The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
Carbon emissions have dropped by 15 million tonnes, or 8.5 per cent, across the NEM since the carbon tax kicked in at the start of July last year…
… I have never bought the alarmist hysteria attached to carbon dioxide as driving climate change. And there is, you know, no consensus of scientists I'm afraid. There are literally tens of thousands of people - scientists who have a different view on this.
… a draconian, new police force chasing an invisible, odourless, weightless, tasteless substance.
We've had pious Penny Wong and gravitas Greg Combet coming out here telling [us] if we don't do this, the kiddies will drown in sea level rises or instantaneously combust or get eaten alive by spiders.
Market mechanisms will generally be most efficient in locating and driving least cost abatement.
… bureaucratic or political decision making are usually poor substitutes for the judgments of market actors responding to price in light of their own circumstances.
This program has made a significant contribution to maintaining many businesses’ competitiveness at a time of sharply rising energy prices, including the impacts of carbon pricing.
In fact, in the one key sector that counts—the electrical power sector—emissions are declining rapidly. It's the sector that counts because it is most directly affected by the carbon tax—
… emissions have fallen 14% over the past two spring seasons since the carbon tax was implemented. In total spring emissions are down almost 20% since the peak in the spring of 2008, just five years ago.
At face value, the figures point to an increase in the rate of emissions reductions since mid 2012, coincident with the start of the carbon tax. On the back of a persistent decline in emissions, our electrical power sector emissions are falling at unprecedented rates.
The 2013 report showed the superannuation industry received A$33 billion worth of tax concessions. This tax foregone was made up of the contributions on superannuation which … only taxed at 15%, and concessional tax on capital gains paid by super funds, which is also taxed at 15% … Then there is the $1.5 billion private health insurance rebate; or the $4 billion mining diesel fuel rebate. These are not classified by the Productivity Commission as industry assistance—
This means that climate change policy will be directed by evidence and facts, rather than fear and political opportunism. It will take the politics out of the debate.
Australians also deserve an approach to tackling climate change that respects the scientific and economic consensus, where facts and not fear set public policy.
The Authority has taken the Government’s different policy approach into account in the analysis for this Draft Report. In the Authority’s view, this Report remains highly relevant despite the changing policy landscape. Its primary focus is Australia’s goals for reducing emissions. The setting of these goals raises the same critical questions, whatever the particular policies adopted to meet them.
… it is critical that the Climate Change Authority or similar body is retained to ensure Australia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are informed by independent scientific, economic, energy, and policy experts with a level of distance from stakeholder influence.
The Conservation Council of SA does not support the abolition of the Climate Change Authority. Such an Authority is vital to the independence of advice on climate change policy and initiatives.
Regardless of the policy tools that Australian governments choose to implement, the CCA’s analysis assists investors to interpret the likely future emissions reductions trajectory for Australia and the scale of policy response that will be required.
Well, I’ve always thought that climate change was real because I’ve always known about the ice age and other things …
… the Climate Change Authority plays an essential role in informing that climate policy should be retained. … To achieve a sustained emission reduction consistent with our national interest, Australia needs climate policies that are based on a sound foundation of evidence rather than political agenda.
What … the Climate Change Authority does is provide an opportunity for all those stakeholders to present their views, to have them scrutinised in a transparent way and then for conclusions to be drawn from that … We need a solid base of evidence and a strong analytical foundation upon which to base our decisions, which should be independent of government, should be independent of business groups and should be independent of environment groups. That is why we need institutions like the Climate Change Authority …
One is that it can be easily terminated. If in fact climate change is proved to be not real, which some people obviously believe—I don't. If you believe climate change is going to be proved to be unreal, then a scheme like that can be brought to an end.
Or if you believe that there is not going to be any global action and that the rest of the world will just say, "It's all too hard and we'll just let the planet get hotter and hotter," and, you know, heaven help our future generations - if you take that rather grim, fatalistic view of the future and you want to abandon all activity, a scheme like that is easier to stop.
… a statutory body charged with providing strong and independent advice to government about matters, including the Renewable Energy Target as well as caps and targets for carbon pollution or carbon emissions. The authority is chaired by former Reserve Bank governor Bernie Fraser, with a board made up of highly esteemed business leaders, economists and scientists, including Australia's Chief Scientist, Professor Chubb.
… These bills would also shut down the independent voice of the Climate Change Authority on the critically important question of targets, extending yet further the emerging theme of this government: to ensure that all advice—advice to the parliament and advice to the Australian community—is managed and controlled by the Prime Minister's office. Well, Labor will stand up for strong, independent advice. We will oppose the bill that abolishes the Climate Change Authority outright.
Those opposite pretend that the abolition of the fixed price on carbon will lead to lower electricity costs. They pretend that taxpayers will somehow be better off; they pretend that this legislation is somehow business friendly; and they pretend that their policy can achieve the same environmental outcomes as Labor's. Nothing could be further from the truth. The coalition's policy is a hoax on the Australian electorate.
