The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Parliamentary Approval of Overseas Service) Bill 2014
Is it worth it? I recall sitting in my office one day in 2010, soon after a repatriation ceremony for another dead Australian soldier. With me was one of the senior officers on my staff. We looked at each other and I said, 'You know what, mate? I'd never say this in front of the troops, but I'm starting to wonder if these deaths are worth it.'
My colleague replied, 'You're not the only one asking that question, boss.'
Some will argue that the men and women we send to war are all volunteers, who know the risks and take them willingly. Others will say that casualties are the unavoidable cost of doing business in a combat zone. There is an argument that says the lives of a few sometimes need to be expended for a greater good. Another line of reasoning takes the grand, strategic view of international affairs, putting the case that Australia—a relative minnow in terms of military might, albeit a well-trained and reasonable well-equipped minnow—has no choice but to maintain strong bonds with a large and powerful friend, the United States. That friendship sometimes demands reciprocal payments, in the form of going to war and spending some lives. A cold, clear-eyed analysis of these claims tells me that they are all true, much as it pains me to admit it.
But these arguments only work at the intellectual level. They do not make sense at the human level, the level at which every life is precious, where each dead soldier is someone and not just a number. These men had parents, sisters, brothers, partners and children who loved them … They all had dreams and hopes and potential. These were the thoughts that ran through my head as I stood, time after time, in the morgue in the UAE. How could any of these lives be forfeited? What measure of success in the campaign to fight the Taliban and build Afghanistan's army could possibly warrant the grim procession of dead men that I supervised? I know, absolutely, that the men who died in Afghanistan were doing what they loved, with mates they respected, for a cause—rejecting extremism, denying terrorism, helping a needy people—which is honourable. I also know that advances have been made in training the Afghan National Army and improving security in Uruzgan province; some of the people of the province also have an improved quality of life. But will our efforts, no matter how impressive locally, significantly influence the myriad problems afflicting the government and people of Afghanistan? Ten years from now, will anyone in Afghanistan remember that Australians shed blood for them? For a man like me, a lifetime soldier inculcated with a sense of duty and service, these are difficult questions to confront.
In the prologue to this book, I wrote that such thoughts seemed disrespectful, even treasonous. But the fundamental question has continued to gnaw at me: is what we have achieved in Afghanistan worth the lives lost and damaged?
Today, I know the answer—it is no. It's not worth it. I cannot justify any one of the Australian lives lost in Afghanistan.
Since 1986, when the Defence Amendment Bill 1985 was debated, a number of shortcomings in the proposed legislation have been raised consistently.
…may well compromise an operation and the safety of Australian forces or those of their allies.
…information were necessarily withheld from the Parliament, then those required under the proposed legislation to make critical decisions about the deployment of forces would not be fully informed—an equally concerning situation for the security of the nation and its forces.
…the legislation does not address these concerns adequately.
Although the proposed legislation allows for emergency situations, the committee is concerned that the process of seeking Parliamentary approval may, in some circumstances, cause difficulties for the effective and safe deployment of Australian forces. ... It also has concerns about possible unintended consequences that may arise including implications for the Defence Force should approval not be forthcoming after forces have been dispatched in response to an emergency.
Australia is one of the few remaining democracies that can legally deploy its defence force into a conflict zone without recourse to the parliament.
…the power to make war, deploy troops and declare peace–are now part of the executive power of the Commonwealth exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of the Federal Executive Council or responsible ministers. Contemporary practice, however, is that decisions to go to war or deploy troops are matters for the Prime Minister and Cabinet and do not involve the Governor-General or the Federal Executive Council.
The Federal Cabinet can, without parliamentary approval or consultation, commit Canadian forces to action abroad, whether in the form of a specific current operation or possible future contingencies resulting from international treaty obligations. Under the Canadian Constitution [Constitution Act, 1867, sections 15 and 19], command of the armed forces … is vested in the Queen and exercised in her name by the federal Cabinet acting under the leadership of the Prime Minister.
The formal right to declare war was clearly part of the Royal Prerogative inherited from Great Britain in 1840 and it remains an acknowledged part of New Zealand law. Defence and wartime prerogatives include the right to declare war and peace, and the deployment and armament of defence forces.
The Royal Prerogative is primarily exercised by the Governor-General on the advice of elected ministers or executive by authority of the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand 1983 (SR 1983/225) .
The deployment of troops and the issuing of orders to engage in hostilities are matters of Royal Prerogative, exercisable by Ministers. The Government has liberty of action in this field, and Parliament need not give its approval.
…it is usual for Governments to keep Parliament well informed of decisions to use force and of the progress of campaigns.
Since 2003 there have been calls for aspects of the Royal Prerogative, including the monarch’s war powers, to be codified and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.
So for most of 1999, between February and September 1999 there was an opportunity to debate the issue in parliament. There were sensitivities involved in that because the Department of Foreign Affairs was understandably concerned about what signal all of this training of military forces was sending to Indonesia … So it's not necessarily a debate you would have wanted to have had had in March 1999, but as you can see when that was evolving, we were in discussions with the Indonesians and the UN about whether our troops could deploy. There was plenty of time to have a debate in parliament about what we were doing and why, but to actually get the approval of parliament not simply to inform the parliament.
Much of the information under consideration would be classified, for example risks to personnel, Defence or AFP assets, their strength and location, their force readiness, as well as the level of commitment and capabilities of likely allies …
All warfare is based on deception.
Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
It lies more or less at the foundation of all undertakings, for without it the preponderance at the decisive point is not properly conceivable.
The committee is not in any way against the involvement of both Houses of Parliament in open and public debates about the deployment of Australian service personnel to warlike operations or potential hostilities. It agrees with the views of most submitters that the Australian people, through their elected representatives, have a right to be informed and heard on these important matters.
The outbreak of war therefore raised the question of how far Australia should go in supporting Britain against Germany where the military threat to Australia was limited, while a possibly imminent and very direct threat loomed large inthe Pacific.
