Senate debates
Monday, 18 June 2007
Notices
Presentation
Senator Ronaldson to move on the next day of sitting:
- That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics Committee on private equity markets be extended to 16 August 2007.
Senator Faulkner to move on the next day of sitting:
- That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence all documents including briefs to ministers concerning complaints and allegations made in 1997 and 1998 about substandard maintenance on Navy ships and the likely risks of harm, particularly with respect to the safety of HMAS Westralia, as well as responses and results of any investigations into those complaints and allegations subsequently conducted.
Senator Murray to move on the next day of sitting:
- That general business order of the day no. 16 relating to the Public Interest Disclosure (Protection of Whistleblowers) Bill 2002 [2004] be discharged from the Notice Paper.
Senator Nettle to move on the next day of sitting:
- That the Senate:
- (a)
- notes that:
- (i)
- the respected British Broadcasting Corporation journalist Alan Johnston was abducted whilst on assignment in the Gaza Strip more than 3 months ago and his whereabouts remains unknown,
- (ii)
- the Army of Islam group has claimed responsibility for that abduction, and
- (iii)
- all factions in the Palestinian Parliament, including the Fatah and Hamas factions, have condemned the abduction; and
- (b)
- calls on the Australian Government to:
- (i)
- express its concern about the plight of Mr Johnston to the Palestinian authorities,
- (ii)
- use whatever influence it may have with the Palestinian authorities to secure the safe return of Mr Johnston, and
- (iii)
- use whatever influence it may have in the region to ensure that the release of Mr Johnston does not add to the bloodshed in the Palestinian territories.
Senator Stephens to move on the next day of sitting:
- That the Senate:
- (a)
- notes that:
- (i)
- an estimated one million children are driven into the multi-billion dollar commercial sex trade every year,
- (ii)
- more than 100 countries are parties to the United Nations (UN) ‘Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography’, which opposes the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and requires those offering or delivering or accepting children for the purposes of sexual exploitation, organ harvesting or forced labour to be punished,
- (iii)
- while Australia ratified the optional protocol on 8 January 2007, some countries in our region that receive aid from Australia have signed the optional protocol but are yet to ratify it, while others are yet to sign the document, and
- (iv)
- poverty is a key driver in fuelling child and adult trafficking; and
- (b)
- calls on the Federal Government to:
- (i)
- encourage countries in the region to sign to and ratify the UN ‘Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children’ on Trafficking and implement its requirements,
- (ii)
- increase support for poverty alleviation programs directly targeted to assist poor communities particularly affected by people trafficking, and
- (iii)
- enhance its responses to the needs of victims of trafficking into Australia by improving support services and access to visas and by assisting the repatriation of those who wish to return to their country of origin.
3:33 pm
John Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Following the receipt of a satisfactory response, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 standing in my name for eight sitting days after today, the disallowance of the Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006 and the Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the committee’s correspondence concerning these instruments.
Leave granted.
The correspondence read as follows—
Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006
Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006
1 March 2007
ref: 23/2007
The Hon Bruce Billson MP
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence Suite M1 19
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Minister
I refer to the following instruments made under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006.
- Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006—Instrument 2006 No. R33
- Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006—Instrument 2006 No. R30
The Committee has examined these instruments and identified the following matters on which it would appreciate further advice.
Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006—Instrument 2006 No. R33
The definition of ‘Repatriation Health Card—For Specific Conditions’ in clause 3 contains a typographical error, where the word ‘Act’ has been omitted from the name of the legislation.
The operation of clause 4 is unclear. The Committee notes that where the Department or the Commission is required to make notification of certain matters (presumably examples are found in clause 20—notification of forms, and clause 29—notification of rates) this requirement can be satisfied by the publication of the Explanatory Notes. The Explanatory Notes are defined in clause 3 to mean the notes that were published in the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits for Approved Pharmacists and Medical Practitioners dated 1 February 2002. Although clause 4 seems to permit other means of notification, it is not clear when the Explanatory Notes are to be used or whether they will require modification to notify matters that now arise under this instrument. Nor is it clear what those other means of notification are, or how they will be communicated to relevant persons.
It is possible that these questions might have been answered if the Explanatory Statement to this instrument had provided a detailed clause by clause explanation.
The Explanatory Statement indicates that there was no consultation in respect of this instrument because it is beneficial in nature and it “needed to be made as quickly as possible”. Given that the instrument imposes certain obligations and restrictions that have an effect on the business of community pharmacists (for example, subclause 18(a), clause 32, and clause 37) this would appear to require consultation under paragraph 17(1)(a) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Further, the Explanatory Statement does not indicate why the instrument needed to be made as quickly as possible.
Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006—Instrument 2006 No. R30
There are minor typographical errors in the following provisions in this Instrument:
- paragraph 2.2.3(c)—‘to a an entitled person’;
- paragraph 3.2.1(a)—the Note contains an Error message; and
- clause 11.3.2—‘persons’ should be singular.
