Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Antarctica has a unique place in Australia’s national identity. We are tied to Antarctica through our history, our geology and our climate.

This year marks the 100th anniversary of the departure of the first Australasian Antarctic Expedition led by Sir Douglas Mawson. Mawson stands alongside other giants of Antarctic discovery, like Scott and Shackleton, for his remarkable endeavours to explore Antarctica and claim a sizeable portion of the continent on behalf of all Australians.

It was Mawson who established Australia’s first scientific research base at Cape Denison in Antarctica. Over the past century, Australia has built on that legacy, establishing a strong reputation for Antarctic science in areas such as climate change, conservation, astronomy and geoscience.

Antarctica’s unique environment offers major opportunities for this scientific research. The continent is recognised as a key indicator of global climate change. Better understanding of Antarctic ecosystems, weather and climate is crucial to environmental protection in the region as well as understanding global climate trends.

Australia has also become a world leader in Antarctic protection. We were one of the 12 original signatories to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, which enshrines the principle of peaceful use of the Antarctic. Fifty years on, the Antarctic Treaty remains a model for global cooperation.

Australia actively engages in the international governance of the Antarctic. We played a key role in the development of the broader system of international arrangements for the region, known as the Antarctic Treaty system.

Just two decades ago, former Prime Minister Bob Hawke worked with former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard to prevent mining in Antarctica. For the first time, we recognised that the last pristine continent on earth should remain untouched. The opportunity was nearly missed but the decision changed the world’s way of thinking just in time.

Their efforts led to the Madrid protocol, which now protects the Antarctic environment, bans mining in Antarctica and designates Antarctica as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science.

In October this year, I was honoured to join Bob Hawke and Michel Rocard in Hobart to commemorate the 20th anniversary of that Madrid protocol.

We will continue to build on protections for this unique and special part of the world.

This Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Amendment Bill 2011 will amend the Antarctic Treaty (Environment Protection) Act 1980, which gives effect to our obligations under the Madrid protocol and the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.

The bill will align the act with Australia’s new obligations in relation to three measures adopted under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid protocol, namely:

1. Measure 4 relating to insurance and contingency planning for tourism and non-governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in June 2004;

2. Measure 1 relating to liability arising from environmental emergencies that was adopted in June 2005; and

3. Measure 15 relating to the landing of people from passenger vessels in the Antarctic Treaty area that was adopted in April 2009.

These measures will establish more stringent arrangements to protect human and vessel safety in the Antarctic, and the Antarctic environment.

Key amendments in the bill include:

1. providing the ability for the minister to grant a safety approval, an environmental protection approval, and to impose conditions on such approvals;

2. implementing new offences and civil penalties regarding unapproved activities, activities carried on in contravention of the conditions imposed by an approval, and offences and civil penalties related to environmental emergencies;

3. establishing a liability regime for environmental emergencies that occur in the Antarctic;

4. establishing an Antarctic environmental liability special account to receive payments from operators for the costs of response action to an environmental emergency caused by their activities in the Antarctic;

5. implementing new offences and civil penalties applicable to tourist vessels operating in the Antarctic;

6. making minor and technical amendments to the act; and

7. amending the long title of the act to extend the scope of the legislation;

As Australia prepares to host the 35th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Hobart in June 2012, this bill marks another chapter in Australia’s history of involvement in Antarctica and maintains our commitments under the Antarctic Treaty and Madrid protocol.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill makes amendments to social security law to improve the operation of the income management system and to improve school attendance.

In regard to income management, the government believes all Australians should be able to share in the benefits of this strong economy, and enjoy the financial and social benefits of work.

The government's Building Australia's Future Workforcepackage addresses entrenched disadvantage in targeted locations by helping to stabilise families and to remove barriers to participation in work and the community.

The amendments in this bill will expand income management in five of the most disadvantaged locations in the country.

They will give greater flexibility to the operation of income management. For example, the refinements would allow the vulnerable welfare payment recipients measure to be activated on its own in a particular area, instead of in conjunction with the long-term welfare payment recipients measure and the disengaged youth measure, as is currently the case.

A new external referral income management measure, known as supporting people at risk, is being introduced. This will allow referrals from a wide range of state and territory authorities on a similar basis to referrals under the current child protection measure, and will help ensure income management assists those people most likely to benefit.

For example, to support the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory alcohol measures, this bill will enable people referred by the Northern Territory government's Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal to be placed on this new measure of income management, thus reducing the proportion of income available for alcohol.

Additionally, the rules applying to a person who is subject to income management in a declared area and who moves to another location will be clarified, as will the school exemption criteria for the long-term welfarepayment and disengaged youth measures.

A second measure in the bill amends the provisions in social security law that underpin the government's improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform measure, or SEAM.

SEAM is one aspect of the Australian government's strategy to improve school attendance and engagement. The amendments allow the possibility of an income support suspension to be integrated into the Northern Territory government's Every Child, Every Day attendance strategy.

School attendance in parts of the Northern Territory is unacceptably low—as low as 40 per cent in some schools. With such a level of absence, a child cannot build a sufficient foundation in literacy and numeracy to enable them to succeed in later schooling and in the modern world.

The Gillard government has invested significantly to improve the quality of education in schools in the Northern Territory. On top of base funding provided to government and non-government education authorities, our additional investments in the Northern Territory include:

In four years we have made substantial progress in addressing shortages of early childhood services, teachers, teacher housing and classrooms in Northern Territory schools. The COAG Reform Council's recent report shows progress is being made in preschool participation and early years literacy. The recent evaluation of the Northern Territory Emergency Response found that some 57 per cent of people surveyed strongly agreed that the school in their community was better now than it was three years ago.

This work must continue, but it is clear that for these improvements in schools to translate into improvements in educational outcomes for students, regular school attendance is essential.

Improving attendance can never be done by governments and schools alone. For all the funding that governments invest and all the skills that teachers bring to their schools, we still ultimately rely on the parents to get their children ready and to the school gate each morning.

While the overwhelming majority of parents understand the value of education and are making sure their children are in class and learning for their future every day, there are a number who do not.

The overwhelming opinion of Aboriginal people who participated in the Stronger Futures consultations in the Northern Territory was that they wanted action to hold to account those parents who do not send their children to school.

