The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
(1) That estimates hearings by legislation committees for 2012 be scheduled as follows:
2011-12 additional estimates:
Monday, 13 February and Tuesday, 14 February ( Group A )
Wednesday, 15 February and Thursday, 16 February ( Group B ).
2012-13 Budget estimates:
Monday, 21 May to Thursday, 24 May, and, if required, Friday, 25 May ( Group A )
Monday, 28 May to Thursday, 31 May, and, if required, Friday, 1 June ( Group B )
Monday, 15 October and Tuesday, 16 October ( supplementary hearings—Group A )
Wednesday, 17 October and Thursday, 18 October ( supplementary hearings—Group B ).
(2) That the committees consider the proposed expenditure in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to committees agreed to by the Senate.
(3) That committees meet in the following groups:
Group A:
Environment and Communications
Finance and Public Administration
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Rural Affairs and Transport
Group B:
Community Affairs
Economics
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
(4) That the committees report to the Senate on the following dates:
(a) Tuesday, 20 March 2012 in respect of the 2011-12 additional estimates; and
(b) Tuesday, 26 June 2012 in respect of the 2012-13 Budget estimates.
Notice given 31 October 2011
That, pursuant to standing order 25(9), the Senate determines:
(a) that the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators; and
(b) that this order remain in effect until the President is duly notified of an agreement that meets the terms of standing order 25(9)(c).
That the words "Legal and Constitutional Affairs" be removed and replaced with "Environment and Communications" so that paragraph (a) now reads:
(a) that the chair of the Environment and Communications References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators.
That the words "Legal and Constitutional Affairs" be augmented with "Environment and Communications" so that paragraph (a) now reads:
(a) that the chairs of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs and Environment and Communications References Committee shall be elected by that committee from members nominated by minor parties or independent senators; and
Under standing order 25 the chairs of the legislative and general purpose standing committees must be chosen from the government party members, and the deputy chairs from the non-government members. For procedures for electing chairs and deputy chairs, see below …
… following the falling of the Berlin wall, and the end of the peace movement, and the end of radical socialist politics in the labor and women's movement, an awful lot of those people drifted into environmentalism. It's been highjacked by political and social activists who are using environmental rhetoric to cloak agendas that have more to do with anti-corporate and class warfare than they do with ecology or saving the environment.
That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.
That the amendment (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.
That the motion (Senator Ludwig's) be agreed to.
What I am proud of is that I have rallied the women into an organisation of support and national action by establishing BCNA with its now 62,000 members and 300-odd Member Groups across the length of this country.
We have brought a new and unique perspective to Australia's effort in breast cancer. We have articulated very powerfully that breast cancer is far more than simply removing a breast or being on the receiving end of treatment. Its ramifications and impact can be extremely long lasting, affecting entire households, workplaces and generations. Many women will tell you it's as much about what's in the heart and in the head, as in the breast.
I have had the privilege of working with Lyn for the past five years and during that time I have admired her unique ability to inspire and attract key people to help with the cause. I have marvelled at her outspokenness, her bravery, her unwavering focus and constant hard work. Her genuine warmth and often irreverent sense of humour is evident with everyone she meets.
She has been available 24/7 and given her all to the Breast Cancer Network of Australia. Most importantly, she has achieved her aim of improving the lives of people diagnosed with breast cancer and their loved ones. On behalf of the Board and the team at BCNA I want to thank Lyn for everything she's done and to wish her every success and happiness for the next exciting phase of her life.
I am very excited to have the opportunity to lead this fantastic organisation. I want to build on BCNA's considerable achievements and ensure that BCNA continues its vital role of providing quality information and support for the many thousands of people affected by breast cancer every year in Australia.
I am confident I leave the organisation with a solid foundation and a dynamic and passionate new leader.
BCNA has established a reputation as a powerful voice for those personally affected by breast cancer. The board is confident Maxine brings the right mix of skills and experience to take BCNA forward to meet the challenges in breast cancer support and advocacy.
The Inquiry recognises the needs of children and young people who are at greater risk of mental health problems due to challenging family or other circumstances. This includes those children and young people with a parent or sibling with a mental or physical illness ...
I felt completely isolated. I thought I couldn't share any of that part of my life with my friends. They didn't understand and I felt alienated from them. Other kids never had the same responsibility.
AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE INVOLVEMENT WITH INDONESIA NATIONAL POLICE
1. Australia and Indonesia have had a Memorandum of Understanding regarding transnational crime in place since June 2002 and, as a result of the first Bali bombings, signed a joint investigations agreement in relation to that case on 18 October 2002. The AFP provides capacity building assistance in support of the Indonesian National Police (INP), including Detachment 88. The capacity building initiatives delivered by the AFP in Indonesia include the provision of training to both INP and Detachment 88 officers, provided through the joint Australian-Indonesian, Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation (JCLEC). The involvement of the AFP in training programs at JCLEC allows the AFP to impress on regional counterparts some of the AFP values such as human rights and ethics in policing. Importantly the principles of human rights are embedded into all JCLEC programs.
The APP is aware of allegations of human rights abuses by Detachment 88. The AFP engagement with Detachment 88 is through the INP Executive in Jakarta.
2. The AFP is aware of media reporting in The Age on 1 November 2011; however the AFP has no mandate to investigate the conduct of foreign police within another country. Any investigation into the conduct of INP officers and their intervention in the Freeport Mine industrial action is a matter for the Indonesian authorities.
The AFP will continue to provide capacity building assistance to the INP and Detachment 88 in support of mutual law enforcement and security objectives.
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (14:27): Mr President, I will persist and ask a further supplementary question. I ask whether or not the minister will confirm that this approval pre-empts that which is not yet sanctioned under Australia's bilateral uranium sales agreement with China and that it will require a future nuclear treaty with China, yet to be negotiated with China or put to this parliament's Joint Standing Committee on Treaties inquiry and thereafter to this parliament, that may not even be realised?
The Office of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has referred this matter to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The Office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the Honourable Senator's question.
Answer
The Minister for the Environment's approval of the proposed Olympic Dam expansion has been made under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The operation of Australia's bilateral safeguards agreements, including those with China, is a separate matter.
The Australia-China Nuclear Material Transfer Agreement is designed primarily for transfers of uranium ore concentrates (i.e. yellowcake), not for copper concentrates containing trace quantities of uranium. Should extraction of uranium be undertaken in China from the Australian-sourced copper concentrates, the Agreement would most likely need to be amended to ensure the uranium recovered would be subject to the same strict safeguards requirements as other Australian uranium exports to China.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Boswell today relating to a proposed carbon tax.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to various bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings.
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
COAL MINING INDUSTRY (LONG SERVICE LEAVE FUNDING) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill amends the coal mining industry long service leave funding scheme to embody the current award-based long service leave entitlement into Commonwealth legislation, with amendments to the qualification period from 'continuous service' to 'aggregate service'. The bill will also facilitate changes to employer reimbursement arrangements and the basis on which the levy is imposed. In addition, compliance arrangements for the scheme will be improved and changes will be made to the structure of the representation on the Board including establishing an independent Chair.
Reasons for Urgency
This bill gives effect to the agreed reforms of an Industry Working Party (IWP). The parties to the IWP agreement include the key stakeholders in the industry of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union – Mining and Energy Division, Electrical Trades Union, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, NSW Minerals Council Limited, Queensland Resources Council, Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia, NSW Colliery Officials Association and Mine Managers Association of Australia.
The Government has given a commitment to black coal mining industry stakeholders that it would use best endeavours to ensure that the amendments to the scheme could commence on 1 January 2012. The Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation has commissioned systems changes to take effect from this date.
The amendments benefit both employers and employees in the black coal mining industry. Employers will benefit from a closer alignment between the amount of levy payable by employers and the amount to which employers are entitled to be reimbursed under the scheme. Employees will have the certainty and benefit of a legislated long service leave entitlement with improved compliance arrangements.
The amendments also seek to remedy an unintentional effect of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Amendment Act 2009 (the Amendment Act) which allows employees included into the scheme by Schedule 2 of the Amendment Act to be reimbursed for service in the black coal mining industry dating back indefinitely.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
MARITIME LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill increases selected penalties to deter shipping companies and their crews from operating a vessel in a way that causes damage to environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems.
Reasons for Urgency
The grounding of the Shen Neng 1 at Douglas Shoal in the Great Barrier Reef on 3 April 2010 highlighted the inadequacy of existing provisions to act as an effective deterrent to shipping companies and their crew operating vessels in a way that damages, or is likely to damage, marine ecosystems critical to Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef. Current Commonwealth provisions fall significantly short of penalties operating in State waters and have dissuaded prosecution for offences because the penalties are inconsequential. The bill will strengthen the Commonwealth's capacity to protect environmentally sensitive marine ecosystems and will give effect to action announced on 18 April 2010.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (2011 MEASURES NO. 7) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill:
Reasons for Urgency
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PARTICIPANTS IN BRITISH NUCLEAR TESTS) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill amends the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to enable the Repatriation Commission to determine, by legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria relating to British nuclear test defence service. The bill also amends the Australian Participants in British Nuclear Tests (Treatment) Act 2006 to enable the Repatriation Commission to determine, by legislative instrument, additional eligibility criteria relating to nuclear test participants. These amendments will ensure that access to benefits can be provided to eligible participants in a timely manner.
Reasons for Urgency
Australian participants in the British nuclear test program are now elderly and in ill health. Introduction and passage of the bill in the 2011 Spring sittings will ensure that British nuclear test participants receive access to compensation, treatment and other benefits as soon as possible.
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to deal with consequential matters in connection with the Business Names Registration Act 2011 and theBusiness Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2011 , and for related purposes.Business Names Registration (Application of Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 .
That there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 10 November 2011 by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig), all documents, including electronic communications, held by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, relating to the imposition, and subsequent extension, of the ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia.
That there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 10 November 2011 by the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Ludwig), all documents, including electronic communications, held by the Australian Government Solicitor, relating to the imposition, and subsequent extension, of the ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia.
That there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 10 November 2011 by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig), all advice provided by the independent expert schedulers regarding the harvesting requirements within the 430 000 hectare area nominated for conservation under the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, including the initial advice presented to government and signatories on 13 October 2011 and further information requested by the signatories in relation to the initial report.
