John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw eight notices of disallowance standing in my name, as follows:

Business of the Senate notices of motion nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 for 6 sitting days after today for the disallowance of the following instruments:

Approved Code of Practice for Manual Handling (Maritime Industry), made under subsection 109(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993.

Approved Form for Application for Initial Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider, made under paragraph 34C(1)(a) and subsection 34S(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Approved Form for Application for Renewal of Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider, made under paragraph 34K(1)(a) and subsection 34S(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Direction Relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to North Korea, made under regulation 5 of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959.

Prescribed Courses for Applicants for Registration as a Migration Agent, made under paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Migration Agents Regulations 1998.

Variation of Criteria for Approval or Renewal of Approval of Rehabilitation Program Providers, made under section 34D of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence concerning these instruments.

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Approved Code of Practice for Manual Handling (Maritime Industry)

19 October 2006

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Suite MG.48

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Approved Code of Practice for Manual Handling (Maritime Industry) made under subsection 109(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 that specifies a code of practice for manual handling activity in a maritime environment.

The Committee notes that section 2.28 of this Code requires records to be kept concerning the implementation of the National Standard for Manual Handling. The section does not indicate the form in which such records should be kept, nor the duration for which such records should be kept. The Committee therefore seeks your advice as to whether such information should be added to the section.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 24 November 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this Code. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

18 December 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator

Thank you for your letter of 19 October 2006 concerning provisions in the Code of Practice for Manual Handling (Maritime Industry) (the code). Specifically, you asked about requirements under section 2.28 of the code which relate to record keeping.

It is intended that the code-including section 2.28-should be read in conjunction with section 11 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993. This provides that an operator has a duty of care to maintain appropriate information and records relating to their employees’ health and safety.

Section 2.28 envisages that appropriateness will vary according to the particular maritime activities engaged in and circumstances of the business concerned. It consequently does not specify either a form or a minimum timeframe for the keeping of these records. However, it should be noted that these records must be accessible to employees’ representatives on an ongoing basis to allow for their review and evaluation. I therefore do not consider it appropriate to prescribe this requirement in the code.

I trust this information addresses the issues raised in your letter.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Andrews

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

______________________

Approved Form for Application for Initial Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider

Approved Form for Application for Renewal of Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider

Variation of Criteria for Approval or Renewal of Approval of Rehabilitation Program Providers

9 November 2006

The Hon Kevin Andrews MP

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

Suite MG.48

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following instruments made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Approved Form for Application for Initial Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider

Approved Form for Application for Renewal of Approval as a Rehabilitation Program Provider

Variation of Criteria for Approval or Renewal of Approval of Rehabilitation Program Providers

The Committee raises the following matters after considering each instrument.

First, each of these instruments requires an applicant to provide information about certain types of legal actions against the applicant, its principals or employees. In each case, the relevant clauses specify that civil actions (eg for negligence) older than six years from the date of application, or bankruptcy declarations older than seven years, need not be declared. By comparison, professional misconduct or criminal proceedings, and breaches of antidiscrimination or privacy legislation do not have any time limit specified. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice as to why time limits are not specified for the latter types of action.

Secondly, section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 directs a rule-maker to be satisfied that appropriate consultation, as is reasonably practicable, has been undertaken particularly where a proposed instrument is likely to have an effect on business. Section 18 of the Act provides that in some circumstances consultation may be unnecessary or inappropriate. The definition of ‘explanatory statement’ in section 4 of the Act requires an explanatory statement to describe the nature of any consultation that has been carried out or, if there has been no consultation, to explain why none was undertaken. The Explanatory Statements that accompany these instruments make no reference to consultation. The Committee therefore seeks your advice on whether consultation was undertaken and, if so, the nature of that consultation. The Committee also seeks an assurance that future Explanatory Statements will provide information on consultation as required by the Legislative Instruments Act.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 24 November 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these instruments. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

18 December 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator

Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2006 concerning matters raised by the Committee in regards to instruments made under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The first issue raised concerns about why time limits were not being specified for certain types of legal actions against applicants, particularly those referring to professional misconduct or criminal proceedings, and breaches of antidiscrimination or privacy legislation. I am advised that statutory time limits are not required for these types of legal actions in their primary legislation. Any matters that might be raised under these criteria would allow Comcare to take these into consideration when assessing applicants against the criteria for their initial approval or renewal of approval (which occurs every three years).

