The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011
NBN Co is the obvious first choice for Developers because the NBN Co can fund the network build costs that are otherwise paid by Developers to private providers … and that funding is recovered by NBN Co charging RSPs higher operational prices.
Without competition maintained and enshrined in the Bill, NBN Co will have no real constraint on charges nor incentive to be innovative or provide community and utility services without charge.
… that the Minister wants NBN Co to be a monopoly and that he will therefore either set standards and specifications that only suit NBN Co network design and business or be silent and allow NBN Co standards and specifications to become the default standards and specifications as uncertainty overcomes the property development industry. Either way, by Ministerial determination or silence, setting NBN Co standards and specifications for network design, deployment and interconnection will eliminate all competition to NBN Co by GFOA or others interested in investing, building and operating fibre networks on any basis.
It has been a consistent feature of the government's policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.
This commercial flexibility is ... necessary because NBN Co is subject to considerable demand uncertainty.
Demand uncertainty remains in relation to issues such as the price payable by end-users for broadband services over time ...
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
... as soon as practical after a costing request has been made and before the election—
By requiring the costings to be made publicly available, there is limited scope for the results of the costings to be misrepresented.
…if you increase the cost you will get less investment than you had before.
… an economic dead weight cost because it's basically just an export tax, and those costs get discounted into investment decisions.
… that is a tax which competing countries like Indonesia, South Africa, and so on, do not have.
Any processing offshore has to be consistent with our international obligations and I just find it pretty rough to be changing the law to try and deliver on a policy that obviously has the judges' concern.
... the Government's—
arrogance and determination to exercise its new found power did not end at avoiding scrutiny in Question Time. It quickly moved to use the tyranny of its majority to overturn or deny every practice, procedure and mechanism that had defined the Senate's modern role. ... Every Senate procedure and mechanism to ensure proper scrutiny and debate was bludgeoned by a Government committed to getting its own way. ... No proper examination of the legislation was possible.
... inquiries are for the purposes of window dressing alone. The Government majority has ensured limited terms of reference, limited times for inquiry, Canberra-centric hearings and reporting dates that prevent effective scrutiny, community participation and proper analysis and reporting. They are a fig leaf for a power drunk and arrogant Government.
Let me be brutally frank. Future Labor Governments with a Senate majority would face the same temptations that this Government has faced and grabbed with both hands. ... But Labor is fully committed to supporting the Senate's review and accountability functions in government and opposition. Labor believes the Senate's functions that have developed over the last 24 years are worth defending and preserving.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Western Australian Offshore Constitutional Settlement.
That general business order of the day no. 50 relating to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (Public Health and Safety) Amendment Bill 2010 be discharged from the Notice Paper .
Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to require constitutional corporations that are grocery retailers to display producer prices, and for related purposes. Constitutional Corporations (Farm Gate to Plate) Bill 2011 .
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, from 11.15 am to 1 pm, on Wednesday, 14 September and Wednesday, 21 September 2011, to take evidence for the committee's inquiries into the review of Auditor-General's reports, and national funding agreements.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 14 September 2011, from 9.30 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, from 5.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011.
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 14 September 2011, from 12.30 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 19 September 2011, from 10.30 am to 11.30 am.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 21 September 2011, from 10.30 am to noon.
That the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network 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 6 pm.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee 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 5.15 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Australian tennis player, Ms Samantha Stosur, from the Gold Coast in Queensland, on her magnificent win in the United States Open Women's Tennis Championship; and
(b) notes that:
(i) this is the first win by an Australian woman in this tournament since Ms Margaret Court Smith was successful in 1971 and the first Australian women's tennis Gram Slam win since Ms Evonne Goolagong Cawley won her second Wimbledon title in 1980,
(ii) she is a wonderful ambassador for Australia, and
(iii) it supports the Australian Government using this wonderful result to continue to promote tennis to all Australians.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 13 September 2011, from 5 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the recent decision by the United Nations Human Rights Committee, that found the decision by the former Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Vanstone, to deport Mr Stefan Nystrom to Sweden in 2006, was in breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
(ii) that Mr Nystrom speaks no Swedish and had no knowledge of any relatives there, and
(iii) that as a result of his treatment, Mr Nystrom is now an inmate in a psychiatric institution; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately respond to the UN decision that found Australia had acted unlawfully in deporting Mr Nystrom.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the 60th anniversary of the establishment of national service in Australia in 1951;
(b) congratulates the organisers of the 60th anniversary celebrations held in Townsville from 8 September to 11 September 2011;
(c) acknowledges the contribution of Australia's national servicemen who served the nation from 1951 to 1972; and
(d) recognises the exemplary service of the 'Nashos', alongside their regular army, navy and air force colleagues, during the Vietnam War and other conflicts.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) trawling in the northeast area of the North West Slope Trawl Fishery off the Western Australian Kimberley coast was made possible due to an administrative error when the Western Australian and Federal Governments amended the Offshore Constitutional Settlement in 1998,
(ii) this error allows bottom trawling in areas shallower than 200 metres despite the fact that this is a critical habitat for goldband snapper and other species and has been off-limits to trawlers since 1980,
(iii) the ecological sensitivity of this area has been acknowledged in the Australian Fisheries Management Authority's correspondence with permit holders,
(iv) legislative instruments have been introduced prohibiting all fishing in the northeast area, but the most recent instrument expired in December 2010,
(v) since that time, the closure has been maintained informally by industry self-regulation,
(vi) negotiations between the Western Australian and Federal Governments to fix this error have stalled and the trawling industry has threatened to resume trawling in September 2011, and
(vii) a resumption of trawling in this area would adversely impact the benthos and fish stocks of this region; and
(b) calls on the Federal Government to permanently close this area to trawling by amending the Fisheries Management Act 1991 to ban fishing in the northeast area of the North West Slope Trawl Fishery in Western Australia.