In general, ‘direct action’ options tend to be the least cost-effective. That is, they deliver the lowest emissions abatement for a given cost, or the same emissions abatement at the highest cost.
If I had to make a choice between pricing carbon and having bureaucrats allocating permits, then I’m going to go for the market mechanism every time.
There hasn't been sufficient action taken by the government to address the issues of justice and accountability.
… … …
The culture of deterioration of human rights gives us great concern when churches and mosques are burnt down and people feel that they cannot practice their faiths freely and without fear. … I believe the urgency that has gripped the international community is justified.
… we accept that sometimes in difficult circumstances, difficult things happen.
Sugar has been blamed as the 'root of all evil' in Australia's obesity crisis. But the Dietitians Association of Australia believes it is simplistic and unhelpful to blame sugar alone for such a complex issue.
Despite claims in recently-popular diet books that sugar is the cause of Australia's obesity epidemic, large long-term studies in this area are currently lacking. Interestingly, sugar intake has decreased in Australia over the past 40 years—but as a nation, we continue to put on weight.
Sweet Poison is based on a gross misinterpretation and neglect of the key aspects of nutrition-related scientific literature … In fact,Sweet Poison is replete with errors and dubious claims.
Sugar is just another form of over-consumed calories, easily available and very palatable but no more metabolically deadly than starch or fat calories and certainly not equivalent to alcohol.
… unlike tobacco, it is possible to consume moderate amounts of sugar within a healthy balanced diet.
As an industry, we have recognised that in the last five years we have witnessed a very significant escalation in this campaign to demonise sugar … As you know, the basis of it is that a whole range of people are alleging that sugar is giving rise to a range of health issues. We strongly refute that. We are proud of the product we produce—we do not take kindly to having our brand trashed by a whole range of people.
There is no support from the human literature for the hypothesis that sugar may be physically addictive.
The 50-year-old Indigenous grandmother wasn't sure what would come first—the eviction from her public housing home in the Perth's northern suburbs or death from the cancer that was spreading through her frail and pain-wracked body.
Health equality will never be achieved without education equality. Every Australian child must have equal access to a quality education.
My grandfather once told me, 'Don't just talk about it, be about it'—
We must increase our efforts. We must sustain the course. We must never use Aboriginal peoples' disparity for political gain.
… the proposed variation is needed if Toyota is to achieve its targets.
… we need to modernise our work practices.
Toyota Australia has never blamed the union for its decision to close its manufacturing operations by the end of 2017, neither publicly or in private discussions with any stakeholders.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Minister for Health (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senator McLucas today relating to potential conflicts of interest for ministerial staff.
There is no connection whatsoever between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.
I looked at it very carefully, and there was nothing that struck me about it as being a draft. It just doesn't make sense.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to industry assistance.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee on its inquiry into Commonwealth procurement procedures be extended to 30 June 2014.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold a private briefing during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 February 2014, from 10 am, followed by a public hearing to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the 2012-13 report of the Australian Commission on Law Enforcement Integrity.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to meet during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 12 February 2014, from 5.30 pm, for a private briefing; and
(b) on Wednesday, 5 March 2014, from 5.30 pm, for a public meeting to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the 2012-13 report of the Australian Crime Commission.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 be extended to 27 March 2014.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 10.30 am, as follows:
(a) Thursday, 13 February 2014;
(b) Thursday, 6 March 2014;
(c) Thursday, 20 March 2014; and
(d) Thursday, 27 March 2014.
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, from 10.30 am, as follows:
(a) Wednesday, 5 March 2014;
(b) Wednesday, 19 March 2014; and
(c) Wednesday, 26 March 2014.
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 February 2014.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria, Jordan and Lebanon,
(ii) the former Labor Government's contribution of $100.8 million to humanitarian assistance, and
(iii) the Abbott Government's contribution of $12 million to humanitarian assistance; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately increase its humanitarian aid commitment to people affected by the Syrian conflict.
