Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table six revised explanatory memoranda relating to the bills and move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2013

The Bill continues the Government's commitment to ensuring Aboriginal people's ongoing connection to their land is recognised, by scheduling further parcels of land as Aboriginal land.

It will benefit traditional owners, residents and business operators in Jabiru and the wider Kakadu region in the Northern Territory.

Importantly, it will also provide traditional owners with significant economic development opportunities.

Amendments relating to Jabiru

The Bill adds the existing Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land to Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Related amendments are made to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

These amendments arise from the landmark agreement struck in November 2009 to resolve the Jabiru native title claim, which is the longest running native title claim in the history of the Northern Territory.

The intention of this measure is to give effect to the settlement agreement reached between the parties to the native title claim. Importantly, this Bill recognises the traditional ownership of Jabiru by the Mirarr people.

The amendments relating to Jabiru allow for the transfer of ownership of the claimed land from the Director of National Parks to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust, which will hold the land on trust for its traditional owners.

The Jabiru town land and certain adjacent portions of Northern Territory land will be scheduled under the land rights legislation to enable the land to be granted as Aboriginal land to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust.

This Bill also provides that the land will not be granted as Aboriginal land until leaseback arrangements for the Jabiru town land and for the two adjacent non township portions are put in place.

The Mirarr traditional owners have agreed to lease back the Jabiru land immediately, through long-term leases to be granted to the Director of National Parks, the Northern Territory and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation nominated by the Northern Land Council. The two adjacent portions of land will also be leased to the Director of National Parks.

The land that will be scheduled by this Bill will remain part of Kakadu National Park and the Kakadu World Heritage Area. The Bill provides for the preservation of Kakadu's world heritage and other values in relation to the town. It requires the leases granted to the Northern Territory and the relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander corporation to be consistent with the protection of those World Heritage and other natural and cultural values.

The land to be leased to the Director of National Parks will be added to the Director's existing lease of adjacent park lands from the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust.

The Bill also makes amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 relating to the proper development of Jabiru into the future in accordance with the leases, the management plan for Kakadu and a town plan approved by the Director of National Parks.

Jabiru has established itself as a thriving township that services Kakadu National Park as a tourist destination as well as the nearby Ranger uranium mine. Business operators in Jabiru have, however, expressed legitimate concerns that, given the expiration of the current headlease in 2021, the future tenure arrangements for Jabiru are unclear. This has resulted in a reluctance to invest in the town.

This Bill will provide for long-term certainty and security of land tenure for Jabiru. Importantly, for current interest-holders in Jabiru, this Bill ensures that existing leases, subleases and other interests will be preserved following transfer of ownership to the Kakadu Aboriginal Land Trust.

This Bill builds on the Government's commitment to hand over land in the Northern Territory to its traditional owners. Since 2007, the Australian Government has handed back 42,225 square kilometres of land under the Land Rights Act, more than 12 times the area of land handed back between 2002 and 2007.

The Government is very pleased to be able to further the resolution of the Jabiru native title claim by introducing this Bill.

Other amendments

The Bill also adds a further parcel of land for Patta to Schedule 1 to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (2009 Measures) Act 2010 previously inserted five portions of land, known as Patta in the Northern Territory, into Schedule 1.

This new amendment will enable the further parcel of land to be granted to the relevant Aboriginal Land Trust.

ASBESTOS SAFETY AND ERADICATION AGENCY BILL 2013

Ensuring the health and safety of our citizens is a fundamental role of government—and of this Parliament.

But there is a clear and present danger today to workers, tradespeople and to our domestic and public safety. I speak of asbestos. Asbestos is the worst industrial menace and it will go on killing for decades.

Based on International Labour Organization figures, every five minutes someone around the world dies of an asbestos-related disease.

This bill marks an historic step in Australia becoming the first nation to progress towards the ultimate elimination of asbestos-related diseases. Our aim needs to be to remove this menace once and for all, in tandem with local, state and territory governments, industry, unions and the community. We are working to rid the legacy of 50 years of asbestos use, a substance that was known even then to kill people; miners, workers, tradespeople, even householders.