That the Senate calls on the Government to implement an immediate moratorium on any new coal seam gas approvals until the long-term impacts of the industry on our groundwater, agriculture, rural communities, threatened species, the climate and the Great Barrier Reef are known.
(c) agrees with the New South Wales Greens MP Jeremy Buckingham's assertion 'that the tone and the public perception of the Max Brenner protests may be counter-productive to the cause of peace and human rights in the Middle East'.
(i) Senator Boswell's unwarranted and cowardly comparison of the trade practices commissioner, Mr Rod Sims, with Pontius Pilate,
(ii) Senator Boswell's rejection of the Victoria Police as doing their job,
(iii) Senator Boswell's repugnant association of the Greens with events in Germany in 1939.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the intensification of the Global Boycott Divestments and Sanctions campaign being conducted against Max Brenner chocolate cafes;
(b) rejects this tactic as a way of promoting Palestinian rights; and
(c) agrees with the New South Wales Greens MP Mr Jeremy Buckingham 's asserti on ' that the tone and the public perception of the Max Brenner protests may be counter - productive to the cause of peace and human rights in the Middle East ' .
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to give precedence to a motion condemning the Australian Greens and their leader for failing to condemn the vile boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, campaign against Israel.
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.
… I see the value of that tactic as a way to promoting Palestinian human rights.
Don't you think that is very divisive, to actually do something like that given the history, don't you think that's an exceptionally divisive step?
Not at all.
A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain some material part of the senator’s speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, or interrupt any senator speaking, and no debatable matter shall be brought forward or debate arise ...
A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard ...
By leave of the Senate, a senator may explain matters of a personal nature, although there is no question before the Senate, ...
but such matters may not be debated.
Pacific Hydro is a wholly owned renewable energy company which has been successfully developing and operating renewable energy assets for 20 years—
Importantly, the Clean Energy Future package announced recently by the federal government includes the continuation of the renewable energy target and direct funding initiatives such as those through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Renewable Energy Agency, and, most importantly for this committee, the introduction of a price on carbon. This provides a best practice suite of measures to address climate change.
The particular arrangements the government has announced in respect of the electricity industry provide sufficient certainty for industry investment in power generation such that consumers can expect to enjoy a continued reliable supply of—
I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step.
If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax?
A carbon tax is a part of our strategy—
and then we will move to a market based mechanism—
There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.
There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.
… if you increase the cost you will get less investment than you had before.
… an economic dead weight cost because it's basically just an export tax, and those costs get discounted into investment decisions.
… if you increase the cost you will get less investment than you had before.
Many welfare service providers spend disproportionately on essential goods and services likely to be impacted by a carbon price, notably energy and food.
Both Wollondilly and Goulburn Mulwaree councils have grave concerns about the increasing in costs for ratepayers from the introduction of Labor’s proposed carbon tax and are telling me they are going to have to make some tough decisions on spending.
Small businesses are already experiencing colossal increases in the cost of doing business.
A carbon tax will devastate the bottom line of many small and family run businesses who can’t keep up with the increase in electricity prices as it is.
… we are very thankful that the tax on diesel has been deferred for three years.
… $11m/per annum will be added to the fuel bill of … regional operators.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Much will depend on the detail of how the reforms are enacted whether that objective will be achieved. The details of the criteria for the second register and the training packages as the result of the establishment of the forum to develop skills and training in the industry, are some of the issues on which we are waiting further detail.
The detail that sits behind these measures is critical and we look forward to seeing the draft legislation in the near future.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORT
INQUIRY INTO THE AUDITOR-GENERAL ACT 1997
September 2011
INTRODUCTION
The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA) following its inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997 (the Act).
