The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011
Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011
The decision to exclude fuel from the carbon tax has been welcomed by the Independent member for New England, Tony Windsor.
Several months ago I stated publicly that I wouldn't support a carbon tax if it allied applied to transport fuels.
A price of $23 per tonne of carbon, if applied to fuel, would equate to a price rise of around 6 cents a litre.
That's why I decided I wouldn't support a carbon tax if it applied to fuel.
I would like to refer you to the exposure draft of the Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment (Clean Energy) Bill 2011—
and specifically clause 43(8). This is a clause to impose a carbon price on fuel through a reduction in the fuel tax credit, correct?
Mr Comley: This is on page 5?
CHAIR: That is right.
CHAIR: I am looking at the exposure draft, page 5, 43(8), 'working out the amount of carbon reduction'. This clause effectively imposes a carbon price on fuel through a reduction in the fuel tax credit, does it not?
Mr Comley : That is correct.
Doesn't this mean that recipients of the fuel tax rebate are paying a carbon price from the word go by the wording of your own legislation?
Mr Comley: It certainly means that they are having a reduction in their credit linked to the carbon price, yes.
CHAIR: From day 1, as of 1 July 2012 under your exposure draft?
Mr Comley: Yes, that is correct.
In committee senators may speak more than once to the same question, and, when a question has been proposed from the chair, shall confine themselves to that question.
These impacts may be in, or in the vicinity of, the project area, or any of the project areas, for that kind of project … The intention is that vicinity may be interpreted broadly, including water resource availability in associated catchments.
In deciding whether to recommend to the Governor-General that regulations should be made for the purposes of subsection (1) specifying a particular kind of project, the Minister must have regard to whether there is a significant risk—
that that kind of project will have a significant adverse impact on one or more of the following: …
These matters have been and are in the process of being looked at through various investigations.
Smith: Hang on, mate. I'm repeating it. I'm saying your signature is on that voucher. Your driver's licence has been transcribed on the back of it. How did all that get there?
Thomson: Well, I'm not saying that's my signature for a start. That's the first thing that's there …
Smith: OK, so did someone forge your signature for the procurement of those services on your credit card?
Thomson: Well, it certainly wasn't me and in fact on over half of the occasions that I'm alleged to have been using that card in those sorts of establishments, I actually …
Smith: Let's talk about one …
Thomson: I'm not going to go through the details of stuff …
Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, weren't you?
Thomson: Yes, I was.
Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly, did you go and report it to the police?
Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to use of credit cards at an escort agency.
Smith: Did he forge your signature?
Thomson: I don't know whether he forged my signature or who forged my signature …
Smith: Ok. Craig, when you got the credit card statement for that month with $2475 appearing—
Thomson: Michael, I've said the difficulty we have in terms of going through these issues—
Smith: Hang on a sec, mate, it's a simple question. A simple question, Craig. Did you authorise it getting paid?
Thomson: Um…in terms of the actual bills that have been paid? Yes, I authorised all the credit card bills—
Smith: OK, well, you were the boss of the Health Services Union at the time the Health Services Union credit card was used to procure those services, weren't you?
Thomson: Yes, I was.
Smith: OK. Did you take the matter to the police if you believe the credit card was used improperly? Did you go and report it to the police?
Thomson: The union reached a settlement with another gentleman who paid back $15,000 in relation to the use of credit cards at an escort agency.
Smith: Did you go to the police though, Craig?
Thomson: We have gone through the appropriate bodies in terms of that and you know there has been a person who has paid back some money.
Smith: Who was that?
Thomson: Well, I am not at liberty to say, again, because I am very careful in relation to defamation action. There has been a private agreement signed.
Healthy attitudes to body image are a family matter. If healthy eating and exercise are perceived as valued activities that are put into practice by the whole family, a child is more likely to focus on health and well-being rather than body shape. As with other challenging issues that occur when raising a family, it is vital for parents to have a strong, ongoing, positive relationship with their children. This means keeping the lines of communication open, giving plenty of positive feedback and sharing activities together.
We've got much more of a focus as a nation on the number of Australians who are overweight, including young Australians ... at the other end of the spectrum we've got an increasing focus on body beautiful and what constitutes an acceptable and a healthy body ... in fact, what's been presented as ultra thin probably isn't a healthy body for most of us. So, I think young people are getting a bit caught in between these two potentially conflicting messages.
I just rang the number that appears on Craig Thomson’s mobile phone records on the night that the $2,475 was paid to Keywed Pty Ltd, trading as Sydney Room Service escort agency.
The phone was answered “Sydney Room Service.”
I said “I’m Michael Smith, I’m from 2UE and we’re doing a story on the use of credit cards for escort services. Can you tell if your clients need to show any further ID if they pay for your services with a credit card?”
The lady who didn’t want her name used said, “Yeah, if you pay with a credit card you must produce photographic ID.
... if you pay with a credit card you must produce photographic ID.
That’s a standard practice throughout the industry.”
I said, “Are your staff instructed to check the photographic ID against the face of the person in front of them, the person who signs the credit card voucher?”
She said, “Yes, absolutely. They know that if that’s not done they don’t get paid. It happens 100% of the time.”
She explained to me that it had been standard practice for years and that driver’s licence numbers were also recorded on the back of the vouchers for further proof.
I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very, long, long, long time to come.
That the Senate
(a) acknowledges the World Heritage significance of the Tarkine wilderness in the north-west of Tasmania;
(b) notes that a nomination for the Tarkine to be listed on Australia's National Heritage list was submitted in 2004;
(c) notes the Government has:
(i) placed the Tarkine National Heritage nomination on the Australian Heritage Council's 2007-08 priority assessment program,
(ii) indicated it will thoroughly and carefully assess this complex nomination, including the public consultation required by the provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and
(iii) asked the Australian Heritage Council also to examine, identify and advise the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Mr Turnbull) of any World Heritage values contained in the areas proposed; and
(d) supports:
(i) subject to listing, the development of strategic and conservation management plans for any listed areas, and
(ii) the development of sensitive and appropriate eco-tourism infrastructure only after thorough assessment of potential impacts on any National Heritage-listed areas under the Act.
It is inappropriate for, I think, any business—any union—to use shareholder funds, or member funds to purchase sexual services.
… … …
I think it's completely inappropriate …
It casts aside the Government's concern that it once said it had for the business community and the capacity of the business community to create wealth in the economy … this whole superannuation deal is one of the most underrated threats to the future stability of Australia's economy, and indeed to the capitalist system … This is a dramatic leap towards the objective of socialism…
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
(1) How many act of grace payments have been approved by the Minister since 24 November 2007 where the department recommended against approval.
(2) What was the reason for, the date of approval of and value of each of the above act of grace payments.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today.
Without taking action, Australia is expected to experience higher rates of infectious and vector-borne diseases as well as food and waterborne diseases.
... we are waiting to see what industry says the failings are of the Fair Work Act.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by me today relating to bilbies.
That consideration of government business continue from 6.50 pm till 7.20 pm today.
That the following matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report:
Having regard to the material submitted to the President by the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, whether a witness was threatened with, or subjected to, any penalty or injury on account of his evidence to the committee, whether there was any attempt improperly to interfere with a witness before the committee, and whether any contempt of the Senate was committed in those regards.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2011:
The decision by the television management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to significantly cut the number and amount of ABC-produced programs, jobs (including through forced redundancies) and potentially affect resources, as announced on 2 August 2011, with particular reference to:
(a) the implications of this decision on the ABC's ability to create, produce and own its television content, particularly in the capital cities of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart;
(b) the implications of this decision on Australian film and television production in general and potential impact on quality and diversity of programs;
(c) whether a reduction in ABC-produced programs is contrary to the aims of the National Regional Program Initiative;
(d) the implications of these cuts on content ownership and intellectual property;
(e) the impact of the ABC's decision to end internal production of Bananas in Pyjamas and to outsource the making of a 'Bananas in Pyjamas' animation series to Southern Star Endemol Proprietary Limited; and
(f) the future potential implications of these cuts on ABC television's capacity to broadcast state league football and rugby; and
(g) any other related matters.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 September 2011:
Australia's agreement with Malaysia in relation to asylum seekers, with particular reference to:
(a) the consistency of the agreement to transfer asylum seekers to Malaysia with Australia's international obligations;
(b) the extent to which the above agreement complies with Australian human rights standards, as defined by law;
(c) the practical implementation of the agreement, including:
(i) oversight and monitoring,
(ii) pre-transfer arrangements, in particular, processes for assessing the vulnerability of asylum seekers,
(iii) mechanisms for appeal of removal decisions,
(iv) access to independent legal advice and advocacy,
(v) implications for unaccompanied minors, in particular, whether there are any guarantees with respect to their treatment, and
(vi) the obligations of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Mr Bowen) as the legal guardian of any unaccompanied minors arriving in Australia, and his duty of care to protect their best interests;
(d) the costs associated with the agreement;
(e) the potential liability of parties with respect to breaches of terms of the agreement or future litigation;
(f) the adequacy of services and support provided to asylum seekers transferred to Malaysia, particularly with respect to access to health and education, industrial protections, accommodation and support for special needs and vulnerable groups;
(g) mechanisms to enable the consideration of claims for protection from Malaysia and compliance of these mechanisms with non-refoulement principles;
(h) a comparison of this agreement with other policy alternatives for processing irregular maritime arrivals; and
(i) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Mr Cadel Evans on winning the 2011 Tour de France bicycle race; and
(b) notes that:
(i) Mr Evans has fought back from an adversity after a serious accident as a child in the New England region and is an inspiration to all Australians, and
(ii) cycling is a healthy activity for recreation and competition.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 24 August 2011, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, from 4 pm.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 24 August 2011, from 11.15 am to 1 pm, for a private briefing.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 18 August 2011, from 11.30 am.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 22 August 2011, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 18 August 2011, from 4 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on the live export trade be extended to 21 September 2011.
Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920 and the Civil Aviation Act 1988 in relation to aircraft crew, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) water has been cascading over the Burdekin Falls Dam spillway for a record breaking 313 days since 6 October 2010,
(ii) the dam is currently holding 1.87 million mega litres of water which in volume equates to 3.3 Sydney harbours,
(ii i) the dam's catchment of 130 000 square kilometres is equal to the size of Victoria,
(iv) since October 2010, some 26 960 908 mega litres of water has passed over the spillway of the dam, equivalent to approximately 53 Sydney harbours, and
(v) Commonwealth funding for the construction of the dam was first committed in the 1982-83 budget of the then Fraser Government; and
(b) congratulates those in the Federal Government and Queensland Government who, since the time of that first funding had the foresight and fortitude to ensure the completion of the mighty Burdekin Falls Dam and the creation of the Burdekin River Irrigation Area.