There was no question in the mind of the Australian prime minister, Robert Menzies, that when Britain was at war so too was Australia. As soon as he had heard Chamberlain's declaration of war on the radio, Menzies made his own sombre announcement of Australia's involvement. There was no triumphant flag-flying or the grandiose protestations of imperial loyalty that Australian leaders had used at the beginning of the First World War. The ravages of that war had removed any illusions Australians might have entertained about the nature of modern warfare. With the trenches of the First World War in mind, Menzies declared that it was his 'melancholy duty' to announce Australia's involvement as a simple consequence of Britain's involvement in events over which Australia had no control. After relating at some length for his radio audience the history of the dispute between Germany and its neighbours, Menzies beseeched 'God in his mercy and compassion' to deliver the world 'from this agony'.
Unlike Canada or South Africa, where the declaration of war was left to the respective parliaments to deliberate upon, Menzies was sufficiently confident to embroil Australia in the war as soon as he learnt of the British declaration. The British viceroy of India similarly plunged his charge into the distant struggle without reference to his subjects. According to Menzies, 'where Great Britain stands there stand the people of the entire British world'. When he was criticised for abandoning any semblance of Australian independence, he pointed to the popular sentiment for war, that the British people needed quick assurances of support and that the King's declaration of war automatically created a state of war between Australia and Germany. This last justification was the one that most determined Menzies' action. His legalistic background, combined with his sense of empire, could not conceive of the possibility of the King being at war in Britain but not in Australia. As it happened, the King remained monarch of neutral Ireland throughout the war and was not at war in South Africa and Canada until the parliaments of those dominions had met and decided to throw in their lot with Britain's.
The Senate divided. [12:52]
(The President—Senator Parry)
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 11 of 2014
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 at 7.16 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend:
That—
(a) contingent upon their introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) contingent upon its introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014 bereferred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 September 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 bereferred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 3 and 4 for statements of reasons for referral); and
(d) the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
(David Bushby)
Chair
4 September 2014
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014
Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Industry groups and businesses affected by the Bill
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
Monday 27 October 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Fair Entitlements Guarantee Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
For detailed consideration by the Senate Committee
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Employee representatives
Employer representatives Departmental officials Other stakeholders
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
24 September 2014
(signed)
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To examine in greater detail the provisions of the Bill, in particular provisions to:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Universities, higher education policy experts, staff, students, industry and unions
Department of Education
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
29 September, 3/6/7/8/9 October
Possible reporting date:
27 October 2014
(signed)
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
subsidised higher education, without having to pay upfront.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
22 September 2014
(signed)
Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014.
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Industry Super Australia Financial Planning Association COTA
National Seniors CHOICE
Financial Services Council Association of Financial Advisers Ltd The Treasury
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the Committee.
Possible reporting date:
Tuesday 30 September 2014.
(signed)
Senator Anne McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That the report be adopted.
(1) At the end of the motion, add, "but, in respect of:
(a) the Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation), the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report by 2 October 2014;
(b) the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, the Education and Employment Legislation Committee report by 28 October 2014; and
(c) the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 30 September 2014.".
In respect of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014, omit "28 October 2014", substitute "22 September 2014".
The Senate divided. [12:16]
(The Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
That—
(a) government business orders of the day as shown in the list circulated in the chamber be considered from 12.45 pm today; and
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
Non-controversial government business—
No. 3 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014
No. 4 Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2014
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 422 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) relating to bank levies; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That general business notice of motion No. 426 standing in my name for today, relating to the renewable energy industry in Tasmania, be postponed till the next day of sitting.
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in July 2015:
Implications of financial advice reforms, with particular reference to:
(a) the current level of consumer protections;
(b) the role of, and oversight by, regulatory agencies in preventing the provision of unethical and misleading financial advice;
(c) whether existing mechanisms are appropriate in any compensation process relating to unethical or misleading financial advice and instances where these mechanisms may have failed;
(d) mechanisms, including a centralised register, that would ensure financial planners found to have breached any law or professional standards in their employment are transparent, for both the sector and consumers;
(e) how financial services providers and companies have responded to misconduct in the industry;
(f) other regulatory or legislative reforms that would prevent misconduct; and
(g) any related matters.
Stop Dumping on the Great Barrier Reef Bill 2014
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the Great Barrier Reef, and for related purposes. Stop Dumping on the Great Barrier Reef Bill 2014 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill proposes to ban offshore dumping of port dredging sludge within the Great Barrier Reef's waters, and it is backdated to ensure that the plan to dump dredge spoil offshore at Abbot Point is stopped.
The Great Barrier Reef is facing its gravest threat since scientific records began. The science is telling us that the health of the Reef is in decline, and without immediate action we will see drastic changes and the end of the Reef as we know it within our lifetimes. The most serious long-term threat to the Reef is undoubtedly climate change, but every additional impact, particularly on water quality of the Reef, decreases its resilience and ability to recover from other pressures.
The Reef is a wonder of the natural world, and a place of surpassing beauty, but it is also a vital economic asset for Australia. It provides more than 63,000 jobs and contributes $6 billion each year to the Australian economy. Aside from this direct contribution, the Reef provides many other 'ecosystem services' such as protecting the Queensland coastline from dangerous tropical storms, the value of which has not been calculated.
Dumping of port dredging spoil offshore in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seriously threatens the health of marine life and corals including by degrading water quality, mobilising legacy pollutants, including heavy metals found in ports and harbours, and smothering flora and fauna.
While offshore dumping is meant to be a last resort option under our current laws, it is a frequent occurrence. There is inadequate consideration of alternatives to offshore dumping and no independent cost benefit analysis of alternatives is done by the regulators. They merely accept the claims by proponents that it would be too expensive to dump dredge sludge onshore. The fact that it is cheaper for the ports and big miners to dump sludge into the waters of the Great Barrier Reef, which makes it politically attractive to the big parties, does not make it the right option for the Reef's health. The science is clear, dumping sludge in the Reef's waters is damaging, and this natural wonder of the world should not be a rubbish tip for the financial convenience of the big miners.