The second issue concerned appropriate consultation not appearing in the explanatory statements. While Comcare is aware of its obligations, it was an oversight not to include such details in the explanatory statements, for which it apologises. Consultation via written correspondence was indeed undertaken with the approved rehabilitation providers, their association body - the Australian Rehabilitation Provider Association - and rehabilitation authorities in the Commonwealth over the course of July to October 2006.

Thank you for taking the time to write on these important matters.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Andrews

Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations

_________________________

Direction Relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to North Korea

12 October 2006

The Hon Peter Costello MP

Treasurer

Suite MG.47

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Treasurer

I refer to the Direction Relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to North Korea made under regulation 5 of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959. This instrument prohibits foreign currency transactions involving certain entities and one individual associated with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

The Committee notes that the prohibition applies, amongst other things, to any transaction that relates to property, securities or funds owned or controlled indirectly by those entities or that individual, and to any transaction that relates to payments indirectly to or for the benefit of those listed persons. It is possible that a person might engage in such a transaction without knowing of the indirect relationship with one of the listed persons. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice as to whether this Direction is intended to apply in such a circumstance.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 17 November 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this Direction. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

19 January 2007

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 12 October 2006 to the Treasurer relating to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances’ consideration of the Direction Relating to Foreign Currency Transactions and to North Korea under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959 (the Direction). In particular, you sought advice about whether the Direction is intended to apply in circumstances where a person engages in a transaction with a party who, unknowingly to them, is indirectly related to those listed in the Direction.

The intention of the Direction is to capture and prohibit all foreign currency transactions involving the transfer of funds or payments to, by the order of, or on behalf of entities or individuals listed under the Direction without the prior approval of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). It is expected that any person dealing in foreign currency would take all reasonable steps to identify the parties with whom they are dealing and be aware of the Direction.

However, offences under the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations 1959 are subject to the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) and are not ones of strict liability. As such, the effect of the Criminal Code is that a person must have known or recklessly disregarded the identity of the person taking the benefit of the dealing in order for an offence to occur.

Information regarding the financial sanctions is distributed widely with the RBA lodging the legislative instruments, each with the list of sanctions-designated individuals or entities attached, with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments and arranging for their inclusion in the Australian Government Gazette.

Following this, the RBA notifies the financial sector regulators, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre and the Australian Securities Exchange, in writing of the financial sanctions. These institutions alert their stakeholders, which include banks, building societies and credit unions and foreign exchange dealers, to the restrictions so that monitoring can occur.

The RBA also issues a media release advising of the implementation of financial sanctions, which includes the list of individuals or entities with which dealings are prohibited.

I trust this information will be of assistance to you.

Yours sincerely

Peter Dutton

Acting Treasurer

_______________________

Prescribed Courses for Applicants for Registration as a Migration Agent

9 November 2006

The Hon Andrew Robb AO MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for

Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Room RG.81

Parliament House

CANBERRA   ACT   2600

Dear Parliamentary Secretary

I refer to the Prescribed Courses for Applicants for Registration as a Migration Agent made under paragraph 5(1)(a) of the Migration Agents Regulations 1998. The Committee notes that this instrument, commencing on 1 October 2006, provides that a prescribed course of study is either a Graduate Certificate course at certain higher education institutions or a formal course of study or self-directed study completed before 15 July 2006.

