The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011
… the RSL view is that it is much better to have the legislation being the basis for all these matters than to have it by regulation.
There is also a strong belief that the current practice within Australia, whereby ex-serving members voluntarily take on a role to assist in claims preparation ... has worked very well—
and should continue to be supported through funding mechanisms such as the BEST program. The very nature of this voluntary work should be valued, not understated.
... sufficient to meet the needs of the veteran community.
The Geelong Veterans' Welfare Centre has the largest client base in Victoria and is the busiest office.
We ... cover areas as far a-field as the south-west coast to Warrnambool/Port Fairy/Portland and up to Hamilton/Horsham and back through Rokewood and Colac.
The loss of funding, particularly to the salary, will severely limit our capacity to fill the Administration Support Officer position and will most likely force our employee to seek other employment opportunities.
The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions. The changes are intended to clarify the operation of the legislation following the Smith decision and ensure that the established compensation offsetting practices can continue.
The Repatriation Commission will be issuing appropriate policy guidance to the Department of Veterans' Affairs staff to ensure offsetting occurs in line with the legislation and longstanding practice as outlined above. Ex-Service Organisations will be consulted during the development of this material.
At the end of the motion, add "but that the Government undertake an examination of the cost of expanding the class of persons eligible for the Repatriation Heath Card—For All Conditions (Gold Card) to include a person who is a nuclear test participant (within the meaning of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 ), and that such examination be completed within 3 months".
… the RSL view is that it is much better to have the legislation being the basis for all these matters than to have it by regulation.
... will not change current operations of the compensation offsetting provisions. The changes are intended to clarify the operation of the legislation following the Smith decision—
... interaction between the compensation offsetting provisions and Chapter 19 ... and the ... Rates of Veterans’ Pensions, 5th Edition (GARP V), ... will not change under the proposed amendments.
Under current practice, if medical opinion is able to determine the relative contribution of an accepted condition and a non-accepted condition to the impairment—
If medical opinion is not able to apportion the relative contribution of an accepted condition and a non-accepted condition—
(2) Schedule 2, page 10 (line 1) to page 15 (line 16), TO BE OPPOSED.
The RSL view is that it is much better to have the legislation being the basis for all these matters than to have it by regulation.
The Repatriation Commission will be issuing appropriate policy guidance to the Department of Veterans' Affairs staff to ensure offsetting occurs in line with the legislation and long-standing practices outlined above. Ex-service organisations will be consulted during the development of this material.
That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
That progress be reported.
The point we made earlier on was that the first we knew of this was when the legislation was brought forward. When we became aware of the legislation, we were on a short timescale to provide input to this Senate committee, which we did.
As the RSL have said, we regularly provide a prebudget briefing, and that is on the day of the budget. In that briefing we explained a whole range of measures coming through in the budget, including offsetting, and explained that the intention of the amendment … But it is true that there was no extensive prebudget consultation about the amendment itself.
That the committee report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Dear Ross
The RSL continues to oppose schedule 2 of this bill. However, if the Senate sees fit to pass this bill, the RSL would be comfortable with the amendment of the explanatory memorandum.
Kind regards
John M. Hodges
National Veterans Affairs Adviser
Returned Services League
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio and a Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
The Fund will be quarantined from the rest of the budget …
… Fund earnings will be excluded from the underlying cash balance …
QUESTION FROM SENATOR XENOPHON ON 25 AUGUST 2011.
Question: Minister, following on from the answers you provided yesterday in relation to the importation of New Zealand apples, did the Government receive any advice as to the withdrawal of concessions New Zealand would be entitled to impose in the event that import permits were not able to be issued by 17 August 2011? Who was the advice from and what was the nature of the advice?
Answer: The WTO Trade Law Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade provided regular legal advice to the government on New Zealand's rights under the WTO Agreement in the event that Australia failed to comply with the outcome in the apples dispute. This included advice on New Zealand's right to suspend concessions in respect of Australian exports to New Zealand.
Under WTO rules, New Zealand would initially need to target its retaliatory measures at exports of Australian goods (rather than services). New Zealand would have the discretion to suspend concessions on any product it wished, up to the value of the authorised retaliation. New Zealand is an important export market of Australia. In 2010, Australia's total goods-exports to New Zealand were worth $8 billion across 1153 product categories.
Question: Minister, what steps would New Zealand be required to take to withdraw any concessions?
Answer: Under WTO rules, New Zealand would need to seek authorisation from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body under Article 22 on the WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes to suspend concessions.
Question: Doesn't that answer assume that what WTO agreements do is to authorise the imposition of sanctions? Don't they just authorise that concessions no longer apply?
Answer: Article 22 authorises the suspension of concessions in certain cases. The suspension of concessions is often referred to as the imposition of retaliation or sanctions.
QUESTION FROM SENATOR WATERS ON 25 AUGUST 2011.
I took on notice some questions from Senator Waters in relation to the EPBC legislative reform package.
I would like to provide the Senate and Senator Waters with some further information.
Firstly, Senator Waters asked about the impacts on water systems from proposed developments.
The Federal Government continues to have an important role to play in assessing projects —including coal seam gas — which are likely to have a significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance, including species listed as threatened or endangered.
If there is not likely to be a significant impact on those Matters, the Federal Government does not have a role in the assessment process.
I refer the Senate to recent comments by Minister for Resources and Energy Martin Ferguson, who stated that regulation of coal seam gas mining on farmland was primarily a matter for state governments.
However, Minister Ferguson said the Federal Government is facilitating discussion at a state level on issues such as a uniform approach to the regulation of the industry.
This is an appropriate and practical way for the Federal Government to play a role in helping to improve regulation of the industry, while recognising this is primarily a matter for state governments.
Senator Waters also asked about the draft offsets policy released as part of reforms to national environmental law.
The Senator described this draft policy as a 'move to extend the use of offsets'.
I can inform the Senate that this draft policy is not about extending the use of offsets — rather, it is about increasing transparency.
As the draft policy states, it is intended to give the community, proponents and other jurisdictions more certainty and guidance on how offsets are determined and applied under the EPBC Act.
It is also designed to ensure the efficient, effective, transparent, proportionate, scientifically robust and reasonable use of offsets under the EPBC Act.
The public comment period will close on 21 October 2011 and the government will not determine its final policy position until after it has considered public feedback on the draft policy.
However, the government notes that the draft policy states that offsets are not intended to make proposals with unacceptable impacts acceptable and that offsets cannot be used to allow an action with unacceptable impacts to proceed.
Senator the Hon. Stephen Conroy,
Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
12 September 2011
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Dregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senator Cormann, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate (Senator Joyce) and Senator Fifield today relating to Future Fund assets.
… more than $250 million worth of assets were due to be withdrawn from the Future Fund in the 2012-13 financial year, despite the fund having been created, by Peter Costello, under the condition it was not to be touched before 2020.
… the anticipated withdrawal was known to the fund and that this was the first time a withdrawal had been included in the budget bottom line.
Any funds raised from the sale of nonfinancial assets will be kept by the Future Fund—not by the government.
The government is not making withdrawals from the Future Fund. The Future Fund is simply making a small change to the types of assets it holds.
If you rob capital or earnings from the Future Fund, taxpayers will have to make up the difference.
The Fund is established and is well on its way. It will help pay entitlements to our soldiers, navy and air force personnel which must be honoured after they have retired and finished their service to the nation. The Fund operates as an accumulation fund and reinvests its earnings. It aims to meet its target by 2020.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senator Adams from 12 September to 16 September 2011, for personal reasons;
(b) Senator Fisher for 12 September 2011, for personal reasons; and
(c) Senator Payne from 12 September to 23 September 2011, for personal reasons.
That the following list of general business orders of the day be considered under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators’ bills on Thursday, 15 September 2011:
No. 44 National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 (No. 2)
No. 60 Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2]
No. 51 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011.
That the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, from 1.45 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 10 September 2011 was World Suicide Prevention Day,
(ii) 15 September 2011 is R U OK? Day, a national day of action which aims to prevent suicide by encouraging Australians to connect with friends and loved ones to address issues that may lead to suicide,
(iii) suicide is preventable,
(iv) the whole of government and the whole of the community have a responsibility to prevent suicide, and
(v) suicide prevention is everybody's business;
(b) recognises that:
(i) suicide occurs throughout all sections of Australian society,
(ii) in 2009, 2 132 Australians died of suicide, over three-quarters (76.6 per cent) of whom were men,
(iii) middle and old age are times of greatest risk, while suicide remains the single biggest killer of people under 35,
(iv) suicide attempts are estimated to number 65 000 a year, with devastating physical, emotional and social outcomes, and
(v) suicide has immeasurable human, social and financial costs; and
(c) calls on the Federal Government to encourage speaking out about suicide and to continue making suicide prevention a priority.
That the Committee of Privileges and the Committee of Senators' Interests may confer on the latter committee's reference into a draft code of conduct for senators.
The Gillard Government's failure to find its way and implement a proven and effective border control and protection policy.
I think that our country should have the best border protection policy that the government of the day thinks that it needs and I’m [pleased] to work constructively to give the government, to restore to the government, the option of third country offshore processing which it says the High Court and the Solicitor-General have denied to it.
I accept that the government has lost track. We'll get it back on track. I have taken control for precisely those purposes.
There appears to be continuing lack of accountability, ministers don't seem to take responsibility for their own decision-making and consequences.
If we go back to 2007 when then Immigration Minister Andrews targeted Africans, particularly Sudanese, as impossible to assimilate, that caused a significant drop in public support, particularly in Victoria, towards the settlement of refugees.
It wasn’t the refugees who caused it, it was the public statements of hostility from leading political figures. As it turns out African refugees (rarely if ever boat arrivals) have proven to be generally law abiding, hard working and passionately attached to the Australia that has given them the precious gift of freedom.
That the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee be printed.
That the recommendation contained in each of the reports of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform, proposing that the inquiries not be proceeded with and be discharged from the Notice Paper, be adopted.
That the Senate take note of the report.
As a general principle we continue to believe that cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool. We also make the point that you do not actually rely exclusively on the numbers that a cost-benefit analysis will produce because it is the product of many assumptions. As long as it is a transparent process of identifying the various costs and benefits and it is transparent as to the assumptions that you have made—and there are very many complex assumptions to be made in these things; they are not simple, but they are an instructive methodology—then that is a useful contributor to decision making.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Collectively, we didn't do enough to amplify support for BDS and show that this is part of an international movement.