That there be laid on the table by 5 pm on Thursday, 10 November 2011 by the Minister representing the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Conroy), all documents, including electronic communications, held by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, relating to the imposition, and subsequent extension, of the ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 28 of the 31 Australian Labor Party senators in the Australian Senate are former union officials; and
(b) resolves that any senator who genuinely views Qantas' recent actions as 'extreme' should give up their membership of Qantas' Chairman's Lounge.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the tragic violence towards Coptic Christians in Egypt;
(b) expresses grave concerns for the safety of Copts in Egypt;
(c) condemns the recent attacks on 9 October 2011 in Cairo, resulting in 27 fatalities and more than 300 injuries; and
(d) calls on the Government to make further representations to the Egyptian Government to strengthen its efforts to promote and practice tolerance towards all citizens.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the death sentence given to Christian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani in Iran on crimes of apostasy;
(b) notes that this charge is in direct conflict with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which allows freedom of religion and freedom to change one's religion, of which Iran is a signatory;
(c) calls on the Government to make representations on the matter; and
(d) strongly urges the Iranian Government to uphold religious freedom for all citizens.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Native Title Amendment (Reform) Bill 2011 be extended to 9 November 2011.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the Commonwealth contribution to former forced adoption policies be extended to 29 February 2012.
That, in light of the fact that the Australian Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, has rightly recognised the cultural heritage of the Indigenous members of our community and identified the importance of their historic connection to the land on which we all live, the Senate recognises that there are other Australian communities which also have a cultural heritage which comes from their connection, over generations, to the district and environment which they have inhabited and from which they have created an identity which is passed on to future generations of those communities.
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 21 September 2011, relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be amended as follows:
Omit paragraphs (3) to (6), substitute:
(3) On Wednesday, 9 November 2011, and Thursday, 10 November 2011, any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with.
(4) That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill.
(5) On Thursday, 3 November 2011:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 8.40 pm;
(b) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;
(c) the government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills shall have precedence over all government business;
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 8 pm.
(6) On Tuesday, 8 November 2011:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 10 am to 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm to 10.40 pm;
(b) the routine of business from 10 am to 2 pm, and from the resumption of government business till not later than 5 pm, shall be the government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills, and these bills have precedence over all government business till completed;
(c) commencing immediately after the preceding item the order of government business shall be consideration of the government business orders of the day relating to the:
(i) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, and
(ii) Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill; and
(d) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed at 10 pm.
(7) On Wednesday, 9 November 2011:
(a) the order of government business shall be consideration of the government business orders of the day relating to the:
(i) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011, and
(ii) Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill, and
that consideration of these bills shall have precedence over all government business till 5.30 pm; and
(b) consideration of government documents shall not be proceeded with.
(8) On Thursday, 10 November 2011:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) consideration of general business and committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with, and instead the routine of business shall be government business only;
(c) the government business order of the day relating to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and the Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011 shall have precedence over all government business, except that the routine of business from 12.45 pm till not later than 2 pm shall be the following government business orders of the day:
Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011
Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011
Work Health and Safety Bill 2011
Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Navigation Amendment Bill 2011
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oils in the Antarctic Area) Bill 2011;
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
(9) The government business order of the day relating to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and 17 related bills be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:
(a) on Thursday, 3 November 2011, from not later than 3.45 pm to 4 pm—second reading; and
(b) on Tuesday, 8 November 2011, from not later than 11 am to noon—all remaining stages.
(10) The government business order of the day relating to the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:
on Wednesday, 9 November 2011, from not later than 10 am to 11.30 am—all remaining stages.
(11) The government business order of the day relating to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011 and a related bill be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:
on Wednesday, 9 November 2011, from the completion of the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 till 5.30 pm—all remaining stages.
(12) The government business order of the day relating to the Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and a related bill be considered under a limitation of debate and that the time allotted be as follows:
on Thursday, 10 November 2011:
from not later than 3.45 pm till 7 pm—second reading
from 7 pm till 8 pm—committee stage
from 8 pm till 8.30 pm—all remaining stages.
(13) Paragraphs (9) to (12) of this order operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.
That the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 November 2011.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 7) Bill 2011
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Participants in British Nuclear Tests) Bill 2011.
(a) notes that:
(i) there are significant gaps in independent scientific research on the ecology and biodiversity of Cape York, particularly in the remote western parts of the Cape,
(ii) two new species, a crab and a shrimp, have recently been discovered on western Cape York in the course of the Environment Impact Assessment for Rio Tinto Alcan's proposed South of Embley bauxite mine,
(iii) these new species are believed to only exist in this area and may well meet the criteria for listing as federally threatened under our national environmental laws, but this lengthy listing process has not commenced,
(iv) the enormous footprint of the proposed mine almost certainly presents a significant threat to these species,
(v) the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) is precluded from considering the impacts of the proposed mine on these new species in his current assessment of the project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act), as they are not yet listed,
(vi) the Act lacks provisions for 'emergency listings' of newly discovered species, but the Government has committed to introduce such provisions as part of its environment protection and biodiversity conservation reform package due in 2012 – too late to save these creatures, and
(vii) Senator Waters' currently has a bill before the Senate to fast-track this government commitment to add emergency listing provisions for species and ecological communities, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Emergency Listings) Bill 2011; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) act swiftly to ensure these newly discovered species get the federal protection they urgently need to avoid the possibility of them being sent to extinction before they have even been named, and
(ii) urgently commission its own studies to ensure independent and full information about the biodiversity on the South of Embley site underpins the Minister's decision regarding this mine.
That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, from 4 pm to 6 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on communication networks' and emergency warning systems' capacities in emergencies and natural disasters be extended to 23 November 2011.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 23 November 2011, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 29 November 2011, from 4 pm.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 3 November 2011, from 5 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates Anglicord – Anglican Overseas Aid on the launch of the Women Die Waiting campaign to highlight that breast cancer is one of the major causes of death for women in the Gaza Strip; and
(b) calls on all members of the Senate to support the Women Die Waiting campaign in their efforts to promote their cause and raise enough funds to provide 2 000 women in the Gaza Strip access to breast cancer screening every year.
That there be laid on the table by 21 November 2011 by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation all documents relating to the implementation of the Australian and New Zealand Government Sustainable Procurement Framework from January 2007 until present.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the recent survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics which showed that the gap between rich and poor is widening in Australia;
(b) understands why growing inequality along with corporate greed are motivating the 'Occupy' protest movements;
(c) notes that, in the United States of America, billionaire Warren Buffett has observed that he pays a smaller proportion of his income in tax than do the other people in his office; and
(d) calls for a 50 per cent marginal tax rate on incomes of more than $1 million per annum.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the High Court in London will bring down its decision on Wednesday, 2 November 2011 regarding Sweden's request to extradite Mr Julian Assange; and
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that:
(i) the consular and legal rights of all Australian citizens overseas are fully protected, and
(ii) if extradited to Sweden for questioning, Mr Assange not be subject to further extradition from Sweden to the United States of America under a bilateral agreement to which Australia is not party.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) clauses 25 and 27 of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania (IGA), signed by Prime Minister Gillard, and
(ii) that current logging and proposed logging in the 430 000 hectares of high conservation forests proposed for protection breaches these clauses of the IGA; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately honour the IGA.
Paragraph (b), omit “honour”, substitute “abandon”.
That the amendment (Senator Colbeck's) be agreed to.
That the Senate notes that:
(a) 24 October 2011 was the 55th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Hungary, during which 20 000 Hungarians were killed, while 200 000 fled as refugees; and
(b) the installed Hungarian communist leader, Mr Janos Kadar, oversaw the imprisonment of 21 600, internment of 13 000 and execution of 400 democrats, liberals and reformist communists, and the misguided support of the Soviet occupation of Hungary by the Communist Party of Australia, and the successor, Socialist Party of Australia which, through its journal Survey, hailed comments by Mr Kadar that ‘in the building of socialism Hungary relies, in the first place, on the many-faceted cooperation with the Soviet Union’.
Omit all words after “That the Senate” substitute:
(a) notes that 24 October 2011 was the 55th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Hungary, during which 20 000 Hungarians were killed, while 200 000 fled as refugees;
(b) commends the people of Hungary as they mark the 55th anniversary of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, which set the stage for the ultimate collapse of communism in 1989 throughout Central and Eastern Europe, including Hungary and 2 years later in the Soviet Union itself;
(c) expresses condolences to the people of Hungary for those who lost their lives fighting for the cause of Hungarian freedom and independence in 1956, as well as for those individuals executed by the Soviet and Hungarian communist authorities in the 5 years following the revolution, including Prime Minister Imre Nagy;
(d) welcomes the changes that have taken place in Hungary since 1989, believing that Hungary’s integration into the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union, together with similar developments in the neighbouring countries, will ensure peace, stability and understanding among the great peoples of the Carpathian Basin;
(e) reaffirms the friendship and cooperative relations between the governments of Hungary and Australia and between the Hungarian and Australian people; and
(f) recognises the contribution of people of Hungarian origin to this nation.
That the amendment (Senator Bob Brown's) be agreed to.
That the motion (Senator Bernardi's) be agreed to.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the scale of the tuberculosis threat to Papua New Guinea and the mortality, morbidity and economic and social costs and the risk to Australia if this threat is not managed;
(b) notes that since 1991, the Torres Strait Islands Treaty has included Commonwealth compensation for the impacts of the care of Papua New Guinea nationals on the Queensland health system;
(c) condemns both the Federal and Queensland Governments for indicating they will terminate the tuberculosis clinics on Saibai and Boigu Islands which currently provide vital tuberculosis surveillance and clinical care for Papua New Guinea nationals and reduce the risk of the emergence of drug resistant strains of tuberculosis;
(d) calls on the Federal Government, through the Australian Agency for International Development [AusAID], to immediately provide long-term funding to clinics to protect Torres Strait Islander Australians; and
(e) calls on the Minister for Health and Ageing (Ms Roxon) to consult with frontline public health experts to formulate a long-term strategy which ensures that Papua New Guinea programs and Torres Strait Islands clinics deliver a combination of disease surveillance and tuberculosis care for Papua New Guineans and Torres Strait Islander Australians.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges the concern of many members of the Australian public who have signed the National Sorry Day Committee petition calling for improvements to the new national history curriculum;
(b) affirms the importance of properly acknowledging the past treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our school curriculum;
(c) recognises that, for the time, the history of forcible removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is included as a mandated and distinct component of the new national curriculum in grade 10; and
(d) requests that the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority:
(i) consider strengthening the cross curriculum priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures, to be taught where appropriate across all subjects of the national curriculum, and
(ii) gives consideration to the inclusion of National Sorry Day, past forcible removal policies and other relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander historical events in the national curriculum, in particular, in primary school years.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The failure of the current government to maintain effective and humane border protection policies in order to deny people smugglers the product that they sell.