According to the Explanatory Statement the effect of the instrument is that persons who have not completed a formal course of study or self-directed study before 15 July 2006 must complete the Graduate Certificate course in order to become registered migration agents. This appears to operate to the disadvantage of persons who have completed a formal course of study or self-directed study between 15 July and 30 September 2006, by compelling them to complete the Graduate Certificate course. It is not clear if this is the intention of the instrument. If so, the Committee would appreciate an explanation as to why persons who are affected in this way should be compelled to complete the additional course of study.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 24 November 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this instrument. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

5 December 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2006 concerning the Explanatory Statement for the Prescribed Courses for Applicants for Registration as a Migration Agent and your concern that it may disadvantage persons completing a formal course of study between 15 July and 30 September 2006.

On 4 May 2006 the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) announced that the Migration Advice Professional Knowledge Entrance Examination (MAPKEE) would be replaced with the Graduate Certificate in Australian Migration Law and Practice. The final MAPKEE was held in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and London on 15 July 2006. As preparation for the MAPKEE, applicants undertook either formal or self directed study. Delivery of the new Graduate Certificate, both face-to-face and online, commenced at the Australian National University, Griffith University, Murdoch University and Victoria University in July this year.

As the final MAPKEE was held on 15 July 2006, no individuals should be disadvantaged by the new Instrument. This is because individuals would have undertaken the MAPKEE on or prior to the 15 July 2006, or enrolled for the new Graduate Certificate. Upon completion of the new prescribed course and examination, intending agents have 12 months to apply to register with the MARA.

Please note that whilst persons who hold current legal practising certificates are not required to undertake the Graduate Certificate, they are required to satisfy yearly Continuing Professional Development to maintain their registration.

I appreciate you bringing this matter to my attention.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Robb

Parliamentary Secretary to the

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

_______________________

Social Security (Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Market-linked) – Payment Factors) (FACS) Principles 2005

Social Security (Partially Asset-test Exempt Income Stream – Exemption) (FACS) Principles 2005

9 November 2006

The Hon Mal Brough MP

Minister for Families, Community Services and

Indigenous Affairs

Suite MG.60

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following instruments made under the Social Security Act 1991:

Social Security (Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Market-linked) – Payment Factors) (FACS) Principles 2005

Social Security (Partially Asset-test Exempt Income Stream – Exemption) (FACS) Principles 2005

These two instruments were both made on 22 December 2005, and registered on 13 October 2006. The Explanatory Statements provide no explanation for the delay in registering these instruments. The Committee would therefore appreciate your advice as to why registration was delayed by ten months. The Committee would also appreciate your assurance that no person, other than the Commonwealth, has been disadvantaged by this delay in registration.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 24 November 2006, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Principles. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

30 November 2006

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 600

Dear Senator Watson

You have requested advice on the reason for the delay in registration of the following instruments, and assurance that no person, other than the Commonwealth, has been disadvantaged as a result of that delay. These instruments were both made on 22 December 2005, and registered on 13 October 2006.

• Social Security (Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Market-linked) - Payment Factors) (FACS) Principles 2005
• Social Security (Partially Asset-test Exempt Income Stream - Exemption) (FACS) Principles 2005

The effect of these instruments is to allow:

• the continuation of a 100 per cent exemption from the assets test where a lifetime or life expectancy income stream is created on or after 20 September 2004 from the commutation and rollover of an asset test exempt lifetime or life expectancy income stream purchased before that date;
• the use of payment factors to determine the total amount of the payments to be made under a market-linked income stream for a financial year.

My department delayed registration of the instruments, to explore with other departments responsible for social security legislation, a consistent approach to changing the legislation. However, following discussions with those departments, it was decided to register the instruments without further delay to allow customers to take advantage of the beneficial effect of the instruments.

While my department cannot rule out the possibility, I am advised that it is not aware of any people who have been disadvantaged by the delay in registering the instruments.

Yours sincerely

Mal Brough

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

7 December 2006

The Hon Mal Brough MP

Minister for Families, Community Services and

Indigenous Affairs

Suite MG.60

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 30 November 2006 responding to the Committee’s concerns with the delay in registering two Social Security Principles made in 2005 that provided for exemptions and payment factors for the asset-test exempt income stream.