That the Senate condemns any payment of monies to Gunns Ltd for exiting native forest logging flowing from the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania .
That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.
That the motion (Senator Colbeck's) be agreed to.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Governments have also accepted other PBAC recommendations, such as price reductions for biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs listed on the PBS for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and recommendations that certain medicines should comprise therapeutic groups. ... Previous governments have decided not to accept other recommendations of the PBAC. For example, the recommendation of the PBAC in 2001 to maintain the price relativity between the ACE-inhibitor class of drugs and ATRA class of drugs.
This profound and ill-considered change in policy puts at risk affordable access to medicines for Australians, and will have significant consequences for the pharmaceutical sector, including research and development.
When you look at the role of the pharmaceutical industry and what we do, our role is really to innovate and work in a system that discovers and brings new medicines to market. Those medicines are there to treat diseases. For critics to say that the industry are threatening to not bring new products to Australia because we do not like the system is rubbish. We are here and our job is to discover medicines and bring them to citizens around the world.
Further, the committee is concerned that the independence and reputation of the PBAC will be irreversibly damaged by the referral of all listings for Cabinet consideration.
Companies are still actively seeking listing on the PBS, as evidenced by the fact that there has been no change in the total number of submissions received for consideration by the PBAC over the last three months. On the contrary, the July meeting of the PBAC received a record number of submissions.
Finally, whilst eight deferrals were announced in February this year, two of these have subsequently been listed. No medicines recommended by the PBAC, at its March 2011 meeting, were deferred by the government and, by September this year, 152 new drugs or amendments to listings of existing drugs will have been listed on the PBS, reflecting the government's continued commitment to list medicines.
The government has made much of the need to be fiscally responsible in the current economic climate.
In a perfect world there would be no need for a cabinet review of the PBAC decisions, but we acknowledge that affordability of medications in the short term is definitely an issue that the government may need to consider, particularly in circumstances where the drug has an effect over a very long time horizon.
... there will always be some patients who will not have access to a particular medicine under the PBS, as it is not sustainable to list every single medicine.
I would argue that the biggest hurdle for a company as to whether a drug ends up being subsidised on the PBS remains the PBAC, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee.
In 2010, 63 per cent of all first-time, cost-effective submissions were rejected by the PBAC. This is not a one-off statistic but a consistent marker of the rigour of the assessment process undertaken. It is this assessment process which I would suggest is the main decision point for companies in determining whether to bring a drug to the subsidised market in Australia.
... was the decision of government in the case of that particular medicine.
We will make sure that payment methods and rates do not require drivers to speed or work excessive hours just to make ends meet.
We are human and we make mistakes. Our bodies are subject to biomechanical tolerance limits and simply not designed to travel at high speed. Yet we do so anyway. An effective road safety system must always take human fallibility into account.
Far and away the best prize life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing.
Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Report 118, which contains the Committee’s views on two treaties: the Protocol on Investment to the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement; and the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.
Mr President, Australia’s economic relationship with New Zealand is conducted within the framework of the Australia - New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, colloquially known as ANZCERTA. It covers all trans-Tasman trade in goods and services, and is the principal instrument for the elimination of trade barriers between the two nations.
The Protocol on Investment will raise the threshold below which New Zealand investors in Australia will require investigation by the Foreign Investment Review Board from a 15 per cent or more share of an Australian entity worth at least $231 million to an investment of $1.005 billion.
For Australian investors in New Zealand, the threshold below which they will not be subject to investigation has increased from $NZ100 million to $NZ477 million.
Both countries have retained the entitlement to review foreign investment originating in the other signatory in sensitive areas, such as urban residential and commercial property investment, media, telecommunications, transport, defence related industries and uranium investments in Australia, and farming, waterfront or sensitive land investment in New Zealand.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade claims that the Protocol on Investment is in the national interest because it:
While the majority of the Committee supported ratification of the Protocol on Investment, the Report contains a dissent in relation to this treaty. The dissent implies that a number of Australians, particularly from rural and regional areas, worry that matters of concern to them are being lost in the debate over the broader national interest.
Mr President, the second treaty considered in this Report is the Resolution MEPC.189(60) Amendments to MARPOL.
MARPOL is a multilateral treaty regulating marine pollution. The amendments add a new Chapter 9 to MARPOL dealing with the use and transport of heavy fuel oil in Antarctic seas.
The new Chapter will prohibit the bulk transportation and use as fuel of heavy oils, bitumen and tar and their emulsions, unless they are aboard vessels securing the safety of ships or in a search and rescue operation, and ships owned and operated by governments, such as naval vessels, auxiliaries and research vessels.
The Australian Antarctic Division administers the Australian Antarctic Territory, and is the major Australian presence in the Antarctic.
The Division strongly supports the measures introduced under the Resolution. Nevertheless, implementation of the Resolution will have some operational and budgetary implications for its work.
Mr President, given Australia’s leadership in marine environment protection, it is worth noting that the research vessel chartered by the Division, the RSV Aurora Australis, already uses light fuel, and is therefore compliant with the treaty.
Australia’s stations in the Antarctic are also compliant.
The Division also contracts Russian flagged vessels to provide logistic support for its Australian Arctic Program. These vessels are large, specialised, ice strengthened cargo vessels which unfortunately operate on intermediate fuel oil, which will be banned under the treaty.
However, the Division advised the Committee that the fleet of ice-strengthened cargo vessels is nearing 30 years old, which is the usual end of a ship’s life. The Divisions expects to see a change over in this fleet to modern, compliant vessels in the next five years.
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
The measures adopted in the final policy and determination for the importation of New Zealand apples are horrendously weak and we are extremely concerned that the three pests recognised as major risks to our biosecurity won't be controlled to the degree the industry requires.
It is critically important that the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service maintains a high level of diligence in New Zealand and that there is no leniency in applying the phytosanitary measures.
No system is perfect and systems break down.
... Biosecurity Australia (BA) has abandoned apple and pear growers across Australia and the whole industry is now fearful of fire blight, leaf curling midge or European canker entering this country.
Res ponses to Senate resolutions:
From the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Ms Macklin) to a resolution of the Senate of 23 March 2011 concerning the problem of gambling.
From the acting Minister for Health and Ageing (Mr Butler) to a resolution of the Senate of 12 May 2011 concerning community hospitals in South Australia.
From the Chairman of the National Capital Authority (Mr Aitkin) to a resolution of the Senate of 16 June 2011 concerning the National Capital Authority.
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 20 June 2011 concerning World Refugee Day.
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 22 June 2011 concerning Egypt.
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 5 July 2011 concerning boycotts of Israel.
From the Ambassador of Brazil (His Excellency Rubem Barbosa) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning the death of Dr Itamar Franco.
From the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning South Sudan and Sudan.
From the President, UN Human Rights Council (Ms Lasserre) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July 2011 concerning Sri Lanka.
Letter from the Chairman of the Productivity Commission (Mr Banks, AO) responding to the order for the production of document concerning superannuation funds (orders agreed to 16 November 2010 and 10 February 2011).
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The government has a longstanding practice of not dealing with complex foreign policy matters through Senate resolutions and therefore did not support the motion as it was moved by Senator Abetz. The government proposed simpler language and was disappointed that Senator Abetz chose political point scoring rather than making a strong bipartisan statement in support of Israel.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The Great Ocean Road Mr Speaker, an icon of Australia and the engine room of our local tourism economy, will be largely destroyed.
It will be breached in place after place, if sea level rise is as expected.
Huge swathes of the Bellarine Peninsula will be inundated.
Current areas of the mainland will be cut off and become islands.
Queenscliffe will become an island.
The area from Barwon Heads to Breamlea will become an island.
With reference to Operation Talisman Sabre 2011:
(1) In regard to the Talisman Sabre exercises, what will be the actual cost to the department of the exercises, for example, clean-up operations, monitoring, herding dugongs out of the live fire area etc.
(2) In regard to the AECOM public environment report (PER) concerning the exercises, for which the public comment period closed on 10 December 2010:
(a) how are the unlikely scenarios for which the exercises are intended to prepare the Australian Defence Force (ADF), such as nuclear warfare, weighed up with the actual damage done to the marine and terrestrial environment;
(b) to what extent has the projected or potential impact on the area in which the exercises are to be conducted and, in particular, Queensland's Shoalwater Bay region, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Coral Sea, been assessed;
(c) who conducted the assessment in paragraph (b);
(d) what were the outcomes of the assessment in paragraph (b);
(e) what assessment has been carried out of the impact of the floods in Rockhampton and the cyclone around Cowley Beach;
(f) if no assessment has been carried out in relation to paragraph (e), why not;
(g) to what extent have the impacts of the floods and cyclone in Queensland altered the planning for the exercises; and
(h) based on the understanding that the Great Barrier Reef and other marine environments have been damaged by the recent extreme weather conditions and given the intense naval activity associated with the exercises, will the department consider postponing the exercises in order to give the region an opportunity to recover; if not, why not.
(3) In regard to the rights of traditional owners:
(a) to what extent has the department, representatives of any other government agency, or the ADF consulted with the Darumbal people, the traditional owners of the Shoalwater Bay area, on the use of Shoalwater Bay for these exercises or any other training exercises;
(b) if there has been consultation, what was the outcome of that consultation; and
(c) if there has not been consultation, why not and will the department consult with the Darumbal people prior to the commencement of the exercises.
(4) In regard to nuclear and chemical risks, the PER acknowledged that live firing can cause environmental contamination:
(a) are military activities exempt from the Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999?
(b) what guarantee can be given that contamination of the natural environment will not occur as a result of the exercises;
(c) will toxic materials such as red phosphorus marine markers, seawater ballast containing introduced species and ship-board waste be introduced into the environment in connection with the exercises; and
(d) will depleted uranium armaments be used during the exercises.
(5) In regard to the use of white phosphorous and explosives that contaminate groundwater, and given that perchlorate, the primary ingredient in rocket fuel, has been found to have contaminated groundwater in 20 United States of America (US) states as a result of its use at rocket test site, military bases and production plants, that it has been linked to thyroid conditions, birth defects and problems with newborn development and that reports indicate it has contaminated food supplies in some parts of the US:
(a) will perchlorate be used during the exercises;
(b) what measures will be taken to ensure perchlorate does not contaminate the marine environment or groundwater in the surrounding area;
(c) what testing has been done to monitor whether the groundwater at Waterpark Creek, Queensland, has been contaminated by perchlorate;
(d) will white phosphorus, TNT or RDX be used in the exercises; and
(e) to what extent will heavy metals, including mercury and lead, be dispersed into the environment during the exercises.
