The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Economics References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.30 pm.
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
that the bill or bills may proceed without formalities (this shall have the effect of suspending any requirements for stages of the passage of the bill or bills to take place on different days, for notice of motions for such stages, and for the printing and certification of the bill or bills during passage) …
That this bill may proceed without formalities.
That this bill be now read a second time.
STEEL TRANSFORMATION PLAN BILL 2011
The Government is committed to action on climate change and the need to reduce our carbon pollution.
This is because the Government accepts the science and understands both the damage that unmitigated climate change would cause to Australia and the opportunities for our economy if we take action.
Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest and fairest way to cut pollution and build a clean energy economy for the future. The Government also recognises that there are sectors in the economy which are particularly exposed to a carbon price and may not be able pass these costs on as a result of being trade-exposed. This is why the Government has carefully designed the Jobs and Competitiveness Program which provides these exposed industries with transitional assistance while still maintaining the incentives to reduce emissions.
Australian steel makers currently face considerable pressures from factors other than a carbon price, including international competition, increases in raw material costs and subdued growth in the Australian construction industry.
In response to these issues, this Bill will enable the Government to make a Steel Transformation Plan, which will be referred to as the Plan, to help the sector transform into an increasingly efficient and sustainable industry in a low carbon economy.
The Plan will provide assistance worth up to $300 million over six years from 2011-12 to encourage investment, innovation and competitiveness in the Australian steel manufacturing industry.
The Plan is designed to improve the environmental outcomes of steel manufacturing and promote the development of workforce skills.
Funding under the Plan will be in addition to assistance for steel makers under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, which is part of the Clean Energy Future plan.
Importance of the steel industry
Australia is ranked 22nd in the world for steel production and consumes around 7 million tonnes of steel domestically each year.
The Australian steel manufacturing industry operates in a mature, open but relatively small domestic market, with ongoing import and export activity. Australia produces steel using two main production methods: integrated steel production using blast furnaces; and electric arc furnaces based on scrap steel.
The Australian steel industry provides inputs into the infrastructure, energy, defence, transport, automotive, communications, construction and consumer good industries.
The Bureau of Steel Manufacturers of Australia estimates that in 2006-07 all major Australian steel manufacturing activities employed a total of over 91,000 employees, and had revenues of $29 billion.
Australia typically exports around 2 million tonnes and imports 2 to 3 million tonnes of steel annually. In 2010, Australia exported $2.13 billion and imported $4.36 billion of iron and steel products.
Australia's export markets for iron and steel are diverse, with over 100 different countries regularly purchasing Australian products. The United States and New Zealand dominate Australia's steel export market with other products exported to Asia.
Australia's primary steel production is based at:
Economic factors affecting the steel industry
During the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, world steel production dropped 15 per cent. For the same period, Australian demand for steel products dropped by 29 per cent.
The collapse of demand during the global financial crisis caused world steel production capacity utilisation rates to drop below 60 per cent in early 2009 from pre-GFC rates of 85 per cent. In addition, average world composite steel prices collapsed by over 50 per cent, from a high of US$1,160 per tonne.
Following the global financial crisis, in 2010, total world crude steel production hit a record 1.41 billion tonnes. In 2010, the top ten steel producers - China, the EU, Japan, the US, Russia, India, Korea, Ukraine, Brazil and Turkey - collectively produced 81 per cent of all steel. In recent years, there has been a marked shift from Western Europe and the United States to North East and South Asia as the major steel producing countries.
According to the OECD, global steel demand was at a historically high level in the third quarter of 2010. However, advanced countries' steel demand is still below pre-GFC level, while emerging markets' demand is higher.
Steel manufacturers are also facing raw material input cost increases primarily due to strong demand for iron and coking coal. Raw material costs as a proportion of industry revenues have increased from approximately 35 per cent in 2003 to over 60 per cent in 2010.
Steel manufactures are also facing a high Australian dollar. The Australian dollar is currently trading above parity with the US dollar, driven by the terms of trade and is well above its long-run average against the US dollar.
There is also soft demand in steel producers' target market segments for value added products, notably residential and non residential building construction in Australia, which represent more than 50 per cent of domestic steel use.
Overview of the Bill
This is a framework Bill.
The Steel Transformation Plan will encourage investment, innovation and competitiveness in the Australian steel manufacturing industry in order to assist the industry to transform into an efficient and economically sustainable industry in a low carbon economy. This will be achieved in a way that improves environmental outcomes for the industry and the promotion of workforce skills.
The Steel Transformation Plan will contain two elements, the first is a $300 million entitlement scheme, that will operate over the five years from 2012-13. The second element will provide for competitiveness assistance advance payments, which will be referred to as Advances, up to the value of $164 million in 2011-12. Entitlements under the Plan would be reduced by the value of any advance payments made.
The Plan
The Bill provides the Government with the power to make the Plan and sets limits on how the Plan can be designed. The Plan itself will be contained in a legislative instrument, which will be made in consultation with industry and relevant trade unions.
Assistance will be limited to $300 million over the five years of the Plan, with a maximum of $75 million in each year. Guaranteeing this level of funding through a Standing Appropriation provides the steel manufacturing industry with certainty in respect of the amount of assistance it will be entitled to receive through the Plan.
The Bill sets out the matters to be contained in the legislative instrument, including: the registration of participants; the making of payments under the Plan; the recovery of amounts by the Commonwealth; the payment of interest on overpaid amounts; the review of decisions; and other matters required or permitted to be included in the Plan.
The Bill also includes a strong monitoring regime. These provisions will support the delivery of the Plan through a self-assessment entitlement program, to facilitate effective monitoring and to ensure the integrity of the Plan. This is balanced with the inclusion of provisions that protect the rights of occupiers of premises.
Advances
The Advances will be to assist eligible corporations to undertake activities that will significantly enhance the competitiveness and economic sustainability of the Australian steel manufacturing industry in a low carbon economy.
Any assistance paid as Advances will be deducted from future entitlements that any eligible corporation can receive in later years under the Plan.
Conditions for the Advances would be at the discretion of the Minister.
Commencement of this Bill will be contingent on the passage of the Clean Energy Future Legislation. This Bill does not form part of the Clean Energy Legislation that was agreed by the Multi Party Climate Change Committee.
Additional assistance measures
In addition to the payments provided under this Bill, the Government has committed to task the Productivity Commission to undertake two separate reviews of the steel industry, if they are requested by industry participants. The Productivity Commission Act 1998 already provides the Government with sufficient legislative power to commission these reviews.
First, at any time prior to the lapsing of the Plan, eligible corporations may make a request to the Government that a review be undertaken by the Commission into the impact of carbon pricing on the competitiveness of the steel industry. The review would take into account the lapsing of the Plan, the industry's broader circumstances including a range of factors related and unrelated to the carbon pricing mechanism that are affecting the competitiveness of the industry. The review would make recommendations to the Government about whether it should adjust support to the industry and the appropriate mechanism for that assistance. This review would not reduce the assistance provided to the eligible corporations already committed to under the Plan as it is set out in this Bill.
Second, at any time during the period that steel manufacturers are entitled to assistance under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program one or more of the companies conducting these activities may notify the Government in writing:
The Government commits that if it receives such notice, it will refer this matter to the Productivity Commission for review. The Productivity Commission would be asked to make a finding as to whether there are reasonable grounds to conclude that carbon costs are or will be passed through, and if such a conclusion is reached it will specify the amount of pass through it has identified. The Government will decide whether it should adjust support to the industry and the appropriate mechanism for that assistance, and will respond in a timely way. Any assistance provided by the Government to offset the carbon costs of coal suppliers will be taken into account.
The Government has also agreed that from 2016 17, the Government will provide an additional 10 per cent increase in the baseline for the two steel manufacturing activities that have been defined for the purposes of the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. Subject to passage of the Clean Energy Bill 2011, the Government will make regulations for the purposes of the Jobs and Competitiveness Program by March 2012, which will include this commitment.
This Bill will support existing direct Australian Government measures to support the steel industry, including the Steel Industry Innovation Council, the Steel Supplier Advocate, the Industry Capability Network National Steel Manager, and collaborative relationships between the steel industry, the CSIRO and Cooperative Research Centres and other Commonwealth funded research agencies.
Conclusion
The steel manufacturing industry is important to Australia. The recent announcements by Bluescope Steel in relation to their Port Kembla Blast Furnace and Western Port Hot Strip Mill demonstrate the significance of the steel industry to specific regional communities.
The Government is committed to working with the steel industry and local communities to maintain a successful industry and support jobs.
Taking into account assistance to be provided under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program, the carbon price will not have a significant impact on the steel industry. The industry has confirmed this is the case. However, the range of factors unrelated to the carbon price currently affecting this industry requires a firm Government commitment to support this industry and the regional communities that rely on it.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills.
That the motion (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
The aim of the carbon tax is to reduce Australian emissions by five per cent. In turn, the aim of that reduction is to put political or economic pressure to encourage or shame other countries to reduce their emissions by five per cent. If we are successful and all the countries of the world reduce their emissions to five per cent below what they would have been, then the anthropogenic climate that we would otherwise have seen in 2031 will be postponed until—
2032.
The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones…
If political reality is not grounded in physical reality, it is useless.
From melting glaciers and earlier springs to advancing treelines and changing animal ranges, many lines of evidence back up what the thermometers tell us—Earth is getting warmer. Over the 20th century, the average global temperature rose by 0.8°C.
There are two broad explanations: more heat is reaching Earth, or less is escaping. The first option can be ruled out.
… … …
Studies of the Earth's past climate tell us that whenever CO2 levels have risen, the planet has warmed. Since the beginning of the industrial age in the 19th century, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 280 parts per million to 380 ppm. Satellite measurements now show both that less infrared of the specific frequencies absorbed by CO2 and other greenhouse gases is escaping the planet and that more infrared of the same frequencies is being reflected back to Earth's surface. While many factors affect our planet's climate, there is overwhelming evidence that CO2 is the prime cause of its recent warming.
Doubling atmospheric CO2 on a planet with no water or life would warm it by about 1.2°C. Even without the complicating effects of aerosols, things aren't that simple on Earth.
Take water. Water vapour is a powerful greenhouse gas. When an atmosphere warms, it holds more of the stuff. As soon as more CO2 enters a watery planet's atmosphere, its warming effect is rapidly amplified.
When oceans warm, they expand. When ice on land melts or slides into the sea, that also pushes levels up. If all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted, sea level would rise more than 60 metres.
I was delighted to hear of the ambitious package of climate change policy measures you announced on 10 July and wanted to congratulate you on taking this bold step …
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
(1) That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 29 October 2011, of Captain Bryce Duffy, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, places on record its appreciation of his service to our country, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family and friends in their bereavement.
(2) That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 29 October 2011, of Corporal Ashley Birt, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, places on record its appreciation of his service to our country, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family and friends in their bereavement.
(3) That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 29 October 2011, of Lance Corporal Luke Gavin, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, places on record its appreciation of his service to our country, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family and friends in their bereavement.
… a significant leap in the communications capabilities in the region.
The rollout of the NBN will assist in the redevelopment of the Gosford CBD in attracting organisations to relocate to what will be an ideal environment to do business.
The jobs that this project creates in addition to the benefit and efficiencies to business will be greatly received in the local area.
This local infrastructure means better services, jobs for young people and, most striking, it will turn the tide on our commuting habits.
Every Tasmanian site—new or existing—is in a Labor or Independent electorate.
If this overtime ban continues, we will be grounding even more aircraft.
SENATOR RHIANNON—11 October 2011
VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Senator Rhiannon (New South Wales) (14:53): Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Minister, can you inform the Senate if the VET competitive tendering process applies competitive neutrality adjustments to TAFE which effectively penalise TAFE for having access to state owned infrastructure? Has this happened in tendering in New South Wales and in other slates?
Response:
The Minister for Tertiary Employment, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations has provided the following information.
There has been no indication in recent discussions at COAG and amongst officials that States and Territories (the states) are considering or have implemented competitive neutrality adjustments to Technical and Further Education (TAFE) so as penalise them for their access to state owned infrastructure, as part of their Vocational Education and Training (VET) reform agenda. Victoria is the only state that has implemented more competitive demand driven reforms into their VET sector, at this point in time, and a recent audit by the Victorian Auditor-General did not find any discounting of capital in its examination of the financial accounts of any of the 14 Victorian TAFE Institutes.
NSW has announced its intention to consider reforms to its VET sector, including the introduction of a more competitive environment between private and public providers for Governments' funding dollars. NSW has recently released a discussion paper on possible reform directions and is currently undertaking stakeholder consultations as part of their deliberations.
All states have indicated that they are considering moving to a more flexible and demand-driven training systems, and looking at greater contestability of funding for public training and greater competition between providers.
However, the Council of Australian Governments' (COAG) recent consideration of VET reform also indicated quite clearly through its publicly available communiqué the value that all governments place on TAFE institutes within any competitive market. COAG recognised and supports TAFE's role providing high-cost technical training (so as not to lose the public value of that capital investment), encouraging participation of disadvantaged students and offering services in regional and remote areas.
SENATOR JOHNSTON—13 October 2011
AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE: FUEL AND CARBON COSTS
Senator Johnston asked three questions during Senate Question Time in relation to the Department of Defence's costs of fuel, carbon emissions and whether Defence will be exempt from carbon pricing.
Responses:
In response to the question on the costs incurred by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) for fuel in the financial year 2009-10 for the propulsion aircraft, ships and large pieces of ADF equipment, Defence consumed $264.341 million for fuel in 2009-10, which included $171.8 million on aviation fuels and $69.2 million on marine diesel
In response to the question on how many tonnes of carbon were emitted by the ADF in 2009-10, I can advise that carbon emissions have been estimated at 1.8 million tonnes by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Defence reports its electricity, gas and liquid fuels usage annually to the Government Greenhouse and Energy Report
In relation to wether Defence will be liable for carbon pricing on its emissions, all Commonwealth agencies are subject to carbon pricing. The Department of Defence will act in accordance with the legislation and relevant regulations
SENATOR SIEWERT—13 October 2011
DEMENTIA
Senator SIEWERT asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Ageing in the Senate on, Thursday 13 October 2011:
Will the Government guarantee that the funding available will remain at at least the same level as under the [dementia] initiative?
