The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency Bill 2013
Australian Aged Care Quality Agency (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Bill 2013
Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Bill 2013
From July, $1.2 billion will flow into the pay packets of 350,000 aged care workers across Australia thanks to Federal Labor.
The aged services workforce of 350,000 will need to triple by 2050 to serve the increasing demand for care. The majority of aged care workers are over 45 with a third nearing retirement.
I believe that the specific issues of rural, regional and remote Australia providers, particularly in WA, have been ignored. These include issues around the ACLEI changes going to the viability, the implications of the workforce supplement, ongoing issues about access to staff, professional services training and increased costs of service delivery. The 28-day choice of payment methodology is going to cripple them. There is lack of access to capital. There are lower incomes generally in the country. Sixty per cent of our services are provided in rural and regional WA.
Our concern about our capacity to provide affordable services to the marginalised, in line with our mission, and at the same time generate a surplus to future-proof our services and continue to invest in capital infrastructure, which has come almost to a halt in the last few years, is significant.
(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (after line 25), after paragraph (g), insert:
(ga) parents separated from their children by forced adoption or removal;
(3) Schedule 1, item 72, page 14 (lines 25 and 26), omit the item, substitute:
72 Subsection 46 ‑1(1) (note)
Repeal the note.
(4) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 6), after item 180, insert:
180A Subsection 85 ‑6(1)
Omit "1239 of the Social Security Act 1991 ", substitute "126 of theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999 ".
180B Paragraph 85 ‑7(1)(a)
Omit "1240 of the Social Security Act 1991 ", substitute "129 of theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999 ".
180C Paragraph 85 ‑7(1)(b)
Omit "1243 of the Social Security Act 1991 ", substitute "135 of theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999 ".
180D Subsection 85 ‑7(2)
Omit "1240 of the Social Security Act 1991 ", substitute "129 of theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999 ".
(5) Schedule 1, item 196, page 27 (lines 11 to 18), omit subitems (1) and (2), substitute:
(1) This item applies if, before the commencement time:
(a) a person was approved under Part 2.1 of the old law as a provider of aged care (whether or not the approval had come into force); and
(b) the approval had not ceased to have effect.
(2) To the extent that the approval was in respect of community care, the approval is taken, for the purposes of the new law, to be in respect of home care.
(3) To the extent that the approval was in respect of flexible care, the approval is taken, for the purposes of the new law, to be in respect of both home care and flexible care.
(14) Schedule 3, item 103, page 52 (line 21), after "dementia", insert "and severe behaviours".
(15) Schedule 3, item 142, page 71 (line 5), after "dementia", insert "and cognition".
(16) Schedule 3, page 117 (after line 12), after item 175, insert:
175A Subsection 72 ‑1(2)
Omit "Residential Care".
(18) Schedule 3, Part 2, page 134 (after line 13), at the end of the Part, add:
292 Determining the status of residential care service buildings
A provision of the Subsidy Principles has effect before it commences as if it had commenced if the provision:
(a) is made for the purposes of section 44‑28 of the Aged Care Act 1997 as amended by item 125 of this Schedule; and
(b) relates to determining, or applying for the determination of, the status of a building.
(19) Schedule 4, Part 1, page 135 (after line 16), at the end of the Part, add:
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013
5A Section 9 (definition of community care )
Repeal the definition.
5B Section 9
Insert:
home care has the same meaning as in theAged Care Act 1997 .
5C Paragraph 29(1)(b)
Omit "community", substitute "home".
5D Subsection 29(1) (note)
Omit " community ", substitute "home ".
(20) Schedule 5, item 215, page 169 (line 4), omit the definition of commencement time , substitute:
first c ommencement time means the time when Part 1 of this Schedule commences.
second c ommencement time means the time when this Part commences.
(21) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 8), before "commencement", insert "first".
(22) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 10), before "commencement", insert "second".
(23) Schedule 5, item 216, page 169 (line 14), before "commencement", insert "second".
(24) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (line 21), before "commencement", insert "first".
(25) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (line 22), before "commencement", insert "second".
(26) Schedule 5, item 217, page 169 (lines 25 and 26), omit subitem (2), substitute:
(2) Without limiting its effect apart from this item, the process is also taken, after the second commencement time, to have been begun under the corresponding provision.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 3), omit the table item, substitute:
(6) Schedule 2, page 36 (before line 30), after item 16, insert:
16A Section 96 ‑1 (after table item 14)
Insert:
(7) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 6), omit the definition of commencement time , substitute:
first commencement time means the time when item 5 of this Schedule commences.
(8) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 8), before "commencement", insert "second".
(9) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (line 10), before "commencement", insert "second".
(10) Schedule 2, item 24, page 38 (after line 10), at the end of the item, add:
second commencement time means the time when item 1 of this Schedule commences.
(11) Schedule 2, item 25, page 38 (line 13), before "commencement ", insert "second".
(12) Schedule 2, item 25, page 38 (line 14), before "commencement", insert "second".
(13) Schedule 2, item 26, page 38 (line 18), before "commencement", insert "first".
(17) Schedule 3, item 236, page 125 (table items 15 and 15A), omit the table items, substitute:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5), omit the table item, substitute:
(3) Schedule 1, heading, page 5 (line 2), omit "1July 2013", substitute "1August 2013".
(4) Schedule 4, heading to Part 1, page 135 (line 2), omit "1July 2013", substitute "1August 2013".