The evidence received during the recent Greens-initiated Senate inquiry in the management of the Reef, and expressed by internal and former GBRMPA scientists, justifies an immediate ban on dumping. Those views have been expressed publicly on ABC's 4 Corners program and internally in documents obtained via freedom of information laws and under a Greens-initiated Senate order for production of documents.
The Reef should not be a rubbish tip for dumping dredge sludge. No new offshore dumping within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area should be approved. As Professor Pandolfi of the Australian Coral Reef Society stated in evidence to the recent Greens-initiated Senate inquiry into the Reef:
'We are over the limit. Once you are over the limit, how can you justify putting more on? We have a problem. We have to reduce it, we can't add to it.'
Natural (pre-colonial) sediment run-off from the Reef's river catchments into the Reef is estimated at 3 million tonnes per year. On top of that, the Reef is now subject to significant increased sediment runoff due to agriculture of approximately 6 million tonnes per year – which the Reef Water Quality Program is making very positive steps to combat. In light of this, allowing a further 3 million tonnes of sediment to be dumped offshore directly into the Reef's waters, for just one of many planned port developments, completely undermines the efforts of farmers and communities to date to protect the Reef, and makes a mockery of any stated commitments to protecting the Great Barrier Reef.
It's the Great Barrier Reef, it's World Heritage, and it's at risk. We have to step up to protect the Reef for the generations to come. It's time to stop dumping on the Reef.
Under sustained community, scientific, international and political pressure, Environment Minister Greg Hunt has attempted to claim he agrees offshore dumping should not occur. However, the so-called "line in the sand" he says he has drawn under dumping in in the Reef is so full of holes as to be meaningless. The Minister excluded dumping from maintenance dredging, and confined his commitment to the Marine Park (not the larger World Heritage Area), and said it would apply to 'future' projects without specifying whether that includes projects which have been applied for but not yet approved. The enormous dredging projects planned for Trinity Inlet at Cairns and the Townsville port expansion have already been applied for, so Minister Hunt must clarify whether the livelihood of those local communities in tourism, fisheries and the associated industries will be safe from dumping. If Minister Hunt's commitment excludes any dumping application that has already been applied for (but not yet approved), it is a meaningless commitment. The damaging projects that UNESCO have expressed such concern about are those that have been approved or already applied for. It is hard to countenance that there would be any geographic room (or any economic viability) for additional "future" offshore dumping applications, hence Minister Hunt's 'commitment' is designed to sound good but mean absolutely nothing in practice.
This Bill makes sure that the plan to dump dredge spoil offshore at Abbot Point is stopped. The expansion of the coal export terminal at Abbot Point would involve the dredging and dumping of 3 million cubic metres of sludge just 8km from coral reefs at Nares Rock and Holborne Island. Much of that dredge spoil would spread far beyond the dump site.
The UNESCO World Heritage Committee has expressed concern and regret that the Abbot Point approval was taken prior to any comprehensive assessment of alternative and less damaging alternatives.
Recent scientific findings conclusively show that dredge spoil doubles the risk of coral diseases, including the deadly white syndrome disease. There is strong evidence that dredge plumes can extend much further than anticipated by GBRMPA during the assessment process for Abbot Point.
Furthermore, documents released under freedom of information laws and Greens-initiated Senate orders for the production of documents have shown that GBRMPA's own internal staff and scientists held serious concerns about approving the Abbot Point project throughout 2013. One GBRMPA staff member told the Department of Environment that the proposed 150% water quality offset, which was trumpeted by Minister Hunt, was 'unachievable'. However, a non-scientifically trained GBRMPA bureaucrat then approved the offshore dumping. The Greens believe that politics trumped science.
The Abbot Point decision has sparked an unprecedented but entirely justified public outcry. In the last week, the proponent of the project, North Queensland Bulk Ports, has indicated that they will seek an alternative to offshore disposal. We welcome this, but it should not be a voluntary choice by companies, the government should mandate a ban on offshore dumping in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
In this age of climate change, the world's largest coal port should never have been approved, let alone in the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef. Even if the dredge sludge is dumped onshore, the climate impacts which the port will facilitate, the increased shipping traffic with its increase in likelihood of accidents and other impacts, and the dredging required for this port are all unacceptable. It is shameful that both the Queensland and the Australian governments approved this project, and this Bill makes sure that the dumping will not go ahead.
It should be beyond party politics to protect our Reef, to keep it as one of the seven wonders of the natural world that so inspires our spirit, fills our coffers with $6 billion annual sustainable—and long-term— income, and keeps employing 63,000 people. Political parties of all persuasion must take the concerns of the scientists and the local community seriously.
On behalf of Australia's Reef communities, and all Australians who love our Reef, I implore our elected representatives for their support on this Bill. Australia's Great Barrier Reef is simply too precious to lose.
I commend this Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that 40 per cent of the Australian workforce is employed in insecure work,
(ii) there is an increase in jobs that have irregular work hours and pay, inferior rights and entitlements and no job security compared to fulltime work,
(iii) the growth of insecure work is primarily driven by employers trying to increase profits by avoiding costs such as paid leave, workers' compensation, long service leave and superannuation, associated with fulltime work,
(iv) that although irregular working arrangements might suit some people, employees currently have little control over their working hours and arrangements, so 'flexibility' usually just means flexibility for the employer, and
(v) that unions play a key role in protecting workplace conditions of workers; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) help give people a better work-life balance by giving them more control over their working hours and arrangements, strengthening rights and minimum standards for contractors, and securing improvements to the bargaining system,
(ii) ensure all workers have access to fair working conditions, such as annual leave, paid sick leave, overtime, penalty rates and long service leave, and
(iii) recognise the role of unions in securing better minimum standards through awards and legislation.
