The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Once that centralism is achieved, we will find that the grant of money will have a whole series of conditions attached to it which will deprive local government of its own freedom of action, and some bureaucrat in Canberra will decide the way in which local government ought to conduct its affairs.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers noted in a 2006 study that dependence of individual councils on grants varies from less than 2% to more than 70% of revenue.
The Productivity Commission … found in 2008 that 10 percent of councils were highly dependent on grants, with grants amounting to more than 58% of their total revenue, but that these councils represented about 0.4% of the total resident population of all councils.
That the House/Senate:
(a) recognises that local government is part of the governance of Australia, serving communities through locally-elected councils;
(b) values the rich diversity of councils around Australia, reflecting the varied communities they serve;
(c) acknowledges the role of local government in governance, advocacy, the provision of infrastructure, service delivery, planning, community development and regulation;
(d) acknowledges the importance of cooperating and consulting with local government on the priorities of their local communities;
(e) acknowledges the significant Australian Government funding that is provided to local government to spend on locally determined priorities, such as roads and other local government services; and
(f) commends local government elected officials who give their time to serve their communities.
It is the Queensland Government’s view that constitutional recognition that does not diminish the State’s primary constitutional responsibility for local government is appropriate given the breadth of interaction over recent decades between the Commonwealth and councils, and the legal uncertainty about funding that has arisen from the decisions of the High Court in the Pape and Williams cases in recent years.
The Queensland government has consistently supported constitutional recognition of local government on the basis that any amendment allowed the commonwealth government to directly fund local government without diminishing the role of the state government. We have taken advice in relation to the matter. In our opinion, having considered the matter further, the amendment in its current form does not achieve this result. Accordingly, our support for the proposed amendment is subject to the inclusion of additional wording in the bill.
During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or to any local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.
The terms and conditions of a grant of financial assistance to a state or to a local government body formed by a law of a state are subject to the laws of the state.
We don't want to be spoilers but we can't accept the language that's been put forward. We want to find a way to make this a yes vote but that can only be done if the commonwealth spells out that it only wants to fund local government, not control it. This process should be about strengthening the role of local councils, not binding them to the whims of the federal government by stealth.
An Act to alter the Constitution to enable the Commonwealth to borrow money for, and to grant financial assistance to, local government bodies.
In the view of the Australian Country Party it is reasonable to suggest special arrangements to assist the financial position of local government. It is not reasonable to propose fundamental constitutional amendments as being a necessary condition to do this.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
The Commonwealth is giving $10.5 million in funding for the Yes campaign, but the No camp will get only $500,000.
Rates only account for approximately 28 per cent of council's revenue. Grants from other tiers of government are by far our largest source of income. The ability of local government to meet the needs of its communities will always be dependent on its ability to receive adequate funding from the federal government, through the Financial Assistance Grants, distributed by the state governments. Without it our community cannot be served by sustainable council into the future.
I rise in this House today to again bring to the House's attention the importance of the Roads to Recovery program to local councils, particularly local councils in my electorate of New England. There has been quite considerable discussion of the Roads to Recovery program and the fact that it is delivering for our road networks in regional Australia a much-needed and long-overdue level of service that we have been unable to provide through local government for a long time.
Last week I went out with the mayor of one of my local councils, the Gowrie Shire Council, together with some of its councillors and engineers, to have a look at the work being done on many of the roads. They were pinpointed years ago as desperately needing a gravel re-sheeting program. To stand there on the side of these roads while the trucks were rolling was incredible, because you are physically seeing, for the first time, substantial works being done that will bring direct benefits to people who live in those areas.
Evidence received at the hearing suggested that the Government position was that negotiation could not occur with the States until a proposal was developed. Coalition members of the Committee reject this position and consider that the government has failed to make best use of the time since December 2011 by failing to undertake such negotiations and that this delay has potentially undermined the prospect of a full and informed referendum proposition being put in 2013.
The second pre-condition which has not been met is that a viable educational campaign be conducted by the Federal government. The prospect of a referendum held in conjunction with this year's federal election raises a serious risk where the opportunity to fully inform the voting public through public education and other avenues has not been fully realised. Where a proposed change is worthy of support, a well-informed public will be more likely to support it and, if a proposed change has potential pitfalls, a well informed public will be more likely to identify those problems and vote accordingly.
Perhaps I can offer you an assurance the government will be doing everything to make sure it is a fair process.
It is certainly our intention to have a fair process. … we will do what we can and make it as fair a process as possible.
The amount of funding to be provided for each case will reflect the proportion of Members that voted for and against the Constitution Alteration (Local Government) Amendment Bill 2013.
The two Members who voted against the bill will be asked to determine the distribution of this funding.
Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws.
In its political infancy the labour movement had in effect vetoed federation.
