by in large, been viewed by society as squeaky clean professional people performing wonderful work in the community, finding perfect homes for the children "we supposedly did not want and abandoned". We have had thirty, forty or fifty years of living with the injustice of this general and sanitized view. This view continues to colour our children‘s perception—most believe they were abandoned, unwanted, unloved and then rescued by their adoptive parents.
That the Senate stand adjourned until 2 pm.
That, pursuant to contingent notice, so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion that the Senate declare that it has no confidence in the government's ability to govern itself.
The Senate divided. [15:20]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
MINISTER FOR SUSTAINABILITY, ENVIRONMENT, WATER, POPULATION AND COMMUNITIES
Senate Question without Notice
On Wednesday, 20 March 2013 during question time, Senator Xenophon asked me a number of questions as Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities concerning the $265 million funding announcement to support irrigators in the Riverland.
QUESTION:
Thank you, Mr President. My question is to Senator Conroy, representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. On 28 October 2012, Minister Burke, in a media release titled 'Gillard government supports the Riverland', announced $265 million in funding for water projects and industry support for the Riverland in South Australia: $180 million for the Water Industry Alliance, and $85 million for research, regional development, and industry redevelopment. During Senate estimates on 12 February this year the first assistant secretary of the department, Mary Harwood, said the South Australian government was 'still developing the business case'. Ms Harwood was referring to the $180 million fund. Can the minister advise when a draft business plan from the South Australian government was submitted, when was feedback provided by the Commonwealth, and when are these desperately needed funds expected to flow to the Riverland?
ANSWER:
The Commonwealth has committed $1.2 million to the South Australian Government to undertake a feasibility study and to develop a business case for the River Murray Improvements Program. In accordance with this agreement, South Australia was required to submit by 21 December 2012 a draft business case that met milestone requirements specified in the business case funding agreement.
On 21 December 2012 the Commonwealth received for discussion purposes part of what was described by South Australian officials as a "preliminary draft" business case for the $180 million River Murray Improvement Program (RMIP), with further material provided by South Australia on 10 and 17 January 2013. Further detail was sought from South Australia. Discussions on requirements continued between SA and Commonwealth officials during January and February 2013. South Australia submitted a partial draft business case to the Commonwealth on 28 February 2013, with other material being provided on 1 March 2013. The Commonwealth provided South Australia with feedback on the draft business case on 14 March 2013, South Australia is continuing to develop the business case. These are significant projects that need a large amount of detail and clear governance arrangements. Negotiation on such projects can take some time.
Once a final business case is submitted for the RMIP, Commonwealth due diligence assessment will be conducted. Following due diligence assessment a recommendation will be provided to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, including on any conditions required for the program to proceed, if approved.
If approved, a funding agreement will be put in place with the South Australian Government, including any necessary conditions, governance, implementation, monitoring and reporting arrangements for the final program.
Subsequently, the South Australian program managers will receive and assess applications for funding under the program.
QUESTION:
I ask a supplementary question. The Commonwealth response, in Senate Estimates, seems to imply that the South Australian government has failed to promptly act in relation to the funding. Is it not the case that the draft business plan was provided by the South Australian government over two months ago, and has still not been finalised in conjunction with the Commonwealth?
ANSWER:
See response above.
QUESTION:
I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister make an unequivocal, urgent undertaking that these funds, namely $265 million, as promised by Minister Burke, will be spent on the Riverland community—and, if so, when?
ANSWER:
The $265 million commitment has two components, the $180 million RMIP and $85 million for a separate SA Industry Futures Program. The scope and content of the latter initiative is still being developed by South Australia. Funding for these programs will flow as and when the programs pass due diligence, are approved for funding and the required funding agreements are put in place.
That the exposure draft relating to the Australian Jobs Bill 2013 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013.
That the Senate notes that:
(a) Harmony Day is celebrated throughout Australia on 21 March and is a significant day for Australians to celebrate the rich and vibrant cultural diversity of Australia;
(b) this day is also the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;
(c) Harmony Day is about community participation, inclusiveness and respect – it is a day to reflect on our success as a multicultural nation, our strong social cohesion and the benefits of cultural diversity;
(d) the central message for Harmony Day is that everyone belongs, reinforcing the importance of inclusiveness to all Australians;
(e) in 2013, the theme for Harmony Day is ‘Many Stories – One Australia’;
(f) since Harmony Day began in 1999, 50 000 events have been celebrated across Australia and in 2013 over 2 000 events have been registered;
(g) orange is the colour of Harmony Day and everyone is encouraged to wear something orange to show their support for multiculturalism and an inclusive Australia.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the impacts on health of air quality be extended to 26 June 2013.
That the Senate acknowledges that the current level of Newstart is too low.