The Senate/committee divided. [12:28]
(Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Australia Fund Establishment, be established to inquire into and report on:
The establishment of a fund to support rural and manufacturing industries, with particular reference to:
(a) the need for a fund to assist rural and manufacturing industries in crisis and support communities affected by natural disasters, including the following assistance:
(i) emergency or ongoing financial relief,
(ii) a loan to such a business,
(iii) act as a guarantor for all or part of a loan or proposed loan to such a business,
(iv) purchase all or part of an existing loan to such a business,
(v) capitalise or waive interest owed by such a business,
(vi) assume control of such a business for a particular period,
(vii) grant funds to an appropriate industry body, and
(viii) grant funds to such a business for the purpose of purchasing new technology to make it more economically viable and competitive or restructuring it; and
(b) whether:
(i) existing bankruptcy and insolvency laws should be modified or temporarily relaxed for businesses in times of crisis, and
(ii) any foreign bankruptcy or insolvency laws should be adopted as laws of the Commonwealth.
(2) That the committee deliver its final report on or before 30 June 2015.
(3) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 1 member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent member, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, or any minority group or independent senator;
(b) participating members shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes of forming a quorum if a majority of members of the committee are not present; and
(c) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member, but may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
(7) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier.
(8) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.
(9) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.
(10) That at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(11) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(12) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(13) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and that each subcommittee shall have at least 1 Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.
(14) That the committee have power to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
(15) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.
(16) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non Government member of either House.
(17) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.
(18) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.
(19) That the committee or any subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit and sit in public or in private.
(20) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(21) That the committee may report from time to time.
(22) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(23) That the committee be empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(24) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(25) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) climate change has been on the G20 agenda at the most recent leaders' meetings in France, Mexico and Russia, and
(ii) former Australians of the Year, Sir Gustav Nossal, Ms Fiona Stanley and Nobel Laureate Mr Peter Doherty have signed an open letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Abbott) calling for climate change to be included on the G20 agenda because current climate trends, driven by global warming, threaten the basis of future economic prosperity, regional political stability and human health; and
(b) calls on the Prime Minister to put climate change onto the agenda for the upcoming G20 Summit in Brisbane as one of the key financial and environmental risks currently threatening global economic prosperity.
(1) That a joint select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth, be established to inquire into and report on any measures to further boost Australia's trade and investment performance, including, but not limited to, barriers to trade; reduction of red tape and structural challenges and opportunities for the Australian community.
(2) That the committee deliver its final report and recommendations on or before 31 August 2015.
(3) That the committee consist of 10 members, 3 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, 1 member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by any minority group or independent member, 2 senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator.
(4) That:
(a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the:
(i) House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent member, and
(ii) Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent senator;
(b) participating members shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes of forming a quorum if a majority of members of the committee are not present; and
(c) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any questions before the committee.
(5) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's final report or until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time, whichever is the earlier.
(7) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.
(8) That the committee elect a non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee.
(9) That at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.
(10) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.
(11) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non-Government member of either House.
(12) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and that each subcommittee shall have at least 1 Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House.
(13) That the committee have power to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.
(14) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.
(15) That 2 members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include 1 Government member of either House and 1 non Government member of either House.
(16) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.
(17) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.
(18) That the committee or any subcommittee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit and sit in public or in private.
(19) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(20) That the committee may report from time to time.
(21) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
(22) That the committee be empowered to publish from day to day such documents and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public.
(23) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.
(24) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution.
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 November 2014:
Current and future arrangements for the marketing of Australian sugar, including:
(a) the impact of proposed changes on the local sugar industry, including the effect on grower economic interest sugar;
(b) equitable access to essential infrastructure;
(c) foreign ownership levels in the industry and the potential to impact on the interests of the Australian sugar industry;
(d) whether there is an emerging need for formal powers under Commonwealth competition and consumer laws, in particular, whether there are adequate protections for grower-producers against market imbalances; and
(e) any related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates our team of more than 400 athletes who represented Australia in the 2014 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow and for their success;
(b) notes:
(i) the Commonwealth Games is a major sporting occasion which brings together people from all over the world who share a connection through the Commonwealth of Nations, and
(ii) the Australian Government's funding support to help our athletes achieve their dreams in representing their country, and in helping to build sporting infrastructure for the 2018 Commonwealth Games to be hosted by Australia at the Gold Coast; and
(c) recognises:
(i) that investment in sporting infrastructure greatly benefits grassroots sporting groups, and helps to promote sport to all Australians, and
(ii) the impact of sport goes beyond national pride; it is a significant contributor to preventative health, while delivering social, environmental and economic benefits.
That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 November 2014:
To consider the creation of a nationwide portable workplace entitlement scheme for long service leave and any other appropriate entitlements, taking into account:
(a) the number of Australian workers in insecure work;
(b) increased workplace mobility and increasingly precarious working conditions; and
(c) other related matters.
The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Industry Code Penalties) Bill 2014
That this bill be now read a third time.
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill 2014
That this bill be now read a third time.
International Tax Agreements Amendment Bill 2014
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2014
This Bill will amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give the force of law to the new tax treaty signed by Australia and Switzerland on 30 July 2013.
Tax treaties facilitate trade and investment by reducing barriers caused by the double taxation of residents in the two countries. Australia has 44 bilateral tax treaties.
Australia and Switzerland share a close economic relationship and the new tax treaty—the Convention between Australia and the Swiss Confederation for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with Respect to Taxes on Income and its associated Protocol—will strengthen this relationship.
The new treaty will update the existing bilateral tax arrangements between Australia and Switzerland, to align them with current Australian and international tax treaty policy settings. This is expected to further encourage bilateral trade and investment.
The new treaty will fulfil Australia's 'most favoured nation' obligations, contained in the existing tax treaty with Switzerland, to reduce its withholding tax rates on dividends, interest and royalties paid by Australian residents to Swiss residents.
The new treaty will also modernise the bilateral taxpayer information sharing arrangements and permit, for the first time, the exchange of taxpayer information for the purpose of preventing tax evasion. This greater transparency includes access to Swiss bank information that could help Australia better enforce its tax laws.