... having their own shade of foreign policy. I've had a good robust discussion with Lee. She and I, not for the first time, have engaged in a very frank discussion about the way the New South Wales election went.
It's the federal party that makes foreign policy—simple as that.
Do you support the policy that New South Wales Greens have for a boycott?
No I don't and I've said this before publicly, Ali, that it was rejected by the Australian Greens Council last year.
We have that position in New South Wales and I support the New South Wales position—
... not something we're taking to the federal parliament.
Despite the intimidation, misinformation and abuse in recent months directed towards the Greens NSW, my colleagues in Marrickville and myself, I will not step away from speaking out for Palestinian human rights.
In the context of my work as a federal Senator, this will be just one of many issues I will work on.
It is not accurate to say that the Greens National Council rejected a BDS proposal.
… … …
… there was no vote to reject it. A less stringent boycott was supported.
… … …
… The argument that the NSW position is a contravention of the national policy does not stand up.
There has been no vote in favour of the BDS proposal.
One of the pieces of information was that the New South Wales Greens were going against the national policy so the boycott was not in contravention of our national policy. There is a diversity of opinion only about how we take forward the Greens's position.
I am quite aware that Bob Brown has a different approach on this, that within the federal parliament there isn't the support for this issue at the present time, but in the wider community there is growing understanding about the need to take a stand for Palestinian human rights, so I am not taking this into the Senate at the present time.
That the Senate upholds the democratic principle that consumers should be free to buy or not buy goods based on personal ethics.
... that consumers should not be prevented from exercising that democratic principle to be free to buy or not to buy, by means of unlawful secondary boycott, intimidation or picket.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Coalition senators would be delighted to comply with the terms of the motion and seek an early allocation of Senate time to ensure the Senate's wishes in this matter are fulfilled in a timely fashion. Please table this response, and we seek your advice as to a suitable allocation of time.
That the Senate take note of the report.
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Second Reading Speech
The National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment Bill (Deer) 2011 amends the National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Act 1998 to increase the maximum allowable levy rate cap on the National Residue Survey (NRS) component of the deer slaughter levy from 4 to 10.5 cents per kilogram of carcase weight.
The Deer Industry Association of Australia has requested on behalf of the deer industry to re-apportion the deer slaughter levy due to a significant production decline over the last 10 years, which has reduced the funds raised through the levy.
The industry proposes to re-apportion the levy to increase the NRS component from 4 cents to 6 cents per kilogram and decrease the research and development (R&D) component from 4 cents to 2 cents per kilogram. To meet this request, a change to legislation is required as the Act currently caps the NRS component at 4 cents per kilogram.
The deer industry requires the NRS component of the levy to be increased to 6 cents per kilogram to ensure it generates sufficient levy funds to maintain a viable residue monitoring program. Australia requires a residue monitoring program for European Union market access, and with approximately 85 per cent of all venison produced in Australia principally exported to the European Union, it is a key market for the industry.
Decreasing the R&D component of the levy to 2 cents per kilogram is not expected to have an impact on the industry's future R&D projects. This has been confirmed by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation.
The industry undertook an extensive period of consultation and the decision to re-apportion the levy was put to a vote in March 2011, where approximately 97 per cent of valid responses from deer producers supported this change. The government has endorsed this recommendation from industry.
The government has decided to increase the NRS levy rate cap in the Act from 4 to 10.5 cents per kilogram at this time to cover the industry's proposal and allow for future increases that the industry may seek without the need to further amend the Act.
Following the passage of this Bill, the government intends to put forward amendments to the Primary Industries Levies and Charges (National Residue Survey Levies) Regulations 1998 and the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999 to give effect to the levy re-apportionment proposal from industry; that is, to increase the NRS component to 6 cents and decrease the R&D component to 2 cents.
The measures introduced in this Bill and the subsequent amendments to relevant regulations will enable the deer industry to fund a viable residue monitoring program, maintaining access to key export markets. A positive result for both deer producers and their local communities.
Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Early Release of Superannuation) Bill 2011 introduces amendments which will transfer responsibility for the general administration of the early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds from the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Commissioner of Taxation, to the Chief Executive Medicare. This Bill provides for a change in administrative responsibility for this function, current policy in respect of the early release of superannuation will not change.
Early Release of Superannuation on Compassionate Grounds
The purpose of superannuation is to provide benefits for members on retirement after reaching their preservation age, or for their dependents in the event of the member's death. However, a member's preserved superannuation benefits may be released before preservation age in some strictly limited circumstances, including on compassionate grounds.
Compassionate grounds are defined in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations and the Retirement Savings Accounts Regulations, and cover expenses in respect of medical treatment, medical transport, modifications necessary for the family home or motor vehicle due to severe disability, palliative care and funeral expenses. Funds may also be released on compassionate grounds to prevent the foreclosure of a mortgage or exercise of a power of sale over the member's principal place of residence.
The regulator may also approve the release of benefits where the regulator determines that the release would be consistent with one of the specified compassionate grounds.
As I have already noted, this Bill does not change the criteria for early release.
Administration of the Function
When a person is seeking to access their preserved superannuation benefits on compassionate grounds, they can apply to the regulator for a determination that an amount of their benefits can be released. The final decision on whether a release is permitted rests with the trustees of the person's fund, subject to the governing rules of the fund.
APRA is the regulator for all APRA-regulated superannuation funds, and is therefore responsible for the administration of early release of superannuation on compassionate grounds for these funds. The Commissioner of Taxation is the regulator in respect of self managed superannuation funds.
Administration of the function involves the operation of a call centre and assessing and ruling on each application for release. This function does not fit well with APRA's legislative role as the prudential regulator of the Australian financial services industry. The Government considers that this function would be administered more cost effectively by an agency which deals with other elements of income support and has an efficient customer support infrastructure.
The Government has determined that Medicare Australia is the agency best placed to take on the function. Medicare Australia was chosen as it can develop the function as a companion activity to the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House and it has use of existing technology and experience in electronic business transactions which provides significant potential to streamline the program.
Transfer
Medicare Australia is currently undertaking the general administration of early release on compassionate grounds under delegation from APRA. Administration was outsourced by APRA through a service agreement between APRA and Medicare Australia. As a consequence, Medicare Australia has gained a comprehensive understanding of the function ahead of the formal legislative transfer.
This Bill represents the second stage in the transfer process. It will give effect to the formal transfer of the function from APRA to Medicare Australia.
Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill will amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and theRetirement Savings Accounts Act 1997 to provide that the Chief Executive Medicare is the regulator for the purposes of the general administration of making determinations in respect to the release of superannuation benefits on compassionate grounds.
Part 2 of Schedule 1 will amend the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 to allow the function to continue to be funded by superannuation industry levies.
Conclusion
The transfer of responsibility for this function is a machinery of government change, with no financial impact, and no compliance cost to business.
Medicare Australia is better suited to administer this function, and after it becomes formally responsible for administration of early release on compassionate grounds, there may be scope to considerably streamline the function.
Full details of the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2011
Our main concern with schedule 2 is that the amendment wording would give the Repatriation Commission almost complete discretion in offsetting matters. The wording would allow it to determine almost without restriction what constitutes the elements of its decision making. It goes much further than confirming a previous practice. Whilst the wording in the explanatory memorandum may inhibit the abuse of the amendment by the Repatriation Commission, it cannot guarantee that such an abuse will not occur even now or particularly in the future. In the case of such abuse, explanatory memoranda are not consulted in tribunal and court hearings unless there is ambiguity in the wording. There is certainly no ambiguity in the wording of these amendments. Offsetting is a basic feature of our compensation system. It is far too important a process to be largely left to regulation and the goodwill of bureaucracy. We remain strongly opposed to schedule 2 of the bill in its present form.
I think the current arrangements give the answer. The current arrangements are the ones with which the Returned and Services League is comfortable. We have lived with those and explained them to our members. That is why we do not see the need for schedule 2.
With the increasing number of people deployed in operational service at the moment, obviously there is potential for an increasing number of people to require compensation. Is it your opinion that these changes to the legislation could disadvantage any currently serving members in years ahead?
That is what we have said.
The Government will clarify offsetting rules for veteran compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA), at a cost of $2.7 million over four years.
… … …
The Department of Veterans' Affairs will also improve the administration of offsetting cases through case manager training and enhanced systems support.
The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions. The changes are intended to clarify the operation of the legislation following the Smith decision and ensure that the established compensation offsetting practices can continue.
… formed the view that the Commonwealth’s submissions failed ‘to give sufficient weight to the complete operation of section 30C, in particular the reference to ‘incapacity from that injury' as found in section 30C(1)(c)' … The court decided that in Mr Smith's case, it had not been appropriate to offset 'because the condition for which he was granted disability pension was a different condition from that compensated at common law'.
The government was of the view that this decision of the Full Federal Court underlined the need to clarify this aspect of the legislation. In its Portfolio Budget Statements for 2011–12, the government indicated that … it intended to amend the offsetting provisions in the VEA. In its submission, the department explained further:
It is considered that the decision of the Full Federal Court that offsetting should not have occurred applies only to the unique circumstances of Mr Smith's case. These included that, with the agreement of the Commonwealth, the common law claim for compensation was expressly changed to remove the two conditions that were being compensated under the VEA.
Nevertheless, the Government decided to amend the offsetting provisions of the VEA to ensure that the legislation is clear in its intent.
It stated further that if passed the amendments 'should avoid the likelihood that, on the basis of the Smith case, those seeking future compensation payments could circumvent the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of the compensation settlements'.
The changes are intended to clarify the operation of the legislation following the Smith decision and ensure that the established compensation offsetting practices can continue.
The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions.
The proposed amendments will not change the current operation of the compensation offsetting provisions.
… the amendments should avoid the likelihood that, on the basis of the Smith case, those seeking future compensation payments could circumvent the offsetting provisions by exclusion of specific injuries or diseases from the terms of the compensation settlements.
That schedule 2 stand as printed.
Page 18 (after line 27), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 4—Nuclear test participants
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
1 After subsection 85(10)
Insert:
(10A) A person is eligible to be provided with treatment under this Part for any injury suffered, or disease contracted, by the person, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, if:
(a) the person is a nuclear test participant (within the meaning of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 ); and
(b) either:
(i) the Department has notified the person in writing that he or she is or will be eligible for such treatment; or
(ii) the person has, by written document lodged at an office of the Department in Australia in accordance with section 5T, notified the Department that he or she seeks eligibility for such treatment.
Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
These amendments are framed as requests because they increase expenditure under a standing appropriation. The effect of amendment (2) would be to expand the class of persons – to include a person who is a nuclear test participant (within the meaning of the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006) – who would be eligible for the Repatriation Health Card—For All Conditions (Gold Card) under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Amendment (1) is consequential upon amendment (2) and should therefore also be treated as a request.
Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000
The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments which would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. On the basis that amendment (2) would result in increased expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and on the basis that amendment (1) is consequential on amendment (2), it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that these amendments be moved as requests.
This is an absolute disgrace. All the other illnesses that's brought on by exposure to radiation, we don't get treated for and that in itself is justice denied. So the real thing is the recognition, full recognition, under the Veteran Entitlements Act, but they won't recognise Maralinga as being a dangerous zone that we served in.
The only thing I can assume is that stalling for time is waiting for us all to die and they won't have to give anybody anything. Well, it is not just us, it's our children and our grandchildren that has suffered from this, that we've passed on our damaged genes, the DNA that was damaged due to radiation exposure.
Your skull seemed to light up. The whole world was going up in a fireball. It made you feel like an ant under a boot.
I had no idea when I went out to this site, nor did the chaps that I was working with know that there had been a bomb exploded there. And we set up these experiments and starting building these heavy steel firing platforms just 200 metres from ground zero.
Successive governments have ordered another inquiry or another committee to be set up. Sometimes they take three to five years. That's another three to five years. In that time another 10 percent of the veterans are dead. Well, given another five years, there won't be any of us left, quite frankly.
Item 1, after subsection 85(10A), insert:
(10B) Subsection (10A) is of no effect unless a regulation has been made:
(a) specifying the cost of the measure proposed by that subsection; and
(b) authorising the commencement of the measure.
(10C) If a regulation of the kind mentioned in subsection (10B) has not been made within 6 months after the commencement of that subsection, subsection (10A) does not operate at all.
That the amendment (Senator Wright's) be agreed to.
That the request (Senator Xenophon's) be agreed to.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011
At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate:
(a) notes:
(i) the government response to the Bradley reforms may impose increasing regulation on the higher education sector,
(ii) the growing burden of red tape and regulation imposed on small businesses, not-for-profit organisations, higher education providers and industry by the Gillard Government, and
(iii) that the increasing regulatory burden represents a broken election promise by the Labor Government which said that it would only introduce a new regulation after repealing an earlier regulation – a 'one in, one out' rule; and
(b) calls on the Gillard Government to adopt immediately the Coalition's red-tape reduction policy which will seek to reduce the cost of the Commonwealth's regulatory burden by at least $1 billion per year".
Passage of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 will directly transform the accessibility of higher education in Australia.
Student demand-driven funding was a key recommendation of the Bradley Review, and its implementation will help achieve the higher participation and attainment targets for universities that have been set by Government."
Along with a national regulator and the potential for positive outcomes from the Review of Higher Education Base Funding, provision of funding on the basis of student demand further defines the Government's new foundations for the university sector.
For the first time, universities will be able to grow with confidence and diversify in response to student needs.
Our commitment as a government is to the continued expansion of a high quality university sector, to educate the graduates needed by an economy based on knowledge, skills and innovation.
Almost all Surf Lifesaving Clubs (SLSCs) in Australia are located at the forefront of the coastal zone, often within metres of the shoreline. Understandably, the vast majority of SLSCs are located on sandy beaches, which provide high amenity and support recreational use. Sandy coastal zones are vulnerable to coastal erosion and thus sensitive to the impacts of climate change. Over 63 per cent of SLSCs nationally are situated on coastal areas classified as zones of potential instability. Projected impacts of climate change include coastal erosion leading to asset exposure and changes in coastal beach safety through altered beach form.
I can't discuss matters that are confidential.
Good try but I won't say anything.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
(1) The total amount spent on publications from 14 September 2010 to 29 November 2010 was $1,181. On stationery, the cost per ream (500 sheets) of paper (excluding pre-printed ministerial letterhead) is $5.00.
(2) My ministerial office uses ‘Stephen Swiss White’ A4 paper and matching envelopes for ministerial correspondence. The cost per ream (500 sheets) was $32.87 and if ordered in bulk the cost per ream (50 reams or more) is discounted to $26.40 per ream. The cost of envelopes was $76.50 per box of 500.
(3) The ministerial letterhead is 115gsm.
(4) The paper used for ministerial correspondence is certified carbon neutral by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency’s National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS).
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
(1) For the period 14 September to 29 November 2010, the total amount spent on stationery and publications and the breakdown of spending is as follows:
(2) For the period 14 September to 29 November 2010, the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead is as follows:
(3) 110 grams per square metre.
(4) No
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral?
(1) The table below provides a breakdown of spending on stationery and publications, for each office from 14 September 2010 to 30 November 2010.
(2) The table below provides a breakdown of spending on ministerial letterhead, for each office from 14 September 2010 to 30 November 2010.
(3) Ministerial letterhead printed to date is 110 grams per square metre. Following the transition to a new product, all future ministerial letterhead will be 104 grams per square metre.
(4) Ministerial letterhead printed to date is not carbon neutral. Future ministerial letterheads will be printed on paper which is manufactured carbon neutral.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral?
(1) The table below provides a breakdown of spending on stationery and publications, for each office from 14 September 2010 to 30 November 2010.
(2) The table below provides a breakdown of spending on ministerial letterhead, for each office from 14 September 2010 to 30 November 2010.
(3) Ministerial letterhead printed to date is 110 grams per square metre. Following the transition to a new product, all future ministerial letterhead will be 104 grams per square metre.
(4) Ministerial letterhead printed to date is not carbon neutral. Future ministerial letterheads will be printed on paper which is manufactured carbon neutral.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister’s office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
(1) No
(2) (a) 33, (b) $9,308 as at 31 December 2010.
(3) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department of Finance and Deregulation tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee, Government Personal Positions as at 1 October 2010.
(4) The cost of official travel by Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and accompanying staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 are largely paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. As such, the information sought will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011 in his six-monthly report on Parliamentarian’s Travel Paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. As at 29 November 2010 there was no expenditure on short-term transport (cars or taxis).
(5) The Special Minister of State will respond on my behalf in relation to this question.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
(1) The Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries do not have access to a departmental credit card.
(2) (a) The following table sets out the number of mobile devices provided to the offices of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries as at 29 November 2010:
(3) Questions relating to ministerial staff employed under the MOP (S) Act should be referred to the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs: as at 29 November 2010 there were three Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) positions, two occupied by DFAT staff (one at EL1 level and one at APS4 level) and one occupied by AusAID staff (EL1 level).
Office of the Minister for Trade: as at 29 November 2010 there were two Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) positions, one occupied by DFAT staff (EL2 level) and one occupied by Austrade staff (EL2 level).
Office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs: as at 29 November 2010 there was one vacant Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) position.
Office of the Parliamentary Secretary for Trade: as at 29 November 2010 there was one Departmental Liaison Officer (DLO) position occupied by Austrade staff (EL1 level).
(4) The Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) is responsible for the payment of domestic and overseas travel costs of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. For information on these costs please refer to the report Parliamentarians ' travel costs paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation which is tabled biannually giving details of dates, purpose of travel, countries of destination and costs of visits.
(5) The Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD) is responsible for the payment of domestic and overseas travel costs of ministerial staff employed under the MOP (S) Act. For information on these costs please refer to the report Parliamentarians ' travel costs paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation which is tabled biannually giving details of dates, purpose of travel, countries of destination and costs of visits.
The total cost and description of travel for staff employed as Departmental Liaison Officers (DLOs) in each office as at 29 November 2010 is as follows:
With reference to the role of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) and nuclear weapons proliferation in Burma, and specifically referring to the statement made by Mr Allan McKinnon, First Assistant Secretary, International Security Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, in May 2010 during the Budget estimates hearings of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, in which he indicated that the Government shared international concern about Burma's alleged nuclear problem, 'but the most we can do at this time is to monitor developments in Burma':
(1) (a) What efforts have been made to monitor developments in Burma relating to its alleged nuclear weapons program since May 2010; and (b) what role has ASNO played.
(2) In regard to the September 2010 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Assembly in Vienna, Austria, where the Burmese military junta's statement included a refutation of allegations of a nuclear weapons program, what are the steps that can be taken by the: (a) IAEA; and (b) Minister, given that Burma now has two obsolete IAEA agreements and has failed to execute the 'Additional Protocol'.
(3) Given that the Burmese military junta also shields itself from questions and inspections using another out-of-date agreement called a 'Small Quantities Protocol' which exempts states that only have small amounts of nuclear materials and no nuclear facilities from IAEA inspections and close oversight, how has Australia used its position on the Board of Governors, and its mission in Vienna to address this potentially very serious proliferation issue in our region.
(1) (a) and (b) DFAT (including ASNO) draws on a range of sources of information to monitor closely developments relating to Burma's alleged nuclear activities. This activity is ongoing.
(2) (a) The IAEA is continuing its efforts to strengthen safeguards in Burma including by urging Burma to bring into force a modified Small Quantities Protocol (Mod-SQP) and an Additional Protocol (AP) at the earliest opportunity.
(b) The Government will continue to discuss with Burmese authorities, other States and the IAEA how to strengthen safeguards in Burma (including conclusion of a Mod-SQP and an AP) and the allegations of a nuclear weapons program.
(3) Australia has called on the Burmese Government to be transparent about any nuclear activities, to abide by its obligations under the NPT, and to declare all of its nuclear facilities and material (including conclusion of a Mod-SQP and an AP). Australia is a prominent advocate in Vienna, and elsewhere, of strengthened safeguards and the need to ensure that the IAEA has the necessary capabilities to evaluate and act on safeguards issues of concern.
With reference to the monitoring of Burma's alleged nuclear program and the role of the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO):
(1) (a) What efforts have been made to monitor developments in Burma relating to its alleged nuclear weapons program since May 2010; and (b) what role has ASNO played.
(2) At the September 2010 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Assembly in Vienna, the Burmese military junta's statement included a refutation of allegations of a nuclear weapons program. What has the IAEA done to investigate this statement.
(3) How has Australia used its position on the Board of Governors, and Australia's Mission in Vienna to address this potentially very serious proliferation issue in our region.
(1) (a) and (b) refer to the response provided to Question No. 338 (1).