After subparagraph (iii), insert:
(iv) the contribution of other international donors such as the United States of America (AU $420 million), the United Kingdom (AU $181 million), Kuwait (AU $553 million) and Norway (AU $235 million); and
Omit paragraph (b), substitute:
(b) calls on the Abbott Government to immediately increase its humanitarian aid commitment to people affected by the Syrian conflict in line with Oxfam Australia’s call for an additional $96 million.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Australian Curriculum was developed over 6 years, involving input from thousands of educators, parents and academics, and was negotiated with, and agreed to by, state and territory governments,
(ii) the Australian Curriculum is still in the process of being implemented by state and territory governments,
(iii) there is widespread concern among educators and the public about the timeframe, scope and transparency of the Federal Government's review of the Australian Curriculum, and the objectivity and expertise of the panel;
(b) recognises:
(i) the importance of a non partisan perspective in the development of the curriculum for Australian students, and
(ii) the need to appoint proficient and independent experts to oversee reviews of Commonwealth programs; and
(c) calls on the Government to immediately restore the established system of appointing independent education experts to oversee the development and implementation of the Australian Curriculum.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the Abbott Government for its attempt to reduce the size of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by 74 000 hectares to enable logging of high conservation value forests;
(b) supports the findings of the World Heritage Committee that the areas proposed for excision satisfy World Heritage criteria;
(c) notes that commercial markets reject timber products from primary native forests as unsustainable and uncertified;
(d) understands that the Abbott Government's proposed boundary adjustments are not based on evidence that this area does not contain world heritage values;
(e) supports the 2013 boundary modification; and
(f) calls on the World Heritage Committee to reject the request to reduce the size of the World Heritage Area.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Thursday, 6 February 2014, marked the International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation (FGM),
(ii) the day has been designated by the United Nations to raise awareness amongst the general public about this practice which violates the human rights of women and girls, and
(iii) approximately 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM;
(b) recognises that FGM in Australia is prohibited by specific legislation in every jurisdiction;
(c) congratulates the New South Wales Government for moving to increase the maximum penalty for performing FGM from 7 to 21 years; and
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February 2014 is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month,
(ii) Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is run each year by Ovarian Cancer Australia, its purpose to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer and to offer support for the women, their families and friends affected by ovarian cancer, and
(iii) Wednesday, 26 February 2014, is Ovarian Cancer Australia's Teal Ribbon Day, a day when Australians are invited to purchase and wear a Teal Ribbon to show support for ovarian cancer awareness, support and research and recognise those affected;
(b) recognises that:
(i) according to Ovarian Cancer Australia, one woman dies every 8 hours from ovarian cancer,
(ii) the organisation also reports that each year more than 1 400 Australian women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and around 1 000 will die from the disease, equating to an average of four Australian women being diagnosed every day, and
(iii) early detection of ovarian cancer is key, as when ovarian cancer is detected in the early stages, the majority of women will survive; and
(c) commends Ovarian Cancer Australia for the work that it has done in raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer and to reduce its impact on Australians.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that
(i) the Minister for the Environment has granted an exemption to Western Australia, under section 158 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act), from all of the provisions of part 3 of the Act, to allow the setup of baited drum lines off the West Australian coast with the intent to catch and kill great white sharks, tiger sharks and bull sharks over 3 metres,
(ii) the Western Australian Government has broken its commitment to minimise the environmental impact of these drum lines by failing to reduce the chance of small shark by-catch,
(iii) there is a lack of public reporting by the Western Australian Government on the number of sharks and other marine life, caught, killed or released, and
(iv) Communities and Surf Life Saving WA reports indicate that at least 36 sharks have been caught since the drum lines were set, 32 of which were smaller than 3 metres, contravening clause 17 of the exemption;
(b) condemns the Catch and Kill Shark Policy of the Western Australian Government; and
(c) calls on the Minister for the Environment to revoke the exemption of the drum lines given to the Western Australian Government under section 158 of the Act.
Adelaide Airport Curfew Amendment (Protecting Residents' Amenity) Bill 2014
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Adelaide Airport Curfew Act 2000, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
ADELAIDE AIRPORT CURFEW AMENDMENT (PROTECTING RESIDENTS' AMENITY) BILL 2014
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the World Heritage Committee has expressed extreme concern about industrialisation of the Great Barrier Reef coastline, as have Queensland fishers and tourism operators, and the broader Australian community,
(ii) the Federal and Queensland Governments are currently undertaking two strategic assessments which will decide how the Great Barrier Reef's coast will be protected into the future, and
(iii) there has been a public submission process on the draft strategic assessments, however submissions have not been made public, denying the public the ability to scrutinise submissions made by experts and industry; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to promptly publish all submissions received on the two Great Barrier Reef draft strategic assessments.
That the Senate congratulates the members of the Australian Olympic team competing at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games who have shown their support for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex community and expressed their deep concern for Russia's discriminatory and homophobic laws.
That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in my name for today, proposing a reference to the Legal and Constitution Affairs References Committee, be postponed till 13 February 2014.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, no later than Thursday, 13 February 2014, a copy of the report produced by the high-level panel, comprised of Ms Catherine Livingstone AO, Mr Richard (Dick) Warburton AO LVO and the Honourable Greg Combet AM, established in December 2013 to advise the Government on assistance to SPC Ardmona.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, no later than noon on Thursday, 13 February 2014, documents detailing the number and cost of the lifeboats purchased by the Australian Government for use in border protection operations, including the cost of any upgrades or alterations; the number of lifeboats remaining in the Australian Government's possession; and details of the procurement process for these lifeboats in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by a public meeting, during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 February 2014, from 10 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee’s biannual review of the National Capital Authority.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The decisions of the Abbott Government that have led to the loss of more than 50,000 jobs in the past five months.