The report was tabled in the Parliament on 22 December 2010. On 28 February 2011, the Chair of the JCPAA, Mr Rob Oakeshott MP, introduced a Private Members Bill (the Auditor General Amendment Bill 2011) to give effect to the majority of the report’s recommendations. On 21 March 2011, the Deputy Chair of the JCPAA, Mrs Yvette D’Ath MP, informed the House of Representatives that the Australian Government broadly supported the intent of the bill but foreshadowed that the Government would be moving amendments to the bill to ensure that it would operate as intended by the JCPAA.
The Australian Government’s response to the report is, to a large extent, contained in the Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011, as amended.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee made thirteen recommendations.
Recommendation 1
That the Auditor-General Act 1997 be amended to provide the Auditor-General with explicit authority to conduct assurance engagements. In circumstances where such assurance engagements have been identified as priorities by the Parliament, they should be subject to the same information-gathering powers that pertain to performance audits undertaken by the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General should have the authority to determine arrangements, including reporting arrangements to the Parliament, to be followed in the conduct of these assurance engagements.
Response
Agreed.
In auditing terms, an assurance review involves an examination of one or more aspects of an agency’s activities to provide a level of assurance that is less than that provided by a financial statement or performance audit. In undertaking assurance reviews, the Auditor-General adopts the professional standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Board.
The Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended, would give the Auditor-General the power to conduct assurance reviews of all Commonwealth agencies, authorities and companies. As with the proposed arrangements for audits of Government Business Enterprises (GBEs) as outlined in response to recommendation 2, assurance reviews of GBEs would need to be requested by the JCPAA. Assurance reviews of any other Australian government agency, authority or company could be conducted at the Auditor-General’s initiative.
Recommendation 2
That the Act be amended to provide the Auditor-General with the authority to initiate performance audits of Commonwealth controlled Government Business Enterprises.
Response
Not agreed.
The Act currently provides that GBEs can only be audited by the Auditor-General if the audit is requested by the JCPAA, the Minister responsible for the GBE or the Finance Minister.
Successive governments have taken the view that the Auditor-General should not have the ability to audit GBEs of his own motion. GBEs are subject to competitive pressures and disciplines that do not apply to other Commonwealth bodies and, to the greatest extent possible, they should be subject to the same audit arrangements as their competitors.
The Government considers that audits of GBEs should be requested by the Parliament in response to genuine public interest concerns about aspects of their operations, rather than as an incidental part of an annual work program. The JCPAA, which comprises members from across the political spectrum and can conduct hearings in private, is the appropriate body to consider whether a particular GBE should be audited.
Accordingly, the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended, would allow the JCPAA alone to request an audit of a GBE by the Auditor-General. As is currently the case, the Auditor-General could ask the JCPAA to request an audit of a particular GBE.
Recommendation 3
That the Act be amended as necessary to enable the Auditor-General to review an agency’s compliance with its responsibilities for a sub-set of performance indicators. Proposed performance indicators to be audited should be identified annually by the Auditor-General and forwarded to the Parliament, via the JCPAA for comment, in a manner similar to the annual performance audit work program for the ANAO.
The Auditor-General should be resourced appropriately to undertake this function.
Response
Agreed.
The Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended, would establish similar arrangements for the conduct of performance indicator audits of Australian Government agencies, authorities and companies, including GBEs, as would apply to assurance reviews, as described in the response to Recommendation 1. Resourcing for the function will be considered in the normal manner as part of the process for setting the ANAO’s annual appropriation.
Recommendation 4
That the Act be amended to make clear that claims of legal professional privilege do not override the Auditor-General’s information gathering powers. The Act should also be amended to make clear that access to documents upon which legal professional privilege is claimed does not amount to a waiver of such privilege.
Response
Agreed. The necessary amendments are included in the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended.
Recommendation 5
That subject to consultation with affected bodies, consideration be given to amending the Act so that all statutory authorities or other bodies that fall outside the ambit of the CAC Act are liable to pay audit fees for financial statements.
Response
Agreed in principle.
Whether individual entities that fall outside the ambit of the CAC Act are subject to audit fees should be considered on a case-by-case basis in keeping with the entity’s governance arrangements. The Government considers that it is appropriate that some entities referred to in the report, such as the High Court, do not pay audit fees for financial statements. This is consistent with the position of Parliamentary Departments, Departments of State and other federal courts which are not required to pay such fees.
Recommendation 6
That section 21 of the Act be amended to reflect that the Auditor-General is able to audit any Commonwealth-controlled entity including Commonwealth-controlled companies and their subsidiaries.
Response
Agreed.
The necessary amendments are included in the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended.
Recommendation 7
That the Act be amended to require the Auditor-General to set auditing and assurance standards.
Response
Agreed. The necessary amendments are included in the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended.