We lead the world in mesothelioma rates. Today we have the chance to lead by action. The European Parliament has just this month resolved to eradicate asbestos by 2028, calling for the implementation of a coordinated strategy to remove all asbestos.

Australia was one of the highest per capita users of asbestos in the world until the mid-1980s. Approximately one in three of all homes in Australia built between 1945 and 1987 contain asbestos products. Materials containing asbestos were used in a wide range of manufacturing products.

It would surprise many people just how widely used asbestos has been.

There are literally acres and acres of asbestos around our nation, thousands of kilometres of asbestos cement pipes still delivering water, acres of Super Six corrugated roofs, whole factories riddled with asbestos, hospitals and hospital labs, hundreds of schools riddled with asbestos. Crushed masonry containing asbestos fibres is being reintroduced into the community as asbestos-containing product that has the potential to harm current and future generations.

Even though the mining and industrial use of asbestos has all been banned in Australia, asbestos still exists in our workplaces, public buildings and homes.

In 2010, 642 Australians died from mesothelioma. But for every death attributed to mesothelioma, it is estimated two more people will die from lung cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. Over the next 20 years, an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 Australians will be diagnosed with an asbestos-related disease.

Until the Gillard government established the Asbestos Management Review in 2010, there was no coordinated or consistent national approach to handling asbestos beyond our workplaces.

The review makes it clear that we must act quickly to prevent further Australians from being exposed to asbestos. We must diminish and prevent a third wave of asbestos deaths, particularly as a result of people exposed to asbestos in their homes.

To do so, the review recommended the development of a new national strategic plan for asbestos eradication, awareness and handling.

The review also recommended that a new asbestos agency be established to have responsibility for coordinating and implementing the national strategic plan.

Stopping exposure to asbestos is the responsibility of all levels of government. While some jurisdictions have taken steps to minimise exposure, this is the first time a national approach to asbestos removal, management and awareness is being pursued. A 'business as usual' approach, the shield of risk assessments and codes has not resulted in a decline in asbestos-related deaths. Whole forests of trees have contributed to documents intended to control asbestos, whilst materials containing asbestos in our workplaces, homes and public buildings are getting older and more fragile.

The establishment of a new agency is an essential part of the Labor Government's commitment to reduce exposure to asbestos.

It will pave the way for a national approach to asbestos eradication, awareness and management in Australia, by taking responsibility for coordinating a national plan for action.

The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has already started working with all government counterparts and industry partners to develop the national strategic plan for asbestos awareness, management and eradication. This plan is due by 1 July 2013.

This input will be crucial to make sure the plan is practical and comprehensive in addressing:

In developing the plan, the recommendations and their implementation of the review will be considered.

Today, I introduce a bill which practically demonstrates and cements Labor's commitment to stop exposure to asbestos.

This bill establishes the Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency as an independent body. It will be comprised of a Chief Executive Officer, supported by staff, who together will form a statutory agency. The body will be subject to Commonwealth governance regimes and will be a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.

The new agency will provide a focus on issues which go beyond workplace health and safety to encompass environmental and public health issues. It will ensure asbestos issues receive the attention and focus needed to drive change across all levels of government.

The functions of the new agency will include advocating, coordinating, monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the national strategic plan.

It will review and amend the national strategic plan as required by the plan or at the request of the Minister. And it will provide advice to the minister about asbestos safety.

The bill outlines the reporting arrangements for the new agency. It provides that the Minister approve the new agency's annual operational plan to support the implementation of the national strategic plan.

Further, the Minister will be required to table the agency's annual report in Parliament.

To support efforts to improve asbestos health and safety and successful delivery of the national strategic plan, an Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council will be established.

The council will have the functions of providing advice to the agency's CEO, including through written guidelines, and providing advice to the Minister.

The council will consist of a chair, one member representing the Commonwealth and four members representing state, territory and local governments.

There will be four other members appointed by the Minister with knowledge or experience in asbestos safety, public health, financial management or, very importantly, the representation of people with asbestos-related diseases and their families. One of these members will be representing the interests of workers of Australia and one other member will be representing the interests of the employers of Australia.

The bill establishes the operational arrangements to support the agency as well as provisions relating to the nomination, appointment, and terms and conditions of council members, conflict of interest issues, and procedures relating to the conduct of meetings.