Let the message go out from here in Melbourne, the manufacturing heart of our country, that we must be a country that continues to make things.
Speaking on Melbourne radio after a visit to the Ford motor plant in Geelong Abbott waxed lyrical: "It's an iconic Australian plant. It's been opened since 1925 ad it's one of the many major Australian manufacturers which would be at risk under a carbon tax.
I think any government which makes it harder to manufacture cars is making it harder for us to continue to be a First World economy because without cars, without steel, without aluminium, without cement, we don't have these manufacturers in Australia, we are not really a sophisticated economy any more.'
Toyota Australia denies the allegations in today's front page Australian Financial Review story … Toyota Australia has never blamed the union for its decision to close its manufacturing operations by the end of 2017, neither publicly or in private discussions with any stakeholders.
The decisions of the Abbott Government that have led to the loss of more than 50,000 jobs in the past five months.
It is impossible to build cars in Australia competitively and no amount of government incentives could have saved Holden …
'I initiated this decision as the leader of these markets and it was driven purely by business rationale, and not by any direction this government or any future government would give for their auto industry in Australia,' …
The funds could not add up regardless of the level of public funds involved, he said.
That the Senate take note of the report.
From this time forward …
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That the time for consideration of the documents today not exceed 60 minutes.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
All Australians have a right to live in a community where they can be safe.
Supplement to the 13th edition of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice
That Senator Seselja replace Senator Bernardi on the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for the consideration of the 2013-14 additional estimates on Friday, 28 February 2014.
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2013
Migration Amendment Bill 2013
Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2013
Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No. 1) Bill 2013
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) 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.
EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2013
The key to Australia's competitiveness in providing world-leading education services to overseas students will rest on how well we promote our institutions and enhance both their quality and the experience of students who come to our shores. We must also act decisively to minimise the constraints of unnecessary regulatory burden on education providers to support a vibrant international education system into the future. The successful and efficient operation of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 , or ESOS, and its associated legislative framework is an important element in enhancing international education in Australia.
Australia's reputation for quality in international education is built on the excellence of our universities, higher education institutions, schools and technical colleges, both public and private. ESOS supports the integrity of our student visa system, which is fundamental to our international education provision. It gives students who come here the assurance that their rights as consumers are respected and their needs in adjusting to life in Australia are met. It ensures they are supported to pursue an outstanding educational experience here. We warmly welcome international students, and this government will do everything we can to encourage them to choose Australia first when they are considering an international education.
There are currently around 1,000 providers of international education in Australia, from large universities and TAFEs to small private colleges and English language providers, as well as public and private schools. Under the Labor government, there was an alarming decline in income earned by Australian international education from its peak in 2009-10. This government is acting decisively and quickly to ensure a much more prosperous future for international education.
This is why the government will respond positively to the advice of the International Education Advisory Council in its report, Australia: Educating Globally , widely known as the Chaney Report, and release a draft national strategy for international education for consultation in early 2014.
In delivering on our support for international education this government has announced an approach that will encourage growth in international student numbers by allowing flexibility in Australia's approach to allocating student visas.
The previous government limited access to streamlined visa processing to universities only, when it was introduced in late March 2012. No other higher education providers were offered access to streamlined visa processing. This government is rectifying what we consider to be a serious impediment to the growth of international education in Australia.
On 29 October 2013, the government announced that it would extend the offer of streamlined visa processing arrangements to 22 degree awarding non-university providers of higher education that present a low immigration risk. The government also announced the simplification of the Assessment Level Framework. Education providers who are not being offered the opportunity to participate in streamlined visa processing arrangements at this time will benefit from these significant improvements to the Assessment Level Framework.
The reforms to streamlined visa processing and the Assessment Level Framework, and the work we commence here today with the ESOS Amendment Bill, are the kinds of reforms we need to strengthen our international education system. They are integral to our plan for safeguarding and enhancing Australia's status as a world-leading provider of education services.
The ESOS Amendment Bill I introduce today will begin the essential adjustment to the regulatory settings for international education to align and simplify our current legislative framework. The amendments are necessary because of unintended consequences arising from the implementation of amendments to the ESOS Act in early 2012 under the previous government. The amendments today will increase the certainty and fairness for our overseas students, and are an important change to ensure the current legislative framework operates effectively.
The amendments to the ESOS Act to be made by this bill will ensure that the refunds registered providers are required to make to their overseas students are appropriate. That is, the amendments ensure refunds encompass tuition fees paid by students both before and after the commencement of their period of study, where those fees are unspent at the time that a default occurs.