The Senate divided. [10:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
(1) Page 4 (after line 6), after clause 4, insert:
4A Further review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the amendments made by:
(a) this Act; and
(b) the Aged Care (Bond Security) Amendment Act 2013 ; and
(c) the Aged Care (Bond Security) Levy Amendment Act 2013 .
(2) The review must consider at least the following matters:
(a) the effectiveness of the provisions for determining the value of a person's assets in accordance with the Subsidy Principles;
(b) the operation of the provisions relating to accommodation agreements and the impact that those provisions have on approved providers and care recipients;
(c) the relative use of refundable deposits and daily payments and the impact that refundable deposits and daily payments have on aged care providers and residents;
(d) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.
(3) The review must make provision for public consultation and, in particular, must provide for consultation with:
(a) approved providers; and
(b) aged care workers; and
(c) consumers; and
(d) people with special needs; and
(e) carers; and
(f) representatives of consumers.
(4) The review must be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 18 months after the commencement of Schedule 1.
(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 18 month period.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
The Senate divided. [10:25]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
(1) Schedule 1, items 36 and 37, page 9 (lines 1 to 7), TO BE OPPOSED.
(2) Schedule 1, item 40, page 9 (lines 15 to 18), TO BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 2, clause 95B-11, page 35 (line 29) to page 36 (line 5), TO BE OPPOSED.
The Senate divided. [10:28]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
(1) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 8), after item 181, insert:
181A At the end of section 95A-1
Add:
(3) If the *Aged Care Commissioner requests the Secretary to give the Commissioner information that the Commissioner requires for the purposes of the Commissioner's functions, the Secretary must, if the information is available to the Secretary, give the information to the Commissioner.
(4) If, on and after 1 January 2014, the *Aged Care Commissioner requests the CEO of the Quality Agency to give the Commissioner information that the Commissioner requires for the purposes of the Commissioner's functions, the CEO must, if the information is available to the CEO, give the information to the Commissioner.
181B After section 95A-11
Insert:
95A-11A Aged Care Commissioner may give report to Minister at any time
The *Aged Care Commissioner may, at any time, give a written report to the Minister on any matter relating to the Commissioner's functions.
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 14), after item 184, insert:
184A Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister:
(a) must establish a committee to be known as the Aged Care Financing Authority; and
(b) may establish other committees.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 26 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:
194A Application
Despite the amendment made by item 184A of this Schedule, subsection 96‑3(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997 has effect, before 1 August 2013, as if that amendment had not been made.
(4) Schedule 3, item 246, page 126 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:
246 Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
After "this Act", insert "and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 ".
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 14), after item 184, insert:
184A Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, the Minister:
(a) must establish a committee to be known as the Aged Care Financing Authority; and
(b) may establish other committees.
(3) Schedule 1, Part 1, page 26 (after line 21), at the end of the Part, add:
194A Application
Despite the amendment made by item 184A of this Schedule, subsection 96‑3(1) of the Aged Care Act 1997 has effect, before 1 August 2013, as if that amendment had not been made.
(4) Schedule 3, item 246, page 126 (lines 17 and 18), omit the item, substitute:
246 Subsection 96 ‑3(1)
After "this Act", insert "and the Aged Care (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 ".
The Senate divided [10:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
That the Senate notes:
The Australian Education Bill 2013 was debated in the House of Representatives for less than two hours;
The government allowed just three days for a Senate inquiry into the bill and refused to allow time for hearings—
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Abetz from moving a motion to provide for consideration of matter, namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Australian Education Bill 2013 and a related bill.
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. [10:49]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [10:53]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Australian Education Bill 2013
Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Despite its strengths, the Gonski review retells the same old, and failed, story of Australian education: that the only way to fix our schools is to spend more money and to change the way it is divided between schools and students.
… … …
Supporters of Gonski claim it is a 'once in a generation opportunity'. That will be true only if the money is well spent. If it is spent the way education money is being spent in the past, it will be a complete waste—and risk dooming further reform efforts for a generation.
Across the past decade, education spending has increased by nearly three times as much as Gonski is proposing, yet our school performance has stagnated or has fallen.
There shouldn't be a single education minister in the states nor a single senior state education bureaucrat who can take any comfort from these NAPLANs.
At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the need for the Government to provide certainty that individual schools will not be left worse off under the new arrangements, and
(ii) the importance of more transparency regarding the financial impact of the proposed arrangements; and
(b) further notes its concern about:
(i) parts of the National Plan for School Improvement, which have the effect of micromanaging schools or increasing red-tape, and the increased federal interference in the operations of state government and Catholic schools; and
(ii) proposals to change the capacity to contribute measure for non-government schools in the future."
In Australia, almost 80% of students from the lowest quarter of socioeconomic disadvantage attend government schools. The drift of students and resources from government to non-government schools has accelerated here in the last decade or so and further concentrated wealthier students in the private sector. As a result, there are more schools with very high proportions of students from disadvantaged backgrounds – mainly in the government system – and more with high concentrations of the most advantaged – mainly in private schools.
In one country town in Western Australia, the local government high school lost ground dramatically after four private schools were opened; the most disadvantaged children were left behind with fewer teachers per student than in the new private schools. The total cost of education in the community skyrocketed, without any aggregate improvement in children's scores on routine tests.
If a doctor of mathematics cannot understand the model and what funding our children will get next year, how are parents meant to comprehend the bill?
The timing of the passage of these pieces of legislation is critical for non-government schools, as current Commonwealth Government funding arrangements expire at the end of 2013.
The Bill sets out a complex set of authorities and relationships, which is compounded when overlaid with participating and non-participating status. In parts, the Bill switches between concepts of 'participating schools' and 'participating states and territories'.