The Committee notes that the reason for the delay was the desire to ensure that a consistent approach to changing the legislation was adopted with other departments responsible for social security legislation. We appreciate that consistency across legislation is important when legislation is managed across a number of agencies. However, we are still concerned about the possible impact of the delay on any individuals affected by this legislation.

In your response you advise that the department is ‘not aware’ of any people who have been disadvantaged by this delay. From your advice it is not clear what steps have been taken to ascertain whether disadvantage has occurred. While appreciating that the number of people involved might make it a difficult task, it would be helpful to know how the department determined its awareness. Also, given the acknowledgment that it may be a possibility, we would appreciate your advice about how the department proposes to deal with any instances of disadvantage that do come to light.

In the meantime, we have given a notice of motion to disallow these Principles to allow time to further consider the delay in registering these instruments.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 2 February 2007, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Principles. Correspondence should be directed to the Chairman, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

John Watson

Chairman

22 January 2007

Senator John Watson

Chairman

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACCT 2600

Dear Senator Watson

Thank you for your letter of 7 December 2006 requesting further details regarding the delay in registration of the following instruments:

• Social Security (Asset-test Exempt Income Stream (Market-linked) - Payment Factors) (FACS) Principles 2005
• Social Security (Partially Asset-test Exempt Income Stream - Exemption) (FACS) Principles 2005

Officers in my department are in regular contact with Centrelink regarding the administration of the income streams rules and have made specific inquiries in regard to whether any customers have been disadvantaged by the delay in implementing these Principles. To date, we have received no notification that any customers have been disadvantaged by this delay. If my officers did become aware of any particular case where there was potential disadvantage to a customer, we would make every attempt to investigate whether the customer’s situation can be addressed.

I would note that, in particular, the first of the above Principles is beneficial to customers as it stipulates that, under certain conditions, where asset-test exempt (ATE) income streams were purchased before 20 September 2004 and then rolled over to purchase a new non-commutable lifetime or life expectancy income stream, the new income stream should retain the 100 per cent exemption from the assets test that was accorded the original income stream. Accordingly, any disallowance of the instruments could potentially disadvantage those customers who have purchased a new income stream from the proceeds of a previously commuted ATE income stream, and who would otherwise qualify for retention of the 100 per cent assets test exemption.

Yours sincerely

Mal Brough

Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

Chris Ellison (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

(1)

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:

ACIS Administration Amendment (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 2007

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2007

Family Law (Divorce Fees Validation) Bill 2007

Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007

Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax (Former Complying Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax (Former Non-resident Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2007.

(2)

That, after the motion for the second reading of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007 and four related bills has been moved, they may be taken together for their remaining stages with the Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006 and five related bills.

I also table statements of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statements incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statements read as follows—

ACIS Administration Amendment (Unearned Credit Liability) Bill 2007

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the ACIS Administration Act 1999 (the Act) to enable the proper administration of the ACIS Scheme.

Reasons for Urgency

The ACIS Administration Act 1999 provides transitional assistance to encourage competitive investment and innovation in the Australian automotive industry. The assistance is provided to eligible recipients by way of duty credits. Duty credits are issued quarterly on the receipt of a claim from recipients. To facilitate the early issue of credits, claims are not validated at the time of issue, but subsequently through an audit process. Should it be found through audit that credits have been issued in respect of ineligible items, an Unearned Credit Liability (UCL) is issued to recover the credits which were incorrectly claimed. Section 94 of the Act provides the legislative basis for the recovery of such credits by the issue of a UCL. A recent ruling by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has called into question the ability of Section 94 to be relied upon to recover such credits. It suggests that the Commonwealth cannot rely on these provisions to recover credits unless there was an arithmetical error involved in the calculation of credits issued. This ruling means that the Commonwealth could, in the future, be issuing credits to participants who have no entitlement to those credits, but there would be no ability to recover those credits.