(2) Prior to the Burmese Government's September 2010 statement to the IAEA General Conference, the IAEA Director General said on 7 June 2010 that the IAEA was assessing allegations about a Burmese nuclear weapons program and, if necessary, would seek clarification from Burma.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is aware that the IAEA Secretariat has written to the Burmese Government. Such communication, is confidential to the parties.
Within the scope of Burma's safeguards obligations to the IAEA, IAEA Director General Amano, in his Safeguards Statement for 2010 (submitted to and noted by the IAEA Board of Governors at its June 2011 meeting) concluded that for 2010 "the Secretariat found no indication of the diversion of declared nuclear material from peaceful purposes". On that basis, the IAEA Secretariat stated that "declared nuclear material remained in peaceful purposes".
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is aware that the IAEA holds regular discussions with Burma, including each year during the week of the IAEA General Conference (usually held in September or October). In July 2011, both Burma and the IAEA Secretariat attended the meeting of the Australia-initiated Asia-Pacific Safeguards Network.
(3) Refer to the response provided to Question No. 338 (3).
With reference to digital television access in remote communities:
(1) Can the Minister confirm writing to around 140 remote Indigenous communities that run analogue television self-help transmission facilities, on or about 1 April 2010, to advise them of the options they had for converting to digital.
(2) Is it a fact that one of the options provided in that letter was for the communities to set up a digital self-help television transmission facility.
(3) In regard to a letter I received on 21 December 2010 indicating that the special equipment required to set up a Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) fed digital terrestrial facility would only become available in January 2011, could the department state exactly what assistance it might have provided those Indigenous communities to assess the option of setting up their own digital self-help transmission facility.
(4) As a comparison, can an outline be provided of what the department and the Government have done to financially assist and inform homes within those communities to assess the option of converting to the new VAST satellite.
(5) Is it a fact that, for 16 of the above remote Indigenous communities in North and far North Queensland, pressure is being exerted for them to finally decide, by 28 February, whether the households within those communities will convert to Direct-To-Home (DTH) from the new VAST satellite platform or set up their own digital terrestrial self-help transmission facility.
(6) In developing the new VAST satellite platform and the Satellite Subsidy Scheme (SSS), announced nearly a year ago, what assessments had the department undertaken on remote Indigenous communities to develop knowledge about the:
(a) average number of television sets and recorder devices in homes which would need to be converted to digital;
(b) way in which Indigenous people watch television, particularly during the summer months when it is very hot inside homes;
(c) extent of insertion of local material into local self-help television transmissions; and
(d) extent to which indoor, cheap set top aerials only are needed for current terrestrial television reception.
(7) I understand that the per home subsidy available to homes in, so called, remote Indigenous communities in Queensland to convert to the VAST satellite is $980, however, if an Indigenous home is located elsewhere in Queensland (for example, Quilpie or Normanton) the subsidy will be either $550 or $700 respectively – can an explanation be provided regarding the reasons for the difference, including exactly what consultation took place with remote Indigenous viewers when determining these figures.
(8) At Estimates in May 2010, the department stated that the only currently available model of a VAST set top box cost approximately $269 (a cost now estimated at $280), whereas the Minister stated at the same time that an equivalent High Definition terrestrial set top box cost approximately $80, indicating that portable indoor aerials for terrestrial television reception are clearly less expensive than satellite dishes and mounts – is it therefore a fact that the total private and public subsidy cost of homes in remote Indigenous communities converting to digital via satellite is nearly always likely to be significantly more expensive than converting by terrestrial means.
(9) Is it a fact that, after the satellite subsidy period expires, all new or replacement homes in remote Indigenous communities will be faced with the full, extra cost of VAST direct from satellite reception and that this will nearly always be more expensive than equivalent digital terrestrial reception.
(10) Is it a fact that no businesses or public facilities in remote Indigenous communities, such as schools, health clinics and community facilities, will be eligible for the VAST satellite conversion subsidy.
(11) What cost benefit studies has the department undertaken to compare, for example, the 10 year, full private and public cost of converting remote Indigenous communities (including new homes and businesses) to digital via VAST satellite or self-help digital terrestrial means and can details of any such cost benefit study be provided.
(12) What is the view of the department regarding the ongoing private cost of maintaining satellite dishes and, in particular, smart cards for the VAST set top boxes in remote Indigenous communities.
(13) Has the department conducted a detailed survey following the two recent cyclones in far North Queensland regarding the impact of cyclonic winds on individual DTH satellite dish installations.
(14) If Queensland local councils and remote Indigenous communities are being required to choose between DTH VAST or digital terrestrial self-help by 28 February and remote Indigenous homes in Queensland will be invited to opt into the Government’s per home subsidy scheme to assist them in converting to satellite on 20 April, what is the Government doing to assist remote Indigenous communities to develop robust digital self-help facility designs and to compare the overall benefits of converting to digital via VAST satellite or digital self-help terrestrial means before these deadlines.
(15) Will the Government consider allowing remote Indigenous communities to pool their per home satellite subsidy payments and use this total amount to help pay for the establishment of a digital terrestrial self-help transmission facility; if not, what exactly is the basis for such a position.
(1) On or about 30 March 2010, I wrote to all 362 licensees of self help retransmission facilities to advise them of the options for converting to digital. This included about 265 licensees in remote areas of which about 87 operate self help facilities in about 112 remote indigenous communities.
(2) Yes.
(3) The department is not in a position to provide detailed technical and cost advice to communities about establishing digital self help facilities. The department provides general advice about the benefits of the Government-funded VAST satellite service, and has also written to a number of councils to ensure they are fully aware of the costs and other issues associated with setting up self help digital terrestrial towers. Decisions about whether or not to establish such facilities, or to upgrade existing facilities which are not on the broadcasters’ self-help upgrade list, are matters for the local community.
(4) The department does not provide financial support to homes to assess the option of converting to the new VAST satellite.
Licence holders of self help towers that are not converted to digital by broadcasters must make a choice whether or not to upgrade their facilities to digital themselves. If the decision is made by the licensee to not upgrade the facility, the community serviced by that tower will then be eligible for the Satellite Subsidy Scheme, to assist eligible households in meeting the cost of conversion to VAST. This recognises previous investment by these communities, usually through their rate payments, in maintaining local facilities. The amounts of the co-payment in each area will be made available to households in that area as part of the delivery of the Scheme, so that households have clear information of the cost to them of moving to VAST.
(5) Between March 2010 and February 2011, the Minister and the department had a number of communications with self help licensees, including in Queensland. A final date of 20 June 2011 was set for councils in regional and remote Queensland to decide whether or not they wished to convert their own towers or allow their communities to move to the VAST service with assistance from the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. It was made clear to councils that on that date it would be assumed that the Council would not be converting their tower, so SSS would start organising to deliver subsidised VAST installation to eligible households. These timeframes were needed to ensure that the Satellite Subsidy Scheme could be delivered to Queensland communities in a timely fashion in advance of switchover in regional Queensland in December.
(6) The department has visited a number of Remote Indigenous Communities in Queensland, and also some in other parts of Australia, to refine its approach to delivering the Satellite Subsidy Scheme in those communities. Officers discussed with community members the viewing preferences of different households and communities, climactic conditions and other issues. This work is ongoing.
Based on research undertaken by the department, there are up to 31,000 households in defined remote Indigenous communities across Australia that are likely to be eligible for the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. The majority of these households are in remote Western Australia, Northern Territory, remote South Australia and far North Queensland. The Scheme allows for the conversion of one television set per household to be met by Government at no cost to the household in Indigenous communities, and also allows for extra connections to be installed by the technician at the cost of the householder.
While set top aerials potentially allow greater portability, it should be noted that many towers in remote communities are small with low powered transmitters, and reception by set top aerials may not be reliable. Reliable reception would often require fixed roof top aerials, which would present the same issues regarding portability of sets (whether within or outside the home) as satellite receivers. In addition, communities may not be in a position to properly maintain or provide a protected operating environment for the transmission equipment, meaning that services could be off air for extended periods.
The extent to which local content insertion occurs in self-help television transmissions in remote Indigenous communities was considered in the recent review into Indigenous Broadcasting. The Government is currently considering the report of the review.
(7) Eligibility for the additional $280 assistance is based on a definition of remote Indigenous community widely accepted and used by many Government agencies. The definition includes reference to a geographic location, bounded by physical boundaries, and inhabited predominantly by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples with housing or infrastructure that is managed on a community basis. This additional assistance will mean that, under the Satellite Subsidy Scheme, installations are essentially at no cost to the household in these communities.
A clear definition for Indigenous communities, using accepted Government definitions, is necessary in order to allow for the successful delivery of the Scheme. This allows whole communities to be provided with consistent services under the Scheme. It is not feasible to deliver the Scheme in circumstances where different households or groups of households within a wider general population (eg Normanton) receive different types of service at different costs. Moreover these towns often have better established local council structures and lower installation costs than very remote indigenous communities.
The key cost from the household perspective is the co-payment actually paid by the household, not the amount of subsidy. Contracts for delivery of the Scheme are negotiated on the basis of a single fixed co-payment cost per household in a switchover region or part of a switchover region, regardless of location, which to date has been between $200-$220 per household.
(8) The Government gave extensive consideration to the merits of different options to ensure that all Australians are able to receive the same number of television channels, no matter where they live. A satellite service is required regardless of terrestrial upgrades – it is not feasible or economically viable to provide the full range of digital channels to virtually all Australians by terrestrial means alone.
Accurate cost comparisons between terrestrial transmission and satellite are difficult to make because the upgrade and operating cost of terrestrial self-help retransmission facilities is potentially unique to each site, and the costs of installing direct-to-home satellite also vary. For example, the upgrade of a self-help retransmission site might require complete replacement of all broadcasting infrastructure at a site, or it might require only some items to be upgraded if others are already suitable for digital transmission. It might also require replacement or upgrade of the electricity supply and air conditioning at the site. Ongoing operational costs for terrestrial retransmission will depend on the level of servicing provided, the time period over which any service contracts operate, and the timeframes for service responses.
The costs of receiving digital terrestrial signals in homes and businesses will also vary depending on their location, number of receivers and the suitability of their existing antenna arrangements. For example, while some premises may be able to receive digital services with existing indoor antennas, others served by the same terrestrial site may need to modify or install a new external antenna or a high gain antenna with a masthead amplifier. Additionally, satellite delivery will incur one-off costs for consumers and broadcasters rather than the ongoing nature of terrestrial transmission costs for licensees.