These important clarifications to a core function of the ESOS Act are to be delivered through an amendment to the use of the term 'pre-paid' fees, which will be replaced with 'tuition' fees in Division 2 of Part 3 of the ESOS Act. This is consistent with the original intention of the amendments to the ESOS Act in 2012. Importantly, these changes are technical in nature and do not place new or extra requirements on providers. Rather, the requirements on providers and protections for students are being clarified and simplified, and will benefit both.
In addition, the bill will clarify the situation relating to refunds in cases of student defaults caused by a visa refusal. This can be a complex area for providers to navigate, where often several pieces of legislation apply, and it can be difficult for overseas students too. This bill will give the minister the power to make a Legislative Instrument under the ESOS Act that will stipulate how a refund to a student is to be made in instances of student default for visa refusal, and also in cases of student default where there is no written agreement in place between the provider and the student. This Legislative Instrument is intended to take effect at the time these provisions take effect.
The bill will also amend the 'National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007' to remove reference to 'Registration Authorities'. Requirements previously imposed on Registration Authorities by the National Code are now contained in the ESOS Act. The removal of the reference to Registration Authorities will ensure that the title of the National Code properly reflects its content. This minor amendment precedes a more substantial review of the National Code overall. The Department of Education will be consulting in the coming months with key stakeholders on ways in which the National Code can be improved in the context of the government's deregulation policy, specifically its review of higher education regulation.
This bill is the first legislative step the government is taking to build a new architecture for international education so that the industry can grow and achieve its enormous potential. The government will continue to introduce more reforms to improve the competitiveness, sustainability and quality of Australia's education system into the future.
MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
The Migration Amendment Bill 2013 amends the Migration Act 1958 to address a number of recent court and tribunal decisions that significantly affect the operations of my Department, including the processing of visa applications made by asylum seekers and other non-citizens.
When a decision is made and meaning of 'finally determined'
The first Schedule to the bill will put beyond doubt that a decision on review, or a visa refusal, cancellation or revocation decision by the minister or his delegate, is taken to be made on the day and at the time when a record of it is made, and not when the decision is notified or communicated to the application or the former visa holder.
The amendments address the decision of the Full Federal Court of Australia in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQOY [2012] FCAFC 131, in which the Full Federal Court found that the RRT's decision making power in respect of a review is not exercised or 'spent' until the review decision is notified 'irrevocably and externally'.
They also address the Full Federal Court's decision in Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship v SZRNY [2013] FCAFC 104, in which the Full Federal Court extended the judgment inSZQOY and found that an application is 'finally determined' (that is, no longer subject to a form of merits review) only when the review decision of the RRT is notified to both the review applicant and the Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection according to law. It was immaterial that the review decision had been notified externally and that the review applicant had actually been notified of the review decision despite any error in the notification itself.
These findings cause potential difficulties and risks in the administration of the Act. For example, the concept of an application being 'finally determined' is crucial to liability for removal under section 198 of the Act. The amendments will therefore remove any doubt as to when a decision by the minister, delegate or tribunal is made and an application is 'finally determined'.
Statutory bar against further Protection visa applications
The second schedule to the bill clarifies that a person in the migration zone who has previously been refused a protection visa, or who held a protection visa that was cancelled, is prohibited from making a further protection visa application. This applies regardless of the basis upon which the earlier protection visa application was made or granted.
The amendment addresses the decision of the Full Federal Court on 3 July 2013 in SZGIZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 71. In that case, the Full Federal Court found that section 48A of the Migration Act only prohibited the making of a protection visa application that relied on the same ground as the previously refused protection visa application.
For example, if a non-citizen previously made a protection visa application raising claims under the Refugees Convention, section 48A of the Migration Act would not prohibit a new protection visa application based on complementary protection claims.
By restoring the intended operation of the statutory bar in section 48A of the Act, the amendment will preserve the integrity of Australia's protection visa program and avoid its abuse, by preventing non-citizens without meritorious claims for protection from delaying their departure from Australia by making repeat protection visa applications on different grounds each time.
Protection visa applicant not assessed to be a risk to security by ASIO
The third schedule to the bill addresses the decision made by the High Court in Plaintiff M47/2012 v Director-General of Security & Ors [2012] HCA 46. In October 2012, the High Court of Australia found that the use of the public interest criterion 4002 in theMigration Regulations 1994 was not a valid criterion for the purposes of a Protection visa application.
Public interest criterion 4002 states that the applicant is not to be assessed by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) to be directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (the ASIO Act). In the absence of PIC 4002, the Protection visa assessment process for persons with an adverse security assessment is currently problematic as each case requires individual consideration as to whether the person does or does not pass the character test in section 501 of the act.
The bill will amend section 36 of the Migration Act to insert a specific criterion for a Protection visa that the applicant is not assessed by ASIO to be directly or indirectly a risk to security, within the meaning of section 4 of the ASIO Act. The new criterion in section 36 reflects the wording of PIC 4002.
