Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

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

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, as set out in the list circulated in the chamber, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.

I 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 statement read as follows—

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (VALIDATION OF CERTAIN PARENTING ORDERS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The purpose of the bill is to retrospectively validate parenting orders affected by the High Court’s decision in MRR v GR [2010] HCA 4. The judgment casts doubt on the validity of certain parenting orders purportedly made under the Family Law Act 1975 without consideration about the reasonable practicability of care arrangements. Many of these orders were made by consent.

The bill attaches the same rights and liabilities to affected orders as would have resulted if the court had made a specific finding that the child spending equal time or substantial and significant time with each of their parents was reasonably practicable. Those rights and liabilities are to be treated as though they are and always have been exercisable and enforceable in the same manner as if the order were validly made.

The bill also includes a minor policy refinement to provide that where all parties consent to a parenting order, the court may but does not have to consider all of the issues required in a contested case. This will reduce court time and improve court efficiency. The best interest of the child would remain the paramount consideration.

Reasons for Urgency

This bill would provide certainty for separated parents and children whose arrangements are affected by the High Court’s decision, and would prevent further litigation.  On 13 August 2010 the Australian Journal of Family Law published an article by Professors Richard Chisholm AM and Patrick Parkinson AM which discusses the legal issues arising from the High Court’s decision.  Media attention may generate high levels of uncertainty for many Australian families. 

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PATHOLOGY REQUESTS) BILL 2010

Purpose of the Bill

To improve patient choice by amending legislative restrictions relating to pathology request forms.  Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, a Medicare benefit is not payable for a pathology service unless the service is rendered pursuant to a written request from the patient’s treating practitioner.  A Medicare benefit is generally not payable unless the patient attends the pathology provider named on the request form.  This restriction would be removed, allowing patients to take a request form to any pathology provider of their choice.

To improve patient choice by amending legislative restrictions relating to pathology request forms.  Under the Health Insurance Act 1973, a Medicare benefit is not payable for a pathology service unless the service is rendered pursuant to a written request from the patient’s treating practitioner.  A Medicare benefit is generally not payable unless the patient attends the pathology provider named on the request form.  This restriction would be removed, allowing patients to take a request form to any pathology provider of their choice.

Reasons for Urgency

The Bill gives effect to a 2009-10 Budget measure which was announced to commence from 1 July 2010. Passage in the Spring sittings is necessary for timely implementation of the new arrangements.

If the Bill is not passed in the Spring sittings, implementation will be delayed.  Increased patient choice is intended to encourage pathology providers to compete on price and convenience for patients, and if the Bill is not passed in the Spring sittings these benefits will be delayed.

Purpose of the Bill

The bill provides the legislative framework for higher education providers to charge a student services and amenities fee and for eligible students, if requested, to access Services and Amenities HELP (SA-HELP) to borrow money from the Australian Government to pay their student services and amenities fee through an income contingent loan.

Reasons for Urgency

The Government announced on 3 November 2008 a plan to restore student services and amenities, representation and advocacy across the higher education sector. The bill provided that higher education providers may choose to charge a compulsory student services and amenities fee, capped at a maximum of $250 per annum (indexed) from 1 July 2009.

Due to delays in the passage of the bill through the previous Parliament the implementation date was amended to 1 July 2010 and now needs to be further amended to 1 January 2011.

The bill will honour the Government’s commitment to ensure that higher education students have access to amenities and support services to address the impact of voluntary student unionism. The bill will ensure that all students are provided with information on, and access to, important health, welfare and financial services and provide independent and democratic student representation and advocacy.

The Government will provide access to a new element of the Higher Education Loan Program, SA-HELP, enabling eligible students, if they choose, to take out a loan for the payment of the student services fee. It is intended that higher education providers would not be able to charge the student services fee if they do not also provide access to SA-HELP.

In order to have the fee and loan in place by 1 January 2011, higher education providers require upgrades to their IT systems, including for the implementation of electronic forms for access to SA-HELP and administration of the new fee. New information pamphlets and Commonwealth assistance forms must be developed and printed with sufficient time for distribution prior to the commencement of the fee and loan. The loan information and associated forms require the passage of the bill before legal authority.

Furthermore, a further delay in the passage of the bill would result in insufficient time to authorise the additional data elements to implement the required data collection for the Higher Education Information Management System and associated loan forms for the administration of the student fee and SA-HELP.

Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill

Purpose of the Bill

Measures in the bill replace the current Research and Development (R&D) tax concession with a new R&D tax incentive that provides an increase in support to small/medium companies on a more timely basis and ensure that support is better targeted.

Reasons for Urgency

The bill establishes an entirely new scheme for delivering support for R&D conducted in Australia that will (retrospectively) commence on 1 July 2010. The new R&D tax incentive will be the Government’s primary means of supporting the innovation efforts of Australian businesses. In order for businesses to plan their R&D activities for 2010-11 onwards, they need access to guidance material from the scheme administrators. Such guidance material cannot be issued until the scheme’s enabling legislation comes into effect. It is therefore important that the bill receives passage in the 2010 Spring sittings.

TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (CONFIDENTIALITY OF TAXPAYER INFORMATION) BILL

Purpose of the Bill

The bill:

introduces a new secrecy regime to standardise the tax secrecy laws; and

allows new disclosures to facilitate Treasury costings, law enforcement activities and compliance activities carried out by the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Reasons for Urgency

The bill enables the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) to disclose:

de-identified taxpayer information to Treasury for the costing of policy proposals, resulting in an improvement in costings;

taxpayer information to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to assist with obtaining proceeds of crime orders as part of a broader initiative to tackle organised crime; and

information to the recently established Fair Work Ombudsman to ensure compliance with the Australia’s workplace laws.

The delay in the passage of the Bill since its introduction on 19 November 2009 has created uncertainty for the ATO, numerous government departments and law enforcement agencies.

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

That:

(a)

the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings; and

(b)

the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010 may be proceeded with before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee reports on the provisions of Schedule 4.

I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill would amend the special disability trust provisions in the social security and veterans’ entitlements legislation to widen the appeal of the provisions, primarily to parents of people with severe disability. The Bill would introduce an ongoing requirement for residence in Australia for disability support pension, bringing the pension into line with other workforce age payments, and extend family tax benefit eligibility to families with children aged 16 to 24 in certain full-time study overseas. It would also s chedule further parcels of land in the Northern Territory as Aboriginal land, provide for guidelines that would apply to the Indigenous Land Corporation when it performs its functions to support native title settlement, and address two minor anomalies arising from the pension reform legislation enacted in 2009

Reason for Urgency

Both the special disability trusts measure from the 2010 Budget and the disability support pension measure have been widely publicised to commence on 1 January 2011. If the legislation does not pass in the 2010 Spring sittings, uncertainty and possible financial disadvantage may result for potentially significant numbers of customers who may have altered their personal arrangements in anticipation of the changes.

Senator Ian Macdonald to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—

(a)

notes that:

(i)

Exercise Hamel was conducted by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) at the Townsville Field Training Area, Cowley Beach and RAAF Townsville, between 10 October and 11 November 2010, involving 6 000 Army, Navy and Air Force personnel,

(ii)

as a result of the exercise, $4 883 518 was spent in the Townsville district, and

(iii)

this training exercise was held for the purpose of testing and evaluating the units and the formations participating to the highest level of confidence; and

(b)

congratulates all ADF personnel involved in this major exercise, including those involved in the significant planning and logistics roles and, in particular, the Director of Exercise Hamel, Brigadier John Frewen AM.