I accept that the government has lost track. We will get back on track. I have taken control for precisely that purpose.
The only thing I could say to Australians is to judge me on how I do the job.
Well, that’s the kind of operational question that would have to be worked out by the commander on the spot … I’m not going to set myself up as an expert, but what’s been done in the past can under the right conditions be done again in the future.
By any measure, this comprehensive strategy—
has been successful.
There are many countries around the world that would like to be in the position we are in, having achieved that outcome. However—and in my view, most importantly—it has stopped people risking their lives in dangerous journeys organised by people smugglers. I lament very much that many people have lost their lives tragically, putting themselves—
Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Bill 2011
Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
National Health Reform Amendment (Independent Hospital Pricing Authority) Bill 2011
That these bills be now read a second time.
The speeches read as follows—
DETERRING PEOPLE SMUGGLING BILL 2011
General Introduction
People smuggling trades on falsehoods and on the exploitation of people who seek protection or asylum in this country.
Successive Australian governments have condemned people smuggling ventures whether organised by individuals or by transnational criminal networks.
People smugglers have no humanitarian motives. Their only motives are profit, and planning and launching ventures without regard for the safety of the children, women and men whose lives they put at risk.
No one in this Parliament will forget the tragic scenes of the vessel known as SIEV 221 crashing against the rocky cliffs of Christmas Island on 15 December 2010, resulting in the deaths of at least eight children and 22 adults and many others never recovered from the sea. Nor do we ever forget the sinking of SIEV X some 10 years ago which claimed the lives of 353 asylum seekers, including 146 children, 142 women and 65 men. These and many other tragedies resulting from people smuggling ventures should have never occurred.
The effective prosecution of people involved in organising and facilitating these inherently dangerous voyages sends a clear message that the Australian Parliament does not tolerate people smuggling.
While we work with our regional partners, the UNHCR and other organisations to bring refugees to Australia through appropriate channels, we must ensure people smuggling operations that bring people to Australia continue to be effectively criminalised.
The purpose of this bill is to give clarity to the laws that have criminalised people smuggling and aggravated people smuggling offences for more than a decade. This bill does not affect the rights of people seeking protection or asylum in Australia.
People smuggling offences contribute to Australia's implementation of its obligations to criminalise people smuggling under the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air supplementing the United Nations Convention on Transnational Organised Crime.
Clarification of the phrase ' no lawful right to come to Australia '
The purpose of this bill is to make it clear that the phrase 'no lawful right to come to Australia' refers to requirements under Australia's domestic law that people must have a visa that is in effect to lawfully come to Australia, or fall within one of the limited exceptions to that rule outlined by the Migration Act. For example a New Zealand citizen with a valid passport is exempt from requiring a visa to come here.
This is the way the provisions have been consistently interpreted since their introduction in 1999. Amendments to the Migration Act in 1999 made it an offence to organise or facilitate a group of five or more persons coming to Australia if those persons did not have a lawful right to come to Australia.
No impact on the rights of asylum seekers
The amendments expressly clarify the operation of people smuggling offences in the Migration Act.
The offences deal with the serious crimes of people smuggling and aggravated people smuggling, and do not affect the treatment of individuals seeking protection or asylum in Australia. As such, the amendments are consistent with Australia's obligations under international law and do not affect the rights of individuals seeking protection or asylum, or Australia's obligations in respect of those persons. This is confirmed by advice provided to the Government by the Attorney-General's Department.
Retrospective application
This bill does not alter any of the elements of the existing people smuggling offences in the Migration Act.
The amendments would apply retrospectively from December 1999 when the words 'lawful right to come to Australia' were first inserted into the people smuggling offences in the Migration Act. Retrospective application is necessary to avoid uncertainty about the validity of previous convictions and to maintain current prosecutions.
The effect of the retrospective application is to clarify an existing understanding of the laws, and to ensure convictions for people smuggling offences already made as well as prosecutions underway, are not invalidated.
There are exceptional circumstances that justify retrospectivity for this bill. Those circumstances are that it would not be appropriate to risk a significant number of prosecutions being overturned as a result of a previously unidentified argument in relation to the words 'no lawful right to come to Australia'.
Conclusion
This measure is critical to ensure Australia's laws criminalising people smuggling are clear and effective and reflect the Parliament's intention when the laws were put in place.
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 2011
The Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement 2011-12 Budget measures and update maximum payment amounts to provide for indexation and other variations.
The Bill also clarifies the Government’s policy in relation to Australian citizens studying at an overseas campus of an Australian provider and their eligibility for Commonwealth support and income contingent loans.
The 2011-12 Budget included:
additional funding of $109.9 million over four years for regional loading to help overcome the higher costs of regional campuses.
The Budget also included a reduction in HECS-HELP upfront discounts, providing savings of $479 million to assist in paying for the Government’s increased investment in higher education.
From 1 January 2012, the Government will lower the HECS-HELP discount for upfront student contribution payments of $500 or more from 20 per cent to 10 per cent.
Currently students can make a full up-front payment of their student contribution amount by paying 80 per cent of this amount for all of their units in a course of study with the same census date. The Commonwealth pays the remaining 20 per cent of the student contribution amount.
Students can also pay only part of their student contribution up-front and receive a 20 per cent discount for any payments totalling $500 or more for units in a course of study with the same census date.
The reduction in the upfront discount will affect students who can afford to pay upfront and choose to do so. It will not affect students who fund all of their university studies through HECS-HELP deferred loans and it will not affect university revenues.
The HELP voluntary repayment bonus, applied to payments of $500 or more, will also be reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent.
Students can make a voluntary repayment towards their HELP debt to the Tax Office at any time. Voluntary repayments of $500 or more currently attract a 10 per cent bonus on the payment amount. Effectively the Government pays this 10 per cent by removing it from the Student’s debt.
The decreased bonus for voluntary repayments will apply to all HELP debts.
This savings measure will help the Government to maintain its commitment to fund a demand driven supply of undergraduate places and to ensure low income people get the opportunity of higher education.
The Act will be amended to provide for an increase in funding for over enrolment of Commonwealth supported places that has occurred in 2011.
Funding for over enrolment of Commonwealth supported places was raised from 5 to 10 percent above funding for allocated places for 2010 and 2011 as a transitional measure prior to the introduction of the demand driven funding system for higher education funding from 2012.
From 2012, the Government will fund all undergraduate Commonwealth supported places provided by public universities.
The Bill increases the maximum amounts for other grants under section 41-45, and Commonwealth scholarships under section 46-40 of the Act to provide for indexation and other variations effecting the 2012-14 years, and to include the 2015 funding year.
There is currently ambiguity in the Act about its application to Australian citizens studying at the overseas campuses of Australian universities.
This has resulted in a small number of Commonwealth supported places being offered by Australian universities to Australian citizens studying at overseas campuses. These students have also been able to access the HECS-HELP scheme.
As students are only required to pay back their HECS-HELP debt if they file an Australian tax return, there is a higher risk that HECS-HELP debts incurred offshore will not be repaid, or not repaid for a longer period of time.
The Bill amends the Act to clarify that Australian citizens are not entitled to Commonwealth support or access to an income contingent loan when they are undertaking their course of study primarily overseas.
Current students will not be affected. Universities that currently have students in Commonwealth supported places at overseas campuses will be able to maintain the status of these students for the duration of their current courses.
The Bill reflects the Government’s continued commitment to growing Australia’s higher education sector and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a high quality higher education.
NATIONAL HEALTH REFORM AMENDMENT (INDEPENDENT HOSPITAL PRICING AUTHORITY) BILL 2011
I am pleased to introduce this legislation which will bring into affect a key part of the Government’s National Health Reforms. The establishment of the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority will help to deliver a more sustainable, efficient and transparent health system for Australians.
The introduction of this Bill and, once enacted, the establishment of the Pricing Authority build on this Government’s strong track record in delivering health reform and will complement the work of the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care and the National Health Performance Authority.
This Bill is a direct result of the Government’s Council of Australian Governments agreement with all states and territories. The final terms of this agreement were signed on 2 August.
There are a number of critical elements of these reforms – including 1,300 more sub acute beds across Australia, new targets and reward funding for emergency departments and elective surgery, transparent performance reporting through the MyHospitals website and the establishment of Local Hospital Networks and Medicare Locals to improve local governance.
In total the agreement will mean an additional $19.8 billion for hospitals over this decade from the Commonwealth Government. $1 billion of this has already flowed to states for new sub acute beds and faster access for patients to services.
The Commonwealth will be a true partner in the hospital system with a commitment to funding 50 per cent of the growth funding for hospital services. This will be fully implemented from 1 July 2017, with a 45 per cent commitment from 1 July 2014. This extra growth funding will apply to the increase in the cost of services – as well as the increasing demand for new services with the ageing of the Australian population.
This commitment to growth is vitally important as the states would not have the capacity to fund the increasing cost of services on their own – particularly since the Commonwealth’s share of hospital funding has been dropping over the past decade. This agreement will once and for ever put that to an end.
This also creates a better incentive for the Commonwealth to invest in primary and preventative health services to keep people healthy and out of hospital.
However we were not going to agree to extra funding without critical reform. Currently, the Commonwealth provides funding for public hospitals through a block grant, negotiated through Health Care Agreements. It is up to the individual states to determine how this funding is distributed across public hospitals and health services.
The previous health agreement negotiated in 2008 provides $64 billion – which is a lot of money for the Commonwealth not to know what services are being funded, or the level to which they are funded. It is without significant levers to drive change and improvement across those public hospitals.
So in this new health system there will be no more billion dollar block grants: no more blank cheques with no accountability for where that money is spent.
This is why the reform agreement will deliver activity based funding across the country from 1 July 2012. Local Hospital Networks will be paid for the services that they actually provide.
This is a major microeconomic reform that will help to increase the efficiency of services because the introduction of price signals will mean there is an incentive for hospitals to maximise the services they deliver at or below the efficient price. This will ensure that more services can be delivered locally.
It will also be important for growing areas of Australia where often under the old system public hospital funding does not catch up with the demands that they have.