That the Senate acknowledges:
(a) the valuable contribution that grandparents who take on the primary responsibility for raising their grandchildren make to the Australian community;
(b) that, while these grandparents take on these added responsibilities with great care and commitment, it can often lead to financial, physical and emotional hardship; and
(c) the announcement by the Western Australian State Government that it will introduce a Grandcarers Support Scheme which will provide financial assistance to those grandparents who care for their grandchildren full-time but do not receive financial support through the Department of Child Protection.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 21 March 2013, marks the 8th anniversary of World Down Syndrome Day and the second time that day has been acknowledged under the auspices of the United Nations (UN);
(b) recognises that Down syndrome is the most prevalent genetic cause of intellectual disability;
(c) acknowledges that barriers faced by people with Down syndrome can be overcome through the shared vision for an inclusive Australian society that enables people with disability to fulfil their potential as equal citizens (National Disability Strategy 2010-2020);
(d) recognises that, through the Government's Better Start for Children with Disability program, as at the end of February, 1 325 children with Down syndrome have registered to receive up to $12 000 for early intervention;
(e) acknowledges the multi-partisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, with the first stage of the scheme launching in a number of sites from 1 July which will give Australians with Down syndrome and other disabilities the opportunity to live fulfilling lives; and
(f) supports the celebration of UN World Down Syndrome Day by people with Down syndrome, their families, friends and carers, and the wider community.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 21 March is National Close the Gap Day and that at least 900 community events are being held around the country, with an estimated 140 000 Australians expressing their support for continued investment to close the appalling gap in life expectancy between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and non-Indigenous Australians;
(b) affirms its commitment to the Close the Gap campaign Statement of Intent as the blueprint for action to close the health equality gap; and
(c) calls on the Government to continue:
(i) the funding of the National Partnership Agreement on Indigenous Health and to work with the states and territories to ensure that they commit to ongoing funding and continued transparency and accountability, and
(ii) to work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their representatives to continue to drive the development, implementation and monitoring of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the 22nd Session of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council will this week vote on a resolution, tabled by the United States of America (US), urging Sri Lanka to fulfil its public commitments, including the devolution of political authority, which is integral to reconciliation and the full enjoyment of human rights by all members of its population,
(ii) the resolution expresses concern at the continuing reports of human rights violations in Sri Lanka, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, torture, and violations of various rights of freedom, as well as intimidation of, and reprisals against, human rights defenders, and discriminations on the basis of religion or belief,
(iii) the resolution has been co-sponsored by Austria, Canada, Croatia, Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, France, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the US, and
(iv) the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an independent and credible international investigation into alleged violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law in Sri Lanka; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) add Australia to the list of co-sponsors of the resolution, and
(ii) support efforts to secure the US-initiated resolution on Sri Lanka at the 22nd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, through the Australian permanent representative in Geneva.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations (UN) on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has issued two reports detailing allegations of organ harvesting in China,
(ii) the UN and the Council of Europe are planning to introduce a new binding international treaty to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and have already issued protocols containing appropriate measures to combat the trafficking of human beings for organ removal, and
(iii) since the publication of the UN reports, the United States of America (US), from June 2011, has included on its online non-immigrant visa application Form DS-160 the question, 'Have you ever been directly involved in the coercive transplantation of human organs or bodily tissues?'; and
(b) calls on the Government to support the UN and Council of Europe initiatives to oppose the practice of organ harvesting.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold an in camera hearing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 21 March 2013.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) it is 2 years since violence erupted in Syria, an estimated 70 000 people have been killed and more than 1 million have sought refuge in neighbouring countries, with an estimated 2.5 million people displaced inside Syria and an estimated 4 million people requiring humanitarian assistance,
(ii) Syria's hospitals have been damaged with a third no longer functioning and there is a shortage of medicine,
(iii) food production throughout Syria has been dramatically curtailed and food prices have soared leaving many people unable to feed their families, and
(iv) despite the impeded humanitarian access the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has expressed concern that UN agencies expect to receive only half of the funding pledged; and
(b) welcomes Australia's support of $41.5 million to date for the Syrian crisis.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the strong work conducted by the Commonwealth Arts portfolio to promote the contribution live music makes to Australian communities; and
(b) acknowledges the work of campaigners reinvigorating the Australian live music scene.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that local sporting clubs bring significant social and health benefits to communities, and
(ii) with concern, the South Australian Government's proposal to reduce funding for local sporting clubs by $3.5 million through cuts to the Community Recreation and Sports Facilities Program; and
(b) calls on the South Australian Premier to reverse his Government's decision and reinstate the funding in the 2013-14 Budget.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) a spokesperson for the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport was quoted on 16 March 2013 as saying that the level of particulate matter emitted by coal trains was not statistically significantly different to passenger trains,
(ii) the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC), a wholly government-owned corporation, commissioned a Rail Corridor Air Quality Monitoring Study, 'Pollution Reduction Program 4 – Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains' released in September 2012, which assessed the levels of particulate pollution on the Hunter rail corridor at Mayfield and Metford and concluded that concentrations coinciding with loaded and unloaded coal train passes are statistically higher for PM10 and PM2.5 than concentrations recorded during passenger train passes,