The amendments in the bill enable a new, integrated approach to managing cases of poor school attendance in the Northern Territory. They complement and strengthen the Northern Territory's Every Child, Every Day strategy and boost that government's own efforts on school attendance.

According to this approach, if a child is not attending school regularly, the school will convene an attendance conference with the family to talk through barriers to the child's education. The conference will agree on an attendance plan.

The attendance plan will include actions that the family commit to undertake, for example, walking the child to school in the mornings or providing a place for the child to study at home. Support from a social worker will be available to help the family meet their obligations under the plan.

Importantly, the attendance plan can also include actions that the school or other parties will undertake, for example, providing a school uniform or resolving an issue around bullying that may be contributing to the child's disengagement.

This is a collaborative approach that attempts to improve attendance in partnership with the family. However, it is important that there be a lever to ensure families engage in this process. If a family refuses to participate in the attendance conference, or refuses to agree to an attendance plan, or fails to live up to their agreed actions in the attendance plan when other parties to the plan fulfil their commitments, then their income support payments may be suspended until they do.

If the family complies within 13 weeks, their income support payment can be reinstated with full back pay.

This is a sensible approach that apportions responsibility for school attendance appropriately between the school and family, and it recognises the crucial role that attendance plays in ensuring that children everywhere, and especially in the Northern Territory, get an adequate education.

I commend this bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Australian Research Council (ARC) is a statutory authority within the Australian Government's Innovation portfolio. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and benefit the community.

In seeking to achieve its mission, the ARC provides advice to the government on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program (NCGP), a significant component of Australia's investment in research and development.

Through the NCGP, the ARC supports the highest-quality fundamental and applied research and research training through competitive selection processes across all disciplines, with the exception of clinical medicine and dentistry.

This is an appropriation bill to support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council. It will fund the high-quality research we need to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy.

Bills to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to receive administered funding occur each year. The bills are generated to apply indexation to existing appropriation amounts, create an additional forward estimate and may also contain new funding for new initiatives.

The amendments proposed in this bill change only the administered special appropriation; they do not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds.

The ARC is the major source of funding for the innovative, investigator-driven research that has underpinned inventions ranging from the bionic ear to the Jameson Flotation Cell, which saves the coal industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

ARC funded research has and continues to play an important role in improving the lives of Australians and addressing the big issues of our time. This includes, for example, our need to transform our manufacturing industries to create greener, healthier and more resilient processes and products. The government is proud that stronger steel and cleaner, safer cars could soon be manufactured in Australia thanks to research made possible with funding from the ARC.

Ongoing funding for the ARC is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system and our commitment to strengthen Australia's research workforce. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia, working in our universities and teaching the next generation.

It is important to note the key role the ARC has been and is playing in attracting more Indigenous Australians to academia and keeping more women in research careers. This includes through the Discovery Indigenous scheme, the addition of two new Australian Laureate Fellowships specifically for women and the introduction of Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) to enable assessors to take into account any career interruptions, including those for childbirth and caring responsibilities.

Through these initiatives and through the whole NCGP, the ARC is helping us to reduce research career barriers and ensure the nation reaps the benefit of all of its research talent.

And the ARC is not only supporting quality research and research careers, it is helping the government measure our research investment and assure taxpayers that their money is being invested wisely.

In January 2011, the government announced the outcomes of the first full Excellence in Research for Australia evaluations. Developed and implemented by the ARC, ERA allowed us, for the first time, to see exactly how our country's research efforts compare to the rest of the world. This is giving the government a clear idea of the research areas we need to focus on for improvement and continued excellence.

ERA is a key element of the government's 10-year innovation agenda, Powering Ideas.

Through this important legislation, the ARC will continue to advance our efforts to build a fairer and more prosperous Australia through innovation and education.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to reduce business compliance costs for excise liable businesses.

These taxpayers, operating under the existing standard seven-day excise settlement period, beginning Monday and ending Sunday, will become eligible to apply for a new weekly period, to begin on their preferred day.

The codification of the seven-day period will provide certainty to businesses. Furthermore, the flexibility to choose the particular seven-day cycle that best suits the business's commercial practice will reduce their administration costs.

Most importantly, small businesses will be able to apply for permission to defer their excise settlement to a monthly reporting cycle, with a further 21 days from the end of the month to remit their tax liability. This will considerably reduce the administration and cash management burden on small businesses.

For example, a small business would previously have paid excise to the ATO every seven days although their typical business terms may be for a 30-day settlement. This bill gives small businesses at least 21 days, and up to 51 days, to remit their tax liability—which will significantly help with their cash management.

Furthermore, small businesses will be required to lodge only 12 returns per year, as opposed to 52 returns per year under the current arrangements.

Under this bill, business entities with no duty liabilities may have the terms of their seven-day or monthly permission amended to a longer reporting cycle at the discretion of the tax commissioner.

If a business's permission relates to gaseous fuel on a seven-day permission, this bill will allow that business to give the commissioner a return, on or before the sixth business day following the end of each seven-day period. This bill also ensures that the existing monthly settlement arrangement for stabilised crude oil and condensate will remain unchanged.

These arrangements reflect the particular commercial circumstances of the gaseous fuel, stabilised crude oil and condensate industries.

Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This is the second of the bills that deliver on this government’s commitment to reduce business compliance costs for businesses dealing with goods liable for excise and excise equivalent customs duty.

This bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to codify administrative arrangements relating to periodic settlement permissions in relation to customs duty.

The amendments establish a flexible seven-day permission cycle for the giving of returns and the payment of excise equivalent customs duty. When the seven-day permission is for gaseous fuels, the permission holder may give their return and pay customs duty up to six business days following the end of the seven-day period.

Additionally, small business entities, prescribed persons and producers of prescribed goods will be able to apply for a permission to defer their customs duty settlement to a monthly reporting cycle.

Full details of the amendments in this bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Insurance Contracts Amendments Bill 2011 introduces amendments to provide for a legislative framework so that regulations can be made to establish a standard definition of 'flood' for home building, home contents, small business and strata title insurance policies and a key fact sheet in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies.