And it is important to taxpayers that their funding is transparently reported – with funding according to services provided paid directly to Local Hospital Networks through a new National Health Funding Pool. This means Australians will know what is being bought through our massive investment in hospitals –what services are delivered, by which Local Hospital Network they are delivered, and at what cost. The reform will also help to identify underperforming hospitals so that those causes can be remedied – and the lessons of highly performing hospitals can be shared.
The introduction of Activity Based Funding was a key recommendation of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. They also concluded that the introduction of activity based funding would result in efficiencies of between $500 million and $1.3 billion – the equivalent of which would be hundreds of extra hospital beds.
It is also of interest to the private health sector – where activity based funding has been in operation for some time. Once in national operation across public hospitals there will be unprecedented amounts of information available. In the future this will help to consider smarter deployment of resources. This is a system that has been successfully deployed in Victoria and South Australia previously.
However a key difference from the system currently in place in Victoria and SA is that the price for services will be determined independently from Government and health department bureaucrats.
That means that the decision will be based on an assessment of the costs, facts and projections – rather than the political or budgetary interests of the government at the time. This is done by creating a new Authority – at arm’s length from all levels of Government – to independently determine the efficient price.
The Authority will have strong independent powers: it will be for public hospitals what the independent Reserve Bank is for monetary policy. This is unprecedented for the public hospital system.
The result will be a thorough and rigorous determination without fear or favour to Governments. The Government is confident that the Authority will provide the health system with the stability and robustness that the Reserve Bank has provided for monetary policy for decades.
And because the Government will fund growth at a fixed percentage of the price that the Pricing Authority determines – the funding that hospitals will receive won’t come down to the traditional blame game negotiations – but rather what is actually needed to be invested. The umpire’s ruling will be final and the Commonwealth will pay its share of growth on that basis. In deciding the efficient price, the Authority will take submissions from the public, stakeholders and governments and then make its own determination of what an efficient price is.
It will have regard to core principles such as access, clinical safety and quality, efficiency and effectiveness and the financial sustainability of the system. It will also consider the actual costs of delivering services in a wide range of hospitals and the expected changes in the costs of services from year to year.
These reforms will help to ensure that hospital financing can dynamically adjust to:
The IHPA will also have a role in determining amounts for block funding – which will be used in hospitals that have low levels of activity and therefore would not be able to meet their community service obligations on activity based funding alone. This will provide important protection for rural hospitals, and for specialised units such as bone banks. .
The Authority will also determine loadings to apply on top of the national efficient price – taking into account factors for legitimate and unavoidable variations in the cost of service delivery – including those driven by hospital size, type and location.
The Bill outlines specifically the functions of the Authority that give effect to the COAG agreement. These include:
Determining the national efficient cost and price for health care services provided by public hospitals;
Developing classification systems for health care and other services;
Determining adjustments to the national efficient price to reflect legitimate and unavoidable variations in the costs of delivering health care services;
Formulating data standards and requirements relating to public hospital functions and costs, to be provided by states and territories; and
Providing assessments or recommendations in regards to health care cost-shifting and cross-border disputes.
The last point is particularly important – as the Australian health system has never had a mechanism before to help resolve cost shifting and cross border issues in a definitive, long lasting and nationally consistent manner.
The membership of the Authority is prescribed in this legislation. The Chair will be appointed by the Commonwealth, the Deputy Chair appointed with the agreement of the states and territories, and seven remaining members appointed on agreement of the Commonwealth, states and territories.
COAG agreed last Friday two important appointments to this Authority – the Chair who will be Mr Shane Solomon and the Deputy Chair who will be Mr Jim Birch. Both have extensive experience in health administration and in activity based funding in Victoria and South Australia respectively.
At least one member of the authority will have particular health care expertise in rural and regional areas. This will ensure the Pricing Authority understands the challenges that our country’s expanses pose as we strive to deliver world leading health care to all Australians.
There will also be two important committees established under the legislation – for clinical expertise and for jurisdictional representations. Having appropriate clinical expertise will be crucial to classifying hospital activity in clinically meaningful ways. Likewise it will be important for the Authority to have dialogue with representatives from the states, territories and the Commonwealth – particularly so that the implementation of the new arrangements happens successfully.
As specified in the COAG agreement, there will be an interim Authority established as Commonwealth executive agency. This will be until the permanent body is established as a statutory authority through this bill.
Both the Chair and Deputy Chair will start work with the interim Authority to ensure a smooth transfer to the statutory authority once that starts operation.
Consistent with COAG’s original decision in April 2010 and re-affirmed in the National Health Reform Agreement, the Pricing Authority is to be established as an independent, statutory authority under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, providing assurance as to its operational autonomy and integrity.
A Chief Executive Officer will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the Pricing Authority, appointed by the Pricing Authority in consultation with the Minister. The Chief Executive Officer will serve on a full time basis for a period of up to five years and is eligible for re-appointment.
In carrying out its primary functions, the Pricing Authority will inevitably come into possession of confidential material, including personal information.
The Bill establishes stringent safeguards to protect that information by creating an offence for unlawfully disclosing that information. This recognises the potential seriousness that flows from improper use of such information.
This legislation is already a bipartisan bill – as it comes to Parliament based on the COAG agreement reached with three states with Liberal Premiers. However the Government also hopes that this can be a bipartisan bill in the federal parliament and that the Leader of the Opposition will see the importance of reforming the health system.
We know that he is already a supporter of activity based funding. We know this because he said so just last week to the dinner of the Australian Medical Association in Parliament House:
“I’m pleased that we are moving towards a system of case mix or efficient price funding because in the end it’s important that if people do more, they get more. We have to fund activity which is what case mix funding does. Block funding tends to fund inactivity.”
That wasn’t the only time either. On 15 February 2011 he described it as “a positive step”, and on 5 August 2010 he said that he would implement such a system if he won the last election. However that last pledge had to be taken with a grain of salt since he also promised to cut all the funding we had allocated to make this happen.
But even earlier than that – he supported these reforms way back when he was health minister, saying on 18 September 2007 it meant a “focus on services rather than on global budgets”.
So this is yet another test of the Leader of the Opposition. Does he support what he has been clear he thinks is the right policy – or will he continue his cheap and cynical approach of opposing all reform that this Government works on?
I hope for the sake of the millions of Australians who rely on public hospital services that he chooses the former. Patients, doctors and nurses have been waiting too long for the efficiency, transparency and proper funding that this bill will help to deliver.
Australian Renewable Energy Agency Bill 2011
Australian Renewable Energy Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
The speeches read as follows—
AUSTRALIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY BILL 2011
The Australian Government has developed a comprehensive plan to move to a clean energy future. This plan includes introducing a carbon price, promoting innovation and investment in renewable and low emissions energy, encouraging energy efficiency, and creating opportunities in the land sector.
Central to the plan is the introduction of a carbon price to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, by encouraging more efficient use of energy and driving investment in cleaner energy sources. A price on carbon, coupled with the 20 percent by 2020 Renewable Energy Target, provide powerful incentives to find ways of lowering carbon emissions when we produce and use energy.
With the introduction of a carbon price in Australia, the Government is focussed on ensuring that Australia's emissions reductions will be achieved at least economic cost, whilst maintaining adequate, reliable and affordable energy supplies and the international competitiveness of Australian industries.
There is a strong case for the Australian Government to help drive down the costs of renewable energy and reduce the carbon intensity of the energy sector by encouraging innovation in clean energy. The Government is substantially boosting its support for innovation in clean energy as a central element of its clean energy future plan.
A new $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation will invest in the commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency and clean technologies. A new Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, will streamline and centralise the administration of $3.2 billion in existing support for renewable energy.
This Bill establishes ARENA, the members of its Board and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and sets out how ARENA will operate and will be funded. To ensure that momentum in the renewable energy industry is sustained and quickly built on in the future, ARENA is to commence operation from 1 July 2012.
The Government is currently providing substantial support for renewable energy across multiple programs and projects. The Government will consolidate and reform the management of these programs and projects by creating ARENA as an independent statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 .
ARENA will have oversight of around $3.2 billion in existing renewable energy grant funding currently managed by the Australian Government and by Australian Government funded renewable energy bodies such as the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy and the Australian Solar Institute.
Around $1.7 billion of this funding is currently uncommitted and will be available for ARENA to provide financial assistance for:
The definition of renewable energy technologies appropriately includes hybrid technologies.
The inclusion of hybrid technologies, by improving the economics of renewable energy projects, can allow ARENA to support more renewable energy projects than would be possible without hybridisation.
Likewise, ARENA will be managing a number of existing projects that involve hybridisation, such as the Solar Flagships Solar Dawn project, the King Island REDP project and the ACRE Solar Kogan Creek project.
ARENA will also be managing a number of existing programs that include hybrid technologies as eligible technologies – including the Emerging Renewables Program and the Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund. ACRE's Strategic Directions explicitly recognises the benefits of hybrid systems, and ARENA will be mindful of this in carrying out its activities.
Under the definition of renewable energy I would expect that ARENA could support projects such as solar, biomass, biofuels, ocean and geothermal. Likewise, given that they are largely economic under the Renewable Energy Target, it is not envisaged that ARENA would support stand alone wind projects.
The definition of renewable energy also includes enabling technologies, such as storage.
ARENA will also be responsible for policy advice to the Minister for Resources and Energy and will take over and expand on the activities of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy in this regard.
A key priority for ARENA will be act collaboratively with other interested and relevant parties to achieve its goals. To this end ARENA will continue and expand on the good work of:
The ARENA board will include renewable energy technology, business investment, commercialisation and corporate governance experience in order to deliver balanced decisions in terms of project viability and the choice of technology funded. The ARENA Board will draw on the considerable talent we have in the Australian business and renewable energy industries. It is intended that the ARENA board be open to cross membership with the board of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation once it is established. Likewise, recognising the need for a close working relationship with my Department to deliver ARENA's objectives, the Secretary of my Department will be a member of the ARENA Board.
To advise and assist ARENA in its duties, ARENA will be able to form committees. ARENA will also be able engage consultants to provide technical and specialist advice. The intention is that ARENA will form technology specific advisory committees to assist it in performing its functions.
Importantly, the funding to be provided to ARENA each year will be prescribed in this Bill out until 2020, providing long term funding certainty to the renewable energy industry. To ensure efficient use of public funds, funding allocated to ARENA each year will be held by the Australian Government and used to earn interest for the Australian public until it is required by ARENA.