Senator Ludwig—The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question:
The Australian Government is committed to funding the delivery of a range of dementia support activities.
Support includes provision of $8.3B for the care of people in aged care homes, of whom around 52 per cent have a diagnosis of dementia. The Government also funds Extended Aged Care at Home Dementia packages and respite care to support people in the community.
In addition, the Government provides support of around $30M for service improvement including information provision, counselling, service referral, education and training.
Through the establishment of flexible Funds announced as part of the 2011-12 Budget, funding to support people with dementia is provided through a range of flexible Funds, including the Aged Care Service Improvement and Healthy Ageing Grants Fund.
The Government has not taken any savings as a result of the establishment of flexible Funds. In that way, the commitment to continue support for older people, including people with dementia and their carers, is undiminished.
The establishment of the Aged Care Service Improvement and Healthy Ageing Grants Fund will enable the Australian Government to better support activities that promote healthy and active ageing, better respond to existing and emerging challenges including dementia care and better support those services targeting Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander people and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
The first round of grants allocated through the Fund will commence from 2012-13.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the Qantas dispute.
We've got a minister who I would describe as the character out of Weekend at Bernie's. He's the dead guy that stands in the middle. He is not able to act—
I have no confidence in Chris Evans's capacity to deal with the fundamental industrial relations issues in this country …
In an interview on ABC News 24 this morning the transport minister Anthony Albanese, agreed that the government could use its powers under the Fair Work Act to intervene and force a resolution of the differences between the parties if the national interest was affected.
The high-profile Qantas executive Olivia Wirth has confirmed she called Julia Gillard's chief of staff Ben Hubbard hours before Alan Joyce grounded Qantas and said the CEO was available to speak to the Prime Minister.
Mr Joyce had intended to give Ms Gillard advance warning of his intention to announce that he was grounding the airline's entire fleet and leaving almost 70,000 passengers a day stranded.
Mr Joyce would have abandoned his decision to ground the airline had PM Julia Gillard returned his call and promised to directly intervene.
Flight Centre managing director Graham Turner said the government should step in to force a solution to the dispute.
'If they can't do that, it makes you wonder why we elected a government,' Mr Turner said. 'This is exactly the sort of situation where they should be actively searching or forcing a solution.'
… we are already seeing a drop-off in forward bookings which will now only get worse … The 500,000 people directly employed in Australia's $94 billion tourism industry do not deserve to have their livelihoods threatened by this, which could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The grounding of the Qantas fleet will have an immediate and devastating impact on the tourism industry during what is traditionally one of the busiest times of the year for many hotels.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 1 November 2011, from 11.30 am till 12.30 pm.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senator Adams for 31 October 2011, for personal reasons; and
(b) Senator Ryan from 31 October to 3 November 2011, for personal reasons.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on a capital market for social economy organisations be extended to 22 November 2011.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 2 November 2011, from noon to 1 pm.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 followed by a private briefing, and Wednesday, 23 November 2011, from 11 am to noon, and 11 am to 1 pm, respectively.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 23 300 nuclear weapons are in existence posing direct and constant threat to international peace and security with thousands on hair trigger alert ready to be launched within minutes of an order to fire,
(ii) nine countries possess nuclear weapons and under 'nuclear sharing' arrangements five others have nuclear weapons on their soil, and
(iii) at the height of the cold war, nuclear weapon stockpiles were approximately 70 000 warheads and more than 40 000 have been dismantled;
(b) welcomes efforts taken by the Government to advance nuclear disarmament diplomacy, including the establishment of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and the request for the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to undertake an inquiry into the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament treaties involving Australia; and
(c) calls on the Government to support the United Nations General Assembly resolution on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
That the motion (Senator Ludlam's) be agreed to.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the proven success and cost-effectiveness of the national programs PrimaryConnections and Science By Doing, run by the Australian Academy of Science and funded by the Government, that support the professional development of teachers and actively engage primary and secondary school students in science education;
(b) expresses disappointment that funding for the two programs has been discontinued, particularly given that:
(i) the programs will only account for $3.5 million over the next 3 years, and
(ii) the Government has already invested $13.4 million in the development of the programs with Science By Doing having great success despite only running for the past 2 years and PrimaryConnections being only 2 years away from becoming self-sustaining; and
(c) calls on the Government to immediately restore funding for the programs.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) a number of submissions to and participants at the recent tax forum called for the global introduction of a financial transaction tax, and
(ii) the European Parliament has voted to support introducing a financial transaction tax and that the European Commission has proposed it be levied at a very low rate of 0.1 per cent on transactions in shares and bonds and 0.01 per cent on derivatives trading; and
(b) urges the Government to support further discussion of a global financial transaction tax at the next G20 meeting.
The Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the tragic deaths by self-immolation of four monks from the Kirti Monastery and one nun from the Dechen Chokorling nunnery, in Ngaba county eastern Tibet, Sichuan province, between 16 March and 17 October 2011, and
(ii) that since March 2011, ten Tibetan people have set themselves on fire in order to highlight the continued human rights abuse and oppression of the Tibetan people;
(b) recognises:
(i) the people of Tibet continue to be subject to appalling human rights abuses, and
(ii) the Chinese authorities have continued to take repressive measures against monks and nuns, particularly of the Kirti Monastery, since the self-immolation of a monk in March this year; and
(c) calls on the Government to urge the Chinese Government to cease repressive measures against the Tibetan people and respect human rights in Tibet.
That the motion (Senator Hanson-Young's) be agreed to.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Government for maintaining Australia's longstanding policy of predicating bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements on the condition of membership to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and
(b) calls on the Government to identify the countries to which it will not permit the sale of uranium.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Government for maintaining Australia's longstanding policy of predicating bilateral nuclear cooperation agreements on the condition of membership to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons …
(b) calls on the Government to identify the countries to which it will not permit the sale of uranium.
That the motion (Senator Ludlam's) be agreed to.
That the Senate—
(a) calls on the Australian Greens and green groups, including the World Wildlife Foundation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Conservation Council of Western Australia and the Wilderness Society, to honour the promise they made in 2007 with the traditional land owners of the Kimberley, to respect the decision of the Indigenous community in its response to Woodside Gas’s proposal to process gas at James Price Point in the Kimberley;
(b) recognises the right of the traditional land owners of the Kimberley to use that land to create economic prosperity and employment opportunities for the Indigenous people of that region for generations to come; and
(c) expresses concern that Indigenous people who have exercised this self determination and accepted a single hub at James Price Point have been victimised, unfairly pressured by some green and conservation groups and subjected to racial vilification through being referred to as ‘toxic coconuts’ in publicly distributed material.
Omit all words after “That the Senate”, substitute:
(a) recognises the right of all traditional land owners of the Kimberley to free, prior and informed consent, on any project affecting their lands and to use that land to create economic prosperity and employment opportunities for the Aboriginal people of that region for generations to come; and
(b) expresses concern about the divisive nature of the debate in the Kimberley and the pressure on Kimberley families, subsequent to Western Australian Premier the Honourable Colin Barnett’s threat to compulsorily acquire land at James Price Point.
That the amendment (Senator Siewert's) be agreed to.
That the motion (Senator Boswell's) be agreed to.
Dear Mr President,
Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The pressing need for Australia to confirm a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan.
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The pressing need for Australia to confirm a date for the safe return of Australian troops from Afghanistan.
June 2010 was an especially bad month, so let's exclude the six deaths that month from the calculation as an aberration. That leaves 12 soldiers lost in 12 months. One a month.
How many more months? The Australian government is coy about this, but Barack Obama isn't. He has said US forces will be out of the fighting by the end of 2014, and we can be pretty sure that ours will leave with them. That's about 42 months.
So on these trends, if nothing changes, we should expect that an additional 42 young Australians will be dead by the time we pull out of Oruzgan. If we could change our operational pattern and return to the casualty rates of 2006-09, 30 of them would still be alive.
This debate has to start with a sober assessment of what we could possibly achieve in Afghanistan from now on. Even if we concede (which I doubt) that what happens there matters much to Australia, what are the chances of making a difference in Afghanistan from here on?
Nothing our forces do in Oruzgan will make any difference unless the wider coalition effort can achieve big improvements in the country. But that is not going to happen. It is clear the coalition operations are winding down.
THE main objective of our intervention in Afghanistan was to kill or capture Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qa'ida. With the death of bin Laden this has now been achieved. The US president has already announced a date for the withdrawal of American forces.
With three more Australian deaths over the weekend and another seven wounded, how long will it be before both our political parties realise they are sacrificing the lives of young Australians for no purpose?
The spectacle of politicians from both parties agreeing to send our finest Australians to their deaths and then appearing on television offering their condolences to grieving widows and relatives is sickening.
The policy that we can train the Afghan army to take over security in Afghanistan is laughable. The Afghan government is corrupt, and its army has been penetrated by Taliban forces whose main activity is killing allied forces operating in their country.
Elements of the Australian Defence Force have now been in Afghanistan for over 10 years—surely this is long enough.
An iron law of politics is that no army is ever better than the government it serves. It is an illusion to think that we can build a strong army in Afghanistan and then trust it to support the legitimate government. Even if we succeed in building an effective force in Oruzgan—and that is itself a long shot—we will still be as far as ever from the kind of government we would like to see in Afghanistan.
Starting next month, we will be able to remove 10,000 of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of this year, and we will bring home a total of 33,000 troops by next summer … our troops will continue coming home at a steady pace … By 2014, this process of transition will be complete …
The mission fulfilled the political aim of showing solidarity with United States, but if you measure progress against the goal of stabilising a country and a region, then the mission has failed.
One of our major challenges in Afghanistan is how to fight corruption and connect people to the government, and their key government officials are themselves corrupt.
Right now we're dealing with an extraordinarily corrupt government.
That the motion (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.
(a) Committee reports
1. Community Affairs References Committee—Funding and administration of mental health services—
Interim report (received 20 October 2011)
Second interim report (received on 28 October 2011)
2. Community Affairs References Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—Review of the Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme (received 25 October 2011)
(b) Government documents
1. Australian Federal Police (AFP)—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
2. Crimes Act 1914 —Authorisations for the acquisition and use of assumed identities—Australian Federal Police—Report for 2010-11(received 14 October 2011)
3. Witness Protection Act 1994 —Report for 2010-11 on the operation of the National Witness Protection Program(received 14 October 2011)
4. Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA)—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
5. Department of Immigration and Citizenship—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
6. Australian Electoral Commission—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
7. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
8. Department of Health and Ageing—Report for 2010-11—Corrigendum (received 14 October 2011)
9. Attorney-General’s Department—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
10. Australian Government Solicitor—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
11. Federal Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
12. Family Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
13. Australian Law Reform Commission—Report No. 116—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
14. Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
15. Australian Hearing Services (Australian Hearing)—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
16. Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
17. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal—Report for 2010-11 (received 14 October 2011)
18. Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited (ARTC)—Report for 2010-11 (received 17 October 2011)
19. Department of Finance and Deregulation—Report for 2010-11 (received 17 October 2011)
20. Federal Magistrates Court of Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 17 October 2011)
21. National Australia Day Council—Report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
22. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare—Reports for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
23. Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (Seacare)—Report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
24. Wet Tropics Management Authority—Report for 2010-11, including State of the Wet Tropics report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
25. National Native Title Tribunal—Report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
26. Gene Technology Regulator—Report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
27. Bankruptcy Act 1966 —Inspector-General in Bankruptcy–Report for 2010-11(received 18 October 2011)
28. Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 18 October 2011)
29. Department of Human Services—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
30. Centrelink—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
31. Medicare Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
32. Professional Services Review—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
33. Wine Australia Corporation—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
34. National Competition Council—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
35. Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALDB)—Report for 2010-11 (received 19 October 2011)
36. Crimes Act 1914 —Controlled operations—Report for 2010-11(received 20 October 2011)
37. Bundanon Trust Limited—Report for 2010-11 (received 20 October 2011)
38. Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS)—Report for 2010-11 (received 20 October 2011)
39. Screen Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 20 October 2011)
40. Australian Solar Institute Limited (ASI)— Report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
41. Fair Work Ombudsman—Report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
42. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
43. Commissioner for Superannuation (ComSuper)—Report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
44. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism—Report for 2010-11, including Geoscience Australia report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
45. National Gallery of Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 21 October 2011)
46. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—Report for 2010-11 (received 25 October 2011)
47. Health Workforce Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 25 October 2011)
48. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2010-11 (received 25 October 2011)
49. Veterans’ Review Board—Report for 2010-11 (received 25 October 2011)
50. Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
51. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
52. Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 —Australian Information Commissioner—Report for 2010-11(received 26 October 2011)
53. Healthcare Identifiers Act 2010 —Healthcare Identifiers Service Operator—Report for 2010-11(received 26 October 2011)
54. Australia Council—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
55. Australian Institute of Marine Science—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
56. Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
57. National Library of Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
58. Director of National Parks—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
59. Supervising Scientist—Report for 2010-11 on the operation of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Regions) Act 1978 (received 26 October 2011)
60. Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation (ARPC)—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
61. Financial Reporting Panel—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
62. Inspector-General of Taxation—Report for 2010-11 (received 26 October 2011)
63. Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research—Report for 2010-11, including IP Australia report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
64. Australian Building and Construction Commissioner—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
65. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
66. Australian Securities and Investments Commission—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
67. Superannuation Complaints Tribunal—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
68. Financial Reporting Council—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
69. Takeovers Panel—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
70. National Health and Medical Research Council—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
71. National Blood Authority—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
72. Department of Veterans’ Affairs—Data-matching program—Report on progress 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
73. Bureau of Meteorology—Report for 2010-11 (received 27 October 2011)
74. Fair Work Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
75. National Breast and Ovarian Cancer Centre—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
76. Export and Finance Insurance Corporation—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
77. Australian Sports Commission—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
78. Australian National Maritime Museum—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
79. Auditing and Assurance Standards Board—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
80. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
81. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
82. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Limited—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
83. Skills Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
84. Low Carbon Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
85. Old Parliament House—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
86. Future Fund Board of Guardians and Future Fund Management Agency (Future Fund)—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
87. Repatriation Commission, Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs—Report for 2010-11, including operation of the Defence Service Homes Insurance Scheme and the Office of Australian War Graves (received 28 October 2011)
88. Public Lending Right Committee—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
89. Productivity Commission—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
90. Cancer Australia—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
91. National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority (NOPSA)—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
92. National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (NICNAS)—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
93. Australian Trade Commission (Austrade)—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
94. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
95. Department of the Treasury—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
96. Australian Accounting Standards Board—Report for 2010-11 (received 28 October 2011)
(c) Report of the Auditor-General
Report no. 9 of 2011-12—Performance audit—Indigenous secondary student accommodation initiatives (received 21 October 2011)
(d) Returns to order
1. New Zealand—Export of apples to Australia (motion of Senator Colbeck of 20 September 2011)—Documents (received 17 October 2011)
2. Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme—Audits (motion of Senator Fierravanti-Wells of 19 September 2011—Documents (received 19 October 2011)
(e) Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
1. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
2. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:
That the final report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the funding and administration of mental health services be presented by 1 November 2011.