What this bill shows is that, after nearly half a century of delay following Cyclone Tracy and the 1974 Brisbane floods, the Gillard government has fixed a too long overdue problem.

This bill delivers on the government's commitment to provide consumers—everyday individuals, modest hardworking families and striving Australian enterprises—with a better understanding of what is included in their insurance policies and in particular, the extent to which policies provide cover for flood and what cover for flood actually means.

In recent times there has been a distressing increase in the occurrence of major natural disasters.

In 2009, the Black Saturday bushfires spread across over 450,000 hectares in Victoria, tragically killing 173 people.

In 2010 and 2011, areas of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria experienced severe flooding with Queensland also suffering the effects of Cyclone Yasi. We saw the tragic deaths of 37 people as a result of these events.

A substantial portion of the financial costs of losses resulting from these natural disasters was met by insurance with claims currently estimated at $3.64 billion for Queensland alone.

These catastrophic events highlight the importance of insurance and making sure that individuals, families, communities and governments have effective insurance cover in place to guard against and recover from disasters.

In April, I released a consultation paper entitled 'Reforming flood insurance: clearing the waters'.

It contained proposals for a standard definition of 'flood' and a key fact sheet—both of which were designed to ensure insurers communicate more effectively with consumers. Further, industry and consumer groups have indicated broad support for these measures today.

This bill will implement these proposals with the aim of helping consumers make effective decisions in relation to their insurance needs, through increased clarity and accessibility of key information. Standard definition of flood

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to introduce a legislative framework for standard definition of the term 'flood' for home building, home contents, small business and strata title insurance policies.

As I said earlier, this should have been done many years ago—indeed it ought to have been done decades ago. The confusion has lingered on far too long.

Therefore, I am pleased that the Gillard government have demonstrated our willingness and capacity to deal with the hard issues and, with the collaboration of industry, consumers and local members of parliament, clarify for Australian families and businesses what constitutes a flood.

The definition is designed to provide a clear and easily understandable meaning for what is commonly known as riverine flooding, namely the covering of normally dry land with water that has escaped or been released from the normal confines of any lake, river, creek or other natural watercourse or alternatively, any reservoir, canal or dam.

A standard definition of flood will reduce consumer confusion regarding what is and is not included in insurance contracts. It will also avoid situations where neighbouring properties in the same street, affected by the same flood event, receive different claims assessments because the policies covering them use different definitions of flood.

Further, this measure will improve consumers' ability to evaluate potential insurance policies and compare 'like' products between different insurance providers.

Whilst this measure will not mandate the inclusion of flood cover in all insurance policies, it does ensure that whenever the term 'flood' appears in any of the relevant classes of insurance contracts, it will be taken to have the meaning I outlined earlier. Insurance contracts must not include the term 'flood' (or any related terms) except in association with the proposed definition. This restriction will also prevent said contracts from including compound phrases based on the term 'flood' (for example flash flood or accidental flooding).

The detail of this measure, including the actual wording of the standard definition, will be made in regulations contained in the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985. Draft regulations containing these measures are expected to be released for public consultation by the end of the year.

Key facts sheet

Schedule 2 to the bill will amend the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 to provide a legislative framework to allow regulations to be made to introduce a requirement for insurers to provide a key facts sheet outlining key information in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies.

The key facts sheet will enable consumers to access key information in relation to home building and home contents insurance policies in a concise and easy to understand format. This will assist consumers in making more appropriate decisions when entering into these types of insurance contracts.

In order to ensure consumers are able to effectively utilise the key facts sheet, insurers will be required to provide this document to consumers as soon as they have requested information on the particular policy.

The introduction of the key facts sheet will make the purchase of home building and home contents policies simpler for consumers, assisting them to compare policies with a consistent document, and facilitate more effective and informed decision making.

The detail of these measures, including the specific content of the key facts sheet, will be made in regulations contained in the Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985. The draft regulations containing these measures will be released for public consultation in the new year. The key facts sheet will be consumer tested before being finalised.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Gillard government are committed to improving the performance of the insurance market in Australia and we have announced our response to a number of other recommendations put forward by the Natural Disaster Insurance Review to help continue to provide an improved insurance market for all Australians.

I thoroughly believe that in some unexpected, unsought for and undesired way, natural disasters do tend to help us in Australia rediscover and remind us of our greatest strengths.

In this continent that we call home, we do often see natural disasters occurring. But if we remain strong and resolute, and industry and consumers work together as they have on this matter, we still can indeed see our way through to the future.

The legislation is mindful that, even in tough times, with people working together, we can make the best of what has happened.

The amendments in this bill are an important first step in improving Australia's insurance market through better disclosure of insurance cover for consumers—and clearing up the lingering confusion.

Further details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia's tax laws.

Schedule 1 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 to permit the Australian Taxation Office to operate a scheme that will make it easier and simpler for lost superannuation fund members and retirement savings account holders to consolidate their benefits.

This scheme, known as the electronic portability form, will allow members reported as lost by their superannuation funds to electronically request the transfer of their superannuation benefits through the ATO.

The new form will enable lost members to visit the ATO website, find their benefits, fill in a simple transfer request and submit it electronically to the ATO. The ATO will apply a verification process using data supplied by the member. If these processes are successfully completed, the ATO will electronically send the member's request to the fund that reported the member as lost, which will then transfer the member's benefits to the nominated receiving fund.

The electronic portability form will not prevent members from dealing directly with their fund to arrange the transfer of their benefits if they so wish.

The amendments allow the regulations to set out the operating details of the electronic portability form and also amend the tax file number provisions for the purposes of the new form.

The amendments are expected to reduce the amount of lost superannuation. There are about five million lost superannuation accounts worth $20.2 billion (as at 30 June 2011). These amendments will benefit individual members by reducing the fees they pay on multiple accounts and maximising their benefits on retirement. Schedule 2 amends the CGT provisions to make it easier for businesses to restructure. These changes include extending the CGT rollover for the conversion of a body to an incorporated company and broadening the range of CGT rollovers where entities can use a share or interest sale facility for foreign residents in a restructure. These changes also allow CGT demerger relief for demerger groups that include corporations sole or complying superannuation entities, which currently cannot access the relief. These changes are consistent with the government's objective of promoting flexibility for business.