Conversion of terrestrial sites is also not ‘cost-free’ to householders. In addition to equipment needed in the home to receive digital signals, the costs of upgrading to digital, ongoing maintenance and transmission costs can be expected to be passed on to householders through their rates.
(9) After the Satellite Subsidy Scheme period in an area expires, households in the area (new or existing) will not be able to receive a subsidy under the Scheme.
(10) Yes. The government is not providing assistance to businesses or public facilities to convert to digital in any areas of Australia.
(11) See answer A8 above. The Government decided to implement a comprehensive satellite service to provide services in areas across Australia that are not served by digital terrestrial towers, and to support local communities to move to that service in cases where self help towers were not converted to digital. The Government considers that satellite is an excellent option for communities not a second best solution.
Each affected community is now able to offer their members a choice – whether to continue with the traditional terrestrial self-help transmission and pay for the upgrade and ongoing costs, or choose to avail themselves of the satellite TV service now being offered. This is a decision for each community to make and to weigh up the pros and cons that affect their community.
(12) The Satellite Subsidy Scheme provides one-off to move to digital – its purpose is to assist conversion to digital, not to permanently subsidise television watching in communities. The ongoing private cost of maintaining satellite dishes and smart cards is the responsibility of the householder, after the after-care period has expired. This is consistent with households in all other areas of Australia that access the Satellite Subsidy Scheme.
This is also consistent with many Indigenous households in remote areas that currently receive Aurora, the previous generation free-to-air satellite television, which continues to broadcast until 2013.
(13) The department’s tender and contractual documents specify that the installations must meet the Building Code of Australia and Australian standards to ensure any installations provided under the SSS scheme are safe and fit for purpose in cyclonic areas of Australia. Tens of thousands of Aurora, Austar and Foxtel satellite dishes in northern Australia have withstood many tropical cyclones and storms in recent years.
(14) The Government has not provided assistance to any communities across Australia to explore the merits of different digital television transmission and reception options.
(15) The government carefully considered proposals to allow for the ‘pooling’ of funds to support community-based terrestrial but did not support these for a range of policy and operational reasons.
The government’s aim in the switchover process was to address, as much as possible, long-standing issues in regional and remote areas and ensure the delivery of the full suite of channels available in metropolitan areas through reliable, consistent and ‘future-proof’ infrastructure arrangements.
The government considers that pooling of funds would not cover all the costs of converting self-help facilities, particularly in small communities. In addition, the pooling of subsidies would result in a patchwork approach – providing various standards of service which would be a less than optimal outcome and inconsistent with the Government’s objective of providing equal television services to viewers in all parts of Australia.
This would also make the program more complex, and therefore costly, to deliver. Allowing some councils to pool the subsidy would give rise to reduced economies of scale. It would also create an administratively complex scheme, requiring individual contractual arrangements with an unknown proportion of the 360 self-help licensees, layered on top of the current Satellite Subsidy Scheme model.
(1) With reference to the Government commissioned report, 2008 Audit of the Defence Budget which identified that 'a real growth rate of 3.5 per cent in capital expenditure on SME [Specialised Military Equipment] [is required] just to replace today's equipment. To deliver the capabilities proposed in the recommended Force Structure Option requires a growth rate of 4.2 per cent': What will be the amount required to fund, in nominal dollars, the major capital equipment program each year from 2010-11 to 2029-30, so as to fund the White Paper 'Force 2030' initiatives.
(2) With reference to the report, The Cost of Defence: ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2010 -11 which states, 'on the basis of long-term trends in defence costs, it is unlikely that the promised 2.2 per cent real growth post 2017-18 will be adequate to sustain let alone expand the ADF [Australian Defence Force] as planned. In other words, the plan was probably not affordable to begin with': Based on this analysis, as at 31 December 2010, how will the Government fund its Defence White Paper commitments when funding drops to 2.2 per cent real growth per annum, below that needed to sustain the ADF.
(1) The amount required to fund the major capital equipment program each year from 2010-11 to 2029-30 to deliver the White Paper 'Force 2030' has been previously provided as outlined below:
(a) at the Senate Estimates hearing on Wednesday 3 June 2009, it was stated that the estimated overall cost of buying the capabilities outlined in the White Paper will be between $245-$275 billion out to 2030; and
(b) on 24 January 2011, Defence provided an update of between $215-$245 billion. This reduction was due to the appreciation of the Australian dollar against the US dollar since that time.
Since January 2011, the Australian dollar has appreciated further against the US dollar and the revised estimate of the amount required to fund the major capital equipment program each year from 2010-11 to 2029-30 to deliver the White Paper 'Force 2030 is between $210-$240 billion.
(2) In the 2009-10 budget, the Government provided Defence with additional funding of $146.1 billion to fund the White Paper over the 21 years to 2029-30 as a result of changing the funding model for Defence. The 2.2 per cent real growth funding beyond 2017-18 is consistent with the inherent long-term cost of Defence, a point highlighted in the 2008 Defence Budget Audit.
With reference to the answer provided to Questions on Notice No's. 117-119:
(1) Who attended the Majestic Cruises, Sydney Harbour event on 30 November 2010.
(2) What was the cost per head for this function.
(3) What was the official purpose of this function.
(4) Who approved the expenditure.
(1) The inaugural Asia South-West Pacific Region Reserves Capability Forum was hosted by Head Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division, Major General A.G. Melick, on behalf of the Australian Defence Force, from 30-31 July 2010. A social activity on Sydney Harbour was conducted on the evening of 30 July 2010 aboard a Majestic Cruises ship. There were 76 attendees, which included delegation members and their partners from Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, The Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore and Thailand. Australian attendees included members of the Defence Reserve Support Council and Defence Reserves Association, Navy, Army and Air Force representatives and Forum staff.
(2) The cost per head for the function was $120.00.
(3) The official purpose of the function was 'Official Hospitality for International Guests attending the inaugural Asia South West Pacific Region Reserves Capability Forum (ASWPRRCF) 2010'.
(4) The activities conducted as part of the Forum, including the official dinner function, were authorised by Head Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division. The funding of the Forum dinner was authorised in the Forum Administration Instruction, signed by the Deputy Head Cadet, Reserve and Employer Support Division.
With reference to the answer provided to Question on Notice No's. 117-119:
(1) How many attended the 34 Squadron Thank You function at Parliament House on 24 November 2010.
(2) What was the cost per head for this function.
(3) What was the official purpose of this function.
(4) Who approved the expenditure.
The figures originally provided by the Department in response to Questions on Notice No's 117-119 (Table 3) in relation to the 34 Squadron function are incorrect. This was due to a transcription error in the data provided to respond the question.
(1) Approximately 100 guests attended the 34 Squadron function at Parliament House on 24 November 2010.
(2) The cost per head for the function was $32.18 (excluding GST). A full breakdown of the cost of the 34 Squadron function is detailed in the table below:
Note:
(a) Per head cost has been calculated by dividing the total cost by the number of attendees.
(b) Costs reported in the above table have been taken from submitted invoices/receipts to the Ministerial and Executive Support Branch as at 25 March 2011.
(3) The purpose of the official function was to 'thank' 34 Squadron personnel for their on going efforts and outstanding efficiency in providing special purpose transport to visiting Heads-of-state, Governor-General, Prime Minister and other Australian Government officials.
(4) Expenditure of the official hospitality was approved in accordance Chapter 2.2 (Clause 2.2.3) of Department of Defence Financial Management Manual by the Assistant Secretary of Ministerial and Executive Support.
In regard to a recent Lateline program on aeroplane construction (namely Boeing) and parts not meeting their specifications, especially supporting hoops for fuselages: As a result of the report:
(a) have any investigations been undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in relation to equipment purchased from Boeing by the domestic carriers; if so, what have those investigations revealed;
(b) is the department in negotiations with Boeing or domestic carriers concerning these revelations; and
(c) what steps, if any, have been taken to investigate the potential safety issues outlined in the program.
I have been advised by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Australia's independent aviation safety regulator, that it is aware of the claims aired in the "Dateline" program. However, CASA has also advised that the claims have not been substantiated by the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) which conducts oversight of aircraft manufacturing systems in the US, including the production of Boeing aircraft. CASA has also confirmed there have been no airworthiness directives issued in relation to claims made in the documentary.
(1) What studies have been undertaken into the existing use of wireless audio devices in Australia and overseas.
(2) What studies have been undertaken into the future use of wireless audio devices in Australia and overseas.
(3) Will sufficient new spectrum be made available for new device which are compliant with the post-restack environment.
(4) What is the normal ‘lifespan’ of these devices and how many are currently used in Australia.
(5) When will certainty be given to manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailers and users of these products as to the new regulatory requirements.
(6) Will there be sufficient timelines for manufacturers, importers, wholesalers, retailer and users of these products to manufacturer and replace existing products.
(7) How and when will existing users be advised that their wireless audio devices will no longer be licensed.
(8) What plans are in place to ‘clean’ the 694-820 Mhz space of existing wireless audio devices.
(9) What is the anticipated costs of these plans.
(10) To what extent would a failure to ‘clean’ the 694- 820 Mhz space of existing wireless audio device use affect expected returns from the anticipated auction of spectrum arising from the Digital Dividend.
(11) How many devices and users are expected to be affected in the 694-820 Mhz space and what is the user profile of these devices.
(12) What percentage of these devices are used by not-for-profit organizations, such as schools and community groups.
(13) What percentage of these devices are used by small businesses and the self-employed, such as small shops, aerobics instructors and musicians.
(14) What is the value of these devices on average and in total.
(15) Are devices still being sold which utilise this spectrum.
(16) What compensation package is envisaged for each category of users.
(17) How and when will the compensation package be delivered.
(18) How many devices and users are expected to be affected in the 520-694 Mhz space and what is the user profile of these devices.
(19) What is the typical frequency agility of the devices currently operating within this spectrum range.
(20) What percentage of these devices are used by not-for-profit organizations, such as schools and community groups.
(21) What percentage of these devices are used by small business and the self-employed, such as small shops, aerobics instructors and musicians.
(22) What is the value of these devices on average and in total.
(23) What compensation package is envisaged for each category of users.
(24) How and when will the compensation package be delivered.
I recognise that wireless audio devices provide a significant service and that there will be ongoing demand for spectrum for these devices.
The reconfiguration of the digital dividend (700 MHz) band has been taking place now for some time, and will continue for a number of years to come. As part of this reconfiguration, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) is working with the wireless audio device community, including the Australian Wireless Audio Group (AWAG), to make suitable provision for the operation of wireless audio equipment in the future.