JULIA Gillard will punish recalcitrant states that refuse to sign up to the government's education reforms with lower funding for their schools.
Brighton Secondary College principal Julie Podbury said state schools already wrote plans for improvement.
THE Newman government will forge ahead with its own education reforms, refusing to allocate funds to support the commonwealth's Gonski blueprint …
Education is not the filling a pail but the lighting of a fire.
The study revealed that many Australian Year 4 students have substantial literacy problems, with around one-quarter of students not meeting the Intermediate benchmark – the standard generally considered in international achievement studies to be the minimally acceptable standard of proficiency.
For decades, politicians and educators have argued over funding, and whether more money should go to public or private schools. As they did, children's learning was neglected. Our primary school students have the lowest literacy levels of any country in the English-speaking developed world. The performance of our secondary students is falling. The average 15-year-old maths student in Australia performs at a level two years below their counterpart in Shanghai.
It is an appalling situation. The schools debate in Australia has always focused on money: how much and who gets what. How children learn and how to help them learn better, has been pushed aside.
It is time for a new story in Australian school education. Not whether public or private is better or deserves more funds, not whether teacher and principal performance pay, school autonomy or computers will lift the quality of our schools. Not wasting money on reducing class sizes.
None of these policies has been found to do much at all for student learning. Instead, the world's best school systems—in Finland, Ontario, Singapore and Shanghai—focus relentlessly on how to improve what happens in the classroom.
…education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. The competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be making six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. That's my position. I just haven't figured out how to do it yet.
The Senate divided. [13:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate notes that:
(a) the bill is an important step towards establishing an enduring schools funding model, where public money is equitabl y provided to schools according to need, to ensure a universally accessible school education system;
(b) needs-based funding is necessary to ensure public schools are funded to provide a world-class education to any student regardless of their background;
(c) a genuine needs-based funding model would ensure all resources of a school are taken into account in determining need; and
(d) the Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling concluded that an independent and expert national schools resourcing body should determine the applicable schooling resource standards."
(1) Clause 77, page 78 (after line 28), after paragraph (2)(e), insert:
(ea) the approved authority complies, and ensures each school complies, with relevant anti-discrimination laws of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, and does not rely upon sections 37 or 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to exempt discriminatory practices from such law;
(1) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:
Part 6A—Accountability for approved authorities and bodies
96A Report about financial assistance and financial operations
(1) An approved authority, block grant authority or non‑government representative body for a school must give the Secretary a report for each year that includes the following:
(a) the total amount of financial assistance paid to the authority or body, and allocated to the school, for the year in accordance with the Act;
(b) for an approved authority—the total amount mentioned in paragraph (a) broken down into the school's base amount, and loadings as referred to in any of paragraphs 35(a) to (f), for the year;
(c) in any case—a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about how the financial assistance paid in accordance with the Act was used, or is intended to be used, by the authority or body, and the school;
(d) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority about whether the authority or body, and the school, has in place satisfactory internal accounting systems, controls and procedures for records kept by the authority in compliance with section 34;
(e) a statement by the board (however described) of the authority or body about the financial operations (including the financial viability and funding sources) of the authority or body and the school, and includes the following:
(i) recurrent income and expenditure;
(ii) capital income and expenditure;
(iii) trading activities;
(iv) loans for recurrent or capital purposes;
(v) assets and liabilities;
(vi) bequests;
(vi) any other financial information required by the Minister;
(vii) for approved authorities—refundable enrolment deposits.
(2) The report must:
(a) identify any records kept by the authority or body in compliance with section 34; and
(b) include a copy of any financial statement prepared in compliance with section 35; and
(c) include a copy of any audit document prepared in compliance with section 35.
(3) The report must not include any information that would identify a donor as a funding source of the school.
(4) The report must be given to the Minister no later than a day or days (if any) determined by the Minister.
96B Public information about financial assistance
(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 85(2)(c) and 93(2)(d), a non‑government representative body for a non‑government school must publish the following information each year:
(a) the amount of financial assistance (if any) provided in the year under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non‑government representative bodies) and the application of that financial assistance;
(b) information about the way a school applies to be allocated financial assistance in relation to capital expenditure (as the case requires);
(d) how decisions of the authority or body to allocate financial assistance are reviewed.
(2) The information mentioned in subsection (1) is the minimum information required, and this section does not prevent body from making other information publicly available.
(3) The body must:
(a) make the information publicly available on the internet; and
(b) make arrangements to provide the information, on request, to a person who is responsible for a student and is unable to access the internet.
Note: The authority or body may have obligations under the Privacy Act 1988 in providing information.
(4) For the purpose of paragraph 93(2)(b), a non‑government representative body for a school must spend, or commit to spend, financial assistance that is payable to the body under Division 4 of Part 5 (funding for non‑government representative bodies) for the purpose of supporting school education.
(2) Page 92 (after line 9), at the end of Part 6, add:
96C Further review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken of the operation of the issues provided for in this Act.
(2) The Minister must appoint at least 3 people with expert knowledge in the field of education to undertake the independent review.
(3) The review must consider at least the following matters:
(a) the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as provided for in this Act; and
(b) the effectiveness of the model for providing financial assistance to States and Territories as measured against the principles of needs based funding; and
(c) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.
(4) The review must be undertaken during the period 1 July 2018 to 30 April 2019.
(5) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review by 30 June 2019.