Recommendation 8
The Committee suggests that the Privileges Committee of both the Senate and the House of Representatives examine in more detail the application of parliamentary privilege to ANAO draft reports, extracts of draft reports and working papers, noting the Auditor-General’s status as an ‘independent officer of the Parliament’.
Response
Noted. The Australian Government also notes that the Solicitor-General advised on 1 June 2001 that draft reports and working papers created by the Auditor-General in the course of an audit under the Act attract parliamentary privilege.
Recommendation 9
That the Auditor-General continue to provide the recipients of extracts of proposed audit reports with clear guidelines to clarify expectations around the submission of comments (e.g., the importance of brevity and clarity) and also the implications for naming other persons/entities/organisations in those comments which are published in full.
Response
Noted. The Auditor-General has advised that the ANAO has amended the advice that it provides to recipients of proposed reports to reflect the JCPAA’s recommendation.
Recommendation 10
That all funding agreements between the Commonwealth and other levels of Government include standard clauses providing the Auditor-General with access to all information and records, and a capacity to inspect work on all projects, relating to the use of Commonwealth funds under those agreements.
Response
Not agreed.
The Government considers that the inclusion of access clauses in funding agreements should be negotiated on a case by case basis. The Government also notes that the amendments to implement recommendations 11, 12 and 13 below will give the Auditor-General the power to access information and records held by state and territory entities relating to the use of Commonwealth funds provided under such funding agreements.
Recommendation 11
That the Act be amended as necessary so that the Auditor-General may conduct a performance audit to directly assess the performance of bodies that receive Commonwealth funding in circumstances where there is a corresponding or reciprocal responsibility to deliver specified outcomes in accordance with agreed arrangements if a Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit requests the audit.
The Auditor-General may ask a Minister or the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to make such a request.
Recommendation 12
That the Act be amended so that the functions performed by entities including private contractors on behalf of the Commonwealth in the delivery of government programs can be subject to direct audit by the Auditor-General.
Recommendation 13
That the Act be amended to ensure that when a decision is made by the Auditor-General to conduct an audit of a non-Commonwealth body, the reasons for that decision should be disclosed in the publication of the report.
Response to Recommendations 11, 12 and 13
Agreed. The necessary amendments are included in the Auditor-General Amendment Bill, as amended.
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011
In Committee
Debate resumed.
A person must not install a line in the project area, or any of the project areas, for a real estate development project, unless:
(a) the line is an optical fibre line; and
(b) the conditions (if any) specified in an instrument under subsection (4) are satisfied.
The Minister may, by legislative instrument, specify conditions for the purposes of paragraph (2)(b).
The Minister must consult the ACMA and relevant industry bodies before making an instrument under subsection (4).
DRAFT INDUSTRY GUIDELINE
DR G645:2011
FIBRE READY PIT AND PIPE SPECIFICATION FOR REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Issued: 6 September 2011
Comments close: 29 September 2011
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
[exemption from Parts 7 and 8 for networks operated by the original providers]
(12) Schedule 1, page 33 (after line 4), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 3—Amendments relating to Parts 7 and 8 of the Telecommunications Act 1997
Telecommunications Act 1997
17 After subsection 141(1)
Insert:
(1A) However, this section does not apply to a local access line that:
(a) was installed in a project area of a real estate development project after the commencement of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Act 2011 ; and
(b) was installed in compliance with any applicable provisions of Part 20A; and
(c) was installed by a person that is not Telstra or NBN Co; and
(d) is owned by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and
(e) is operated by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and
(f) is used only to supply carriage services to end-users in the project area.
18 Subsection 141(10) (after the definition of national broadband network )
Insert:
related , of bodies corporate, has the same meaning as in theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010.
19 Section 142A (after the definition of rail corporation )
Insert:
related , of bodies corporate, has the same meaning as in theCompetition and Consumer Act 2010.
20 After subsection 143(1)
Insert:
(1A) However, this section does not apply to a local access line that:
(a) was installed in a project area of a real estate development project after the commencement of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Access Arrangements) Act 2011 ; and
(b) was installed in compliance with any applicable provisions of Part 20A; and
(c) was installed by a person that is not Telstra or NBN Co; and
(d) is owned by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and
(e) is operated by that person, or by a body corporate related to that person; and
(f) is used only to supply carriage services to end-users in the project area.
[exemption from Parts 7 and 8 for networks operated by the original providers]
That this bill be now read a read time.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The right of a senator to correct the misrepresentation of a speech is an exception to the rule in SO 188 that senators may speak only once on any question. It is a basic right in a debating forum and is not, therefore, dependent on leave being granted. The correction or explanation must occur within the same debate as the misrepresentation.
(1) When a motion has been moved, a question on it shall be proposed to the Senate by the President.