The pro federal alliance of leading politicians, liberal and conservative, protectionist and free-trade, deprived New South Wales Labor of its power of veto and threatened to marginalise the smaller labour parties elsewhere.
There are significant risks associated with campaign development in such a short timeframe. For example, the period for market testing included is too short to provide assurance that the advertising materials are fit for purpose (consistent with the Government’s campaign advertising guidelines) for mainstream and a range of special audiences.
The truncated timeline includes suppliers working across weekends and public holidays—estimated costs will increase as a result.
That the debate be now adjourned.
The Senate divided. [12:35]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That—
(1) On Monday, 24 June, Tuesday, 25 June, Wednesday, 26 June and Thursday, 27 June 2013, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
(2) On Wednesday, 26 June 2013, consideration of:
(a) matters of public interest; and
(b) government documents shall not be proceeded with, and instead the routine of business shall be government business only.
(3) Divisions may take place on:
(a) Wednesday, 26 June 2013, from 12.45 pm to 2 pm; and
(b) Thursday, 27 June 2013, after 4.30 pm.
(4) On Monday, 24 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 11.40 pm; and
(b) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
(5) On Tuesday, 25 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 11 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business from not later than 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10.30 pm.
(6) On Wednesday, 26 June 2013:
(a) consideration of the business before the Senate shall be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Lines to make her first speech without any question before the chair; and
(b) immediately after Senator Lines’ first speech, valedictory statements may be made relating to Senators Joyce and Humphries.
(7) On Thursday, 27 June 2013:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6 pm and 7 pm to 11.40 pm;
(b) the routine of business from not later than 3.30 pm to 4.20 pm and not later than 7 pm shall be government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.
(8) The Senate meet on Friday, 28 June 2013, and that:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 3.40 pm;
(b) the routine of business shall be:
(i) notices of motion, and
(ii) government business only; and
(c) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 3 pm.
(9) The following government business orders of the day shall have precedence over all other government business, be called on in the following order and be considered under a limitation of time, and that the time allotted for all remaining stages be as follows:
(10) Paragraph (9) of this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
The Premier and the Minister for Education ought to sign up and give the benefits to Tasmanian schools.
… the government can manipulate the Senate and is doing so. The government can dishonour the processes of the Senate and is doing so. The government may try to treat the Senate as it does the House of Representatives—that is, as a rubber stamp—and convert this country to executive government, but the government will reap the whirlwind of that. Fortunately, it cannot do away with elections. It can do away with the proper role of the Senate by using the guillotine—that is, putting such a range of important legislation before the Senate and demanding that debate be ended and that votes be taken knowing that it is going to win those votes.
We have a constitutional imperative for this house to be able to look at all legislation coming from the other place. I delight in that.
The Australian people deserve a house of review. A house of review means appropriate scrutiny of legislation and appropriate scrutiny of governments.
That the question now be put.
The Senate divided. [13:50]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided [13:56]
The President—Senator Hogg
The Senate Divided. [14:00]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people.
We have always as a Coalition been against compulsory superannuation increases …
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
SENATE QUESTION WITHOUT NOTICE
20 JUNE 2013
Question:
Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia) (14:47): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question.
1. Can the Minister advise the Senate how many of these new specialist contractors are being engaged?
2. How long does the government anticipate needing to use such specialist contractors?
3. What will the additional cost to NBN Co. be of engaging these specialist contractors in addition to its existing contractors?
Answer:
A new national standard for dealing with asbestos in pit and pipe infrastructure is being developed. Until such time as the new national standard is agreed and the training course is up and running, NBN Co will transfer the important task of handling and removing asbestos in pit and pipe, and disposing of asbestos waste, from its Tier One contractors to specialist asbestos removal firms. In the Northern Territory NBN Co is managing the rollout directly.
1. NBN Co has identified a number of specialist licensed asbestos removal contractors in each state and provided that list to our build partners. When a build partner identifies infrastructure that they propose to remove that may contain asbestos, they will call one of those listed and contract direct to have the material safely handled and disposed of. They inform NBN Co 24 hours in advance so NBN Co can monitor that the process is being adhered to.
2. NBN Co will continue with this process for as long as it takes until a national standard for asbestos removal in telecommunications infrastructure is developed and implemented.
3. With regards to the cost of engaging specialist contractors, the asbestos removal work that NBN Co contractors are undertaking is minimal as most of this work will be undertaken by Telstra. NBN Co therefore does not envisage a significant impact over the life of the project. It is anticipated that this work will be done within the parameters of the Corporate Plan.
The Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development, the Hon Julie Collins has announced the providers for all of the Remote Jobs and Communities Program (RJCP) regions as at 24 June 2013.