The alternative would be for the Commonwealth to assure itself, through an audit process PRIOR to the issue of credits, that all credits were due to the recipient. Such a process would involve lengthy delays in the issue of credits, perhaps exceeding 12 months, given the complexities of the audit process and the number of recipients. Such delays could have serious consequences for the automotive industry and in particular the automotive supply chain, given that up to $500 million in credits per annum is provided through the ACIS Scheme. The loss of cash flow may mean businesses in the supply chain would suffer severe financial hardship and may fail. In a worst case scenario there may be sufficient failures to make the viability of the entire automotive sector problematic.

The proposed amendment would make it clear that the Commonwealth does have the ability to recoup credits which have been issued but to which the recipient was not entitled and would thus enable the ACIS Scheme to continue to provide credits to recipients in a timely manner. The urgency of the amendment relates to the need to clarify the Commonwealth’s ability to issue and recoup credits in time to continue the issue of credits to the automotive industry without disruption.

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2007

Purpose of the Bill

The “first tranche” Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill (AML/CTF Bill) was passed in the 2006 Spring sittings of parliament. The AML/CTF Bill repealed and replaced much of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 and better implemented parts of the revised (June 2003) Forty Recommendations of the OECD-based Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF) and several of FATF’s Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing.

The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the legislation to ensure that it meets its stated intent.

Reasons for Urgency

It is essential that the amendments be introduced and passed in the 2007 Autumn sittings to maintain the integrity of the legislation package and to satisfy Australia’s international obligations (arising out of Australia’s membership of FATF) to upgrade anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing measures.

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2002

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends section 212 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (the BSA) to ensure that persons who retransmit content provided by National Indigenous TV Limited (NITV Ltd) for transmission by Imparja Television on its channel 31 narrowcast service are exempted from the regulatory requirements of the BSA. The bill also amends the statutory licence scheme in Part VC of the Copyright Act 1968 to apply it to NITV Ltd content.

NITV Ltd has recently been established to aggregate and distribute Indigenous television content.

Reasons for Urgency

NITV Ltd expects the first of its programming to go to air in May 2007. The proposed amendments will need to be in place by that time to ensure that services that do no more than retransmit NITV Ltd programming do not contravene the regulatory requirements of the BSA or infringe copyright in the underlying broadcast material.

Family Law (Divorce Fees Validation) Bill 2007

Purpose of the Bill

In July 2005, the filing fee in the Federal Magistrates Court (FMC) for divorce applications under the Family Law Act was increased. The equivalent fee in the Family Court of Western Australia (FCWA) would normally have been increased to match the FMC fee. However, due to an oversight, this did not occur. The FCWA assumed the necessary amendment had been made to the Family Law Regulations 1984 (the Regulations) and began charging the increased fee without legal authority. An amendment to the Regulations (effective 9 October 2006) has since authorised the FCWA to charge a fee equivalent to that in the FMC.

The bill authorises the charging of the higher fee by the FCWA for the period 1 July 2005 to 9 October 2006. This is appropriate given that the higher fee was paid in other states and territories in this period.

Reasons for Urgency

It is important to validate the charging of the higher fee as soon as possible. Once attention is drawn to the lack of authority for the charging of the higher fee, there is potential for those who have paid the higher fee to seek to recover the difference between the higher fee and the authorised fee. Introduction and passage of the bill in the one sitting will reduce, as far as possible, the potential for unnecessary litigation concerning recovery of the unauthorised amount.

Migration Amendment (Maritime Crew) Bill 2007

Purpose of the Bill

The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to provide that all foreign crew of non-military ships, including non-military ships being imported, must hold a Maritime Crew Visa while in Australia.

Reasons for Urgency

As an outcome of the Maritime Security Review, in November 2005 the government decided that the new maritime crew visa regime is to commence on 1 July 2007.