Relocating wireless audio device users and timing
Questions (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) are about the process and timing for migrating users of wireless audio devices out of the digital dividend band.
While some users of wireless audio devices will have to relocate out of the digital dividend spectrum, it is likely that others will be able to continue to operate in this spectrum after it has been reconfigured. This is most likely to be within the guard bands and mid-band gap i.e. those parts of the digital dividend band that will be set aside for the purposes of mitigating interference. Further technical and engineering work is being undertaken before a final decision can be made on this issue.
It is expected that users of wireless audio devices will be able to continue using the spaces between digital broadcasting services in the broadcasting spectrum below the digital dividend band (that is, below 694 MHz) going forward. The exact frequencies below 694 MHz in which wireless audio devices will be permitted to operate will able to be determined once planning for the reorganisation (restack) of digital broadcasting services, which is necessary to clear the digital dividend spectrum of broadcasting services, is completed nation-wide.
I appreciate the importance of certainty to the wireless audio device community. Once the outcomes of this technical and planning work are known, the ACMA will commence the process of amending the Radiocommunications Class Licence (Low Interference Potential Devices) 2000 (the LIPD class licence) to put the frequency changes into effect.
It is standard practice for the ACMA to communicate upcoming changes to licensing arrangements well in advance of the changes coming into effect, and to provide information to users, vendors and industry bodies to enable them to educate their customers and members about the changes. The ACMA is working to provide the wireless audio device community with sufficient time and information to make the necessary adjustments.
Users of wireless audio devices will have until 31 December 2014 to vacate the spectrum.
Any unauthorised use of wireless audio devices, in contravention of the LIPD class licence, would be open to compliance action by the ACMA.
Impact of migration on the wireless audio device user base
Questions (1), (2), (4), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (18), (19), (20), (21) and (22) seek factual information about the wireless audio device user base in Australia, the number of users likely to be impacted by the migration out of the digital dividend band, the user profile of those affected and the costs of migration.
In its submission to the January 2010 Digital Dividend Green Paper, AWAG provided an estimate of the number of wireless audio devices currently using the broadcasting spectrum. It estimated that there were 130,000 devices in operation, with 80 per cent of these thought to be in the digital dividend spectrum range. A consultant’s report attached to the AWAG submission estimated the costs to industry of replacing equipment to be between $80 and $220 million.
However, the extent of the migration required is heavily dependent on individual user circumstances such as their geographic location, existing frequency use and the ability of existing equipment to be re-tuned. The impact on users cannot be properly calculated until the technical and planning work referred to above is completed. At this point in the process the ACMA should then be able to advise users of wireless audio equipment where in the spectrum they will be permitted to operate post-digital dividend. Users can then assess whether their existing equipment is able to operate in the new frequencies.
In the meantime, the ACMA is working to provide the wireless audio device community with sufficient time and information to factor the migration into their planning and equipment purchasing cycles in order to minimise the costs associated with the migration. According to industry, vendors have been moving equipment imports away from the digital dividend band since 2009.
Compensation
Questions (16), (17), (23) and (24) are about compensation for users to assist in meeting the cost of migration.
As noted above, the ACMA is working with the wireless audio device community to make suitable provision for the operation of wireless audio equipment in the future. Technical and planning work is currently underway to achieve this.
The issue of how migration will be managed will be considered in consultation with industry once the outcomes of this work are known.
———————
Attachment
BACKGROUND
Wireless audio devices operate in the spaces between broadcasting services in the spectrum used for television broadcasting which currently includes digital dividend spectrum. Clearing the digital dividend spectrum will require wireless audio device users to relocate either to specified frequencies within the digital dividend band or to frequencies below the digital dividend band (i.e. below 694 MHz).
Wireless audio devices operate under a class licence. Access to the spectrum is free for these users and they operate on a no interference/no protection basis. Class licences can be varied or revoked by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) at any time in urgent circumstances or, in any other circumstance, after consulting with affected licensees.
The Digital Dividend Green Paper, released in January 2010, acknowledged the potential impact of realising the digital dividend on users of wireless audio devices, noting that operators of these devices may have to move frequencies and that there are likely to be costs associated with any move.
The Australian Wireless Audio Group (AWAG), which represents the users of wireless audio devices, estimates that there are over 130,000 wireless audio devices using broadcasting spectrum, with 80 per cent of these operating in the digital dividend spectrum range. According to AWAG users range from churches, schools, sports and community groups and aerobics instructors to high-profile professional users in the film, radio and television production, performing arts, sport and recreation and hospitality sectors. If their devices are not sufficiently agile to retune to the new frequencies, there will likely be costs to these users in the form of equipment replacement costs.
In its response to the digital dividend green paper, AWAG estimated the costs to industry of replacing equipment to be between $80 and $220 million.
DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
AWAG is seeking certainty on where in the spectrum users will be permitted to operate post-digital dividend, and the timing of any moves. It has also raised the prospect of the Government paying compensation to assist users meet the costs of replacing equipment associated with the move. It argues that the Government requires ‘clean’ spectrum (i.e. spectrum free of wireless audio device users) to maximise revenues from the sale of the spectrum. The Department and the ACMA have been working with AWAG on these issues.
Spectrum available for relocation
Users of wireless audio devices will be able to continue using the spectrum between digital broadcasting services below the digital dividend band (i.e. below 694 MHz). However, the exact location of the available frequencies will not be known until planning for the restack is completed. It is at this point in the restack process that channels will have been assigned to each digital broadcasting service and it will therefore become apparent which channels will be available for use by wireless audio devices. The current internal timetable for restacking has planning completed nation-wide by the end of 2012. However, there is still some potential for movement and this timing has not been made public.
While some users of wireless audio devices will have to relocate out of the digital dividend spectrum, it is likely that others will be able to continue to operate in this spectrum after it has been reconfigured. This is most likely to be within the guard bands and mid-band gap i.e. those parts of the digital dividend band that will not be used for mobile wireless communications due to the need to manage interference. Once the ACMA completes its work on the technical framework for the digital dividend spectrum licences it will be able to confirm the feasibility of this proposal. This work is due to be completed by the end of 2011.
Timing of the relocation
Users of wireless audio devices will be required to vacate the digital dividend spectrum by 31 December 2014. To achieve this, the ACMA will need to amend the relevant class licence to change the range of frequencies in which these users will be permitted to operate going forward.
The ACMA’s standard practice is to communicate upcoming changes to spectrum licensing arrangements well in advance of the changes coming into effect, and to provide information to users, vendors and industry bodies to enable them to educate their customers and members about the changes. According to AWAG, vendors have been moving equipment imports away from the digital dividend band since 2009.
As indicated above, definitive information on the availability of frequencies below 694 MHz for wireless audio equipment use will not be available until the end of 2012. From this time, users would have two years to transition out of the spectrum. AWAG has previously indicated that users would need two years to transition.
The Department met with AWAG representatives in March 2011. At this meeting AWAG agreed to develop a work plan and communications strategy for the transition of wireless audio device users out of the digital dividend spectrum. AWAG will be meeting with the ACMA to discuss this work plan on 16 August 2011.
Potential impact of continued wireless audio device presence
It is possible that some users of wireless audio devices could, in contravention of their class licence, continue to operate equipment within the digital dividend band despite changes to the class licence. Any unauthorised use of wireless audio devices would be open to compliance action by the ACMA.
Preliminary studies performed by the ACMA suggest that unauthorised use of wireless audio devices in the digital dividend spectrum has the potential to cause interference to both mobile broadband services and wireless audio systems. Depending on the specific situation, it is possible that simultaneous interference could occur, or that only one of the systems would experience interference. It can be expected that, where wireless audio equipment experiences interference of this nature, users would be further encouraged to vacate the band. The potential for some limited unauthorised use is unlikely to impact auction revenues.
RECOMMENDATION
Whether users will have to move is heavily dependent on individual user circumstances such as their geographic location, existing frequency use and the ability of existing equipment to be re-tuned.
AWAG has undertaken substantial work on these issues, including conducting an economic study of use of wireless audiovisual devices in Australia and case studies of how wireless audio equipment is used by Australian community organisations and business.
However, the number of users that will need to change frequencies and replace equipment, and the costs involved, can only be calculated once it is known where in the spectrum they will be operating post-digital dividend. Users can then assess whether their existing equipment is able to operate in the new frequencies. As indicated above, this is unlikely before the end of 2012.
In order to respond to Senator Ludlam’s questions we have grouped them into key issues and provided a high-level response on each. If you agree to this approach, we recommend tabling the response as set out in the attached.
(1) Has the Caucus Communications Team or anyone in the Caucus Communications Team offered any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff:
(a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and
(b) what advice was given.
(2) Is the Caucus Committee Team or anyone in the Caucus Committee Team aware of any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff:
(a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and
(b) what advice was given.
(3) Can job descriptions be provided for all staff in the Caucus Committee Team.
(1) (a) and (b) The structure of staff within an office is a matter for individual Members, Senators and their Chiefs of Staff.
(2) (a) and (b) Individual staff responsibilities are a matter for the employing Member or Senator, the Chief of Staff and the relevant staff member.
(3) The allocation of ministerial staff positions is based on the requirements of portfolios. The assignment of particular duties to individual staff is a matter for ministers and their Chiefs of Staff.
(1) In regard to the illegal importation of dog and cat fur products, over the past 5 years how many reported incidents have there been and:
(a) what action has been taken to investigate these incidents;
(b) have there been any prosecutions; and
(c) how many products have been removed from sale during this period.
(2) What action has the department taken to enforce the ban on the importation of cat and dog fur pelts and products since it was introduced in 2004.
(3) What is the annual budget allocated to monitor and investigate dog and cat fur products entering the Australian market.
(4) What are the staff resources allocated to working on the illegal importation of cat and dog fur.
(5) How has the department responded to the report of investigations by the Humane Society International, which was provided to Australian Customs, which revealed that dog fur is being imported into Australia?
(1) There have been 18 public referrals to Customs and Border Protection, relating to 16 separate instances, alleging that prohibited cat or dog fur products have been imported. In addition, ten other consignments were detained by Customs and Border Protection at the time of importation for assessment as a result of its cargo risk assessment program.
(a)All referrals have been followed up and investigated. Where appropriate, importers have been required to submit detailed documents or garments for independent testing and analysis.