(a) Response from the Office of the Commissioner of Police of New South Wales to a resolution of the Senate of 22 September 2011 concerning National Police Remembrance Day; and
(b) Response from the New Zealand High Commissioner (Major General (Rtd) Martyn Dunne, CNZM) in response to a resolution of the Senate of 13 October 2011 concerning the container carrier ship Rena .
Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Work Health and Safety Bill 2011
Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
That these bills be now read a second time.
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2011
SECOND READING SPEECH
I am pleased to introduce the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011.
This Bill forms a crucial part of the Commonwealth's commitment to nationally harmonised work health and safety laws. These are landmark reforms which have been long in the making. Nationally harmonised work health and safety laws were first raised by the Whitlam Government in 1974. In the intervening years, the harmonisation of work health and safety has experienced many false starts despite having strong support from both unions and business.
Indeed the Coalition had 11 long years to deliver on this important reform and failed to do so.
While its genesis is decades old, the arguments in favour of harmonisation to this date remain compelling.
Having different OHS systems creates a regulatory burden on businesses, increase red tape and means that workers are at risk of poorer safety standards than their counterparts in other states.
In 21st century Australia, workers and businesses deserve better.
In July 2008, the Commonwealth, states and territories came together to sign an historic Council of Australian Governments agreement to put harmonised work health and safety laws in place by 1 January 2012.
This Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety set in place a framework for working cooperatively toward the common goal of harmonised laws. In so doing, Governments set aside politics in favour of a national framework which reduces red tape and ensures that all workers have the same protections, regardless of where they live and work.
Over the past three years, the Government has worked in partnership with the states and territories, business groups and the ACTU to achieve a new legislative framework.
This new framework will replace nine separate OHS Acts and over 400 pieces of OHS regulation which currently causes unnecessary confusion and complexity and higher costs for many businesses.
This duplication and fragmentation of work health and safety legislation has also stood in the way of better safety outcomes. Clearly, the health and safety of workers is a matter of national significance.
Around 290 Australians are killed at work each year. Many more die as a result of work related disease and each year around 135,000 Australians are seriously injured at work.
The cost of work related injury and illness to our economy has been estimated at nearly 6 percent of our gross domestic product. The cost to those injured and to their families, workmates and friends is inestimable.
Not only are workers' lives and health at stake because of the current state of Australia's OHS laws, so too is the efficiency of our economy.
The Work Health and Safety Bill before you today reflects the provisions of the Model Work Health and Safety Act agreed by the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council in December 2009. This model Act has been subject to an extensive consultation process involving considerable stakeholder input and scrutiny.
In April 2008, the Commonwealth established an independent panel to conduct the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws. This Review Panel examined work health and safety laws in each state and territory and the Commonwealth and conducted extensive consultation in each jurisdiction.
The Review Panel participated in over 80 meetings, consulting with more than 260 individuals representing over 100 organisations, including regulators, unions, employer organisations, industry representatives, legal professionals, academics and health and safety professionals. The Review Panel received 243 written submissions providing a rich source of ideas and information to form the basis for reform proposals.
The National Review was completed in January 2009, resulting in two comprehensive reports being submitted to the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council. These reports made recommendations on the optimal structure and content for the model Act. Workplace Relations Ministers responded to the Review Panel's 232 recommendations in May 2009. Decisions made by the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council formed the basis for the model Act which was then drafted by Safe Work Australia.
An exposure draft of the model Act was released for public comment for six weeks in September 2009. The 480 submissions received during this time informed many of the amendments to this draft. The model Act as endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council in December 2009 reflected the outcome of this extensive consultation process.
In endorsing the model Act, Ministers acknowledged that each jurisdiction will face changes in current OHS arrangements in order to achieve the goal of uniform OHS laws. At the same time, Ministers agreed that the model laws comprise a balanced and inter-related package of measures that will lead to enhanced safety protections for all Australian workers and greater certainty and protections for all workplace parties.
The harmonisation of work health and safety laws is also one of COAG's top ten priority reforms under the 2008 National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy . Each party under the National Partnership acknowledged a mutual interest towards achieving a coordinated national approach to work health and safety laws.
The implementation of harmonised work health and safety laws is assessed annually by the COAG Reform Council. Under the National Partnership the Commonwealth will provide reward payments to States and Territories following the COAG Reform Council's advice on the achievement of key milestones set out in the Implementation Plan.
The positive outcome expected from the National Partnership will be a reduction in the costs of regulation, contributing to enhanced productivity and workforce mobility across the country.
The work towards a nationally harmonised system of legislation, regulations and codes of practice will ensure that the 40,000 businesses operating across jurisdictions will face less regulatory duplication associated with compliance through multiple systems across jurisdictions.
A national system will harmonise work health and safety laws so that they are consistently enforced by regulators facilitating a stronger partnership with business to minimise the risks of workplace injuries and deaths.
Under the Intergovernmental Agreement governing the work health and safety harmonisation process, jurisdictions expressly agreed to develop a national compliance and enforcement policy to ensure a consistent regulatory approach across all jurisdictions.
The Work Health and Safety Bill I am introducing today will apply to businesses and undertakings conducted by the Commonwealth, public authorities and non-Commonwealth licensees.
An exposure draft of the Commonwealth Work Health Safety Bill was released for comment from interested stakeholders on the Commonwealth specific provisions, from 26 May to 17 June 2011. Feedback was received from a range of stakeholders including Commonwealth Agencies, public authorities, non-Commonwealth licensees, unions, employer groups and legal professionals.
Despite some differences in detail, OHS laws in all Australian jurisdictions are based on the internationally recognised Robens model of a broad principles-based approach to OHS regulation which creates general duties applicable to all workplaces.
The principles which underpin the Work Health Safety Bill reflect the Robens model, and so echo the basis of the current Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 . Like the current Commonwealth Act, the Bill provides that workers and others are to be given the highest level of protection from hazards and risks as is reasonably practicable.
The Bill seeks to secure the health and safety of workers and workplaces through the elimination or minimisation of risks, fair and effective representation, consultation, co-operation and issue resolution, provision of advice information, education and training, and effective and appropriate compliance and enforcement measures, among other matters.
Of course, some changes have had to be made by all jurisdictions – including the Commonwealth—to their current work health and safety Acts to come to an agreed model Act.
I will now outline some of the more significant features of the Bill which will be new to the Commonwealth jurisdiction.
In line with the model Act, the Bill does not rely on 'employer' duties but assigns the primary duty of care on the 'Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking', qualified by what is reasonably practicable.
The Work Health and Safety Bill will also provide for a modernised and wider coverage of contemporary work relationships that are broader than the traditional employer/employee relationship.
There is the expanded definition of worker – contractors, employees of contractors, sub-contractors, labour hire workers, apprentices, volunteers as well as employees all come under this definition.
The Work Health and Safety Bill places a positive duty on officers to exercise due diligence to ensure compliance by the organisation.
This Bill also places a duty on designers of plant, substances and structure consistent with the principle that duties of care should be imposed on those that who are materially involved in or materially affect the performance of work.
Similar to current provisions in the Commonwealth Occupational Health and Safety Act , the Work Health Safety Bill provides for the election of Health and Safety Representatives who will represent workers in work groups on work health and safety matters.
Health and Safety Representatives will also continue to have powers to issue provisional improvement notices and direct that work cease where there is an immediate threat to the health or safety of a member of a work group. To simplify arrangements, the Bill provides that in bigger organisations, work groups are now allowed multiple Health and Safety Representatives.
Under the model Bill, workers will now have the statutory right to cease unsafe work in certain circumstances. This is a new statutory right for the Commonwealth and provides that workers are entitled to cease work if they have reasonable concerns that to carry out the work would expose them to serious risk to their health and safety, emanating from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.
The Bill also contains new and tougher provisions outlining significant penalties for those who fail to meet their obligations for work health and safety.
There are three categories of penalties based on the degree of culpability, risk and harm.
Category 1 offences involving proven recklessness attract a maximum fine of $3 million for bodies corporate and for individuals the maximum fine of $600 000 or a maximum of five years' imprisonment or both.
Category 2 offences involve breaches of health and safety duties which expose another person to a risk of death or serious injury or illness, and attract a maximum fine of $1.5 million for bodies corporate or $300 000 for individuals.
Category 3 offences apply for any breach of a health and safety duty with a maximum fine of $500 000 for bodies corporate and $100 000 for individuals.
To ensure greater accountability and responsibility for safety outcomes, the Commonwealth will no longer be immune from criminal liability for offences under this legislation. This is an improvement on the current Act which limits Commonwealth liability to civil remedies only.
The range of enforcement mechanisms will also be wider under the new laws. New options include infringement notices, remedial orders, adverse publicity orders, training orders and orders for restoration.
Other significant changes brought about by this Bill include enhanced protections from discrimination, victimisation and coercion over work health and safety matters which go beyond what is currently available through anti-discrimination and other laws. Importantly there will be protection against discrimination for people in the workplace who exercise or perform powers, functions or rights under the Bill.
There will be an entry permit scheme that allows authorised permit holders to inquire into suspected contraventions of work health and safety laws and to consult and advise workers about work health and safety matters.
In addition to changes in Commonwealth work health safety laws to align them with the model Bill, there are also provisions in the Work Health Safety Bill specific to our unique jurisdiction.
I would stress that in keeping with the Government's commitments under the COAG intergovernmental agreement, the Commonwealth specific provisions are expressly permitted under the jurisdictional notes provided in the model Act.
The Bill will apply to businesses or undertakings conducted by the Commonwealth, a public authority and, for a transitional period, a non-Commonwealth licensee.
Importantly, the Bill seeks to ensure the same coverage of Commonwealth workers as are currently covered under the Commonwealth OHS Act. This means that in the Commonwealth jurisdiction the definition of worker will be extended to include persons who are currently deemed to be employees of the Commonwealth such as:
Members of the Australian Defence Force; and
A holder of a Commonwealth Statutory office.
The Bill also establishes Comcare as the single regulator for work health and safety in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Comcare will operate under the oversight of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. This is a change from the current situation where OHS regulation is the joint responsibility of Comcare and the Commission.
The Commission will continue to have an important role in oversighting the activities of Comcare which will have responsibility for day to day regulatory functions. It will also continue to have advisory and consultative functions, including advising the Minister on the administration of the Act and making recommendations to the Minister on the most effective means of giving effect to the objects of the Act.
The Commission will also be a forum for consultation between Comcare and persons conducting a business or undertaking, workers and the bodies that represent them.
In terms of commencement of this legislation, all jurisdictions have committed to implement the model Bill by 1 January 2012.
These laws will be supported by model regulations and codes of practice that are expected to be finalised at the national level later this year. The process to develop national regulations is again a collaborative one being achieved in partnership with the jurisdictions and employee and employer bodies.
The provisions in the Work Health and Safety Bill complement legislation being enacted across other Australian States and Territories and will lead to enhanced work health and safety protections for Australian workers and greater certainty for businesses.
This legislation will contribute to long term sustainable employment opportunities for all Australians underpinned by strong uniform work health and safety laws.
I do not need to tell you that the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 is a win-win for both workers and employers in the Commonwealth.
More broadly, the benefits from new harmonised work health and safety laws will increase profitability and productivity for businesses and at the same time protecting the lives and health of Australians.
It is estimated that harmonising work health and safety laws will save multi-state businesses $179 million per annum. Support for this legislation is support for a balanced and nationally harmonised framework to secure health and safety for all Australian workers and Australian businesses into the future.
WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY (TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
I am pleased to introduce the Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential provisions) Bill 2011. This bill contains transitional and consequential provisions in relation to the Work Health and Safety Bill which will form part of a system of nationally harmonised work health and safety laws.
This Bill will repeal the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991 which will be replaced with the Work Health and Safety Bill. It also makes provision for the transition to the new laws. It will deal with matters where action of some kind may have commenced under the OHS Act before it was repealed and where contraventions have occurred prior to the commencement of the new laws. In addition the Bill makes consequential amendments to theSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and theSocial Security Act 1991 that arise from the Work Health and Safety Bill.
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a second time.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2011 MEASURES NO. 7) BILL 2011
This Bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws.
Schedule 1 removes income tax barriers that impede families from making financial contributions to a special disability trust. These changes include extending the CGT main residence exemption to special disability trusts. By removing these barriers, special disability trusts will become more attractive for families looking to provide for the long-term care of a family member with severe disability.
Schedule 2 reduces the lowest marginal tax rate that applies to non-resident workers employed under the Government’s Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme from 29 per cent to 15 per cent. The change will apply for the 2011-12 year of income and was announced in the 2011-12 Budget.
The Pacific Seasonal Worker Scheme is an important element of the Government’s Pacific Engagement Strategy, a whole of government strategy designed to advance our engagement in the Pacific. This measure will help support the Government’s Strategy by improving remittance outcomes for workers and by addressing equity concerns raised by the relatively high effective tax rates currently applying to workers in the Scheme.
The changes introduced in this Bill will not impact Australian workers or non-residents who are not Pacific Seasonal Workers.