(6) In regard to sonar risks, the PER notes that active and passive sonar will be used:
(a) can it be confirmed that mid to low frequency sonar is associated with whale beaching, brain haemorrhaging, and disruption to breeding cycles;
(b) given that the PER states that 'Australia and the United States are committed to environmental stewardship and take the need to protect marine mammals from the effects of underwater sound sources very seriously' – can the Minister confirm that the US Navy has exemptions from US legislation designed to protect endangered species and to allow their use of sonar virtually anywhere;
(c) is the Minister aware that in 2008 environmentalists in the US took the US Navy to the US Supreme Court to try to stop them using sonar during the Talisman Sabre 2007 exercises in Hawaii because intense sound waves can harm or even kill 37 marine mammals, including sea lions and endangered whales;
(d) what guarantee can the department provide that sonar use during the exercises will not have adverse affects on marine life, including the beaching of whales, brain haemorrhaging in cetaceans and disruption to breeding cycles;
(e) how will the impacts of sonar on whales and mammals be measured during the exercises;
(f) how can the Minister guarantee the war games have not killed or injured cetaceans unless affected animals wash up on shore;
(g) what measures will be taken to mitigate any detrimental impacts of sonar on marine life during the exercises; and
(h) measured from the vessels in yards, how far can the sonar currently being used in the exercises travel, given that the PER proposes that sonar will be suspended if a whale is sighted within 1000 to 4000 yards from a ship.
(7) In regard to the PER, which states that the exercises will destroy 2 hectares undersea in Shoalwater Bay and create significant noise and residue, and that 'the risk of psychological harm to marine fauna' is of concern:
(a) what is the anticipated psychological impact on marine fauna; and
(b) what resources and services will be provided to address the concerns for psychological harm to marine fauna.
(8) Given that Shoalwater Bay is home to the east coast of Australia's biggest endangered dugong population, the PER states the animals will have to be moved away and that during the 2010-11 Supplementary Budget Estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee it was described that large marine animals would be ushered out of the area:
(a) how many dugongs live in the affected area;
(b) what percentage could reasonably be expected to be ushered out of the area; and
(c) what other measures are being undertaken to protect marine life from the effects of excessive sound caused by the exercises.
(9) In regard to noise and impacts on the local community:
(a) what has been done to protect the community of Byfield, Queensland, near the designated live firing range, or any other community in the area, from the risk of fire being caused in nearby forest;
(b) what measures will be taken to avoid excessive noise in habituated areas;
(c) will the US and Australian military honour edicts regarding flight paths to avoid excessive noise in habituated areas; and
(d) can a guarantee be provided that 2 hectares is the maximum area that will be directly affected.
(10) In regard to waste and water dumping, what measures will be in place to ensure that:
(a) ballast water carrying introduced species will not be dumped in the marine environment; and
(b) shipboard waste, which can starve, amputate, maim and infect marine life, will not be dumped in the marine environment but be disposed of properly.
(11) In regard to social or political impacts that question the rationale behind the exercises:
(a) do the exercises require state or federal environmental impact statements or assessments to be formally assessed by the Commonwealth or state governments;
(b) what independent mechanisms of assessment on the conduct of the exercises are in place;
(c) will the department conduct an analysis of the social impacts of the exercises; if not, why not; and
(d) will the department conduct an analysis of the potential political impact of the exercises in the region in the current geo-strategic environment; if not, why not.
(1) Talisman Sabre 2011 is a joint and combined exercise and the funding is broken down across the Services and Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC). The total cost to Defence to conduct the exercise incorporates the participation of other areas in Defence, and will not be known until after the exercise is complete, including any clean-up operations. For Talisman Sabre 2009 the cost of the exercise to Defence was estimated at approximately $48 million, excluding the cost of ownership of Australian Defence Force (ADF) assets.
It is not possible to separately cost Defence's environmental management of Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011. Environmental management responsibilities for the exercise are incorporated into participating staff's duties as part of Defence's ongoing Environmental Management System. No financial resources will be dedicated to herding dugongs out of live fire areas as this is not the approach that Defence takes to mitigating risks to dugongs. Defence vessels avoid dugongs by altering course, slowing or stopping altogether when encountering these or other marine mammals, and activities such as live fire exercises are suspended if dugongs are at risk of harm.
(2) (a) Talisman Sabre 2011 is a United States (US) led, Australian supported combined exercise focused on the planning and conduct of warfighting. The exercise does not include any scenarios involving training for nuclear warfare.
The environmental impact assessment process is designed to identify the potential risks of exercise activities and mitigate any effects to the extent practical. Talisman Sabre exercises do not cause any significant damage to the environment. It should be noted that Defence training areas like Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) have been specifically set aside by the Government for the military to undertake training activities that have some risk of impacts.
Defence has been conducting major combined joint exercises at SWBTA for many years. Capricornia Conservation Council (CCC) observed on 22 March 2011 that 'for the past 16 years, conservation interests have been represented on the SWBTA Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). CCC has, in the main, been supportive of the measures taken by Defence to study, monitor and manage the SWBTA environment. Recent activities have included improved fire and pest management practices, the temporary closure of roads and damaged sectors to ensure remediation can occur following exercises… CCC believes that Defence has provided effective custodianship of SWBTA.'
Risk workshops are conducted for each Talisman Sabre exercise with Defence, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) and environmental consultants. An example of a previous 2005 workshop which evaluated various Defence activities including nuclear accidents is on the GBRMPA website at:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/management/eam/project_examples/defence.
(b) The potential for environmental impacts of major exercises are assessed by Defence in accordance with the requirements of relevant environmental, health and safety laws, international treaty obligations and Defence's own internal policies and procedures. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) also provides environmental advice to Defence on the potential impact of Defence activities on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
(c) As is the case with other major exercises, Defence has undertaken the assessment of Talisman Sabre 2011 using the services of a professional environmental consulting company. The process has also involved regular consultation with representatives from State and Commonwealth environmental regulatory agencies.
(d) The assessment has not yet been completed and will not be finalised until after the final exercise planning conference confirms the activities that will be undertaken as part of the exercise. To date no significant environmental impacts have been identified.
(e) and (g) The condition of Defence training areas are routinely assessed as part of Defence's training area management procedures and environmental management systems.
SBWTA terrestrial areas were not affected by the Fitzroy River flood in Rockhampton in early 2011. So far in 2011 the training area has received large amounts of localised rainfall which has resulted in localised flooding. Defence is actively monitoring on ground conditions and has strategies to enable activities to proceed where the environmental conditions allow activities to occur in a sustainable manner.
Infrastructure maintenance works have continued to occur to conduct repairs and routine maintenance to flood damaged road networks within SWBTA. These works commenced on 25 January 2011 and are ongoing.
Tropical Cyclone Yasi caused vegetation damage at Cowley Beach Training Area (CBTA). Vegetation debris is currently being removed from the track network at CBTA. Only those parts of training areas that are considered suitable for the conduct of activities under the Talisman Sabre banner will be used.
(f) N/A.
(h) No. Most of the naval elements are not located in the Great Barrier Reef but will be operating well offshore in the Coral, Timor and Arafura Seas. Some naval activity associated with the conduct of an amphibious landing will occur at SWBTA. It is not considered that this activity will have any measurable impact on the environmental values of the Great Barrier Reef.
(3) (a) The Darumbal people have representation on the SWBTA Environmental Advisory Committee (EAC). This meeting is held biannually and membership is made up of local key stakeholders including the GBRMPA, State Government Department of Environment and Resources Management (DERM) and Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI), neighbouring graziers, Forestry Plantations Qld Pty Ltd, conservation group representation, Central Queensland University, fisheries representatives and Rockhampton Regional Council.
Defence provides members with an update of upcoming exercises and activities for SWBTA along with planned works (infrastructure and environmental).
A representative from the professional environmental consulting company who is undertaking the Public Environment Report attended the 12 October 2010 meeting. Members were advised of public consultation dates and locations along with an overview of the Talisman Sabre 2011 exercise concept of operations. All EAC members are provided detailed minutes from the meetings.
(b) The Darumbal member was unable to attend the 12 October 2010 meeting however has been informed of the meeting discussions and provided with the meeting minutes.
(c) N/A.
(4) (a) No.
(b) All emissions and contamination arising from Defence activities associated with the exercises are managed in accordance with international treaty obligations, Australian domestic environmental, health and safety laws, Defence internal policies and procedures and specific exercise plans and protocols. Environmental monitoring data has been collected from water catchments around impact areas at SWBTA which demonstrates that use of SWBTA for military training is not having an impact on neighbours or the Great Barrier Reef. There have not been any significant incidents that have caused contamination of the environment arising from major exercises.
(c) No. All discharges to the environment occurring as part of the exercise are carefully managed in accordance with all relevant environmental laws and procedures. Discharge of sewage and ballast water from ships is strictly regulated to a standard that meets or exceeds the requirements of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and particularly for naval vessels operating in the Great Barrier Reef.
(d) No. Defence has repeatedly assured the Australian public over many years that depleted uranium ordnance is not in the inventory of munitions approved for use in Australia.
(5) (a) Yes.
(b) Perchlorate contamination is an issue on military training areas particularly where large numbers of rocket propelled munitions have impacted on training area targets. In Australia, Defence has done some monitoring of target areas to assess whether perchlorate contamination might be a significant issue. Given the comparatively low number of perchlorate containing munitions used in Australia, contamination is not considered a significant risk. No targeting of the marine environment by ordnance containing perchlorate is planned for Talisman Sabre 2011.
(c) SWBTA has an established annual water quality monitoring program consisting of 27 established sites. All sites are freshwater sources. Surface water is tested for a mixture of the following parameters: physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives, petroleum oil and lubricants and pesticides / insecticides.
Water Park Creek is specifically tested for physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives, petroleum oil and lubricants and pesticides/insecticides.
Sandy Creek is tested for physiochemicals, nutrients, chlorophyll, pathogens, metals (dissolved), high explosives and pesticides/insecticides.
Annual testing commenced in April 2011 and results are expected in June 2011. No Groundwater testing occurs on SWBTA.