In addition, the amendments in the bill also put beyond doubt that the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will not have the power to review a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a protection visa on the basis of an adverse security assessment by ASIO that the applicant for, or holder of, a Protection visa is directly or indirectly a risk to security within the meaning of section 4 of the ASIO Act.
The amendments will also reflect current paragraph 500(4)(c) of the Migration Act by confirming that the Refugee Review Tribunal does not have the power to review a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a Protection visa made on the basis of one or more of Articles 1F, 32 or 33(2) of the Refugees Convention or paragraphs 36(2C)(a) or 36(2C)(b) of the Migration Act. Paragraph 500(1)(c) provides only the AAT has the jurisdiction to conduct a merits review of those decisions.
The amendments ensure that to meet community expectations, the government must not only have the ability to act decisively and effectively, wherever necessary, to protect the Australian community, but also to have the legislative basis to refuse a protection visa or to cancel a protection visa, for those non-citizens who are a security risk.
We must prevent and deter any threats posed by those who are a risk to the security or our nation and must implement legislative amendments such as those to section 36 of the Migration Act to ensure the security and safety of the Australian community.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013
This bill seeks to redress implementation concerns with legislation introduced by the previous government. As part of the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the former government announced that from 1 April 2014, the government's contribution to an individual's private health insurance rebate would be capped and effectively reduced over time as a proportion of the premium.
The previous government's legislation caps the Australian Government Rebate by setting a base premium for every type of insurance product on the market, and then indexes the rebate payable for every type of private health insurance product subgroup by the lesser of the increase in the Consumer Price Index or the increase in the commercial premium for each product subgroup.
It was the third measure introduced by the previous government to reduce rebates available to people with private health insurance, but it also introduced additional complexity.
Industry has expressed concern that the planned administration of the Base Premium Act at a product level was unduly complicated, difficult and costly to implement and would be difficult for consumers to understand. Industry has advised that there are over 34,000 policies on the market and the burden placed on private health insurers to comply with the application of a unique rebate for each policy type is estimated to be more than $15 million in implementation costs alone.
The Private Health Insurance Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 simplifies current implementation arrangements for indexing the government's contribution to the Rebate by amending thePrivate Health Insurance Act 2007 to create a single adjustment factor under a legislative instrument. The rebate will be adjusted uniformly across all insurance policies each 1 April by a factor, to be determined in accordance with thePrivate Health Insurance (Incentives) Rules made under section 333-20 of thePrivate Health Insurance Act 2007 . The adjustment factor will be a ratio representing the proportion of the increase in the consumer price index compared to the average private health insurance premium increase. The adjustment will apply to premiums that are paid or payable in the 12 months starting on that 1 April.
This arrangement will be easier for consumers to understand and for insurers to implement.
Industry has advised that this bill will result in administrative savings of around 80 per cent below the costs to implement the Base Premium Act.
The bill is also making a minor amendment to the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to clarify that a restricted access group can include one or more classes of people as defined within thePrivate Health Insurance (Registration) Rules.
Private Health Insurance is in important pillar of Australia's health system. The previous coalition government introduced a range of measures, including the private health insurance rebates that successfully arrested the decline in private health insurance and resulted in a significant uptake in hospital cover since. Over 10.9 million Australians have hospital treatment cover today. The government remains committed to supporting private health insurance and those that make the sacrifice, often on modest incomes, to provide for their own healthcare.
The bill today alleviates a considerable administrative burden with the implementation of the previous government's measure. It reflects the government's determination to reduce unnecessary regulation and red tape wherever possible.
THERAPEUTIC GOODS AMENDMENT (2013 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2013
I am pleased to introduce the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2013 Measures No.1) Bill 2013, which amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989.
The purpose of this bill is to make a number of changes that will contribute to a reduction in regulation or in potential health risks to the public, improving the transparency of the regulatory scheme or providing greater clarity and certainty about the operation of the Act.
An important measure included in the bill, which is the power of the minister to remove products from the operation of the Therapeutic Goods Act in appropriate circumstances, will provide a basis to address the growing trend of therapeutic claims being made for all manner of products to appeal to health conscious consumers. Jewellery, bedding and even clothing may be marketed for their claimed health or wellbeing benefits, and because of such claims, may draw those products within the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods, a scheme which is primarily directed at the regulation of goods designed specifically to, among other things, ameliorate, prevent, treat or influence ailments, disease or injuries.
This has come about because the definition of "therapeutic goods" in the Act is very wide, and may capture goods in respect of which any claim is made that it could, for example, influence or modify a physiological process in persons. Claims made that a good will influence a person's wellbeing, physical attributes or mood could well bring those products within the description of "therapeutic goods" and attract regulation under the act.
New Section 7AA will allow the minister to remove such products from the regulatory scheme for therapeutic goods, and reduce unnecessary or inappropriate regulation of goods that are caught by the act only because of claims made about them, particularly where any concerns about the nature and extent of those claims may be more appropriately dealt with under other existing regulatory schemes, such as under consumer protection laws.