An early task for the Board will be to develop its funding strategy guiding how it intends to allocate its uncommitted funds across the various renewable energy and related technology types, ahead of developing program guidelines outlining how eligible stakeholders can access funding.
The legislation also includes a number of accountability provisions – around the development of a funding strategy and around guidelines and procedures to seek approval for guidelines and projects if certain hurdles are met, as well as the need for merit based assessment. These requirements strike an appropriate balance between ARENA's independence and proper accountability.
I expect that the Board will manage its affairs in a manner reflecting the highest standards of probity and highest ethical standards and accountability, with program guidelines developed according to merit based principles. As mentioned, the legislation includes provisions to help meet these standards.
This Bill is the main Bill of two Bills related to ARENA establishment that I am introducing in this session. The other Bill I will introduce will provide for the transitional and consequential amendments necessary to transfer various projects and programs across to ARENA and wind up or incorporate the activities, staff and assets of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy and the Australian Solar Institute.
AUSTRALIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2011
This Bill is the second of two Bills related to the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, that I am introducing to this session of Parliament.
As described when introducing the ARENA Bill, ARENA is to be an independent Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 Authority, tasked with oversight of around $3.2 billion in existing renewable energy grant funding currently managed by the Australian Government and by Australian Government funded renewable energy bodies such as the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy and the Australian Solar Institute.
This Bill complements the main ARENA Bill, by providing for the transitional and consequential activities that need to occur in order for ARENA to take over funding and administration of existing programs and projects transferring from the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the Australian Solar Institute, or ASI, to ARENA.
This Bill also provides for the wind up of the ASI and the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, as a part of this transition process. This is a necessary step in the process to consolidate all of the various existing programs and projects supporting renewable energy technology innovation with ARENA, and is by no means a reflection on the performance of these organisations.
Under the arrangements proposed ACRE is to be wound up, with ARENA to take over and expand on its responsibilities for advising the Minister for Resources and Energy. To give effect to this change the ACRE Act 2010 will be repealed upon ARENA establishment.
It will be business as usual for the projects transferring to ARENA, with existing administration arrangements to continue until ARENA establishment. Likewise, a number of programs, such as the Emerging Renewables Program and the Renewable Energy Venture Capital Fund will continue. At the same time, it is expected that ARENA will determine how to best direct unallocated funding from programs such as the Connecting Renewables Initiative and the Solar Flagships program.
The timing for transfer of the ASI's projects, assets, liabilities and staff to ARENA is to be deferred until after ARENA establishment, with the transfer to occur some time before 1 January 2012. This is to allow the ASI time to complete its work in selecting and funding projects from the submissions received from its recent call for funding applications, before focusing on necessary transfer arrangements.
Following this transfer, the employees of the ASI are to become employees of the Department and will join other Department staff in providing operational and administrative support to ARENA. These arrangements will allow ARENA to benefit from the existing expertise and skills of the ASI staff, as well as embedding an established process and culture which has been highly effective in securing projects and leveraging funding.
To ensure that ARENA is able to pick up and carry on the work of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and the ASI, this Bill also allows for ARENA to consider applications that are undecided at the time ARENA takes over program administration. For example, this means that should funding applications be received to a program or project announced between now and when ARENA is established, this would allow for those applications to continue to be considered by ARENA.
As Minister, I will receive the recommendation of the ARENA board with regard to appointment of the Chief Executive Officer, or CEO, of ARENA. To allow appointment of the ARENA CEO ahead of ARENA commencement this Bill also allows for members of the ARENA board, once appointed, to provide a recommendation with regard to the ARENA CEO ahead of ARENA establishment.
The arrangements in this Bill will provide for a quick and seamless transfer of existing programs and projects to ARENA and will allow for ARENA to commence operation with minimal disruption and loss of momentum in support for renewable energy technology innovation.
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—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) 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
Without taking action, Australia is expected to experience higher rates of infectious and vector-borne diseases as well as food and waterborne diseases.
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
The Tony Abbott circus of lies and misinformation about climate change and the carbon price came to my electorate, Isaacs in Melbourne, last week. And this time the state Baillieu government joined the show, with no less than six state MPs lining up to deceive and alarm the residents and business people of southern suburban Cheltenham.
On stage before a not-so-large crowd of about 90—
On stage before a not-so-large crowd of about 90 were Liberal federal frontbenchers Andrew Robb and Senator Mathias Cormann (who came all the way from WA to recite his slogans), state Energy Minister Michael O'Brien, and ringmaster Senator Mitch Fifield. In the audience were state Liberal MPs Inga Peulich, Murray Thompson, Lorraine Wreford, Donna Bauer and Elisabeth Miller. That's nine Liberal MPs in attendance at the circus!
The performers – Robb, Cormann, O'Brien and Fifield spouted the usual Liberal false claims.
Under Treasury modelling, Australia’s emissions will actually increase from 578 to 621 million tonnes between now and 2020. The fact that the tax will raise $105 billion is not disclosed in the advertisements let alone the fact that emissions will go up.
There is no mention of the fact that in addition to the Carbon Tax, Australians will be sending $3.5 billion overseas each year from 2020 to buy foreign carbon credits. This fundamental plan is not raised anywhere in the advertising.
The entire system is based on the assumption that the United States will have a full national Carbon Tax or cap and trade system by 2016. This is both undisclosed in the advertising and utterly fanciful.
If this was a commercial advertisement, the ACCC in all likelihood would pull the Carbon Tax campaign from the air for being false and misleading.
The United Kingdom will cut carbon emissions no slower but also no faster than our fellow countries in Europe.
We're not going to save the planet by putting our country out of business—
Britain makes up less than 2% of the world's carbon emissions compared to China and America's 40%. The renewables sector will never be a strong enough engine of recovery for the British economy.
The bottom line is that the Government has left the tourism industry high and dry, providing little or no direct support or capacity for businesses to transition to a low carbon economy, or any compensation for the tour operators who are going to be hit hard by the increase in fuel costs.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Do you think that an integrity agency such as the Ombudsman should set an example, should have the highest standards in government?
Yes, it should.
Have you met those highest standards?
I think this was clearly an error in judgment. It was clearly a mistake.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Senator RONALDSON: I presume you are now happy to admit that you were wrong in relation to your previous comments about Coastal Voice: that it no longer existed and other comments such as the fact that it was merely a business name.
Mr Pirani : I accept that I was incorrect in relation to saying that it wasn't an entity. I accept that the evidence from New South Wales Fair Trading, in relation to its registration under their legislation, establishes that it is an entity.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The campaign for creation of a nationwide network of safe havens for babies who cannot be looked after by their mothers is evidence based, intelligent and practical, and would very likely save lives.
At the end of the day that's all it comes down to. Yes; we need consistent laws across the country. Yes; an age limit has to be set. Yes; it will take work, government funding, research and education. Yes; it is achievable.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from his department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and/or consultants regarding the expansion of the Australia Network into the Middle East and North Africa and its impact on the Network's penetration rates in Asia and/or the Pacific; if so, when and what was the nature of this advice.
I was involved in the Cabinet discussions on the additional criterion added to the Request for Tender. Consideration is a matter of Cabinet confidentiality.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from his Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and/or consultants regarding the additional costs associated with expanding the Australia Network's coverage into the Middle East and North Africa; if so, when and what was the nature of this advice and the additional cost.
See the response to PQoN 950.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from his department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and/or consultants expressing their concerns about the change to the request for tender and/or association documentation in relation to Australia Network; if so, when and what was the nature of their concerns.
See the response to PQoN 950.
Has the Minister, any of his ministerial staff and/or the department received any correspondence from, or had discussions with, any of the interested parties involved in the Australia Network tender process about the impact of the Government's decision on the financial viability of their proposal; if so, when and what parties were involved, and what was the nature of the correspondence and/or discussions.
I have not spoken to any bidder on bid issues since being appointed Approver by Cabinet.
Has the Minister, any of his ministerial staff and/or the department received correspondence from, or had discussions with, any of the interested parties involved in the Australia Network tender process since the Government's decision to seek further information; if so, when, which parties were involved, and what was the nature of the correspondence and/or discussions.
See the response to PQoN 953.
When was the department first notified of the Government's intention to extend the existing Australia Network contract while additional information is sought from tenderers.
In the relevant Cabinet Minute. Dates of Cabinet Minutes are generally not released by any Government.
Has the Minister or any of his Ministerial staff been given a copy of the report in relation to Australia Network; if so, when.
I received the Tender Evaluation Board (TEB) report on 31 August 2011. Actions taken are confidential to the tender process until announced.
When did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff first see the text contained in the request for tender and/or associated documents in relation to the Australia Network tender.
This question is ambiguous. The RFT is the document issued to bidders. I was made aware of its content at the time I was appointed Approver by Cabinet.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff receive a briefing, written or verbal, from his department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade or a member of the selection panel regarding any of the information provided by tenderers in their tender submissions in relation to the Australia Network tender; if so, when and what was the nature of the information provided.
I was involved in the Cabinet discussions on the additional criterion added to the Request for Tender. Consideration is a matter of Cabinet confidentiality. I received the Tender Evaluation Board (TEB) report on 31 August 2011. Actions taken are confidential to the tender process until announced.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff receive a briefing, written or verbal, from the department or a member of the tender panel regarding the panel's progress in relation to the Australia Network tender.
See the response to PQoN 958.
Did the Minister or staff of the Minister’s office receive a briefing, written or verbal, from his department or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade regarding the tender panel’s report and recommendation of a preferred tenderer in relation to the Australia Network tender:
(1) If so
(a) when was the brief received by the Minister's office;
(b) when was the brief sighted by the Minister; and
(c) what type of ministerial action was requested by the department, and was it agreed to by the Minister.
(2) If not, why not.
See the response to PQoN 958.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
Australian Institute of Family Studies
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Refer to QONs 1158, 1163, 1182, 1187, 1197 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
National Archives of Australia
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Refer to QONs 1158, 1163, 1180, 1187, 1197 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) to (3) Please refer to Senator Arbib's answer to Question No. 1169 on behalf of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority
(1) Nil.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Nil.
Australian Sports Commission
(1) Nil.
(2) Not applicable.
(3) Nil.
Refer to QONs 1158, 1163, 1180, 1182, and 1197 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) to (3) Please refer to my answer to Question No. 1169 on behalf of the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) what is the daily allowance for working at sea
Please refer to the answer provided to Senate Parliamentary Question on Notice 1173.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
For the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Australian War Memorial:
(1) Nil.