(d) Yes.
(e) Ordnance is only introduced into the environment in designated target areas. Metals contamination is an issue that Defence routinely manages on its training ranges.
(6) (a) No.
(b) No. Defence understand that the US Navy holds permits from the US regulatory agencies to operate the types of sonar fitted to US ships. Defence is not aware that the US Navy has exemption from US legislation that would permit the use of sonar anywhere in the world.
(c) No. Talisman Sabre 2007 was not held in Hawaii. Australia participated in RIMPAC exercises in Hawaii. Defence understands that the courts in the US did not accept all the claims being made by environmental groups about the potential for sonar to harm marine mammals.
(d), (f) and (g) As set out in the PER, the use of military sonar during exercises in Australia is strictly regulated by procedures recognised as leading the world in terms of the level of protection afforded to marine mammals.
(e) Procedures require sonar to be shut down if whales approach too close to ships. Defence has funded significant world class research on marine mammal habitat in the Coral Sea, and research outcomes have been used to ensure that sonar activities are not programmed to be conducted in areas where animals are known to congregate.
(h) Sonar performance parameters are classified. However, Defence Science and Technology acoustic experts have advised that the received levels from active sonar will have fallen below levels considered to have the potential to disturb marine mammals within 4,000 yards of the ship. These levels are similar to those mandated for other noise generating activities in the marine environment.
(7) An area of two hectares undersea in Shoalwater Bay will not be destroyed during Talisman Sabre 2011. Underwater demolitions occur at the existing demolitions range in Shoalwater Bay. The area impacted by activities involving demolitions over the past 20 years is approximately two hectares. The pristine marine area of Shoalwater Bay is 164,000 hectares. The Defence impact area represents approximately 0.0012 per cent of the Shoalwater Bay marine area.
(a) The PER identifies accidental physical and/or psychological harm to marine fauna caused by collisions from vessel manoeuvres and amphibious landings as a potential impact to the marine environment. This potential risk and impact is mitigated to an acceptable level through management controls such as the Talisman Sabre 2011 Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the ADF Maritime Activities EMP. The ADF Maritime Activities EMP dictates strict procedures recognised as leading the world in terms of the level of protection afforded to marine mammals. Procedures in place require activities to cease if marine mammals are detected prior or during the exercise, reducing the risk of physical harm to marine mammals to very low.
(b) None.
(8) (a) Aerial surveys of dugong populations commissioned by GBRMPA have been carried out by James Cook University since 1984. The most recent aerial survey conducted in Shoalwater Bay was in 2005 and the numbers were estimated at 895±295 (population estimate ± standard error).
(b) The PER does not state marine mammals will be ushered out of SWBTA. The claim that large marine mammals are moved is not correct. The mitigation measures in place for Talisman Sabre 2011 used to prevent injury to marine mammals do not include any form of herding, relocation or displacement. The measures require the participants to cease activities if marine mammals are detected during a monitoring period before the activity commences, or during the activity itself.
(c) Talisman Sabre 2011 activities have been carefully programmed to avoid areas where marine mammals are known to congregate. As a secondary precaution, vigilant monitoring and, where necessary, shutdown of activities is mandated by the Talisman Sabre 2011 EMP and the ADF Maritime Activities EMP.
(9) (a) Defence annually produces a hazard reduction burn plan, designed to reduce fuel loads with an aim of securing the training area boundary (from the potential of fire escaping or coming into the training area), protect assets and conducting burns for ecological purposes.
Defence staff and Defence contractors meet with Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Forestry Plantations Qld Pty Ltd and Queensland Fire and Rescue Service annually to discuss proposed burns and work together where possible on combined boundary protection.
Range Standing Orders stipulate that no live firing is to occur within one kilometre of the range boundary. Defence also enforces site restrictions such as restricted use of flares and pyrotechnics in certain sectors of SWBTA to further reduce the risk of fires in certain areas.
(b) Overflight of populated areas by military aircraft is strictly controlled to avoid subjecting people to unacceptable levels of noise.
(c) Yes.
(d) See response to 7.
(10) (a) Ballast water discharge is regulated by the International Maritime Organisation's (IMO) Ballast Water Convention. Participants will manage the marine pest risks posed by ballast water exchange in accordance with the IMO's Ballast Water Convention prior to entry into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. All but a very small proportion of ballast water is embarked and discharged at the same location, preventing significant risk of translocation.
(b) All shipborne wastes are managed in accordance with the IMO's Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 (Marine Pollution (MARPOL) 1973/1978). Plastic materials, known to create ingestion and entanglement hazard to marine animals, are banned from being discharged by MARPOL, and Talisman Sabre 2011 participants are required to comply with this international ban.
(11) (a) Defence complies with the provisions of Australia's environmental laws including the Commonwealth's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Formal impact assessments are only required if the environmental impacts are considered significant.
(b) Environmental reports are prepared by expert environmental consultants engaged by Defence. Environmental risk assessments involve both Commonwealth and State representatives from environmental regulatory agencies. For Exercise Talisman Sabre, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, populations and Communities and the GBRMPA participated in the environmental risk assessments. Where impacts that are likely to be significant are identified these are referred to the Environment Minister for consideration. Defence also has its own professional environmental impact assessment staff who review exercise plans and procedures. For a major exercise like Talisman Sabre an Environmental Management Group is also appointed within the Combined Exercise Control group to advise senior military planners running the exercise on environmental mitigation and compliance issues.
(c) and (d) No. Defence does not consider such an analysis would be an effective use of taxpayer funds.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications':
(1) As at 31 December 2010, how many uniformed personnel, full-time and part-time, were employed.
(2) As at 1 July 2010, how many uniformed personnel were employed on the projects.
(1) As at 31 December, there were 59,019 full-time and part-time equivalent average uniformed personnel employed. This number, like the workforce data detailed in Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen, reflects full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
(2) The Government provisioned an additional 1,201 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.
This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The breakdown by Service is Navy 566, Army 392 and Air Force 243.
These personnel ranged from sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper projects and initiatives being actioned, including through the Strategic Reform Program.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper project.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce':
(1) As at 31 December 2010, how many civilian personnel, full-time and part-time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.
(2) As at 1 July 2010:
(a) how many civilian personnel were employed; and
(b) in what programs.
(1) and (2) (a) and (b) The Government provisioned an additional 1,332 civilian personnel (in Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen. This provision applied on both 31 December 2010 and 01 July 2010.
The workforce data detailed in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
This workforce has been allocated across all Defence Groups to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan.
These Australian Public Service personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many uniformed personnel, including full-time and part-time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.
The Government provisioned an additional 1,201 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.
The workforce data detailed in Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The breakdown by Service is Navy 566, Army 392 and Air Force 243.
These personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned, including through the SRP.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.
In relation to the overall military workforce, over the period 01 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed an average of 59,160 full-time equivalent average uniformed personnel which is 1,842 above the 2010-11 indicative allocation of 57,318 as specified in the Reform Program: Making It Happen publication. This indicative allocation has increased since that time, particularly with the allocation of 447 AFS in 2010-11 to provide to Defence on a no win/no loss basis to cover reserve Army personnel employed on a full-time basis for operations.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': As at 31 December 2010, what increase or reduction has there been in civilian personnel employed, full-time and part-time, in the department and in the Defence Materiel Organisation since 1 July 2008.
The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers.
As at 31 December 2010, Defence was employing 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors. This is a reduction of -163 full-time equivalent average (-0.8%) since 1 July 2008. This comprises Defence 15,564 (-143, -0.9%) and the Defence Materiel Organisation 5,465 (-20, -0.4%).
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel, including full-time and part-time, were employed as Australian Public Service staff or contractors.
The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
Over the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many Australian Public Service staff or contractors, including full-time and part-time, were employed on White Paper/SRP initiatives.
The Government provisioned an additional 1,332 civilian personnel (in Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2010-11 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen.
When staff savings resulting from the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) are accounted for, the net White Paper/SRP total reflected in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen reduces to 1,187. Increases in the targets for efficiency savings since publication mean that the net White Paper/SRP civilian staffing total for 2010-11 was 938 as at 30 March 2011.
The workforce data detailed in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall quantity.
This workforce has been allocated across all Defence Groups to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan.
These Australian Public Service personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.
In relation to the overall civilian workforce, over the period 01 July to 31 December 2010, Defence employed an average of 21,029 full-time equivalent civilian personnel, of whom 653 were contractors. This comprises Defence 15,564 and the Defence Materiel Organisation 5,465. It should be noted that 21,029 is 2,020 less than the projected allocation of 23,049 for 2010-11 as shown in the The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen publication.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': As at 31 December 2010, what increase or reduction has there been in full-time and part-time Australian Public Service staff or contractors employed since 1 July 2008.
The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall quantity.
As at 31 December 2010 Defence was employing 21,029 full-time equivalent average civilian personnel, of which 653 were contractors. This is a reduction of -163 full-time equivalent average (-0.8%) since 1 Jul 2008.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy fleet were fully operational ready for tasking with a full crew complement and capable of completing Unit Ready Days and Tasking Ready Days.
HMAS C ollins wasoperational during the period except between mid to end December 2010 undergoing a Certification Extension Docking.
HMAS Waller was operational during the period except between September and October 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity.
HMAS Dechaineux was operational during the period except in December 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity.
The term 'Tasking Ready Days' is not in use by the Royal Australian Navy.
(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010:
(a) which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy fleet were non-operational; and
(b) for each submarine that was non-operational, what was the reason for its non-operational status.
(2) What was the cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.
(3) What was the total cost of operating and sustaining the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.
(4) What were the crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the periods:(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010; and
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010.
(1) (a) and (b)
(i) HMAS Collins was non operational mid to end December 2010 undergoing a Certification Extension Docking
(ii) HMAS Farncomb was non operational July to December 2010 undergoing Intermediate Docking
(iii) HMAS Waller was non operational September to October 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux was non operational in December 2010 undergoing an Intermediate Maintenance Activity
(v) HMAS Sheean was non-operational throughout in Full Cycle docking and
(vi) HMAS Rankin was non-operational in layup, awaiting Full Cycle docking
(2) Cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010 – Maintenance plus inventory $155.4m
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010 – Maintenance plus inventory $356.8m
(3) Cost of operating and sustaining the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010
Operating costs($16.1m) + sustainment costs($155.4m) = $171.5m
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010
Operating costs($31.2m) + sustainment costs($356.8m) = $388m
(4) Crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the period:
(a) 1 July to 31 December 2010 –
(i) HMAS Collins ,Waller andDechaineux full complement throughout
(ii) HMAS Farncomb ,Sheean andRankin uncrewed throughout
(b) 1 January to 31 December 2010
(i) HMAS Collins full complement February to December 2010
(ii) HMAS Farncomb full complement January to February 2010 and then uncrewed for remainder of period
(iii) HMAS Waller full complement throughout
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux full complement throughout
(v) HMAS Sheean uncrewed throughout
(vi) HMAS Rankin uncrewed throughout
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010:
(a) how many fully qualified personnel are 'Dolphin Qualified' and permanently employed in the Royal Australian Navy to operate submarines; and
(b) how many 'Dolphin Qualified' personnel were tasked with other duties and what were these duties.