This is a $100 million government initiative to improve Australia’s border integrity involving the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC), the Australian Customs Service and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

The amendments seek to replace the Special Purpose Visa regime which currently applies to foreign crew of non-military ships upon entry to Australia. Currently foreign crew make no formal application for a visa before entering Australia and are granted a visa by operation of law when they enter Australia by virtue of their status as crew. The amendments will provide for a formal application process so that each foreign crew member may be subjected to an appropriate level of security checking before a maritime crew visa is granted. The introduction of the new visa process requires the building of the computerised systems governing the entry of foreign crew both in DIAC and in Customs who act as the agents of DIAC at the border, an appropriate level of consultation with shipping industry representatives, and in-depth training of all officials involved in the new application process including cross agency training of Customs and representatives of the shipping industry involved in Australia. Much of this requires considerable lead time to achieve. In addition, the new visa regime will have a critical dependency on a reasonably detailed regulatory framework to be developed following the passage of the primary legislation. Without this, the new process cannot be made to function at all.

Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Simplification) Bill 2007

Income Tax Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax (Former Complying Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax (Former Non-resident Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 2007

Income Tax Rates Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2007

Purpose of the Bills

The bills amend the taxation laws as part of the package of reforms to Australia’s superannuation system.

Reasons for Urgency

The measure is a high priority for the government. The bills need to be introduced to enable concurrent debate and passage with the Tax Laws Amendment (Simplified Superannuation) Bill 2006 which was introduced into Parliament on 7 December 2006.

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

growing international concern about nuclear proliferation and recent speculation about a possible United States of America (US) or Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities,

(ii)

Australia is a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) which makes its decisions by consensus,

(iii)

the US-India nuclear cooperation deal would breach the guidelines of the NSG that restricts trade with non-nuclear-weapon states that do not accept full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards,

(iv)

exemptions from NSG guidelines would erode the credibility of the NSG’s effort to restrict nuclear trade to those states that meet global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament standards, and

(v)

the next NSG meeting is in April 2007 and the US is expected to seek agreement to allow the US-India nuclear cooperation deal to proceed; and

(b)

calls on the Government to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by blocking the US-India deal at the NSG meeting in April 2007 and ruling out the supply of uranium to India.

Senator Fielding to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to protect Jetstar from foreign ownership and ensure jobs and operations stay in Australia, and for related purposes. Qantas Sale (Keep Jetstar Australian) Amendment Bill 2007.

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

welcomes the call from the electricity sector for a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme to promote investor confidence;

(b)

notes that:

(i)

the purpose of an emissions trading scheme is to create an economically efficient mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and

(ii)

notes that international emissions trading is a key mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol;

(c)

rejects the McKibbin-Wilcoxen proposal because it fails to cap greenhouse gas emissions and creates an unacceptable risk that long-term emission permits will be over-allocated; and

(d)

calls on the Government to announce the rules of an emissions trading scheme by 2008, for commencement in 2010.

Senator Bartlett to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2007:

All aspects of the Federal Government’s 10 point National Plan for Water Security, including:

(a)

whether it will return sufficient water to the Murray-Darling Basin to meet the environmental needs of the Murray-Darling Basin catchment; and

(b)

what mechanisms are in place to ensure farmers and the environment obtain maximum value from the funds expended.

Senator Eggleston to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of reports of the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee be extended as follows:

(a)

Australia’s national parks—to 29 March 2007; and

(b)

Australia’s Indigenous visual arts and craft sector—to 12 June 2007.

Senator Johnston to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on Australia’s public diplomacy be extended to 12 June 2007.

Senator Ferguson to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate on Wednesday, 28 February 2007, and Wednesday, 21 March 2007, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into Australia’s trade with Mexico and the region.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of Senators Ferris and Moore, give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that

(i)

National Ovarian Cancer Awareness Week runs from Sunday, 25 February to Sunday, 4 March 2007,

(ii)

more than 1 000 women get ovarian cancer every year,

(iii)

between 1991 and 2001 there was a 23 per cent increase in the number of new cases of ovarian cancer and other cancers of the female genital organs, and

(iv)

the relative 5 year survival rate for ovarian cancer is less than half that for breast cancer;

(b)

draws attention to the Community Affairs Committee report Breaking the silence: A national voice for gynaecological cancers which was tabled in the Senate on 19 October 2006; and

(c)

calls on the Government to implement the recommendations in the report.