Schedule 3 amends the GST law to implement three of the recommendations agreed to by the government arising out of Treasury's review of the GST financial supply provisions. The remaining measures require amendments to GST regulations and will be put before the parliament at a later date.

Part 1 amends the GST law to increase the first limb of the financial acquisitions threshold from $50,000 to $150,000. This increase will reduce compliance costs for businesses that only make a small number of low value financial supplies through reducing the number of businesses that are drawn into the financial supplies regime and then prevented from claiming input tax credits on acquisitions that relate to making financial supplies.

An entity can now make up to $1.65 million of financial acquisitions in the relevant 12-month period and still be able to claim input tax credits on those acquisitions. This compares with up to only $550,000 of similar acquisitions prior to 1 July 2012.

Part 2 amends the GST law to exclude financial supplies consisting of a borrowing made through the provision of deposit accounts by an Australian authorised deposit-taking institution from the current concession for borrowings. This will better target the exemption to reflect the policy intent.

Part 3 allows taxpayers who account on a cash basis to claim input tax credits upfront for acquisitions they make under hire purchase agreements.

This change will remove the distortion between hire purchase and other forms of financing for cash-based taxpayers, and also ensure that hire purchase transactions are treated on the same basis regardless of whether taxpayers account on a cash or non-cash basis. Removing the current discrepancy in the GST treatment will allow cash-based taxpayers to acquire business assets at a lower cost.

These amendments apply from 1 July 2012.

Schedule 4 amends the GST act to ensure that sales or long-term leases of new residential premises by a registered entity are taxable supplies and that sales or long-term leases of existing residential premises are input taxed supplies.

This schedule provides that a 'wholesale supply' of residential premises is disregarded in certain circumstances for the purposes of determining whether a subsequent supply of the premises is a supply of new residential premises.

In addition, any supply of residential premises by a government body as a result of the lodgement of a property subdivision plan is disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a subsequent supply of the premises is a supply of new residential premises.

Further, these amendments clarify and remove any doubt that the subdivision of existing residential premises that are not new residential premises, by itself, does not result in the subdivided premises being new residential premises.

The main provisions take effect from the date of the government's announcement on 27 January 2011. This is to reduce risks to revenue that might otherwise arise from behavioural change.

However, this schedule also contains a transitional provision to ensure that developers who were 'commercially committed' to arrangements to develop premises before 27 January 2011 are not disadvantaged by the measure.

Schedule 5 adds one new organisation to list of deductible gift recipients, namely, the Rhodes Trust of Australia. The purpose of the Rhodes Trust of Australia is to raise moneys in Australia to augment the existing Rhodes Scholarship program at Oxford University in the United Kingdom. All moneys raised in Australia are used to provide scholarships to Australians to undertake tertiary education at Oxford University in the United Kingdom.

Schedule 5 also recognises the name change of 'Playgroup Australia Incorporated' to 'Playgroup Australia Limited'.

DGR status will assist this organisation to attract public support for their activities.

Schedule 6 includes amendments to the tax laws to ensure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes.

These amendments are part of the government's commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law.

This package also includes some legislative issues raised by the public through the tax issues entry system, or TIES for short.

Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Gary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service and Integrity) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present a bill to amend the Electoral Act and the referendum act to deliver a more accurate electoral roll.

This bill will allow the Electoral Commissioner to directly update an elector's enrolled address following receipt and analysis of reliable and current data sources from outside the Electoral Commission. The bill is consistent with legislation already operating in Victoria and New South Wales.

Information from reliable sources is already used by the Electoral Commission to monitor the accuracy of the roll. The Electoral Act does not currently permit the Electoral Commission to use this information to update the elector's enrolled address.

The Electoral Commission currently uses this information as the basis to remove someone from the electoral roll. The result is that eligible electors are being removed from the roll despite the fact that the Electoral Commission has accurate information on the elector's current address. This restriction is having a detrimental effect on enrolment.

This bill will enable the Electoral Commission to deliver a more accurate electoral roll. The Electoral Commissioner will be permitted to use accurate and timely information from reliable sources to maintain the current address of already enrolled electors. This bill will ensure that an elector will be notified of the Electoral Commissioner's intention to enrol him or her at a new address and be given the opportunity to object to the change.

The bill will not provide the capacity to directly enrol new electors. Persons who are not on the roll will need to enrol in accordance with the current requirements in the Electoral Act.

The bill will assist in meeting the urgent need to arrest the decline in enrolment rates across Australia by ensuring the federal electoral roll is as current and accurate as possible.

It will also ensure that the roll sits in harmony with rolls in those states where trusted source enrolment currently takes place.

I commend the bill to the House. Debate adjourned.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Introduction

The Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill (the bill) responds to a significant issue affecting forest communities around the world.

The environmental and social costs of illegal logging worldwide have been estimated at approximately US$60 billion per annum.

Illegal harvest of timber contributes to environmental degradation through bad practices by illegal loggers. It hampers social development by depriving local governments and communities of the benefits derived from the use of their resource.

Illegally harvested timber also undermines well regulated and sustainable industries, including the Australian industry, by undercutting legally harvested timber products.

This bill will make it a criminal offence to import regulated timber products or process raw logs without undertaking due diligence.

How this bill was developed

The bill is the product of extensive consultation.

A commitment to prohibit the importation of illegally harvested timber was first presented to the community during the 2007 and 2010 election campaigns. Following the 2007 election, the Labor government commissioned substantial research to inform policy development including a regulation impact statement; a risk assessment framework; a framework for differentiating legality verification and chain of custody; a generic code of conduct for importers; an economic analysis of the impact of illegal logging; and reports on the small business impacts and social costs of illegal logging.

In December 2010, the government announced the framework to implement the policy.

On 23 March 2011 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry tabled an exposure draft, referring it to the Senate Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for public inquiry.

The committee released a report on its findings on 23 June 2011, which included seven recommendations. In particular, the committee recommended the government reconsider the role of the timber industry certifiers and the inclusion of a requirement for a mandatory and explicit declaration at the border.

The government has considered the report, and the dissenting report, and the views of stakeholders about the committee recommendations in preparing the bill now before the parliament.