(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
Senate divided. [13:10]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Public Interest Disclosure Bill 2013
Public Interest Disclosure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2013
I can guarantee that if the commissioner had to cash in his leave, sell off his personal investments and mortgage his property to finance this course of action he wouldn't be so quick to jump on the litigious merry go round. However it appears when the Australian tax payer is covering his ride it is nothing more concerning than a stroke of his pen.
The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.
Commissioner Negus denied this email related to Sergeant Thomson, claiming:
It was a broad-based email reminding people of their responsibilities.
Yes, there was an email that was sent around. It actually had nothing to do with Sergeant Thomson at all. It was reminding them of their responsibilities and reporting obligations. Unfortunately, it was misinterpreted by one of our officers, who then on-forwarded it and made reference to Sergeant Thomson.
The member who forwarded it to Sergeant Thomson did not edit the original email. He on-forwarded it.
He has been spoken to. He realises the error he has made. He has withdrawn that.
The Government broadly endorsed the findings of the Committee in 2010, however, no exposure draft of a Bill based on the Report's recommendations has yet been made public – over three years later. And here let me remind you that the Report's recommendations were generally regarded as sound in 2009, and they were generally consistent with the better whistleblower laws of most of Australia's States and Territories which have now been in effect for almost two decades.
(1) Page 22 (after line 7), at the end of Division 1, add:
24A Act of grace payments
(1) The Minister may authorise one or more payments of an amount or amounts specified in the authorisation to a person who has made a public interest disclosure (even though the payment or payments would not otherwise be authorised by law or required to meet a legal liability), if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the disclosure resulted in protection or the reclaiming of public money; or
(b) the Minister considers, in the Minister's absolute discretion, that there are reasons of public interest for making the payment or payments.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) has the effect of appropriating the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purposes of making a payment under that subsection.
(2) Clause 31, page 31 (lines 31 to 34), omit paragraph (b).
(3) Clause 36, page 35 (line 29), before "An", insert "(1)".
(4) Clause 36, page 36 (line 3), at the end of the definition of authorised officer , add:
; or (c) in the case of a House of the Parliament:
(i) a Senator or Member who belongs to that House or a public official who belongs to the Finance Department; and
(ii) is appointed, in writing, by the principal officer of that House (with the agreement of the principal officer of the Finance Department, if the public official belongs to the Finance Department), as an authorised officer for the purposes of this Act.
(5) Clause 36, page 36 (after line 3), at the end of the clause, add:
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (c) of the definition of authorised officer , theFinance Department means the Department administered by the Minister administering theFinancial Management and Accountability Act 1997 .
(6) Clause 41, page 36 (line 7) to page 36 (line 16), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute:
(a) information that has originated with, or has been received from, an intelligence agency that is about, or that might reveal:
(i) a source of information; or
(ii) the technologies or methods used, proposed to be used, or being developed for use, by an intelligence agency to collect, analyse, secure or otherwise deal with, information; or
(iii) operations that have been, are being, or are proposed to be, undertaken by an intelligence agency;
(7) Clause 41, page 36 (line 32), omit "(b),".
(8) Clause 69, page 61 (after table item 12), insert:
(9) Clause 71, page 65 (after line 15), after paragraph (b), insert:
(ba) a House of the Parliament; or
(10) Clause 73, page 67 (after table item 2), insert:
(1) Page 74 (after line 7), at the end of Part 5, add:
84 Interception and access
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Minister is required to prepare a report for the purposes of section 99 or 161 of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 .
(2) The report must set out, for each enforcement agency, statistics about applications, warrants, interceptions, notices and authorisations made in respect of persons who are:
(a) members of either of the Houses of Parliament of the Parliament of Australia; or
(b) members of a parliament of a State or Territory of Australia; or
(c) journalists.
(1) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 15), after item 7, insert:
7A After subsection 5(4)
Insert:
(4A) Paragraph (2)(d) does not prevent the Ombudsman from investigating action that, under subsection 5A(1), is taken to relate to a matter of administration.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 29), omit "it", substitute "the conduct, and any action taken by the agency in relation to the disclosure,".
We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm. And ultimately, we will be judged as a people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.
In my State of the Union address, I urged Congress to come up with a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one that Republican and Democratic senators worked on together a few years ago. And I still want to see that happen. I'm willing to work with anyone to make that happen.
But this is a challenge that does not pause for partisan—
Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation's interests.
Our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.
Small businesses don't pay the carbon price - it is a price paid by Australia's biggest polluters.
The Howard Government proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost.
That the Senate take note of the minister's failure to provide either an answer or explanation.
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 Cormann, Ryan, Ruston and Williams today relating to the carbon tax.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to climate change.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Scullion for today on account of parliamentary business.
Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require Australia to meet United Nations targets for official development assistance and to establish an Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness, and for related purposes. Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) 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.
OVERSEAS AID (MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS) BILL 2013
As the Greens spokesperson for international aid and development I am proud to introduce this Greens bill into the Senate to ensure that Australia pays its fair share towards alleviating global poverty.
Good aid, spent well has helped reduce the number of people living in extreme poverty by 200 million over the last 5 years. But there are still 1.2 billion people living on less than the equivalent of $2 per day. As a rich and caring country Australia has a moral duty to help bring that number of people down to zero.
The Overseas Aid (Millennium Development Goals) Bill will enshrine that moral duty into law by requiring the Australian Government to meet the aid targets it has already signed up to. It will improve the quality and effectiveness of Australian aid so that the Australian community can be assured that aid money is spent on ending poverty overseas and not to fill domestic budget gaps. It also establishes an independent aid watchdog to hold the Government to account for its aid spending decisions.