Schedule 3 amends the pay-as-you-go instalments provisions to ensure that the concept of ‘instalment income’ interacts appropriately with the concepts of ‘gain’ and ‘loss’ in the taxation of financial arrangements, or TOFA, Stages 3 and 4 provisions.
The amendments ensure that the interaction does not impose significant administrative or compliance costs while achieving the objectives of the pay as you go instalments provisions.
Schedule 4 gives the Commissioner of Taxation a limited discretion to extend the time for a taxpayer to notify the Commissioner of making the transitional election to apply TOFA Stages 3 and 4 provisions to its existing financial arrangements.
The TOFA transitional election gives taxpayers the choice of not having to comply with two sets of income tax rules for financial arrangements.
The proposed discretion would provide some administrative flexibility so that taxpayers, who did not notify the Commissioner of a transitional election on time, may be able to obtain the compliance benefits of the transitional election under certain circumstances.
Schedule 5 amends the tax law and the Banking Act 1959 to make four changes to the farm management deposits, or FMDs, scheme.
First, the changes allow an FMD owner affected by an applicable natural disaster to access their farm management deposits within 12 months of making a deposit while retaining concessional tax treatment.
This Schedule also allows FMD owners to hold FMDs simultaneously with more than one FMD provider.
In addition, FMD providers will be required to report certain information about FMDs to the Agriculture Secretary more frequently.
The amendments will afford the owner of an FMD additional protection under the unclaimed moneys provision which is not available to ordinary depositors.
These amendments allow FMD owners to access their own funds without foregoing concessional tax treatment, enabling them to recover and rebuild their primary production businesses more quickly or providing an income in times of severe hardship. The minor administrative amendments are intended to benefit FMD owners and allow a better understanding of the effectiveness of the scheme.
Schedule 6 extends the end date of the temporary loss relief for merging superannuation funds by three months, that is, from 30 June 2011 until 30 September 2011. This will provide additional time for mergers to take place before the loss relief expires. The requirement that affected mergers are completed in a single income year is relaxed to permit funds to benefit from the extension.
Schedule 7 preserves the integrity of the taxation laws compliance framework by ensuring that certain director penalty notices remain valid. Director penalty notices are issued by the Commissioner of Taxation to the directors of companies which have failed to remit pay as you go withholding amounts to the Commissioner. These notices advise directors that if they do not cause their company to take certain actions with respect to the debt, they will become personally liable for the debt.
Between December 2007 and June 2010 the Commissioner issued around 17,000 director penalty notices in reliance on a precedential 2007 New South Wales Court of Appeal decision. This decision was overturned by a later decision of the same Court in 2011, which in turn raised doubts about the continuing validity of the director penalty notices issued during that period.
These amendments will simply restore the precedential understanding of the law at the time these notices were issued, yet they will not impact the individual director in the latter Court of Appeal decision. These amendments are retrospective in nature, however, this is essential for ensuring these notices remain valid, and the penalties attaching to these notices remain recoverable.
Schedule 8 fulfils the Government’s 2010 Budget commitment to provide a regulatory framework to improve the integrity of public ancillary funds, similar to that which has applied to private ancillary funds since 1 October 2009. This framework will provide the trustees of such funds with greater certainty as to their philanthropic obligations.
Following consultation, the commencement date for the measure was deferred from 1 July 2011 to 1 January 2012, which makes it vital that this Bill receive Royal Assent by 31 December 2011.
Schedule 9 amends the tax law to make several changes to the film tax offsets. The changes specifically affect the producer offset and the location and post, digital and visual effects offsets.
These changes, which will apply from 1 July 2011, are estimated to increase expenditure on the film tax offsets by $8 million over the forward estimates period.
These amendments to the film tax offsets are aimed at reforming and strengthening the Australian screen production industry at a time when it is striving to meet the challenges of a changing global environment. The amendments to the producer offset will refine delivery of government support to screen producers, reduce the financial and administrative burden on applicants, and improve operational efficiency. The amendments to the location and post, digital and visual effects offsets are aimed at enhancing those offsets to attract offshore productions to Australia.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
You won’t find an economist anywhere that will tell you anything other than that the most efficient and effective way to cut emissions is by putting a price on carbon.
The introduction of a carbon price ahead of effective international action can lead to perverse incentives for such industries to relocate or source production offshore … There is no point in imposing a carbon price domestically which results in emissions and production transferring internationally for no environmental gain.
We have made our position very clear. We have ruled it out.
One has to be a realist here. If we continue to wait forever for a global agreement that is comprehensive and to which everyone agrees we will never see emissions reduced.
… … …
We need to be working on all fronts to achieve reductions. We do not have time to wait around to see which one is going to be best.
… adoption of a cap-and-trade program is a major milestone for California's continued leadership on reducing the world's greenhouse gases. As I said both when we signed the legislation in 2006, and when we fought to protect it last year when Texan oil companies attempted to overturn it with Proposition 23, the most critical phase in the fight against climate change is diligently, aggressively, and correctly implementing this law.
There's nothing to participate in. Where is it going on today?
In Spain, we are witnessing the logical conclusion of an unsustainable policy of government subsidies and mandates of uneconomic forms of Energy.
We've got to get away from pork-barrelling ... this sense that you only hand out stuff around election time. We've got to get away from this notion of just football grounds or sports stadiums or local halls to investing in communities, investing in our skills and our youth, our education.
(1) Has the department undertaken any studies into the effectiveness of new social media in its public diplomacy campaigns; if so: (a) when were they undertaken; and (b) what were the results.
(2) How many Australian embassies have: (a) Facebook; (b) Twitter; and (c) YouTube accounts, and where are these embassies located.
(1) DFAT is currently trialling the use of social media to promote two major bilateral public diplomacy programs in North Asia: the Imagine Australia Year of Australian Culture in China 2010-11; and the Australia-Korea Year of Friendship 2011. (a) Imagine Australia Year of Australian Culture in China
The Australian Embassy in Beijing has established a presence, in broadcast mode only, on three Chinese-language social media sites, similar to Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. They include:
Sina Microblog: a Twitter-style microblog account, for message posts of up to 140 characters, photos and video http://blog.sina.com.cn/imagineaustralia
Sina Blog: for longer messages, photos and video http://t.sina.com.cn/imagineaustralia
Youku account (China's equivalent of YouTube) for uploading of video material:
http://u.youku.com/user_show/id_UMzI4MzYzODk2.html.
The three accounts aim to promote the official program of events among Chinese audiences and to reinforce other forms of outreach. The accounts were launched in January 2011 and are accessible through the official Imagine Australia website managed by DFAT https://imagineaustralia.net/en/.
The embassy has reported positively on the trial to date, concluding that social media will potentially become the premier platform for marketing the program. Regional outreach has been significantly stronger than anticipated, with subscriber interest coming from most provinces and regions across China. More detailed analysis of the effectiveness of these tools will be undertaken as the year progresses and the outcome of this trial will help inform future use of social media for public diplomacy campaigns. (b) Australia-Korea Year of Friendship 2011
The bilateral Year of Friendship program marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Australia and the Republic of Korea. The Australian Embassy in Seoul is trialling the use of YouTube and a Korean-language i-Phone application to promote events on the official program to audiences in the Republic of Korea.
They include:
YouTube: videos of Australian cultural performances and official events held in Korea:
http://www.youtube.com/user/yearoffriendship
i-Phone Application featuring event listings and photo/video galleries http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id412557544.
The i-Phone calendar application and YouTube account were launched in January 2011 and are accessible through the official Australia-Korea Year of Friendship website http://australiakorea50.com/ managed by DFAT. The effectiveness of these social media tools to promote the achievements of the past 50 years, and to raise public awareness of Australia in Korea and of the importance of the bilateral relationship to both countries, will be progressively assessed over the coming year and will be reported on in full at the conclusion of the program. (c) Other uses
DFAT established a generic DFAT Twitter account on 7 April 2011. It seeks to complement the department's traditional communication channels, such as media releases and websites, in order to reach a wider and increasingly mobile audience, including people with limited internet access and travellers who may rely on Twitter for information. In times of consular crises, tweets will provide updates on fast-changing situations and will refer followers to the Department's websites, which remain the authoritative source of information. Twitter is an additional way of sharing information with the public about Australia's foreign and trade policies, latest travel advisories, media releases and breaking news, speeches, recruitment and the release of new publications.The launch of Twitter followed a number of limited, event-specific social media trials for consular purposes, including during the soccer world cup in South Africa, the Commonwealth games in India and the canonisation of Mary MacKillop in Rome. These trials highlighted the potential benefits of social media platforms as public communication tools but also reinforced the need to address a range of technical, resource and administrative issues, as well as associated risks.
(2) (a) Facebook
No Australian overseas mission currently has an active Facebook account.
Two Australian overseas missions established Facebook accounts for specific time-limited consular purposes in 2010. They were the Australian High Commission in Pretoria for the soccer world cup and the Australian High Commission in New Delhi for the Commonwealth games. Both accounts are now closed. (b) Twitter
One Australian overseas mission has an active Twitter-style account. The Australian Embassy in Beijing established Sina Microblog, a Chinese Twitter-style microblog account for message posts of up to 140 characters, photos and video, to promote the 2010-11 Imagine Australia Year of Australian Culture in China (see Question 1).
Four Australian overseas missions previously established Twitter accounts for specific time-limited consular events. They were: the Australian High Commission in Pretoria for the 2010 soccer world cup; the Australian High Commission in New Delhi for the 2010 Commonwealth games; the Australian Embassy to the Holy See for the canonisation of St Mary MacKillop in October 2010 and the Australian Embassy in Chile in response to the earthquake in February 2010. These accounts are now closed.
DFAT launched an official generic Twitter account (@dfat) on 7 April 2011. Its primary purpose is to complement the Department's traditional forms of communication and to accompany information published on its websites in order to reach a wider and increasingly mobile audience. (c) YouTube
Two Australian overseas missions have active YouTube, or local equivalent, accounts.
The Australian Embassy in Seoul established a YouTube account to promote official events associated with the Australia-Korea Year of Friendship 2011 and the Australian Embassy in Beijing established a Youku account (China's equivalent of YouTube) to promote official events associated with the 2010-11 Imagine Australia Year of Australian Culture in China. Both accounts were established in January 2011 (see Question 1).
In addition, four dedicated YouTube channels have been established since December 2010. These include a DFAT channel and channels for Mr Rudd, Dr Emerson and Mr Marles.
(1) Of the 487 Australian adviser positions in Papua New Guinea that were considered by the AusAID review, how many are currently filled by former AusAID staff.
(2) How many Canberra-based AusAID officials have travelled to Papua New Guinea since the 2010 election, including: (a) the cost of their travel; (b) the location of their stay; (c) the names of the hotels in which they stayed; (d) the total cost of their accommodation; and (e) if any additional security measures were required for their travel, the cost.
(3) How many AusAID officials have visited the Southern Highlands region of Papua New Guinea since the 2010 election.
(1) Six of the 487 adviser positions considered by the Joint Adviser Review in Papua New Guinea are currently filled by former AusAID employees. Of these six, four individuals are Papua New Guinea nationals.
(2) 89 AusAID Canberra-based officials have travelled to Papua New Guinea between 21 August 2010 and 30 June 2011.
(a) The total cost of this travel, including accommodation, meals and incidental costs, was $495,031.
(b) (c) and (e) Consistent with the practice of successive governments, AusAID does not comment on the nature of specific security measures, personnel movements or locations where this information may put staff at risk. AusAID has put in place some new measures to protect our staff in Port Moresby and we are providing our staff with a higher level of security than before. AusAID closely monitors the security environment in Papua New Guinea and ensures all necessary protective security measures are in place to mitigate the risk to AusAID officials when travelling to PNG.
(d) The total cost of their accommodation was $115,162.
(3) Four AusAID officials have visited the Southern Highlands region of Papua New Guinea since the 2010 Australian election.
With reference to uranium mining in Africa by Australian mining companies:
(1) Did any departmental officers attend the Indaba mining conference held in Cape Town in February 2011; if so, who attended and with what purpose and outcome.
(2) What further discussions or correspondence has the department had with representatives of the Australia-Africa Mining Industry Group or mining industry representatives in relation to possible partnerships between Australian mining companies operating in Africa and AusAID.
(3) What companies, bodies and officers have been involved in this discourse and with what outcomes.
(4) Can an outline be provided of the process for the sale of the Australian mining company Mantra Resources Limited to the Russian nuclear company ARMZ Uranium Holding Co.
(5) What role does the department play in any assessment or approval of such a sale.
(6) Has the department provided any advice to any party or agency, for example, the Foreign Investment Review Board, on this sale.
(7) (a) What government assessment, due diligence or approval is required in such a case; and (b) what are the mechanisms for realising this.
(8) Does the department expect or require Australian mining companies operating in Africa to abide by standards comparable to those that apply in Australia and to observe responsible international practice; if so, how is this expectation or requirement given effect.
(9) What is the department's position on the current situation of the Bannerman Resources Etango Project in Namibia, particularly in relation to the public comment period on the project being completed prior to the public release of the environmental and social impact assessment and the environmental and social management plan (both key environmental assessment documents).
(1) Yes. The Mining Indaba conference was attended by Assistant Secretary, Africa Branch, and Director, Western Australia State Office, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as the Heads of Mission of Australia's diplomatic missions in sub-Saharan Africa: High Commissioner, Abuja; High Commissioner, Accra; Ambassador, Harare; High Commissioner, Nairobi; High Commissioner, Port Louis; and High Commissioner, Pretoria. Also in attendance were Second Secretary, Australian High Commission, Accra; and Australian High Commission, Pretoria.
DFAT officers participated in a number of events at the Indaba conference designed to promote the Australian mining sector and to facilitate its contacts with African governments and companies.
The DFAT presence at Indaba helped to facilitate access to African government decision-makers for Australian businesses, demonstrate support for Australian commercial interests in Africa and enhance existing Government-to-Government linkages.
All the DFAT staff listed above also participated in a consultative meeting between Australian Government agencies and the Australia Africa Mining Industry Group (AAMIG).