(iii) the ARTC earmarked $3.525 billion to spend on upgrading the Hunter coal rail network in its 'Hunter Valley Corridor 2012-2021 Capacity Strategy', released June 2012, and
(iv) there is a high level of concern about the health impacts of coal rail dust along frequently-used coal rail lines, such as communities along the Hunter Valley and Brisbane coal rail lines;
(b) acknowledges the inconsistency between the spokesperson's comments that the difference between particulate emissions from coal and passenger trains is not statistically significant and the findings of the ARTC-commissioned particulate emissions study; and
(c) requests that the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport (Mr Albanese) correct the comments or provide evidence to the Senate that proves the difference between particulate emissions from coal and passenger trains is not statistically significant.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the question of Western Sahara remains unresolved;
(b) expresses its strong support for the right to self-determination of the Sahrawi people, in accordance with the relevant United Nations (UN) resolutions;
(c) expresses its deep concern at the continued violations of human rights in Western Sahara; and
(d) calls on the Government to:
(i) play an active and positive role at the UN Security Council to encourage a speedy and just solution to the issue of Western Sahara, including the release of all Sahrawi political prisoners,
(ii) do all it can to encourage the protection of the fundamental rights of the people of Western Sahara, including freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate, and
(iii) urge the UN to fulfil its responsibility towards the right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and include human rights monitoring in the mandate of the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 24 March is World Tuberculosis Day,
(ii) tuberculosis (TB) is a preventable and treatable disease claiming the lives of up to 1.4 million people every year, mostly in developing countries, and
(iii) the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates most new TB cases in 2011 occurred in the south-east Asia region, which, combined with the Western Pacific region, accounted for 59 per cent of incident cases globally;
(b) recognises that:
(i) investment in research and development funding for TB has stagnated over the past few years,
(ii) in 2011 the WHO Global Plan to Stop TB suffered an estimated 68 per cent shortfall of the targeted $2 billion for TB research and development, equating to a shortfall of US$1.35 billion,
(iii) the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is a key international partnership providing critical basic services for many developing countries in the fight against TB, with more than two thirds of international financing for TB services provided by the Global Fund, and
(iv) the Australian Government has provided increasing support to the Global Fund since 2004, but has deferred payment of $11 million to the Global Fund in the current financial year;
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) further expand and monitor results from its TB program in Papua New Guinea, and
(ii) include the deferred payment of $11 million to the Global Fund in the 2013-14 Budget, and work with other donors to ensure the Global Fund receives an increased replenishment for the 2014 to 2016 period.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee take evidence in Tasmania for its inquiry into the Auditor-General's reports nos 26 of 2007-08 and 22 of 2012-13 in relation to the Tasmanian forest industry.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 4 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 at 7.25 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report 25 June 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Australia Council Bill 2013 and the Australia Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2013 (see appendices 3 and 4 for statements of reasons for referral);
(d) the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 May 2013 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the provisions Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (New Mandate and Other Measures) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 7 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(g) the Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2013 (see appendix 8 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(h) the provisions of the Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2013 (see appendix 9 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(i) the International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2013 (see appendix 10 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(j) the provisions of the Marriage Amendment (Celebrant Administration and Fees) Bill 2013 and the Marriage (Celebrant Registration Charge) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2013 (see appendix 11 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(k) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 June 2013 (see appendix 12 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(l) the Restoring Territory Rights (Voluntary Euthanasia Legislation) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2013 (see appendix 13 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(m) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report 17 June 2013 (see appendix 14 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(n) the provisions of the Student Identifiers Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 June 2013 (see appendix 15 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(o) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Consumer Protection) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 16 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(p) the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Pharmaceutical Transparency) Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 17 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(q) the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013 (see appendix 18 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(r) the provisions of the Veterans’ Affairs Legislation Amendment (Military Compensation Review and Other Measures) Bill 2013 bereferred immediately to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 May 2013 (see appendix 19 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
21 March 2013
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ruston for 21 March 2013 for parliamentary reasons.
That Senator Fawcett replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into aviation accident investigation on 21 March 2013, and Senator Nash be appointed as a participating member of the committee.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 June 2013:
The effectiveness of current regulatory arrangements (under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and theCopyright Act 1968 ) in dealing with the simultaneous transmission of radio programs using the broadcasting services bands and the internet ('simulcast'), including:
(a) the impact of current regulation on stakeholders including broadcasters, copyright holders, including both publishing and performance rights holders, and the audience;
(b) the operation of licensing arrangement schemes in international jurisdictions; and
(c) any related matter.