It is unfortunate that we can no longer take the major parties at their word when it comes to their commitment to international aid. At the 2010 federal election both Labor and the Coalition stood on election platforms promising to increase aid to 0.5% of Australia's gross national income by 2015-16. As recently as November 2011 both Labor and the Coalition voted in support of a Greens motion in the Senate reaffirming this commitment.
Yet at the May 2012 budget the Labor Government postponed the 0.5% deadline for a year and in response the Coalition dropped its commitment to a timetable altogether. This was followed by the December 2012 decision to divert $375 million out of the overseas aid program to pay for onshore immigration detention – a gross misuse of aid money that flies in the face of the Government's own aid spending guidelines which it set out just one year ago.
In May the Labor Government postponed the deadline for a further year, which means its 0.5% target now won't be reached until 2017-18.
These are not just broken promises to the Australian voters. These are promises that Australia made to the international community, the United Nations, and to women, men and children, who are forced to do what they can to survive each day on less than the price of a cup of coffee.
And they come with a financial cost. The May 2013 budget cut real aid spending by $2.9 billion over the next 4 years, compared to what was promised just one year previously. That includes $1.9 billion cut by postponing the 0.5% target to 2017-18 and $1 billion diverted to onshore immigration detention. That diversion has now been made a permanent feature of Labor's aid budget.
Just think about what $2.9 billion could do for people living in poverty and how much of a difference it could make.
The Government's 2011-2012 Annual Review of Aid Effectiveness found that Australian aid spending in that year had paid for life-saving assistance for more than 16 million people caught in disasters, clean water for 2.5 million people, immunisations for more than 2 million children, better sanitation for 1.6 million people, schools for more than 1 million children, and skilled birth attendants to deliver the babies of 230,000 women. Thanks to the efforts of the End of Polio campaign, Australian aid is helping to eradicate polio once and for all.
The case for increasing foreign aid is clear: aid money, spent effectively, can make a difference to people's lives. With a bigger program we can help more people and put an end to scourge of extreme poverty within a generation.
Some will argue that the United Nations target to spend 0.7% of Australia's gross national income on foreign aid is unaffordable. I argue that it is easily affordable for a country such as Australia which has largely weathered the global financial crisis, has not suffered a recession for more than two decades and which is ranked second in the UN's Human Development Index, which compares global living standards.
Far poorer countries than Australia already give more in foreign aid than we do. Australia is currently ranked 12th out of 24 donor nations – we spend only 0.37% of GDP on foreign aid.
This puts us behind the UK, France and Ireland who have all recently experienced recession and are struggling economically. Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands have all been meeting the 0.7% target for many years. This year the UK joined them for the first time – the culmination of a 44-year community-driven campaign.
It is disappointing that Australia lags well behind the Millennium Development Goal target which asked countries to devote 0.7% of GNI to overseas aid by 2015. The Greens would much prefer to see Australia joining other countries to meet this 0.7% target by 2015, but ongoing cuts and set-backs to the aid budget mean that our government is far from reaching this target. What the Australian Greens want to do with the bill is put forward a responsible and realistic timeline for up-scaling aid, year by year, that we think Labor and Coalition MPs will be able to support. A timeline the government of the day cannot justify shying away from.
The Greens bill ascribes a legally-binding timetable for Australia to reclaim our place in the world as a progressive nation that seeks to give everyone a fair go. It sets out annual minimum targets for aid spending that would ensure the Government reaches the UN target of 0.7% of gross national income to be spent on foreign aid by 2020-21.
However, it is not just the amount of money that is important but how it is spent and what it is spent on.
The Australian community rightly expect that foreign aid should be spent on alleviating poverty overseas. Australian Governments past and present have agreed to this by signing up to the Millennium Development Goals which set eight objectives for the world: to halve extreme poverty and hunger, to achieve universal education, to promote gender equality, to reduce child mortality, to improve maternal health, to combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases, to ensure environmental sustainability, and to build a global partnership for development.
These goals should be the key drivers of the Australian aid program, not promoting our national political and commercial interests.
I have already mentioned the fact that onshore immigration detention will rob the aid budget of $1 billion over the next 4 years. The government has also been accused of double-counting our climate aid. That is, reporting the same pool of climate aid as a contribution to both the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) financing and as ODA, which contravenes UN requirements that climate finance be additional to ODA. The Australian government has also come under heavy criticism for so-called military aid, where ODA is channelled through the Australian Defence Forces with the purpose of winning hearts and minds in conflicts such as Afghanistan, rather than putting in place sustainable and appropriate projects developed in partnership with local communities to alleviate poverty.
The Bill sets up a new category of excluded official development assistance to ensure that such expenditure that does not serve to alleviate poverty is not counted towards the annual aid targets, including the 0.7 per cent by 2020-21 target. Excluded official development assistance is defined in the bill as money provided by the Australian Government for climate finance, asylum seeker assistance in Australia or in another country that is a regional processing country under the Migration Act, or military assistance.
In addition to this legal protection, the Bill creates an independent aid watchdog – the Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness – to police aid spending and ensure that the Government is adhering to the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law. It is essential that Australia's aid program is transparent and accountable to the Australian government and to recipient communities. In 2006 AusAID established an Office of Development Effectiveness but this office has been a disappointment. Sitting within AusAID, it is less able to offer a robust unbiased critique of AusAID programs and it does not report directly to parliament. It is lacking teeth compared to Britain's Independent Commission on Aid Impact.