(2) As noted in response to question 1, DFAT chaired a consultative meeting between Australian Government agencies and the AAMIG, held in the margins of the Mining Indaba conference in Cape Town on 9 February 2011. The question of potential cooperation between Australian mining companies and AusAID in the area of corporate social responsibility in Africa, as well as in capacity building for African governments, was discussed at the meeting. This was the second such consultative meeting between AAMIG and Government agencies. The first meeting was held in the margins of the Africa DownUnder mining conference in Perth on 2 September 2009.
(3) Representatives of the following companies on the interim committee of AAMIG participated in the industry-government consultative meeting in Cape Town on 9 February: Adamus Resources, Anvil Mining, Chalice Gold, Middle Island Resources, Paydirt Media, Platinum Australia, Resolute Mining, Sundance Resources. Representatives of Curtin University and Unity Mining also attended the meeting. In addition to DFAT, government agencies participating in the Cape Town meeting were AusAID, Austrade, the Export Finance Insurance Corporation and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. The DFAT officers participating were those listed in the answer to question 1 above.
At the 9 February meeting, Government representatives advised that that co-funding of social responsibility programs of mining companies in Africa will not be a focus of the Government's mining-related development assistance to Africa. AAMIG was invited to provide input to government on the direction of future capacity building assistance to strengthen the governance of the resources sector, which is the focus of Australia's aid program in relation to extractive industries in Africa.
AusAID is seeking to promote further consultation on how Australian stakeholders (Commonwealth and State government agencies, the mining industry, academia, non-government organisations) can work together to contribute towards improved mining governance; improved social responsibility in mining; and improved research and teaching capacity in selected countries
(4) This question should be referred to the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) which is responsible for examining proposals by foreign persons to invest in Australia and makes recommendations to the Treasurer on those subject to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers ACT 1975 and Australia's foreign investment policy.
(5) The Treasury, as the Secretariat for FIRB, consults relevant agencies, including DFAT, to seek comment or information on the investment proposal in order to prepare advice for the Treasurer.
(6) DFAT provided advice to FIRB on 28 January 2011.
(7) This question should be referred to the FIRB.
(8) The Government expects Australian mining companies operating in Africa to abide by local laws and standards and to conduct themselves in accordance with internationally recognised standards for corporate social responsibility, including the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones and the UN Global Compact.
This expectation is conveyed through regular industry outreach in Australia (including seminars targeted at the mining industry) on "trading with integrity", to highlight Australian laws applying to Australian companies trading internationally (including laws prohibiting bribery of foreign public officials). The outreach activities also encourage companies to adopt best practice principles, including the OECD Guidelines. Offshore outreach activities on the expectations and obligations of Australian companies also occur.
When providing assistance to Australian companies overseas, the Department reminds companies of their obligations to comply with local laws and Australian laws with extraterritorial effect. It also encourages Australian companies to seek legal advice in the jurisdiction in which it operates to help ensure companies properly observe the local laws.
(9) The Australian Government expects all Australian mining companies to comply with the relevant laws of foreign jurisdictions.
Given that in 2002 the Commonwealth contributed $75 million to Water for Rivers to fund water savings for River Murray Increased Flows (RMIFs) and, under its Snowy Water License,
Snowy Hydro Ltd (SHL) stores the accumulating RMIFs as Above Target Water over which Snowy Hydro has complete discretion and has only ever made one release of RMIFs in 2005-06, and that now the New South Wales Office of Water is proposing further changes to the Snowy Water License which will place severe restrictions on releases of RMIFs limiting them to years when SHL Above Target Water account is over 800GL and permitting release only of a volume to reduce the Above Target Water to no less than 800GL.
(1) Does the Minister support these proposed variations to the conditions of the taxpayer-funded RMIFs that will effectively eliminate any RMIF releases in drought years, the very time that the River Murray would have most need of increased volumes of environmental water.
(2) Why is the Government proceeding with the Snowy Water Licence revision process at this time when there is still no Snowy Scientific Committee to comment on the potential environmental impacts on the River Murray of the proposed changes as required under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 .
(3) Why has the RMIF's account not been put under the control of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to guarantee the accumulating account is released annually as required by the River Murray and according to the advice of the Snowy Scientific Committee for the river's best environmental outcome.
(1) The Minister supports the proposed variations.
(2) The status of the Snowy Scientific Committee is not relevant to these variations. Under its governing legislation, (Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997, NSW), it is not a function of the Snowy Scientific Committee to comment on any proposed variation to the Snowy Water Licence.
(3) Transferring control of the RMIF account to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder would not in itself change the regulatory regime which governs the release of Above Target Water held in Snowy Scheme storages.
In regard to the Pontville Detention Centre:
(1) What is the cost of the security for the facility per day.
(2) What has been the total cost for the facility to date.
(3) How long is the facility expected to operate for; and specifically:
(a) on what date and will the facility open for business as a detention centre; and
(b) on what date will the facility close as a detention centre.
(4) What is the estimated cost of the security for the facility over the term of operation as a detention centre.
(5) What is the cost of running large flood lights and hut lights at the facility which are left on all night
(1) Until the site is fully operational, the Department's detention service provider has engaged a local contractor to provide site security services. The cost of this service is $2,334.82 (inclusive of GST) per day.
(2) As at 3 July 2011 the security cost for the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre is $196,124.74 GST inclusive.
(3) The Pontville Immigration Detention Centre is a temporary facility and will be used for 6 months.
(a) The Pontville Immigration Detention Centre opened on 1 September 2011.
(b) The Pontville Immigration Detention Centre will operate for 6 months.
(4) Final cost is not available as the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre has only been operational for a short period.
(5 ) The Department has not yet received an invoice for energy usage at the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre.
In regard to the DLA Piper Review of Allegations of Sexual and Other Abuse (and related matters) in Defence:
(1) How many people lodged a complaint before 17 June 2011.
(2) What immediate feedback/reply was provided to each of these complainants.
(3) Did the feedback/reply include an immediate verbal response to these complainants, many of whom could be described as being highly traumatised in having the courage to bring to the attention of authorities their ordeals; if not, why not.
(4) To date, how many people have lodged a complaint since the 17 June 2011 deadline.
(5) How many staff have been assigned to look through these complaints both at DLA Piper and within the department.
(6) Who in the department is overseeing this review, and what is their role.
(7) What is the expected cost of this review.
Several of the following questions required detailed information regarding the operation of the external legal review being conducted by DLA Piper. Responses to those questions are based on information provided by DLA Piper.
(1) By 17 June 2011, the DLA Piper Review had received communications, either directly or referred by the Minister for Defence’s Office, from approximately 1,100 people. Not all of the communications received by the Review contain 'complaints'. For example, some of the communications include general statements about the actions which the Minister is taking in relation to sexual and other abuse in Defence. DLA Piper has advised that some of the complaints received are not within the scope of the Review because they do not relate to sexual or other abuse in Defence.
(2) DLA Piper has provided the following advice in relation to this question:
The immediate feedback/reply which was sent to a person who contacted the Review depended on whether the person sent an email to one of the email mailboxes set up for the Review or called the Review's 1800 number.
The Review mailboxes received incoming messages 24 hours a day 7 days a week. From 10 May 2011 until Wednesday 15 June 2011 people who sent an email to a Review mailbox received an immediate automated response which said:
You have reached the email address for the Review of Allegations of Sexual and other Abuse in Defence.
If this is your first contact with Review please read the attached Information Sheet which:
Once you have read the information sheet please fill in the attached forms and return them to us
You can call the Review on 1 800 424 991 2.00 pm – 9.00 pm Monday to Friday.
Attached to the email were the information sheet and the two forms referred to in the email with instructions on how to return the completed forms to the Review.
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 the automated response was changed to say:
You have reached the email address for the Review of Allegations of Sexual and other Abuse in Defence.
If this is your first contact with Review further details as to how to provide information to the Review will be forwarded to you shortly.
That message remained as the automatic email message until the close of the period for making allegations to the Review at 9.00 pm on the evening of Friday 17 June 2011.
The 1 800 number was staffed with lawyers from 2.00 pm to 9.00 pm Eastern Standard Time Monday to Friday from Tuesday 10 May 2011 to Friday 17 June 2011.
The lawyers staffing the 1 800 number were instructed on the background to the Review and on the sensitivities involved in taking statements from people who have been abused. These lawyers were provided with a script for taking calls on the 1 800 number. The lawyers who took calls on the 1 800 number adapted their feedback/reply to the caller according to the circumstances of the call.
The 1 800 number was set up so that if a call came in outside of the hours of 2.00 pm to 9.00pm Monday to Friday, or if all the rostered lawyers were engaged taking calls, then the caller was diverted to a detailed message which invited the caller to nominate an address and time and number for call back and - if they wished to speak to someone of their own sex - to say so in the message.
The Review Team discovered that the recorded message malfunctioned on some occasions and did not allow the caller to leave a message. This malfunction was repaired promptly on each occasion that this was discovered.
The recorded message facility had been tested satisfactorily Tuesday 10 May 2011 the day on which the DEFGRAM was issued inviting Defence personnel to contact the Review.
At 9.15 pm on Friday 13 May 2011 one of the Review team discovered that the voicemail looped the recorded message and did not allow the caller to leave a message. The DLA Piper IT team investigated over the weekend and identified a software problem. The problem was resolved on the evening of Sunday 15 May 2011. The telephone log indicates that there were no attempted calls to the 1800 number between the evening of Friday 13 - Sunday 15 May.
In these early days of the operation of the 1 800 number very few calls were coming to the 1 800 number.
No-one who spoke to one of the Review’s phone roster staff in this early period of operation of the 1 800 made any mention of difficulties with the recorded message.
Around 2.40pm on Monday 30 May it was discovered that a phone which had been used for a 1 800 roster on the evening of Friday 27 May had not been taken off 1800 operation and was ringing without a rostered lawyer to take a call. This was remedied within the hour. From then until 17 June 2011, a staff member called the 1 800 each business day and left a test message. No problems were detected with the working of the recorded message facility.
Until the last week of the operation of the 1 800 call roster, almost all of calls to the 1 800 number during the 2.00pm to 9.00 pm Monday to Friday hours were taken as they came in.
Each caller who left a voicemail message with a return telephone number was called back at least once. Generally, a call back was made within two business days of a message having been left.
However, on Monday 13 June 2011, which was the start of the last week of operation of the 1 800 number, there was a program about abuse in Defence on ABC television's Four Corners program. That program included reference to the 17 June close of the period for people to provide allegations to the Review.
The next day, and for the remainder of that week, there was a surge in the number of calls to the 1 800 number. In response to this surge in calls, the Review rostered extra staff to take calls on the 1 800 number during the 2.00 pm to 9.00 pm periods and to return calls to people who had left messages. Review team lawyers returned calls to all persons who had left a message during the week 13-17 June by the end of that week. The last return calls by Review team lawyers were made around 10.00 pm on the evening of Friday the 17th after the 1 800 number roster had ceased at 9.00 pm.
As at 10pm on 17 June 2011, the Review was unable to make contact with only three people. Of those, one person did not leave a return telephone number, another did not have a voicemail service on which to leave a message and the other person did not leave a message.
The Review Team does not leave messages because of the subject matter of the calls.
The Review has now made contact (whether by telephone, email or post) with everyone who contacted the 1800 number before and since 17 June 2011.
(3) The immediate reply/feedback to people who called the 1 800 number during the hours of 2.00 pm to 9.00 pm Monday to Friday for most of the weeks of operation of the number included a verbal response with a lawyer taking calls or a verbal response by call-back to callers who left a message.
The immediate feedback/reply response to people who sent emails to a Review mailbox was the automatic email with the attachments as explained in the answer to Question 2.
The reasons why the Review did not arrange for people sending an email to a Review mailbox to get an immediate verbal reply included that: it was not practical to have staff available to read and assess all of the emails coming in to the Review mailboxes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and to provide an immediate and informed verbal reply as soon as the emails came in; the emails coming into the mailboxes were reviewed each business day to identify any that appeared to need urgent action such as notification to the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS); at the same time as the Review was receiving calls and receiving emails, the Review was also considering what level of follow up and information-gathering would be appropriate and achievable in time for report by the end of July (which was the delivery date contemplated at the start of the Review).
The Review did take into account that some of the people contacting the Review would be traumatised.
However, the Review considered and formed the view that it was neither feasible nor appropriate to make telephone calls – immediate or otherwise - to all people who sent an email to the Review regardless of the circumstances. The Review decided that it should only make calls where it was appropriate to do so. In deciding whether it was appropriate to do so the Review took into account a number of considerations including: whether the person who sent the email is the (alleged) victim or is closely connected with the victim or is someone who claims to be a witness to abuse or to have heard second or third hand reports of abuse; whether the person has already provided enough information for the Review to be able to report on the allegation; whether the matter raised in the email is out of scope for the Review; how serious is the abuse alleged in the email; whether there is any indication that the person who sent the email is or may be distressed; whether detailed information about an allegation could be gathered most accurately, effectively and most conveniently for the informant by sending them a statement form with guidance on how to complete the form.
The concern that some of the people would be traumatised was also taken into account in the guidance given to lawyers involved in taking and returning calls to the 1 800 number. The background material provided to lawyers involved in calls and the script used in these calls were developed in consultation with Dr Susan Harris Rimmer who is an expert in communicating with victims of sexual assault. This script was also submitted to the Office of the Defence Force Ombudsman for comment.
The script for making return calls included contact numbers for counselling services organised by Defence. If a caller appeared to be distressed, the Review team lawyers provided those numbers to the caller.
The Review was concerned that if it took information from people before they had considered and decided whether they wanted to put restrictions on disclosure of their information, then it might not be possible to maintain confidentiality for their information.
The automatic email response and the documents attached to the automatic response were designed to provide a basis for people contacting the Review to make informed decisions about these matters. The process and the information sheet and the attached forms were developed in consultation with Dr Susan Harris-Rimmer. The attachments were submitted to the Office of the Defence Force Ombudsman for comment.
(4) As at 1 September, approximately 138 late new complainants have contacted DLA Piper since 9.00 pm on Friday 17 June 2011.
(5) DLA Piper has assigned 21 senior lawyers and approximately 46 junior lawyers and paralegals to the Review. The firm has also engaged one full time barrister to advise the Review and another barrister on a part-time basis to advise the Review. No Department personnel are involved in the Review’s analysis of complaints.
