Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Following the receipt of satisfactory responses, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall withdraw four notices of motion to disallow, the full terms of which have been circulated in the chamber and I now hand to the clerk.

The list read as follows:

Nine sitting days after today

Business of the Senate notice of motion No 1—Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2008 (No. 2), made under item 3A of the table in section 333-20 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.

Ten sitting days after today

Business of the Senate notices of motion Nos:

(1)

Determination of Fees for Water and Sewerage Services No. 1 of 2008, made under section 9 of the Christmas Island Act 1958.

(2)

Determination of Fees for Water and Sewerage Services No. 1 of 2008 made under section 12 of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955.

Eleven sitting days after today

Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2—Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No. 1 of 2008, made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982.

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

Leave granted.

The correspondence read as follows—

Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2008 (No. 2)

28 August 2008

The Hon Nicola Roxon MP

Minister for Health and Ageing

Suite MG.50

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2008 (No. 2) made under item 3A of the table in section 333-20 of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.

The Explanatory Statement to this instrument states that in Part 3 of Schedule 3 to the Rules, Category 9 of the current Rules (which comprises certain Medicare Dental Items) has been omitted from the Type C List in the Rules. This reflects the withdrawal of these items from the Medicare Benefits Schedule by the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Amendment and Repeal Determination 2008. However, that Determination was disallowed by the Senate on 19 June 2008, with the consequence that those items were reinstated in the Medicare Benefits Schedule on that date. The Committee seeks your advice as to whether this then requires a further amendment to these Rules to reflect the reinstatement of these items. Further, the Committee would also appreciate your advice as to whether any person has been disadvantaged by the omission of these items that is made by these Rules.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 12 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this instrument. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

7 October 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2008 regarding the reinstatement of Part 3 to Schedule 3, Category 9 of the Private Health Insurance (Benefit Requirements) Rules 2008 (No. 2) (the Rules).

I note the Senate disallowed the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Amendment and Repeal Determination 2008 on 19 June 2008 and as a consequence, the Medicare Dental Items omitted from the Type C List of the Rules were reinstated in the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS).

As your Committee will be aware, the Rules set out the minimum levels of benefit which are payable for hospital treatment and includes the Type C list which is a list of MBS procedures which normally do not require hospital treatment. While I can understand my Department including the Medicare Dental Items on the Type C list as a precautionary measure, these Items can only be claimed under Medicare for dental services provided in the community. Consequently, there will be no need to reinstate these Items on the Type C list. Privately insured persons with hospital benefit policies would not have been disadvantaged since the Items do not relate to hospital treatment.

I trust that the above information is of use to your Committee.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Roxon

Minister for Health and Ageing

Determinations of Fees for Water and Sewerage Services for Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands

28 August 2008

The Hon Bob Debus MP

Minister for Home Affairs

Suite M1.19

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the following instruments that determine fees in the Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands:

Determination of Fees for Water and Sewerage Services No. 1 of 2008 (Christmas Island)

Determination of Fees for Water and Sewerage Services No. 1 of 2008 (Cocos (Keeling) Islands).

These two instruments are drafted in substantially similar, though not identical, terms. Clause 5 of each instrument lists definitions which are used to classify land for the purposes of determining appropriate fees for water and sewerage services. Paragraph 5(b) of the Christmas Island Determination defines the category of Commercial/Residential. The Cocos (Keeling) Islands Determination does not have a similar category. The Committee would appreciate your advice as to the reason for this difference.

Secondly, clause 5 in both instruments defines a category of ‘charitable purposes’ by reference to whether the Authority is of the opinion that the land is used for specified purposes. The Committee would appreciate your advice as to the rights of appeal that can be exercised by a person who believes that the Authority’s opinion regarding the charitable uses for which land is used is in error.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matters as soon as possible, but before 19 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these instruments. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

13 October 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

The Chair

Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator

I refer to your letter dated 28 August 2008 in which you sought advice about:

reasons for a difference when defining land use for the purposes of determining appropriate fees for water and sewerage services on Christmas island and Cocos (Keeling) lslands; and

the rights of appeal that can be exercised by a person who believes that the Authority’s opinion regarding charitable uses for which land is used is in error.

There are no services on Cocos (Keeling) Island at present that are classified within Commercial/Residential category. Therefore there has been no need to have this classification. However as part of the strategy to align the terms and conditions that apply to remote WA communities to Indian Ocean Territories, all of the WA classifications are to he adopted. Future Determinations will contain similar definitions.

Appeals are currently dealt with by the Department and considered in accordance with current WA guidelines.

As part of the process to align terms and conditions that apply in remote WA, AGD and Water Corporation are drafting an application for an Operating License from the Economic Regulation Authority. This process requires the development of a Customer Charter which includes processes for dealing with complaints.

The action officer for this matter in the Attorney-General’s Department is Chris Kuster who can be contacted on 08 9225 1413.

Yours sincerely

Bob Debus

Minister for Home Affairs

Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No. 1 of 2008

28 August 2008

The Hon Tony Burke MP

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Suite M1.26

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

I refer to the Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No. 1 of 2008 made under regulation 3 of the Export Control (Orders) Regulations 1982.