Applicants for RJCP were required to demonstrate connections with the communities in the regions for which they applied. Successful providers include organisations which have been delivering Job Services Australia, Disability Employment Services or the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) Program as well as organisations which have been undertaking other programs, services or business activities in remote Australia. Many partnering arrangements have been developed which will strengthen local service delivery.
All RJCP providers have footprints in their remote Regions, for example, as current service providers with pre-existing presence, by accessing the facilities of local subcontractors or partners, or by putting arrangements in place to commence RJCP on 1 July 2013.
Providers for the regions announced on 24 June 2013 have existing presence in these regions. Transition provisions for job seekers and communities will support continuity of employment, participation and key community services.
There are comprehensive transition arrangements for the RJCP which will commence on 1 July 2013 to provide employment, participation and community development services for around 33,000 job seekers across remote Australia.
Agencies must not seek to benefit from supplier practices that may be dishonest, unethical or unsafe.
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
Superannuation
Australian Education Bill 2013
Migration Amendment (Temporary Sponsored Visas) Bill 2013
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cash, Cormann and Mason today relating to the consideration of legislation in the Senate.
Once again we are seeing the results of the government's complete arrogance and, more importantly, complete incompetence in managing the business of the chamber. You can forgive a desire to get your bills through by the end of a session. What you cannot forgive is this sheer arrogance and incompetence.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Conroy to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to an extension to the Tasmanian World Heritage Area.
That the Senate record its deep regret at the death on 19 June 2013 of the Hon. William Michael Hodgman AM QC, former minister and member for Denison, and place on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tender its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Michael was blunt, outspoken, fair, funny, and, despite our two fiercely fought campaigns, my friend.
He was an outstanding advocate who gave freely of his skills on a pro-bono basis to appear in some of the most difficult cases before the courts.
I've got bad news and good news. The bad news is I'm going to die. The good news is—not yet.
That business of the Senate order of the day no. 2 relating to the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test be postponed to a later hour.
That the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee be authorised to meet during the sitting of Senate today, otherwise than in accordance with SO33(1).
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Oxfam Australia recently released a report titled, Grow: Getting big results from small scale agriculture,
(ii) the report found that:
(A) small-scale food producers play a critical role in global food production,
(B) 80 per cent of the world’s hungry people are involved in food production as small-scale producers, including small scale farmers, fishers, forest foragers and landless labourers, and
(C) small scale producers go hungry because they often lack access to the markets, land, financing and credit facilities, infrastructure, farmer training services, storage facilities and relevant technology enjoyed by large farms, and
(iii) in 2013-14, the Australian aid program will invest around $411 million in programs that will improve access to food for millions of people across Africa, Asia and the Pacific; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to consider increasing aid to food security by 2016, and prioritising aid to small scale food producers.
The Senate divided. [16:50]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, by 27 June 2013, all documents relating to the production of the report, Pollution Reduction Program 4.2 Particulate Emissions from Coal Trains, dated May 2013, prepared for the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) by Katestone Environmental Pty Ltd, from 1 July 2012 until present, including correspondence between the ARTC and the Minister, the department, the New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority and the report consultant.
The Senate divided. [16:56]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Federal Government allocated $13 million of funding to address kidney health and dialysis in central Australia in response to the Central Desert Renal Study in 2011, and
(ii) $3 million of this funding has already been pulled back into consolidated revenue and that much of the balance of $10 million remains unspent; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to:
(i) ensure that the entirety of the $10 million in funding is used for dialysis related purposes, and
(ii) be more flexible in its negotiations with state and territory governments and other stakeholders.
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
That the Senate take note of the report.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Trading Lives: Modern Day Human Trafficking
Tabling Speech
Senate
24 June 2013
Mr President, on behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, it gives me great pleasure to present the Committee's report on Australia's efforts to address slavery, slavery-like conditions and trafficking in persons.
Trafficking in persons, slavery and slavery-like practices is an egregious violation of an individual's human rights. Trafficking and slavery victims are exploited physically, emotionally and mentally and the effects of this trauma can be long lasting and destructive.
There are an estimated 20 million victims of forced labour globally. The annual profit made from these victims is estimated at 32 million US dollars. That is a profit of thirteen thousand dollars US for each woman, man and child trafficked into forced labour.
Nationally, Australia can provide greater support for victims of trafficking. The Committee recommends that suspected victims of trafficking be provided an initial automatic reflection period of 45 days with two further extensions of 45 days if required and that the
Australian Government further investigate the establishment of a federal compensation scheme for victims of slavery and trafficking in persons.
Internationally, Australia can increase its engagement on this important issue. The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to participate in international mechanisms focussed on eliminating people trafficking such as the United Nations Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review.
To combat trafficking in global supply chains the Committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate anti-trafficking and anti-slavery mechanisms appropriate for the Australian context with a view to creating a greater awareness of forced labour in global supply chains.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the report be adopted.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Mr President, I present the 153rd report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Guidance for officers giving evidence and providing information.