The Independent Commissioner on Aid Effectiveness, as defined in this bill, would sit at arm's length from AusAID and act as an independent watchdog to ensure Australia's aid is spent effectively to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The Commissioner would be independent of AusAID. It would report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and its reports would be tabled in parliament.
The Independent Commissioner's role is essential to reassure the Australian community that aid money is being spent effectively to end poverty in developing countries. The bill is essential to make sure that we stick to our commitments on aid spending.
Many people have written to me in support of this bill and a push for Australian to give its fair share in aid. I would like to share some of their concerns.
Mark from Epping in NSW asked how can we say we are a caring country when we spend so much money on ourselves and our military and mining but not support the many countries and communities who are much worse off than us and struggling to survive?
Andy from Corinda in Queensland said that giving aid to those that need is not something we can just stop whenever it's inconvenient, it's a policy we need to continually enforce to develop our world and strive for equal opportunities everywhere.
Pip from Hurstville in Sydney summed up many people's feelings about the revelations that aid spending was being used for offshore detention centres. She wrote:
"I was shocked and disgusted when I found out that our 'overseas aid' budget is being diverted to keeping refugees in truly inhumane conditions in our offshore detention centres. Who needs these funds most? It's not big business or even middle-class families. It's the world's poorest and most vulnerable who will benefit the most from our assistance. Australia may pride itself as being the 'lucky country', but if we're too selfish to commit our wealth to ending extreme poverty and hunger, I don't think we've got a lot to be proud of."
When considering this bill I ask all Senators and Members to consider that we live in a region with some of the highest rates of poverty and child malnutrition in the world.
This sentiment from Elizabeth in South Australia captured simply the humanity and generosity that inspired me to introduce this Greens bill following the announcement in 2012 that Labor and the Coalition would walk away from a bipartisan commitment to increase overseas aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015, effectively a cut to the aid budget. She said:
"When we in Australia are so much wealthier than most other nations, the least we can do is maintain, if not increase, our overseas aid."
I would like to take this opportunity to table below some more of the hundreds of messages of support I have received from many caring Australians which illustrate the depth of public support for a generous overseas aid program. I will table more supporting comments in further speeches as debate on the bill continues.
Edward from the Tweed said: "Australia has been blessed with all the good things on earth that we, as humans, need: clean air, water, sunshine, space and grace. Most of our citizens would applaud any party that was seen to share our good luck with the millions around the world who do not.
Signe from Liverpool in Sydney said: "Great initiative. Aid saves lives and having a dedicated office to examine and confirm aid is reaching those most in need is a positive step that we as one of the richest nations on earth should and can provide."
Ben from Adelaide said: "Having an effective aid program with Australians out there working alongside people in host countries sounds like a much better strategy for peace and international goodwill than our current overseas military campaigns. Right now only the insiders see any worth in what we are doing in Iraq or Afghanistan. Let us put that destructive and wasteful money into activities of strategic and sustainable development."
Taegan from Sydney said: "We are wealthy. Others are not. Increase overseas aid."
Joy from Morphett Vale said: "We need to commit to ending extreme poverty and hunger."
Denise from Far North Queensland said: "Aid should not end up in the pockets of western corporations or oppressive regimes, but in programs that actually help the poor in tangible ways."
Sarah from Perth said: "Thanks for your work on Australia's aid obligations - both moral and legal!"
Heather from South Australia said: "Australia could aim to bring the best maternity services to all of those countries where having and rearing children means risking women's lives."
Fiona from Perth said: "I definitely support an independent office to ensure that Australian aid goes to those who need it and to ensure that it is not frittered away on administration or sidelined by grasping governments here or in other countries.
Joan from Westlakes in South Australia said: "Australia should be a leader in Overseas Aid so we can stand up and be proud."
Willy from near Brisbane said: "Thanks for standing up for our overseas aid budget when the major parties fail the compassion test."
Janet from Adelaide said: "Overseas aid is vital to the existence of people from poorer countries. Wake up Australia."
Gosta from the ACT said: "I have been involved with Plan International for 45 years and visited projects in Ecuador, Colombia, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burkina Faso. Every visit has made me convinced that our aid gives children a chance to grow up healthier, better educated and with a more positive outlook towards the world and its future; this is very worthwhile. That Australia is far from filling the UN goal of 0.7 per cent of its budget makes me quite sad."
Bob from the Sunshine Coat said: "Australia needs a strong commitment to the Pacific Island neighbours."
Ted from Adelaide said: "The 0.7 per cent target has been talked about for a long time. It is disappointing that growth in our overseas aid is not really seeking to meet this target. It is time to review this situation - especially as the government is so proud that our economy is doing so well."
Siobhan in Melbourne said: "I would much prefer that CEO's and parliamentarians perks were capped than stop aid to poor countries."
Richard from Evans Head in northern NSW said: "I support your goal for Australian Aid. Overseas aid is critical to our future as a nation and is a moral imperative for a rich country like ours."
Craig in Blackwood near Adelaide said: "Cut fuel subsidies to mining companies. Increase the tax on superannuation for the wealthiest. Just don't disadvantage those who are already the most vulnerable and needy. There are, literally, lives at stake."
Patricia from the Sunshine Coast said: "Increasing overseas aid in a transparent way, improves global equity and may address some of the pressures which force people to become refugees."
Elizabeth from Sydney said: "Will we show our true strength of character and maturity as a nation and help those with less? Those without clean water and without food, and those who are living in tragic conditions of war or disease? Or will we be immature and keep everything for ourselves, without concern for the plight of our fellow humans? The choice is ours, and the world will remember Australia and Australians by the choice we make."