The government has received representations from the domestic timber industry, state governments, timber and timber product importers, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace, the Uniting Church of Australia, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, domestic retailers and exporters of timber products to Australia.

The government welcomes the strong community interest in this issue.

How the bill works

The bill focuses exclusively on measures that will restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia. The government recognises these measures are an essential first step towards a longer-term goal of Australia sourcing timber products from sustainably managed forests, wherever they are in the world.

The bill will regulate timber products at two key points of entry onto the Australian timber market—at the border, for imported timber products, and at timber processing plants where domestically sourced raw logs are processed for the first time. It will restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia in three main ways.

First, the bill prohibits the importation of all timber products that contain illegally logged timber and the processing of domestically grown raw logs that have been illegally harvested. The prohibition enters into force on the day after royal assent of this bill. A maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or 500 penalty units, equivalent to $55,000 for an individual and $275,000 for a corporation or body corporate, or both, applies under this offence. Importers and processors suspected of importing or processing illegally logged timber products will be investigated under the powers of monitoring, investigation and enforcement under part 4 of the bill and will be prosecuted if they intentionally, knowingly or recklessly import or process illegally logged timber products.

Our own research and the work of the European Union indicate that the best way to minimise trade in illegally harvested product is to implement a due diligence framework. Importers and processors will be required to undertake a process of due diligence on those products to mitigate the risk that the timber has been illegally logged. The level of culpability for these products is negligence which differs from the standard subjective fault elements of intention, knowledge or recklessness. Negligence is an objective fault element which looks to the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the circumstances. Importers of regulated timber products can only be negligent if the prosecution can satisfy the requirements for negligence set out in the Criminal Code 1995.

Second, the bill will require importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs to undertake due diligence to mitigate the risk of products containing illegally logged timber.

Timber products, for which due diligence will be required, will be prescribed by regulations that will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders. The government will use a number of inputs when finalising timber products to be prescribed by regulations including an economic assessment of the range of product types, value and volume of timber annually imported into Australia.

Importers of regulated timber products and processors of domestically grown raw logs will be required to undertake due diligence to mitigate the risk of importing or processing illegally logged timber. The details of the due diligence process will be prescribed by regulations and will be based on a risk management approach. Criminal offences will apply to importers and processors who do not comply with the due diligence requirements of the bill. There is a maximum penalty of 300 penalty units, equivalent to a fine of $33,000 for an individual and $165,000 for a corporation or body corporate. Administrative sanctions and civil penalties for minor breaches of the legislation will be included in subordinate legislative instruments such as administrative sanctions for noncompliance with certain due diligence requirements.

Requirements for due diligence will be enacted after two years have elapsed following the commencement of the bill to give industry sufficient time to establish and implement their due diligence systems and processes.

Due diligence will involve a three-step process: (i) identifying and gathering information to enable the risk of procuring illegally logged timber to be assessed; (ii) assessing and identifying the risk of timber being illegally logged based on this information; and (iii) mitigating this risk depending on the level identified where it has not been identified as negligible. The specific measures and procedures underpinning the three steps will be prescribed by regulations to be developed in consultation with stakeholders.

To help meet their due diligence obligations and minimise compliance costs, importers and processors may utilise laws, rules or processes including those in force in a state, a territory or another country. Individual country initiatives and national schemes including national timber legality verification and forest certification schemes that can demonstrate that timber products have been harvested in compliance with the applicable laws of the country of harvest may be used, where applicable, as part of an importer's due diligence process.

To enable the government to enforce compliance with the due diligence requirements, importers are required to complete a statement of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill before they complete a customs import declaration at the border. The information to be provided on the statement of compliance and customs import declaration will be prescribed by regulations.

The customs import declaration will include a community protection question asking importers of regulated timber products whether they have undertaken due diligence in compliance with this bill. This will be linked to importers' statements of compliance to provide a legally binding basis for enforcement of compliance with the legislation. The government will monitor the importation of regulated timber products at the border for compliance with the customs declaration, whilst government compliance and investigation officers will carry out border and post-border checks, as required, using the monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the bill.

Processors are required to complete a statement of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill. As Commonwealth, state and territory laws relating to the legality of timber harvesting in Australia are comprehensive and robust, the Commonwealth government will seek to align the due diligence requirements of the bill with the pre-harvesting approvals processes of relevant state and territory governments to reduce compliance and administrative costs. The content and form of the statement will be prescribed by regulations.

Third, the bill establishes a comprehensive monitoring, investigation and enforcement regime to ensure compliance with all elements of the bill including the prohibition and due diligence requirements. Imported timber products may be seized by the Commonwealth without a warrant under provisions in the Customs Act 1901, whilst goods deemed to be involved in an offence under the act, consistent with provisions provided in the Customs Act 1901 and the Crimes Act 1913, may be forfeited to the Commonwealth.

The bill also provides requirements for importers and processors to provide statements and declarations of compliance, undertake audits and remedial action, provide reports and other information to the minister and publish information for compliance and enforcement purposes.

The results of audits will provide a basis for continuous improvement of importers and processors due diligence systems and processes where deficiencies are identified, and for enforcement purposes by the Commonwealth where breaches are detected. To ensure there are satisfactory levels of transparency of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the bill, importers and processors are required to make an annual statement of compliance. The nature and detail of these statements will be prescribed by regulations to be developed in consultation with key stakeholders. This information may be used by the Commonwealth to publicly report on the performance and level of compliance of importers and processors, consistent with privacy and commercial-in-confidence considerations. The coverage and detail of public reporting requirements will be developed in consultation with key stakeholders.

The bill provides for the government to undertake a review of the first five years of the operation of the act. This review is to be commenced no later than 12 months after the five-year period is complete. This provision should ensure ongoing improvement in relation to the operational aspects and effectiveness of the legislative framework.

International alignment

The bill aligns Australia's efforts to combat illegal logging with international initiatives including legislation already implemented in the United States and developments in the European Union.

It is therefore sensible that this bill should work towards alignment with international regimes.