Mr President, in 2010, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, as part of its inquiry into events on HMAS Success, reported concerns about directives (known as 'DEFGRAMS') requiring ministerial approval of Defence involvement in parliamentary committees and clearance of all material to be provided to committee inquiries by Defence personnel.
The references committee was concerned that the DEFGRAMS had the potential to interfere with witnesses appearing before its inquiry. The DEFGRAMS themselves referred to guidance contained in the government guidelines for official witnesses before parliamentary committees and the references committee recommended an inquiry into the adequacy of the government guidelines.
The current guidelines have been in place since 1989. The main purpose of the inquiry was to assess the adequacy and appropriateness of the guidelines and how well they assisted officials in understanding their rights and obligations when appearing as witnesses before parliamentary committees.
In many ways this purpose has been overtaken by the preparation of a proposed new version of the guidelines. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet provided a supplementary submission last year containing proposed revised guidelines, and indicated its intention to finalise them after the committee reports.
Rather than dwell on the 1989 guidelines, the committee instead took the opportunity to assess how well the proposed revised guidelines dealt with the matters which prompted the inquiry. The committee also assessed the revised guidelines against other matters of Senate practice and procedure. In doing so, the committee was assisted by the submissions made by a number of other people and organisations, all of whom I'd like to thank.
The committee welcomes the revision of the guidelines and thanks the department for providing the revised guidelines and for the opportunity to comment on them. They represent a substantial improvement on the 1989 guidelines, both in scope and in content.
Recognising that the guidelines provide the main source of government advice to officials about their interactions with Senate committees and, more generally, with the Senate, the committee looks forward to their implementation. The committee also trusts that the other sources of advice and guidance referred to in submissions to the inquiry will then be updated to take into account the revision of the government guidelines and the commentary in this report.
Mr President, I present the 154th report of the Committee of Privileges, entitled Persons referred to in the Senate—Ms Deborah Hegarty and Mr Peter Ross Hegarty.
That the report be adopted.
This report is the 64th in a series of reports recommending that a right of reply be afforded to persons who claim to have been adversely affected by being referred to in the Senate, either by name or in such a way as to be readily identified.
On 20 June 2013, the President received a submission from Ms Deborah Hegarty relating to a speech made by Senator Furner during the adjournment debate on 14 May 2013. The President referred the submission to the committee under Privilege Resolution 5.
The committee considered the submission at its meeting on 20 June 2013 and recommends that the proposed response be incorporated in Hansard.
The committee reminds the Senate that in matters of this nature it does not judge the truth or otherwise of statements made by honourable senators or the persons referred to. Rather, it ensures that these persons' submissions, and ultimately the responses it recommends, accord with the criteria set out in Privilege Resolution 5.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea
Monday, 24 June 2013
Delegation Report
Senator the Hon Ian Macdonald, Deputy Delegation Leader
Mr President, I present the report of the Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea.
From 8 to 13 of April this year as the Deputy Delegation Leader I participated in the Parliamentary delegation to Papua New Guinea. The purpose of the visit was to allow Australian parliamentarians to engage with the parliament of Papua New Guinea around issues of mutual importance to our longstanding relationship. With Papua New Guinea being one of Australia's largest aid recipients having received approximately $493.2 million in official development assistance this financial year, the delegation also wished to engage with stakeholder organisations and representatives to learn more about the current state of economic and social development in Papua New Guinea and to be informed specifically about programs being delivered in Papua New Guinea by AusAID. As the delegation's visit took place in the lead-up to Anzac Day, the delegation also laid wreaths at the Bomana and Lae War Cemeteries.
The delegation visited the capital, Port Moresby and Lae, the capital of the Morobe Province. At both locations, the delegation met with Government officials, business representatives, and local service providers, in addition to engaging in tours of major infrastructure. Matters discussed during these meetings and tours included: the broader trade, investment and aid program between countries, financial transparency, immigration, parliament-to-parliament assistance, further developing the
The Australian Government is continuing to work with the Government of Papua New Guinea to improve health, education and training, administrative, and law and order outcomes, which in the longer term are expected to yield positive economic results for Papua New Guinea. The delegation believes that progress could be assisted by increased strategic government funding into health and education services and into programs to improve the skill base of its people.
Importantly, the delegation also heard about the work being undertaken to assist victims of gender based violence by one of the eight Family and Sexual Violence Units established across Papua New Guinea as a result of funding from the Australian Government under the Papua New
Guinea Australia Law and Justice Partnership.
In addition, programs to assist in supporting victims of family and sexual violence and programs to assist in women's empowerment are expected to improve societal attitudes and meet global development goals.