(2) Where the debate on a question is concluded, the President shall put the question to the Senate.
And so the proposed health traffic light system warning will only confuse and misinform the public. Consumers will not be able to differentiate between one product or the other at a time when the Australian sugar industry is creating more innovative and healthier products for Australian and overseas consumers. And as I have previously pointed out, no other country in the world is taking up this new form of labelling. Instead most go for a very clearly laid out table form of labelling. The Daily Intake Guide (DIG) is the labelling system preferred by the European Union. DIG front-of-pack labels outline the amount of energy, fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in a standard portion of the food and how that translates to average daily intake.
Furthermore, public health issues are multi-factorial and complex. It is unrealistic to expect that these can be addressed through reforms to food labelling alone. For food labelling to be effective it must be part of a package of initiatives that addresses all the factors. And we must also consider the cost of changing these labelling laws, which will be substantial, and effect industry profoundly.
The use of the food labelling system to support public health initiatives will inevitably increase the regulatory burden and its related costs on industry and consumers. It is essential that if industry and consumers are to meet this burden that it will result in substantiated and sustainable benefits. And yet , many of the recommendations proposed by the report are not supported by evidence that this will be the outcome. The proposals might 'feel good', but it has not been established that any noticeable beneficial outcomes will be achieved.
Public health policy is rightly directed towards encouraging consumers to eat less energy-dense foods. However, ironically if traffic light labelling goes ahead an opportunity will be lost for products such as sugar to evolve into products that provide consumers with general level health benefits that support this goal if the nutritional profile eligibility criteria as proposed are implemented. We already know that that there is an increase in sales of CSR's 'Better for You' sugar variants such as LoGiCaneTM and SMARTTM. This is evidence that consumers want such products and that the market is growing.
The inability to make beneficial health claims will remove the incentive and purpose for the sugar industry to invest in research and development to provide improved products which the community desires. Such products provide a national benefit that will enable Australian grown sugar to be differentiated from competitor sugar abroad and at home.
This legislation is not only harmful but in view of the rest of the world's reluctance to put into place the same initiatives, and the fact that there is no real evidence to show these new systems and laws will be any more effective, why would we do it? Why would we stop manufacturers taking the initiative to develop better products that are healthier for the consumer, and why then would we stop them from informing the consumer so that the full benefit and potential of these newly created products could be realised?
The whole concept of the traffic light system seems to be moving Australia further and further in the direction of a nanny state, where we are told what to buy, what to eat. In an Australia that is suffering the effects of the high dollar and competitive overseas market place, we can ill afford to bring in these recommendations. They are not fair, they are not logical, and in the long run they will only hurt manufacturers and, ironically, the people the laws are supposed to protect—that is the consumers.
…recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving a person through a use of force, coercion or other means for the purpose of exploiting them.
Every year, thousands of men, women and children fall into the hands of traffickers, in their own countries and abroad. Every country in the world is affected by trafficking, whether as a country of origin, transit or destination for victims.
It is now recognised that the Asia Pacific region is one 'hub' for human trafficking, particularly where that trafficking is for the purposes of sexual servitude. Plainly, as Australia is now a destination country and market for this type of offending, we carry a responsibility to address the problem vigorously.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Please use your liberty to promote ours.
... identify fraud is probably one of the worst things about the Internet. I think everybody in the community believes that. There's a whole lot of criminal activity, and just unacceptable activity associated with identity fraud.
The Panel is also of the opinion that the Respondent genuinely believes in the criticisms that she is displaying on the Website, and that the Respondent is not operating the Website for any dishonest purpose.
It is important just to close the gap between indigenous Australians and non-indigenous Australians.
Although all four councillors have taken leave of absence they would be able to return to their duties as councillors at any time. Given this fact … the Commission considers that prompt action is required in the public interest.
There is no compensation for a job that is lost and not replaced.
Friends, I know today there are hundreds of steel workers facing a difficult future as they leave the industry. That is why as soon as BlueScope announced its plan we were immediately on the ground with $130 million in assistance, including $100 million as an advance facility of our $300 million Steel Transformation Plan.
There is no way on God’s earth that you can have a solar powered steel mill, just as there is no way on this earth you can have a wind powered manufacturing plant and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.
For the company to deflect blame about this announcement simply to external macroeconomic conditions is simply bullshit. This company has played a major role in its downfall.
What is happening in Japan doesn't have any impact on my thinking about uranium exports. We export uranium and we will continue to export uranium.
The epic accident is certainly a scar on the public perception of nuclear power, especially in the short term.
At Fukushima, four reactors have been out of control for weeks—
… casting doubt on whether even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety. We believe the Fukushima accident was the most serious ever for the credibility of nuclear power.
(1) The Senate considers that, in speaking in the Senate or in a committee, senators should take the following matters into account:
(a) the need to exercise their valuable right of freedom of speech in a responsible manner;
(b) the damage that may be done by allegations made in Parliament to those who are the subject of such allegations and to the standing of Parliament;
(c) the limited opportunities for persons other than members of Parliament to respond to allegations made in Parliament;
(d) the need for senators, while fearlessly performing their duties, to have regard to the rights of others; and
(e) the desirability of ensuring that statements reflecting adversely on persons are soundly based.
(2) The President, whenever the President considers that it is desirable to do so, may draw the attention of the Senate to the spirit and the letter of this resolution.
Given that the department's brief to the incoming Government (the 'Red Book'), warned of Australia's worsening housing affordability, along with problems of low density living, declining amenity and growing congestion, stating that such issues resulted from fractured and ineffective governance arrangements, and that the department advised the incoming Government to enhance the effectiveness of funding to help Australians in terms of housing, to investigate taxation and planning reforms, and to expedite National Urban Policy Reform, which includes a Housing Supply and Affordability Reform agenda:
(1) How is the department:
(a) investigating taxation and planning reforms;
(b) expediting the National Urban Policy Reform; and
(c) contributing to the Council of Australian Governments' Housing Supply and Affordability Reform agenda.
(2) What resources are devoted specifically to housing affordability, including full time equivalents and specific work units within the department.
(3) Given that sprawl costs an estimated $343 million extra per 1 000 lots, when compared to infill development, how is the department currently:
(a) factoring in the costs of fringe development to the economy; and
(b) working to determine whether land use and the construction industry are being utilised as efficiently as possible.
The Department is working with the States and Territories as part of the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG's) Housing Supply and Affordability Reform (HSAR) agenda on an examination of zoning and planning processes and governance. The Department was also consulted in the Productivity Commission's preparation of its study on Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessment . The Department is engaged in the COAG Reform Council's work on planning under the Capital Cities Strategic Planning Systems
The National Urban Policy was released by the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP on 10 May 2011.
The Department chairs the HSAR Working Party that is preparing the final HSAR report to COAG later this year.
(1) Has the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) ever invested in any uranium mining or processing projects; if so, can details be provided for each of the loans, including the project/s name, location, amount provided, terms of the loan and the date provided.
(2) Why was finance of $15 million provided to African Underground Mining Services Limited (AUMS) to purchase mining machinery for use in underground mining operations, including the Ahafo gold mine, classified as a Category B project (low to moderate impacts) rather than a Category A (significant impacts) under the EFIC Policy for environmental and social review of transactions.
(3) Has EFIC re-evaluated this finance decision in the wake of reports on the significant environmental and social impacts of the Ahafo gold mine.
(4) Why was finance of $50 million for an ammonium nitrate plant in Indonesia categorised as 'Category B' environmental impact, which is 'low to medium' level impact.
(5) Would underground mining operations and ammonium nitrate plants in Australia be classified similarly as low to medium level impact projects.
(6) Will EFIC establish a formal stakeholder forum to enable ongoing structured discussion of transparency and accountability issues in relation to its social and environmental policy.
(1) In December 2006, EFIC provided a USD 43 million direct loan for the construction of a copper project in Zambia by Lumwana Mining Company Limited (LMC). EFIC provided an additional loan of USD 9.45 million and Political Risk Insurance to commercial banks (USD 90 million) and to a hedge bank (USD 150 million) in relation to the project. As part of the copper ore mining process for this project, uranium was also extracted. Under the terms of the EFIC loan and PRI documentation, LMC was unable to exploit, process, sell, export, transfer or otherwise dispose of uranium bearing material without EFIC's consent. A request was made by LMC to the lenders and their insurers to seek approval to process the uranium. Prior to a response being given to the request, on 10 March 2010 the EFIC loans were repaid by LMC and PRI policies cancelled by the banks.
(2) The AUMS transactions were considered to be Category B transactions in line with the OECD Common Approaches and the Equator Principles. This transaction related to AUMS's provision of underground mining services to established and operating mining projects for periods of up to three years. EFIC categorised AUMS's provision of those services, it did not categorise the existing projects themselves.
As stated in the response to part 4 of QoN 345 of 13 December 2010 regarding EFIC's classification of the transaction as Category B, EFIC's assessment included a review of publicly available information on its client's customer, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and its Ahafo Gold Mine Project. That information indicated that the project was assessed and funded by the commercial arm of the IFC and that the IFC financing of the project was subject to the mine operator meeting stringent environmental and social standards.
(3) No. EFIC understands that these issues are related to the operator and owner of the Ahafo Gold Mine, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, and EFIC has no relationship with that company.
(4) As stated in the response to QoN 346, EFIC assessed the activity of its client using the IFC Performance Standards as the benchmark. EFIC's review concluded that the project's environmental and social impacts were effectively contained within the site boundaries. The project was also located within an existing industrial estate. As such, EFIC categorised the transaction as Category B.
(5) EFIC's assessments of potential transactions are done on a case-by-case basis. A project's environmental and social impacts are determined by many factors. It is therefore difficult to predict a particular classification for all underground mining operations or ammonium nitrate plants whether in Australia or elsewhere in the world.
(6) EFIC has had discussions on establishing a stakeholder forum with stakeholders on environmental and social issues (Jubilee Australia and Oxfam Australia). EFIC hopes to establish the forum and hold the first meeting later this year.
In regard to questions asked during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee regarding the baiting program that recommenced on Macquarie Island on 5 May 2011:
(1) How many dead birds have been found.
(2) What species of dead birds have been found, and for each species, how many were found dead.
(3) What records have been kept on species of dead birds found since the commencement of the baiting program.
As at 17 July 2011:
(1) A total of 932 birds were found dead.
(2) 48 Skua
110 Ducks
453 Kelp Gulls
305 Northern Giant Petrels
4 Southern Giant Petrels
12 unknown Giant Petrels
(3) The following information has been recorded for each bird found:
(a) date and time;
(b) location;
(c) species;
(d) who found it;
(e) whether there was any scavenging of the carcass and, if scavenged, how much;
(f) age class;
(g) sex;
(h) existence of a brood patch;
(i) whether the bird had been banded; and, if relevant, the band number;
(j) whether an autopsy was carried out;
(k) likely cause of death;
(l) whether a genetic sample was taken, and, if so, the sample's identification number;
(m) whether a Brodifacoum (pesticide) sample was taken, and, if so, the sample's identification number; and
(n) carcass disposal method.
(1) Has the department received any complaints concerning Job Services Australia provider MAX Employment; if so:
(a) what was the nature of each complaint;
(b) what further action was taken by the department; and
(c) what was the outcome of each investigation.
(2) Have there been any audits undertaken of Job Services Australia provider MAX Employment; if so, what was the outcome of each audit.
(3) What measures are in place to ensure that taxpayer funds are being spent correctly by Job Services Australia providers.
(1) The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (the department) has received feedback regarding MAX Employment Pty Ltd since the implementation of Job Services Australia (JSA) in 1 July 2009.
The specific details of individual complaints is a matter between the department, the job seeker and the provider.
The department assesses all complaints and depending on the specific nature of the complaint takes appropriate action including, liaising with providers to investigate the complaint, following up with the job seeker and where appropriate transferring job seekers to an alternate provider.
The specific details regarding the actions taken or outcomes of individual investigations cannot be provided without the consent of affected parties.
(2) The department undertakes regular auditing of JSA providers through its contract management of the Employment Services Deed 2009-2012( the Deed). The nature of audit activity and the outcome varies in accordance with the profile of the Jobs Services Australia organisation and its sites.
The department measures the performance of JSA providers through an employment services performance framework and results are published every six months when Star Ratings are publicly released. Star Rating information is also available to job seekers to help inform their decision when selecting a provider.
(3) The department's network of Contract Managers, based in State and Regional offices, undertake ongoing contract monitoring activities. Monitoring of contracts considers a range of information that includes regular review of performance information and other data available to ensure taxpayer funds are being spent in accordance with the Deed. In addition, performance is also monitored through formal performance feedback discussions, as well as other information gathered through day to day contact with providers, audit activities and the customer service line.
Given the Prime Minister’s concern with the conduct of parliamentarians, as evidenced by her agreements with the Independents, and the Australian Greens, to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians, has the Prime Minister satisfied herself that the Member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, remains fit to serve as a Member of Parliament and as Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics; if so:
(1) Did Mr Thomson engage a handwriting expert to examine the signatures on credit card slips used to purchase services at a Sydney brothel; if so, who was that expert.
(2) Did Mr Thomson’s own handwriting expert find that Mr Thomson’s signature was on any credit card slips for these services.
(3) Was Mr Thomson advised by his lawyers, after considering the report from the handwriting expert, that his defamation action against Fairfax had no reasonable prospects of success.
(4) Has the Prime Minister seen the report of the handwriting expert.
(5) Has the Prime Minister seen any legal advice received by Mr Thomson from his lawyers concerning the merits of his case at this point.
(6) Has Mr Thomson explained how his mobile phone records show calls to the brothel on the same day as a credit card slip was signed.
(7) Has Mr Thomson explained how his driver’s licence number came to be on the credit card slip, given that the escort agency in question says that it only accepts payment by credit cards from clients when photo identification is provided and checked.
(8) If Mr Thomson was not the person who paid for the services of the brothel, is the Prime Minister satisfied there is a reasonable explanation of why Mr Thomson then authorised payments of these credit card accounts as national secretary of the Health Services Union (HSU).