In establishing the regulations, the government will continue to develop requirements that, to the greatest extent possible, align with the measures being introduced as part of the US Lacey Act Amendments 2008 and the EU Regulation 2010 in order to minimise compliance costs for exporters. This will have the effect of engendering greater cooperation amongst timber importing markets like Australia, Europe and the US and help to facilitate higher compliance amongst exporting countries.

For example, the government anticipates that certification systems (either third party or government) recognised by EU or the US frameworks will be capable of meeting Australia's requirements.

The bill will also strengthen Australia's leadership position in the Asia-Pacific region on forestry issues and facilitate continued bilateral and multilateral cooperation with developing countries to promote legal and sustainable forest management.

Conclusion

The bill allows the government to work with key stakeholders to stamp out illegal logging and trade in illegally logged timber products.

An illegal logging working group comprising industry sectors and non-government organisations is already established to assist the government in this process and help minimise the compliance and administrative costs for both industry and government whilst driving, of course, behavioural change in the global timber trade. The government will continue to work closely with its illegal logging working group and state and territory governments to develop the subordinate legislative instruments required.

The government appreciates the work of the Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport for its contribution to the development of the bill. The government also acknowledges the input of industry, both importers and domestic producers, and other members of the community for their input into the process thus far.

The Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 delivers on the government's policy to restrict the importation and sale of illegally logged timber in Australia. It will remove unfair competition posed by illegally logged timber for Australia's domestic timber producers and suppliers and establish an even economic playing field for the purchase and sale of legally logged timber products and provide assurance to consumers that products they purchase have been sourced in compliance with government legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2011 will amend the National Health Act 1953 to implement two key initiatives in the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement.

These initiatives represent another important step in improving services for Australian health consumers, and will bring pharmacists even closer to the centre of the Gillard Labor government's health reform agenda.

A pillar of these reforms is the $15.4 billion, five-year Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, particularly the clear role within it for pharmacists to improve professional practice and patient care.

The initiatives implemented by the bill, Supply and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities and Continued Dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Medicines in Defined Circumstances, introduce more patient focused health services that will deliver better health outcomes.

In addition, the bill includes technical changes for prescribing certain quantities of pharmaceuticals.

The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement between the Australian government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was entered into on 1 July 2010.

Through the fifth agreement the Australian government has committed to ensuring that fair and adequate remuneration is provided to approved pharmacists for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. This creates and maintains a stable environment for community pharmacy to remain viable and participate in delivering better care for all Australians.

Importantly, the fifth agreement also directly provides positive health outcomes for the Australian community through the efficient delivery of professional services and targeted community programs.

The two initiatives within this bill are scheduled to be implemented at the Commonwealth level by 1 July 2012. Amendments to state and territory government legislation will also be required to support the implementation of these initiatives and it is anticipated that this will occur through a staged progression of changes within the various jurisdictional frameworks.

They have both been the subject of wider consultation with consumer representatives, interested parties and professional organisations such as the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and the Consumers Health Forum.

The government thanks all parties for their important input, particularly the Pharmaceutical Society, which helped to draft the protocols that will guide the continued dispensing initiative, should it be passed. This input is an example of the more inclusive nature of the fifth agreement, which is helping to ensure health consumers are the biggest beneficiaries.

Medication c harts

The Supply and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Claiming from a Medication Chart in Residential Aged Care Facilities initiative will introduce the supply and claiming of PBS medicines, by approved suppliers under the National Health Act 1953, from an approved medication chart within residential aged-care facilities.

This initiative will allow the medication chart to be used in place of the PBS prescription form. This will eliminate the requirement for prescribers to write a separate PBS prescription as well as having to write on a medication chart. A pharmacist will be able to use this medication chart when supplying and claiming medicines for residents of aged-care facilities.

Medications included on the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme will also be able to be prescribed, supplied and claimed in this manner where the person is a resident of an aged-care facility.

Enabling the supply and claiming of PBS medicines from a medication chart will improve patient safety by reducing risk of transcription error when writing a prescription from a medication chart entry.

A more streamlined process will also mean that more healthcare practitioners re-engage with aged-care facilities. Lessening the administrative burden on prescribers through the removal of administrative processes will allow more time to be spent on clinical care. Feedback received by the government indicated that the necessity for a prescriber to write the medication order on a prescription, as well as on a medication chart, makes some general practitioners reluctant to provide services to residents of aged-care facilities.

The medication chart will be designed to encourage prescribers to review the chart in its entirety each time a medicine is ordered. This will result in quality use of medicine benefits and ensure the resident gets the right medication at the right time.

This initiative will also address issues faced by prescribers, pharmacies and aged-care facilities regarding the ordering or prescribing, supply and PBS claiming of medicines within aged-care facilities, and improve the timeliness of medicine supply.

Pharmacies will be provided with timely notice of updates and changes to a resident's medication regimen, ensuring that the prescriber's most recent intentions for the resident's clinical care are promptly acted on.

The initiative will be supported by the development of a nationally standardised chart that incorporates all the necessary information to allow for the prescribing, supply and claiming of PBS medicines from the medication chart. Importantly the chart will also enable aged-care facility staff, such as nurses, to record administration of treatment to residents as well as act as a complete record of the resident's medication needs.

As part of the development of the initiative, standard fields for inclusion on a medication chart that can be utilised in electronic format will be developed. This will enable the chart to interface with other new initiatives being developed in the e-health space such as the personally controlled electronic health record.

Continued d ispensing

The second initiative to be enabled by this bill is the continued dispensing of PBS medicines in defined circumstances. This initiative will provide an additional mechanism for patients to access certain PBS medicines where a valid prescription is unavailable. The PBS is an Australian government initiative that provides affordable access for all Australian residents to effective and cost-effective medicines. Under part V (21)(1) of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 1960, a pharmacist must not supply or claim for a pharmaceutical benefit unless the prescription is written in accordance with these regulations. The requirement for a written prescription is also included in respective state and territory legislation.

This can create problems when consumers are in need of a prescription medicine but have run out of the prescription, lost it, or are not able to see a GP. Currently, both Commonwealth and state and territory legislation require that a medicine will only be supplied on presentation of a prescription.

In an urgent case, a prescriber may communicate a prescription to a pharmacist personally by telephone or other means. The prescriber is then obliged to supply a PBS prescription, known as an 'owing' prescription, to the pharmacist within seven days.