And this bill enables the CEO to constitute committees to draw upon a wide range of expertise and experience to assist the agency or the council in the performance of their respective functions.

With the passing of this bill, the Parliament can help prevent exposure to asbestos, so that we can ultimately eliminate the tragedy of asbestos-related disease and death.

There are children not yet born who will die of asbestos related diseases. We owe it to future generations to finally come to grips with the blight of asbestos in Australia.

As we debate this bill let me reinforce that it is an issue for all levels of government to tackle.

It is an issue that has been championed by unions, by individuals and families touched by asbestos related diseases, by asbestos advocacy groups, by the lawyers representing the victims, by health and safety activists and specialists and by some crusading journalists and by many of my colleagues here in the Parliament. To them I say thank you.

Many lives are counting on us.

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP AMENDMENT (SPECIAL RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS) BILL 2013

The Australian Citizenship Amendment (Special Residence Requirements) Bill 2013 provides the Minister of Immigration and Citizenship with a power to apply alternative residence requirements to certain applicants for citizenship by conferral. It acknowledges the benefits that these people bring to Australia and provides them with a pathway to citizenship.

In 2009, the Government recognised the special needs of two sets of people who were unable to meet the general residence requirement of ‘four years lawful stay’ in Australia, including the final 12 months before application for citizenship as a permanent resident. These two groups of people were those who need to be an Australian citizen to engage in specified activities of benefit to Australia (section 22A of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the Act)), and those whose work requires them to travel frequently outside of Australia (section 22B of the Act).

As of March 2013, section 22A had been used 14 times and section 22B had been used 84 times since September 2009. It has become apparent, however, that they do not adequately cover the field. The Bill addresses this gap.

Alternative residence requirement

The Bill proposes to give the Minister a personal, non-compellable discretionary power to substitute an alternative residence requirement in both sections 22A and 22B.

In relation to section 22A, the applicant must continue to meet the initial requirements of the section, which are that:

In relation to section 22B, the applicant must meet the following initial requirements:

The new discretion provides that the Minister could, in writing, determine that the following alternative requirements apply instead of the usual special residence requirements:

In common with all of the other residence requirements in the Citizenship Act, the Bill provides that a person cannot satisfy the alternative residence requirement if, at any time during the 2 years prior to application, the person was imprisoned or confined to a psychiatric institution by order of a court in connection with proceedings for an offence against Australian law. The Bill, however, maintains the Minister’s discretion to decide that this restriction does not apply if it would be unreasonable in the circumstances of the applicant.

In order to reinforce the importance of presence in Australia as a way of understanding the Australian way of life and the commitment made through the citizenship Pledge, the applicant must give the Minister an undertaking in writing that, if they acquire citizenship through the exercise of the special power:

The ‘ordinarily resident’ criteria ensures that those who obtain citizenship in these special circumstances genuinely have their home or permanent abode in Australia, and that absences from Australia are only temporary in nature. For example, a defence scientist who spends extended periods of time outside Australia for the purpose of their work, but who spends at least 180 days in the two year period after acquiring citizenship in Australia and whose home base is here, will generally be assessed as ordinarily resident in Australia. However, a defence scientist whose home base is in a foreign country, and who is in Australia for less than 180 days, would not be fulfilling their commitment to Australia and would not be considered to be ordinarily resident in Australia.

This commitment is not unduly restrictive; it requires the new citizen to spend approximately one quarter of their time physically present in Australia. This allows sufficient flexibility for new citizens, such as elite athletes and professionals, to spend time abroad and still maintain their citizenship.

Procedural requirements

To reinforce what a great privilege is being extended to an applicant through the alternative residence requirements, the Minister’s power cannot be delegated nor can the Minister be compelled to use this power, whether or not somebody has requested it.

To ensure transparency, the Bill provides that if the Minister exercises the power to apply the alternative residence requirements in favour of an applicant, and the applicant becomes an Australian citizen as a result, the Minister must table in each House of Parliament a statement that the Minister has exercised the power and sets out the reasons for so doing, including why the Minister considers that the engagement in that activity or kind of work by the person would be of benefit to Australia. To protect the privacy of the applicant, that statement is not to include the name of the applicant.