In making decisions to remove products from the operation of the Act, the minister must consider a number of factors, including whether it is likely that the goods in question—if not regulated under the act—might harm the health of members of the public, whether it is appropriate in all the circumstances for the goods to be regulated under the act, and whether the goods could be more appropriately dealt with under another regulatory scheme. The new section will provide the first opportunity for particular goods to be removed from the regulatory constraints of the act where those goods, for instance, do not represent a health risk, or where there may be other sound reasons for not regulating the products under therapeutic goods legislation. The Australian public should be assured that there is no intention to use this power to remove from the regulatory oversight of the Therapeutic Goods Administration medicines and medical devices in relation to which standards, level of assessment for marketing approval and post market monitoring and compliance under the act is appropriate.
Any decision to exclude particular goods from the operation of the act will be by way of a legislative instrument, and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and where appropriate will involve industry and public consultation.
Consistent with this approach of ensuring that the focus of regulation under the act remains directed at products that have a genuine public health focus, the bill also includes a power for the Secretary to remove goods from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods where they are not, in fact, therapeutic goods.
Such goods can find their way into the Register where sponsors of low risk products, such as complementary medicines, include goods that may be, for instance foods, into the Register by means electronic listing without pre scrutiny by the TGA.
A new power will allow the Secretary to remove those products from the Register but only after the sponsor has been afforded an opportunity to make submissions and any decision is subject to internal and review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
Another measure that will have the effect of reducing regulation is the removal of the offence provisions directed at applicants seeking marketing approval for their therapeutic goods who fail to provide information required by the TGA about their goods. The application of these offence provisions to such applicants is unnecessary because if an applicant fails to respond to a requirement to provide information this could lead to a refusal to grant marketing approval for the applicant's goods, and this will mean that the goods may not be lawfully manufactured or supplied.
Other measures that reduce regulation include expanding the scope of the definition of a 'kit' which will allow a greater range of products to be subject to a simpler regulatory approval process, and amendments to allow the reversal of cancellation decisions done at the request of sponsors and holders of licences thus avoiding review procedures or the need to seek new marketing approval or licences.
To assist industry with complying with current regulatory requirements, a number of changes have been made to clarify the operation of existing provisions in the act.
One of these is the reference to the obligation to comply with requirements relating to advertising applicable under the Act and Regulations. An amendment has been included to clarify that these advertising requirements include complying with applicable provisions the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, a document that sets out rules for the advertising of therapeutic goods. Among other things, this requirement to comply with 'advertising requirement' forms one of the criteria for determining whether goods should be included in the Register and whether goods should be removed from the Register because of non compliance with this requirement. Information about compliance with advertising requirements may also be required from sponsors of therapeutic goods applying to include their goods in the register or who already have goods already included in the Register.
The process by which higher risk medicines are registered in the register has been made clearer, with changes to the act that clarify under which provisions of the act decisions to approve Product Information, and decisions to approve an application to register medicines, are made. Both decisions are interrelated, and the amendments clarify that where a decision to approve an application and a decision on Product Information have both been made, additional administrative steps that are already required under the Act must be followed before the medicine may actually be included in the Register, from which time the sponsor of that medicine may then lawfully market it.
To assist with clarity and provide greater consistency, amendments have been included to address a legal anomaly to ensure that the offence for publishing or broadcasting an advertisement about therapeutic goods to the public containing a prohibited representation for a low risk medicine (eg a reference to the treatment of cancer) does not apply where the sponsor of the goods has been given the TGA's permission under the act to use the representation in particular circumstances. This will ensure that a sponsor with such permission will be able to use the representation in accordance with the permission without fear of committing an offence.
To reduce potential health risks to the public, two new grounds for cancelling goods from the register have been included in the bill. One of these grounds enables the TGA to cancel products from the register where the presentation of therapeutic goods is no longer acceptable. Presentation includes how the goods are named, how they are labelled and packaged, and any advertising or other informational material associated with the goods. Presentation is one of the matters that is relevant to a decision whether to include medicines and biologicals in the register. The effect of the new ground of cancellation is to ensure that this important pre-condition to the inclusion of goods in the register continues to apply while they remain in the register but will not increase the regulatory burden on compliant sponsors and is aimed solely at safeguarding public health. It should be noted in this context that the TGA already has the power under the act to cancel medicines from the register that do not comply with applicable standards such as the standard on medicine labelling and packaging.
The second ground of cancellation of goods from the register relates to a failure by a sponsor to comply with a request to provide information about its medicines after the medicine has been included in the register. This information may be required to inform the TGA about whether the medicine in question should remain in the register, or whether regulatory action should be taken in relation to that medicine because of any concerns about its safety, efficacy or quality. Again, this measure would not increase regulatory burden for compliant sponsors who respond to requests for information about their products within the required time.