Where it is not possible to contact the prescriber, most state or territory legislation allows for an 'emergency supply' of medicines without a prescription. The quantity supplied is generally limited to no more than that required for three days treatment or the smallest standard pack in which certain medication forms, for example liquids, are contained. PBS subsidies do not apply in the case of emergency supply and so the patient is required to pay the full price of the medicine.

This initiative will ensure optimal health outcomes for patients.

For consumers taking medication for the treatment of certain chronic conditions it means that their treatment will not be interrupted should they, for example, not be able to synchronise their medical appointments with their medication requirements. Patients will not bear the financial burden of paying the full cost of the medication, as is currently the case for 'emergency supply' situations.

From commencement, oral hormonal contraceptives, or the pill, for systemic use and lipid modifying agents, specifically the HMG CoA reductase inhibitors as listed in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits are in scope for this initiative. These two therapeutic groups have been chosen on the basis that they are relatively well tolerated medicines with a very good safety profile.

Professional protocols by the community pharmacist will apply, so that quality and patient safety will not be compromised. These protocols will assist the pharmacist in ensuring that a person on a stable medicine regimen is being given ongoing medication through the application of the quality use of medicines principles.

The protocol is expected to include how continued dispensing interacts with already existing emergency supply arrangements; a mandatory feedback loop to the prescriber that continued dispensing has occurred; communication to the patient about the medicines dispensed under this initiative, including the importance of regular review by the prescriber; and the limited and selective availability of supply under this initiative.

The continued dispensing initiative will introduce efficiencies for pharmacists and prescribers, lessening the administrative burden of having to chase 'owing prescriptions' and decreasing the wastage that occurs when an original pack of medication has to be broken to adhere to the limited emergency supply provisions under the current state or territory legislation.

The initiative will be implemented in the community pharmacy setting only.

A review will be conducted of this initiative two years following its implementation to assess the suitability and appropriateness of the current therapeutic categories as well as the impact the initiative has had on patient access to medicines.

Technical amendments

The technical changes proposed in the bill for prescribing certain quantities of pharmaceutical benefits are intended to enhance current policy, for example, by expanding use of the streamlined 'authority required' process. This continues the government's commitment to its 2010 policy, in accordance with requests from prescribers, for expansion of the criteria for streamlining 'authority required' medicines.

The bill also enhances current arrangements by providing for determination of rules about increasing prescribed quantities for some medicines. The binding rules would be consistent with current guidelines in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits.

Conclusion

The $15.4 billion, five-year Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement is a central pillar of our health reform agenda.

Community pharmacists are a vital part of our primary healthcare system. They play an important role in the health care of their local communities, they are experts in medicines, and they are visited more often than GPs.

The initiatives contained within this bill are just two ways in which the Gillard Laborgovernment is supporting community pharmacy to provide better quality health outcomes to all Australians.

I commend the bill to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

If you asked Australians if we should create a system where their health information could be easily transferred between their health practitioners, many would be surprised that such a system does not already exist.

The sad truth is that our medical information is not connected—despite how logical and possible it is to achieve.

In many ways, the absence of a system of electronic health records in Australia demonstrates the difficulties of health reform—the fragmentation, the vested interests and the balancing priorities.

But we clearly know the evidence of why we need to act.

Currently health information of individuals is fragmented across a range of locations rather than being attached to the patient. Consumers need to retell their story each time they visit a different clinician. This outdated approach can result in poor information flows, unnecessary retesting, delays and medical errors.

Studies in hospital environments have indicated that between nine per cent and 17 per cent of tests are unnecessary duplicates.

Medication errors currently account for 190,000 admissions to hospitals each year. Up to 18 per cent of medical errors are attributed to inadequate patient information.

There are situations demonstrating every day in Australia why the introduction of e-health records will lead to improved care for patients. Take these situations as examples:

E-health records can change all these situations for the better.

That is why clinicians, health consumers and the health technology industry are all united in the call for electronic health records.

The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission recommended to the government in 2009 that 'by 2012 every Australian should be able to have a personal electronic health record that will at all times be owned and controlled by that person'.

This is a proposition that had widespread support in the extensive health reform forums and consultations that the government held throughout 2009 and 2010 around Australia.

Australians saw the value in preventing errors and misdiagnosis. They saw the benefits in managing their own health and the health of their family members. And they saw the benefits in creating a more efficient and effective health system.

Our analysis shows that the net economic benefits of e-health records are estimated at $11.5 billion until 2025.

To put it bluntly—there is widespread support for dragging the management of health records into the 21st century.

That is why this government committed $467 million in the 2010 federal budget to a two-year program to build the national infrastructure for personally controlled e-health records.

Records will have the capacity to contain summary health information such as conditions, medications, allergies and records of medical events created by healthcare providers. The records will also be able to include discharge summaries from hospitals, information from Medicare systems and some information entered by consumers themselves.

Australians rightly do not want their privacy threatened. They do not want one single massive data repository for all their records. They also want the right to participate, but not be forced to do so.

That is why we are designing this project to take heed of privacy from the ground up.

It is how our system will strike the right balance between security and access. Many of these protections are about ensuring that patients have the same protections over the access to digital records that they do over paper based records.

The bias is placed upon linking data sources around the country—much of which exists already in various forms in general practices, at the pharmacy, with pathology groups or at hospitals. This also means that we will not be building every technology solution—but providing the national infrastructure that only the Commonwealth government can do.

Already there have been significant achievements made in the past few years towards the implementation of e-health.

This parliament passed legislation last year to implement the Healthcare Identifiers Service which provides the backbone identification system for e-health.

There are now 1.1 million of these identifiers downloaded—across jurisdictions and lead implementation sites.

Twelve lead implementation sites have been established and are working with clinicians and patients to deploy e-health solutions.

Partners have been appointed and are busy working in the key areas of building the national infrastructure, change management and evaluating the success and effectiveness of the solutions.

The implementation approach is both swift and careful. We are developing infrastructure in a set period of time, but the rollout will happen in a staged manner.

All through the process there has been extensive consultation with clinicians, consumers and the health IT industry.

The finalised concept of operations released in September is the result of much of this consultation—but the engagement work now continues as the fine details are completed.