Maintaining a secure and sustainable tax system is central to the Government's efforts to repair the budget and, consistent with this objective, the information sharing arrangements provided by the new treaty will enhance the integrity of Australia's tax system. The new arrangements are also consistent with the Government's ongoing engagement with international efforts to improve tax compliance globally.
In addition to updating the rules that allocate taxing rights over certain income derived by Australian and Swiss residents, the new treaty will provide a number of benefits for taxpayers. These include rules to:
The new treaty will enter into force following the last notification that both countries have completed their domestic requirements which, in the case of Australia, includes the enactment of this Bill.
The Bill will also amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to clarify the meaning of the term 'immovable property' for the purposes of both the new treaty and any future Australian tax treaties that also use that term.
This will align the term 'immovable property' with the Australian domestic law term 'real property', and provide for consistent treatment of income and gains derived from such property across Australia's tax treaty network.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
… the G20 will continue to tackle businesses artificially generating profits to chase tax opportunities …
Energy Efficiency Opportunities (Repeal) Bill 2014
Through its application businesses have built up a bank of energy efficiency projects which can be considered based on current energy prices and specific circumstances. With energy prices driving companies to use energy more efficiently and the increased capacity to respond embedded in industry, the government considers this program, underpinned by the EEO legislative framework, to be no longer required.
Our conservative estimate of the ratio of industry's cumulative benefit to cumulative cost attributable to the EEO Program is 3.67, net of implementation and compliance costs.
Since commencement of the EEO program in FY07, Arrium has assessed 340 opportunities and reported implementing 118 projects resulting in a total energy reduction of 4.16 PJ/yr, equating to 508 kt CO2-e/yr. A further 0.88 PJ/yr is expected to be saved through projects committed for future implementation, with an additional 2.17 PJ/yr remaining under investigation …
We find that the EEO Program to date has delivered benefits to participants well in excess of their costs
… any IP provisions that are proposed for a particular agreement should only be included after an economic assessment of the impacts, including on consumers, in Australia and partner countries.
Challenges posed by today’s investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) regime create momentum for its reform.
The proliferation of ISDS under international investment agreements (IIAs) shows the importance this mechanism has gained. But it also increasingly reveals that there are a number of problems.
The Senate divided. [13:59]
(The President—Senator Parry)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Over the next couple of years, we would not expect wages to rise to completely offset the postponement of the Superannuation Guarantee increases.
The security environment today is becoming more complex since I was appointed as director-general of security in 2009 …
It's nonsensical that as a significant Australian nursing shortage looms over the next decade, the Abbott Government is intent on systematically destroying nursing education in this country …
So let me repeat what has been said a million times: the university sector is not looking to introduce standard $100,000 degrees and deregulation won’t deliver them.
Those who have brainwashed some journalists and … senators to accept that we plan to do just that deserve to be shot down.
It is not only wrong, it is shameful for the fear such myths are creating in the community.
Deregulating fees will provide students with increased choice and universities with flexibility. Will fees go up? Some may, but others would also decrease as we have the freedom to determine the size of our institutions and the degrees that we offer.
A far more realistic estimate of how high fees might rise for a standard degree in a deregulated market is $12,000 to $14,000 a year—rather lower than the $100,000 being yelled from certain rooftops.
If you are unhappy with Western Australia receiving 38c in the dollar as a return on your GST, what you need to do is make a detailed submission to the white paper inquiry on federalism and the white paper inquiry on tax reform.
That the Senate take note of questions asked by opposition senators today.
It’s nonsensical that as a significant Australian nursing shortage looms over the next decade, the Abbott Government is intent on systematically destroying nursing education in this country …
If those opposite paid a little more attention—
they would realise that that is National Party policy. We then go on to form coalition policy for the election campaign and that immediately addresses the issue.
Only The Nationals’ Regional Health Rescue Plan can ensure that the one third of Australians living in the regions get a fair go from the health system and a fair share of health funding.
The peak body representing Australia’s universities has called on the parliament to support the deregulation of Australian universities with changes to the government’s proposals that will assure affordability for students and taxpayers.
… a once in a generation opportunity to shape an Australian higher education system—
that is sustainable, affordable and equitable in serving the best interests of students and the nation.
A coalition government will support the transition to the Commonwealth providing 50 per cent growth funding of the efficient price of hospital services as proposed, but only the coalition has the economic record to be able to deliver.
Overall, evaluation of the changes in such program areas as briefly described here leads to a gloomy prognosis for the income and wellbeing of families in rural and remote areas. And therefore it leads to a gloomy outlook for their health.
Our clear, categoric commitment to the Australian people is that we are not going to make unexpected, adverse changes to superannuation.
That the Senate take note of an answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, (Senator Abetz), to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to the Prime Minister leading a uranium industry delegation to India.
It is to India's advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production.
This deal endangering the lives of the aboriginal people of Australia and the poor, working-class masses of India is an unacceptable one. The Indian state has a track record of repression, violence and resorting to undemocratic means in dealing with the people's movements and hence it needs of global attention to embarrass both the governments on their ill-informed deal.
That Senator Wong be granted leave of absence for today, 4 September 2014, for personal reasons.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Today the Prime Minister and Commonwealth ministers met with the Premiers of Queensland and Western Australia to discuss means of achieving closer cooperation in the development of Northern Australia.
It was agreed that this arrangement provided the most appropriate machinery upon which to develop closer cooperation and coordination of activities between the two states and the Commonwealth, including the Northern Territory.
The ministers agreed that appropriate Commonwealth and state ministers would meet together from time to time to review progress in northern development, to coordinate thinking and give directions to those who will be required to investigate particular proposals.
That the Senate take note of the documents.
… a series of Fair Work building inspectors told of thuggish treatment they received from officials of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union when they were called to investigate reports of unlawful industrial action.