(2) Nil.
(3) Nil.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
Australian National Audit Office
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Australian Public Service Commission
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Inspector General of Intelligence and Security
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman
(1) Nil.
(2) Not Applicable.
(3) Nil.
Refer to QONs 1158, 1163, 1180, 1182, 1187 for answers from other PM&C portfolio ministers.
In regard to the 2010 Federal Election and the issue of multiple voting:
(1) How many cases of potential multiple voting were identified.
(2) Of these cases, how many were in each electorate and how were these dealt with (for example, polling clerk error).
(3) Of the cases, how many did the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) write to and what is that number per electorate.
(4) Of the cases that the AEC wrote to, how many have not provided a satisfactory response and what is that number per electorate.
(1) 29,920.
(2) Cases per electorate - refer Attachment A. After eliminating official errors, including lists not being marked or scanned correctly, 16,210 electors remained to be investigated. 21 electors were subsequently found to be deceased.
(3) Enquiry letters were sent to 16,189 electors, seeking information as to why they had been marked as having voted more than once. For number per electorate – refer Attachment B.
13,775 cases required no further action:
2,414 cases were further investigated:
19 cases were referred to the AFP for further investigation. In three cases the AFP’s initial review indicated no further action. The AFP conducted a Day of Action on 12 May 2011 to obtain further information from the remaining 16 apparent multiple voters. The AFP reported that:
(4) Summary of results – refer Attachment C
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
Given that the answer to question on notice no. 846 refers to the 'assignment of particular duties to individual staff members' and not 'direction or advice', can the following information as originally requested now be provided:
(1) Has the Caucus Communications Team or anyone in the Caucus Communications Team offered any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff: (a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and (b) what advice was given.
(2) Is the Caucus Committee Team or anyone in the Caucus Committee Team aware of any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff: (a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and (b) what advice was given.
(3) Can job descriptions be provided for all staff in the Caucus Committee Team.
(1) (a) and (b) Direction and advice surrounding the employment of media staff are matters for the employing Ministers and their Chiefs of Staff.
(2) (a) and (b) Individual staff responsibilities are a matter for the employing Ministers, their Chiefs of staff and the relevant staff member.
(3) The allocation of ministerial staff positions is based on the requirements of portfolios. The assignment of particular duties to individual staff is a matter for Ministers and their Chiefs of Staff.
With reference to the answer to question BE11/0079 taken on notice during the 2011/12 Budget Estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:
(1) As Ta Ann was required by law to demonstrate two matters but has not done so, what action is being taken by the Department.
(2) Can a copy be provided of all departmental evidence relating to Ta Ann fulfilling the dual obligations; if not, why not.
At the time Ta Ann Tasmania Pty Ltd lodged its application for approval as a standard business sponsor for the 457 visa program it was required to demonstrate it satisfied the legislative requirements for becoming an approved sponsor including that it either:
had a satisfactory record of, or a demonstrated commitment towards, training Australian citizens or permanent residents in the business in Australia; or
would introduce to, or utilise or create in, Australia new or improved technology or business skills.
That is, it was required to meet one of the above requirements, not both. In being approved as a standard business sponsor, Ta Ann met all legislative requirements in place at the time a decision was made on the application.
Ta Ann's sponsorship agreement expired in April 2010. Ta Ann is not currently approved as a subclass 457 visa sponsor.
Should Ta Ann seek to lodge another sponsorship application, it would need to satisfy the requirements introduced by the Government on 14 September 2009 as part of its reforms to the subclass 457 visa program including:
rigorous training benchmarks requiring the investment of one per cent of payroll on training for employees or two per cent of payroll in a contribution into an industry training fund and
attesting in writing that they have a strong record of, or a demonstrated commitment to employing local labour and non-discriminatory employment practices.
It is a long-standing practice of the Government to consider commercial information provided to the Government by employers to be confidential. The Government does not disclose information about the commercial affairs of sponsors as this could adversely affect their business and prejudice the future supply of information to the Government.
In regard to applications for 'betterment' of public assets under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA):
(1) How many applications have been received by the Government
(2) How many applications have been: (a) approved, and (b) rejected and, in each case, can details of the applications be provided, including the Commonwealth and State financial contributions
(1) I am advised the Australian Government has received two betterment proposals under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.
(2) (a) One proposal was approved on 25 August 2011 for the restoration of the Adelong public swimming pool in New South Wales. The Commonwealth's maximum contribution to this betterment project is $0.778 million, representing one-third of the total project cost. The remaining two-thirds will be shared between the NSW Government and Tumut Shire Council.
I am advised that the second proposal for the North West Coastal Highway in the Gascoyne Region of Western Australia is currently under assessment.
(b) None has been rejected.
(1) What are the financial reporting requirements for entities registered under Fair Work Australia (FWA).
(2) Are entities required to disclose accounts based on Australian Securities and Investments Commission requirements, for example, executive remuneration, disclosure of conflicts of interest, requirements to trade solvently, requirement to disclose related entities and transactions; if not, why not.
(3) Does FWA require its registered entities to maintain written financial procedures to ensure that employer and employee funds are expended for legitimate purposes.
(4) Has FWA issued any policy statements in this regard; if so, can a copy of the statements be provided.
(5) Does FWA require its entities to use the services of an auditor and under what audit methodology or rules must an audit be conducted.
(6) What financial, and records, audits does FWA conduct of its registered entities, and how often are these deployed.
(7) What information gathering powers does the FWA have, and can a breakdown by each power together with which organisations were subjected to the power be provided for each occasion the FWA has exercised these powers since its inception.
(8) Does FWA have a power to deregister a non-complying registered entity and, currently, how many such actions are in train.
(9) Does FWA have the power to wind up a registered entity which is insolvent or is likely to become insolvent; if so, how do these procedures operate and how often have they been exercised.
(10) What expenditure procedures are currently in place for FWA commissioners and staff, including delegations, monetary thresholds and procedures for reporting breaches. 96 No. 53—20 September 2011
(11) What are the travel procedures relating to FWA personnel, (including procedures for air travel domestic, overseas, business, first and economy travel) along with approval procedures.
(12) What overseas travel has been undertaken by FWA personnel since its inception, and in relation to each trip, what was the destination, costs, person travelling and purpose of the trip.
(13) Can details be provided of FWA's conflict of interest policy for its commissioners and staff.
(14) Can a comprehensive appraisal be provided of how FWA resolves conflicts of interest when they arise–please detail procedures, personnel and reporting to the Minister and /or Parliament.
(1) Accounting obligations are imposed upon registered organisations by Part 3 of Chapter 8 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act). Obligations are placed upon 'reporting units', which are determined in accordance with section 242 of the Act.
In summary, Part 3 of Chapter 8 places general obligations upon reporting units to keep proper financial records and to prepare a General Purpose Financial Record from those records. The reporting unit must also prepare an Operating Report. The financial report must be prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and the Reporting Guidelines that have been issued by the Industrial Registrar. These continue in force as though they were made by the General Manager of Fair Work Australia and are attached.
Further details of these requirements are contained in a Fair Work Australia Fact Sheet entitled “Financial Reporting Process and Timelines” which is also attached.
(2) A 'reporting unit's' financial report must be prepared in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards and the Reporting Guidelines that have been issued by the Industrial Registrar (and which continue in force as though they were made by the General Manager of fair Work Australia).
Further details of these requirements are contained in a Fair Work Australia Fact Sheet entitled “Financial Reporting Process and Timelines” and the financial reporting guidelines, all of which is attached.
(3) Accounting obligations are imposed upon registered organisations by Part 3 of Chapter 8 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act). Obligations are placed upon 'reporting units', which are determined in accordance with section 242 of the Act.
In summary, Part 3 of Chapter 8 places general obligations upon reporting units to keep proper financial records and to prepare a General Purpose Financial Record from those records. Further details of these requirements are contained in a Fair Work Australia Fact Sheet entitled “Financial Reporting Process and Timelines” which is attached.
(4) Fair Work Australia has produced a Fact Sheet entitled “Financial Reporting Process and Timelines” which is attached. The Fact Sheet provides further details of the accounting obligations imposed upon registered organisations by Part 3 of Chapter 8 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.
(5) Section 256(1) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 requires a reporting unit to engage an auditor of the reporting unit. The form and content of the auditor's report must be in accordance with the Australian Auditing Standards. Further details of these requirements are contained in a Fair Work Australia Fact Sheet entitled “Auditors” which is attached.
(6) Fair Work Australia has no obligation to conduct audits of 'reporting units'.
(7) Part 4 of Chapter 11 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) sets out powers held by the General Manager to make inquiries and to conduct investigations in relation to whether there has been compliance with Part 3 of Chapter 8 of the Act, the reporting guidelines made under that Part, any regulations made for the purposes of that Part and any rules of a reporting unit relating to its finances or financial administration.
Since the inception of Fair Work Australia, there have been two investigations commenced under section 331 of the Act. These have related to the Health Services Union Victoria No 1 Branch and the Health Services Union National Office.
Section 268 of the Act requires a 'reporting unit' to lodge with Fair Work Australia the financial documents prepared by the reporting unit and presented to members.
As part of the ordinary examination by Fair Work Australia of financial documents lodged by a 'reporting unit'', Fair Work Australia does seek further information from a reporting unit in circumstances where clarification of a 'reporting unit's' compliance with its accounting obligations is necessary.
(8) The General Manager may apply to the Federal Court for an order cancelling the registration of an organisation on the ground that the organisation has failed to comply with an order of the Federal Court made under subsection 336(5) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. There are no actions in train.
(9) The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 does not provide Fair Work Australia with any specific power to wind up a registered entity which is insolvent or is likely to become insolvent.
(10) The General Manager is the agency head under s5 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997(FMA Act) and has issued financial delegations and authorisations to managers and staff in accordance with powers under the FMA Act, Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 (FMA Regulations) and the Financial Management and Accountability (Finance Minister to Chief Executives) Delegation. It should be noted that no financial delegations are issued to FWA members.
The following summarises expenditure delegations issued by the General Manager.
* procurements over $50,000 require prior approval of the FWA Procurement Committee.