There is currently a high level of foreign investment in Papua New Guinea which is expected to make a sustained positive impact on the economy and which the Government of Papua New Guinea is best placed to divest by establishing mechanisms for national wealth sharing.
I would like to thank all those who gave their time to meet with the delegation to discuss issues of mutual interest to Australia and Papua New Guinea. I would also like to thank Her Excellency Deborah Stokes Australian High Commissioner to Papua New Guinea, Ms Margaret Adamson, Deputy Head of Mission and High Commission and AusAID officers who assisted and accompanied the delegation during its visit to Papua New Guinea.
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
Tax Laws Amendment (Fairer Taxation of Excess Concessional Contributions) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Excess Concessional Contributions Charge) Bill 2013
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.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (FAIRER TAXATION OF EXCESS CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL 2013
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
The legislation we are introducing today will make the taxation of excess contributions fairer.
Currently, excess contributions above the concessional contributions cap generally are taxed at the top marginal tax rate—46.5 per cent—regardless of an individual's income. This is a severe penalty for low and middle income earners
In contrast, individuals on the top marginal rate effectively face no penalty and benefit from being able to pay their tax on excess contributions later than normal income tax.
The changes contained in the legislation will enable excess concessional contributions to be included in an individual's taxable income and allow them to be taxed at the individual's marginal tax rate regardless of their income or the cause of the breach. A non-refundable tax offset of 15 per cent will be provided to individuals to account for the income tax paid by their fund.
The changes will apply to contributions made on and after 1 July 2013.
In addition, individuals will be allowed to withdraw any excess concessional contributions from their superannuation provider.
These changes will make the superannuation system fairer.
It is estimated that this reform will reduce the tax liability of around 40,000 low and middle income earners in 2013-14, by around $1,100 on average.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
SUPERANNUATION (EXCESS CONCESSIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS CHARGE) BILL 2013
This Bill will make the taxation of excess contributions fairer and make some common sense changes to the Costello Excess Contributions tax arrangements.
The Bill will enable excess concessional contributions made from 1 July 2013 to be taxed at an individual's marginal tax rate regardless of the individual's income or the cause of the breach.
Excess contributions above the concessional contributions cap are currently taxed at the top marginal tax rate — 46.5 per cent — regardless of an individual's income.
The Bill will allow those who exceed the concessional contributions cap to choose to withdraw the excess contribution without penalty should they wish.
This Bill will impose a new interest charge — the excess concessional contributions charge — to individuals who exceed their concessional cap.
This charge is designed to account for the income tax that would otherwise have been paid earlier on these amounts had they been taken as salary, wages or profits.
In contrast, individuals on the top marginal rate effectively face no penalty and benefit from being able to pay their tax on excess contributions later than normal income tax.
This will make the taxation of excess contributions fairer.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Tax Laws Amendment (2013 Measures No. 3) Bill 2013
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's taxation laws.
Schedule 1 amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to ensure that entities that provide tax agent services in the course of giving advice of a kind that is usually given by a financial services licensee or a representative of licensees are subject to the regulatory regime of the Tax Practitioners Board.
These are important consumer protection amendments to ensure the appropriate regulation of all forms of tax advice, irrespective of whether it is provided by a tax agent, a BAS agent or an entity in the financial services industry.
These reforms have been subject to extensive consultation with industry. On 6 June 2013, the amendments were also referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. The Committee delivered its report on 17 June and recommended that Parliament pass the amendments.
Throughout this process, we have listened to the concerns of the financial services industry. The Government will extend the current exemption and the commencement date of the new regime by 12 months until 1 July 2014. This will allow industry ample time to prepare for the new regime.
From 1 July 2014, there will be a three-year transitional period, during which financial services licensees and their representatives may register with the Tax Practitioners Board without meeting all of the education and experience requirements.
The Government will also undertake further consultation on whether it is necessary to amend the Tax Agent Services Regulations 2009 to ensure the Regulations align with the Government's intent that the following services should not constitute tax agent services:
Schedule 2 also amends the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 to correct a range of technical issues.
Schedule 3 amends the list of deductible gift recipients (DGR) in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status will assist the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities.
Schedule 3 adds two new organisations to the Act, namely, the Australian Council of Social Service Incorporated and Make a Mark Australia Incorporated.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013
Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
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.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE BILL 2013
I am pleased today to introduce the Public Interest Disclosure Bill.
This Labor Government is committed to building and maintaining a culture of transparency. An open and transparent government is a key feature of a healthy democracy.
That is why we introduced the most significant pro-disclosure reforms to the FOI Act since its commencement decades ago, removing application fees and introducing free decision-making time for journalists. We also established the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, to provide a free, easy to access forum for review of FOI decisions.
And that is why we are introducing legislation to establish a public interest disclosure scheme, and in doing so, delivering on one of our election commitments.
