Senate debates

Monday, 27 March 2006

Notices

Presentation

Senator Heffernan to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on annual reports tabled by 31 October 2005 be extended to 10 May 2006.

Senator Heffernan to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 29 March 2006, from 4.30 pm to 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the administration by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry of the citrus canker outbreak.

Senator Mason to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee on the 2005-06 additional estimates be extended to 30 March 2006.

Senator Hutchins to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 28 March 2006, from 4.15 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into naval shipbuilding in Australia.

Senator Brandis to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the following reports of the Economics Legislation Committee be extended to 30 March 2006:
(a)
2005-06 additional estimates; and
(b)
annual reports tabled by 31 October 2005.

Senator Chapman to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 29 March 2006, from 5 pm to 7.45 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into corporate responsibility.

Senator Ludwig to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—
(a)
notes:
(i)
the devastating impact that Cyclone Larry has had on the area of far north Queensland and the loss and hardship that this has inflicted on local residents, and
(ii)
with pride the tenacity and spirit of citizens in the affected region in rebuilding their communities;
(b)
expresses its appreciation for all the hard work of:
(i)
volunteers,
(ii)
emergency service workers, and
(iii)
Army personnel;
(c)
expresses its thanks for the financial assistance from:
(i)
members of public, and
(ii)
the business community;
(d)
welcomes the appointment of General Peter Cosgrove and his team in heading the relief operation, and thanks them for their contribution;
(e)
expresses its solidarity with those Queenslanders affected; and
(f)
recognises the good work of state, local and federal governments and calls on those governments to continue assistance until this region is rebuilt and prosperous.

Senator Bartlett to move on Thursday, 30 March 2006:

That—
(a)
the Senate notes that:
(i)
for much of the 20th century, respective Australian state and territory legislation established government control over the lives of many Indigenous Australians,
(ii)
in relation to financial affairs, state and territory governments:
(a)
controlled the employment, earnings and entitlements of many Indigenous people,
(b)
did not always provide written evidence of dealings on their monies,
(c)
were legally responsible for the trust accounts into which private monies were placed, and
(d)
did not always pay Indigenous people the full amount of earnings to which they were legally entitled,
(iii)
research to date shows that in some cases significant sums have yet to be repaid, and
(iv)
publicly available evidence also shows that some Indigenous Australians suffered physical, sexual and financial abuse at the hands of employers and officials designated to protect their interests; and
(b)
the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day of 2006:
(i)
the approximate number of Indigenous workers in each state and territory whose paid labour was controlled by government,
(ii)
the financial arrangements regarding their wages, such as the cash component of the wage; what procedures were implemented to ensure the wage was paid; what proportion of the wage was withheld under government control; what were the constraints on workers accessing their savings; how could workers verify dealings on their monies; and when were they given free control of their accounts,
(iii)
what effective security did governments initiate to safeguard Indigenous wards from physical, sexual and employment abuses; how did governments respond to reported abuses; and were the best interests of wards prioritised in government employment policies,
(iv)
how were intercepted wages and savings safeguarded from fraud by employers, government agents and mission personnel; were governments warned that workers’ wages or savings were at risk of fraud or loss; and how did governments respond to recommendations for tighter security of workers’ funds,
(v)
did governments impose levies and taxes on Indigenous monies under their control in addition to federal income tax; what was the quantum, purpose and duration of such levies; were Indigenous people informed of these levies; and were the levies properly applied,
(vi)
to what extent did governments control the distribution to Indigenous beneficiaries of maternity allowances, child endowment, pensions, workers compensation, inheritances and estates; were these entitlements distributed in full to all beneficiaries; did governments delegate distribution of maternity allowances, child endowment and pensions to other parties such as protectors, pastoralists or missions; what procedures did governments put in place to ensure these delegates passed on the full entitlement to beneficiaries; and what is the incidence of any misappropriation of these entitlements,
(vii)
what trust funds did governments establish from Indigenous earnings, savings and entitlements; how were these funds secured against losses by fraud, negligence or misappropriation; what was the extent of investment of trust funds and to whose profit; to what extent did investment programs disadvantage trust beneficiaries; did governments receive warnings or advice regarding misuse of trust funds; and how did they respond,
(viii)
what investigations have states and territories undertaken into official management of Indigenous monies during the 20th century; what commitment have the states and territories made to disclose this evidence to the individuals or descendants who were denied written record of dealings on their own monies; what is the extent of current databases and what resources are applied to make full discovery of financial management of private monies available to individuals and descendants; what funding has been applied to compile databases as a resource to contest legal action by aggrieved parties; and whether all financial records should be controlled by a qualified neutral body to ensure security of the data and equity of access,
(ix)
what commitments are state and territory governments making to quantify wages, savings and entitlements missing or misappropriated under official management, and to compensate the persons or descendants of all those who endured financial loss and/or physical or sexual abuses; and what is the responsibility of governments to repay or compensate those who suffered physically or financially under ‘protection’ regimes,
(x)
what mechanisms have been implemented in other jurisdictions with similar histories of Indigenous protection strategies to redress injustices suffered by wards, and
(xi)
whether there is a need to ‘set the record straight’ through a national forum to publicly air the complexity and the consequences of mandatory controls over Indigenous labour and finances during most of the 20th century.

Senator Siewert to move on the next day of sitting:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on water policy initiatives be extended to the last sitting day in June 2006.

Senator Santoro to move on the next day of sitting:

That, on Tuesday, 28 March 2006:
(a)
the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b)
the routine of business from 7.30 pm shall be government business only; and
(c)
the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 11 pm.

3:59 pm

Photo of John WatsonJohn Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

On behalf of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice that 15 sitting days after today I shall move:

That the Broadcasting Services (International Broadcasting) Guidelines 2005 made under section 121FP of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, be disallowed.

I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short summary of the matters raised by the committee.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

Broadcasting Services (International Broadcasting) Guidelines 2005

These Guidelines remake the previous Guidelines with amendments made necessary by the replacement of the Australian Broadcasting Authority with the Australian Communications and Media Authority.

Subclause 2.2(3) permits the making of a program that seriously offends a cultural sensitivity, incites hatred, or vilifies persons on certain grounds, if the matter is ‘a fair report’ or ‘a comment’. The Committee sought advice on whether the second term should be amended to read ‘a fair comment’. The Minister responded that the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has advised that it was ‘not aware of the Australian Broadcasting Authority’s intention regarding the original drafting of the Guidelines in 2000’ and that the omission of ‘fair’ in relation to comment was either ‘accidental’ or ‘a conscious decision to create a different rule for the Guidelines’. In light of this advice, the Committee has sought further clarification of the position of clause 2.2.

Senator Milne to move on the next day of sitting:

That the Senate—
(a)
notes that:
(i)
Prime Minister John Howard has recently equivocated on the export of uranium to India, in spite of the fact that India is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and
(ii)
India has a well-developed, active and secret program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries’ technology export control efforts, according to a recently-released report by the United States of America (US) based Institute of Science and International Security; and
(b)
calls on the Australian Government to rule out the export of uranium to India and to use its membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to block the proposed US-India nuclear technology agreement.