Jim from Henley Beach near Adelaide said: "Our two major political parties find easy targets to reduce funding when they try to win points off each other."
Claire from Melbourne said: "Climate change exacerbates existing problems such as poverty, lack of food security and political instability. Australia has a moral and ethical obligation to provide aid to countries with some of the most vulnerable people in the world."
Anna from Toowoomba said: "We are blessed to live in Australia, often simply through the luck of being born here. The wealth we have should be shared and is not ours alone."
Piers from Falls Creek said: "Despite the rhetoric from politicians, I consider Australia is well able to sustain this level of Aid. The UK has just lifted its Aid level to 0.7%. Australia is far better off than UK."
Mark from near Adelaide said: "I support increasing Australian government aid to overseas countries to help alleviate the suffering of millions of people who lack good food, water, housing, education, health, working conditions and other things that we Australian take for granted."
Lynn from Perth said: "Cutting foreign aid reflects poorly on our maturity as a nation. Using part of the foreign aid budget to fund our approach to the management of asylum seekers is reprehensible. I call on the Australian Government to increase the foreign aid budget, not reduce it. This cause should be beyond party politics."
Sue from near Adelaide said: "Australian people want an end to world poverty. We don't want to be a nation that turns its back on suffering whether it's human suffering through hunger, or animal suffering. We want a compassionate nation, and are willing to forgo some of our own "frills" to bring about more justice. This is why I would welcome an independent Office of Aid Effectiveness."
Anna from St Kilda said: "Cut Australia's aid budget and you undermine the good work that has been done to date. Cut foreign aid and you forfeit our international humanitarian obligations. Cut foreign aid and you send a message to the world that Australia's priorities lack humanity. Cut foreign aid and you dismantle the concept of a sustainable global community."
And finally a comment from Mark, north of Perth, who was excited by the opportunity to have his voice heard in Parliament and hoped there were enough politicians of any persuasion to support the Greens bill. He said: "Why should we increase Australian Aid and make it more effective? Because the Australian government, on behalf of the people of Australia, committed to the Millennium Development Goals. Because keeping promises is an important value, not just for Australia but for the millions of people affected by extreme poverty around the world. Because Australia should lead by example. We have the means more than any other country right now. If we act to reduce overseas aid in times of great prosperity, we have failed to set an example. Because extreme poverty is the kind of poverty that is human misery, starvation, hopelessness, drought, disease and is inescapable. Because overseas aid is part of a solution that empowers people in extreme poverty to help themselves. Because we are human, because we care and know in our hearts that extreme poverty is an unnatural state of existence and it is wrong."
I commend this bill to the Senate.
That that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, no later than noon on Thursday, 27 June 2013, the overdue report by the National Transport Commission, 'Review of the Australian Road Rules and Australian Vehicle Standards Rules: Draft Evaluation Report', which was due for release in March 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the government estimates that the Reef Rescue program has stopped the equivalent of over one million wheelbarrows worth of sediment run-off entering the Great Barrier Reef,
(ii) that at least 193 times that amount of sediment has been approved by this Government for offshore dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and
(iii) scientific understanding, that added sediment in the marine environment has destructive impacts on seagrasses and corals; and
(b) calls on the Government to prohibit offshore dumping of dredge spoil within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group of the United Nations Human Rights Council will review the implementation of recommendations which emerged from the first UPR cycle of 14 states, as well as human rights developments since the first review of these states, in its seventeenth session commencing in October 2013;
(b) urges the full and transparent engagement of all states with the UPR process and consideration of the recommendations arising thereof; and
(c) notes that China is scheduled in this session for review, and:
(i) supports China's participation in the UPR,
(ii) notes the ongoing tension in the Tibetan regions, and nearly 120 deaths by self-immolation in protests against China's policies in those regions, and
(iii) endorses Australia's efforts to promote human rights in Tibet.
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to:
(a) work cooperatively with the states through the Council of Australian Governments and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in order to get agreement among all states on a minimum standard of entitlements for all workers in all industrial relations jurisdictions across Australia, particularly around reflecting Australia's international obligations in respect of consultation, dispute resolution, general protections, major organisational change and entitlements;
(b) commence the process of ratifying the International Labor Organization's Collective Bargaining Convention 1981 (No. 154) and Collective Bargaining Recommendation 1981 (No.163); and
(c) explore options to:
(i) deal with the growing problem of indirect employment relationships, particularly through labour hire arrangements used by state governments and the Commonwealth, and
(ii) ensure all Australian workers, including those in state public sector employment, have adequate and equal protections of their rights at work.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the importance of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, and specifically that signatories to the convention:
(i) are conscious of the value of wild fauna and flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic points of view,
(ii) recognise that peoples and states are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora, and
(iii) recognise that wild flora and fauna are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the earth, needing conservation for generations to come;
(b) acknowledges that flora and fauna have value to recreational users of our national parks; and
(c) supports the different values that are placed on flora and fauna by different people and groups, and agrees those different values should be balanced through sustainable usage approach.