(1) (a) 542.
(b) 79 These personnel are employed in a variety of positions within strategic and operational headquarters. Duties include logistics support, project management, capability development, and senior staff officer roles.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel fully completed training courses and became 'Dolphin Qualified' and eligible to serve on submarines.
Forty-nine personnel completed training and became submarine qualified during the period 1 July to December 2010
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, how many personnel completed training courses and became 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine.
No personnel completed the Submarine Command Course during this period
As at 31 December 2010, how many Royal Australian Navy personnel are 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine?
Twenty Royal Australian Navy personnel were 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine as at 31 December 2010.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, which submarines were undergoing maintenance/refit programs and for what length of time.
(1) HMAS Collins – entered Certification Extension Docking Mid December 2010
(2) HMAS Farncomb – conducted defect rectification period and a scheduled docking from July to December 2010
(3) HMAS Waller – conducted an Intermediate Maintenance Activity from September to October 2010
(4) HMAS Dechaineux – conducted an Intermediate Maintenance Activity in December 2010
(5) HMAS Sheean – was in Full Cycle docking from July to December 2010, and
(6) HMAS Rankin - was in layup awaiting Full Cycle docking from July to December 2010.
(1) With reference to Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011, including the costs of the exercise and the Public Environment Report (PER):
(a) what is the total cost to the department of the Talisman Sabre exercises;
(b) what proportion of this cost will Australia be paying;
(c) what was the cost to the department of the preparation of the PER by AECOM;
(d) given that the public submission period closed in December 2010:
(i) how many submissions were received; and
(ii) how was participation advertised.
(e) is the department aware of a local campaign to get Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 cancelled in order to use the money for the Queensland recovery;
(f) will the Talisman Sabre games take place anywhere in Western Australia; and
(g) following Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011, will any submarines from the United States of America (US) be landing in Fremantle to engage in 'border protection' or 'piracy' work.
(2) With reference to the details of the exercise, including what and who is involved:
(a) when will Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 be occurring;
(b) what are the dates for the live firing parts of the exercise;
(c) in which parts of Australia will the war games be taking place;
(d) how many Australian troops will be taking part in the war games, listed separately:
(i) Army;
(ii) Navy; and
(iii) Air Force.
(e) how many troops from the US will be taking part in the war games, listed separately:
(i) Army;
(ii) Navy; and
(iii) Air Force.
(f) will the Australian Federal Police participate in the exercise;
(g) will the Defence Signals Directorate, the Australian Secret Intelligence Services, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or any other Australian intelligence agencies, participate in the exercise;
(h) will US intelligence agencies participate in the exercise;
(i) will military or other personnel from countries other than Australia be observing Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011; if so, for what purpose;
(j) is there any way of knowing what class of nuclear submarines will be used; and
(k) will unmanned aerial vehicles be used throughout the exercise.
(3) With reference to the stakeholders:
(a) who is identified as a stakeholder for the purpose of consultation in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011;
(b) how will consultation with the traditional owners of the land and seas used in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 take place;
(c) who is consulted about the use of:
(i) the Coral and Arafura Seas;
(ii) the Bradshaw and Delamere Range sites in the Northern Territory;
(iii) Brisbane Port;
(iv) Shoalwater Bay;
(v) Cowley Beach; and
(vi) any other areas of operation.
(d) do traditional owners have any right to dissent to actions involved in Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011;
(e) what is the contingency plan for the event that protesters trespass onto a military area during the live phase of the exercise;
(f) given that, in past Talisman Sabre exercises, certain media has been invited to special events, including press conferences in Brisbane and elsewhere, ship visits and trips into the military zone at Shoalwater Bay, while independent media, such as community radio stations and freelance filmmakers and journalists have not been included in these invitations:
(i) what process is entailed in determining which media personnel are invited, and
(ii) will community radio and other independent media-makers be invited to media events for Exercise Talisman Sabre 2011; and
(g) can the department confirm that there is a mosque in the Urban Warfare Training Facility in the Shoalwater Bay Training Facility; if so, is its purpose to assist in practice military operations against mosques.
(4) Given that the Exercise Talisman Saber 2009 Environment Post Exercise Report, dated January 2010, suggests that there were no significant environmental incidents in regard to whale surveys, some ground surface damage management, and back burning or fire management issues, yet includes no information about the impacts of live firing, mine countermeasures and anti-submarine warfare:
(a) what were the impacts of live firing, mine counter measures and anti submarine warfare;
(b) what measures will be taken to measure and minimise harmful contamination to the water in Shoalwater Bay; and
(c) what actions were taken by the military between 2007 and 2009 to lessen the potential impacts of military exercises on migrating whales, in particular, and other flora and fauna.
(5) Will depleted uranium weapons be used during the joint military exercise; if so:
(a) where will they be used;
(b) how many will be used;
(c) are the surrounding communities aware that depleted uranium weapons will be used; and
(d) has the Government completed any analysis on the human health effects of exposure to depleted uranium weapons.
(1) (a) Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11) is a Joint and Combined exercise and the funding is broken down across the Service Groups and Headquarters Joint Operations Command. The total cost of the exercise will not be known until after the exercise is complete and all bills paid, including any remediation activities. For Talisman Sabre 2009 the cost of the exercise to the Department of Defence was estimated at approximately $48 million, excluding the cost of ownership of Australian Defence Force (ADF) assets.
(b) The Commonwealth will fund all costs directly associated with the participation of ADF forces in the exercise and ancillary tasks related to the provision and stewardship of the training areas.
(c) The contract with AECOM Australia Pty Ltd for the Public Environment Report (PER) provides for the conduct of a risk management workshop at the TS11 Initial Planning Conference, preparing and publishing the document, organising the public information displays, organising and manning the 1800 phone line, producing five Fact Sheets, and the production of hard copies and DVDs of the PER. The contract price is $164,000.
(d) (i) Fifteen written submissions were received following the promulgation of the PER, as well as approximately 30 verbal comments and inquiries at the manned Public Information Days at Yeppoon, Rockhampton and Rockhampton North.
(ii) Requests for input from the general public and invitations for active participation in the public information days were advertised in the local newspapers in Rockhampton, Townsville and Darwin, and also in unmanned displays in the libraries at Rockhampton North, Rockhampton South, two locations in Townsville, and in Darwin.
(e) No.
(f) The exercise takes place in NT and QLD and the adjacent waters.
(g) The ADF does not disclose Australian or allied submarine movements. Border protection in Australian waters is a sovereign responsibility and is conducted solely by National assets.
(2) (a) The exercise will be held 11-29 July 2011.
(b) The live fire activities occur 11-17 July 2011 and 27-29 July 2011. Live firing activities involve combined forces – air, land and sea.
(c) The exercise occurs primarily in Defence exercise areas between Rockhampton and Townsville and the adjacent waters. Some activities will also occur around Darwin, RAAF Base Tindal (near Katherine), Delamere Air Weapons Range and Bradshaw Training Area, near Timber Creek, and in waters in the Timor Sea.
(d) It is anticipated approximately 8,500 Australian personnel will participate in the military training exercise Talisman Sabre 2011 (TS11) in the Shoalwater Bay Training Area near Rockhampton, Australia, and in the Townsville Field Training Area from 11-29 July 2011.
(i) Army: 5,400;
(ii) Navy: 1,600; and
(iii) Air Force: 1,500.
(e) The exact composition of the US participating units is undetermined as it is impacted by real world relief efforts, particularly in Japan. More fidelity on the US force participation will become available closer to the exercise however approximately 20,000 people are expected. A list of participating forces will be made available via a link on www.defence.gov.au/globalexes.cfm.
(f) Yes. A detachment of 12- 14 Australian Federal Police (AFP) personnel will participate.
(g) Defence does not comment on the activities of intelligence agencies.
(h) Consistent with the practice of successive governments, I do not intend to comment on intelligence matters.
(i) Yes. The purpose of the international observer's day is to demonstrate the combined capabilities, strength and openness of the alliance between Australia and the United States to the broader region.
(j) A Los Angeles Class attack submarine is scheduled to participate in the exercise.
(k) Yes, within the Shoalwater Bay Training Area – as conducted in 2007 and 2009.
(3) (a) (i) Australian Minister of Defence;
(ii) US Secretary of Defense;
(iii) Queensland and Northern Territory local governments and interest groups;
(iv) Relevant sea port and airport authorities;
(v) US Department of State;
(vi) Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade;
(vii) Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service;
(viii) Commonwealth and State regulatory agencies e.g.: Australian Quarantine Inspection Service, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Queensland Department of Environment and Resources; and
(ix) Australian community through the Defence Public Environment Report process.
(b) The approach that is applied to indigenous engagement regarding the use of training areas or other land or sea areas for training is multi-pronged. The method of consultation is tailored to the differing requirements of the local indigenous group or groups involved. In some areas, Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) require consultation to be undertaken in a particular way. Land councils often take a role under ILUA or MOU arrangements. In other locations there are well-established local Environmental Advisory Committees that meet regularly and on which traditional owner groups are represented. There are also Heritage Management Plans for most major training areas that have been developed in consultation with relevant indigenous groups. These Plans require consultation for certain types of actions or activities in certain areas, depending on their nature.
From a Civil Lands perspective, the Defence Support Group Regional staff routinely advise all ADF Units undertaking activities to consult with the respective Land Councils and where necessary apply for permits to access traditional country. This process is currently managed via Defence's Directorate of Operations and Training Area Management (DOTAM) who have civil liaison personnel to administer these arrangements.
For Talisman Sabre specifically - the exercise is cyclic and is now a routine activity. Indigenous consultation has occurred through the Environmental Advisory Committee meetings, through routine consultation with land councils or other traditional owner groups and individuals, as required under Individual Land User Agreements or Memorandums' of Understanding.