Revocation

Australian citizenship is not to be taken lightly. If, therefore, a person acquires citizenship through the Minister’s use of the new discretion, they must comply with their undertaking to be resident in Australia for the specified period of time after acquiring citizenship. If they do not honour this commitment, the Bill provides that the Minister can personally revoke their citizenship. The Minister can also require the person to surrender any certificate of Australian citizenship which they have in their possession.

If the person is a responsible parent of a child aged under 18 at the time, the Bill also provides that the Minister can revoke the child's citizenship. However, this cannot be done if the child has another responsible parent who is an Australian citizen or that responsible parent who was an Australian citizen has died.

In order to honour Australia's commitments under the 1954 and 1961 United Nations Conventions on Statelessness, the Bill provides that the Minister must not revoke the citizenship of either the main applicant or their child if such revocation would render the person stateless.

Other eligibility requirements for citizenship

The Minister must be satisfied that the applicant meets the other requirements in subsections 21(2), (3) or (4) of the Act. Those subsections cover such matters as their age and the requirement that the applicant be of good character. Applicants meeting the alternative residence requirement must also pass the citizenship test.

Review of decisions

The Bill provides that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal cannot review a personal decision of the Minister in relation to whether the alternative residence requirements apply, nor can it make such a decision on its own account. Such powers would be inappropriate because the Minister alone can exercise the discretion as to whether those alternative residence requirements have been met, as well as the other relevant requirements including those relating to the character and identity of the applicant.

These decisions will be subject to judicial review, and to parliamentary scrutiny due to the tabling requirements where the power has been exercised.

Legislative instrument

A Legislative Instrument under section 22C of the Act specifies the activities which are of benefit to Australia covered by section 22A, and the kinds of work covered by section 22B. I have signed a new Legislative Instrument which extends the coverage of these provisions. The new Instrument will come into effect the day after it is registered.

Because the provisions in section 22A are limited to those who need Australian citizenship to carry out their activities, the relevant list is limited to those who require a high-level security clearance to work with the Commonwealth and elite athletes in a range of sporting competitions. The new Instrument will include international cricket competition as a specified activity and adds Cricket Australia to the list of organisations who may support an application.

The Gillard Government recognises that certain other people make a great contribution to Australia, even if they do not require citizenship to do so. We wish to assist them with the difficulties they face in becoming eligible for citizenship due to their work-related travel. Therefore, the new Instrument extends the category of people covered by section 22B, to include:

The decision to include a category of persons within the Legislative Instrument is an important one and should not be taken lightly but the Government should be open to broadening its scope if there is a legitimate reason to do so.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposed amendments would give the Minister a discretion to provide a pathway to citizenship to a very small number of people in very exceptional circumstances, where their becoming a citizen would be of benefit to Australia. Australia should be proud to call these people their own

I commend this Bill to the chamber.

AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION BILL 2012

The Australian Education Bill 2012 provides a historic opportunity to enshrine in legislation key principles and national goals to guide education reform and to build an education system that provides students with the knowledge, skills and abilities they need for the 21st Century.

The Bill is a vital part of the Australian Government's reform plans and continues the reform direction that began with the Review of School Funding (the Gonski Review), which was the first significant review of school funding in over forty years.

This Bill is about meeting the commitment to improve funding for schools and lifting student and school performance through the National Plan for School Improvement. But why is the government implementing the National Plan for School Improvement outlined in this Bill?

The Government has developed the National Plan for School Improvement in response to the recommendations from the Review of School Funding. The National Plan for School Improvement will enable schools to access the resources they need to get better results for the children they teach.

The independent Review of Funding for Schooling, led by the eminent Australian businessman David Gonski, found existing school funding arrangements were not meeting the education needs of all Australian children. Many schools, particularly those with disadvantaged students were missing out on necessary resources and falling behind.

Australia's outcomes in international testing have not kept pace over the last decade relative to other countries. One in twelve students is not meeting national minimum standards in reading, writing and numeracy.

There is also a persistent and significant gap between our highest and lowest performing students—and low performing students are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government is determined to change this, providing additional resources to support these children.

To compete in the Asian century Australia needs a highly skilled and innovative workforce—and this begins with a high performing school system.