The inspectors told how they were branded a “[expletive] dog”, a “[expletive] grub” and “lower than a pedophile” during visits to Sydney’s Barangaroo casino hotel construction site in July this year.
She said she felt intimidated, fearing for her safety as CFMEU officials and 40 building workers surrounded her and a colleague.
When will the self-respecting unions in this country who do a fair job for their members and don’t engage in this perverse distortion of the principles of unionism—speak out and disassociate themselves from this unlawful mob?
That the report be adopted.
That the reports be printed.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Australia Fund Establishment—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed [contingent upon the House of Representatives agreeing to the Senate resolution establishing the committee]—Senator Carr
Education and Employment Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Carr to replace Senator O’Neill for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014
Participating member: Senator O’Neill
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Wong to replace Senator McEwen for the committee’s inquiry into the proposed Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement on 8 and 9 September 2014
Participating member: Senator McEwen
Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Select Committee—
Appointed [contingent upon the House of Representatives agreeing to the Senate resolution establishing the committee]—Senator Bullock.
Question agreed to.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2014
That the Senate is of the opinion that, rather than punishing the unemployed, sick, elderly, students and families, revenue should be raised through applying a ‘public insurance’ levy on the big four banks that are too big to fail.
Luxuries were well catered for: a large bath tub, a cedar table with two oak stools, and 45 yards of gossamer for fly veils. Yet the party took just two sets of field glasses, two watches and only 12 water bottles. Were 12 sets of dandruff brushes and four enema kits really necessarily? There were six tonnes of firewood, 200 kilograms of medication for the camels and horses, and enough ammunition to win a small war.
That the Senate is of the opinion that, rather than punishing the unemployed, sick, elderly, students and families, revenue should be raised through applying a 'public insurance' levy on the big four banks that are too big to fail.
Labor refuses point blank to fix the loopholes in their dud of a mining tax… It is foregoing the revenue needed for key reforms including implementing Gonski and dramatically increasing funding to our public schools, fully implementing a National Disability Insurance Scheme, expanding Denticare or building high speed rail.
Currently, the FCS
is post-funded. This means that, if it were activated, the Government would initially pay out claims and then recover those funds from the assets of the failing institution. If that was not sufficient, the remainder would be recovered through a levy on the rest of the banking sector, which could be delayed until the crisis was over to avoid exacerbating the situation.
However, an ex ante model—
would impose a cost on the financial sector. In particular, industry would need to pay a fee that would likely be passed on, at least in part, to depositors in the form of lower deposit interest rates or higher fees. This would be the case even if there was no need to activate the FCS. By contrast, the current ex post funding only imposes a cost on industry if the guarantee is needed.
Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
Today I introduce the Higher Education and Research Reform Amendment Bill 2014 .
The Reform Bill gives effect to some of the greatest higher education and research reforms of our time.
The Reform Bill will spread opportunity to more students, including disadvantaged and rural and regional students, equip Australian universities to face the challenges of the 21st century and ensure Australia is not left behind by intensifying global competition and new technologies.
The passage of the Reform Bill will enable Australia to achieve the best higher education system in the world and have some of the best universities in the world.
We live in a time of constant change. The international economy is evolving, the employment market is shifting and tomorrow's jobs demand different skills to the jobs of today.
Currently our universities are at risk of being left behind and overtaken by the growing university systems in our region and across the globe as these systems increase their capacity and new forms of online and blended delivery take hold.
We must aspire to not only keep up with our competitors, but keep ahead of them.
The Government's changes will give Australian universities the freedom and autonomy to work to their strengths, be internationally competitive and manage economic and social changes to the best of their abilities.
Students will benefit most. They will enjoy improved teaching and learning in innovative and creative courses that compete for their interests. They will be able to choose from a wider range of options and will have better information to help them make decisions about where, how and what to study.
In addition to increased international competition and a rapidly changing environment, the nation faces significant challenges in higher education and research that were not addressed by the previous government. These challenges include budget deficits and ballooning debt, and funding cliffs for essential research fellowships and research infrastructure.
The Reform Bill meets those challenges head-on in ways that are fair to both students and taxpayers.
Universities Australia, the body representing all university vice-chancellors, fully supports the need to deregulate and free-up higher education in Australia. Deregulation is the only way to respond to what students and employers want. It is the only way to set our universities free to ensure they can deliver what we need. It is the only way to ensure Australia is not left behind. It is a one-off opportunity.
If we don't act, and act now, we risk Australia's higher education system falling into a downward spiral towards mediocrity. Universities Australia made this abundantly clear prior to the Budget with its Keep It Clever campaign. We must not be left behind.
Fortunately, we won ' t be. With the passage of the Reform Bill, we will have the right conditions to transform the Australian higher education system and give it the freedom to be the best in the world.
Australian Technology Network Executive Director Vicki Thomson has said:
to reject the [deregulation] legislation out of hand … would be to sign the death warrant on a globally respected higher education system.
The Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University, Professor Ian Young, said at the National Press Club regarding the Government's higher education reforms:
it would be a great tragedy for our nation, for our universities, for our future generations, if our Senators passed up this opportunity.
Spreading opportunities to students
This is not only about quality, however; it is about opportunity. This Bill will see an additional 80 000 higher education students per year supported by Government subsidies by 2018. These students will include more people from disadvantaged backgrounds, more students from rural and regional communities, Australians who require extra support to succeed at university and workers whose skills need to be updated.
Regional students and regional higher education institutions will benefit significantly as we expand the demand driven system to enable study in more places in more ways.
Universities, TAFEs and private providers will have new incentives and opportunities to develop innovative partnerships, particularly in outer‑metropolitan and regional areas, where they can work together to offer the skills and knowledge that local employers want in their employees.
Many regional institutions have warmly welcomed this opportunity. They are frustrated by the restrictions which prevent them from developing creative solutions that directly meet the needs of their communities and prevent them from marketing unique learning experiences to those who live in cities. They see the potential in these changes, including to market opportunities to study in the fields in which they teach especially well.