(c) (i) Defence activities in the international waters of the Coral and Arafura Seas that may impact members of the public are de-conflicted through routine mechanisms that advise areas that are restricted due to naval activity or for the conduct of live firings.
(ii) In the Bradshaw Range area Defence complies with the consultation requirements of the local Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA). In Delamere, consultation with the Local Land Council is conducted routinely, every six months, for planned activities.
(iii) When scheduled, ship port visits to Brisbane Port are coordinated through appropriate Federal and State authorities.
(iv) - (v). In the Shoalwater and Cowley Beach areas, Traditional Owner Groups are represented on the respective Environmental Advisory Committees. Additionally, the local Shoalwater Bay Training Area Regional Environmental Officer (REO) is in regular contact with the Darumbal people's representative. Further community engagement in May and June will build on this relationship. More broadly, Defence engaged environmental consultants to develop a Public Environment Report as part of the environmental impact assessment process. This process included community engagement with local communities in Rockhampton, Wide Bay, Townsville, Cowley Beach and Tully. Defence also works closely with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to ensure Defence training activities continue to protect the unique environment of the Great Barrier Reef. AQIS was consulted about US force elements landing directly into Shoalwater Bay to ensure that US forces comply with Australian Quarantine requirements. Rockhampton Council, GBRMPA, Queensland Police, and local community groups were consulted regarding exercises activities occurring in Shoalwater bay training Area and exercises support activities in Rockhampton.
(vi). As addressed in the response to question (3)(b) and (c).
(d) Traditional owners have the right to express their concerns during any of the consultation processes or separately if desired. Traditional owners in Bradshaw, Delamere, Townsville, and Shoalwater Bay have not advised Defence of any dissent to the conduct of the exercise.
(e) Appropriate contingency plans have been developed and will be constantly updated. It is not appropriate to divulge the plans for security reasons.
(f) (i)-(ii) Media alerts will be distributed for specific Talisman Sabre activities. All media interested in covering TS11 are required to undertake media accreditation prior to gaining TS11 access. The media accreditation proforma will be available on the TS11 official website. Accreditation and induction for media attending the exercise is a requirement for occupational health and safety reasons.
(g) The Urban Operations Training Facility at Shoalwater Bay provides essential military training in urban environments to the ADF and it has been deliberately constructed to be culturally neutral while representative of the urban environments the ADF is likely to operate in or currently operates in. There is a religious building of no denomination that is part of the fictitious society created for training purposes. There is no mosque.
(4) (a) Live fire exercises during Talisman Sabre 2009 (TS09) were restricted to specific target areas within Defence training ranges. Some fires did result but these were all contained within Defence training range boundaries. Whale sightings were recorded and vessels implemented the appropriate procedures whenever whales were in the immediate vicinity – no incidents were recorded. Mine countermeasures training is undertaken using simulated underwater mines made of concrete – these are retrieved at the end of the training – there were no identified impacts. Anti submarine warfare training using military sonar was undertaken in areas away from features likely to attract whales, and well out to sea away from the main humpback whale migratory route. Standard operating procedures for both Australian and US ships required that sonar operations cease if whales were sighted too close to warships operating sonar equipment. These procedures are well rehearsed and effective. There were no known impacts on marine mammals.
(b) Water quality is routinely monitored in the Shoalwater Bay Training area. It has never indicated that military activities pose any significant threat to the water quality of Shoalwater Bay or the Great Barrier Reef. Strict protocols that generally exceed the obligations that apply to commercial, tourist or recreational shipping and boating apply to all warships participating in the exercise, particularly in relation to discharges of sewage and other shipborne waste, management of fuels and other chemicals.
(c) In 2009 Defence developed the TS09 Environmental Management Plan to guide key participants through the environmental management requirements for TS09. This document has evolved over several major exercise iterations. This Plan compliments the ADF Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan that was first promulgated in 2004 and has been updated regularly since to incorporate new advice. Guidance on whale avoidance incorporates the results of surveys in the Coral Sea conducted by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the RAN and a number of Universities, in 2008 and 2009, into whale distributions, particularly that of beaked whales. These surveys informed the development of mitigation measures. During the same period however, a number of studies were conducted on land and air operations to introduce mitigation measures to minimise the impact on flora and fauna by such things as hydrocarbon emissions and aircraft noise. As an example the RAAF Air Operations Environmental Management Plan was developed between 2006 and 2009.
(5) (a) No. Depleted uranium munitions will not be used during TS11. Depleted uranium munitions are not in the ADF inventory and not permitted for use by foreign or domestic forces within Australian territories.
(b) Nil.
(c) Not applicable
(d) Not applicable.
(1) What involvement has the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) had in developing the replacement submarine project.
(2) What specific tasks has DSTO undertaken at the direction of the SEA 1000 office.
(1) DSTO is providing expert, objective scientific and technical support to the SEA 1000 program. This includes the research and development planning and execution.
(2) DSTO has undertaken, or is undertaking, scientific and technical tasking for SEA 1000 in the following areas:
(a) S&T Support to Capability Development Documentation.
(b) Submarine Modelling and Capability Analysis.
(c) Submarine Sensor Technologies Studies.
(d) Combat Systems Studies.
(e) Power and Energy Systems Studies.
(f) Submarine Main Storage Battery Studies.
(g) Off-board Deployed Systems Studies.
(h) Hull Material, Fabrication and Inspection Studies.
(i) Submarine Signature Technologies.
(j) Submarine Hydrodynamics and Propeller Studies.
(k) Crewing and Human Systems Integration Studies.
(l) Submarine Systems Integration Studies.
(m) Submarine Logistic Support Concepts.
(1) How many staff from Defence Science and Technology Office have been, or are currently, assigned to tasks associated with the design of the Collins Class replacement submarine.
(2) What tasks did each of these officers undertake and for what period.
(1) and (2) The Defence Science Technology Organisation (DSTO) is not involved in tasks associated with the “design of the Collins Class replacement submarine”. However, DSTO is engaged in long-lead Research and Development activities that benefit the Collins Class submarines and the Future Submarine Program. In addition, DSTO is supporting the SEA 1000 project on a range of scientific and technical analysis activities.
In regard to the Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative and revenue transparency and in reference to the answers to questions during the 2010-11 additional estimates in February 2011 which stated that the United States of America (US) Dodd-Frank Act ‘does not demonstrably reduce corruption’:
(1) Is the Government aware that:
(a) the British and French Governments have publicly stated their support for extractive industry reporting rules in the European Union, similar to the US Dodd-Frank rules; and,
(b) the European Commission is now developing legislative proposals to improve extractive industry disclosure requirements.
(2) Is the Government aware that the Hong Kong Stock Exchange enacted a similar extractive industry disclosure requirement in 2010.
(3) Does the Government accept that secrecy of oil, gas and mining company payments to governments can foster government corruption and violent conflict in resource-rich countries.
(4) Does the Government agree that:
(a) initiatives such as the US Dodd-Frank Act can contribute to improving transparency of extractive industry payments and that this transparency is essential for tackling corruption and reducing poverty in resource rich, poor countries; and
(b) making public the revenues that governments receive from oil, gas and mining companies will make those governments more open and more accountable to their citizens.
(5) Does the Government agree that making public the revenues that governments receive from oil, gas and mining companies will make these industries more transparent to investors.
(6) Given that many companies and other stakeholders believe that extractive industry disclosure requirements should be adapted across all major markets to ensure a level playing field and consistent reporting across countries, what is the Government’s position on this.
(7) Will the Government commit to engaging in dialogue with stakeholders – including Australian mining oil and gas companies, investors and civil society – on possible Australian requirements for extractive industry disclosure similar to the US Dodd-Frank Act; if not, why not.
(1) (a) The Government is aware that some European Governments have indicated support for extractive industry reporting rules in the European Union. (b) The Government is aware that the European Commission has consulted stakeholders regarding country-by-country reporting by multinational companies but has not yet brought forward draft legislation.
(2) The Government is aware of the new Chapter 18 requirements for extractives companies newly listing on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
(3) Yes. In countries with weak governance frameworks, or the absence of the rule of law, government corruption can be a serious problem. The Government supports improved governance arrangements to help address this.
(4) Refer to response to Question 3.
(5) The Australian Taxation Office regularly publishes details of revenue received by industry sector.
(6) The Government believes that action on this subject is most effective if coordinated globally, and is working with other G20 nations to achieve this.
(7) The Government continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure Australia’s governance arrangements remain world’s best practice.
Given the imminent release of the updated Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises which provides the Government with a timely opportunity to make a significant investment in promoting the guidelines among Australian businesses that operate overseas, and to consider the institutional arrangements, independence of and resources available to the Australian National Contact Point.
(1) What additional resources will be made available to the National Contact Point to promote the updated guidelines among Australian businesses operating overseas and among other stakeholders.
(2) Will the Government commit to understanding the institutional arrangements of other national contact points and commit to a public process that seeks to strengthen the institutional arrangements of the Australian National Contact Point; if not, why not.
(1) A communications strategy is being developed and will be implemented to promote the updated guidelines amongst multinational enterprises operating in or from Australia. Appropriate resources will be applied to implementing this strategy.
(2) The Australian National Contact Point, a senior Treasury officer, recently met with other National Contact Points (notably from the UK and Netherlands) at the annual meeting of National Contact Points at the OECD to garner a more direct understanding of the different institutional arrangements of other national contact points. Following further consideration of the advice received on the various models for National Contact Point in other OECD and adhering countries, the NCP will revamp consultation processes with multinational enterprises and other interested parties.
With reference to a recent Four Corners program on Australia's live cattle trade with Indonesia, on what dates did Four Corners:
(a) take film footage of Indonesian abattoirs; and
(b) view and come into possession of film footage taken by animal activists
Four Corners first met with RSPCA and Animals Australia (AA) on 31 March 2011. At this meeting where members of the program team saw an excerpt of the footage AA had filmed in Indonesia. The program began conducting its own investigation from that point including submitting requests for journalist visas for Indonesia. The program received an early draft of the RSPCA's scientific analysis of the AA's footage and the many hours of unedited footage from AA in early April 2011; the footage required lengthy viewing and logging.
Four Corners began filming in the Top End with various cattle producers and industry representatives. Indonesian visas were approved on 28 April 2011 and the crew left for Indonesia the following day. The program filmed at abattoirs over the next 9 days. The crew then returned to Sydney to view material shot, write and edit the program as well as carry out further interviews until broadcast on Monday 30 May 2011.