Four cases resulted in the goods being seized and destroyed, either because the importer could not provide sufficient information to identify the goods, or the goods were abandoned.
(b)No. Prosecution of these four cases was not initiated because, in the circumstances, this action was not considered to be in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth.
(c) Nil. Where appropriate, goods believed to have contained cat or dog fur have been seized and destroyed at the border while under Customs control.
(2) Customs and Border Protection assesses all imported cargo as part of its broader risk assessment and border enforcement program.
Where Customs and Border Protection is concerned about the importation of fur products, including cases of suspected false labelling, importers are required to provide suitable documentation to identify the type of fur being imported. In circumstances where the fur cannot be identified and Customs and Border Protection has a reasonable suspicion that the goods are cat or dog fur products, a sample will be provided to an appropriate expert to determine the type of fur being imported. Where allegations are confirmed and a breach has occurred, Customs and Border Protection will seize the goods.
(3) Customs and Border Protection represents the interests of over 40 government agencies at the border, dealing with over 70 separate types of regulated goods. These goods range from counterfeit luxury goods, to illicit drugs, child pornography and weapons of mass destruction.
Funding is allocated by government to treat all of those risks, and is applied using an intelligence-led, risk-based approach. The control on dog and cat fur is administered within the overall allocation of funding for this wide range of prohibited, restricted and regulated goods, and is managed within our risk assessment and border enforcement program.
(4) Staff resources are not allocated to specific risks for regulated goods; they are applied according to Customs and Border Protection's risk assessment processes.
Depending on the level of risk identified and the intelligence available, tasking can be allocated to any officer undertaking relevant duties.
(5) The Humane Society International (HSI) has made multiple allegations of dog fur importation to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service in 2011. These allegations have been investigated and HSI has been advised by Customs and Border Protection of the outcomes of these matters.
The allegations made by HSI were based on two tests which indicated the potential presence of dog fur in certain garments. However, one of those tests indicated the fur may be from a species of animal that is not prohibited.
Customs and Border Protection investigated the allegations, and engaged directly with the two importers. Each importer withdrew the goods from sale, pending independent testing. These tests, from credible independent scientific authorities, did not support the allegations made by HSI.
Customs and Border Protection will continue to monitor and assess potential breaches of the dog and cat fur prohibition, as part of its work in enforcing border control over a range of prohibited, restricted and regulated goods, within its risk based border enforcement framework.
In regards to Pontville Detention Centre:
(1) On what basis is the new accommodation at the centre being purchased.
(2) Is the purchase a straight cash settlement or is an asset purchase arrangement or a lease arrangement being entered into.
(3) Can details be provided of the particular type of arrangement that has been entered into, also including the cost of the arrangement and the term of any such arrangement.
(1) The new accommodation required at the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (PVIDC) will be through a combination of rental agreements and procurement.
(2) Buildings that are procured will be placed on the Department's asset register. Rental agreements are in place or are currently being finalised for the hire of a number of other structures.
(3) The Department has entered into a rental agreement with a Hobart based prefabricated building company for the hire of transportable buildings. The term for the rental agreement is 6 months with an option to extend, if required, at the Department's sole discretion.
As at 21 July 2011, the cost for the rental of the transportable buildings is $1,118,525.00 GST inclusive per month. This cost will increase when rental agreements are finalised for the hire of a number of other structures.
In regard to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio, can a breakdown, by program, of spending be provided for the 2010/11 financial year in relation to the total portfolio expenditure on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel;
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancies;
(f) education or training for staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
A breakdown of expenditure, by individual program, is unable to be provided. Resourcing for these activities are not allocated, or recorded in the financial management systems, on an individual program basis.
In regard to the Council of Australian Governments' review of counter-terrorism legislation agreed to on 10 February 2006 and supposedly to commence in late 2010:
(1) What are the reasons for the delayed commencement of the review.
(2) When will the review finally commence.
(3) Who will chair the review committee.
(4) Who will be the remaining members of the committee.
(5) When will the submission and hearing process become public.
(6) Will the broad scope of the review, outlined in the 2006 communiqué, be refined to more precise terms of reference.
(7) How will the office of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor be engaged in relation to the review.
(1) The Commonwealth continues to work towards the commencement of the Review and will finalise the arrangements through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) as soon as possible. COAG needs to agree to the funding, terms of reference and membership of the Review Committee.
The commencement of the Review was delayed in the first half of 2011 while the Government considered the intersection of the COAG Review with the role of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Certain provisions of the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Crimes Act 1914 are reviewable by both the COAG Review and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor.
(2) The Review will commence as soon as the arrangements have been agreed through COAG.
(3) The chair of the Review Committee has been nominated by the National Counter-Terrorism Committee Legal Issues Sub-Committee and needs to be confirmed by COAG before being announced.
(4) The remaining members of the Review Committee have been nominated by the National Counter-Terrorism Committee Legal Issues Sub-Committee and will need to be confirmed by COAG before being announced.
(5) The Review Committee will determine the submission and hearing process after it has been formally appointed.
(6) Yes. The terms of reference for the Review will indicate the specific pieces of Commonwealth and State and Territory legislation to be reviewed.
(7) The Review Committee will take account of the appointment of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (the Monitor) and the role of the Monitor in reviewing Commonwealth national security and counter terrrorism legislation. The Government expects the Review Committee will engage with the Monitor in a productive way, such as through sharing relevant documents on Commonwealth legislation to avoid unnessecary duplication.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Australian Office of Financial Management for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
Note:
1 inclusive of GST where not recoverable from the ATO
2 does not include fees and costs paid to recruitment agencies that may include advertising
3 capital costs only
4 non capital costs only
5 excluding consultants costs capitalised in ICT project costs
6 excluding ANAO services received free of charge
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Australian Prudential Authority for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) and (2) Total actual expenditure for the financial year 2010-11 and budgeted expenditure is detailed in the following table:
^ Includes all ICT managed costs throughout APRA.
^^ External Auditing Services are provided free of charge by the Australian National Audit Office.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Commonwealth Grants Commission for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
The total expenditure is listed below in $’000s
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC) for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1)(a) Nil
(b) $41,446.78
(c) $8,657.52
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
(f) Nil
(g) Nil
(h) Nil
(i) $3,861.28
(j) $2,651.17
(k) Nil
(l) Nil
(m) Nil
(n) Nil
(o) Nil
(p) Nil
(2)(a) Nil
(b)&(c) $97,000
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
(f) Nil
(g) Nil
(h) Nil
(i) $5,000
(j) $4,200
(k) Nil
(l) Nil
(m) Nil
(n) Nil
(o) Nil
(p) Nil
(1) What was the total expenditure of the National Competition Council for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) and (2) The total expenditure incurred by the National Competition Council for the Financial Year 2010-11 for the items listed above and the corresponding budgeted total expenditure for the Financial Year 2011-12 are given in the table below.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Office of the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) (a) Nil.
(b) Total 15,974. Board members and senior staff for meetings, presentations and public forums.
(c) Total 11,377. Board members and staff for meetings, presentations and public forums.
(d) Nil.
(e) Nil.
(f) Total 28,510.
Trans-Tasman Accounting and Auditing Standards Advisory Group 2,163.
International Audit & Assurance Standards Board 7,095.
National Standard-Setters meetings 19,252.
(g) Nil.
(h) Nil.
(i) 1,384.
(j) 42,933.
(k) 42,933.
(l) 68,411.
(m) 1,060.
(n) .23,500. ANAO.
(o) 20,662.
(p) Nil.
(2) (a) Nil.
(b) Total 29,960. Board members and senior staff for meetings, presentations and public forums.
(c) Total 19,681. Board members for meetings, presentations and public forums.
(d) Nil.
(e) Nil.
(f) Total 25,580.
Trans-Tasman Accounting & Auditing Standards Advisory Group 3,600.
International Audit & Assurance Standards Board 4,800.
National Standard-Setters meetings 18,400.
International Financial Reporting Standards, regional policy forum 5,200.
(g) Nil.
(h) Nil.
(i) 2,496.
(j) 21,438.
(k) 20,835.
(l) 34,000.
(m) 1,380.
(n) 24,440. ANAO.
(o) 12,000.
(p) Nil.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Office of the Australian Accounting Standards Board for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) (a) Nil
(b) Total 42,251
Board members for meetings, presentations and public forums
(c) Total 16,323
Board members and staff for meetings, presentations and public forums
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
(f) Total 74,575
International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board 16,773
National Standard-Setters meetings 11,151
World Standard-Setters meetings 11,151
World Congress of Accountants 7,016
International Financial Reporting Standards, regional policy forum 6,802
Organisation for economic co-operation & development 3,679
NZ Financial reporting Standards Board 2,354
Asian Oceanian Standard-setters group15, 649
(g) Total 1,013
NZ Financial reporting Standards Board
(h) Nil
(i) 8,293
(j) 57,307
(k) 56,311
(l) 52,249
(m) 1,060
(n) 34,000
ANAO
(o) Nil
(p) Nil
(2) (a) Nil
(b) Total 81,600
Board members for meetings, presentations and public forums 75,200
NZ Observer 6,400
(c) Total 23,200
Board members for meetings, presentations and public forums
(d) Nil
(e) Nil
(f) Total 120,900
International Public Sector Accounting Standards Board 35,200,
National Standard-Setters meetings 15,000
World Standard-Setters meetings 15,000
International Accounting standards Board Roundtable 10,400
International Financial Reporting Standards, regional policy forum 20,400
NZ Financial reporting Standards Board 6,400
Asian Oceanian Standard-setters group 18,500
(g) Nil
(h) Nil
(i) 9,743
(j) 49,969
(k) 48,636
(l) 40,000
(m) 1,102
(n) 35,400
ANAO
(o) Nil
(p) Nil
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Royal Australian Mint for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) Detailed below is the total expenditure of the Royal Australian Mint for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising - $301,462
(b) – (c) air travel within Australia in business class and economy class - $55,320
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight - Nil
(e) – (g) air travel outside Australia in first class, business class and economy class - $213,131
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight - Nil
(i) hospitality and entertainment - $9,272
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally - $2,665,222 (including salary-related expenses, office expenses, depreciation costs and ICT project related costs)
(k) ICT costs to external providers - $1,599,512 (including the ICT project related costs)
(l) external consultants generally - $1,271,718
(m) external accounting services - $12,134
(n) external auditing services - $273,760
(o) external legal services - $68,769
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations – Nil
(2) The Royal Australian Mint is a self-funded FMA prescribed agency which generates revenues for the Commonwealth through its operations. All expenses incurred by the Mint are fully covered by the revenues for the year. The Mint is not appropriated through the Commonwealth Budget process; and, all expenditures are only incurred relative to revenue being generated.