There have already been some moves in this direction - last year the University of Ballarat and what was previously Monash University's Gippsland campus joined to create the Federation University Australia, providing greater educational opportunities to the communities of regional Victoria.
This Bill reflects the change in the name of the University of Ballarat to Federation University Australia.
The Government's reforms will give institutions greater freedom to explore these kinds of opportunities while strengthening the service they offer to their communities.
Through these reforms students who choose to study higher education diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees in their own right or as a pathway to university will be supported.
Students studying for higher education undergraduate qualifications at TAFEs, private universities and private higher education institutions will be supported.
Students who come from low socio-economic backgrounds—many who are first generation university students—will be big winners from this extended support. We anticipate the nation will see improved success rates and reduced drop-out rates for undergraduates.
This Bill provides a level playing field for students, no matter what their study choices are. It removes the punitive loan fee of 20 per cent for VET FEE-HELP—helping tens of thousands of Australians undertaking VET courses—and gets rid of the 25 per cent loan fee for FEE‑HELP for those who study with private institutions. It removes the lifetime limits on all Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) schemes and discontinues the ineffective HECS-HELP Benefit.
In addition, this Bill allows certain New Zealand Special Category Visa holders to access the HELP scheme. This will assist a small number of New Zealand citizens who moved to Australia as children and deserve to be treated in the same way as Australian students in support to undertake higher education.
Equity and access
To support equity and access for Australian students, the Reform Bill also introduces a new Commonwealth Scholarship scheme to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including from regional Australia. This is one of the most important and valuable elements of the reform package in the legislation. Higher education institutions with a Commonwealth supported equivalent full-time student load of 500 or more will be required to allocate one dollar in every five of additional revenue to this new scheme.
With this investment, institutions will be able to provide tailored, individualised support to help disadvantaged students, including help with costs of living while they study, something regional students and families will especially welcome. The scholarships will also be able to cover fee exemptions and mentoring, tutorial support and even relocation expenses.
The Commonwealth Scholarship scheme will be complemented by the Higher Education Participation Programme, which provides funding, irrespective of fee revenue, to allow universities to conduct outreach activities and undertake initiatives to support disadvantaged students.
Student support
There has been much debate about the measures in the Reform Bill to improve the sustainability of the higher education system and the HELP scheme in particular. It is worth remembering how much support the taxpayer provides to higher education students.
Most university students occupy a Commonwealth supported place. The taxpayer subsidises the fees that these students pay to the tune of 60 per cent—on average, students pay around 40 per cent.
And that's not the full extent of the taxpayer's contribution.
Most students take out a HELP loan so they don't have to pay for their share of the tuition fees up front. The Government—the taxpayer—pays the institution the student's contribution upfront, on their behalf.
The student doesn't have to pay a cent back for their education until they are earning more than $50 000. In years when they are not earning this amount, they don't need to make any payments.
The student might also receive income support—Youth Allowance or Austudy—while they are studying.
We want a system that embodies the idea of a fair go - where there are no financial barriers to participating in higher education. We want all Australians who have the ability and the ambition to participate in higher education—this will help create a strong, vibrant economy and assure our future standard of living.
But running such a high level of support comes at a cost. In 2014:
The cost of subsidising degrees is more than $6 billion.
The value of HELP loans is more than $5 billion.
Student income support for higher education is more than $2 billion.
The amount of funding the Government provides through HELP loans is going to double over the next few years. In 2017 we will be lending students $10 billion.
In a deficit environment the Government needs to borrow the money that it lends to students. Because the Government currently lends to students at less than it costs the Government to borrow the money, there is an additional subsidy from taxpayer to student. Given the scale of costs now present in the higher education system, it is time students picked up a fairer share of the tab for these interest charges. This is why we are changing the indexation rate for HELP debts from the Consumer Price Index to the Treasury bond rate (safety capped at six per cent).
Most people would agree that HELP is the best loan you would get in your life—for the best investment that most people will ever make in themselves.
It's a good deal. It's the best deal an Australian will ever get. Australian university graduates on average earn up to 75 per cent more than those who do not go on to higher education after secondary school. Over their lifetime graduates may earn around a million dollars more than if they had not studied at university. It is only fair that they pay a reasonable share of what it costs.
For students who were enrolled as Commonwealth supported students on the day of the Budget, existing arrangements for Commonwealth and student contributions will apply until they complete their study, or the end of 2020—whichever comes first. This includes those who had commenced a course, or deferred commencement, or accepted an offer of a Commonwealth supported place on or before 13 May 2014.
From January 2016, with new levels of funding for Commonwealth supported places and with the commencement of deregulation of the higher education system, new university students will go on to contribute, on average, around 50 per cent of the cost of their higher education, up from 40 per cent. But only when they earn enough to cover it.
Equipping universities for change
In a competitive global economy we need to make sure Australian higher education keeps pace with the best in the world. And currently, as warned by Universities Australia, Australia's universities risk falling behind.
The Shanghai Jiao Tong index released a few weeks ago lists eight Australian universities in the world's elite 200. Universities in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore are rising strongly through the ranks. Five years ago there were no Chinese universities in the top 200, now there are six. In five years.
We need a relentless focus on the quality and impact of our higher education system.
We need to ensure Australian higher education institutions do not stand still.
The Reform Bill gives higher education institutions the freedom and the confidence to face the future and be the best that they can be.
The Reform Bill will allow Australian higher education institutions to choose what courses they offer, what fees they should charge, which students they want to attract, what teaching methods they should use, what scholarships they provide and what other support services they give.
International education
The new freedom for universities outlined in this legislation will position our universities to attract the best and brightest students from across the world. We have done well so far, but this is not something we can take for granted. International students bring different views and cultures that enhance our nation's knowledge and skills. They contribute to Australia's education export industry, which is earning around $15 billion per year.
International students also impact on local economies. They shop in our corner stores, travel to our towns and cities, spread the word about Australia to their friends and families, and buy our goods while they are here. The former government took all that for granted, and so wiped $4 billion off our export income, which hit our economy and our universities hard. We cannot let that happen again.