Did Centrelink contract with Ms S Foster of Sutton for $10 000 of 'cosmetic services' between June 2010 and June 2011 as per contract notice 351334:
(a) if so:
(i) what services were supplied,
(ii) what was the reason for this purchase,
(iii) who received the service,
(iv) what procurement method was chosen,
(v) if an open procurement method was chosen, did this entail an open approach to market and/or an open tender process,
(vi) if the requirement for these services was advertised, or published as a Request for Tender (RFT), can this be supplied,
(vii) were these services sought by Centrelink's National Support Office,
(viii) what was the actual cost of the services supplied, and
(ix) is Centrelink intending on purchasing any more such services; and
(b) if no 'cosmetic services' were purchased by Centrelink:
(i) what services were supplied as per contract notice 351334,
(ii) what was the reason for this purchase,
(iii) who received the service,
(iv) what procurement method was chosen,
(v) if an open procurement method was chosen, did this entail an open approach to market and/or an open tender process,
(vi) if the requirement for these services was advertised, or published as a RFT, can this be supplied,
(vii) were these services sought by Centrelink's National Support Office,
(viii) what was the actual cost of the services supplied, and
(ix) is Centrelink intending on purchasing any more such services.
Centrelink contracted with Ms S Foster of Sutton for $10 000 of 'cosmetic services' between June 2010 and June 2011 as per contract notice 351334.
(a) Centrelink produces professionally-produced video content to inform and educate the community about essential government payments and services through Front-of-House video played in Centrelink Customer Service Centre waiting areas. Centrelink also produces training videos, DVDs and Video on Demand packages for staff. For major productions, individuals are provided with appearance preparation services appropriate for filming purposes.
(i) The supplier provided appearance preparation services for officers required to be filmed for official purposes, and operated autocue for recordings.
(ii) Centrelink does not have professional camera, audio or appearance/autocue personnel on staff. These services are contracted on an as-needed basis.
(iii) Various Centrelink and DHS staff involved in production and on-camera work.
(iv) The procurement method was indicated incorrectly in AusTender as an Open Tender. The correct method of procurement was Direct Source. The AusTender record was amended on 21st June 2011 to reflect the correct procurement method. In line with normal practice for procurements under $80,000, the procurement was conducted through sourcing quotes from the only two suppliers that can supply the full range of services in the Canberra region.
(v) An open procurement method was not used.
(vi) There was no Request for Tender.
(vii) Yes.
(viii) $7,880.
(ix) Yes.
(b) These services were supplied as per contract notice 351334, therefore the questions listed under part (b) of the Senator's question have not been answered.
(1) What contingency planning has been undertaken by the department to deal with the reduction in funding for heritage core tasks such as identifying heritage places and providing statutory protection advice.
(2) What full-time equivalent staff numbers are being considered in contingency planning by the department to deal with the reduction in funding for heritage.
(3) What number of National Heritage assessments is being considered for the 2011-12 financial year, given cuts in the department's human and economic resources.
(1) The department has undertaken an extensive planning and transition process in order to ensure the maintenance of its core heritage responsibilities.
(2) The projected average staffing level in the heritage area under the restructure is 78. The new structure will be reviewed after six months to identify and address any emergent issues not already identified during planning.
(3) Five assessments in the Australian Heritage Council work plan will be considered.
In regard to research and development (R&D) and its conversion to outcomes:
(1) What is the total Federal Government spend on investment in Australian R&D in each financial year.
(2) What proportion of this funding is subject to milestone achievements based on its application to industry or practical use such as in health or environment, that is, how much is translated into tangible outcomes.
(3) What funding is available for translation or commercialisation of this research to help service existing small business in Australia.
(4) What quality assurance measures are conducted by AusIndustry to ensure its programs are administered in the same way across all states.
(5) Do states have the same areas of priorities or are priorities determined on a state by state basis.
(6) Does AusIndustry conduct any customer surveys of those who interact with its grant programs; if so, where are the results of those surveys published.
(7) What statistics does AusIndustry gather to measure the outcomes of its programs.
(1) The full details of total Federal government investment in R&D are reflected in the Science, Research and Innovation Budget tables. Data for the 10 years up to and including 2011-12 are below and are available on the DIISR website.
The totals in millions of current dollars for each year are:
(2) All assistance for R&D provided through competitive granting programs is based on the merits of the R&D compared with other applications and is tied to milestone achievement. Technical success in any R&D project is not always guaranteed because of the risk inherent in undertaking R&D. However, the merit criteria used for determining the awarding of assistance in competitive granting R&D programs includes an assessment of the applicant's ability to successfully undertake the project and assessment of the commercial prospects for the project outcome. Assistance for R&D provided by way of a legislated entitlement program (principally the R&D Tax Concession) is determined by whether the proposed activity is R&D and whether the claimed expenditure is R&D in nature. A successful commercial outcome is not a mandated requirement of this assistance recognising, again, the inherent risk in undertaking R&D and recognising the value and role that R&D activity plays in economic growth.
(3) Commercialisation Australia assists Australia's researchers, entrepreneurs and innovative firms to convert their promising intellectual property into successful commercial ventures. The program has funding of $278 million over the five years to June 2014 and $82 million a year thereafter.
(4) Some AusIndustry programs are delivered across AusIndustry state offices while others are delivered solely by one state office. All programs have a Program Manager and a program management team. All programs have delivery processes, procedures, and guidance material. Program managers are responsible for ensuring that each state office involved in the delivery of their program is trained in the use of the program's guidelines and processes and adheres to those guidelines and processes. A matrix of reporting complements this activity. From time to time, external or internal audits are undertaken to confirm delivery processes and in particular the consistency of delivery arrangements across states.
(5) The priorities are determined by the Program Manager with overall responsibility for the delivery of a program against the background of the Department's overarching priorities. Individual state offices of AusIndustry do not determine their own priorities.
(6) AusIndustry does conduct surveys of customer satisfaction with program delivery. Head-line customer satisfaction results are published each year in the Department's Annual Report.
(7) AusIndustry does not conduct surveys in regard to the conversion of R&D into outcomes.
In regard to venture capital funding and start-ups:
(1) How much public funding has been used to assist or subsidise the growth of early stage venture capital funds in Australia over the past five years.
(2) Of those start-up companies that venture capital funds were able to successfully grow and exit:
(a) how many were there; and
(b) how many are still headquartered in Australia.
(3) What was the proportion in which the exit was through sale to a foreign venture capitalist or private equity firm, or the start-up was required to relocate its headquarters offshore.
(4) What has been the immediate return on taxpayers' funds to Australia.
(1) Between 1 July 2005 and 30 June 2010, $146.00 million has been provided by the Australian Government's early stage venture capital programs: the Innovation Investment Fund, Pre-Seed Fund, Innovation Investment Follow-on Fund and the Renewable Energy Equity Fund.
(2)(a) Since the start of the programs listed under Question 1 to 30 June 2010, 181 investee companies have been supported and there have been 41 exits of which 19 companies have returned greater than cost.
(b) The location of companies which are no longer in these programs is not monitored.
(3) These metrics are not monitored.
(4) Since the start of the programs listed under Question 1 to 30 June 2010, a total of $141.75 million has been returned to the Australian Government.
(1) What is the level of collaboration between small business in Australia and the research sector compared with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] average.
(2) What percentage of the Government's total innovation budget supports the establishment of such collaboration and de-risking of technology.
(3) (a) How many small and medium enterprises have accessed research and development (R&D) through the Researchers in Business Program; and
(3) (b) why is more not being done to encourage greater uptake of publicly funded R&D by small business.
(4) What is the total and the proportion of Enterprise Connect funding that results in 'new to the industry' or 'new to the world' innovation.
(1) Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are defined as those with less than 250 employees for the purposes of comparing with other OECD countries. SME collaboration on innovation with higher education institutions was 3.1 per cent for Australia. This latest figure ranks Australia 13th out of 23 OECD countries in this indicator. SME collaboration on innovation with government institutions was 2.9 per cent for Australia. Based on this latest figure, Australia ranks 9th out of 22 OECD countries. There is no OECD average calculated for collaboration.
(2) The Science, Research and Innovation Budget Tables are the only compilation of the Australian Government's total innovation budget. The document contains a limited amount of data (as specified by OECD requirements for Government Allocation On R&D) from a wide array of portfolios, departments and agencies, covering hundreds of individual programs. That data collection does not require departments to estimate the proportions of programs relating to collaboration or de-risking of technology, and consequently this data is not available.
(3) (a) 78.
(3) (b) The Government's broad range of innovation programs strongly supports R&D by small business.
(4) All Enterprise Connect program funding is directed at increasing innovation in SMEs, whether it supports 'new to industry' or 'new to the world' innovation. Data is not collected to break this down further.
(1) How many companies have received proof of concept funding from Commercialisation Australia since it was established.
(2) How is their progress measured and reported.
(3) How many applicants have applied for such funding.
(4) What happens to unsuccessful applicants.
(5) Are unsuccessful applicants helped in any way, for example, are they given tools or other mentoring to assist them develop.
(1) Sixty nine companies have been offered proof of concept funding from Commercialisation Australia since it was established.
(2) Participants are required to report progress against the milestones as outlined in the funding agreement. The funding agreement requires participants who receive a proof of concept grant to provide regular reports to the Department—including a baseline data report; quarterly progress reports; an end of project report and audited financial statement; and periodical and annual post project reports. Participants are also required to complete a survey or provide information to assist with an evaluation of the program.
(3) One hundred and thirty five applicants have been considered for proof of concept funding.
(4) Unsuccessful applicants are provided with constructive feedback on why their application was not successful for support under Commercialisation Australian. Where appropriate they are referred to other suitable Commonwealth, State or Territory programs. Many applicants also benefit from the application process itself. The application form requires them to consider key business questions and they also receive constructive feedback from Case Managers.
(5) As outlined in response to Question 4, applicants are referred to other suitable Commonwealth, State or Territory programs which may include tools or mentoring services.
In the case of a company or individual which donates the use of a private plane to Nauru for members of a federal political party, would the company or individual be eligible for a tax deduction for the cost of the flight.
In the situation described, it is unlikely that a company or individual would be eligible for a tax deduction for the cost of the flight.
Amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 effective from 1 July 2008 removed:
Political contributions and gifts made on or after 1 July 2008 must meet several requirements to be tax deductible under subdivision 30-DA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 .
The donor must be an individual and the contribution or gift must not be made in the course of carrying on a business.