It was my privilege to chair the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which, in February 2009, reported on a preferred model for legislation to protect whistleblowers within the Australian Government public sector. The bill the Government is introducing today largely implements the Government response to that report.
Blowing the whistle, or speaking out against suspected wrongdoing in the workplace, can be a risky course of action. At present, the Commonwealth is the only Australian jurisdiction without dedicated legislation to facilitate the making of public interest disclosures and protect those who make them.
Whistleblowers may risk subtle or more direct forms of workplace discrimination or harassment. They can be exposed to serious civil or criminal liability if they report misconduct through the wrong channels.
This bill will encourage a pro-disclosure culture, by facilitating disclosure and investigation of wrongdoing and maladministration in the Commonwealth public sector. In doing so, it will promote the integrity and accountability of the Australian Government public sector. It builds on practices established in the Australian Public Service for more than a dozen years but which have not been applied elsewhere in the Commonwealth public sector.
The bill does this by establishing a comprehensive framework for public interest disclosures in the Australian Government public sector. It is the first stand-alone protection scheme at the federal level.
We have aimed for best practice legislation that will apply broadly across the entire Commonwealth public sector. This has required considerable consultation across Government to provide a robust framework that will operate effectively.
There are three key aspects to this framework. The first is to encourage and facilitate all Commonwealth public officials to report suspected wrongdoing. The second is to make sure that reports of suspected wrongdoing are properly handled by agencies and in a reasonable timeframe. Thirdly the bill protects public officials who report suspected wrongdoing from adverse consequences as a result of reporting their concerns.
The bill seeks to foster a culture in the Australian Government public sector which supports reporting wrongdoing, makes sure there are adequate responses by agencies to claims of wrongdoing and protects those who report wrongdoing.
A public official who is concerned about possible misconduct will, under this scheme, be able to report the matter to their own agency or make a disclosure direct to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, or to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security if the disclosure concerns the conduct of an intelligence agency. The scheme will be flexible to allow disclosures to be transferred to other agencies if the alleged conduct relates to another agency.
The scheme will also permit disclosures to be made under the scheme directly to other Commonwealth agencies that have a power to investigate wrongdoing of the kind disclosed. The bill provides for investigative agencies, in addition to the Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, to be prescribed in rules to be made under the act.
Prescribed investigative agencies will be able to undertake investigations under their otherwise n statutory frameworks. In these circumstances the official who reports the matter will have the protections of the public interest disclosure scheme provided by this bill.
The emphasis of the scheme is on disclosures of wrongdoing being reported to and investigated within Government. This emphasis is designed to ensure that problems are identified and rectified. The bill establishes a scheme with clear procedures for officials to follow when a disclosure of suspected wrongdoing is reported.
Agencies will be obliged to investigate public interest disclosures, and to ensure that appropriate action is taken in response to any recommendations that are made following an inquiry and report. The bill permits a principal officer not to investigate a disclosure in some circumstances, for example, where the disclosure is lacking in substance or relates to conduct that has already been investigated.
A person who remains dissatisfied with the handling by an agency of a public interest disclosure they have made may make a complaint to the Ombudsman under the Ombudsman Act 1976, or, if the conduct relates to an intelligence agency, to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security under the Inspector-General of Intelligence Act 1986.
The Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner will continue to have the role of inquiring into allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct by APS employees where the discloser is not satisfied with the outcome of an agency's own investigation.
Where a public official has reported suspected wrongdoing and considers that the investigation or the response is inadequate they will be able to make their concerns public where that disclosure is not contrary to the public interest and where certain other criteria are met.
This option of public disclosure will not be available where the conduct in question relates to an intelligence agency, nor can there be public disclosure of any information which comprises intelligence or sensitive law enforcement information.
The risk that very sensitive information will be improperly or unwittingly publicly disclosed supports this approach. The Government considers that the right of complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, who is an independent statutory office holder, provides adequate assurance that there will be proper review of handling of disclosures of this kind.
The bill will also make provision for public disclosure where the disclosure concerns a substantial and imminent danger to health and safety.
Coming forward to report concerns in a workplace can take courage. Speaking up about illegal, immoral or improper practices should be supported as a positive contribution to the integrity of an organisation. The bill provides extensive protections to public officials who report suspected wrongdoing.
An individual who makes a public interest disclosure in accordance with the provisions of this bill will not be subject to any civil, criminal or administrative liability for making the disclosure. Should there be unlawful reprisal action against a person who has made a qualifying disclosure, the Federal Court and the Federal Circuit Court will be able to make remedial orders, including for injunctive relief, an apology and compensation.
A person making a disclosure and suffering reprisals as a result would have the option of seeking remedies under either the Fair Work Act 2009 or the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, but not both.