** for payment of monthly corporate travel account.
The General Manager provides a certification annually to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation and the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations of FWA's compliance with the FMA Act, FMA Regulations, Financial Management and Accountability (Finance Minister to Chief Executives) Delegation and financial management policies of the Commonwealth. FWA's internal auditors undertake an annual audit program which includes a compliance review. The outcome of this review is reported to the Executive and the Audit Committee. Any breaches are included in the compliance certificate from the General Manager.
(11) The travel entitlements of FWA members and the General Manager are set by the Remuneration Tribunal (refer Determination 2004/03). Travel entitlements for FWA staff are set internally with regard to general Australian Public Service standards.
The following entitlements apply in respect of class of travel:
All air travel is to be booked through Carlson Wagonlit (FWA's appointed agent under the Whole of Australian Government Travel panel).
The following approval procedures apply:
(12) The following overseas travel has been undertaken by FWA since 01 July 2009:
*Please note that the claim for travel allowance yet to be finalised.
(13) Members of Fair Work Australia
Section 640 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) deals with potential conflicts of interest in matters arising before a member of Fair Work Australia.
Fair Work Australia members are expected to be familiar with all their statutory responsibilities.
There may be challenges from time to time for a presiding member to be excused on the grounds of a conflict of interest. Such challenges are normally dealt with in open hearing and decisions are publicly available.
In carrying out their statutory functions, members of Fair Work Australia are required to observe the rules of natural justice embodied in relevant case law.
Staff
All Fair Work Australia employees are required to comply with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct, which provides that staff 'disclose, and take reasonable steps to avoid, any conflict of interest (real or apparent) in connection with APS employment'.
In addition to this, there are Fair Work Australia staff policies that include requirements for disclosure of any conflicts of interest in respect of Fair Work Australia's Audit Committee and Fair Work Australia's Procurement processes.
Fair Work Australia's Audit Committee Charter states that once a year the Committee members make written declarations to the General Manager of Fair Work Australia stating they don't have any conflicts that would preclude them from being on the Committee.
At the start of every Audit Committee meeting will be an agenda item asking Committee members to declare if they have any conflicts of interest with any of the agenda items for deliberation.
If any conflicts of interest are declared then the person is excused from Committee deliberations.
Fair Work Australia's Procurement Committee operates in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPG's) and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
(14) Members of Fair Work Australia
Section 640 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) deals with potential conflicts of interest in matters arising before a member of Fair Work Australia.
Fair Work Australia members are expected to be familiar with all their statutory responsibilities.
There may be challenges from time to time for a presiding member to be excused on the grounds of a conflict of interest. Such challenges are normally dealt with in open hearing and decisions are publicly available.
In carrying out their statutory functions, members of Fair Work Australia are required to observe the rules of natural justice embodied in relevant case law.
Staff
If any member of Fair Work Australia's Audit Committee declares themselves to have a conflict of interest, be it real or perceived, then that person is excused from Committee deliberations. Any such declaration will be recorded in the minutes of the Committee's meeting.
With reference to the answers to question no BET 267 and BET 268 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Economics Legislation Committee in June 2011:
(1) Has the department ever analysed the effect on house prices or the inflationary impact of the First Home Owner Scheme using informal modelling.
(2) Has the department ever provided any briefings, research or modelling on the effect of the First Home Owner Grant Scheme or the First Home Owners Boost Scheme.
(3) On what basis was the comment made that the first home owners grant 'had a small influence on house prices' in the Australian Financial Review article 'First home grant doubt' on 25 August 2011.
(4) How does the Treasurer define 'a small influence' and can he quantify that statement.
(5) To what extent has the 'small influence' neutralised the assistance the grant provides to home buyers, that is, has it translated to an increase in house prices similar to or greater than the grant itself.
(6) Has the department provided any advice to the Government about the impact of housing demand subsidies more generally.
(7) Can details be provided on whether a Council of Australian Governments agreement currently exists for states and territories to investigate the effectiveness of first home owner schemes; if so, when are these reports due and will this information be public.
The First Home Owners Scheme was brought in on 1 July 2000 to assist First Home Buyers in purchasing their first home.
In 2004 the Productivity Commission report on “First Home Ownership” noted that “the FHOS has been at most a minor contributor to the recent surge in prices” since the grant was introduced. The report also notes that “Over the long term, as supply has time to respond to demand pressures, the grant is likely to have even less impact on house prices.”
Given the marginal impact on house prices as noted by the Productivity Commission, the First Home Owners Boost provides a welcome funding boost for those entering the first home market.
COAG has implemented a Housing Supply and Affordability Reform (HSAR) Agenda looking into a range of issues impacting on the supply and affordability of housing, including the First Home Owners Scheme. It is expected that the findings of this examination will form part of the HSAR Working Party's report to the Council of Australian Governments in late 2011.
In regard to the Medicare Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (CDDS):
(1) What is the scheduled fee paid to general practitioners (GPs) for each referral under the CDDS.
(2) How many practitioners have been: (a) audited; and (b) found to be non-compliant.
(3) What are the main reasons for breaches in compliance.
(4) By financial year, what is the total amount paid out under the CDDS since its inception, and how does this compare with that budgeted for each respective year.
(5) What is the total amount paid to dental practitioners since its inception, and every year.
(6) How many dentists have had to, or will have to, make re-payments and what is the procedure for making re-payments.
(7) When was the decision made to undertake audits of the scheme and/or compliance by participating dentists in the CDDS.
(8) (a) Who decided to undertake the audits; (b) was it decided to do so at a departmental level or was the decision made by the Minister; (c) why was the decision taken; and (d) if the decision was not made by the Minister, was the Minister or the Minister's office consulted prior to the decision being made.
(9) Given the initial decision to conduct audits of the scheme and/or compliance by the participating dentists: (a) how many audits were initially to be carried out; (b) on what basis would dentists be selected for audit; (c) what resources were made available to conduct the audit; and (d) from what budgetary measure were those resources sourced.
(10) Since first deciding to conduct these audits, has any decision been made to vary the number of participating dentists to be audited; if so, on what basis and for what purpose.
(11) Has the department conducted any assessment of the total amount paid out under the scheme that is likely to be recovered as a result of the audit process and related follow-up of audited dentists; if so, can the results of that assessment be provided.
(12) What programs or other actions did the department conduct or take to ensure that dentists participating in the CDDS were fully aware of the terms on which they participated and what their obligations were under the CDDS.
(13) What is the difference between dentists being asked to participate in 'information gathering' and undergoing an audit.
(14) How many practitioners found to be non-compliant have been given a caution.
(15) If a dentist is required to participate in 'information gathering' does this preclude the department from undertaking an audit; if not, how does Medicare ensure they are given a fair audit in light of the information they have already provided.
(16) How specific was the education in respect of dentists' obligations regarding the administrative requirements under the CDDS.
(17) What were the dates of these programs and or other actions.
(18) As part of any of those programs, were participating dentists specifically educated about the consequences of non-compliance; if so, how (for example, in writing).
(19) Were dentists advised at any time that failure to comply in all respects with the administrative requirements under the CDDS would result in their being required to repay monies received under the scheme; if so, how and when were they advised and what steps were taken to ensure that all participating dentists were advised.
(20) Where audits have found irregularities, what processes are taken to assess whether those irregularities should result in repayments by the dentists concerned.
(21) Where audits have found irregularities, have any dentists been re-educated on their obligations under the CDDS and not asked to repay any or all of the related monies paid under the scheme; if so, how many dentists and for what amounts.
(22) Why are all monies being reclaimed, including treatment expenses.
(23) How has the projected number of cases referred by GPs each year compared to the actual number of referrals under the CDDS since its inception.
(24) Has the Government taken into consideration issues raised by stakeholders, including that the CDDS is not means tested, and that the sole criteria for eligibility was through a GP identifying that a patient had a chronic disease and that dental treatment may alleviate the illness.
(25) Are administrative oversights by dentists being used to penalise them even though treatments have been legitimately provided.
(26) Why did Medicare wait more than 2 years to embark on any research as to dentists' compliance with these administrative requirements.
(27) Why was it not until the Australian Dental Association met with Medicare in early 2010 that any education program was embarked on in respect of these administrative requirements.
(28) Why, when the services have been legitimately provided by dentists, has Medicare demanded repayment from dentists of monies received under the CDDS instead of just asking that the paperwork deficiencies be addressed.
(29) How many times has Medicare received a complaint from a GP that a dentist has failed to provide a treatment plan to them.
(30) Is the Minister aware of any dentists who have been audited under this scheme, since having taken their own life.
(1) In order to access benefits under the CDDS, a patient needs to be managed by their GP under certain care plans and must be referred by their GP for dental services. For most people, this involves the preparation of a "GP Management Plan" (MBS item 721) and "Team Care Arrangements" (MBS item 723). For residents of aged care facilities, it involves the GP contributing to a multidisciplinary care plan (MBS item 731) prepared for the resident by the facility.
Under the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), a benefit of $136.05 (100% of the MBS fee for item 721) can be paid for a GP to complete a GP Management Plan, and a benefit of $107.80 (100% of the MBS fee for item 723) can be paid for completing and implementing Team Care Arrangements. Alternatively, if the patient is in a Residential Aged Care Facility, the GP is paid for contributing to or reviewing a multidisciplinary care plan (100% of the MBS fee of $66.35 for MBS item 731). After the relevant services above have been completed, the GP can refer the patient for treatment under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme.
(2) 60 audits of dental practitioners have been completed. Of the 60 completed audits, 39 have been found non-compliant.
(3) There are two main areas of non-compliance by dental practitioners:
dental practitioners claiming Medicare benefits for services not provided (this includes, services never provided and services which have not been completed); and
failure to fulfil the requirements of section 10 of the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007 (the Determination) by failing to provide a written quote and treatment plan to the patient, prior to commencing the course of treatment, and failure to provide a copy or summary of the treatment plan to the referring GP, prior to commencing the course of treatment.
(4) The figures are as follows:
The CDDS forms part of the special appropriation for the MBS and is not separately provided for in the Budget.
(5) See table at question 4.
(6) 32 dental practitioners will have to or had to make repayments in relation to their incorrect claiming behaviour.
Following completion of the audit the dental practitioner is advised of the amount to be repaid in writing, to which the dentist has 28 days to respond. Once the incorrectly claimed amount is confirmed, the amount is formally raised as a debt to the Commonwealth. There is a sequence of correspondence in relation to the debt process. These are as follows:
Notification of debt to the dental practitioner;
A follow-up letter reminding the dentist about the debt if no response to the first letter has been received within 30 days; and
A final follow-up letter reminding the dentists about the debt if no response was received within 14 days from the date of the second letter. The dental practitioner then has seven (7) days to respond.