Sponsors have a right to both internal and external review about decisions the TGA makes to cancel products from the Register.
Currently, it is an offence or a breach of a civil penalty provision for a sponsor of complementary medicines to give false or misleading information in response to a request by the Secretary for information about their goods. An amendment has been included in the bill to extend this offence to also cover all sponsors of registered goods and other persons such as applicants for registration or listing to whom such requests for information can be made.
The bill also introduces offences and a civil penalty provision where sponsors of therapeutic goods give information that is false or misleading in a material particular in a request for approval of changes to their goods. The kinds of information that may accompany such requests can include complex and extensive scientific data about the goods, for example clinical trial results or the incidence of adverse reactions to prescription medicines. This information will often only be known to the sponsor, and can be critical to determining the quality, safety or efficacy of the goods. It is therefore important that the act contains an effective deterrence against providing false or misleading information to the TGA about goods that are being used by the Australian public.
These measures will not increase the regulatory burden on compliant sponsors but are rather aimed solely at safeguarding public health.
An amendment has become necessary to support the current transition arrangement for the reclassification of hip, knee and shoulder joint implants from Class IIb medical devices to Class III. These products were reclassified following the November 2011 Inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs on 'Regulatory Standards for the Approval of Medical Devices'. The proposed amendment will allow for an alternative number of days (to be prescribed in the Regulations) to the current 20 working days for the secretary to decide whether to audit an application for marketing approval for a Class IIb device seeking up-classification to Class III and what information is required from the applicant for the purposes of undertaking that audit.
A large number of these transitional applications are expected in the lead up to the end of the transition period on 30 June 2014. Allowing more time to determine whether an application should be audited will help ensure that the TGA can manage all the application efficiently but will not adversely affect sponsors because their Class IIb devices will remain on the Register, allowing these to continue to be marketed, until their application for up-classification has been processed, providing their application is lodged before 30 June 2014. It will also help ensure that resources are not diverted from consideration of applications for other kinds of medical devices during that period.
Finally, measures that will require the TGA to publish details of cancellations of medicines on the TGA's website or in the Gazette, and measures to allow the publication of decisions currently required to be published in the gazette to be published on the TGA's website, plus a new requirement for TGA to publish the outcomes of any internal review decision where the effect is to overturn a decision to suspend or cancel a product from the register, will improve transparency of the regulatory scheme established under the act.
In conclusion, the measures contained in this bill will make improvements to the regulatory scheme by making a contribution to reduction in regulation where appropriate and in potential health risks to the public, create greater transparency about decisions made under the act and assist industry by providing greater clarity, certainty and consistency in relation to the operation of the act.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2013
I am pleased to present legislation that will improve and update Veterans' Affairs legislation.
The bill will clarify the approval and authorisation arrangements for travel for treatment for eligible persons and attendants under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act.
In 2012-13 the Department processed over 165,000 claims for reimbursement for travel expenses for treatment purposes.
Travel expenses can include costs for transport, meals and accommodation for eligible persons and where necessary an attendant to accompany the eligible person.
Amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act will make it clear that the Repatriation Commission may approve or authorise travel for treatment, before or after the travel has been undertaken.
Further amendments in the bill will enable special assistance under the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to be delivered in a more timely manner.
This will be achieved by enabling special assistance to be provided by legislative instrument instead of by regulation.
The result will be a more streamlined and therefore quicker process for providing special assistance to veterans, members, former members and their dependants.
Amendments in the bill will update the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act as a consequence of the enactment of the Legislative Instruments Act, and will replace obsolete references to pharmaceutical allowance and telephone allowance in the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.
These allowances were replaced by MRCA Supplement in 2009.
Minor amendments will ensure that the Veterans' Entitlements Act debt recovery provisions will be applicable to all relevant provisions of the Act, the Regulations and any legislative instruments made under the act.
Other amendments in the bill will rationalise and align the maintenance income provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act with the Social Security Act.
The remaining amendments in the bill will make minor technical changes to Veterans' Affairs and related legislation.
Although relatively minor, the amendments in the bill will clarify, update and improve the accuracy of Veterans' Affairs legislation.
1 – Environment and Communications Legislation Committee – Report – Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Amendment Bill 2013 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
2 – Environment and Communications Legislation Committee – Report – Environment Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
3 – Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Migration Amendment Bill 2013 [provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013
That the Senate take note of the document.
This is not the last we will hear of this issue in this place.
We in the Senate have an obligation to the Australian community to ensure that those charged with the responsibility to protect life and property have the tools, the legislative capacity and the will to so do.
You won't get anyone on dole coming to these sorts of meetings, because they don't care about the community. They care about themselves and how they can screw the system.
With the disability and the NDIS, no-one wants to deny anyone with a disability any taxpayer money, but it's a fact that there are a lot of people on disability that should not be on it.