Domestic violence in Australia: interim report

One in three Australian women have experienced physical violence since the age of 15 and almost one in five have experienced sexual violence.  A study of Victorian women demonstrated that domestic violence is the leading preventable contributor to death, disability and illness in women aged between 15 and 44, and is responsible for more of the disease burden than many well-known risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking and obesity.  The emotional and personal costs of domestic violence in our community are enormous. Violence affects the victims themselves, children who are exposed6 to violence, extended families, friends, work colleagues and the broader community. The committee acknowledges these emotional and personal costs as well as the enormous economic cost of domestic violence. A study commissioned by the commonwealth government notes that the yearly cost of domestic violence in Australia in 2008-09 was $13.6 billion and the cost is increasing.   Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee Members Senator the Hon Kate Lundy (Chair) Senator Cory Bernardi (Deputy Chair) Senator John Faulkner (until 6 February 2015) Senator Claire Moore (from 12 February 2015) Senator Joseph Ludwig Senator Dean Smith Senator Janet Rice Substitute Member Senator Larissa Waters (replaced Senator Janet Rice) Participating Members Senator Claire Moore (until 12 February 2015) Senator Penny Wong Senator Nova Peris Secretariat: Ms Lyn Beverley (Secretary) Ms Ann Palmer (Principal Research Officer) Mr Nicholas Craft (Senior Research Officer) Ms Margaret Cahill (Research Officer) Ms Sarah Brasser (Administrative Officer

Privatisation of state and territory assets and new infrastructure

This inquiry examined incentives to privatise state or territory assets and recycle the proceeds into new infrastructure. Introduction The Economics References Committee examined: Incentives to privatise state or territory assets and recycle the proceeds into new infrastructure, with particular reference to: (a) the role of the Commonwealth in working with states and territories to fund nation-building infrastructure, including: (i) the appropriateness of the Commonwealth providing funding, and (ii) the capacity of the Commonwealth to contribute an additional 15 per cent, or alternative amounts, of reinvested sale proceeds; (b) the economics of incentives to privatise assets; (c) what safeguards would be necessary to ensure any privatisations were in the interests of the state or territory, the Commonwealth and the public; (d) the process for evaluating potential projects and for making recommendations about grants payments, including the application of cost-benefit analyses and measurement of productivity and other benefits; (e) parliamentary scrutiny; (f) alternative mechanisms for funding infrastructure development in states and territories; (g) equity impacts between states and territories arising from Commonwealth incentives for future asset sales; and (h) any related matter

Out of reach? The Australian housing affordability challenge

This report argues that Australia\u27s housing market is not meeting the needs of all Australians, which is reflected in declining home ownership rates, and recommends extensive reforms. Executive summary In this report, the committee underscores the importance of affordable, secure and suitable housing as a vital determinant of wellbeing. But, based on the evidence, the committee finds that a significant number of Australians are not enjoying the security and comfort of affordable and appropriate housing—that currently Australia\u27s housing market is not meeting the needs of all Australians. Sustained growth in median housing costs above the rate of median household income growth in recent decades has made it increasingly difficult for a growing proportion of Australians to afford housing that is safe, secure and appropriate to their needs. Added to the general decline in housing affordability, and indeed compounding the trend, the stock of affordable housing—that is, housing appropriate to the needs of low- to moderate-income households—has failed to keep pace with demand in recent decades. The committee does not believe the issue of housing affordability in Australia is rightly categorised as either a \u27supply-side problem\u27 or a \u27demand-side problem\u27. With this in mind, it is clearly evident that supply is currently not keeping pace with demand in the housing market. In this context, policy interventions that add to demand without addressing or at least accounting for supply-side constraints risk inflating house prices and exacerbating affordability problems. Worsening housing affordability is reflected in declining home ownership rates. This decline is troubling for a number of reasons, not least because home ownership can be an important means for people to achieve financial and social wellbeing. Moreover, high rates of home ownership also provide broader economic and social benefits to the community. As such, while the committee believes governments should work to improve affordability outcomes for all types of housing tenure, it considers it appropriate for governments to promote home ownership. The committee makes a range of recommendations directed primarily toward improving home purchase affordability. They include state governments phasing out conveyancing stamp duties, to be achieved through a transition to more efficient taxes, potentially including land taxation levied on a broader base than is currently the case. Other recommendations are directed at improving the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of infrastructure funding arrangements, which can have a strong influence on the cost of new housing. Similarly, a number of recommendations are made with the intention of ensuring land supply, urban planning and zoning processes have a positive effect on housing affordability

Principles of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014, and related matters