(6) Dr David Lloyd, Defence General Counsel has day to day responsibility as Defence’s primary point of contact for the Review.
(7) As at 1 September 2011, the DLA Piper Review is anticipated to cost in excess of $6 million.
With reference to finance provided by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) to the Papua New Guinea Liquefied Natural Gas (PNG LNG) project and to two reports commissioned by EFIC relating to investor risk and security needs assessment, the answer to part D of question no. 23 taken on notice during the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee suggests that EFIC may not have seen the security assessment:
(1) Was Control Risk Asia Pacific commissioned by EFIC to undertake a security and investor assessment of the PNG LNG project.
(2) Did Control Risk Asia Pacific accompany EFIC representatives to PNG to meet with project joint venture companies.
(3) Did EFIC provide Cabinet with the full Control Risk Asia Pacific assessments; if not, why not considering the vast proportion of finance came from the National Interest Account not the EFIC Commercial Account.
(4) Did EFIC provide the department with the Control Risk Asia Pacific PNG LNG assessments; if so, did the department provide any comments and to whom.
(5) Did EFIC provide AusAID with the Control Risk Asia Pacific PNG LNG assessments; if so, did AusAID provide any comments and to whom.
(6) Given that three out of the six Export Credit Agency financiers of the PNG LNG project (Australia, Japan and China) provide overseas development aid (ODA) to the PNG Government, to what degree will the nature and priorities of Australia's ODA to PNG change during the construction and production stages of PNG LNG.
(7) Are there any provisions in the project finance contract or associated contracts between the project joint venturers and EFIC/Australian Government relating to landowner benefit sharing; if so, can a general description be provided, while respecting commercial in confidence aspects of the contract.
(8) As a project financier is EFIC or the Australia Government concerned about the current level of conflict and landowner dissatisfaction arising from the distribution of business grants and contracts in the project areas.
(9) Has EFIC or the Australian Government communicated anything to the project joint venture companies or the PNG Government about this issue.
(10) Did the Australian Government directly or indirectly have representation at the Kokopo Umbrella Benefits Sharing Agreement development forum held in April and May 2009.
(11) Can a list be provided of all the meetings attended by the Australian High Commissioner in PNG in relation to the PNG LNG project.
(12) What does the Minister believe is the biggest security and investment risk to the PNG LNG project going ahead.
(13) What control does the Australian Government have over this risk.
(1) No. EFIC did not commission any reports from the Control Risk Asia Pacific Group. However, the Control Risk Asia Pacific Group was separately engaged by Esso Australia to prepare two reports. The first report was for the lenders to the PNG LNG project with respect to security issues relating to the PNG LNG project. EFIC received the final version of this report in December 2009. The second was a report for the sponsors on security matters. EFIC has not received or reviewed the sponsors' report.
(2) No, Control Risk Pacific Asia staff have not accompanied EFIC representatives to any meetings in PNG.
(3) It is not appropriate to comment on Cabinet processes.
(4) EFIC has not provided DFAT with the lenders' report from Control Risk Asia Pacific Group. The lenders' report formed one part of EFIC's comprehensive due diligence process in which EFIC received independent advice on, or verification of, a number of key risk factors. The lenders' report, amongst other due diligence material, enabled EFIC to provide a detailed credit assessment to DFAT in respect of the proposed NIA transaction.
(5) No.
(6) The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs:
The construction and production phases of the PNG LNG Project will not affect the nature and priorities of Australia's ODA to PNG. In accordance with jointly agreed priorities, the aid program to PNG will focus assistance on education and health, including HIV/AIDS, and maintain support for law and justice and transport. Australia is providing advice to the PNG Government on how it may manage the governance impacts of the LNG project and to establish mechanisms to manage anticipated revenues for the benefit of the people. This support is being managed separately from the aid program.
(7) PNG law governs which landowners, local and provincial governments are entitled to benefit from the PNG LNG project.
(8) Negotiations with local landowners are principally a matter for the PNG Government, landowner associations and LNG project partners.
(9) Negotiations with local landowners are principally a matter for the PNG Government, landowner associations and LNG project partners. Neither EFIC nor the Australian Government has had any communication with the PNG Government on those negotiations.
(10) No. The Kokopo Umbrella Benefits Sharing Agreement development forum participants comprised mainly PNG government representatives (at national, provincial and local levels) and PNG landowners. There were no Australian Government representatives at the forum.
(11) It would not be feasible to provide a list of meetings attended by the High Commissioner in relation to the PNG LNG Project because of the large number of meetings in which it was discussed. Given the significance of the project to PNG, the project is discussed regularly by the Australian High Commission.
(12) It is not appropriate for an opinion on security and investment risk to be provided.
(13) The Australian government cannot exert control over security risks in third countries.
As at 30 June 2011:
(1) From which areas of expenditure will the enhanced force protection
measures be made.
(2) What specific programs will be cut or deferred to meet this cost.
(3) Why did the Government cease disclosing deferrals in expenditure in the 2008-09 Budget which has continued through to the 2010-11 Budget.
(4) (a) What are the specific deferrals in expenditure since 2008-09; and (b) why have these deferrals been made.
(5) What percentage increase, if any, will be made to enable future capital equipment initiatives over the forward estimates period.
(6) As it is not clear in the 2011-12 Budget, what specific projects are planned for approval in 2011-12.
(7) (a) What programs in 2011-12 will now have to be resourced through absorbed costs; and (b) what programs have been cancelled or deferred to enable these costs to be absorbed.
(8) Of the $20.6 billion worth of savings under the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) it would appear that $4.6 billion of this involves the re-allocation of funds and is not a savings item at all – how can this claim of savings be made when it is in fact a reallocation of funds.
(9) Under the SRP: (a) why has the number of civilian employees to be cut been reduced from the forecast 3,125; and (b) what is the new figure.
(1) In the 2010-11 Budget, the Government agreed to invest a total of $1.6 billion in Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities in Afghanistan. Of this:
The Defence component of $912 million has been funded by:
(2) Defence has either delayed or revised the expenditure spread for a total of 11 Defence Capability Plan Projects to fund the Force Protection Review.
(3) Defence has not ceased disclosing information. As a consequence of the 2009 Defence White Paper, a new funding model was applied to the Defence budget and therefore there was no appropriation reprogramming in the 2009-10 budget.
Appropriation reprogramming was again undertaken in the 2010-11 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11 (Pg 22, Table 10: Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
(4) (a) and (b). As per Attachment A (available from the Senate Table Office) .
(5) The total Major Capital Investment Program is $5,128.6m in 2011-12 and $16,015.6m over the 12-13 to 14-15 forward estimates period (refer Table 14 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12). The amounts in each year of the Major Capital Investment Program is not managed on a percentage increase basis but rather reflects the cash flow required to support the delivery of particular projects. This may or may not be a linear relationship.
(6) Significant Defence Capability Plan (DCP) projects in development for consideration by Government are provided on pages 90 and 91, tables 44 and 45 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12. The DCP was also publicly released in 2011. This publication and its associated regular updates are available through the Defence website (refer http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm)
(7) (a) and (b) As shown on page 28, table 11 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12, the following programs have been absorbed within Defence's existing operating budgets in 2011-12:
The total amount to be absorbed by the Department of Defence for Operations and Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities in 2011-12 is $367.9m as shown on page 32, Table 13 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12. The absorbed funding for Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities will predominantly be funded from Defence's existing capital investment program.
(8) The Strategic Reform Program is a comprehensive program that features many aspects of reform that are not directly focused on efficiency. The reallocation of funds in the "Other Cost Reductions" component reflects an increase in the efficiency with which Defence allocated resources. It also reflects improved Defence planning and understanding of the Defence Budget. These are all key outcomes of the Strategic Reform Program.
(9) As recommended by the Defence Budget Audit (DBA), Defence undertook a detailed diagnostic to validate the DBA findings to ensure reform is sustainable and achievable. This meant that Defence's approach to specific reform initiatives diverged from the initial analysis provided in the DBA. While workforce implications have changed following the diagnostics, the overall cost reduction target of $20 billion by 2018-19 will still be achieved.
Members of Parliament and other interested parties have combined workforce reductions from efficiency savings and the 0.7% productivity to give DBA workforce reduction totals of 3125 civilians and 1713 military compared to SRP reductions of 1708 civilians and 859 military.
The difference is attributed to adjustments to DMO and DSTO workforce savings, removal of operational and capability related workforce from the baseline and savings, inclusion of Efficiency and Effectiveness savings for DMO and DSTO, and inclusion of Logistics workforce savings.
Within SRP, there is growth within civilian positions under the Workforce and Shared Services Reform (WSSR) and Non Equipment Procurement Streams. The total workforce growth is 1,416 (Civilianisation 535 and Contractor Conversions 881) across the decade realizing approximately $1b in savings due to the reduced cost of employing civilians into these support roles.
Total APS efficiency improvements comprise APS WSSR efficiency savings of 1374 FTE, 5 FTE associated with ADF Gap Year reductions and 0.7% Productivity savings of 729 FTE. The net workforce impact by 2018-19 after taking into account FTE workforce growth associated with Contractor Conversions and Civilianisation is a saving of 1573 FTE.
Further savings of up to 124 FTE associated with Logistics Stream reform are yet to be finalised.
The ADF efficiency improvements comprise 400 AFS Efficiency savings, civilianisation of 535 positions, 239 AFS associated with ADF Gap Year reductions and 455 AFS for 0.7% Productivity savings. Further savings of up to 38 AFS associated with Logistics Stream reform are yet to be finalised.
Can the department:
(1) Confirm its statement that a total of 182 Australian soldiers deployed to Afghanistan have been wounded.
(2) Confirm that the Department of Veterans' Affairs has accepted 2200 claims from wounded and injured soldiers, compensating 920 of them.
(3) Confirm whether or not it was aware of the number of injured and wounded soldiers who have received compensation from the Department of Veterans' Affairs, prior to them being published in an article which appeared in the West Australian newspaper on 16 July 2011.
(4) Explain the discrepancy in numbers of wounded Australian soldiers publicly stated, compared with the number of:
(a) wounded soldiers compensated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs; and
(b) injured soldiers compensated by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
(5) Disclose the number of soldiers who were wounded or injured in Afghanistan who are currently still serving in the Defence system.
(6) Disclose the number of wounded and injured soldiers whose claims for assistance have been made through Centrelink.
(7) Provide a detailed breakdown of the types of wounds and injuries sustained by soldiers in Afghanistan who have received compensation through the Department Veterans' Affairs.
(8) Provide a detailed listing of the types of treatment and support offered to wounded soldiers returning from Afghanistan.
(9) Explain why it does not yet centrally collect and analyse injuries suffered by soldiers on deployments (including injuries lodged with the Department of Veterans' Affairs,) despite having said it would move to do this back in 2004.
I am advised as follows:
(1) Defence can confirm that 182 Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel have been wounded as at 4 August 2011 as a result of combat action. As at 12 October 11, the number is 201.
(2) As at 30 June 2011, the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) has accepted approximately 2200 claimsfor injuries and diseases which have been wholly or partially attributed to Afghanistan service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA); the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRCA); and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004(MRCA). These claims relate to around 920 individuals who have had one or more claims accepted.
(3) No, this information was not centrally collated by Defence. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel has asked the Department of Defence to collate all compensation claims in the future, and report them to him on a quarterly basis. He has also asked the Department of Veterans' Affairs to amend their processes to ensure that the current status (that is, active or retired) of ADF members is asked with all compensation claims.
(4) There are no discrepancies, but a range of reasons for the difference in the figures held by Defence and DVA which relate to wounded and injured personnel.
The terminology "wounded" has specific meaning which is to sustain an injury directly related to combat. DVA does not classify conditions as "wounds" and the term is not used in the DVA claims process. Therefore, all claims for compensation are for injuries or diseases which may or may not be directly related to combat, and for "wounds" which do directly relate.
The Defence figure relates to individuals wounded and does not specify those ADF members with multiple wounds. The DVA figures relate to claims for injuries and diseases not to individual claimants. Some claimants have lodged multiple claims under the VEA, MRCA or SCRA or have claims lodged across all three Acts.
Not all ADF personnel who are wounded/injured seek compensation from DVA at the time of injury. They may in fact seek compensation many years after the initial injury or illness, or after they have left the Australian Defence Force.
Currently serving personnel have comprehensive health care services provided by Joint Health Command irrespective of how the injury was sustained. This may mean that compensation claims are made later in an individual's career or prior to discharging from full time service.
There will be individuals who lodge claims that are not accepted in whole or in part.
A number of conditions (such as mental health conditions) may present in the days, weeks, months, years or decades following a deployment, creating a time lag between when the condition occurred, when it was diagnosed and the submission of a compensation claim.
(5) DVA does not centrally record whether a claimant is a current or former member of the ADF. At the time that DVA receives a claim, the claimant will disclose their employment status as this issue may impact on the types of benefits an individual can access. Compensation claim acceptance notification is included within an individual's health record and is not centrally collated. Individuals receiving compensation are not required to inform Defence that they are in receipt of a compensation payment. The Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Defence Science and Personnel has asked the Department of Defence to collate all compensation claims in the future, and report them to him on a quarterly basis. He has also asked the Department of Veterans' Affairs to amend their processes to ensure that the current status (that is, active or retired) of ADF members is asked with all compensation claims.
(6) While it is possible that some serving members may have applied to Centrelink for benefits, neither DVA nor Defence have access to Centrelink data.
(7) As at 30 June 2011, approximately 3400 disability claims have been submitted to DVA which are partially or wholly attributable to service in Afghanistan under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ; theSafety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ; and theMilitary Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 . Of these, 2200 claims have been accepted. The list of conditions for which claims have been accepted include, but are not limited to, hearing, conditions affecting sight, whole body musculo-skeletal conditions including amputations and fractures, mental health conditions, skin conditions and a number of non-specified health conditions. A schedule of these is attached.