The recipient must be:
Even if the contribution or gift is made by an individual in their personal capacity and not made in the course of carrying on a business, there are other requirements that would not be met in this case. The contribution or gift must be $2 or more, and be:
To be tax deductible under this subdivision, there must be a transfer of money or property. Therefore there is no deduction for the gift of a service, for example, the use of a private plane as neither money nor property has been transferred. If however property has been transferred as part of providing the service, a deduction may be allowed in relation to the property.
If it could be ascertained that some property was donated, the most that contributors or donors may claim in an income year is:
Only employees or office holders may claim deductions for political contributions incurred in earning assessable income as a general deduction.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 156 (Senate Hansard , 8 February 2011, p. 137) relating to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Mr Brooke Groombridge:
(1) In regard to the answer to paragraph (3) and generally: did the ACCC advise Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that it decided not to pursue the matter in response to its receipt of the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report; if so:
(a) when was the Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd advised by the ACCC; and
(b) when was the AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report received.
(2) In regard to the answer to paragraph (8):
(a) who authored:
(i) the letter dated 29 November 2005 to Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd, and
(ii) the draft letter dated 13 December 2005 for the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer (Mr Pearce);
(b) which area in the ACCC deals with the functional responsibility of product safety policy and how many people work in this area; and
(c) given the change in the terminology in the two letters referred to above, not to include the word 'seriousness' in the second letter, can the Treasurer advise if:
(i) any available information had changed; and if so, what was it, and
(ii) a change in professional assessment was undertaken; if so, by whom and on what basis.
(3) What documentary evidence, if any, did the ACCC have in its possession to 'establish' the reason for the bike component failure.
(4) In regard to the answer to paragraph (12), does the ACCC acknowledge that it has no basis for describing the bicycle examiners as 'bicycle specialists'.
(5) In regard to the answer to paragraph (13), was the ACCC unaware that the bicycle examiners were both authorised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd dealers, and does the ACCC consider such a relationship disqualifies the examiners from being considered 'independent'.
(6) In regard to the answer to paragraph (18):
(a) are the ACCC's Melbourne office staff who dealt with Mr Groombridge's complaint the ACCC's representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles; if so, do each of the staff hold technical qualifications, and in each case what are those qualifications;
(b) were the staff referred to fully acquainted with the preface of AS/NZS1927 (1998); and
(c) were any ACCC staff who were representatives on the Standards Australia Technical Committee for pedal bicycles consulted about the assessment of the HRL Technology Pty Ltd Compliance Assessment Report; if so, when.
(7) In regard to the answer to paragraph (19), can the ACCC provide examples where it alleges Mr Groombridge has selectively quoted and misled; if so, can examples be provided.
(1) Yes, at least in part.
(1) (a) ACCC advised Giant Bicycle Company Pty Ltd that the Melbourne office would not be pursuing the matter in a letter dated 22 December 2005.
(1) (b) The AMAT Materials Engineering Pty Ltd report was received under cover of a letter dated 21 December 2005.
(2) (a) (i) The letter of 29 November was signed by the (Melbourne) Deputy Regional Director, ACCC.
(2) (a) (ii) As the letter dated 13 December 2005 is a draft only and has no particular status, contributors to the drafting process cannot be ascertained with certainty.
(2) (b) The product safety policy function now resides in the Product Safety Branch of the ACCC. Within the Branch, many staff contribute to product safety policy development. A Regulatory Policy Section has also been established in the Branch. That section currently has four staff.
(2) (c) Given that the letter of 13 December 2005 was a draft only (which did not progress to final) and the content had not been settled, comparing expressions used in that draft with the content of the letter of 29 November 2005 does not appear material.
(2) (c) (i) Whether or not available relevant information had changed between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.
(2) (c) (ii) Whether or not further professional assessment of the issues was undertaken between 29 November 2005 and 13 December 2005 cannot be ascertained from available records.
(3) As at 13 December 2005, the ACCC did not hold documentary evidence which established the precise reason for the component failure on Mr Groombridge's six year old bicycle.
(4) The ACCC was advised that the persons who examined Mr Groombridge's bicycle were specialist bicycle retailers with some years of experience in the bicycle industry.
(5) Bicycle retailers are often authorised resellers of a range of bicycle brands. The ACCC had no reason to question the merits of the examiners' opinions.
(6) (a) No.
(6) (b) The staff concerned no longer work for the ACCC. Their familiarity or otherwise with the preface of AS/NZS 1927 (1998) is not known.
(6) (c) Yes. While the timing of that consultation cannot be accurately ascertained from available records, it most likely first occurred around the time the HRL Reports were first received in November 2005.
(7) In his letter to the ACCC dated 4 August 2009, Mr Groombridge quoted approximately 30 extracts from ACCC correspondence and materials spanning a number of years. All such selective quotes have the potential to be misleading to persons unfamiliar with the full context.
With reference to the luxury car tax changes where exemptions were made for particular categories for vehicles associated with primary production and tourism, can details be provided on how many vehicles and individuals have been provided with the exemption since the implementation of the scheme.
Under sections 18-5 and 18-10 of the A New Tax System (Luxury Car Tax) Act1999 , eligible primary producers and tourism operators are able to apply for a refund of the luxury car tax paid for certain cars. The amount of luxury car tax refundable is up to $3,000 of the luxury car tax paid. Primary producers are limited to a refund entitlement of one car per financial year.
Between 1 July 2008, the commencement of the scheme and 25 July 2011, a total of 610 individuals/businesses were provided with a refund of luxury car tax. Of the 610 claims paid, 591 were for vehicles used by primary producers and 19 for vehicles used by tourism operators.
In a post on the Prime Minister's blog dated 30 May 2011, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) wrote, 'The best way to cut carbon pollution is to make up to 1000 of our biggest polluters pay for every tonne of carbon pollution they generate. Not households. Not small businesses. Just the top 1000 polluters': Can a list be provided detailing each of the top 1000 polluters that the Prime Minister was referring to in her post.
I am advised that the carbon price will be applied to those companies that have operational control over a facility that emits over 25,000 tonnes annually of CO2-e emissions, except where those companies are in sectors not covered by the carbon price.
Estimates of the number of companies that will be liable to pay a carbon price is largely based on emissions data previously reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (the NGER Act).
Of the estimated 500 businesses to be subject to a carbon price:
Given that only greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption data can be published by the Greenhouse and Energy Data Office, it is not possible to provide details of corporations listed on the NGER Register as this would breach secrecy provisions under the NGER Act
In regard to former Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) employee, Mr David Reid:
(1) Was Mr Reid dismissed on 17 June 2011.
(2) Was Mr Reid's letter of dismissal hand delivered to him in a local pub.
(3) Does ANSTO management consider this an appropriate means of conducting human resources business.
(4) Did ANSTO management televise a copy of this dismissal letter over the internal network at the Lucas Heights facility on 23 June 2011, and was that the vision showing in the cafeteria in Building 23 during a staff meeting; if so, what was the intention of ANSTO management and has ANSTO management breached Mr Reid's privacy.
(1) Yes.
(2) The letter was delivered to Mr Reid at a venue and time of his choosing. The only ANSTO requirement was for the handover to occur in a public place, remote from the Lucas Heights site, for security reasons. No private details were discussed during the handover of the letter.
(3) As per the answer to (2).
(4) No.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 659 (Senate Hansard , 16 June 2011, p. 137), regarding preliminary discussions between the department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum about a possible intermodal facility at Parkeston and its potential use for uranium transport:
(1) Who is the proponent for this facility.
(2) Is the proponent a corporation or joint venture between multiple corporations.
(3) Is there any formal arrangement between the proponent and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum.
(4) Has there been any discussion about the financing of the facility.
(5) At what stage of planning is the facility.
(6) Are there any preliminary designs of the intermodal facility.
(7) What minerals or materials would the facility be in aid of.
(8) Have there been any preliminary discussions on the location of the facility within Parkeston.
(9) Has there been a referral of the facility to any state or federal government department.
(1) The proposal has not been referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, consequently a proponent has not been determined.
(2) See answer to question 1.
(3) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.
(4) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.
(5) Planning for the facility is understood to be at a very early stage. Neither the department nor the minister have been involved in the planning process so I am unable provide a more definitive answer to this question.
(6) The department has not seen any preliminary designs.
(7) This would be a matter for the proponent in the first instance.
(8) The department and the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum have not discussed this matter.
(9) No.
With reference to the answer to question no. 40 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, what was the destination/s and purpose/s of the trip Mr Rudd requested, which was not approved by the Prime Minister.
A number of ministers, including the Minister for Foreign Affairs, proposed to attend an Australian tourism promotion event and undertake related meetings in the United States in January 2011. It was decided that the Minister for Tourism should attend on behalf of the Government.
With reference to the answer to question no. 164 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee which stated that the 'draft responses to questions on notice 71 and 72 [from the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings in February 2011] were submitted to the Minister's office on 23 March 2011' and given that the answers to questions 72 and 71 were not provided to Senator Abetz until 23 May and 24 May 2011, respectively: what is the Minister's reason for the transmission of these answers being delayed for 2 months.
Draft answers to questions on notice 71and 72 were provided to my office on 23 March 2011. Question 72 was sent back to the department for redrafting on 5 April 2011 and resubmitted to my office on 7 April 2011 for consideration.
The answers to these questions were approved for tabling on 23 May 2011.
In regard to the attendance of Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) personnel at the Berri Barmera Council meeting held in Berri, South Australia on 19 April 2011:
(1) Were the representatives from ANSTO invited by the council or did the department offer or request a place on the council meeting agenda.
(2) Have any other councils in any state or territory been given similar deputations; if so, when and where did these occur.
(3) Are there plans or has there been discussion regarding similar presentations to be given to other councils; if so, when and where.
(4) Since the 19 April 2011 meeting in Berri, has there been any further correspondence between ANSTO and the Berri Barmera Council; if so, can a copy of this correspondence be provided.
(5) Can a copy of the notes or presentations used by the ANSTO representatives to address the Berri Barmera Council be provided.
(6) Can a copy of the report given to the Minister following the deputation be provided.
(1) ANSTO's attendance was at the request of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
(2) ANSTO also participated in a briefing to the Palmerston Council on 5 July 2011. That participation was also at the request of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
(3) ANSTO is unaware of any such discussions. This question should be directed to the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism.
(4) No.
(5) Yes. A copy of the presentation has been provided to the Senate Tabling Office and can be provided on request.
(6) ANSTO did not prepare a report for the Minister.