This consultation is important because establishing e-health records is not an end in itself. It has to deliver for clinicians and patients. This is why we have embedded e-health within our health reform agenda.

We want to know what is going to work for the patients—as well as the doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and others who have to deliver care.

This legislation I am introducing today will deliver the legal basis for this new system from when it starts registrations from 1 July 2012.

To develop this legislation we have had two rounds of public consultations—both on the legal issues for the system, and then on an exposure draft version of this bill.

The central theme of our system and this bill is that any Australian will be able to register for an e-health record, and they will be able to choose the settings for who can access their record and the extent of that access.

When registered, consumers may be represented by authorised and/or nominated representatives. This allows minors and persons with limited or no capacity to have an e-health record which details their medical history. Patients can choose to have a carer, family member or friend assist them with their record.

Apart from consumers, the other participants who can choose to register include healthcare provider organisations and repository and portal operators.

A registration framework will ensure regulation of all these parties, verification of identity, assurance that minimum technical, security and administrative requirements are met, and system accountability.

The bill prescribes the circumstances in which e-health record information can be collected, used or disclosed and imposes civil penalties for knowing or reckless unauthorised collection, use or disclosure.

All registered consumers and organisations will be subject to the Privacy Act 1988 or state or territory privacy laws as prescribed. The Privacy Act will also apply to the system operator including the ability of the Information Commissioner to investigate an interference with privacy and to penalise an offending party.

The bill also sets out requirements which apply to protect the privacy and security of patient health information. This includes notification of data breaches and storing all information in Australia. These requirements are also subject to civil penalties.

The system operator will be responsible for the operation of the system. The Department of Health and Ageing will initially perform this role. The bill allows for the system operator to change in future to a statutory authority. This will be the subject of future discussions, both with states and territories and with stakeholders.

The system operator will be responsible for establishing and maintaining the basic infrastructure of the system—including a register of participants, index service for documents and national repositories where appropriate.

There will also be important safeguards that the system operator will deliver including audit logs for access to records, reports on the performance of the system and mechanisms for handling complaints.

An independent advisory council will provide expert advice on the operation of the system and on clinical, privacy and security matters.

The membership will include consumers, health providers and people with experience in critical areas such as rural health, Indigenous health, administration, technology and legal or privacy issues.

A jurisdictional advisory committee will include representatives of the Commonwealth, states and territories and will provide advice regarding their perspectives of the system.

The Australian Information Commissioner will be the key regulator for the system and will have the capacity to conduct audits, commence investigations and impose a range of sanctions, accept enforceable undertakings and investigate complaints.

To ensure transparency of the system, the system operator and the Information Commissioner will be required to provide annual reports on the practical operation of the system to the minister and the ministerial council. The system is to be reviewed two years after the bill commences. To ensure transparency of the system, the System Operator and the Information Commissioner will be required to provide annual reports on the practical operation of the system to the minister and the ministerial council. The system is to be reviewed two years after the bill commences.

This legislation being introduced is yet another sign that this government is getting on with the job of rolling out e-health records.

This stands in stark contrast to the record of the opposition in this area, and particularly the current Leader of the Opposition. When he was the health minister he committed to establishing e-health records. This of course did not occur.

He recalled in 2005, and I quote:

Failure to establish an electronic patient record within five years—

that would take us to 2010—

I said, would be an indictment against everyone in the system, including the Government. I hope to be judged against that somewhat rashly declared standard; not because it is likely to be fully met but because it would mean that, come next year, I remain the Health Minister!

Of course that did not eventuate, that was a standard that he failed. The previous government did not deliver on this change, much to the detriment of patients and clinicians alike.

However he also failed a second test when, in the lead-up to the 2010 election, the Liberal Party promised that if they formed government they would cut every cent of the $467 million that this government had committed to e-health.

This legislation presents another test. What will the opposition do? Will it do the right thing for this country and support bringing our health system into the 21st century, or will the Leader of the Opposition continue down this well-trodden path of just saying no?

For the sake of the future health care of Australians I hope that the opposition will come on board.

Many people may see this system and legislation as being about technology. That is a mistake. It is about health care. It is about helping patients and doctors to prevent, cure and treat, and it uses technology to do that.

It also builds upon the other advances that are happening because of this government's investments—namely the National Broadband Network and telehealth, investments that are rolling out right now and helping to better the lives of Australians.

The use of technology to improve care will have a similar effect to the other great advances in healthcare technology, whether it be antibiotics or X-rays. This is a once in a generation opportunity to deliver these important reforms.

I encourage this parliament to support this improved health care through the passage of this bill, which I commend to the House.

Debate adjourned.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be read a second time.

This bill makes a number of minor, consequential amendments to existing acts to support the introduction of the Personally Controlled Electronic Health Records Bill 2011, which I have just introduced into the parliament.

The system will enable patients who register to access their health information and make it available to participating healthcare providers, online, where and when it is needed.

To manage the information from different sources, a consumer's individual healthcare identifier number is used to ensure that only information relating to that consumer can be viewed through their e-health record.

This consequential amendments bill will ensure that the system is able to operate appropriately and effectively.

In order to enable the system to operate, a number of amendments to existing acts are required, including to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 to allow the system to take up and use healthcare identifiers. Using healthcare identifiers will allow more accurate matching of health information to the correct consumer record and allow more accurate identification of healthcare providers.

The amendments to the Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 will authorise the System Operator, and other entities such as Medicare acting on behalf of the System Operator, to handle healthcare identifiers in various ways including the capacity to:

There will also need to be amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 to allow a range of health records stored by Medicare to be included in a consumer's e-health record if the consumer so chooses.

The consequential amendments proposed in this bill will allow a range of records created by Medicare to be included in a consumer's e-health record. Consumers will be able to choose to have their Medical Benefits Scheme, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, organ donor and childhood immunisation information included in their e-health record. Both the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953 contain certain prohibitions regarding the linking of Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme information, and the amendments will displace those prohibitions only for e-health records system purposes.

This bill seeks to make these amendments so that consumers can have the health information they choose included in their e-health record to support their better coordinated and better informed ongoing health care.

I commend this bill also to the House.

Debate adjourned.