Competition and better information
Quality is everything—for our students, for our institutions and for our international competitiveness. Students must know their qualifications will lead to a job. To assist students to make informed choices about where and what they study, new information will be provided through the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching—known as QILT—detailing the performance of each private and public higher education institution.
Students and their families will be able to access this real and vital information about the quality of courses and institutions they are considering. There will be better information about previous graduates' success at finding jobs and what other students and employers think of the course they are planning to do.
This information will also help Australian institutions compare their performance with other nations, and continually improve.
Research
The Government's broader changes to higher education and research will safeguard a strong, competitive research system.
World-class research requires high-quality facilities and talented researchers. Yet the previous government left us in a state where there was not a single dollar set aside for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy beyond 30 June next year. Nothing.
There was no provision for any new awards for the Future Fellowships programme that supports mid-career researchers to undertake world‑class research in Australia. Not a cent.
As part of the higher education reform package, the Government will invest $11 billion over four years in research in Australian universities, including $139 million for the Future Fellowships scheme and $150 million in 2015-16 to continue the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy. Labor abandoned both.
The Reform Bill amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to index annual appropriations to increase funding for the Australian Research Council, and to apply a one-off efficiency dividend. We are providing for 100 four-year Future Fellowships each year, and making this an on-going programme.
The Government's commitment to ARC funding for Future Fellowships, where the previous Government left a funding cliff, means that ARC funding is increased by this legislation well above what was proposed by the previous Government in forward estimates. Funding for Future Fellowships and for the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy are integral parts of the Government's higher education reform package, and depend on the passage of this legislation.
The Reform Bill will also allow universities, if they wish, to require Research Training Scheme (RTS) students to make a small contribution to the cost of undertaking a Higher Degree by Research course. The Government will expand HELP to allow eligible RTS students to defer paying their contribution until they are earning a decent wage.
Indexation
The Reform Bill will support the Government-wide decision to streamline and simplify indexation for programmes. The Consumer Price Index will be applied to payments administered under the Higher Education Support Act 2003.
Consultation
The Reform Bill is the result of extensive national discussion and consultation before and after the Government announced its higher education and research reform package.
There has been widespread debate in Australia over many years about the kinds of reforms that are necessary both to expand opportunity for students and to ensure that we are not left behind internationally.
The Government's reforms as presented in this Bill respond to the findings of the Review of the Demand Driven Funding System by the Hon Dr David Kemp and Mr Andrew Norton, which received over 80 submissions. The legislation also addresses issues raised in submissions from universities, their peak bodies and non-university higher education providers to the National Commission of Audit.
Since the Budget, we have undertaken extensive further consultation with stakeholders, including through the Legislation and Financing Working Group chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of La Trobe University, Professor John Dewar, and the Quality, Deregulation and Information Working Group, chaired by the Chancellor of the University of Western Sydney, Professor Peter Shergold AC.
Consultations have taken place with all vice-chancellors, all universities groupings and all non-aligned universities. There have also been meetings with non-university higher education institutions.
The Government has listened to views from across the community and is confident that this is a fair, balanced and necessary package of reforms.
Conclusion
The passage of the Reform Bill will spread access and opportunity to higher education to more Australians, including disadvantaged and rural and regional students.
The passage of the Reform Bill will equip Australian universities to play to their strengths and face the challenges of the 21st century.
The passage of the Reform Bill will ensure Australia is not left behind by intensifying global competition and new technologies.
The passage of the Reform Bill can enable Australia to have the best higher education system in the world with some of the best universities in the world that are magnets for students everywhere.
The Reform Bill is essential for the future prosperity of our nation.
I suspect...when they talk about 15 megabits per second being sufficient for people today, I think that that likely is taking a snapshot in today's environment. What will tomorrow be, what will next year and the next decade require, I think is really the question.
That Senator O'Sullivan be discharged from the Education and Employment Legislation Committee from 8 September until 19 September 2014, and Senator Reynolds be appointed in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
It's the magnitude of what we're dealing with that is totally un-expected.
… assisted in demonising an important technological option which can be used to benefit the environment.
We hope that the tremendous reaction to the speech by Mark Lynas serves as evidence that honest consideration of the science will change minds about agricultural biotechnology.
Non-GM crops attract greater market prices …
Our GM-free status gives primary producers and food and wine manufacturers a competitive edge in the global marketplace …
… construct and manage a not-for-profit international standard cricket and sports centre in Kigali, that will operate a 'sport for all' policy, allowing Rwandans from all backgrounds access to cricket.
He doesn't … have a clue what's true and what's not. He may indeed be spinning a different story every day—but he does so with the sort of earnestness that just can't be faked. Joyce believes his own yarns and this is Qantas's biggest problem.
… doesn't have a clue either. Management theory suggests organisational processes are the key to success. Theoretically, Clifford's time as CEO of Rio Tinto should, therefore, have equipped him with the skills to run an airline. Unfortunately, it's rubbish. Each business is different. It's like suggesting a retailer can run a media group. Clifford and Joyce both took up their positions in 2008.
Nearly six years on it's obvious they're stumbling blindly in the dark. It's like watching two drunks attempting to open a door. One stands spellbound as the other continues finding new, shiny baubles and continues thrusting them into the lock. It's never going to open, but they're too intent on the task to listen to advice.
Qantas achieved an Underlying EBIT of $165 million for the half-year. The result is 175 per cent above the prior corresponding period, driven by a $411 million, or 8 per cent, increase in total revenue.
Qantas improved yield by 9 per cent, and increased capacity by 3.3 per cent demonstrating a strong revenue recovery across both international and domestic business.
In FY11, Qantas International is forecast to generate a loss before interest and tax of approximately $200 million, on invested capital of over $5 billion, with a weaker result expected next year. Qantas International is the Group’s weakest business — it has achieved required returns only three times in the past 15 years. Clearly the situation is not sustainable.