These Orders incorporate the current edition of the Guidelines and Conditions for Export Sales and Nomination of Merino Rams as Export Semen Donors into the principal Orders. The Committee notes that clause 7 of Annexure A to the Guidelines gives the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders Limited an absolute discretion to refuse entry for the sale of any rams, without liability for compensation. This is a very broad discretion the exercise of which may adversely affect the business of sheep breeders. No criteria or grounds have been specified as prerequisites for the exercise of the discretion. The Committee therefore seeks your advice as to the reasons for this broad discretion.

The Committee would appreciate your advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 19 September 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of this instrument. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

16 September 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Senate Standing Committee on

Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 28 August 2008 about the Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No.1 of 2008.

As the committee is aware, these orders incorporate the 2008 edition of the Guidelines and Conditions for Export Sales and Nomination of Merino Rams as Export Semen Donors, published by the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders (AASMB).

I note the committee’s concern about clause 7 of annexure A to the guidelines. This clause provides a necessary mechanism for quality control over the merino export process. The Australian merino is the product of substantial investment by the wool industry over many years, and the competitiveness and integrity of the export industry is built on Australia’s reputation as a consistent supplier of superior quality merino sheep. By affording the AASMB the discretion to refuse the entry of any rams for sale at a designated auction, the clause allows industry to maintain a consistently high standard of merino sheep offered for sale.

I also note the committee’s concern that, by freeing the AASMB from any liability by way of compensation, the exercise of this clause could adversely affect the business of sheep breeders. Prior to publishing the annual guidelines the AASMB consults its six state constituent bodies. I am confident that, while the AASMB has not been required to exercise the clause since the orders were introduced in 1990, if industry feels this clause could be detrimental to sheep breeders the consultative process offers an appropriate avenue for it to raise its concerns.

Thank you again for bringing the committee’s concerns to my attention. I trust this information has been of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Tony Burke

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

25 September 2008

The Hon Tony Burke MP

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Suite M1.26

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter of 16 September 2008 responding to the Committee’s concerns with the Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No. 1 of 2008.

In your response you note the Committee’s concern with the broad discretion in clause 7 of Annex A to the Guidelines that allows the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders (AASMB) to refuse entry for sale of any rams but consider that it provides a necessary mechanism for quality control over the merino export process. The Committee appreciates that it is important for the continuing viability of the industry that it maintains the quality of merino sheep exported from Australia.

However, your response appears to argue that the absence of any concern expressed by sheep breeders in the consultation process undertaken at the time the Guidelines were updated justifies giving the AASMB immunity from liability for compensation. It is not clear whether the attention of sheep breeders was drawn to this particular aspect of the Orders. Nor is it clear whether silence can be read to constitute consent.

The Committee would appreciate your urgent advice on the above matter as soon as possible, but before 9 October 2008, to enable it to finalise its consideration of these Orders. Correspondence should be directed to the Chair, Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Room SG49, Parliament House, Canberra.

Yours sincerely

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

13 October 2008

Senator Dana Wortley

Chair

Senate Standing Committee on

Regulations and Ordinances

Room SG49

Parliament House

CANBERRA ACT 2600

Dear Senator Wortley

Thank you for your letter of 25 September 2008 about the Livestock Export (Merino) Orders (Amendment) No.1 of 2008.

I note the committee’s concern that, when consulting industry on the formulation of the 2008 edition of the Guidelines and Conditions for Export Sales and Nomination of Merino Rams as Export Semen Donors (the guidelines), the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders (AASMB) may not have drawn industry’s attention explicitly to clause 7 of annexure A, which affords the AASMB the discretion to refuse rams for sale without liability for compensation.

The AASMB is the national association representing six state merino organisations and, through these, around 1300 registered studs. As I previously noted, the AASMB’s process of consulting its constituent bodies prior to publishing the guidelines offers an avenue for industry to raise any concerns.

The AASMB is a small organisation with limited resources. The association was developed to promote the breeding and presentation of higher quality merino sheep, and to improve the standard of the breed across the country. While it obtains some funding from state member organisations, the costs of the AASMB’s activities, including conducting export auctions and maintaining the National Flock Register, are partially recouped through charging sheep breeders a fee to sell rams at auction.

If clause 7 of the guidelines is amended or withdrawn, it is likely that the AASMB would be forced to take out insurance to cover potential liability. It is to be expected that the costs of insurance premiums would be passed on to sheep breeders through increased selling fees. This would have the effect of disadvantaging those that the committee is most concerned about. It may also discourage sheep breeders from selling rams for export, therefore impacting adversely on the overall viability of this industry.

As I noted previously, the AASMB has never exercised the clause, so no sheep breeder has incurred costs associated with having a ram rejected from sale. This suggests that the clause is an effective self regulating mechanism for the industry, as breeders are aware of the standard required by the AASMB to sell rams for export. As there is only one auction remaining for the 2008 selling season, it is highly unlikely that the AASMB will be required to exercise the clause this year.

Notwithstanding this, I have asked the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to undertake a full review of the orders prior to the 2009 export year, including consulting the AASMB and sheep breeders on all aspects of the guidelines to ensure these continue to meet the needs of industry.

Thank you again for bringing the committee’s concerns to my attention.

I trust this information is of assistance.

Yours sincerely

Tony Burke

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That general business order of the day no. 53, relating to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008, be discharged from the Notice Paper.

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to support the greater commercialisation of renewable energy technologies, and for related purposes. Renewable Energy Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff for Electricity) Bill 2008.