With reference to the Australian Bureau of Statistics:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Bureau of Statistics at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) The actual locations of each premises occupied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are as follows:
Office Address
* Short term accommodation to meet Census operations.
(2) Each of the premises referred to in question 1 is rented.
(3) The actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Bureau of Statistics at each premises is detailed in the below table:
* Short term accommodation to meet Census operations.
(4) The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not have any allocation of space arrangements with other Commonwealth Government Entities. The Australian Bureau of Statistics does occupy space in some multi-tenancy commercially leased sites that do have other Commonwealth Entities as tenants although the ABS is not privileged to their commercial leasing information.
(5) The Australian Bureau of Statistics does not occupy space owned by the Commonwealth of Australia.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, the current lease terms are included in the below table:
* Short term accommodation to meet Census operations.
(7) The rental reviews for the ABS’s respective leases are as follows:
* Short term accommodation to meet Census operations.
Details of new NSW lease commencing 1 November 2011
With reference to the Australian Office of Financial Management:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Australian Office of Financial Management.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Office of Financial Management at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) Treasury Building, Langton Crescent, Parkes ACT, 2600.
(2) Rented.
(3) 779.3 square metres.
(4) The AOFM subleases its premises from Treasury. See Treasury’s response.
(5) Not applicable.
(6) (a) 22 December 2000, (b) 21 December 2015, (c) No, (d) $370 (exclusive of GST), (e) $288,341 (exclusive of GST).
(7) 22 December 2012; market rates.
With reference to the Productivity Commission:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Productivity Commission.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Productivity Commission at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
With reference to the Royal Australian Mint:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Royal Australian Mint.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Royal Australian Mint at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
With reference to the Royal Australian Mint:
(1) The actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Royal Australian Mint is land known as part of Block 1 Section 65 Deakin and street address being 66 Denison Street, Deakin, 2600.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, this premise is rented.
(3) The actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Royal Australian Mint at each of the premises is 15,227m2 as of last survey dated 25 March 2011.
(4) The actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises is 15,227m2 as of last survey dated 25 March 2011.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) The total purchase price of these premises was 2,178,791 pounds and the purchase date was 1965.
(The purpose built Mint process building and 60 Denison St (the old Administration building) were constructed in 1965 and have always been in Commonwealth ownership. The buildings were constructed on Commonwealth Land and the original construction cost was 2,178,791 pounds. )
(b) The amount that has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date from available accounting records (March 2001 to July 2011) show that, from a whole of Australian Government perspective, depreciation of $3,074,182.92 has been charged.
(c) The estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived is as at 30 June 2011, for both the Mint process building and 60 Denison St, including land, is $34 million.
The breakdown is as follows:
The value was determined by independent, professional property valuers.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into was 20 March 2009.
(b) the current expiry date of the lease is 20 March 2029.
(c) any further options available under the lease are two (2) option terms of five (5) years each.
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis is:
Office area total 4,231.3m2 @$290/m2 + GST = $1,227,077.00 + GST
Factory area total 6764.8m2 @$82/m2 + GST = $554,713.60 + GST
Storage area total 2,387.9m2 @$45/m2 + GST = $107,455.50 + GST
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis is $1,889,246.10 p.a. + GST based on latest survey dated 25 March 2011.
(7) The next rental review is due on 20 March 2012 and the determination of any new rental will be determined by:
(a) Fixed 3% increase on every anniversary except every 5th anniversary for the term of the lease.
(b) Market Review on every 5th anniversary during the term of the lease. The market review dates are 20 March 2014; 20 March 2019; 20 March 2024; and 20 March 2029.
With reference to the Australian Accounting Standards Board:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Australian Accounting Standards Board.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Accounting Standards Board at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) Level 7
600 Bourke Street
Melbourne, 3000
(2) Rented
(3) 738.25
(4) Nil
(5) (a) N/A
(b) N/A
(c) N/A
(6) (a) 1 August 2006
(b) 31 July 2016
(c) No
(d) 377.16 sqm Net
(e) 241,784.49 p.a. Net
(7) 1 August 2012
Fixed percentage increase each and every anniversary of the commencement date of 4%
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the National Competition Council.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the National Competition Council at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) The National Competition Council has one office which is located on Level 18 (in a portion of Level 18 occupied by the Australian Government Solicitor (Head Lessor)), 200 Queen Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000.
(2) (b) The premises are rented under licence from the Australian Government Solicitor.
(3) The actual amount of space allocated to the National Competition Council at the above premises is approximately 218 square metres.
(4) The Australian Government Solicitor also occupies space at 200 Queen Street. The total amount of space occupied by the Australian Government Solicitor is not known.
(5) Not applicable.
(6) (a) The licence was entered into on 5 April 2011.
(b) The current expiry date of the licence is 4 April 2015.
(c) There is an option to renew for a further term commencing 5 April 2015 and ending 31 January 2017.
(d) The rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis is $531.63 GST exclusive.
(e) The total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis is $115,895 GST exclusive.
(7) The next rental review is due on 5 April 2012 based on a 4% increase.
With reference to the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Auditing and Assurance Standards Board.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Accounting Standards Board at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) Level 7
600 Bourke Street
Melbourne, 3000
(2) Rented
(3) AUASB 446.75
(4) Nil
(5) (a) N/A
(b) N/A
(c) N/A
(6) (a) 1 August 2006
(b) 31 July 2016
(c) No
(d) 377.16 sqm Net
(e) 146,315.63 p.a. Net
(7) 1 August 2012
Fixed percentage increase each and every anniversary of the commencement date of 4%
With reference to the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) CAMAC has only one location and its location is: Level 16, Suite 1B, 60 Margaret Street, Sydney NSW 2000
(2) Rented
(3) 224 square metres
(4) As for (3)
(5) Not applicable
(6) (a) Date the lease was entered into: 1 February 2009
(b) Expiry date of the Lease term: 31 January 2014
(c) No
(d) Annual rental amount payable per square metre: $639.00m2
(e) Total rental amount: $143,136 with a 4% increase every year.
(7) There are no rent reviews.
With reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Grants Commission at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) 1ST Floor Phoenix House, 86-88 Northbourne Avenue BRADDON ACT 2612
(2) Rented
(3) 931 sq metres
(4) 931 sq metres
(5) (a) (b) and (c) not applicable.
(6) (a) 1 July 2010
(b) 30 June 2015;
(c) 12 months;
(d) $383 (actual) effective 1 July 2011 (GST exclusive)
(e) $356800 (actual) also (GST exclusive)
(7) No rental review due and lease has a 3.5% annual increase for next 4 years.
With reference to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) and ( 3) Adelaide – Floor 5, 100 Pirie Street, Adelaide SA 5000 – 293.3sqm.
Brisbane – Level 23, 300 Queen Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 – 580.0sqm.
Canberra – Level 2, 243-251 Northbourne Ave, Lyneham ACT 2602 – 1,150.0sqm.
Melbourne – Level 21, Casselden Place, 2 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne VIC 3000– 1,484.0sqm.
Perth – Suite 15E, 250 St Georges Terrace, Perth WA 6000 – 158.0sqm.
Sydney – Level 26, 400 George Street, Sydney NSW 2000 – 8,466.6sqm.
(2) All APRA premises are rented.
(4) The space identified in 3 above is wholly occupied or allocated to APRA or its agents.
(5) Not Applicable.
(6) and (7) Refer table below:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth;
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
In regard to the answer to question on notice no. EW0077-12 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Education Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, relating to unfair dismissal proceedings:
(1) On how many occasions has the employee been awarded costs against an employer in unfair dismissal proceedings.
(2) Can the figures be provided for awarded costs in relation to adverse action claims, delineating between employees and employers having costs awarded in their favour.
(1) In relation to unfair dismissal proceedings, there have been two instances of costs being awarded against an employer.
(2) Fair Work Australia has not issued any orders for costs against either employees or employers in relation to adverse action claims.
With reference to Fair Work Australia:
(1) What has been the total cost of providing conciliation services for:
(a) unfair dismissal;
(b) adverse action; and
(c) other matters.
(2) What have been the sizes of the businesses (by any available measure) in each particular area mentioned in (1).
(1) (a) The total cost of providing conciliation services for unfair dismissal applications cannot be precisely identified. The total remuneration cost for conciliators for the 2010-11 financial year was $3.325M (including leave accruals, superannuation etc). Other costs incurred cannot be solely attributed to the conduct of conciliations, such as administrative support and accommodation, which have not been included for the purpose of this answer. (b) and (c) Conferences for adverse action and other matters (including in some instances unfair dismissal) are provided by members of the tribunal as part of their statutory duties under the Fair Work Act 2009. These costs cannot be separately identified.
(2) In relation to unfair dismissal matters, for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 where matters were conciliated, the size of businesses based on information provided by the respondent, where so provided, were as recorded in the table below.
* Unknown as information not provided or number of employees in dispute
Parties to proceedings under sections 365 and 372 of the Fair Work Act and other (not related to unfair dismissal) matters before Fair Work Australia are not required to provide information about the size of their businesses.
Fair Work Australia is unable to provide information about the sizes of the businesses (by any available measure) in relation to adverse action and other matters.
Has the Australian Office of Financial Management contracted for any ‘campaign advertising’ in the 2011-12 financial year; if so:
(a) what is the total cost of advertising;
(b) what is the advertising for;
(c) who authorised the advertising; and
(d) on what media will the advertising appear or has appeared.
(a) Development of advertisement: $24,802.52. Placement of advertisement: $111,364.55.
(b) The advertisement was created and placed specifically to raise awareness and educate North American institutional/wholesale investors about the Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS) market. This sector of the offshore investor base is believed to be relatively in-active in Australian dollar denominated bonds. The AOFM has an objective of diversifying the CGS investor base, particularly where there is likely to be interest in the long-end of the CGS yield curve. This supports the announced strategy to issue a fifteen-year Treasury Bond.
(c) The Chief Executive Officer of the AOFM.
(d) The advertisement will appear in three monthly editions of the Bloomberg Markets magazine (prior to December 2011), plus the inaugural annual Bloomberg guide. In addition references to the AOFM (and links to AOFM information) will appear on all Bloomberg terminals on seven dates during 2011-12.