That is why the Government has announced the biggest overhaul of school funding in almost 40 years, and is implementing the education reforms needed to improve results. And that is why this Government has a National Plan for School Improvement, to deliver not only funding, but to link that funding to a plan to deliver improved outcomes.

Australia will now have a better and fairer way of funding our schools, together with new education reforms to lift student achievement.

Central to this Bill is the implementation of a needs-based funding model, which was a key recommendation of the Gonski Review. This Bill delivers a new funding standard for all schools, based on what it costs to educate a student at schools that were shown to be achieving strong results. This is the basis of the new funding arrangements to be delivered through this Bill.

This Bill will implement a truly needs based funding model, for all schools, government and non-government. It allocates funding so that the students and schools with greater need get more resources and it will provide a sustainable funding model for the provision of education into the future.

The Government is providing more than $9 billion additional funding over six years for the new needs-based school funding arrangements. This funding will fundamentally change the way resources are provided — better linking funding to each student's needs. On top of this historic investment will be additional funding to ensure the smooth implementation of the reforms.

Under this new approach, funding for schools will be based on a Schooling Resource Standard (SRS), across all sectors. This gives effect to the core recommendation of the Schools Funding Review.

The Schooling Resource Standard has two core components: a base amount per student and additional funding through loadings based on educational disadvantage.

In 2014, the first year of this new approach, the 'per student' amounts will be $9,271 for primary school students and $12,193 for high school students. In addition to this base amount, extra funding through six loadings will help meet the needs of disadvantaged schools and students.

There is a loading for every student in the bottom half of socio-economic backgrounds. There is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander loading for every Indigenous student in the country. There is a size loading to help meet the extra costs associated with providing a high quality education in a small school. A location loading will help meet the extra costs of providing a high quality education in regional and remote areas. There is also a loading for students with low English proficiency. There will be a loading for students with disability, once national data on these students is available. Until then schools will receive and interim loading for each student with disability in 2014 as prescribed in regulations, with further work to inform a more detailed loading from 2015.

Under this Bill, as is currently the case, all government schools will be fully publicly funded. Non-government schools will receive a proportion of the per student amount, based on the schools' capacity to raise private contributions as is currently the case. All loadings to the base funding will be fully publicly funded for all schools – government and non-government.

These new school funding arrangements delivered through this Bill are a better deal for schools.

It means schools no longer have to rely on short-term programs like National Partnerships, or one-off injections of funding. The funding that is currently available for disadvantage will be permanently locked in. It means that schools will know every year that they will get increased funding and be able to invest in the programs and strategies that will help every student.

This Bill also reflects that this new funding approach will be phased in over the next six years, with additional funding starting to flow from next year, 2014. This transition phase provides schools and school systems the time to prepare and adjust. It ensures that the funding increases are sustainable and so can be guaranteed for the next six years.

Under the new arrangements (or the National Plan for School Improvement), in 2014 the funding on offer will ensure every school in Australia can receive at least the current funding they are receiving this year, plus indexation to cover actual increases in costs. Under this approach additional funding is prioritised for those schools that need extra resources the most, while ensuring that schools already at or above the SRS continue to see fair funding growth each year.

At the moment, some schools in Australia are currently funded above the Schooling Resource Standard – funding for these schools would be based on their 2013 funding levels plus 3 per cent indexation.

This approach means that no school will be worse off in real terms – as the current level of indexation is expected to be around 3 per cent next year. This way funding will continue to rise every year to keep up with the increase in costs, while these schools transition to the new funding arrangements over time.

The majority of schools are currently below the level determined by the Schooling Resource Standard. These are the schools that need extra support the most. These schools will receive an increasing proportion of the gap between their current funding levels and amount determined by the Schooling Resource Standard. For some schools this will mean annual funding increases of at least 3 per cent, but for the majority it will be much higher than this.

This is the fairest way to implement the new system and distribute the extra funding according to the needs of students.

States and territories are required to commit to this additional investment to help schools and systems reach the national resourcing benchmark over time.

In April, the Prime Minister put $9.4 billion over six years on offer, committing 65 per cent of the $14.5 billion additional investment required to lift schools to at l