(8) Defence, through Joint Health Command, provide a comprehensive suite of health care services to all ADF personnel throughout their service careers irrespective of whether they are on deployment or serving within Australia. The provision of health care to ADF personnel is based on the individual's clinical condition to ensure that the most appropriate services and treatment options are accessed as they are required. These services include access to primary health care providers, specialist medical and hospital services, ancillary health care services such as occupational therapists, dieticians, physiotherapists, access to pharmaceutical support, rehabilitation services and mental health services and programs.
DVA provides a comprehensive range of medical, pharmaceutical, hospital and other treatments for eligible individuals, determined by specific clinical needs. This includes case co-ordinators which were introduced in early 2010 to assist clients, identified as with complex needs, to navigate DVA's services and benefits in order to minimise the risk of self-harm and maximise quality of life.
To ensure that the support provided to wounded, injured or ill members continues to meet the needs of the individual, and their families, and to ensure ease of access, Defence and Veterans' Affairs has jointly initiated the Support for Wounded, Injured or Ill Program (SWIIP) that will develop a whole-of-life framework for the care of injured or ill ADF members during their service and after transition from the ADF. As part of this program, DVA will be providing an On-Base Advisory Service to provide information and support to help ADF members and their family's access DVA services and benefits.
(9) Defence does collect data on all injuries/illnesses when they are reported using the Department's OH&S reporting system. This includes injuries that have been sustained by personnel serving in Afghanistan. This data is used to develop injury prevention strategies for the ADF. Reporting through the OH&S system identifies injuries sustained and reported while on deployment and also identifies injuries which may result in future health concerns.
In regard to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) Can a breakdown be provided of the number of staff and their location that administer each program.
(2) How many regulations are associated with each program and for each program can the names of each regulation be provided.
(3) Can a list be provided of all cross-portfolio programs within the portfolio and the departments and agencies involved.
(4) Can a list be provided of all boards within the portfolio including for each board:
(a) the length of the term of appointment;
(b) the tenure of the appointment; and
(c) the names of the members on the board.
(1) Resourcing for the management of programs, including ASL, administered on behalf of the Australian Government is not allocated, or recorded within financial management and human resource systems, on an administered program basis.
(2) A full listing of all regulations that have been made under each Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (EEWR) portfolio Act, and as published in the current Administrative Arrangement Orders (of 14 October 2010) is provided at Attachment A (available from the Senate Table Office) . Each Act, and related regulations have been recorded against the most appropriate EEWR outcome as published in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements.
(3) There are currently no cross-portfolio programs managed by the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
There are programs that are appropriated either jointly with, or directly to, the Treasury portfolio. This is a result of the Federal Financial Relations appropriation framework that requires centralised Commonwealth arrangements for financial support paid to States and Territories. The relevant Specific Purpose Payments and National Partnership are detailed in the 2011-12 Budget Paper No. 3 – Part 2: Payments for Specific Purposes at:
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/bp3/html/bp3_03_part_2a.htm
Payments related to Education are detailed at page 49, and those related to Skills and Workforce Development are at page 59, of that publication.
(4) Please see Attachment B ( available from the Senate Table Office).
In regard to the following answers to questions taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Community Affairs Committee:
(1) Given that in the answer to question no. 348, the department said that no staffing numbers had been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend, what has been cut as a result of the efficiency dividend.
(2) Given that in the answer to question no. 352, the hospitality spend was $707 848 but according to the department, providing a breakdown of that hospitality spend would use a considerable amount of its resources, therefore can a breakdown be provided of alcohol, food and beverages information for the two most expensive hospitality functions held from
1 July 2010 to 31 May 2011.
(3) Given that in the answer to question no. 382, the department paid interest of $425.25 on an overdue account, how much and what was this account for, and why was it paid late so as to incur the interest charge.
(4) Given that in the answer to question no. 403, that as a result of savings achieved through efficiencies in Commonwealth property management, the department has requested its departmental appropriation be reduced by $10 497, can details be provided of how these savings have been achieved.
(5) Given that in the answer to question no. 361, for the financial year to date to 13 June 2011, the department had undertaken or is undertaking 183 consultancy contracts with a combined total value of $24.6 million (GST inclusive):
(a) for each of the following financial years, 2008-09 and 2009-10, can an outline be provided of how many consultancy contracts were undertaken and for each contract its value; and
(b) for each of the following financial years, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, how many staff were employed by the department.
(1) The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) manages the efficiency dividend through early allocation of internal budgets to Groups and States and linking business planning to available resources. Some examples of specific strategies to reduce costs include promoting video conferencing and reducing air travel where practicable, the introduction of Voice over IP telephony services,
turning off IT equipment to produce power savings and consolidating property holdings.
(2) The two most expensive hospitality functions were the SES Recall Day ($19,021.50)—catering costs including morning and afternoon tea, lunch and dinner—$17,525 and refreshments including alcohol—$1,496.50; and the Expert Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Indigenous Australians ($3,510), catering costs—$2,520 and refreshments—$990. There was no alcohol provided.
(3) The interest charge of $425.25 was for Chartered Air Services and relates to the late payment of two invoices, one for $8,100 and the second for $6,075. These invoices were paid late as a result of being misplaced between FaHCSIA and the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
(4) The savings of $10,497 were achieved through a rationalisation of FaHCSIA's property portfolio which is continually monitored to identify savings and efficiencies.
(5)(a) For the financial year 2008-09, FaHCSIA undertook 291 new consultancy contracts with a combined total value of $37.3 million (GST inclusive). For the financial year 2009-10, FaHCSIA undertook 271 new consultancy contracts with a combined total value of $33.4 million (GST inclusive).
A listing of FaHCSIA's contracts (including consultancies), valued at $10,000 or more, is publicly available on the AusTender website and it includes the name of the consultant, the subject matter of the consultancy, the duration and cost of the arrangement and the method of procurement.
(b) Staffing numbers for the previous three financial years were as follows:
With reference to the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs:
(1) Can details be provided of the total hospitality spend for the 2010-11 financial year for each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary office that falls under that department, including for each event: (a) the date; (b) the location; (c) the purpose of the event; (d) its cost; and (e) in relation to any catering costs, an itemised list including the cost of food, beverages and alcohol.
(2) In regard to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and the Minister for the Status of Women: (a) what was the cost of each Minister's travel and expenses for the Community Cabinet meetings during the 2010-11 financial year; (b) how many ministerial staff accompanied the Ministers and what was the total cost of their travel; (c) how many department officers accompanied the Ministers and what was the total cost of their travel; and (d) can the total cost of travel and expenses also be itemised as per the cost to that department and the cost to the Ministers' offices.
(1) (a) to (e) Hospitality for Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries offices is paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that they did not fund any hospitality related expenses for any Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries falling under the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio in the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) (a) Travel expenses for Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and Ministerial staff are paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that the cost of Community Cabinet travel and expenses for the Minister for Families, Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in the 2010-11 financial year was $5,192.90.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that the cost of Community Cabinet travel and expenses for the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare and Minister for the Status of Women in the 2010-11 financial year was $304.59.
(b) The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that two Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister to the Redcliffe Peninsula Community Cabinet meeting on 2 December 2010 at a cost of $1,684.36.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that two Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister to the Fremantle Community Cabinet meeting on 30 March 2011 at a cost of $3,491.67.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that three Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister to the Modbury Heights Community Cabinet meeting on 19 May 2011 at a cost of $2,728.90.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation has advised that three Ministerial staff accompanied the Minister to the Palmerston Community Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2011 at a cost of $3,360.36.
(c) Two departmental staff accompanied the Minister to the Redcliffe Peninsula Community Cabinet meeting on 2 December 2011 at a cost of $1,338.01.
Three departmental staff accompanied the Minister to the Fremantle Community Cabinet meeting on 30 March 2011 at a cost of $6,050.04.
Two departmental staff accompanied the Minister to the Modbury Heights Community Cabinet meeting on 19 May 2011 at no cost.
Four departmental staff accompanied the Minister to the Palmerston Community Cabinet meeting on 29 June 2011 at a cost of $2,985.18.
(d) The total cost of travel and expenses to the Department was $10,373.23. The total cost of travel and expenses to the Ministers' offices was $16,762.78.
Note 1: The information above relies on an assumption that all travel to and from relevant locations immediately before and after the relevant Cabinet meetings was for the purposes of attending the Cabinet meetings.
Note 2: The above figures include airfares and travelling allowance (including motor vehicle allowance) claims. They do not include travel by taxis (due to the difficulties determining exact destinations using the electronic information as provided by Cabcharge), COMCAR (which is charged directly to portfolio agencies) or travel on Special Purpose Aircraft (which is administered by the Department of Defence).
Note 3: Costs are GST Exclusive.
(1) What was the total government contribution toward the purchase of Henbury Station in the Northern Territory by RM Williams Agricultural Holdings.
(2) Who holds the title to this property after the sale.
(3) Will the Government receive any financial return derived from future activities or enterprises operated on Henbury Station.
(4) What taxpayer benefits does the Government expect to deliver through this investment.
(5) Given that official statements by the Government refer to Henbury Station as a former pastoral property, has the land tenure changed from a perpetual pastoral lease; if not, is it the intention to change the land tenure.
(6) If the land use and therefore land tenure is changed what are the Native Title implications.
(7) Will this type of government assistance/investment be made available to other pastoral enterprises, particularly smaller private operators in the Northern Territory, considering that it has indicated that Henbury Station is a pilot project that could lead to other farms also being included in the program.
(8) Can a detailed assessment be provided of the environmental benefits to be gained from removing cattle from the property, given that the department already states that 70 per cent of the property largely remains in its natural condition at present.
(9) Can a copy be provided of the modelling which demonstrates how the project will achieve the company plan to sequestrate up to 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year for the next 10 to 15 years.
(10) Does the Government intend funding further baseline audits to allow other organisations to develop similar proposals for their businesses.
(11) Will the value of non Kyoto compliant carbon credits be subsidised by the Government as they currently have little to no value, and what will this cost be in future years.
(12) (a) what social and economic impact assessment did the Government undertake to establish the likely impacts on profitability of the remainder of the beef industry in that region and the impact of taking a significant food production property out of production and can that research be provided; and (b) what impacts will this have on the provision of services and infrastructure (given a very significant part of the industry no longer exists) leaving those still operating to bear a proportionately higher cost of service industry overheads and can any research be provided.
(13) Did the Government conduct any research into what impacts this contraction of local industry may have on the capital value of the other properties in the Alice Springs region, given that profitability will reduce and that reduced social strength will make the region less attractive to investment by traditional food producers; if so, can that research be provided.
(1) The Australian Government provided $9,195,667 (GST exclusive) from the Natural Heritage Trust Special Account (Caring for our Country) to R.M. Williams Agricultural Co. Landscape Management Pty Ltd to support the purchase of Henbury Station.
(2) R.M. Williams Agricultural Co. Landscape Management Pty Ltd.
(3) The Australian Government will not receive any financial return derived from future activities or enterprises operated on Henbury Station.
(4) The tax payer benefit to be delivered by this investment is the restoration of more than 500,000 hectares of land in central Australia and the in-perpetuity protection and ongoing conservation management of the environmental and cultural values of Henbury as part of the Australia's National Reserve System.
The Henbury Conservation Project will also act as a large demonstration project testing the potential to store carbon in Australia's rangelands while improving biodiversity and creating an alternative income stream for land holders from the carbon credits generated. The results of the project will be made available to others as part of the "learning by doing" approach for this project.
(5) Henbury Station is currently a perpetual pastoral lease. RM Williams Agricultural Co. Landscape Management Pty Ltd has committed to seeking a change of land tenure from the Northern Territory Government consistent with the in-perpetuity management of Henbury for conservation.
(6) A change of land use or tenure where Native Title exists may have implications under the Native Title Act. R.M. Williams Agricultural Co. Landscape Management Pty Ltd will need to consider any Native Title implications arising from the project and would, if required, need to enter into an Indigenous Land Use Agreement for the property.
(7) Any proposals seeking funding support for similar projects through the National Reserve System program would need to involve land in a priority area for building the National Reserve System and meet the relevant National Reserve System criteria including commitments to the in-perpetuity protection and conservation management of the land.
(8) Detailed assessment of the environmental, social and economic benefits will be a key component of this pilot project. These assessments, as well as other relevant information, will be made publicly available over the life of the project so that other land holders may consider a similar approach to developing an alternate income stream.
(9) The Henbury Conservation Project aims to demonstrate that significant carbon can be sequestered through managing land for nature conservation. An important feature of this project is that information on the project methodologies will be made publicly available over the life of the project so that other land holders may consider a similar approach to developing an alternate income stream.
(10) The cost of baseline audits for the Henbury Conservation Project are being funded by R.M. Williams Agricultural Co. Landscape Management Pty Ltd.
(11) The Henbury Conservation Project recognises that the non-Kyoto compliant carbon credits have an existing value and may be traded under mechanisms such as the international voluntary carbon market.
(12) Henbury was on the open market for nearly two years before its purchase by R M Williams Agricultural Co Landscape Management Pty Ltd for conservation and carbon sequestration and to explore new economic and social opportunities in Central Australia. The ongoing management of the Henbury Conservation Project will offer opportunities for local service providers to supply and support the project, as well as potentially providing direct employment opportunities for local people including local Indigenous people.
(13) The property was purchased on the open market by a company specifically focussed on exploring new economic opportunities from emerging markets. The ongoing management of the Henbury Conservation Project will offer opportunities for local service providers to supply and support the project, as well as potentially providing direct employment opportunities for local people including local Indigenous people.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. F118 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee:
(1) Given that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) outlined that in 2009-10, it had incurred external legal costs of $205 266 in relation to industrial elections and that four matters involved the Federal Court of Australia (two involving the Health Services Union (No. 1 Branch), one involving the Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Association and one involving the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association):
(a) what external legal costs were incurred by the AEC for each of these actions; and
(b) what were the total costs, including in-kind and internal costs for which no payment was made, by the AEC for each of these actions.
(2) Given that the AEC outlined that, up until 15 June 2011, it had incurred external legal costs of $565 949.99 in 2010-11 in relation to industrial elections and that three matters involved the Federal Court of Australia (Purvinas and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association; Nimmo and the Australian Education Union; and Kelly and the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Branch of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (No. 2)):
(a) what external legal costs were incurred by the AEC for each of these actions; and
(b) what were the total costs, including in-kind and internal costs for which no payment was made, by the AEC for each of these actions.