This Senate report recommends that the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014 be rejected by the Senate. Overview The Senate Education and Employment References Committees\u27 inquiry and report looked at: (a) the principles of the Higher Education and Research Reform Bill 2014; (b) alternatives to deregulation in order to maintain a sustainable higher education system; (c) the latest data and projections on student enrolments, targets, dropout rates and the Higher Education Loans Program; (d) structural adjustment pressures, and the adequacy of proposed measures to sustain high quality delivery of higher education in Australia’s regions; (e) the appropriateness and accuracy of government advertising in support of higher education measures, including those previously rejected by the Senate; (f) research infrastructure; and (g) any other related matter

Ability of Australian law enforcement authorities to eliminate gun-related violence in the community

Examines gun laws and gun related violence in Australia. Clarification of the purpose of this inquiry In response to this inquiry, the committee received over 400 submissions, many of which were concerned about the impact the inquiry might have on the ownership and use of firearms.   It is important to clarify from the outset that the main focus of this inquiry was on illicit firearms in Australia. While some of the terms of reference refer to regulation of registered firearms that are legally held, this is in the context of ensuring that these are not diverted to the illicit market. The committee appreciates that the majority of firearm owners comply with the  relevant legislation and acknowledges the work of the various firearms organisations in promoting the safe use and storage of firearms. The committee also recognises the number of Australians who participate in the sport of shooting.   The committee would also like to clarify the terminology used throughout this inquiry. As noted by the Attorney-General\u27s Department (AGD) in its submission, firearms and firearm-related articles are not in themselves either legal or illegal. &nbsp

Domestic violence in Australia

The Senate Committee examining domestic violence in Australia acknowledges that a coherent, strategic and long term effort by all levels of governments and the community is required to take effective action. In 2013, the World Health Organisation found that more than one third of all women have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence and that these findings show it is a \u27global public health problem of epidemic proportions requiring urgent action\u27. In Australia, women are over-represented in intimate partner homicides. 89 women were killed by their current or former partner between 2008-10 which equates to nearly one woman every week. However, in 2015, the statistics to date shows that this number is increasing with two Australian women killed by domestic violence each week. Australia\u27s National Research Organisation for Women\u27s Safety (ANROWS) notes that data from the 2012 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey shows that one in three Australian women have experienced physical violence and Australian women are most likely to experience physical and sexual violence in their home at the hands of a male current or ex-partner. The most commonly reported reason for seeking assistance from specialist homelessness services was domestic and family violence. A study of Victorian women demonstrated that domestic violence carries an enormous cost in terms of premature death and disability. As VicHealth stated: \u27It is responsible for more preventable ill-health in Victorian women under the age of 45 than any other of the well-known risk factors, including high blood pressure, obesity and smoking\u27. In addition, more than one million children in Australia are affected by domestic violence which can leave them with serious emotional, psychological, social, behavioural and developmental consequences

Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979

This inquiry, coinciding with the inquiry into mandatory data retention, examined the need for comprehensive reform of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 in light of changes in technology as well as privacy concerns. The referral On 12 December 2013, the Senate referred the following matter to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 June 2014: Comprehensive revision of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (the TIA Act), with regard to: a) the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice report, dated May 2008, particularly recommendation; and b) recommendations relating to the Act from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Inquiry into the potential reforms of Australia’s National Securit y Legislation report, dated May 2013. Overview The committee\u27s inquiry has spanned 15 months. During that time, the committee received much evidence highlighting the need for urgent and comprehensive reform of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 (TIA Act) including substantial comment on the matter of mandatory data retention. During the later stages of the committee\u27s inquiry, the government announced that it would be introducing a mandatory telecommunications data retention regime. Although the issues of comprehensive reform of the TIA Act and mandatory data retention are not mutually exclusive, to the extent possible, they have been considered separately to ensure that adequate consideration is given to both matters. This majority consensus report details the need for reform of the existing TIA Act. Separate additional remarks on the matters of data access and data retention are provided by the committee Chair, the government members of the committee and the opposition members of the committee

Sterilization of men with intellectual disabilities: whose best interest is it anyway?

This article examines the ethical and legal issues raised by the involuntary sterilization of men with intellectual disability. It traces how, after the demise of eugenic reasoning, social policies of normalization and care in the community provided new justifications for sterilizations. It also examines how, ironically, modern arguments about promoting male sexual freedom have come to be used as a justification to sterilize. Through examination of recent cases on the sterilization of men with intellectual disabilities, this article explores the legal framework of the ‘best interests’ test and the ‘least restrictive alternative’ provisions in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and argues that sterilization is usually unnecessary, disproportionate and not the least restrictive option. It also argues that the least restrictive alternative provisions contained in the 2005 Act need to be more rigorously applied