The bill includes offences to prevent victimisation of disclosers and to protect their identity. Principal officers of agencies will have obligations to take reasonable steps to protect officials in their agencies from detriment arising from public interest disclosures they have made.
The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight functions for the scheme. The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will assist agencies with their compliance with the scheme, including through awareness programs and standards to be issued by the Ombudsman addressing key elements of the scheme. The Government has provided funding to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, for their roles under the proposed scheme.
Given the complex nature of the issue, I also consider that consultation should continue on the content and structure of the bill. If it becomes clear the whistleblower scheme would benefit from legislative amendment, I will be happy to bring them forward as this bill progresses.
The Government will also be introducing a bill to make consequential amendments in support of the scheme in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. This bill will include amendments to repeal the current whistleblower protections provisions in the Public Service Act 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999. This change is to avoid duplication.
The Public Interest Disclosure Bill will provide a single comprehensive scheme to support inquiry into wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector and those who report it.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2013
I move that this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased today to introduce the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013. This Bill will amend a number of Acts in support of the scheme in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013, which I introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 March 2013.
The Public Interest Disclosure Bill is the first stand-alone whistleblower protection scheme at the federal level. It will establish a comprehensive scheme to support disclosure of wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector, and to make sure that reports of suspected wrongdoing are properly investigated and responded to. Public officials who report wrongdoing in accordance with the scheme will have robust protections so that they do not suffer adverse consequences for making a report.
The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will have oversight functions for the public interest disclosure scheme. Amendments proposed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill will support this oversight function. The Ombudsman will be able to investigate a public interest disclosure made to the Ombudsman where the wrongful conduct relates to an agency that is not an intelligence agency or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The Ombudsman will also be able to investigate handling by agencies of public interest disclosures.
The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to investigate a public interest disclosure made to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where the wrongful conduct relates to an intelligence agency. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will also be able to inquire into the handling of public interest disclosures by intelligence agencies. The Ombudsman and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to undertake these investigations under their establishing legislation.
These investigative functions are complemented by other measures in the Public Interest Disclosure Bill. The Ombudsman will assist agencies and public officials on the operation of the scheme, including through the conduct of educational and awareness programs. It is very important that agencies and officials have a clear understanding of how the scheme works in order for it to operate effectively. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be able to assist intelligence agencies and public officials who belong to those agencies. The Ombudsman will be able to determine standards addressing procedures for dealing with public interest disclosure, the conduct of investigations and the preparation of reports. Agencies will also need to give the Ombudsman certain information about public interest disclosures which will be published in an annual report.
Consistent with the intention to create a single comprehensive scheme to promote inquiry and investigation into wrongdoing in the Commonwealth public sector, amendments proposed in this Bill will repeal existing provisions in the Public Service Act 1999 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 dealing with whistleblower protections.
The scheme will allow a public official to make a disclosure within their agency, to the Ombudsman, to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, if the conduct relates to an intelligence agency, or to a prescribed investigative agency. Upon being prescribed, statutory office holders with investigative powers, such as the Public Service Commissioner, Merit Protection Commissioner and the Commissioner for Law Enforcement Integrity, will be able to conduct investigations where they have existing power to do so. The scheme will be flexible allowing for disclosures to be transferred to agencies that are best placed to investigate them.
Amendments in the Bill will preserve a function for the Public Service Commissioner and the Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into public interest disclosures relating to alleged breaches of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct. A similar amendment is proposed to preserve a function for the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and Parliamentary Service Merit Protection Commissioner to inquire into public interest disclosures relating to alleged breaches of the Parliamentary Service Code of Conduct.
I foreshadow that I intend to introduce Government amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Bill shortly. I also welcome the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, following its inquiry into the Public Interest Disclosure Bill, which was tabled yesterday. I will be considering their report carefully.
This Bill, together with Public Interest Disclosure Bill, will serve to strengthen the integrity and accountability of the Australian government public sector.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.
Schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure default members of superannuation funds are not adversely affected if their account balances are compulsorily transferred to a MySuper product in another fund as a result of the MySuper reforms.
Where superannuation funds do not offer a MySuper product, the MySuper provisions will require them to transfer their default members' account benefits to a fund offering a MySuper product by 1 July 2017. This measure allows the superannuation fund to transfer any tax losses and defer an income tax liability for assets transferred to the other entity.
Schedule 2 amends the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 to make consequential changes to enable the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation—the trustee of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme—to release a lump sum for the purposes of meeting a debt account discharge liability; and to reduce the benefit as a consequence of that payment.
These changes are part of the sustaining the superannuation contribution concession, which effectively reduces the superannuation tax concession on contributions received by individuals whose income exceeds $300,000 from 30 per cent to 15 per cent. This ensures the tax concession received by higher income earners is more closely aligned with the concession received by average income earners. This will improve the fairness of the taxation of our marvellous superannuation system.