After this point, if no response has been received from the dental practitioner, the Department of Human Services – Medicare may:
refer the matter to a debt collection agency;
initiate legal proceedings; or
write off the debt under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
(7) In November 2008, Medicare Australia (Medicare) commenced compliance activities to determine the level of compliance with requirements of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme (the scheme).
(8) (a) The decision was made as part of Medicare's annual National Compliance Program.
(b) The decision was made at a departmental level.
(c) Medicare determined through initial compliance activities and the analysis of complaints received, that claiming practices under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme represented a significant risk to the integrity of the program.
(d) The Minister's office was not consulted prior to the initial decision being made.
(9) (a) Audits were initially conducted on 49 dental practitioners, comprising 28 dental practitioners that were considered high risk following analysis of their claiming profile, and a further 21 dental practitioners who had been brought to Medicare's attention through the fraud tip-off line as the direct result of complaints received.
(b) The dental practitioners are identified for audit as a result of their high levels of claiming in terms of both volume and dollar value compared to their peers and/or as a result of complaints received.
(c) The resources were made available from existing operational compliance teams as part of Medicare's annual National Compliance Program.
(d) The resources were drawn from the existing compliance operational budget.
(10) Following the initial audits, the department has 419 audits underway as at 21 September 2011. The majority of these audits are the result of complaints received by the department or on the basis of high claiming patterns by dental practitioners.
(11) The department has not conducted any such assessment.
(12) I refer the Senator to documents tabled on 18 October 2011.
(13) In the case of 'information gathering' activities, a dental practitioner's participation is voluntary and therefore he/she may choose to decline to participate. In the case where a dental practitioner has been selected for an audit, either in relation to a complaint or as the result of claiming behaviour, the audit is conducted even if the dental practitioner elects not to participate. Where the dental practitioner elects not to participate in the audit, the audit is conducted by verifying compliance through third party sources.
(14) 7 dental practitioners have been provided with educational information about correct claiming practices.
(15) Participating in 'information gathering' activities does not preclude a dental practitioner from future audits.
The department ensures all dental practitioners are given a fair audit by:
Providing proper notification and explanation of audit processes;
Delivering audits in a professional manner; and
Giving a dental practitioner the opportunity to comment, seek advice or clarification, or provide further information throughout the audit process, including the opportunity to comment on the audit outcome and to request a review of the audit outcome.
(16) Both the fact sheet and the Dental Services Book sent to members of the dental profession in 2007 stated clearly the obligations of dental practitioners in regards to the requirements of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The information included:
that a copy or summary of a treatment plan must be provided to the GP at the beginning of treatment and that a written quote and treatment plan must be provided to the patient prior to beginning the treatment.
a checklist of steps for the dental practitioner to ensure they comply with the requirements of the scheme, as well as a Medicare Enquiry Line for dental practitioners who wished to seek advice.
(17) The key actions that were undertaken are:
In September 2007, the then Minister for Health and Ageing (the Hon Tony Abbott MP) wrote to dental practitioners, dental specialists and dental prosthetists introducing the scheme. The correspondence also advised that a requirement of the program is that patients must be informed of the cost of dental services prior to commencing treatment.
In October 2007, the Department of Health and Ageing wrote to dentists, dental specialists and dental prosthetists providing a fact sheet and the Medicare Benefits Schedule Dental Services book that included a checklist of requirements for claiming under the scheme.
In December 2009, Medicare provided the Australian Dental Association with an information sheet which was published in their January 2010 publication.
Medicare wrote to all dental practitioners on 10 June 2010 to describe the compliance activities being undertaken and explain the current concerns with the use of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme.
On 29 April 2011, the then Chief Executive Officer of Medicare Australia sent a letter to all dental practitioners who had claimed under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme. The letter highlighted the main concerns of non-compliance; reminded dentists of their obligations under the Scheme; and informed them of the increased audit activity.
(18) Yes. This was contained in the Dental Services Book provided at the commencement of the scheme.
Prior to submitting claims for any benefits under the Medicare Benefits Schedule it is the responsibility of health professionals to understand the requirements and ensure their claims are fully compliant. The requirements for the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme are consistent with these general obligations on all health professionals.
(19) The Dental Services Book states that 'where a Medicare benefit has been inappropriately paid, Medicare Australia may request recovery of that benefit from the practitioner concerned'.
(20) All Medicare audits take into consideration the individual circumstances of each dental practitioner and the case outcomes are based on the individual merits and findings of each audit.
(21) 7dental providers have been found non-compliant with regard to the legislative requirements for claiming benefits and have been provided with further education on the correct claiming information process and have not been asked to repay any benefits.
(22) The effect of the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007 is that benefits cannot be paid unless all requirements of the Determination are met.
In circumstances where the legislative requirements have not been met and MBS benefits should not have been paid, the department is legally obliged to pursue recovery of the incorrectly paid benefits in accordance with Section 47 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997.
Certain initial examinations, x-rays and emergency services are excluded from recovery.
(23) The department has made no projections.
(24) The Department of Health and Ageing has advised that the government is aware of issues raised by stakeholders in regards to the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme.
(25) No, see response to question 22.
(26) Medicare commenced compliance activities in November 2008 (12 months after the commencement of the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme).
(27) See answers to questions 16 & 18.
(28) Dental services under the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme can only be legitimately claimed when they are provided in accordance with the Health Insurance (Dental Services) Determination 2007 . Section 10 of this Determination requires that:
(2) An item in Schedule 1 (Dental Services and Fees) applies to a dental service included in the course of treatment only if, before beginning the course of treatment, the eligible dentist, eligible dental specialist or eligible dental prosthetist:
(a) gave to the eligible patient, in writing:
(i) a plan of the course of treatment; and
(ii) a quotation for each dental service and each other service (if any) in the plan; and
(b) gave a copy or written summary of the plan to the general practitioner
who referred the patient for dental services.
A claim for benefits under this Determination is only valid when the requirements of the Determination are met, this includes the provision of documentation as required by Section 10.
Preparing and sending paperwork after the course of treatment has commenced does not make claims under the Determination compliant. Failure by dental practitioners to provide the documentation prior to commencing the course of treatment denies the patient the opportunity to give informed financial consent in relation to how their entitlements are to be used; does not assist the patient to understand the treatment that is proposed; and restricts their options to seek clarification or a second opinion.
Failure to provide a copy or a summary of the treatment plan to the referring general practitioner (GP) reduces the capacity of the GP to provide effective coordinated care of the patient's chronic health condition.
The department takes a flexible approach when conducting audits of dental practitioners. Where all other requirements of the scheme are met, and the required documents are provided to the referring GP during, or soon after the course of treatment has been completed, the department may elect to provide further education to the dental practitioner and not seek recovery of incorrectly claimed benefits.
(29) Of the 739 complaints received by Medicare (as at 21 September 2011), no specific complaints have been identified from general practitioners relating to a failure of a dentist to provide a treatment plan to them.
(30) No.
Note: All figures are accurate as at 21 September 2011, unless stated otherwise
Will the 'character test' under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 and the Public Interest Criteria under theMigration Regulations 1994 , be applied to assess visa applications for the delegation from Sri Lanka travelling to Perth for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in October 2011; if not, why not.
There is no waiver of visa requirements for Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) delegates or those seeking to enter Australia for CHOGM-related events.
The "character test" under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) requires that persons entering and/or remaining in Australia must be of good character. Involvement in the commission of war crimes is a relevant consideration when exercising the discretion to refuse the grant of a visa or cancel a visa under section 501 of the Act.
With reference to the answers provided to questions on notice nos 845 (Senate, Hansard , 24 August 2011, p. 127) and 1028 (Senate,Hansard , 13 September 2011, p. 92):
(1) What endeavours were made to answer these questions.
(2) Were staff asked if they had offered any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff; if so, how many staff were asked and in each instance, what was the response.
(3) Question 845 was expressed in clear terms and should be answered. If the Prime Minister is not prepared to answer the question could an explanation be provided as to why.
As advised in answer to question on notice 845, and reaffirmed in answer to question on notice 1028, the assignment of particular duties to individual staff members is a matter for ministers and their chiefs of staff.
(1) Has the Minister been briefed or had meetings with the Tasmanian Government or Department of Infrastructure regarding plans to widen the Brooker Highway in Hobart.
(2) Is the Minister otherwise aware of progression of planning to widen the Brooker Highway.
(3) Has the Minister received any application or request for help to implement plans to widen the Brooker Highway.
(1), (2) and (3) No.
In regard to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and its legal action against the acquisition of Franklins by Metcash:
(1) What are the costs associated with the ACCC's Federal Court action and its request for an injunction pending the appeal.
(2) What are the estimated costs of the appeal against Justice Emmett's judgment, including the potential awarding of costs to Metcash.
(3) What is the estimated exposure to a damages payout should the struggling Franklins business suffer unsustainable and irreparable losses during the appeal process.
(1) Federal Court action: The ACCC's legal and related costs in the matter of ACCC v Metcash & Ors in the first instance before Emmett J were around $3.4 million.
Interlocutory application for an interim injunction: The ACCC's estimated legal and related costs of the interlocutory application for an interim injunction are expected to be around $85,000 - $90,000 (GST excl). Total actual costs incurred are not known at this time as the ACCC has not received all relevant invoices.
(2) Estimated costs of appeal to Full Federal Court: At this time, the ACCC has allocated around $850,000 (GST excl) for legal and related costs of its appeal of Emmett J's judgment in ACCC v Metcash & Ors before the Full Federal Court (excluding costs associated with interlocutory application for interim injunction). This allocation may need to be revised as the matter progresses.
Regarding potential awarding of costs to Metcash, it is not possible to quantify any such costs at this time. The ACCC does not have information on Metcash's costs incurred in relation to the proceeding below or in the appeal. In any event, if the ACCC is successful in the appeal, the ACCC has sought orders that costs be paid by the respondents.
(3) Estimated exposure to damages payout: On 30 September 2011, 21 days after the ACCC filed its Notice of Appeal, Metcash Trading Limited announced to the ASX that it had proceeded with its acquisition of all the issued capital in Interfrank Group Holdings Pty Limited, the owner and operator of the Franklins business in Australia. Accordingly, the ACCC is unlikely to be exposed to any damages payout relating to the appeal process.