The Explanatory Statement indicates that there was no consultation in respect of this instrument because it is beneficial in nature and it “needed to be made as quickly as possible”. The Explanatory Statement does not indicate why the instrument needed to be made as quickly as possible.
The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 26 March 2007, 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
22 May 2007
Senator John Watson
Chairman
Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Room SG49
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Senator Watson
Thank you for your letter of 1 March 2007 (your ref: 23/2007) in relation to two legislative instruments made by the Repatriation Commission and approved by me under the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006.
Repatriation Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006 - Instrument 2006 No. R33
I am advised that there is no typographical error in the definition of “Repatriation Health Card - For Specific Conditions” (omission of ‘Act’ from the name of the legislation). This definition refers to the eligibility for treatment card issued under clause 2.1.1 of the Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006. That instrument does not contain the word ‘Act’ in its title.
You have correctly understood the operation of paragraph 4 of the instrument under discussion (hereinafter referred to as the RPBS (Nuclear)).
I am advised that work is still underway to prepare detailed written advice to Community Pharmacists of the slightly different requirements of the RPBS (Nuclear). The revised Explanatory Notes (as that term is used in the instrument) are scheduled to be published on 15 March 2007 and will contain this information. The previous Explanatory Notes will be slightly modified so as to refer to the class of person entitled to pharmaceutical treatment under this instrument.
However, please appreciate that from a practical point of view it’s simply “business as usual” for the Community Pharmacists who provide pharmaceuticals to the holders of a White Card (ie the Repatriation Health Card - For Specific Conditions). As far as those pharmacists are concerned an entitled person will present with a prescription and proof of their eligibility (ie the White Card) and will need to record the card number when claiming reimbursement from my Department. The card number will then be used by my Department in identifying the eligibility and under which appropriation the funds are to be withdrawn. However, to all intents and purposes, there will be no substantive changes for the pharmacists in dealing with this new category of white Card holders. As the Committee will note the RPBS (Nuclear) instrument is virtually identical to the instrument under which these pharmacists currently supply pharmaceuticals to veterans and other eligible persons and the Department utilises the same procedures.
I have noted your comment about clause-by-clause Explanatory Statements. Clearly this would be a preferable course of action to be undertaken where time permits. I am advised that the Office of Legislative Drafting has indicated that Explanatory Statements in such a form are not a requirement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. As explained below, the instruments under discussion needed to be made quickly, they are lengthy, and time did not permit the preparation of clause-by-clause Explanatory Statements. Hopefully these unusual set of circumstances will not be repeated.
Regarding your concern about the lack of consultation in respect of this instrument and your comment that the effect of the instrument on business was such that it would appear consultation was required, please note the above comments on the negligible impact on Community Pharmacists introduced by this instrument. Community pharmacists will see a White Card and will merely follow current practice without regard for the different legislative requirements that apply to this new category of eligible persons.
As a matter of practice, the impact on business will be minimal. The requirements and procedures under this instrument are identical to those under the RPBS to ensure that from a practical point of view there are no differences for pharmacists. The only practical impact for a pharmacist is that he or she might have a few extra clients presenting with white Cards.
As to the need for the instrument to be made quickly and the lack of a reason, the Explanatory Statement does provide a sound explanation for the urgency when read in the context of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 (Act). It says:
“... the attached instrument ... needed to be made as quickly as possible in order for pharmaceutical benefits to be provided under the instrument to eligible persons.”.
The Act applies to people eligible for treatment under it. The terminology of the RPBS relates to veterans and dependants, not to people suffering from malignant neoplasia as a result of participating in British nuclear tests. These people were not necessarily veterans or their dependants and included civilian contractors who have no eligibility under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA). Accordingly, the legislative instruments made under the VEA could not be interpreted to cover this new category of persons.
If the inappropriate terminology of the RPBS had not been modified (which is what the RPBS (Nuclear) did) it may have been extremely difficult to administer and the likely confusion may have resulted in entitled persons not receiving their treatment under the Act and pharmacist’s claims for reimbursement not being met. Accordingly the RPBS needed to be modified as quickly as possible.
The other reason for the urgency is that claims for treatment could be made in relation to treatment that occurred before the commencement of the Act. As the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill stated:
“The commencement date for treatment eligibility will be three months prior to the lodgement date of the claim or 19 June 2006, the date of the Government’s decision, whichever is the later.”
Claims for treatment had already been received by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs before the instrument was made.
Treatment Principles (Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests) 2006—Instrument 2006 No.R30
The typographical errors are noted and will be rectified in an amendment to the principal instrument that is proposed to be made shortly.
The reasons for the need to make this instrument quickly are the same as those given above for the RPBS (Nuclear) instrument. Again I draw to your attention the fact that a reason was given for that need viz:
“... consultation was not appropriate because the instrument needed to be made quickly in order to make the relevant treatment available for eligible persons.”
I trust this information satisfies your concerns. Yours sincerely
Bruce Billson
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence