The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That so much of 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 to allow Senator Sarah Hanson-Young to explain to the Senate for five minutes her contact with the Commonwealth Ombudsman and questions at Senate estimates arising therefrom.
That the motion (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
(1) Schedule 1, item 19, page 6 (line 32) to page 7 (line 3), omit subsection 18B(1), substitute:
(1) The Auditor-General may conduct a performance audit of a Commonwealth partner if the partner is, is part of, or is controlled by, the Government of a State or Territory.
(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (after line 4), before paragraph 18B(2)(a), insert:
(aa) the person or body is, is part of, or is controlled by, the Government of a State or Territory; and
(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 8 (lines 1 to 3), omit subsection 18B(9).
The Auditor-General expects to use the power to audit private-sector entities only when the performance of a contractor would be significant in the context of the delivery of a government program. It is very unlikely that this could ever be the case in relation to a small business.
… very unlikely that this would ever be the case in relation to a small business.
That the amendments (Senator Ryan's) be agreed to.
(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 11), after item 7, insert:
7A Subsection 16(1)
Omit "(other than a GBE)".
(2) Schedule 1, items 8, 9 and 10, page 4 (lines 12 to 18), omit the items, substitute:
8 Subsection 16(3)
Repeal the subsection.
(3) Schedule 1, items 12, 13 and 14, page 4 (line 24) to page 5 (line 1), omit the items, substitute:
12 Subsection 17(1)
Omit "(other than a GBE)".
13 Subsection 17(3)
Repeal the subsection.
(4) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 16), after item 18, insert:
18A Subsection 18(4)
Omit "(other than a GBE)" (twice occurring).
(5) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 24), omit "(other than a GBE)".
(6) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (line 26), omit "(other than a GBE)".
(7) Schedule 1, item 19, page 6 (lines 9 to 11), omit subsection 18A(3).
(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 12), omit "(other than a GBE)".
(9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (line 14), omit "(other than a GBE)".
(10) Schedule 1, item 24, page 10 (lines 22 to 24), omit subsection 19A(3).
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 14 OF 2011
(1) The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 October 2011 at 7.33 pm.
(2) The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011 bereferred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 7 November 2011 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(b) the provisions of the Education Services for Overseas Students Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection Service and Other Measures) Bill 2011, the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Bill 2011 and the Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment (Tuition Protection Service) Bill 2011 bereferred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2011 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).
(3) The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
(4) The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
13 October 2011
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 485 relating to border security; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 31 October 2011, from 10 am to 1.30 pm.
That the motion (Senator McEwen's) be agreed to.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Banking Amendment (Covered Bonds) Bill 2011, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2012:
The factors affecting the supply and distribution of health services and medical professionals in rural areas, with particular reference to:
(a) the factors limiting the supply of health services and medical, nursing and allied health professionals to small regional communities as compared with major regional and metropolitan centres;
(b) the effect of the introduction of Medicare Locals on the provision of medical services in rural areas;
(c) current incentive programs for recruitment and retention of doctors and dentists, particularly in smaller rural communities, including:
(i) their role, structure and effectiveness,
(ii) the appropriateness of the delivery model, and
(iii) whether the application of the current Australian Standard Geographical Classification – Remoteness Areas classification scheme ensures appropriate distribution of funds and delivers intended outcomes; and
(d) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the weekend of 15 October and 16 October 2011 marks both International Day of Rural Women and World Food Day,
(ii) the coming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in October 2011 and the G20 meeting in early November 2011 both have food security on their agenda,
(iii) currently more than 50 per cent of the world's food is produced by smallholder farmers, the majority of whom are women,
(iv) despite doing the majority of the farming in sub-Saharan Africa women farmers receive only 5 per cent of the training, own just 2 per cent of the land and access only 1 per cent of the credit available for agriculture,
(v) policies to improve agricultural output must be tailored to assist women if they are to be effective, and
(vi) the contribution of women farmers must be recognised and properly supported if we are to achieve food security across the globe; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) ensure that support for women smallholder farmers is part of Australia's contribution to addressing international food security challenges, and
(ii) raise the importance of the role of women smallholder farmers at CHOGM in Perth in October 2011 and at the G20 meeting in Cannes in early November 2011.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 13 October 2011, from 4 pm.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Emergency Listings) Bill 2011
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 , and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Emergency Listings) Bill 2011 allows the emergency listing of threatened species and ecological communities where they are at risk from a significant and imminent threat.
This bill will fast track one of the few pro-environment outcomes promised in the Government's upcoming reforms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), our national environmental law.
In its response to the independent review of the EPBC Act undertaken by Dr Allan Hawke, the Government agreed in principle to Dr Hawke's Recommendation 16 to insert provisions for emergency listing of threatened species and ecological communities into the EPBC Act. This recognises the fact that the listings process is often slow and species and ecological communities are not protected by the Act until listed, even where their very existence is threatened. The Government's response commits to emergency listings of species and ecological communities where there is a significant and imminent threat.
The urgency to introduce these provisions, rather than to wait for the Government's legislative reform package due sometime next year, is the discovery of two new species (a crab and a shrimp) highly likely to be significantly impacted by Rio Tinto's proposed expansion of its bauxite mine in Weipa, on Queensland's Cape York. This mine is currently undergoing EPBC Act assessment, yet under the current provisions its impacts on these as yet unlisted species cannot be considered by the federal Environment Minister when assessing this proposal.
It would be a travesty to send new species to extinction before they have even been named, and had the chance to be listed as threatened. These species have been found nowhere else on Cape York, let alone the world – they exist only in a single area directly at risk from Rio Tinto's planned bauxite mining expansion and they currently have no federal protection whatsoever. This is simply not good enough in this era of rapid biodiversity decline.
The current example is sadly not occurring in isolation. There are significant environmental information gaps across Australia, particularly for many of our rare and vulnerable species. All too often new species are only discovered through the environmental impact assessment process. For this reason, establishing emergency listings which are able to be considered at all stages of the EPBC Act decision making process is critical to effective national environment protection laws. Precluding the consideration of emergency listed species and ecological communities after the controlled action decision is made, as section 158A prescribes, would make a mockery of the emergency listing provisions.
This bill will:
In the interest of ensuring our most rare and vulnerable species and ecological communities are afforded protection under our national environment law, rather than being wiped out almost on discovery, I urge the Government and opposition to support this bill.
That the Senate—
(a) requests that the President convey to the people of New Zealand (Aotearoa) the Senate's concerns about the oil spill and other consequences of the stranding of the container carrier ship Rena ; and
(b) sends its best wishes for a rapid and complete recovery from the oil spill and other consequences of this disaster in such a beautiful region of New Zealand.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2011:
Mandatory vehicle CO2 emission standards, with particular reference to:
(a) the adequacy of the short and medium term targets currently being considered by the Government;
(b) costs and benefits of mandatory standards;
(c) design questions such as separate targets for different vehicle classes, bonus credits for electric vehicles and methodologies for setting targets for individual manufacturers;
(d) the legal framework;
(e) penalties for non-compliance; and
(f) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the positive contribution to productivity, inflation, gross domestic product and days lost through industrial action of the Australian Building and Construction Commission; and
(b) affirms the need for a tough cop on the beat with power to compel information in order to keep the building and construction industry free of thuggery, intimidation and illegality.
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Banking Amendment (Covered Bonds) 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.
Today I introduce a bill which goes to the core of the government's agenda to secure our financial system for the future.
Exactly three years ago today, the collapse of Lehman Brothers pushed the global financial system to the very brink of collapse.
The government's swift actions helped Australia avoid recession, and secured the strength and competitive foundations of our banking system.
We have continued to build on the strength of our financial system in the last three years, working with our regulators and industry.
The government has worked closely with industry and our regulators since early last year on a framework for covered bonds in Australia.
We released exposure draft legislation for consultation in March this year, followed by a second round of targeted consultation in July.
There could not be a more appropriate day than today—exactly three years on from Lehman Brothers—for the parliament to now consider this key element of our plan for a strong and sustainable financial system.
Today I will outline the substantial economic benefits flowing from the introduction of covered bonds in Australia.
But first, I will provide an update on just some of the reforms we have already put in place to build up competition in the banking system.
Just nine months ago, I announced new reforms to build a competitive and sustainable banking system to give every Australian a fairer go.
We are introducing three broad streams of reform to empower consumers, support smaller lenders, and secure the flow of credit to our economy.
We have already delivered over half of these reforms, and we are firmly on track to deliver the rest working closely with industry and consumers.
The government has already banned mortgage exit fees from 1 July this year so consumers can now walk down the road and get a better deal.
We have legislated the introduction of a simple, standardised, one-page fact sheet for consumers to compare loans from 1 January next year.
We have passed historic reforms through the parliament to crack down on unfair treatment of Australians with credit cards and save them money.
I also recently announced a new 'tick and flick' service to give Australians the freedom to switch deposit accounts with the stroke of a pen.
The Gillard government has also put in place important measures to help smaller lenders compete with the major banks.
In April this year, I directed the AOFM to boost the government's investment in high-quality, AAA-rated RMBS by a further $4 billion.
The government's now $20 billion investment since late 2008 has been absolutely critical in helping smaller lenders secure cheaper funding.
This important program has allowed smaller Australian lenders to continue offering competitive loans to families and small businesses.
We are also taking action to build a fifth pillar in our banking system from the combined competitive power of our mutual sector.
We have already seen several mutual lenders out there leveraging our reforms to help them use the new term 'mutual bank' in the branding.
In addition, the government has already kicked off its community awareness and education campaign which I announced last December.
We have put credit unions, building societies and our regional and other smaller banks right at the centre of this awareness campaign.
It is all about informing consumers of the many safe and competitive alternatives to the major banks when it comes to loans and deposits.
It is fantastic to see our reforms have helped trigger a new breakout of competition in the banking sector to the benefit of consumers.
We have seen the major banks scrapping their exit fees, offering cash to swipe customers from their competitors and cutting other fees too.
Just recently we have seen them slashing their home loan fixed interest rates and one major bank promising to match its competitors' on price.
The big winner here is the everyday Australian family who now knows the power is in their hands when it comes to shopping for a better deal.
Sustainable funding
Last December, I also announced further reforms to secure the long-term safety and sustainability of Australia's financial system.
These reforms are critical to ensuring our banking sector can keep providing reasonably priced credit to households and small businesses.
I announced measures to develop a deep and liquid corporate bond market to further reduce our reliance on offshore wholesale funding.
We are well advanced in our delivery of these reforms which include trading Commonwealth Government Securities on a securities exchange.
The government is also making strong progress in finalising reforms to reduce red tape for corporate bonds issuance to retail investors.
We will continue to work with corporate issuers and investors to build a deep and liquid Australian corporate bond market.
On top of this, we continue to work on ways to make the RMBS market more sustainable and diverse for smaller lenders in the years to come.
In December, I tasked Treasury to accelerate its work on promoting smaller lender issuance of alternative-style RMBS 'bullet securities'.
These securities are more like 'regular bonds' than traditional RMBS and are therefore more attractive to superannuation fund investors.
The Treasury is making very strong progress in working with the industry and our regulators to develop the market for smaller lender bullet RMBS.
The bill I introduce today is all about taking the next logical step to strengthen the funding options available to our banking system.
The bill makes amendments to the Banking Act to allow Australian banks, credit unions and building societies to issue covered bonds.
This is a critical economic reform to strengthen and diversify the Australian financial system's access to cheaper, more stable and longer term funding in domestic and offshore wholesale capital markets.
Treasury estimates the government's framework will allow Australian institutions to issue some $130 billion of covered bonds in coming years.
Covered bonds will assist our banks in meeting the new Basel III liquidity reforms, which require a transition to longer term sustainable funding.
Of course, a deep and liquid covered bond market will also help to channel Australia's national superannuation savings through the financial system into productive investment in all sectors of our economy.
We have already seen banks from Canada and Norway coming down here to issue covered bonds and take our savings home with them.
It defies logic that our own banks can't issue the same covered bonds themselves to our local superannuation funds for Australian investors.
Allowing our institutions another string in their bow—to compete for funding with banks around the world—is an absolute no-brainer.
Covered bonds are already well established overseas, and were one of the most resilient funding markets during the global financial crisis.
The bill I present today will strengthen the long-term funding capacity of all major and regional banks, credit unions and building societies.
In fact, the bill includes an express framework which allows smaller lenders to pool together and jointly issue covered bonds.
This further builds on the measures I have outlined today which the government has already taken to diversify funding for smaller lenders.
The government's covered bonds framework ensures the absolute security of depositors' savings and protection of taxpayer funds.
Australian depositors will continue to have absolute certainty over their deposits under the Financial Claims Scheme.
On Sunday, I announced a new, permanent cap of $250,000 per person per institution to be introduced from 1 February 2012 to protect the savings held in around 99 per cent of Australian deposit accounts in full.
The scheme was developed over the period leading up to the global financial crisis by our financial regulators.
The government accelerated its introduction to secure confidence after the severe dislocation of global funding markets following the collapse of Lehman Brothers in late 2008.
The timely introduction of the scheme, combined with the wholesale funding guarantee, helped ensure the stability of our banking system at the height of the global financial crisis.
These decisive actions maintained the continued flow of credit—the life blood of any modern economy—to Australian households and business.
Together with both fiscal and monetary policy stimulus, this action saw Australia as virtually the only developed country to avoid recession.
At that time, the government committed to review the settings of the scheme after three years.
Australia's credit unions, building societies and banks are highly capitalised, well-rated and have benefited from years of tough supervision by our world-class regulators.
Our institutions are very soundly managed by international standards, having developed strong practices of responsible lending and risk management.
They are very well funded for the period ahead, having done a lot of heavy lifting to reduce the amount of funds they borrow offshore as they move to more stable, longer-term funding.
The Council of Financial Regulators has advised that the cap should be set at a new, permanent level to reflect the almost unparalleled strength of the Australian banking system.
In the extremely unlikely event of the Scheme being activated, the government would step in and swiftly give depositors their money.
The government would then sell the assets of the institution to recover taxpayers' money and in the extremely unlikely event that there wasn't enough would levy the whole banking system to recover any shortfall.
So Australian household depositors and taxpayers are always protected.
As an additional protection, this bill includes a regulatory cap on the amount of covered bonds an institution can issue.
This regulatory cap ensures that only a small proportion of an institution's assets in Australia are ever used as security for issuing covered bonds.
Specifically, the pool of assets used to secure covered bond issuance can be no greater than eight per cent of an institution's assets in Australia.
This further reduces the likelihood that a levy on the banking industry would ever even be required under the scheme, as the sale of an institution's assets would almost certainly recover taxpayers' funds.
Conclusion
The Gillard government is working hard to build a more competitive and sustainable banking system for all Australians.
We worked hard through the global financial crisis to secure our financial system, and preserve the competitive foundations of our banking sector.
In December last year, I announced a further reform package to help build up competition again in the banking system for all Australians.
We have already seen these reforms deliver great results for consumers, with the major banks now having to compete hard for their business.
The challenge now is to ensure that our banks, credit unions and building societies have the capacity to safely lend for the decades to come.
The bill I present today is the next logical step in that process.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Measures) Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill 2011
That these bills be now read a third time.
Business Names Registration Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011
That these bills be now read a third time.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Many welfare service providers spend disproportionately on essential goods and services likely to be impacted by a carbon price, notably energy and food.
The NFF has been broadly supportive of the concept and intent of the CFI from the outset as positive recognition of the major role agriculture can play in mitigating carbon emissions through on-farm management.
... with a continued focus on productivity-based research and the development of methodologies underpinning abatement projects, we hope that the CFI can mature to draw a meaningful contribution to Australia's carbon mitigation effort.
Access charges paid by competitors to on-airport car parking are not so high as to impede competition …
Further answer to the Question without Notice from Senator Fifield to Senator Arbib, representing Minister Macklin: Australian Disability Enterprises and the carbon price
Australian Disability Enterprises are not-for profit community organisations that provide employment opportunities in competitive business operations for people with moderate to severe disability.
The Low Carbon Communities program is an important part of the Government's plan for a Clean Energy Future.
It supports community organisations like Australian Disability Enterprises to understand and improve their energy efficiency.
The Low Carbon Communities initiative includes:
Through this year's Budget, the Government also provided an extra $6.67 million in extra funding to ADEs for 2011-12 — a 3.3 per cent increase for the sector. This included:
Senator McLucas was pleased to call for applications for the capital fund early last month. Australian Disability Enterprises can apply for grants up to $20,000 from this fund for capital improvements that enhance their business viability.
Most workers in Australian Disability Enterprises are also receiving the Disability Support Pension. Through this, they will be eligible for support under the Household Assistance Package.
Australians receiving Disability Support Pension will receive assistance equivalent to a 1.7 per cent increase in the maximum rate of the pension.
This means a Disability Support Pensioner on the single rate will receive $338 per year in carbon price assistance and a Disability Support Pension recipient who is the member of a couple will receive $255 per year extra.
This assistance will more than offset the average expected carbon price impact on their cost of living (a modest 0.7 per cent increase to the CPI — less than one cent for every dollar spent).
The Government understands the financial pressures on people with disability and their carers.
That is why we have delivered historic increases to the Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment ($148 per fortnight for singles and $146 per fortnight for couples combined), improved indexation to both of these payments, and introduced a new $600 annual Carer Supplement.
In shaping the Carbon Price Household Assistance, we have ensured that assistance is provided to low and middle income households and the community organisations that support them.
The Australian Government will continue to work with Australian Disability Enterprises to help them continue their good work with Australians with disability.
We are working with disability advocates and Australian Disability Enterprises to develop a ten year Vision for supported employment.
This will work toward improving access for people with disability who need supported employment, improve the experiences of people with disability in supported employment, and strengthening Australian Disability Enterprises as progressive and sustainable organisations providing inclusive supported employment.
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
A couple of years ago I was at a public meeting at the shores of Lake Alexandrina, near the mouth of the Murray. The meeting was about the looming environmental and social disaster through the lack of water flowing into the Lower Lakes.
Darren O'Halloran, travelled 160 kilometres that morning to talk to me about another looming disaster in his home town of Millicent in the south east of South Australia.
This looming disaster however was not environmental, it was in fact completely man-made, and it related to Darren's fears as a worker at the Kimberly-Clark mills in the south east.
His complaint wasn't with the company that he regards as a good employer, but with the fact that his employment was on the line because of dumped goods from Indonesia and China.
After asking a series of questions through the Senate estimates process and in the parliament, it has become clear to me how unfair current dumping rules are, how difficult and expensive they are for Australian manufacturers to access, and how, what is supposed to be a 'level playing field', is anything but.
Since hearing about the case involving South Australian tissue paper producer Kimberly-Clark and dumped goods from China and Indonesia, I have not only learned more about international trade rules, I have become more and more frustrated with them.
And that is what led me to introduce a private senator's bill—the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping) Bill earlier this year.
I should state at the outset that I am pleased with the discussions I and my office have had with the government on my proposals, and that it has since announced it will make a series of improvements to the dumping regime, including through the measures in this bill being debated today.
In the case of Kimberly-Clark, the government imposed dumping duties on Chinese and Indonesian tissue products in 2008 after investigations found that Chinese products were being sold at 2 to 25 per cent below the cost in its domestic market, while Indonesian toilet paper was found to have been dumped at 33 to 45 per cent below value.
But, this decision was overruled in 2009 following a review by the Trade Measures Branch of Customs which determined that there was, quote, 'no material injury' to Australian manufacturing as a result of these dumped imports.
The TMRO had determined that even though dumping had been proven and even though Kimberly-Clark had suffered injury, the two were not linked.
If you ask me, this case highlighted key concerns about a lack of access, and an absence of fair consideration for the impact on Australian manufacturers, when it comes to fighting dumped goods.
And then there is the case of CSR Viridian which instigated an anti-dumping case in 2010 for clear float glass against imports from China, Indonesia and Thailand.
CSR Viridian had to spend around $300,000 conducting preliminary investigations prior to launching their application with Customs, whose investigation found that goods were being dumped from China between 11 and 26 per cent below the cost in the domestic market, from Indonesia at 3.3 to 22 per cent below cost and from Thailand at 3.5 to 12 per cent below cost.
But, the investigation was terminated because material injury to Viridian could not be confirmed.
The processes these two companies faced—and I dare say they aren't alone in their frustrations—I believe is unfair.
Whether it's the application process, the review or appeals process, it seems it is the Australian companies on the back foot when it comes to dumping.
Free trade is a good thing, don't get me wrong. But it shouldn't be 'free for all' trade. And from all reports, that's how we're perceived by other countries.
The 'Free Trade Taliban', they call Australia, because of our fundamentalist approach free trade. Instead, I believe we should be fighting tooth and nail in support of our domestic manufacturers, not leaving loopholes open for overseas companies to continue to dump goods into our markets.
Today's bill is the first of three bills the government will introduce to improve Australia's dumping regime. It will extend the definition of 'interested parties' to include representative bodies and trade unions, and will expand the economic factors the Minister must consider to include impact on jobs and impact on capital investment.
These are two of the issues I raised in my bill, and I welcome these changes.
I also welcome the government's announcement that it will provide additional funding to increase the resources available not only to the office of the TMRO but for a position to assist small to medium sized businesses with dumping claims.
The government has also announced it will consult with industry stakeholders to improve its protocols when it comes to accessing independent experts for investigations, accepting new information, reducing the timeframe of investigation periods and changes to the review process.
These are also matters I raised in my private senator's bill and will significantly improve the status quo. Having said this, I believe we can go further.
I want to take this opportunity to raise three key issues which the government does not support because it says they are not compliant with the WTO.
The first one is to reverse the onus of proof; allowing Customs to approach the overseas company selling goods in the Australian market and require evidence that they are not dumping and, should the overseas company be uncooperative, to assume that dumping is occurring.
I believe such an amendment would save considerable time and cost and would allow Customs investigations to be completed in a timely manner, before significant damage to the domestic industry is caused.
Why is it that Australian companies have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to gather evidence of dumping, when it should be the requirement of the person trying to export their goods into Australia to prove they are not dumping?
The second key issue relates to the Kimberly-Clark and CSR Viridian cases, where even though dumping had been proven and material injury had been proven that the two were not considered to be linked. If goods are being dumped, you have to assume that domestic manufacturers are going to be affected.
Finally, the third key issue is the delay in applying preliminary affirmative determinations.
After all, by the time a company discovers goods are being dumped, spends months gathering evidence that dumping is occurring, presents it to Customs which then waits 60 days before it provides a preliminary assessment and applies preliminary affirmative determinations, the damage that has been caused could already be significant.
We need to do everything we can to support Australian manufacturers. It is that simple.
And for the government to say we can't 'because the WTO says so', I do not think is good enough.
The WTO's rules on anti-dumping were finalised in 1994. That is a long time ago. Perhaps it is time we question some parts of the agreement rather than take them as is.
The dumping of goods destroys domestic markets. It is basic economics.
There is a need for Australia's anti-dumping framework to be substantially overhauled and I welcome the measures the Government has announced it will make in coming months through legislative changes and through changes internally within Customs.
I support this bill and I look forward to debating the subsequent bills the government will introduce to improve Australia's anti-dumping regime.
But I foreshadow now that I will push for those three key issues I have raised with regards to reversing the onus of proof, the application of duties where dumping and material injury have been proven and the ability for preliminary duties to be applied from the outset.
The question posed by the senator seeks information on persons who were involved in the riots on Christmas Island in March of 2011. The question is now six days overdue.
I can assure the Senate that the department is committed to providing Senator Cormann with an accurate and complete response to this question and all its relevant subparts. In order to address all the issues raised by Senator Cormann's questions and subparts, the department has been required to consult extensively with all those agencies and organisations who were involved in this particular incident. In particular, the department has had extensive consultations with the government's contracted detention service provider, Serco, whose input obviously is vital to ensuring that the senator does receive a comprehensive and accurate answer.
In addition, the department has advised me that they are consulting with the Australian Federal Police, who, I am sure the Senator would be aware, were involved in the investigation and the subsequent compilation of the briefs of evidence for consideration by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. As this matter is still before the courts, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions was also consulted in relation to the current court proceedings which are on foot in relation to the 22 that have been accused and whether or not there have been any developments on each individual case.
Bearing all these factors in mind, the department has had a significant amount of work involved in obtaining all the relevant information from all the various parties involved. I am advised that, nonetheless, the department is fully committed to provide an answer to the senator's question as soon as possible.
That the Senate take note of the explanation.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Johnston today relating to a proposed carbon tax and the Australian Defence Force fuel costs.
Australia has undoubtedly earned its place amongst the leaders of the global aerospace industry, with a reputation for cost-competitive, market-leading solutions.
That the Senate take note of the document.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS REFERENCES COMMITTEE
REPORT ON THE ADMINISTRATION AND REPORTING OF NAPLAN TESTING
AUGUST 2011
The National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is part of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) National Assessment Program (NAP), an ongoing program of assessments to monitor student performance against key performance measures. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) manages the national and technical aspects of NAPLAN test development, assessment and reporting on behalf of MCEECDYA. State and territory Test Administration Authorities are responsible for the administration and delivery of NAPLAN tests in their jurisdiction.
The Committee's recommendations are directed to ACARA and MCEECDYA. As ACARA's work is directed by MCEECDYA, all recommendations need to be considered by MCEECDYA which may then direct changes to ACARA's work plan or Charter as required.
The Australian Government has consulted with ACARA and state and territory governments in developing its response to the report, and their comments have been incorporated in this response.
It should be noted that work is already being progressed in a range of areas related to Recommendations 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12. Since the establishment of the Inquiry a working party of stakeholders has met and recommended to ACARA a number of changes to the My School website. Many of the concerns raised in the submissions to the Inquiry have been addressed in My School 2.0 by broadening the range of information provided and increasing levels of user choice.
The Australian Government response to each recommendation in the report is provided below.
Recommendation 1
The committee majority recommends that ACARA and MCEECDYA explore and report publicly on ways in which to use below-average NAPLAN test results as a trigger for immediate assistance aimed at helping individual schools and students perform at appropriate levels.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Decisions on the provision of assistance at school and student level are generally made at state and territory level. Through the National Education Agreement and the National Partnerships, announced by MCEECDYA in 2008, the Australian Government provides funding to states and territories so that government and non-government schools can deliver an education that provides all young people with the skills to participate actively in our society and support students to achieve their potential.
In May 2008 the Council of Australian Governments agreed that students who have not achieved the national minimum standards for literacy and numeracy “need and will receive focussed intervention and support to help them achieve the skills they require to continue in schooling”1.
All state and territory government and non-government education authorities in Australia have developed means to evaluate and assess system and school performance. Student outcomes, including student level NAPLAN results, already inform state and territory school planning and improvement practices. At the school level, NAPLAN provides a wealth of information to support teachers to identify and analyse areas for improvement as well as strengths in student performance.
School level data as reported on the My School website provide valuable information that enables governments to identify and respond to areas of need. State and territory governments have access to these data within the same year that students sit the tests. This information can be used to target funding to where it is most needed.
Support for schools not performing at appropriate levels is also provided through improved teaching methods and planning that do not require additional monetary investment.
The Australian Government has delivered unprecedented levels of investment in Australian schools, more than doubling the level of funding provided to schools in the last funding period. In total the Australian Government has committed to provide a record $64.9 billion for schools from 2009 to 2012.
This includes additional funding under the three Smarter Schools National Partnerships: the National Partnership for Teacher Quality - $550 million over five years (2008-2009 to 2011-2013); the National Partnership for Low Socio-Economic Status School Communities - $1.5 billion over seven years (2008-2009 to 2014-2015); and the National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy - $540 million over four years (2008-2009 to 2011-2012). The notional allocation of funding to each state and territory under the National Partnership for Literacy and Numeracy is based on each State's share of students at or below the minimum standard in Reading and Numeracy for Years 3, 5 and 7 based on the 2008 NAPLAN results.
In addition to this funding, the Commonwealth provided $11 million to states and territories to support 110 schools that were identified from My School 1.0 data as having substantially below average student outcomes in literacy and numeracy compared with the national average and similar school average.
1 MCEETYA Media Release 12 May 2008
Recommendation 2
The committee majority recommends that ACARA assess and report publicly on the potential benefits of moving to a system that reports the median rather than the mean school performance.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees in part with this recommendation.
The Australian Government will raise the issue with MCEECDYA and recommend that ACARA investigate the feasibility of showing the median in addition to the mean in its reporting in school performance.
Mean and median both provide an idea of where the middle of a set of scores lies. The mean averages all scores of students in a school and as a consequence includes extreme scores that are either very high or very low. On the other hand the median score is the middle score when all scores are placed in numerical order.
All states and territories consider that the mean is the better measure for the statistical analysis of school data as it enables:
Reporting NAPLAN results for 2008-2010 has used the mean as the expression of score averages. The use of the mean in the analysis of NAPLAN data has enabled the above statistical analyses to be used with NAPLAN results from 2008, 2009 and 2010, including comparisons of data between years. Continuing to use the mean means it will be possible for these analyses and comparisons to be made into the future. It is not possible, however, to do the same statistical analysis using the median so comparisons across years will not be possible and a new baseline year for reporting will need to be established.
The My School website provides information on the distribution of student performances within a school and so reveals whether the distribution is skewed in a way that would make the median substantially different from the mean.
States and territories provide data to schools in a number of ways. Some, including Tasmania and Victoria, use the median in reporting school level performance to complement their analysis of NAPLAN data for schools. This additional information is helpful for schools with small student populations.
Recommendation 3
The committee majority recommends that MCEECDYA and relevant jurisdictional test administration authorities look at and report publicly on ways to ensure that children with disabilities are not discriminated against and denied the right to participate in national testing.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
All students are encouraged to participate in NAPLAN. The National Protocols for Test Administration state that students with disabilities should be given the opportunity to participate in testing should their parent/caregiver prefer that they do so. This is consistent with the Disability Standards for Education, which set out the rights of students with disability and the obligations of school authorities in relation to education under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Protocols do allow students with significant intellectual and/or functional disabilities to be exempted from sitting the tests if they are unable to access the tests within the guidelines for accommodations.
In the past, interpretations of provisions in the Protocols varied across jurisdictions. ACARA has revised the Protocols for the 2011 NAPLAN tests to provide clarity about positive expectations for participation in NAPLAN and accommodations to facilitate access to the tests and to ensure consistency of application of the provisions in the Protocols.
My School reports the participation of students in NAPLAN at the school level compared with the national average. In My School 2.0, there is stronger reporting with categories of exempt, absent and withdrawn students reported separately.
ACARA will be publicly reporting levels of participation in testing to make this more transparent at a school level. These data are already published at state, territory and national levels.
There are a number of accommodations already made for students with disabilities that range from separate supervision and rest breaks to use of assistive technology for students who would have them as part of their normal classroom support. ACARA will report to MCEECDYA on the type and number of accommodations.
ACARA is already looking into further ways in which the tests can be made more accessible to students with disabilities.
Recommendation 4
The committee majority recommends that ACARA analyse and report publicly on how NAPLAN tests are serving different groups of Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE) students.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
ACARA currently publishes information annually about the performance of children by LBOTE status in the NAPLAN National Report, and will publish data on the percentage of LBOTE students in each school profile on My School 2.0.
At present all students are encouraged to sit NAPLAN tests, though students from a non English speaking background who have arrived in Australia within a year of the test may be exempted. ACARA also advises schools in the Protocols that literacy
should not be a barrier to the numeracy tests. ACARA is already looking into ways to improve accessibility to the tests for LBOTE and Indigenous students.
The current definition used for LBOTE is very broad, and does not identify the group of LBOTE students who are educationally disadvantaged. As a result, data show that LBOTE students perform as well or better than non-LBOTE students.
In My School 2.0, account has been taken of the presence of students from a language background other than English when establishing comparison groups of schools that serve students from similar socio-educational backgrounds. To do this, it is inappropriate to use a simple measure of the proportion of students from language backgrounds other than English since some students in this category are not socio-educationally disadvantaged. ACARA uses an additional LBOTE measure in calculating the influence of family background on student results, specifically the proportion of LBOTE students at a school whose parents also report low education levels.
ACARA is also looking at enhancing the definition of LBOTE used for NAPLAN data collection to enable reporting of more useful information to support LBOTE students who are educationally disadvantaged.
Recommendation 5
The committee majority recommends that ACARA investigate and report to MCEECDYA on enhancing NAPLAN to support the diagnostic needs of higher and lower student achievers.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The discrimination of the NAPLAN tests at the higher and lower levels of student achievement is supported, and under direction from MCEECDYA, ACARA is investigating alternative test delivery mechanisms that might facilitate this. ACARA will also seek ways to decrease the time taken to provide feedback to schools.
The Australian Government made a commitment to provide teachers with a diagnostic tool that will enable them to identify and support the individual learning needs of their students at any time. Feedback provided through the online service will link teachers to resources that are targeted to the particular needs of the students.
To make NAPLAN strongly diagnostic at the higher and lower end could require a longer test. There are limits on the length of the tests in regard to what students can reasonably be asked to do, particularly for year 3 students. The provision of tests with a greater diagnostic capacity at the higher and lower ends could be achieved by moving away from pen and paper testing to adaptive online testing.
An element of the Australian Government commitment to online diagnostic tools is the move to online delivery of the annual National Assessment Program sample assessments. This would enable future trials of adaptive testing for NAPLAN.
The Australian Government will ask ACARA to report on the feasibility of enhancing NAPLAN to provide improved diagnostic capability for the students achieving in the highest and lowest bands.
Recommendation 6
The committee majority recommends that ACARA and MCEECDYA expand NAPLAN to include annual testing from years 3 to 10 in order to more accurately track student performance and give parents, teachers and policymakers a far better understanding of how students, teachers and schools, are progressing.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.
Further large-scale cohort testing is not the best option for giving parents and teachers better information. The next step will be to provide teachers with better diagnostic tools to address the needs of individual students. The government has committed to developing a national online assessment and learning bank for students, parents and teachers to provide a sophisticated diagnostic assessment of each student's strengths and learning needs.
National testing is agreed by COAG and forms part of the National Education Agreement. The costs for test development are shared by the Australian Government and state and territory governments (using the MCEECDYA formula for cost sharing) but states and territories carry the cost of test delivery. The cost of test delivery is currently around $48 million for states and territories.
Providing parents with meaningful reports more frequently would require tests that measure student improvement more precisely than the current test program. ACARA has trialled “off level” testing (in which students undertake NAPLAN assessments from a higher or lower level than their year level, eg a year 5 student sitting the year 7 test) and will be asked to trial online testing, which in the future may be able to provide this more precise measure of student improvement.
A decision to expand testing would have significant cost implications both at a national level and for state and territory governments with responsibility for test delivery. The NAPLAN scale was constructed for a testing regime where students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are tested. If the test program was altered and students in all years from years 3 to 10 were tested, the scale would need to be reconstructed or a new scale developed that would be sensitive enough to measure student improvement in yearly increments. If the tests were to be held for all year levels the scale would need to be recalibrated to measure the smaller increments of student progress. This would be a significant task requiring additional funding. It would also have a significant impact at a school level, due to the impact on teaching time. Consideration should also be given to any possible negative consequences of increased testing.
NAPLAN is only one form of student assessment, although an important one. Schools use additional assessments to provide a more detailed picture of student performance and parents receive information about their child's school performance from the school every year.
In addition to classroom assessments, each year a sample of students participate in the National Assessment Program sample assessments and, while individual students reports are not provided, schools where classes participate get reports of their performance.
Recommendation 7
The committee majority recommends that MCEECDYA explore ways for state and territory test administration authorities to more strongly enforce security protocols.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
National Protocols for Test Administration have been agreed by all governments so that all students around Australia sit the tests under common conditions. Test Administration Manuals are provided to all schools and teachers supervising the tests.
MCEECDYA had already asked ACARA to review the National Protocols for Test Administration before the 2011 tests to ensure that they are providing clear and
consistent advice to test administrators and principals. This work has been completed.
For the first time, the Protocols include a Code of Conduct which outlines expected behaviour and processes, with a view to strengthening security requirements. Also at the request of MCEECDYA, ACARA will report publicly for the first time in early 2011 on allegations and substantiations of cheating and security breaches.
It is important to note that compliance with security protocols is the responsibility of state and territory testing authorities. The revised Protocols will enable tests to be administered in a more consistent manner.
It is noted that the Test Administration Authorities do not have a mandate or authority to investigate incidents or enforce penalties for breaches of test protocols in all jurisdictions and sectors, and that there are a broad range of legal and industrial frameworks that determine the way in which investigations are made. ACARA is working with government and non-government education authorities in developing a nationally consistent approach to handling test incidents.
Recommendation 8
The committee majority recommends that ACARA prioritises the improvement of the method used to develop like school comparisons and commits to the introduction of a method based on student-level SES data for all schools prior to the reporting of 2011 NAPLAN test results.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
Consistent with this recommendation, MCEECDYA has asked that ACARA collect and use student level data for all schools when reporting on NAPLAN 2011. ACARA is working with schools and school authorities to collect the additional data required to implement this method for 2011.
For 2010, the ICSEA (Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage) which is used to reflect the level of socio-educational advantage in a school for My School 2.0 uses direct student level data where available and includes the addition of a language background other than English factor. For 2010 it is anticipated that the ICSEA calculation will be based on direct student data (parent education and occupation information) for 76 per cent of schools, representing 92 per cent of students nationally.
The improved ICSEA now being used is the result of ACARA's analysis and advice to ministers. It builds on the existing ICSEA, and uses better data that have since become available. The new approach draws more extensively from data collected directly from parents. The two ICSEA measures are, overall, very close (Their correlation is 0.9). The new ICSEA, however, is an even better predictor of school-level NAPLAN performance. The new ICSEA explains 67% of the variance in school performance on NAPLAN; the initial ICSEA explained 59%.
Recommendation 9
The committee majority recommends that ACARA and MCEECDYA examine and publicly report on ways to mitigate the harm caused by simplistic and often distorted information published in newspaper league tables.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government does not support the media using data obtained from the My School website to publish simplistic league tables. The Australian Government also does not support the use of legislation to restrict website users from publishing these data.
Simplistic league tables fail to take into consideration the context within which a school operates and thus are likely to provide unfair, misleading and invalid comparisons between school performances.
The My School website provides the public with a means for making valid school comparisons and is the only source of genuinely nationally comparable information for all Australian schools.
The My School website reports performance comparisons of statistically similar schools only.
At the request of MCEECDYA, ACARA has strengthened legal and technical protections of the data published on My School 2.0 and will continue to actively advocate against league tables based on school performance data.
The My School 2.0 website has new logon requirements and terms and conditions to protect the integrity of the data and to help prevent misuse of data.
Ministers have also agreed that ACARA will be supported to closely manage the information it provides to prevent individual students from being identified and to
promote the meaningful use of data by third parties. ACARA will work with the media to explain the information published, advise on how to properly interpret it, and will take steps to counter any inaccurate use of the information including, if necessary, responding publicly with correctly interpreted data.
Recommendation 10
The committee majority recommends that ACARA identify, analyse and report publicly on possible means of strengthening the relationship between NAPLAN tests and the wider curriculum. The committee majority reserves its support for any alignment between the tests and the new national curriculum until the quality of, and community support for, the curriculum become clearer.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
It is Australian Government policy to review the NAPLAN assessment framework to provide alignment with the new national curriculum. This has been agreed by all states and territories.
The current NAPLAN tests align well with current state and territory curricula taught in schools, and will be reviewed to align with the Australian Curriculum as it is progressively implemented.
The NAPLAN tests are based on curricula that all teachers throughout Australia are required to cover and reflect the essential elements that should be taught at each year level. The NAPLAN test items are currently developed using the National Statements of Learning. The tests in future years will be informed by the Australian Curriculum. At the December 2010 MCEECDYA meeting, Ministers agreed to publish the content for Foundation to Year 10 English, mathematics, science and history, as the nation's first Australian Curriculum.
ACARA will consult with senior education officials and provide recommendations on measures to ensure that future national assessments, including NAPLAN, align with the Australian Curriculum as the successive phases are implemented.
This recommendation follows a discussion in the report on the high stakes nature of the tests and the potential for teachers to teach to the tests. ACARA actively discourages this practice in its communications about NAPLAN and promotes broad-based teaching practices. Once students' familiarity with the test form is assured there is no benefit in repeated test practice. The best way to develop literacy and numeracy skills is through students' experience of a full, rich curriculum.
NAPLAN is a test of literacy and numeracy skills not a content based test. The main purpose of the NAPLAN tests is to identify whether all students have the literacy and numeracy skills and knowledge which provide the critical foundation for other learning and for their productive and rewarding participation in the community. Inadequate attention to the fundamental areas of literacy and numeracy undermines students' ability to participate effectively in other important areas of the curriculum.
Recommendation 11
The committee majority recommends that ACARA and MCEECDYA move to include more contextual information about schools on the My School website, reflecting the complex range of factors that affect schools, and acknowledge to users of the website their awareness of the limitations of comparisons based on raw performance data due to extrinsic factors. The committee majority further recommends that ACARA commit to ensuring this contextual information is available ahead of the reporting of 2011 NAPLAN results.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The Australian Government agrees there is more to a school than academic results, and My School shows a range of features about a school in terms of its operating environment (eg proportion of Indigenous students, staff numbers), resources (income) and performance (eg Year 12 attainment) in addition to NAPLAN results.
The framework for information published on the My School website was agreed by education ministers, and reflects research and expert advice that the most appropriate indicators to publish about schools are those that provide insight into three aspects of a school:
The indicators published on the original My School, and additional indicators on My School 2.0, have been developed in response to this framework, and published prior to 2011 NAPLAN testing.
On My School, there is already a significant amount of information provided to reflect the makeup of the school for example, the type of school, the year range, student and staff numbers, location, the level of socio-educational advantage of the school student body, the proportion of students with an Indigenous background, and as well as student attendance rates.
Schools are able to draw attention to their particular circumstances through the statement about their school on the school profile page. Here schools have the opportunity to outline their enrolment policies, promote any special programs that they operate or detail their student profile. A link to the school's own website is provided so that users of the My School website can better understand unique characteristics of the school.
For My School 2.0 an indicator has been added to report on the proportion of students with a language background other than English and information is provided for the first time about a school's finances.
In the future ACARA will add the option for principals to comment on their NAPLAN and senior secondary outcomes, information from student, teacher and parent satisfaction survey data, information about student destinations and information on students with disabilities.
The My School website has been designed to avoid comparisons of raw performance data through presentation of this contextual information and through use of the Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) to limit school comparisons to schools with similar student intakes. ACARA is committed to enhancing contextual information and working to enhance the understanding of the media and the public of the school data made available through the My School website.
Recommendation 12
The committee majority recommends that ACARA and MCEECDYA comprehensively revise the type of information available on the My School website to shift the focus from raw school performance data to value-added measurement of school performance.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government agrees in part with this recommendation.
My School 2.0 reports NAPLAN results in a number of ways to allow different aspects of performance to be shown. The NAPLAN mean scale scores and the spread across the bands were depicted on the original My School, and My School 2.0 also shows student gain for students who remained in each school between 2008 and 2010.
For any numerical score that is published, My School 2.0 also shows margins of error to reflect the accuracy of the estimate average and the degree of confidence one can have in this estimate.
In relation to student performance “value added” is a term that is used in a variety of ways that can mean different things. Value added modelling is a relatively complex econometric approach to measuring school's performance. Value added models essentially seek to measure residuals i.e. the difference between a school's observed outcomes and its predicted outcomes.
While value added models are designed in an attempt to ensure that the residual only approximates the contribution of the school to student performance, this is difficult in practice. This is because residuals reflect whatever other influences there are on student outcomes that have not been captured in the value added model.
There is a risk with this approach that what becomes important is how much better or worse the school did compared to the predictions, and the performance of the students themselves can be lost. A school may perform as well as expected but could still have unacceptably low levels of literacy and numeracy.
There would be a number of challenges to the suitability of value added modelling for Australia, not least of which being the need for longitudinal data. In its report for MCEECDYA, Reporting and Comparing School Performances, the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) did not recommend this approach.
As a result MCEECDYA has agreed to show gain between NAPLAN years. Measuring gain in this way allows users of the website to see how well students have progressed no matter what school they attend. Schools with a student population that have high levels of aptitude and who are already highly proficient may not show a high level of gain, while schools with students with lower levels of aptitude may be able to demonstrate their students have made large gains while not necessarily achieving at the highest proficiency levels. This measure allows us to see and acknowledge progress at all levels.
This is the first time this form of school performance information will be available. Student gain is an important addition to My School 2.0, showing what improvement has occurred over time in a school for a specific group of students.
Government Senators ' Recommendation
Government senators recommend that in the interests of transparency, accountability and facilitating meaningful comparisons, the My School website capture full disclosure of financial assets. Those schools who do not agree to this requirement should not receive public funding.
Australian Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
All schools are required under the National Education Agreement (NEA) and the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to supply income data for My School. The specific information to be supplied is a matter for education ministers.
School income reporting commenced in 2010 with My School 2.0. The series begins with income for each school for the 2009 calendar year.
For My School 2.0 education ministers agreed to report on the following financial data:
Total gross income by source for the year
- Australian Government recurrent funding
- State/Territory government recurrent funding
- Fees, charges and parent contributions (school initiated) - Other private sources (parent or 3rd party initiated)
total net recurrent income reflecting the following deductions from the gross
- income allocated to a current year capital expense - income allocated to a future year capital expense
- income allocated to debt servicing of capital loans.
- State/Territory government capital funding
- new school loans
- income allocated to current year capital expense - other sources.
School net recurrent income is the key finance measure for My School. It provides a measure of the income available to deliver schooling to each school's students in the year reported.
School income from government can be used for the purposes set by government. School income from private sources may be used to meet recurrent costs, or to allocate to a capital project or set aside to meet future expenses.
The recurrent income reported on My School includes the amount earned by schools from income set aside from previous years, for example, interest and dividends earned on financial assets (shares, trusts) held by the school or school system.
Where cash reserves held by the school or proceeds from the divesture of assets are used to fund capital expenditure, this amount will be shown on My School as capital expenditure in the year expended.
The Government is committed to further enhancements to My School to build community understanding of school operations and outcomes. The Government recognises that financial assets comprised of income set aside from prior years or held in reserve by school systems may be of interest to the community in connection with transparency of resources available to meet recurrent costs.
MCEECDYA has asked ACARA to provide advice on how school assets, for all schools, such as financial assets including trust accounts, term deposits and investment portfolios, as well as physical assets, could be captured and presented to the community on the My School website.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
REPORT
SUPERANNUATION CLAIMS OF FORMER AND CURRENT COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTRODUCTION
The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration (Committee) into the Superannuation Claims of former and current Commonwealth Public Service Employees. The Government notes the Committee's findings that the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) has established an appropriate claims handling process for individuals who believe that they were incorrectly advised about their eligibility for Commonwealth superannuation.
The Government is committed to seeing the resolution of Cornwell-type claims managed systematically and rigorously in accordance with the Legal Services Directions 2005.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION
The Committee made one recommendation.
Response
The Government supports the Committee's recommendation.
Since the High Court's decision on the Cornwell superannuation case in April 2007, there has been media coverage on the decision through local and national newspapers, solicitors, media releases, unions and Commonwealth agency websites. The unions that have advertised the potential for claims include the Community and Public Sector Union, Australian Services Union, Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association.
A targeted campaign will notify potential claimants of their ability to register claims with Finance. Finance proposes to place information advertisements on Cornwell-type claims in local and national newspapers. Information will also be disseminated to relevant unions and an all staff advice issued across the Australian Public Service.
SENATOR ' S MINORITY REPORT
The Independent Senator Nick Xenophon lodged a minority report with three recommendations.
Response
The Government supports in principle Recommendation 1 of the Minority Report.
This recommendation is similar to the Committee's majority recommendation. A targeted campaign will notify potential claimants of their ability to register claims with Finance. Finance proposes to place information advertisements on Cornwell-type claims in local and national newspapers. Information will also be disseminated to relevant unions and an all staff advice issued across the Australian Public Service.
Response
The Government does not support Recommendation 2 of the Minority Report.
The Government considers the general waiver of the statute of limitations for Cornwell-type claims is inconsistent with the current Government policy embodied in the Legal Services Directions 2005 and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. However, Finance will continue to liaise with the Office of Legal Services Coordination in the Attorney-General's Department to obtain approval to set aside limitations-based defences or extend limitation periods where appropriate, on a case by case basis.
Response
The Government does not support Recommendation 3 of the Minority Report.
The Government considers the current administrative processes in the assessment of Cornwell-type claims are appropriate to deal with claims in a cost-effective, streamlined and equitable manner. This view was supported by the Committee's majority report. The establishment of a tribunal would be costly and would not necessarily expedite the finalisation of claims, nor would it be an appropriate jurisdiction for the determination of legal issues, such as contribution from entities other than the Commonwealth.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CHRISTMAS ISLAND TRAGEDY AUGUST 2011
INTRODUCTION
On 2 March 2011 the Parliament established the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy of 15 December 2010 to inquire into the incident in which an irregular entry vessel foundered on rocks at Rocky Point on Christmas Island. The Committee examined the Commonwealth's management of the incident, its operational response, and the adequacy of subsequent support provided to survivors and others.
The Committee tabled its report on 4 July 2011 which contained three recommendations. The report also contained two additional recommendations from Senator Crossin and seven additional recommendations from Senator Hanson-Young.
The Government welcomes the report prepared by the Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island Tragedy of 15 December 2011 and recognises the significant amount of work and consideration that has gone into providing these recommendations.
The Government's official responses to the Committee's recommendations are provided below.
Table 1 – Summary of Government Response to Recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that DIAC and its relevant contractors continue to monitor the wellbeing of the survivors and that counselling and support services should be provided for as long as is necessary.
Response
The Government agrees to Recommendation 1.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship and its contracted Detention Service Providers work to ensure that all persons in immigration detention have access to appropriate health and support services. The Department is particularly sensitive to the trauma experienced and consequent needs of survivors of the December 15 Christmas Island tragedy.
Contractors and Departmental staff adhere to strict protocols to monitor the wellbeing of all people in detention, with a particular emphasis on those who have experienced extreme stress and trauma.
All survivors from the SIEV 221 boat tragedy who have not been granted a visa are currently accommodated in community detention arrangements on the Australian mainland. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will ensure that appropriate care and support arrangements remain in place while these people continue to be in immigration detention.
The Humanitarian Settlement Services program provides a range of initial settlement services for clients who are granted a protection visa. This includes a strong case management approach to assessing each individual client's needs.
If a person required trauma counselling, they would be referred and assisted with access to the appropriate service provider.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the Department of Regional Australia and DIAC liaise with the Christmas Island community to explore options for a permanent memorial to be erected on the island, at a site of the residents' choosing, for the victims of the tragedy.
Response
The Government agrees to Recommendation 2.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is liaising with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Christmas Island Shire regarding appropriate locations upon which to erect a permanent memorial. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will, as appropriate, provide the necessary support to the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government and the local community in this process.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that relevant Commonwealth agencies continue to monitor the wellbeing of their personnel and that counselling and support services should be provided for as long as necessary.
Response
The Government agrees to Recommendation 3.
Each affected Commonwealth agency has employee assistance arrangements in place. Immediate steps were taken to provide such support to Commonwealth personnel on the day of the tragedy and agencies will continue to monitor the wellbeing of personnel involved in the response to SIEV 221 and provide appropriate counselling and support for as long as necessary.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS - Senator Crossin
Senator Crossin - Recommendation 1
That, in addition to the implementation of the recommendations of the Emergency Management Committee in its January 2011 report, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government take all necessary steps to ensure reliable radio coverage is available on all parts of Christmas Island before the end of 2011.
Response
The Government agrees in part to Senator Crossin's Recommendation 1.
In relation to radio coverage, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government notes that 100 per cent coverage of Christmas Island will be difficult to achieve due to the Island's topography. The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is liaising with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and the Australian Federal Police regarding implementation of this Recommendation and progressing radio communication improvements to provide more extensive radio coverage of Christmas Island.
In support of this work and as part of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service SIEV 221 Internal Review recommendations, an audit of the technical capabilities and limitations of communications equipment currently held on Christmas Island by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service has been undertaken. This was followed by a gap analysis which recommended the procurement of dual UHF/VHF hand held radios as an improvement for the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service officers (by negating the need to carry two radios). It was also identified that the installation of additional repeater infrastructure on Christmas Island would further improve radio coverage. Planning regards system design is currently underway.
An aspect of this issue was also raised in the report of the Christmas Island Emergency Management Committee with the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government procuring five marine VHF hand held radios for use by emergency personnel. Additional communications equipment is also part of the trailer of emergency equipment currently being built under the auspices of Western Australia Fire and Emergency Services Authority.
The Government has agreed in part to the implementation of the recommendations of the Emergency Management Committee report. This report was presented to, and considered by, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government who is monitoring its implementation.
Senator Crossin - Recommendation 2
That the Department of Regional Australia immediately establish a full time Community Emergency Management Officer on Christmas island, to serve both Christmas and Cocos Islands.
Response
The Government agrees to Senator Crossin's Recommendation 2.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is consulting with Emergency Management Australia, Western Australia Fire and Emergency Services Authority and the Administrator of the Indian Ocean Territories on how best to implement this recommendation. The Community Emergency Management Officer would be part of the Department's Indian Ocean Territories Administration Office.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS - Senator Hanson-Young
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 1
The Australian Greens recommend that as matter of urgency an independent review into Australia's border protection surveillance is established.
Response
The civil maritime surveillance function has been regularly reviewed over a number of years through a series of independent and whole-of-government strategic level reviews on national security and border protection issues.
The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service also continues to monitor new and emerging technologies which have the potential to enhance detection and response outcomes. These activities have included a static radar trial at Christmas Island which is still underway.
Further, the last tender process conducted by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service for wide area surveillance did not reveal the existence of commercially viable surveillance options beyond those currently employed in the layered surveillance response.
The sheer size of Australia's maritime domain does not allow for the persistent surveillance of all areas and threat axes all the time, rather Australian Customs and Border Protection Service uses an intelligence led risk based model which provides the most effective utilisation of its available resources and surveillance capabilities against known threats.
Accordingly, the Government does not agree to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 1.
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 2
The Australian Greens recommend that Commonwealth funding be directed to establish a full-time emergency services volunteer coordinator on Christmas Island.
Response
The Government agrees to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 2, noting the essential similarity with Senator Crossin's Recommendation 2.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is consulting with Emergency Management Australia, Western Australia Fire and Emergency Services Authority and the Administrator of the Indian Ocean Territories on how best to implement the recommendation. The emergency services volunteer coordinator would be part of the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government's Indian Ocean Territories Administration Office.
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 3
The Australian Greens recommend that a permanent mental health team, funded through the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, is established on Christmas Island, as part of the Christmas Island health service, to provide services for all members of the community.
Response
The Government agrees to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 3 and notes that it is currently being met as part of business as usual services provided by the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.
The Indian Ocean Territories Health Service has a regular establishment of one psychologist, one social worker and four torture and trauma counsellors on Christmas Island. The torture and trauma counsellors are funded by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on a year-by-year basis. These services are available to the Christmas Island community and are adequate on a day-to-day basis.
In any emergency situation, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government is able to augment this capacity as required, through a Service Delivery Arrangement with the Western Australian Government. In response to this tragedy and with the assistance of the Western Australian Government, an additional psychologist was deployed to Christmas Island from 23 December 2010 to 19 January 2011 and from 25 January 2011 until 8 February 2011. As school commenced on 9 February 2011, a replacement counsellor was deployed from 8 February 2011 for ten days to provide help to people as they dealt with their experiences.
Commonwealth agencies directly involved in responding to the incident were able to access counselling support through their agencies. Volunteers with, for example, the Volunteer Marine Rescue Service, those who assisted directly in a personal capacity or who had been impacted indirectly by the events were directed to a number of counselling services available on Christmas Island, including the local social worker, the local school psychologist and counsellors engaged with the Torture and Trauma Unit of the Indian Ocean Territories Health Service.
At the Joint Select Committee hearing on Christmas Island, Dr Julie Graham, Director of Public Health and Medicine at the Indian Ocean Territories Health Service, noted that ongoing mental health services are required at the Indian Ocean Territories Health Service. If the Department of Immigration and Citizenship were to stop funding the torture and trauma counsellors, the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government would review the mental health establishment of the Indian Ocean Territories Health Service
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 4
The Australian Greens recommend that the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, implement all recommendations from the Christmas Island emergency management report.
Response
The Government agrees in part to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 4, noting the similarity with Senator Crossin's Recommendation 1.
The Christmas Island Emergency Management Committee report was presented to, and considered by, the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, who is monitoring its implementation.
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 5
The Australian Greens further recommend that the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, conduct an infrastructure audit on the standards and conditions of facilities on Christmas Island.
Response
The Government agrees to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 5 and notes that this process is ongoing as part of the Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government business as usual processes.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government undertakes regular evaluations of its asset portfolio as part of its strategic asset management plan to confirm that its assets continue to be appropriate to meet its program delivery requirements.
This is line with the ANAO 'Better Practice Guide on the Strategic and Operational Management of Assets by Public Sector Entities', September 2010.
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 6
The Australian Greens recommend that as a matter of urgency, a review into the protocols by which decisions are made to transfer asylum seekers with special needs to the mainland, is established.
Response
It is standard practice for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to transfer clients from Christmas Island should they have special needs which cannot be met on Christmas Island. Protocols already exist to guide decisions on transfer of asylum seekers with serious health, mental and psychological needs to the mainland and these are working well.
The decision to transfer such clients is made on a case-by-case basis, depending on individual clients' needs and availability of suitable accommodation on the mainland.
Accordingly, the Government does not agree to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 6.
Senator Hanson-Young Recommendation 7
The Australian Greens recommend that the role of community liaison officer, funded through the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, continue to be funded.
Response
The Government agrees to Senator Hanson-Young's Recommendation 7.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will continue to provide funding for a Community Liaison Officer position on Christmas Island while the operational need exists.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the report be adopted.
Response by Mr Ian Lazar
Pursuant to Resolution 5(7)(b) of the Senate of 25 February 1988
Reply to comments by Senator John Williams in the Senate
(21 September 2011)
On 21 September 2011, I was defamed in the Senate under parliamentary privilege by Senator Williams. As I have no other avenue to refute these allegations, I seek to respond in writing and to have my response incorporated into Hansard.
The implication in Senator Williams' allegations is that I am involved in ripping people off, "laundering money, taking people's life savings and leaving them homeless and in dire financial straits". He also makes certain very specific allegations of wrongdoing. In short, Senator Williams is in effect alleging that I am involved in unlawful white collar criminal activity, a charge which I vigorously deny.
I am aged some forty years, and have never been convicted of any criminal offence. Neither am I facing any charges of having committed any criminal offence, nor to the best of my knowledge am I being investigated for any alleged wrongdoing.
I am engaged in the business of acquiring and dealing in defaulting mortgage securities; a lawful occupation. The owners of property over which I purchase defaulting securities are inevitably in a state of financial distress at the time I acquire such securities. Such financial distress is caused by business decisions that they have made long before coming into contact with me.
In answer to some of the Senator's specific allegations, I say as follows:- 1. As to John Nicoll:-
Mr Nicoll was a pool cleaner who inherited a sum of money.
Prior to meeting me, Mr Nicoll put a large portion of his money into failed investment schemes.
Mr Nicoll approached and met the Nauruans, with whom he invested, directly.
I was subsequently engaged to manage the recovery of the bad loans.
I was involved in a mediation process before Sir Laurence Street. At that mediation the borrowers offered to settle the matter for $2M. I was the only one who held out against such offer, with the result that the amount finally recovered was $8M.
Some parties to the transaction recovered money in priority to others. This was by operation of law, and not as a result of any misdeeds by me. The simple fact was that some parties held independent specific securities over certain assets, and therefore recovered ahead of unsecured investments. I reiterate, I was not involved in the making of the bad investments. My involvement was in trying to recover monies on behalf of investors.
As to the allegation that ASIC found that BACF was running a managed investment scheme, this is not true. ASIC did not make such a finding. Indeed, the court appointed an independent auditor who found there was no scheme operating.
It is alleged that the BA group of companies was my group; that is not true. The BA group of companies consisted of a number of companies of which only two (Business Australia Capital Finance Pty Ltd and Business Australia Capital Mortgage Pty Ltd) were companies in which I had any interest.
As part of the overall settlement and prior of the liquidation process of entities of which I had direct involvement in, I ensured that all legitimate creditors were paid. The ASIC RATA (and an independent auditor) confirms the same. To date, the creditor claims made initially still remain unproven.
2. As to David Nicholson:-
As to the allegation that "David and his wife invested $100,000 with Ian Lazar", I say that such allegation is false. Mr Nicholson and his wife lent $100,000 to a private company which owned a pub in Yass. Two months after the Nicholsons made such loan, the borrower went into default. My company Business Australia Capital Finance Pty Ltd was engaged to manage the recovery of such loans. Prior to that occurring, I had not met either Mr Nicholson or his wife. The company to which the Nicholsons lent money, to the best of my recollection, went into administration. The moneys were subsequently seized by the administrator of the borrower and the administrator's lawyers. Neither I nor any company in which I held an equitable interest, received any part of the $100,000 that was recovered.
As to the allegation that "Steven Brown of Etienne Lawyers arranged with his client Ian Lazar to take David's money in fees owed in other matters", I say that I made no such arrangement with Steven Brown or his firm. I further say that Mr Nicholson has previously made this complaint to the Legal Services Commissioner. The gist of such complaint was that Etienne Lawyers, not me, had misappropriated the money. At Mr Nicholson's request I supplied him with a statement to assist him with his claim to the Legal Services Commissioner. I understand that the Legal Services Commissioner has not yet finalised his investigation into the matter.
3. As to Kevin Jacobsen:
(a) Senator Williams alleges that "Since the time Kevin Jacobsen first met Lazar, which was less than one year ago, he has lost all his businesses and had all his trading companies placed in liquidation". I admit that is true, but what Senator Williams did not disclose was as follows:-
Kevin Jacobsen had been in extended litigation over many years with his brother, Colin Jacobsen (better known as "Col Joye"), and companies owned by Colin Jacobsen. He was ultimately not successful in that litigation, and had orders including orders for costs, made against him. Such costs orders were in favour not only of his brother, but also in favour of his own lawyers.
Both Kevin Jacobsen and his wife declared themselves bankrupt because of their inability to meet such costs orders.
Kevin Jacobsen and his wife currently face eviction from their home (which stands in Mrs Jacobsen's name) because of their failure to meet their mortgage obligations to their bank.
Kevin Jacobsen has placed his own company, Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd, into liquidation.
My association with Mr Jacobsen occurred when he was already in a state of extreme financial distress and he sought assistance from me to stop standover man, Jim Byrnes, from doing a sweetheart deal with the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority in respect of a dispute between one of Jacobsen's companies and the Sydney Harbour Foreshores Authority. I successfully case managed the litigation and substantially contributed funds for over two years which resulted in a successful outcome in favour of Mr Jacobsen's company.
vi. I have yet to be paid the monies that are owed to me by Mr Jacobsen and for that reason, I appointed receivers over his company. That is what one does when one is owed money in corporate Australia.
(b) Senator Williams has alleged that I stole Mr Jacobsen's car. I deny this and say the relevant facts are as follows:-
One of Mr Jacobsen ' s companies, Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd, acquired a Lexus motor vehicle on hire purchase from Lexus Finance. His company was in default of hire purchase payments concerning the car to the tune of approximately $12,000. Mr Jacobsen was concerned that because his wife had guaranteed the hire purchase contract herself, that she would be sued for the arrears.
At Mr Jacobsen's request, one of my companies paid off the $12,000.00 arrears on his behalf.
At Mr Jacobsen ' s request, a motor vehicle dealer attempted to market the vehicle.
At Mr Jacobsen ' s request, the motor vehicle was ultimately delivered to one of Mr Jacobsen ' s co-directors at Kevin Jacobsen Pty Ltd.
Mr Jacobsen subsequently threatened me that unless I gave him certain financial benefits, he would use his connections in the NSW Police Force to allege that I had stolen the car. Eventually, he made good of this threat and reported me to the Police.
I fully co-operated with the Police and through my solicitor, advised them of what had transpired in relation to the car.
The Police fully investigated the matter. Their investigation did not result in me being charged with any offence.
To the best of my knowledge, Mr Jacobsen's co-director still has the car.
(c) Senator Williams has alleged that I fraudulently charged $84,000.00 to Mr Jacobsen's Amex Card. I say as follows:-
Mr Jacobsen was engaged in Federal Court proceedings seeking to remove a liquidator who had been appointed to one of Mr Jacobsen's companies, Arena Management Pty Ltd.
Mr Jacobsen was unable to meet the legal costs of such proceedings and sought my help to do so.
Mr Jacobsen made a payment as part payment through his wife ' s credit card towards his legal costs.
Mr Jacobsen was an authorised signatory on his wife ' s credit card account.
All documentation relating to that credit card payment was signed by Mr Jacobsen.
The totality of the transaction is evidenced in an exchange of e-mails between my office and Mr and Mrs Jacobsen.
I am happy to co-operate with any investigation conducted by the Police, the Parliament, a Royal Commission or any other properly appointed regulatory authority; I have nothing to hide.
I am, however, disappointed in the extreme that Senator Williams has chosen to grandstand by airing these complaints under parliamentary privilege before passing them to the AFP. If he thought I had been involved in wrongdoing, he should have simply referred the matter to the Police and thereby given me an opportunity to answer any questions the Police may have had of me. Procedural fairness would have been served.
As it is, Senator Williams ' grandstanding has enabled the allegations which he aired under the protection of parliamentary privilege, to be rebroadcast by virtually every major newspaper in the country in circumstances where I do not get a proper right of reply or get an opportunity to bring court action to vindicate my name.
The result of Senator Williams ' abuse of parliamentary privilege has been to cause severe and ongoing damage to my business, against which I have no recourse. I note that as an employer I have responsibilities to my employees, who rely on the ongoing viability of my business for their wages.
I do not have a problem with the concept of parliamentary privilege. Responsibly used, it ensures political debate is not stifled. Senator Williams has not used it responsibly; as a matter of last resort after all other proper investigations have occurred. He has used it (before referring the matter to Police for investigation) to grandstand for his own purposes, regardless of the damage done to the livelihood of me and the employees for whom I am responsible.
I am told that Senator Williams was given the information about my alleged business dealings by National Party figures in Queensland who had in turn been supplied them by Mark Mclvor of Equititrust Ltd. I am currently engaged in long running litigation with Equititrust. Both Equititrust and Mark Mclvor face an existential threat from such litigation. Mr Mclvor has adopted the strategy of raking up disaffected persons with whom I have done business and then having Senator Williams do his dirty work for him under the cover of parliamentary privilege.
I note that standover man Jim Byrnes boasts that Mclvor was the best man at his wedding. I also note that Byrnes was a multi- million dollar borrower from Equititrust.
If after reading this, Senator Williams still has the courage of his convictions, perhaps he could walk the few metres from his office to the steps outside parliament, and repeat his allegations. I challenge him to do so, then they could be tested on the level playing field that our courts afford, and both he and I can risk our respective houses on the outcome. If he no longer has the courage of his convictions, perhaps he could promptly give me an apology in the same forum in which he defamed me.
I won ' t be holding my breath for him to do either.
Senate
Tabling Statement
Report 120:
Treaties tabled on 5 July and 16 August 2011
Senator Simon Birmingham
Deputy Chair, Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
For presentation on Tuesday 11 October 2011
Mr President, today I present the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 120, which contains the Committee's views on, firstly, a series of treaties on Antarctic environmental and tourism issues which were tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament on 5 July 2011. The Report also reviews five taxation treaties and a social security treaty, which were tabled on 16 August 2011.
Mr President, I intend to briefly comment on all the treaties dealt with in this report.
Firstly, there are three proposed amendments to the Antarctic Treaty, which will:
These amendments align with Australia's commitment to protecting the Antarctic environment.
Mr President, I will now turn to the Agreement between Australia and the Republic of Hungary on Social Security.
This treaty provides access to Hungarian age, disability or survivor's benefit for Australians of Hungarian descent who worked in Hungary long enough to establish an entitlement to these benefits.
The Treaty also ensures that people who move between Australia and Hungary will have their entitlement to benefits recognised in both countries.
Finally, Mr President, I would like to deal with the five tax treaties covered in the Report, which involve the Marshall Islands, Mauritius and Montserrat.
These treaties are part of Australia's implementation of the Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) standards on the elimination of harmful tax practices.
The Committee supports these treaties as they are a powerful tool for transparency in international financial transfers.
Previous tax treaties have resulted in a decline in fund flows from Australia of 80 per cent to Liechtenstein, 50 per cent to Vanuatu, and 22 per cent to Switzerland.
I each case, the Committee concludes that these treaties should be supported with binding action.
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Additional estimates 2010-11—
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 15 June and 11 October 2011—Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Budget estimates 2011-12—
Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 22 September and 12 October 2011—Treasury portfolio.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 22 September and 12 October 2011—
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio.
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 22 September and 12 October 2011—Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 22 September and 12 October 2011—Defence portfolio.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 21 September and 11 October 2011—Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Urquhart to replace Senator Carol Brown on 21 October 2011
Participating member: Senator Carol Brown
Communit y Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Kroger to replace Senator Boyce on 19 October and 20 October 2011
Participating member: Senator Boyce
Environment and Commun ications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Milne to replace Senator Waters for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill
Participating member: Senator Waters
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Mason to replace Senator Boyce on 17 October and 18 October 2011
Privileges— Standing Committee—
Appointed—Senator Ludlam.
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011
On 3 April 2010, while traversing a well known shipping route south of the Douglas Shoal in the region of the Great Barrier Reef, the Shen Neng 1 ran hard aground just east of Great Keppel Island.
The vessel's grounding caused damage to the coral reef on the Douglas Shoal and there was a spill of oil.
The impact caused the ship's fuel tanks to rupture and released approximately four tonnes of fuel oil into surrounding waters.
Fortunately, this oil spill was not severe and was broken down by the elements, chemically dispersed or contained and recovered.
While this incident was considered relatively minor, there was the potential for a significant oil spill.
If the salvage operation had been unsuccessful or the vessel had been more severely damaged as a result of the impact with the reef, the Shen Neng 1 incident could have resulted in a spill of up to 975 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and around 65,000 tonnes of coal causing significant environmental damage and requiring an extensive shoreline clean-up.
But the Shen Neng 1 is not the only example of environmental damage by a vessel in recent times.
A year earlier, on 11 March 2009, a Hong Kong China registered general cargo ship, the Pacific Adventurer, lost 31 containers of ammonium nitrate overboard east of Moreton Bay while enroute to Brisbane from Newcastle.
The fallen containers caused damage to the ship that resulted in the loss of more than 270 tonnes of heavy fuel oil.
This oil impacted significant portions of the south-east Queensland coast, in particular the eastern and northern beaches and headlands of the Moreton Island National Park, the eastern beaches of Bribie Island, the beaches and foreshores of the Sunshine Coast and small areas of the Brisbane River.
The majority of oiling occurred on sandy beaches in areas that have high tourism and community amenity value.
Clean-up operations continued for two months, with a total of about 2,500 people deployed for the entire clean-up, including workers from many State and Commonwealth agencies and community volunteers.
At the height of the response operation 400 personnel were working on Moreton Island each day.
Approximately 3,000 tonnes of sand contaminated with oil was removed from Moreton Island.
Considering the size of the oil spill very small numbers of wildlife were affected but the potential existed for many birds, turtles and sea snakes to be injured or worse.
These two incidents highlight the impact that pollution from ships can have on Australia's coastline and coastal waters.
At that time, I committed the Federal Government to improving safe navigation through the Great Barrier Reef marine park.
In April 2010 AMSA issued its report into the Shen Neng 1 grounding, titled Improving Safe Navigation in the Great Barrier Reef.
The Report made four recommendations:
Since April last year we have implemented these recommendations.
On 1 July this year I launched the extension of the REEFVTS to the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef.
As part of the REEFVTS extension navigational aids within the Great Barrier Reef have been enhanced.
For example, the North Reef Lighthouse north of Gladstone has been refurbished with new vessel tracking equipment.
There is also a new under keel clearance management system for the restricted waters of the Torres Strait.
This technological advance will show the best times and safest speeds for vessels to move through the area, making sure that there is a minimum level of water beneath the keel at all times.
I understand this is the first time such a system has been developed for open water.
In developing a whole of government management response to prevent such incidents in the future we have re-established the Great Barrier Reef Shipping Management Group.
It has members from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Maritime Safety Queensland, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Department of Infrastructure and Transport.
This group plays a vital role in monitoring the new safety measures.
Finally, the Bill I am introducing today delivers on the last element of the Government's commitment at the time of the Shen Neng 1 grounding.
Large incidents are relatively rare however; the number of reported oil spills in Australian waters has averaged over 250 per annum over the last 10 years.
While the majority of these oil spills are relatively minor, the potential impacts of these spills on the maritime industry, the environment, the tourist and fishing industries and the broader economy needs to be recognised.
That is even before we consider the economic impact to some of Australia's most important export ports.
99 per cent of Australia's international trade is carried by ships.
Our ports manage 10 per cent of the world's entire sea trade.
$200 billion worth of cargo is moved annually.
There are over 25,000 voyages by ships to and around Australia each year.
All this means that we need strong safety regulations and penalties when shipping companies ignore their responsibilities.
This Bill will:
There is a widely held view that Commonwealth penalties are too low to discourage violations.
Currently, Commonwealth penalties for incidents like the Shen Neng 1 and Pacific Adventurer are inconsequential when you take into account the economic capacity of modern shipping companies.
This Bill will amend Commonwealth legislation to ensure that our regulatory regime is strong enough to provide sufficient deterrent for shipping companies and their crews from engaging in unsafe and irresponsible actions at sea, particularly near environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems.
Penalties for a corporation will be increased from $1.1 million to $11 million.
This brings Commonwealth penalties into line with the States.
This Bill brings in changes that will have a significant positive impact on our environment by influencing better practice in navigation and vessel operation in Australian waters.
In April 2010, I said the Government's aim here is simple “to further deter shipping companies and their crews from engaging in unsafe and irresponsible actions at sea, particularly near environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems.”
This Bill achieves that.
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PARTICIPANTS IN BRITISH NUCLEAR TESTS) BILL 2011
I am pleased to present legislation that further improves the operation of Australia's repatriation system and provides improved access to compensation and health care for former Defence force members.
This Bill will amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act.
The Department has received claims from a small number of personnel who should be, but are not currently, eligible for compensation and health care under the Acts as a result of their participation in the British nuclear test program.
The personnel were involved in the maintenance, transporting or decontamination of aircraft used in the British nuclear test program outside the currently legislated nuclear test areas or time periods.
These amendments will facilitate and streamline access to compensation and health care for these Australian personnel, and any future claimants, who participated in the British nuclear test program conducted in the 1950s and 60s.
This streamlining will be achieved by enabling the Repatriation Commission to determine, through a legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria relating to participation in the British nuclear test program under both the Veterans' Entitlements Act and the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act.
The quality of the records from the test period, and the secrecy surrounding the operation, means that it is impossible to rule out the likelihood that new information may come to light which warrants further extension of coverage to additional groups of participants.
Streamlining will enable the Department to be more responsive to new information regarding personnel associated with, and tasks undertaken as part of, the British nuclear test program.
The Bill will benefit Australian personnel who participated in the British nuclear test program, and their dependants, by enabling compensation and health care to be provided with a minimum of delay.
These amendments are a demonstration of the Government's commitment to continually improve the services and support we provide to our current and former military personnel.
That the Senate notes the failure of the Gillard Labor Government to maintain the confidence of the Australian people in its ability to protect our borders.
This is a shameful moment for us as a party.
… an inclusive but non-binding regional cooperation framework would provide a more effective way for interested parties to cooperate to reduce irregular movement through the region.
… where appropriate and possible, asylum seekers should have access to consistent assessment processes, whether through a set of harmonised arrangements or through the possible establishment of regional assessment arrangements, which might include a centre or centres, taking into account any existing sub-regional arrangements.
… an indictment of Australian politics—
that refugees are being treated as human footballs.
The first step is to recognise that boat arrivals, regardless of punitive measures, will continue.
The second step is to explain to the Australian people why humane treatment of boat arrivals is not a threat.
… to inform Australians about the number of arrivals, who they are, how we determine they are genuine, and the persecution to which they have been subjected.
The third step is to reach agreements with regional nations that give them some degree of comfort … relieve the pressure on them and make for a more orderly process, and hopefully reduce the number of people coming on unseaworthy crafts.
That the question be now put.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the ruling of the President be dissented from.
Debate on that motion shall be adjourned to the next sitting day, unless the Senate decides on motion, without debate, that the question requires immediate determination.
That the question of dissent requires immediate determination.
Tomorrow hundreds of steelworkers will front up to Coalition MP offices in their local communities …
Saw this protest, was half a dozen "workers" until the media turned up and then this number increased significantly for 5 minutes while someone ranted and raved. And then it was over, everyone back on the union bus and back to work. More like sheep than true protestors!
Unions and their supporters protest about this but they wave the white flag when it came to the carbon tax, a tax that will decimate manufacturing in Australia. Don't complain when you have no jobs at all boys.
Older Australians drown in a range of aquatic settings. Improving fitness and swimming skills, and increasing awareness of the impact of medication and pre-existing illnesses on their ability to stay safe are key strategies to prevent drowning …
As at 31 December 2010 (QON 503) and 30 June 2011 (QON 779):
(1) With reference to the acquisition of the first 14 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft:
(a) what is the expected expenditure on the acquisition;
(b) what is supplied as equipment, supporting systems, weapons, services or infrastructure to the Australian Defence Force (ADF);
(c) when will these aircraft be delivered;
(d) when will they become fully operational; and
(e) what is the estimated through-life support and operating costs for these aircraft over an expected 30 year period of operation.
(2) When will the remaining 86 F-35 JSF be purchased (as referenced in the Defence White Paper 2009, p. 78, paragraph 9.60, 'The Government has decided that it will acquire around 100 F-35 JSF, along with supporting systems and weapons. The first stage of this acquisition will acquire three operational squadrons comprising not fewer than 72 aircraft').
(3) With reference to the acquisition of the remaining 86 F-35 JSF aircraft:
(a) what is the expected expenditure on the acquisition;
(b) what will be supplied as equipment, supporting systems, weapons, services or infrastructure to the ADF;
(c) when will the aircraft be delivered;
(d) when will they become fully operational;
(e) where will the JSF squadrons be based, and when; and
(f) what is the estimated through-life support and operating costs over an expected 30 year period of operation.
(4) What savings would be made by cancelling the purchase of 24 F-35 JSF aircraft and purchasing 24 Super Hornets.
(1) With reference to the acquisition of the first 14 aircraft:
(a) The first 14 JSF, with infrastructure and support required for initial training and testing, will be acquired at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (then year price and exchange rate of $0.83). The aircraft are anticipated to cost approximately $1.6 billion (then year price and exchange rate of $0.83) including some contingency. Some additional contingency is approved in the broader Stage 1 acquisition against risks and cost uncertainty. The figures are in ‘Then Year’ Australian dollars (i.e. they take inflation into account).
(b) The acquisition comprises:
(i) initial pilot training in the United States;
(ii) initial spares associated with 14 aircraft;
(iii) auxiliary mission equipment (such as weapons adaptors);
(iv) training equipment and simulators to support operational testing;
(v) weapons to support commencement of operational testing;
(vi) support equipment associated with 14 aircraft;
(vii) facilities design and environmental planning activities;
(viii) initial contributions to a mission systems reprogramming facility;
(ix) information technology integration;
(x) initial contributions to shared JSF Program costs;
(xi) ongoing Defence Science & Technology Organisation support activities;
(xii) operational test activities in Australia; and
(xiii) ongoing industry support initiatives.
(c) On current plans, the initial 14 aircraft will be delivered through 2014 to 2017.
(d) The aircraft will not become fully operational until at least 2018.
(e) Assuming an operational life out to 2046, the estimated through life and operating cost of the 14 aircraft (including capability upgrades but not including acquisition cost) will be approximately A$9 billion (Then Year).
(2) A decision on purchasing the next batch of aircraft and all necessary support and enabling capabilities – leading to a total of no fewer than 72 aircraft to form the first three operational squadrons and a training squadron is planned for 2012. A decision on acquiring the fourth operational squadron to bring the total number of JSF aircraft to around 100, will be considered at a later date in conjunction with the Government’s decision on the timing of withdrawal of the 24 Super Hornets.
(3) With reference to the acquisition of the remaining 86 JSF aircraft:
(a) The expected acquisition cost for 86 additional JSF aircraft, which includes all project costs, is approximately A$13.5 billion (Then Year) Significant additional contingency is approved against risks and cost uncertainty.
(b) The acquisition breakdown is broadly similar to the first 14 aircraft but comprises the full support capability:
(i) initial spares associated with remaining aircraft;
(ii) auxiliary mission equipment associated with remaining aircraft;
(iii) additional training equipment and simulators to support four operational squadrons and a training squadron;
(iv) weapons for use in initial operational testing and training;
(v) support equipment associated with remaining aircraft;
(vi) facilities construction and noise mitigation activities;
(vii) remaining contributions to a mission system reprogramming facility;
(viii) remaining contributions to shared JSF Program costs.
(c) On current plans, the bulk of the aircraft to form the first three operational squadrons and a training squadron will be delivered through 2018-2022.
(d) On current plans, the first three operational squadrons will achieve Full Operational Capability by 2021. The fourth (and last) operational squadron will not be operational until post 2020 as determined by Government consideration of AIR6000 Phase 2C scheduled for “not earlier than 2015”.
(e) The indicative plan is as follows:
(i) RAAF Base Williamtown - first operational squadron in 2018,
(ii) RAAF Base Tindal - second operational squadron in 2019,
(iii) RAAF Base Williamtown - training squadron in 2019,
(iv) RAAF Base Williamtown – third operational squadron in 2020, and
(v) RAAF Base Amberley – fourth operational squadron in 2022-23.
(f) Assuming an operational life out to 2046, the estimated through life and operating cost of the 86 aircraft will be approximately A$36 billion (Then Year).
(g) The procurement cost of 24 Super Hornet (aircraft only) would be expected to be approximately A$180-200 million less than the cost of 24 JSF.
As at 31 December 2010:
(1) Is it still planned to acquire 12 submarines as per the White Paper direction 'the Government takes the view that our future strategic circumstances necessitate a substantially expanded submarine fleet of 12 boats in order to sustain a force at sea' (Defence White Paper 2009, p. 64, paragraph 8.40).
(2) What plans and strategies are in place to man the 12 future submarines given the great difficulty in 2010, of manning and operating our current submarines.
(3) What is the expected cost of acquiring 12 future submarines, over the next:
(a) 12 months;
(b) 5 years;
(c) 10 years; and
(d) 15 years.
(4) What funding has been provided to assist in the planning for the 12 future submarines.
(5) When is it expected that the first pass approval will be provided to advance the purchase of the 12 future submarines.
(6) What is the expected through-life support and operating costs of a fleet of 12 future submarines over a 30 year operating period.
(7) When is it envisaged that the first of the 12 future submarines will be launched and fully operational.
(8) What is the expected cost per year of maintaining and operating our 6 Collins Class submarines until they are de-commissioned, broken down by year until 2025.
(9) What is the specific phasing-out program for the existing Collins Class submarines.
(1) Yes.
(2) In 2010 there were three sustainably crewed Collins Class Submarines operating.
In response to the 2008 Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review, the Chief of Navy agreed to implement all the Review's recommendations and in early 2009 established the Submarine Sustainability Program to execute remediation actions, over a five year, five-phase Submarine Sustainability Strategy.
Since the launch of the Submarine Sustainability Program, it has proved to be a highly effective framework for implementing the 29 Review recommendations and realising intended benefits. The Submarine Sustainability Program is primarily concerned with workforce-related reforms that benefit submariners and their families. The Submarine Sustainability Program has implemented more than two-thirds of the 29 recommendations and is still aiming to achieve the objective of growing a fourth submarine crew without undermining workforce growth in other areas critical to maintaining an effective submarine capability. The Submarine Sustainability Program is the foundation for expanding the submarine workforce to meet Future Submarine capability requirements.
(3) Until the submarine to be acquired, the support concept and the exact acquisition model are determined; it would be premature to speculate on the likely cost. The public DCP lists the main acquisition of SEA1000 as greater than $10 billion. Considerable work on scope, schedule and cost is required before more detailed data could be made available.
(4) The Minister for Defence has authorised a total of $19.306 million (Dec 11 Price Basis) for the Future Submarines Program.
(5) Current planning is that the Future Submarines Program will be considered by Government more frequently than less complex Defence acquisitions. Given this planned approach, there may not be a first pass approval as described in the Kinnaird process.
(6) These costs cannot be specified until the preferred submarine design and its associated usage-upkeep cycle is known.
(7) The date will depend on the submarine design and acquisition strategy agreed by Government.
(8) The costs provided are the estimates over the 10-year forward period, which is the estimating horizon, employed by Department of Defence.
Table 1 details DMO's maintenance and support costs for the Collins class submarine, which are primarily incurred for contracted services to support the platform. These costs also include provision of Escape and Rescue Services, the Submarine Escape and Rescue Training Facility and support to the combat system.
Table 1. Current Funded DMFP FYs 2011-12 to 2020-21
Reference: CN 10 Milestone 20120120 (DMO)
The expected operating budget for the six Collins Class submarines in each of the financial years 2011-12 to 2020-21 is detailed in the Table 2. The methodology used is consistent with the recent answer to QON 76 (asked by Senator Johnstone on 31 May 2011). The Operating costs include the cost of suppliers, facilities and personnel in both Defence and DMO deemed to directly contribute to the submarine capability along with rations, fuel, and EO (firings and sustainment costs).
This table does not include sustainment and project costs.
Table 2. Estimated Future Submarine Capability Operating Costs
Note: Excludes Sustainment Costs for Collins Class (CN10)
(9) Current planning is for the first Collins Class submarine to be withdrawn from service in 2026. This is subject to an exhaustive assessment of the estimated life of the Collins, yet to be effected by Defence. It is intended that the Collins Class submarine withdrawal program will be closely coordinated with the introduction into service of the Future Submarines; the schedule for which is yet to be determined. The transition plan will be designed to minimise the impact on overall submarine availability, the period of transition and the associated costs.
Given that the replacement of the Collins Class submarines is scheduled to begin in 2024-25, what is the current schedule to retire each of the Collins Class submarines?
The Collins Class Submarine life of type is currently planned to extend to around 2031, with the fleet being progressively withdrawn from service around 2025.
The life of the Collins Class is notional rather than fixed and will be influenced by the ongoing supportability and relative capability of the Collins Class
How many staff were employed in the SEA 1000 Project office for the 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 financial years.
In 2008 – 09, the full year average strength was 7.5.
In 2009 – 10, the full year average strength was 26.33.
In 2010 – 11, the full year average strength was 37.25.
What are the staffing projections for the SEA 1000 Project office for the 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 financial years.
The current funded SEA 1000 workforce allocation for forward years is as follows:
What funding was allocated to the SEA 1000 Project office in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Approved funding for the Future Submarines Program to date is as follows:
December 2008—$4.670 million;
October 2009—$10.840 million; and
June 2010—$4.026 million.
Out turned to a February 2011 price basis the total approved funding is $19.522 million.
What is the projected spending in the SEA 1000 Project office for the period of 2011 to 2015.
Funding for SEA1000 is outlined in the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), a classified document. A public response cannot be provided.
With reference to the Defence White Paper 2009, which states that the Collins Class replacement submarines will be assembled in South Australia:
(1) Is this still the case.
(2) Why not describe the submarines as being 'built' in South Australia.
(1) Yes.
(2) As was the case with the Collins Class submarines and the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) projects, it is expected that Future Submarines will be assembled from components and possibly modules manufactured in a number of locations around Australia and overseas. Final assembly will take place in South Australia. The term 'built' would therefore be misleading.
Given that it was stated at the Submarine Institute of Australia Conference in 2010 that the design experience of the United Kingdom, with regard to their future submarines, was greatly enhanced by having significant input from groups who would potentially be involved in the servicing of the submarines: what involvement have such groups had in the SEA 1000 project to date, and/or in the future.
A key lesson learned from the Collins Program is that insufficient attention was paid to supportability during the design phase. It is intended that suitably experienced companies will be engaged during the design and development of the Future Submarines to minimise the likelihood of sustainment issues.
(1) What is the current build schedule to ensure that the first of the Collins Class replacement submarines is fully operational by 2025.
(2) What is the current delivery schedule for the remaining 11 submarines as defined in the Defence White Paper 2009.
(1) Current planning is based on 2nd Pass in late 2016. The exact schedule will depend on the capability required and the solution chosen. The phasing out of the Collins Class and the introduction of the future submarines will be managed to avoid any capability gap.
(2) The delivery schedule for the remaining submarines will be developed to minimise transition issues from the Collins Class and to take account of Industry capacity and Navy's ability to generate crews for the new submarines.
(1) Has the Scorpene Class submarine been considered as a military off-the-shelf [MOTS] replacement for the Collins Class submarine.
(2) What would be the estimated cost of purchasing 12 of this class of submarine as the 'new' submarine.
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing this class of submarine.
(1) Yes.
(2) The cost estimate provided to Defence by the supplier of "Scorpène" is commercial-in-confidence and cannot be made available publically.
(3) Advantages: Proven design and possibly a relatively shorter delivery time compared with some other potential options.
Disadvantages: The design does not meet Australia's broad needs as outlined in the Defence White Paper.
(1) Has the HDW 209 Class (or an export variant) submarine been considered as a military off-the-shelf [MOTS] replacement for the Collins Class submarine.
(2) What would be the estimated cost of purchasing 12 of this class of submarine as the 'new' submarine.
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing this class of submarine.
(1) The HDW Type 209 class of submarine is a 1960s vintage design that has not been offered to Australia and is not among the submarines considered as an off-the-shelf option for the Future Submarines.
(2) No estimate is available.
(3) No assessment has been made.
(1) Has the Spanish S-80 Class (or an export variant) submarine been considered as a military off-the-shelf [MOTS] replacement for the Collins Class submarine.
(2) What would be the estimated cost of purchasing 12 of this class of submarine as the 'new' submarine.
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing this class of submarine.
(1) Yes.
(2) The cost estimate provided to Defence by the supplier of "S-80" is Commercial in Confidence and cannot be made available publically.
(3) Advantages: The design is under construction for another Navy, therefore Australia would not be the parent.
Disadvantages: The design is not at sea yet and is therefore unproven. The design does not meet Australia's broad needs as outlined in the Defence White Paper.
(1) Has the Japanese 'Soryu' Class (or an export variant) submarine been considered as a military off-the-shelf [MOTS] replacement for the Collins Class submarine.
(2) What would be the estimated cost of purchasing 12 of this class of submarine as the 'new' submarine.
(3) What are the advantages and disadvantages of purchasing this class of submarine.
(1) No. The Japanese do not export submarines.
(2) No estimate is available.
(3) No assessment has been undertaken.
(1) With reference to Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) staffing numbers and staff management policies:
(a) what is the current number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff and at what levels are these positions classified;
(b) what is the projected number of FTE staff and associated classifications for the next 3 financial years;
(c) for each calendar year since 2005, can figures be provided for:
(i) the number of staff separations from DPS,
(ii) the number of separations in the following categories: termination, resignation, retirement (age), retirement (other) or death, return to home agency, end of non-ongoing employment, and transfer or promotion to another agency, and
(iii) the number of incidents of bullying reported to or recorded by DPS;
(d) what measures (in detail) have been taken by DPS to address complaints and incidents of bullying in the workplace;
(e) have any incidents of bullying been identified through staff exit surveys; and
(f) what measures does DPS use to assess the success of measures to counter bullying in the workplace.
(2) With reference to the treatment by DPS of billiard tables and other equipment from the former staff recreation room:
(a) apart from the two billiard tables sold through ALLBIDS Auctions, what has become of all other furniture, fittings and fixtures from the former staff recreation room, including the following items:
(i) pool table,
(ii) ping pong table,
(iii) dart board and cupboard,
(iv) trophy cabinets and trophies,
(v) piano,
(vi) tables,
(vii) chairs,
(viii) light fixtures,
(ix) carpet,
(x) accessories, and
(xi) any other items;
(b) for all items disposed of, can the following details be provided:
(i) any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,
(ii) the manner of disposal,
(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,
(iv) the original value,
(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,
(vi) any reserve set,
(vii) the value realised through sale,
(viii) the destination of any funds realised, and
(ix) any other details available including the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser;
(c) if any items from the former staff recreation room were retained, can details be provided of the retained items, including their current location and plans for future use; and
(d) was Old Parliament House contacted before the sale of the billiard tables; if so, when and with what response; if not, why not.
(3) With reference to the construction of the Parliament House briefing room:
(a) how many DPS staff were displaced by the construction of the briefing room;
(b) where are those displaced staff currently located; and
(c) how many of those staff have moved, or will move, into the new office accommodation on the site of the former staff recreation room.
(4) With reference to the asset management policies and practices of DPS, including, but not limited to, the Parliament building itself, and its furniture and artworks:
(a) can details be provided of any charter for managing Parliament House and related assets, including governance arrangements and authority to dispose of items;
(b) can an account be provided of the disposal policies and procedures followed by DPS, including: the procedures involved for initiation and consideration of disposal proposals, the decision-making processes, the valuation of items to be disposed of, the basis on which the value of assets is assessed as appreciating or depreciating, and procedures for ensuring value for money is achieved in the disposal process;
(c) when items are disposed of for sale, is there any policy in relation to the disclosure during the sale process of the Parliament House provenance of the items;
(d) does DPS maintain a register of assets, including artworks; if so, how are items recorded and updated;
(e) when was the last full audit of DPS assets conducted, by whom was it conducted and what was the outcome, including the number, value and significance of any items missing or unaccounted for and action taken to locate them;
(f) can details be provided of any original Parliament House items disposed of since 2000, including the reason for disposal, the value of the items and the manner of disposal; and
(g) in relation to furniture, can details be provided of any items of furniture that have been replaced since the building opened in 1988, together with:
(i) the reason for replacing them,
(ii) the date of replacement,
(iii) details of plans for future replacement of furniture as reported in the press on 21 May 2011,
(iv) the rationale for the planned replacements,
(v) the original value of the items to be replaced,
(vi) the cost of planned furniture replacement,
(vii) an assessment of how the quality and design of the replacement furniture compares with the original furniture, and
(viii) procedures for ensuring that the design elements of the original furniture are maintained in the replacement furniture.
(5) With reference to the Bertoia diamond chairs and other original outdoor furniture at Parliament House:
(a) can details be provided of any original outdoor furniture that has been disposed of, including:
(i) any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,
(ii) manner of disposal,
(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,
(iv) original value,
(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,
(vi) any reserve set,
(vii) value realised through sale,
(viii) destination of any funds realised, and
(ix) any other details available, including: the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser;
(b) if original outdoor furniture has been retained, can details be provided of its current location and any future plans in relation to it;
(c) can details be provided of any new outdoor furniture that has been acquired; and
(d) can the following details be provided in relation to the Bertoia diamond chairs:
(i) how many have been sold or otherwise disposed of,
(ii) what were the proceeds of any sale,
(iii) is DPS satisfied that value for money was achieved in any sale of the Bertoia diamond chairs,
(iv) if any Bertoia diamond chairs were disposed of, did DPS undertake a heritage assessment of the items before the sale, and
(v) if a heritage assessment was undertaken, by whom was it undertaken and what qualifications or expertise did they have.
(6) With reference to the terracotta pot plant holders previously located throughout Parliament House:
(a) what is the current location of the terracotta pot plant holders and are there any future plans in relation to them;
(b) if any of the terracotta pot plant holders have been disposed of, can the following details be provided:
(i) whether any heritage assessment, significance or expert advice was undertaken, assessed or obtained before disposal,
(ii) the manner of disposal,
(iii) whether any intermediary such as an auction house was used in the disposal,
(iv) the original value,
(v) the valuation prior to sale, and the basis of that valuation and of the original valuation,
(vi) any reserve set,
(vii) the value realised through sale,
(viii) the destination of any funds realised, and
(ix) any other details available, including: the date of sale, provenance and ownership of the item, and identity of the purchaser; and
(c) what is the estimated value of the original collection of terracotta pot plant holders.
(7) With reference to the heritage management of Parliament House:
(a) has Parliament House been nominated for Heritage Listing; if so, can full details be provided;
(b) is DPS satisfied that it has discharged all of its responsibilities to ensure that Parliament House complies with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), the Commonwealth Heritage List, the Commonwealth Heritage Management Principles, and the National Heritage List; if so, how has this been achieved; if not, why not;
(c) what strategies does DPS employ to ensure that:
(i) the original design elements of Parliament House, and
(ii) the integrity of the original design and construction of Parliament House, are maintained to the appropriate standard for the estimated 200 year life of the building, and how are these documented and reported;
(d) can copies be provided of the current and all previous versions of the Heritage Strategy for Parliament House, including the date of each draft, and its current status and author/s;
(e) who was consulted in the preparation of the Heritage Strategy for Parliament House;
(f) is there any independent or expert oversight of Parliament House in relation to heritage management and design integrity;
(g) does DPS retain spare original building materials, fixtures and fittings to meet the requirement of the building throughout its 200 year life; if so, can details be provided, including quantities of such materials and their original value;
(h) has DPS disposed of any spare original building components, materials, fixtures and fittings; if so, can full details be provided, including: the rationale for the disposal, whether any heritage assessment was undertaken, the manner of disposal, the original value of the materials, and the value realised from the sale or disposal;
(i) in managing projects to upgrade physical security or disability access or in undertaking modernising works, what procedures does DPS employ to manage the heritage aspects of the work; and
(j) are architects engaged by DPS required to provide:
(i) written reports to confirm how their new work conforms to the design integrity of Parliament House, and
(ii) heritage impact statements as part their work.
I refer to Senate Question on Notice 682 (Senator Faulkner), the response to which we provided to the Senate on 8 July 2011.
One component of the Questions related to terracotta pots in and around Parliament House.
DPS officers have now become aware of some further information about terracotta pots, and we advise that some terracotta pots may have been disposed of via public auction around 1995/1996 by the Joint House Department.
While we can find no record of the transaction we have become aware that the Parliament House Construction Authority originally acquired around 1300 pots. DPS records indicate that we have around 900. The estimated date of disposal is based upon information provided by former staff members.
(1) What is the Australian Government's understanding of the circumstances in which the US would be willing to use its nuclear forces in Australia's defence.
(2) Is it the Australian Government's understanding that the US would be prepared to use its nuclear forces both pre-emptively and responsively in relation to both nuclear and non-nuclear (chemical, biological, conventional) threats to Australia.
(3) What specific nuclear and non-nuclear threats does Australia face that could be countered or addressed by the use of US nuclear weapons.
(4) Does Australia consider the policies outlined in the [2010 NPR] report to be in conformity with Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and international humanitarian law.
(5) On what basis does the department assert, in paragraph 6.34 of the Defence White Paper 2009, that Australia is 'able to rely on the nuclear forces of the United States to deter nuclear attack on Australia'.
(6) Has the US Government ever offered an explicit guarantee directly to Australia that it would be prepared to use its nuclear forces in Australia's defence; if so, when and in what form was such a guarantee made.
(7) What practical steps, if any, has Australia taken since 2007 to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its defence doctrines.
(8) What role do the US military bases situated in Australia, including the joint facility at Pine Gap, play in supporting US extended nuclear deterrence.
(9) Aside from hosting US military bases, in what other ways, if any does Australia provide support to US extended nuclear deterrence.
(10) How many and what class of US submarines will be involved in the Talisman Sabre 2011 military exercises in July, and will they be armed with nuclear weapons.
(11) Does the presence of nuclear-armed vessels in Australian waters pose a security risk to the Australian public.
(12) Will the Talisman Sabre 2011 military exercises include preparations for joint military activities involving the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
(13) What information, if any, does the department offer its personnel in relation to the lawfulness or otherwise of using or threatening to use nuclear weapons in armed conflict.
(14) Has the Australian Government offered any advice or other information to the 'Future Fund Management Agency' in relation to nuclear weapons, cluster munitions or anti-personnel land mines; if so, what was the content of such advice.
(1) and (2) The United States Nuclear Posture Review 2010 (NPR) declares that the United States will only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners.
The NPR declares that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations. The United States would counter chemical or biological weapons attacks against it, or its allies, with a conventional military response.
In regard to states which possess nuclear weapons and states which are not in compliance with the NPT obligations, the NPR states that there remains a narrow range of contingencies in which US nuclear weapons may still play a role in deterring a conventional, chemical or biological attack against the United States or its allies and partners.
The United States has also declared it will continue to strengthen conventional capabilities and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks, with the objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack on the United States or its allies and partners the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons.
Australia welcomed this change in declaratory policy as a significant reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in US national security strategy and made clear the view that Australia would be comfortable if the United States were to reach its objective of making deterrence of nuclear attack the sole purpose of its nuclear weapons, subject to the significant work required to establish the conditions to do so safely.
(3) The 2009 Defence White Paper states (at para 6.23) that Australia will most likely remain a secure country over the period to 2030 and (at para 4.59) that stable nuclear deterrence will continue to be a feature of the international system for the foreseeable future, and in this context extended deterrence will continue to be viable.
The White Paper notes a possibility that states of concern could develop the capability to couple long-range ballistic missiles with WMD warheads. The White Paper notes also that extended nuclear deterrence will be part of our defence against WMD proliferation, alongside other measures such as customs and export control regimes, and counter-proliferation activities.
(4) Australia welcomed the United States' Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 2010 as another very substantial step by the United States towards meeting its obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while maintaining an effective deterrent both for the United States, and for its allies, including Australia.
For the time being, Australia accepts that nuclear weapons are part of the strategic environment.
Australian defence policy acknowledges the value to Australia of the protection afforded by extended nuclear deterrence under the US Alliance.
Under this, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we can rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia.
Australia supports the commitment in the NPR to pursue further reductions in the number of nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles held by the United States and Russia in the wake of entry into force of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, including non-strategic and non-deployed nuclear weapons aimed at achieving substantial further nuclear force reductions.
Australia also endorses the commitment to engage over time other nuclear weapons states, in a multilateral effort to reduce and eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons.
Australia is pleased that the NPR rejects the development of new nuclear weapons or the pursuit of new military missions or new capabilities for nuclear weapons, while taking measures to sustain a safe, secure and effective arsenal.
Australia welcomed the NPR's reaffirmation of President Obama's pledge in Prague in April 2009 that the United States will not resume testing of nuclear weapons and will seek ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
(5) and (6) The ANZUS Treaty states that the Parties will "act to meet the common danger". As close allies, Australia and the United States consult on security matters of importance, including the policy of extended nuclear deterrence. The United States policy of extended nuclear deterrence to its allies is contained in its public statements on its nuclear policy, most recently in the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review.
(7) As a non-nuclear weapon state, Australia's military and defence doctrine contains no reference to nuclear weapons other than to emphasise the US guarantee under extended nuclear deterrence.
Australia has consistently called for deeper and irreversible reductions in the number of nuclear weapons held by all nuclear-armed states, and the reduction of the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategies.
Australia is working hard to achieve the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Australia is also working for the negotiation of an effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and, pending that, a moratorium on the production of fissile material for weapons purposes.
Australia is active in efforts to implement strengthened non-proliferation measures, such as support for the IAEA's Additional Protocol and effective export controls.
Australia is working with others in the international community to reinforce the vital importance of full compliance with the NPT's non-proliferation obligations, in particular by Iran and North Korea.
Australia is an active participant in the Proliferation Security Initiative, which seeks to prevent illicit trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, their delivery systems and related materials.
Together with Japan, Australia established the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The Commission's independent report, launched in Tokyo in December 2009, has been seen as a major contribution to global disarmament and non-proliferation efforts.
While the Commission was not set up, or its report written, to reflect Australian Government policy, much of its analysis, action agenda and recommendations are in step with the Government's own nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policies and priorities.
Australia and Japan have also established the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) to help drive implementation of non-proliferation and disarmament outcomes of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.
(8) and (9) Australia hosts joint facilities with the United States. The Defence White Paper 2009 states (at para 11.12): the Joint Defence Facility at Pine Gap "will continue to contribute to the intelligence collection capabilities of both countries, support monitoring of compliance with arms control and disarmament agreements, and underpin global strategic stability by providing ballistic missile early warning information to the United States".
(10) and 11) One United States Los Angeles class nuclear powered submarine participated in Talisman Sabre 2011. The United States has a policy of neither confirming nor denying whether such vessels are carrying nuclear weapons or not.
(12) No.
(13) All ADF personnel are required to undergo training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which includes training in the lawful mechanisms and means of conduction warfare.
(14) The investment decisions of the Future Fund Board of Guardians (the Board) are made independently of Government. The Department of Finance and Deregulation regularly consults and shares information with the Future Fund Management Agency (the Agency) on an ongoing basis, including on the issues referred to in the question.
As at 30 June 2011:
(1) Is it still planned to acquire 12 submarines as per the White Paper direction 'the Government takes the view that our future strategic circumstances necessitate a substantially expanded submarine fleet of 12 boats in order to sustain a force at sea' (Defence White Paper 2009, p. 64, paragraph 8.40).
(2) What plans and strategies are in place to man the 12 future submarines given the great difficulty in 2010-2011, of manning and operating our current submarines.
(3) What is the expected cost of acquiring 12 future submarines, over the next: (a) 12 months; (b) 5 years; (c) 10 years; and (d) 15 years.
(4) What funding has been provided to assist in the planning for the 12 future submarines.
(5) When is it expected that the first pass approval will be provided to advance the purchase of the 12 future submarines.
(6) What is the expected through-life support and operating costs of a fleet of 12 future submarines over a 30 year operating period.
(7) When is it envisaged that the first of the 12 future submarines will be launched and fully operational.
(8) What is the expected cost per year of maintaining and operating our 6 Collins Class submarines until they are de-commissioned, broken down by year until 2025.
(9) What is the specific phasing-out program for the existing Collins Class submarines.
You previously asked the same questions under Senate Question on Notice No.504 on 22 March 2011. This response has been provided to you and remains extant. Based on your most recent question, the following update to the response is provided as follows:
(1) Same as response to QoN 504.
(2) In 2010 there were three sustainably crewed Collins Class Submarines operating.
In response to the 2008 Submarine Workforce Sustainability Review, the Chief of Navy agreed to implement all the Review's recommendations and in early 2009 established the Submarine Sustainability Program to execute remediation actions, over a five year, five-phase Submarine Sustainability Strategy.
Since the launch of the Submarine Sustainability Program, it has proved to be a highly effective framework for implementing the 29 Review recommendations and realising intended benefits. The Submarine Sustainability Program is primarily concerned with workforce-related reforms that benefit submariners and their families. The Submarine Sustainability Program has implemented more than two-thirds of the 29 recommendations and is still aiming to achieve the objective of growing a fourth submarine crew without undermining workforce growth in other areas critical to maintaining an effective submarine capability. The Submarine Sustainability Program is the foundation for expanding the submarine workforce to meet Future Submarine capability requirements.
(3) Same as response to QoN 504.
The Minister for Defence has authorised a total of $19.306 million (Dec 11 Price Basis) for the Future Submarines Program.
(5) Same as response to QoN 504.
(6) Same as response to QoN 504.
(7) Same as response to QoN 504.
(8) The costs provided are the estimates over the 10-year forward period, which is the estimating horizon, employed by Department of Defence.
Table 1 details DMO's maintenance and support costs for the Collins class submarine, which are primarily incurred for contracted services to support the platform. These costs also include provision of Escape and Rescue Services, the Submarine Escape and Rescue Training Facility and support to the combat system.
Table 1. Current Funded DMFP FYs 2011-12 to 2020-21
Reference: CN 10 Milestone 20120120 (DMO)
The expected operating budget for the six Collins Class submarines in each of the financial years 2011-12 to 2020-21 is detailed in the Table 2. The methodology used is consistent with the recent answer to QON 76 (asked by Senator Johnstone on 31 May 2011). The Operating costs include the cost of suppliers, facilities and personnel in both Defence and DMO deemed to directly contribute to the submarine capability along with rations, fuel, and EO (firings and sustainment costs).
This table does not include sustainment and project costs.
Table 2. Estimated Future Submarine Capability Operating Costs
Note: Excludes Sustainment Costs for Collins Class (CN10)
(9) Current planning is for the first Collins Class submarine to be withdrawn from service in 2026. It is intended that the Collins Class submarine withdrawal program will be closely coordinated with the introduction into service of the Future Submarines; the schedule for which is yet to be determined. The transition plan will be designed to minimise the impact on overall submarine availability, the period of transition and the associated costs.
With reference to the First Home Saver Accounts, including program and administrative expenses, what is the total amount budgeted for this program for each of the following financial years: (a) 2011-12; (b) 2012-13; (c) 2013-14; and (d) 2014-15.
The administered expenses for the program for the financial years requested are shown on page 212 of the Treasury's portfolio budget statement. http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/2027/PDF/08_ATO.pdf
Departmental funding for the ATO's administration of the First Home Saver Accounts measure was agreed as part of the 2008-09 Budget. The ATO's departmental resourcing for 2011-12 is $12.503 million as set out on page 159 of the 2008-09 Portfolio Budget Statements – Treasury Portfolio. This funding is ongoing from 2012-13.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Ministers portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Ministers portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet:
(1) Current staffing numbers have not been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend.
(2) The 2011-12 Budget indicates that departmental staff would increase by 200 largely due to Machinery of Government (MoG) changes. Once one-off factors are taken into account (such as the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, MoG changes, and establishment of the National Mental Health Commission), the department has estimated that average staffing levels will fall slightly over the year from levels as at June 2011 due to a range of factors and it is difficult to isolate the separate impact of the efficiency dividend.
(3) No changes are proposed to the current graduate recruitment or cadetship programs.
Office of National Assessments:
(1) There has been no specific target for staff reductions to achieve savings, however, staffing levels are being closely monitored and managed.
(2) The Office does not have any staff reduction plans in place.
(3) ONA does not currently have a graduate or cadet program, however it is currently investigating a range of recruitment opportunities through the development of a recruitment strategy.
Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General:
(1) The Office has reduced staffing levels by around 14 per cent over the past 3 years through natural attrition to achieve a number of efficiency measures. Due to the range of factors it is difficult to isolate the separate impact of the efficiency dividend.
(2) The Office does not have any staff reduction plans in place.
(3) No changes are underway or planned in relation to graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs
Refer to QONs 1116, 1133, 1135, 1140 and1148 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Ministers portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Ministers portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
Australia Business Arts Foundation Ltd
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) The Australia Business Arts Foundation Ltd does not have graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
Australia Council
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) None.
Bundanon Trust
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) None.
Australian Film, Television and Radio School
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) None.
Australian National Maritime Museum
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) None.
National Film and Sound Archive of Australia (NFSA)
(1) No.
(2) Yes, up to 7 ASL positions in 2011-12 will be reduced however the areas, services and classifications cannot be provided as the NFSA is relying on natural attrition for these staff reductions.
(3) None.
National Gallery of Australia (NGA)
(1) Yes, staffing levels have been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend, however it is not possible to quantify the exact numbers as these changes are affected by other internal staffing and funding decisions.
(2) In order to remain within budget the NGA must reduce its average staffing level. This will be achieved through a combination of strategies including: reducing the number of casual staff; not replacing some non-ongoing staff at the termination of their contracts; deferring for as long as possible the replacement of some ongoing positions; and natural attrition of ongoing staff.
(3) The NGA does not have any graduate recruitment or cadetship programs.
National Library of Australia (NLA)
(1) Yes staffing numbers have reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend. It is not possible to quantify the exact changes because such decisions are mixed in with a range of other internal staffing and funding changes.
(2) No.
(3) None.
National Museum of Australia (NMA)
(1) Yes. Staffing numbers have been reduced at the NMA as a result of the alignment of strategic priorities with available resources. The efficiency dividend is one part of the budget environment the agency has to address. It is difficult to quantify the exact impact of the efficiency dividend component on the changes since the staffing decisions are based on a range of internal structural, resourcing and funding changes.
(2) The NMA's projected budgets for the outyears assume staffing reductions as follows: six positions in 2012-13 and six positions in 2013-14, all to be achieved through natural attrition. At this stage there are no reductions planned for 2014-2015.
(3) None.
Museum of Australian Democracy (MOAD) at Old Parliament House
(1) No.
(2) There are currently no reduction targets. The MOAD continues to review how to best achieve its objectives while operating within the limits of the funding identified in the forward estimates.
(3) Not Applicable. The MOAD currently has no programs of graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar, so there will be no impact.
Screen Australia
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) Screen Australia does not have graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
Refer to QONs 1111, 1133, 1135, 1140 and1148 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Ministers portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Ministers portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
DEPARTMENT OF INNNOVATIO N, INDUSTRY, SCIENCE & RESEARCH
(1) In the 2011-12 Budget and across the forward estimates there have been no specific reduction in staffing numbers as a result of the efficiency dividends and or other budget cuts.
(2) No target has been set for staff reductions to achieve savings. Staffing changes are a result of decisions made by the Government as part of the Budget process. Other than Budget decisions which are disclosed in the Portfolio Budget Statement there has been limited impact on specific functions within the Department.
(3) There are no plans to change or reduce graduate recruitment or cadetship programs in operation in the Department.
IP AUSTRALIA
(1) As an agency that derives 95 per cent of funding on a cost recovery basis, IP Australia is not subject to the efficiency dividend.
(2) None related to the efficiency dividend. IP Australia will reduce staff numbers over the next four years as workload levels return to steady-state. This should see a reduction of approximately 50 staff (5 per cent), via natural staff turnover.
(3) IP Australia does not run a formal graduate program, though the majority of examiner vacancies are filled by people with university qualifications. There is no intention to alter recruitment from existing steady-state workload projections which will see small offers to recruit for any natural attrition of staff beyond workload decrease projections.
AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH COUNCIL (ARC)
(1) There has not been a reduction of staffing numbers as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or budget cuts. The effect of the efficiency dividend has been managed through changes to the staffing profile (i.e. both classification and categories).
(2) Some vacant positions will now not be filled as a result of the budgetary position.
(3) The ARC does not have graduate recruitment, cadetships or other similar programs.
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER STUDIES
(1) The Institute is currently reviewing its overall structure as a result of the efficiency dividend.
It is noted that the Institute received one-off funding for the Digitisation project which ended at 30 June 2011.
This funding employed 36 staff. Consequently, the Institute applied to the Minister for Finance for an operating loss of $3.2 million. This was approved and allows the Institute to continue to employ the affected staff for the 2011-12 year. However, without funding beyond the 2011-12 year, the Institute may potentially need to reduce staff members accordingly.
(2) This cannot be quantified until such time as the review is completed which is expected to be late October/November.
(3) N/A at this point in time.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Ministers portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Ministers portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
Please refer to the answer provided to Senate Parliamentary Question on Notice 1126.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Ministers portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Ministers portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
Australian National Audit Office:
(1) There has been no specific target for staff reductions to achieve savings, however, staffing levels are being closely monitored and managed.
(2) The ANAO does not have any staff reduction plans in place.
(3) No changes are underway or planned in relaations to the graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
Australian Public Service Commission:
(1) There has been no specific target for staff reductions to achieve savings, however, staffing levels are being closely monitored and managed.
(2) The APSC does not have any staff reduction plans in place.
(3) No changes are underway or planned in relations to the graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
The Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security:
(1) There has been no specific target for staff reductions to achieve savings, however, staffing levels are being closely monitored and managed.
(2) The OIGIS does not have any staff reduction plans in place.
(3) The OIGIS does not currently have a graduate or cadet program.
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman:
(1) There has been no specific target for staff reductions to achieve savings, however, staffing levels are being closely monitored and managed within the Office to achieve efficiencies.
(2) The 2011–12 Portfolio Budget Statements includes an average staffing level of 149. The current forward estimates show reductions in employee benefits expense in 2012–13 as a result of terminating measures for the Northern Territory Emergency Response and Christmas Island Processing Oversight. Staffing numbers will reduce in line with these terminating measures.
(3) No changes are underway or planned in relations to the graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
Refer to QONs 1111, 1116, 1133, 1135, and 1140 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) Not applicable.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Not applicable.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
Please refer to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation’s response to Question No. 1171.