These changes to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits scheme will ensure beneficiaries of this scheme are not disadvantaged in comparison to members of other Commonwealth defined benefit schemes and can have their benefits adjusted to meet their liability under the sustaining the superannuation contribution concession measure.
This Bill also amends workplace relations laws to implement changes to default superannuation arrangements for employees to whom a modern award applies.
Schedule 3 amends the Fair Work Amendment Act 2012 to allow an employer to make contributions for default fund employees to whom a modern award applies to a superannuation fund in respect of an employer MySuper product (a tailored or corporate MySuper product), subject to the product being approved by the Fair Work Commission.
The changes establish a two-stage approval process under which an Expert Panel of the Fair Work Commission will assess employer MySuper products to determine whether they are in the best interests of the relevant default fund employees. This approval process, including the legislated criteria for both stages of assessment, is largely consistent with the process for generic MySuper products that was established in the Fair Work Amendment Act.
The amendments will also increase the maximum number of funds that can generally be specified in a modern award from 10 to 15. This addresses concerns that employers covered by multiple modern awards could be prevented from using employer-specific subplans of generic superannuation products because the existing limit of 10 funds may see some high performing funds not being included in particular modern awards where there are more than 10 funds with highly suitable generic superannuation products. The proposed amendments ensure that high performing funds have reasonable prospects of being specified in modern awards for which the Fair Work Commission assesses them as highly suitable for employees covered by the award.
The measures will also provide certainty that stakeholders have sought regarding when arrangements may change by not requiring any changes to existing arrangements before at least 1 January 2015.
These amendments have been developed following extensive consultation with employers, unions and superannuation industry stakeholders following the passage of the Fair Work Amendment Act last year.
This measure fulfils the commitment made by the Government to introduce any required amendments to ensure appropriate arrangements are in place for corporate funds. It will ensure that employees whose default superannuation contributions are being directed to high performing employer MySuper products are not made worse off from the new default superannuation system and prevent unnecessary disruption for employers with employer MySuper products.
Full details of the measure are contained in the Revised Explanatory Memorandum.
Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013
Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency Bill 2013
Corporations and Financial Sector Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment Bill 2013
That the Senate take note of the report.
The reality is that local news services deliver audiences well in excess of 40 per cent and 50 per cent of the total audience, and any broadcaster that took the blade to local news services would suffer from an audience point of view. Whether the revenue comes directly into local news programs or other parts of the schedule is really irrelevant because it is a bit like the AFL: you get a halo effect in revenue and audience from having local news.
WIN spends probably three to four times the amount of revenue it actually generates to produce those news services. There is no commercial gain for WIN in producing so many news services.
All vaccinations, in the medical literature, have been linked with the possibility of causing autism, not just the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine.
Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 2013
Is this direct funding at risk of being held constitutionally invalid? Yes, much of it, in my view, is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge … Some might well be supported by a Commonwealth head of legislative power, but much of it, including the Roads to Recovery program, is probably not so supported and therefore invalid.
… that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option.
… that the Commonwealth negotiate with the States to achieve their support for the financial recognition option.
… that the Commonwealth adopt steps suggested by ALGA necessary to achieve informed and positive public engagement with the issue, as set out in the section of this report on the concerns about a failed referendum.
The Senate divided. [20:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [20:11]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [20:19]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013
GLBTI populations experience lower levels of health and wellbeing (compared to opposite-sex attracted populations) that is directly attributable to the marginalisation, institutionalised homophobia, heteronormativity and the outright discrimination that still exists in Australia.
That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 stand as presented, i.e. that it continue to provide that religious exemptions in section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 apply in respect of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in connection with the provision of Commonwealth-funded aged care services.
The Senate divided. [21:06]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Service Providers and Other Governance Measures) Bill 2013
Superannuation Laws Amendment (MySuper Capital Gains Tax Relief and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Increased Concessional Contributions Cap and Other Measures) Bill 2013
Superannuation (Sustaining the Superannuation Contribution Concession) Imposition Bill 2013
For those boards that have equal representation because their company constitutions or other binding arrangements so require, the SIS Act should be amended so that no less than one‐third of the total number of member representative trustee‐directors must be non‐associated and no less than one‐third of employer representative trustee‐directors must be non‐associated.
For any fee that applies to all members of the MySuper product, such as an administration fee or an investment fee, each member is to be charged the fee under the same charging rule. For example, if one member is charged a percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product as an administration fee, then each member of the MySuper product should be charged the same percentage of their account balance in relation to the MySuper product at the same point in time …
The Senate divided. [22:55]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Daily weather conditions play a strong role in the outbreak of bushfires. Very hot, dry and windy days create very high bushfire risk. Climate change is increasing the frequency of very hot days.