The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that coal seam gas mining threatens our land, our water, our communities and our climate; and
(b) calls on all parties to commit to not approving any more coal seam gas developments in Australia.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that in 2011, the Government passed the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 which removed the term 'control' from the Duties of Care which changed the longstanding principle that responsibility for safety under the Act should be allocated according to what was within reasonable and practicable control,
(ii) that this principle was established in the 1972 Robens Review which recommended that responsibility for safety be allocated according to reasonable and practicable control and enshrined in the International Labor Organization Convention 155, article 16,
(iii) that the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations, Senator Collins, confirmed in the 2011 Senate debate that a principal contractor retains responsibility for all safety down the contractual line with the new person conducting a business or undertaking test,
(iv) the numerous reports of exposure to asbestos in telecommunications pits while rolling out the National Broadband Network,
(v) evidence from the Chief Executive Officer of Comcare at Senate estimates that the Commonwealth Government may be liable for these exposures under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 , and
(v) further evidence that more than half of all asbestos cases since 1996 involving telecommunications pits have occurred in the past 6 weeks;
(b) calls on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to provide the Senate with a detailed report before 27 June 2013 on asbestos in telecommunications pits and the responsibilities of the Government, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the National Broadband Network Corporation under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 ; and
(c) supports moves to protect workers by the Government and Telstra, and recognises the longstanding contribution of the trade union movement towards awareness and identification of asbestos.
Omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:
(a) calls on the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to provide the Senate with a detailed report before 27 July 2013 on asbestos in telecommunications pits and the responsibilities of Telstra, the Government, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the National Broadband Network Corporation under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; and
That the Senate—
(a) supports the world's largest network of marine parks put in place by this Government; and
(b) supports the management plans for the marine parks.
The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria board meeting, held in the week beginning 16 June 2013, approved the first funding grants under its new funding model,
(ii) one of the first three countries receiving funding is Myanmar, with which Australia has established significant ties, including support for its health sector and efforts to tackle HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis,
(iii) the Australian Government has been a significant supporter of the Global Fund since 2004, contributing $310 million to help the Global Fund save an estimated 8.7 million lives to date,
(v) this money has been leveraged in the Asia Pacific, where between 2002 and 2012 the Global Fund has invested $3.1 billion, and
(vi) the Global Fund remains the biggest international funder for the three diseases, providing 80 per cent of international funding for tuberculosis, 50 per cent for malaria and one fifth of international funding for HIV;
(b) calls on the Government to consider the request of the Global Fund and civil society health professionals to significantly increase Australia's financial support to the Global Fund to help address the funding gap that has grown between patient needs and resources available to meet those needs, as part of the fourth Global Fund replenishment at the end of 2013; and
(c) reiterates the commitment of all parties to Australia's ongoing financial support for global efforts to eradicate HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that Australia's legal action against Japanese whaling will begin in the International Court of Justice, The Hague, on 26 June 2013, and will be followed closely by all Australians who have expressed significant concern about the annual slaughter of whales in Antarctic waters; and
(b) urges the Government to outline how a positive result for Australia in this court case will be enforced by Australia and what financial provisions have been made to resource the enforcement efforts.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee considers that foreign investment can make a major contribution to future agricultural developments in Australia, including the Ord irrigation area.
… … …
However, the committee also considers that to maximise the benefits of such developments there are challenges to be overcome such as: limited access to long-term capital investment; restrictions from land tenure arrangements; and the trade and transparency of water entitlements.
Why isn't a pathway being engineered for local investment, ahead of international?
Why has the government lost confidence in local agribusiness developing our agricultural future?
There is no doubt that the world is facing an explosion in the demand for food, the global population forecast to peak at 9 billion within 38 years.
Australia has a critical role to play in meeting the demand created from that expected 40 per cent increase.
I would say more respect should be paid to the expertise contained in our own agricultural industry and more effort put into making sure that Australia is equipped to play its role in the global demand for food.
The committee recommends that the government require that any non-commercial production from agricultural land and businesses by foreign government entities (including for the purposes of food security) is undertaken within relevant Australian Government foreign aid programs.
Any society, any nation, is judged on the basis of how it treats its weakest members; the last, the least, the littlest.
I am here to argue for the enduring relevance of Liberal values as tools in facing up to the problems of this nation and indeed our world: the values of independence, self-reliance, tolerance, the pursuit of excellence, choice, equality of opportunity and individual freedom. In turn I reject as bankrupt the socialist alternative. That alternative fails to appreciate that people who have no incentive to work and invest will not create wealth. It thinks that collectivism and standardisation in the workplace are a substitute for hard work and innovation. It sees government as a better solver of people's problems than they are themselves.
I have no truck with those who elevate Australia's shortcomings above our successes … I refuse to be apologetic about the kind of country we are today.
VALEDICTORY SENATORS HUMPHRIES AND JOYCE
I also rise tonight to pay tribute to the significant contributions made by my colleagues Senator Gary Humphries and, Senator Barnaby Joyce to the Parliament of Australia, during their time as members of the Australian Senate.
HUMPHRIES
I turn to Senator Humphries.
In my time in this place I have had the privilege of serving with Senator Humphries on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Senate Committee.
Senator Humphries has always demonstrated professionalism, competence and an extraordinary understanding of Parliamentary practice and procedure in his role as Deputy Chair of this Committee.
All Australians, but Canberrans in particular, have been the beneficiaries of the many political achievements of Senator Humphries both when he was the Chief Minister of the ACT Parliament and of course during his time in the Senate.
When you speak with colleagues about Senator Humphries one thing is clear: throughout his time in the Senate, he has worked diligently and with great distinction.
Gary— it has been an absolute pleasure to serve with you and I know that given you live in this great Territory where you live and breathe politics every day, there is no way your service to public life can possibly come to an end and neither should it. You still have much to contribute and I look forward to continuing to work with you albeit in different capacity.
I congratulate you on your long and distinguished service to the Parliament and people of Australia.
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
… … …
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And—which is more—you'll be a Man, my son!