Senator Watson to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate as follows:

(a)

on Wednesday, 28 February 2007, from 11.30 am to 1 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s review of Auditor-General’s reports; and

(b)

on Thursday, 1 March and 29 March 2007, from 10.30 am to 1 pm, and Wednesday, 28 March 2007, from 11.15 am to 1.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into financial reporting and equipment acquisition at the Department of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation.

Senator Humphries to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Community Affairs Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 1 March 2007, from 3.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Aged Care Amendment (Security and Protection) Bill 2007.

Senator Payne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 1 March 2007, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the AusCheck Bill 2006.

Senator O’Brien to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in June 2007:

An examination of the effect on regional and rural Australia of the Government’s February 2007 decision to phase-out Non-Forestry Managed Investment Schemes, including:

(a)

the effect on jobs and investment in rural and regional Australia;

(b)

the identity of agricultural industries which will be most affected;

(c)

the regional and rural communities which will be most affected;

(d)

the effect on exports; and

(e)

the merits of maintaining Non-Forestry Managed Investment Schemes and alternatives to the Government’s decision.

Senator Murray to move on 1 March:

That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2007:

(a)

a review of Commonwealth statutory exemptions provided to religious or other organisations, or individual members thereof, on the grounds of religion, belief or conscience;

(b)

whether such Commonwealth statutory exemptions should be maintained, withdrawn or restricted, including in specific instances where they are abused or are made no longer appropriate by the conduct of individuals or organisations conflicting with the justification being provided for the exemption;

(c)

whether any religious organisation, as a result of its beliefs, prevents an adequate and productive education of minors or young persons, including at the tertiary level, contrary to the public interest;

(d)

whether statutory or administrative changes in respect of Commonwealth law or practice are necessary; and

(e)

any other relevant matters.

Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

the growing tension between the United States of America (US) and Iran, including the military build-up in the Persian Gulf,

(ii)

the indication by US Vice President Dick Cheney, while in Sydney from 22 February to 25 February 2007, that a military strike on Iran is an option, and

(iii)

that US intelligence bases in Australia are likely to be used in any military strike on Iran; and

(b)

calls on the Government to:

(i)

support a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, and

(ii)

rule out Australian support for a military strike on Iran.

Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes:

(i)

the comments on 26 February 2007 by former Family Court Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson that the Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General could be charged with war crimes for insisting Mr David Hicks face trial before a United States of America military commission,

(ii)

the Federal Court case examining the Government’s breach of its protective duty to Australian citizen Mr Hicks, and

(iii)

that Mr Hicks has been detained for 1 909 days; and

(b)

calls on the Government to fulfil its duty of care and return Mr Hicks to Australia.

Senator Stephens to move on the next day of sitting:

(a)

notes:

(i)

the plight of Mr Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Bangladeshi journalist who is on trial for sedition, an offence punishable by death, because as editor of an English-language newspaper he has been critical of Islamic extremism and has expressed his belief in interfaith dialogue, particularly between Christians, Muslims and Jews,

(ii)

that Mr Choudhury was detained in Dhaka Central Jail in November 2003 for passport violation, was charged with sedition, interrogated and was held in prison for 17 months without legal recourse until April 2005 when he was released on bail after intervention by the United States Department of State,

(iii)

that on 6 July 2006 Mr Choudhury’s newspaper offices were bombed by an Islamic extremist organisation after the newspaper published articles in support of the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority,

(iv)

that on 18 September 2006 a Bangladeshi judge ruled that Mr Choudhury would stand trial for sedition and that his trial commenced, only to be suspended when a state of emergency was declared in Bangladesh on 11 January 2007 and a caretaker government was installed by the military on 22 January 2007,

(v)

that Mr Chouldhury’s trial has been suspended while the new government is established, and

(vi)

that the previous government admitted that there was no basis for the charges against Mr Choudhury and the Public Prosecutor testified that there was no evidence against him; and

(b)

calls on the Government of Bangladesh to:

(i)

drop all charges against Mr Choudhury,

(ii)

ensure his confiscated possessions are returned, and

(iii)

investigate those responsible for his harassment and intimidation because of his call for interfaith tolerance.