(3) Has the AEC incurred any other legal expenses, for example, through either seeking legal advice or with respect to any legal action or administrative activities, relating to registered industrial organisations in each of the following financial years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11; if so, can the AEC provide:
(a) an amount for the expense incurred by the AEC with respect to each individual registered industrial organisation; and
(b) an amount for the total expense incurred by the AEC for each financial year listed.
(1) (a) Health Services Union (No.1 Branch)—$11 226.60; Health Services Union (No.1 Branch)—$4 250; Australian Salaried Medical Officers' Association—$113 138.27; Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association—$797.50; and
(b) as the AEC does not maintain an internal billing system, this figure is not possible to calculate.
(2) (a) Purvinas and the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers' Association—$46 526.50; Nimmo and the Australian Education Union—$35 784.78; and Kelly and the New South Wales Local Government, Clerical, Administrative, Energy, Airlines and Utilities Branch of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (No. 2)—$94 910.60; and
(b) as the AEC does not maintain an internal billing system, this figure is not possible to calculate.
(3) Yes.
(a) The AEC incurred the following external legal expenses for the specified years and organisations. 2007-08: Australian Retailers Association; $1 247.40: AMWU Food and Confectionary Division; $2 032.80: CEPU; $9 669.00: AMWU; $4 943.40. 2008-09: National Union of Workers; $7 909.44. 2009-10: AMWU; $2 416.70; and
(b) the AEC incurred the following total external legal expenses in relation to all matters for the specified years. 2007-08; $1 092 304: 2008-09; $589 367: 2009-10; $205 266. 2010-11: $497 823.
In regard to Fair Work Australia, has it contracted any organisation to conduct business intelligence consulting services; if so: (a) what was the result of those services; (b) what intelligence was gathered; and (c) what was the brief for the consultancy.
Fair Work Australia has not contracted any organisation to conduct business intelligence consulting services.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date. (2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct. (3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached. (4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken. (5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) There have been:
(a) 90 completed investigations made in respect of individuals who were suspected of breaching the Code of Conduct within the Minister's portfolio for the financial year 2010-11.
(b) 18 completed investigations made in respect of individuals who were suspected of breaching the Code of Conduct within the Minister's portfolio to date in the financial year 2011-12.
(2) Of the completed investigations:
(a) Of the 90 completed cases in the 2010-2011 financial year:
(i) 58 employees were found to have breached the Code of Conduct.
(ii) In 32 instances, a breach of the Code of Conduct was not established.
(b) Of the 18 completed cases to date in the 2011-2012 financial year:
(iii) 9 employees were found to have breached the Code of Conduct.
(iv) In 9 instances, a breach of the Code of Conduct was not established.
(3) The table below overleaf information about those provisions of the Code of Conduct that were thought to have been breached in each investigation. Note that, in most instances of suspected misconduct, an individual will be suspected of breaching several provisions of the Code of Conduct.
(4) Of the 67 employees who were found to have breached the Code of Conduct, the table below provides information on the penalties applied. Note that, in many instances of misconduct, more than one sanction may be applied.
(5) As at 7 September 2011, there are 77 ongoing investigations.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial year years (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011 to date;
(2) How many investigations established; (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct;
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached;
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken;
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) A total of 193 Code of Conduct investigations were completed in the financial year 2010-11.
(b) There have been 45 completed Code of Conduct investigations from 1 July up to and including 29 August 2011.
(2) (a) 55 completed investigations established that a breach of the Code of Conduct occurred.
(b) 183 completed investigations established that no breach occurred.
(3) The following table provides a breakdown of the main provision of the Code of Conduct breached in respect to the 55 completed investigations which established a breach of the Code of Conduct:
Note: In some cases more than one provision of the Code of Conduct may be found to have been breached. However, it is not possible to easily extract this information from the department's recording system.
(4) The following table provides a breakdown of the penalties applied to the 55 completed investigations which established a breach of the Code of Conduct:
Note: The total number of sanctions exceeds the number of completed investigations by four, because in four cases two penalties were applied while in every other case one penalty was applied.
(5) There were 46 ongoing Code of Conduct investigations within the Minister's portfolio as at 29 August 2011.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1)(a) As at 29 August 2011, the total number of APS Code of Conduct investigations completed within the Minister's portfolio for the financial year 2010-11 was ten.
(b) As at 29 August 2011, there had been no APS Code of Conduct investigation completed within the Minister's portfolio for the financial year 2011-12.
(2)(a) As at 29 August 2011, of the ten investigations completed in the 2010-11 financial year there were five investigations that established a breach of the APS Code of Conduct by employees of the Minister's portfolio.
(b) As at 29 August 2011, of the ten investigations completed in the 2010-11 financial year there were five investigations that established no breach of the APS Code of Conduct by employees within the Minister's portfolio.
(3) As at 29 August 2011, the provisions of the APS Code of Conduct that were alleged to have been breached by employees within the Minister's portfolio in the ten investigations completed during the 2010-11 financial year are listed below. Note that some of these elements of the Code were relevant to more than one of the ten investigations:
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must when acting in the course of APS employment, treat everyone with respect and courtesy, and without harassment.
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must at all times behave in a way that upholds the APS Values and the integrity and good reputation of the APS.
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must behave honestly and with integrity in the course of APS employment.
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must act with care and diligence in the course of APS employment.
The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must comply with any lawful and reasonable direction given by someone in the employee ' s Agency who has authority to give that direction.
As at 29 August 2011, there had been no APS Code of Conduct investigations completed within the Minister's portfolio for the 2011-12 financial year.
(4) As at 29 August 2011, the penalties that were applied to employees within the Minister's portfolio who were found to have breached the APS Code of Conduct in the 2010-11 financial year were two terminations, two fines and one sanction of a reprimand. As at 29 August 2011, no penalties had been imposed on employees within the Minister's portfolio for breaches of the APS Code of Conduct in the 2011-12 financial year.
(5) As at 29 August 2011, one investigation from the 2010-11 financial year is ongoing within the Minister's portfolio. As at 29 August 2011, one investigation from the 2011-12 financial year is ongoing within the Minister's portfolio.
(1) Are there any agreements, funding or other, between the Federal Government, the Northern Territory Government and/or Northern Territory local government councils or shires relating to swimming pools in Aboriginal communities; if so: (a) do these agreements specify who is responsible for the capital expense for the construction of swimming pools and who is responsible for the recurrent operational expenses; and (b) can copies of these agreements be provided.
(2) How many schools report on the 'no school no pool rule'.
(3) How many children are refused access to pools due to the 'no school no pool rule'.
(4) For all swimming pools funded through the Federal government, does the Government maintain records of when the pool was opened and when or if it was closed.
(1) There is one current Standard Funding Agreement between the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) and the MacDonnell Shire Council for urgent repairs and upgrades to the Kintore, Areyonga and Santa Teresa swimming pools. (a) No. (b) Yes. A copy of the Funding Agreement and relevant variations is at Attachment A (available from the Senate Table Office) .
(2) It is not the role of FaHCSIA to collect information from schools on the 'no school, no pool' rule. Nor does the Department impose conditions on the operation of swimming pools. Communities determine these arrangements at the local level.
(3) It is not the role of FaHCSIA to collect information on how many children are refused access to pools due to the 'no school no pool' rule. Nor does the Department impose conditions on the operation of swimming pools. Communities determine and enforce these arrangements at the local level.
(4) No. These are local arrangements worked out at the community level.
In regards to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre:
(1) How many mattresses have been supplied to the centre?
(2) From where were the mattresses sourced and how much did they cost?
(3) Did the mattresses fit the beds that had already been delivered; if not:
(a) Were extra mattresses bought; if so, what cost and from whom; and
(b) What happened with the mattresses that did not fit and was any money refunded; if so, can details be provided?
(1) Stage one required 140 mattresses to be supplied.
(2) The Department's contracted service provider – Serco—sourced the mattresses from a local Hobart supplier for a rental fee of $2.00 each/day.
(3) Yes.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 894 relating to the Pontville Detention Centre:
(1) What percentage of the new accommodation required will be by way of:
(a) rental agreements; and
(b) procurement.
(2) With which company, or companies, are the rental agreements and what are the value and lengths of those agreements.
(3) What is the value of the procurement agreements and with which companies are those agreements.
(4) Can a list be provided identifying which buildings will be placed on the department's asset registers.
(5) Paragraph (2) of the answer to question on notice no. 894 states that 'Rental agreements are in place or are currently being finalised for the hire of a number of other structures': can a list be provided advising which buildings have rental agreements in place and which buildings are still having rental agreements finalised.
(6) Who will bear the cost and responsibility of insurance for the:
(a) procured facilities; and
(b) rented facilities.
(7) Is it accepted that the so called 6 month period for the centre's life is to commence on 1 September 2011.
(8) What is the commencement date of each rental agreement and how much rental has been paid on all these buildings up to and including 31 August 2011.
(9) Has a community liaison group been established at Pontville; if so:
(a) when was it established;
(b) who are its members;
(c) how were members of the liaison group chosen; and
(d) by whom were members of the liaison group chosen.
(1) As at 5 September 2011, the percentage of new accommodation by the way of:
(a) rental agreements is 81%, and
(b) procurement is 19%.
(2) The department has rental agreements with the following companies:
(3) The value of the procurement is:
(4) The following list details the buildings currently held on the Departments asset register.
(5) Below is a list of rental agreements currently in place and those that are still being finalised.
(6) (a) Comcover will bear the insurance cost and responsibility for the procured facilities.
(b) Comcover and Serco will bear the insurance costs and responsibility for the rented facilities.
(7) Yes.
(8)
(9) (a) The first formal meeting of the Community Consultation Group (CCG) was held on 7 September 2011.
(b) The CCG comprises of key stakeholders and drawn from Tasmanian State Government agencies, organisations and groups that have approached Serco or DIAC with the offer of voluntary services, local government representatives, and others as guided by the Detention Services Manual, Chapter 4.
(c) The members were chosen for their local knowledge and ability to contribute to the successful and positive operation of the centre.
(d) The Community Consultation Group (CCG) is chaired by a member of the Council for Immigration Services and Status Resolution (CISSR). Members of the group were drawn from consultations held with State Government agencies, Local Government, Non-government Organisations and community members throughout 2011. The composition of the group was determined by the Chair of the CCG, Air Marshal Ray Funnell AC (Retd) and the DIAC Regional Manager of Pontville IDC.
(1) For each program administered by the department and each agency in the Ministers portfolio:
(a) what are the staffing numbers, by location;
(b) how many regulations are associated with each program and can a list of those regulations by title be provided; and
(c) what is the cost: (i) administered and (ii) departmental.
(2) What are the staffing numbers for each of the Ministers cross-portfolio programs, according to department and agency.
(3) In respect of premises owned and/or occupied by the department and each agency in the Ministers portfolio:
(a) what is the location of each;
(b) how many are: (i) leased, (ii) owned, and (iii) rented;
(c) what is the size of each;
(d) what is the annual cost per square metre of each that is: (i) rented, and (ii) leased; and
(e) what is the: (i) value, and (ii) 2010-11 depreciation, of each building owned and/or occupied.
(4) For each board within the Ministers portfolio:
(a) what is its title;
(b) what are the: (i) terms, and (ii) tenure, of its appointment; and
(c) who are the members.
(5) What was the 2010-11 expenditure for the Ministers portfolio, in total, and according to each program, for:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel, including: (i) business, (ii) economy, (iii) first class, (iv) international, and (v) domestic;
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultants;
(f) education and training of staff;
(g) external: (i) accounting, (ii) auditing, and (iii) legal services; and
(h) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(1) (a) The Department does not record staffing numbers on an individual program basis, overall staffing figures are provided below are as at 21 September 2011.
ACIS Administration Act 1999
Anglo-Australian Telescope Agreement Act 1970
Australian Institute of Marine Science Act 1972
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987
Australian Research Council Act 2001
Automotive Transformation Scheme Act 2009
Designs Act 2003
Higher Education Support Act 2003
All legislative instruments made under this Act are administered by Education, Employment and Workplace Relations except for the following legislative instruments for which Minister Carr has responsibility under ss 41-5 and 46-20.
Independent Contractors Act 2006
Industry Research and Development Act 1986
Mutual Recognition Act 1992, except to the extent administered by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations
National Measurement Act 1960
Patents Act 1990
Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994
Pooled Development Funds Act 1992
Science and Industry Research Act 1949
Space Activities Act 1998
Textile, Clothing and Footwear Investment and Innovation Programs Act 1999
Trade Marks Act 1995
Tradex Scheme Act 1999
Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, in relation to the provisions that relate to goods
(1) (c) For program costs, please refer to the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements and response provided to Budget Estimates question BI-69.
(2) The portfolio does not administer cross-portfolio programs.
(3) (a) to (e)
Notes:
1. In responding to this question the Department has defined 'leased' properties as those where a formal lease agreement is in place and 'rented' properties as those where an informal non-binding agreement is in place.
2. Depreciation expenses are the responsibility of the building owner.
3. Costs in relation to these properties are incurred under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which includes travel administration and property costs.
4. These premises are not leased or rented. AIMS pays rates to the Department of Natural Resources.
5. Given that CSIRO has over 1,200 buildings in it's property portfolio, CSIRO property values are provided per site/location (not building by building) and the value provided is of land and buildings, values are as at 30 June 2011 and depreciation figures are for 2010-11 based on values as at 30 June 2008 or the completion of subsequent capital expenditure prior to 30 June 2011.
(4) (a) to (c)
Please refer to Budget Estimates response BI-49. The full list of members is provided on the DIISR website, under the Information Publication Scheme, at the following link
http://www.innovation.gov.au/AboutUs/InformationPublicationScheme/Whatwedo/Documents/OurStatutoryAppointments.pdf
(5) (a) to (h)
A breakdown of this type of expenditure against individual programs is not available, however detail on available figures has been provided previously. Please refer to the following Budget Estimates responses: BI-46, BI-47, BI-48, BI-53, BI-57, BI-63, BI-64 and BI-65.