(9) Has Mr Thomson told Fair Work Australia that he authorised payment of these credit card bills; if not, why not.
(10) Is the Prime Minister satisfied that another person paid $15 000 back to the HSU for credit card misuse in relation to these matters, as alleged by Mr Thomson; if so, why should they not be named and/or referred to the New South Wales police.
On 2 March 2011 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee of Senators’ Interests for inquiry and report:
The development of a draft code of conduct for senators, with particular reference to:
(a) the operation of codes of conduct in other parliaments;
(b) who could make a complaint in relation to breaches of a code and how those complaints might be considered;
(c) the role of the proposed Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner in upholding a code; and
(d) how a code might be enforced and what sanctions could be available to the parliament.
The committee is due to report on 28 November 2011.
This inquiry is being undertaken in parallel with a similar reference to the House of Representatives Privileges and Members' Interests Committee.
The Government will respond in due course to the reports of these committees.
The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the resignation of the Member for Dobell as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics on 23 August 2011.
The new policy proposal "Water for the Future – Driving Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin" provides funding to the ACCC of $1.729 million in 2011-12 and $1.742 million in 2012-13.
The 2011-12 total internal budget allocation for the Water Regulatory Branch, including the above new policy funding is $3.816 million. Future year internal allocations are subject to variation due to cessation or addition of new policy proposals and other adjustments in base cost estimates or efficiency impacts.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Australian Competition and Consumer 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.
(1) (a) $178,810
(b) $907,832
(c) $1,067,783
(d) Nil
(e) $4,077
(f) $265,473
(g) $89,485
(h) Nil
(i) $9,363 in hospitality to visitors including delegations, committees
(j) $10,750,194 operating and capital (excluding depreciation charges)
(k) $3,206,657
(l) $4,654,314
(m) Nil
(n) $71,000 ANAO external audit
(o) $25,348,014
(p) $21,000 OECD Product safety working group
(2) (a) to (i), (p): The ACCC budgets at business unit level by aggregated cost group being: employee, travel, legal, consultancy and other costs. Managers then determine the specific priority usage to deliver outcomes for the allocated resources within those cost groups. As such travel is not budgeted by class of travel, nor specifically for hospitality, memberships expenditure nor advertising.
(j) $13,136,918 operating and capital (excluding depreciation charges)
(k) $2,400,000
(l) $6,397,441
(m) $nil
(n) $75,000 ANAO external audit
(o) $22,593,000
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Inspector General of Taxation 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) $37,473 (inc GST)
(b) $31,306 (inc fees/taxes)
(c) $12,992 (inc fees/taxes)
(d) NIL
(e) $15,920 (inc fees/taxes)
(f) NIL
(g) NIL
(h) NIL
(i) $5,816 (inc GST)
(j) and (k) $74,665 (inc GST)
(l) and (m) $174,120 (inc GST)
(n) $22,000 (inc GST)
(o) $16,911 (inc GST)
(p) $3,184 (inc GST)
(2) Note that question (2) figures are projected (given that agency budgeting for 2011-12 is yet to be finalised).
(a) $38,000 (inc GST)
(b) $40,000 ((inc fees/taxes)
(c) $30,000 (inc fees/taxes)
(d) NIL
(e) $15,000 (inc fees/taxes)
(f) $10,000 (inc fees/taxes)
(g) NIL
(h) NIL
(i) $7,000 (inc GST)
(j) and (k) $80,000 (inc GST)
(l) and (m) $175,000 (inc GST)
(n) $22,000 (inc GST)
(o) $30,000 (inc GST)
(p) $5,070 (inc GST)
With reference to the Inspector General of Taxation:
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Inspector General of Taxation.
(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 Inspector General of Taxation 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) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the Inspector General of Taxation.
IGT Response: Suite 2, Level 19, 50 Bridge Street, Sydney 2000
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in 1, are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
IGT Response: Rented
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Inspector General of Taxation at each of the premises.
IGT Response: 255.4 square metres until 13 May 2011 then 310.4 square metres [55 square metres occupied by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation until 13 May 2011]
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
IGT Response: 310.4 square metres
(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.
IGT Response: Not applicable
(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.
IGT Response:
(a) 1 February 2009
(b) 31 January 2013
(c) None
(d) $760.76 per square metre (GST exclusive, 4.25% fixed increase annually)
(e) $236,139.90 (GST exclusive, 4.25% fixed increase annually)
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
IGT Response: Not applicable
Given that the answer to question on notice no. 845 refers to the assignment of particular duties to individual staff members and not direction or advice, can the following information be provided:
(1) Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Ministers office 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 Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Ministers office aware of any direction or advice being given 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.
Please refer to the response provided in Senate Question on Notice 845.