The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011
It is a real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries Managers and Industry. We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through the parliament that doesn’t have the potential to be clouded by extreme green views.
It is a reflection of the level of concern among the industry that, in my 30+ years experience in both Government and fishing industry roles (including as Director of Fisheries in South Australia, 1997‐2000), I have never known an issue to create such anxiety and uncertainty in the industry and this is the only time I can ever remember that ALL sectors of the industry have come together to address what they see as a major threat to their livelihoods.
In SA, there has been a focus on ‘percentages’ of sanctuary areas, rather than such a orderly, science‐based approach, there has been no rigorous threat identification or assessment (particularly from fishing activities) and the process is clearly not science‐based
Our industry is very concerned about the political lobbying being undertaken by Green Groups at the moment blurring the line of using sanctuary zones (no take) as a fisheries management tool and using examples to support their cause from countries where there is no fisheries management.
… the network of marine reserves on the GBR has brought major, sustained ecological benefits, including enhanced populations of target fish, sharks, and even corals, the foundation of the coral reef ecosystem.
This Bill seeks to amend the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to require that declarations of new Bioregional Plans1 and Commonwealth Reserves2 be disallowable by either chamber of Parliament.
Currently, Bioregional Plans are not legislative instruments and are not subject to parliamentary disallowance. The effect of this amendment would mean that they would continue not to be legislative instruments. However, they would be disallowable under Part 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 as modified by section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Commonwealth Reserves are legislative instruments which are not currently disallowable.
The Great Ocean Road Mr Speaker, an icon of Australia and the engine room of our local tourism economy, will be largely destroyed.
It will be breached in place after place, if sea level rise is as expected.
Huge swathes of the Bellarine Peninsula will be inundated.
Current areas of the mainland will be cut off and become islands.
Queenscliffe will become an island.
The area from Barwon Heads to Breamlea will become an island.
AFTA asks that you also consider the social impacts, the health and wellbeing benefits of recreational fishing and the financial ramifications to the many small businesses that depend on the investment provided to their businesses by recreational fishers. Many regional and coastal towns are dependent on recreational fishers for their financial existence.
To date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders has been achieved.
This vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current process, future process or past process.
No Socio economic information regarding communities that may be affected by the Bio Regional Planning process has been made available to Stake holders.
Marine Park Authorities frequently use the term “fully protected” but marine parks do not fully protect marine life.
Bans on commercial fishing have a direct and measurable financial effect. Traditionally Commercial Fishers are compensated by a buyout of fishing licences and permits. Commercial fishermen then sell their boats and other assets or more commonly buy a licence in a different area, and so commercial fishing is frequently displaced rather than removed.
Australian consumers however are not compensated and do not so readily 'move on'. Despite our huge coastline relative to our population, in 2007‐2008 Australia became a net importer of fisheries products, both in terms of volume and in terms of value. Australia is now a net importer of seafood. We import more than we export.
That government business be interrupted at 1 pm to allow consideration of the following government business orders of the day till not later than 2 pm today:
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Significant Incident Directions) Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Urquhart for today, for personal reasons.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the sad passing of Arthur Beetson who died on 1 December 2011 at age 66, and
(ii) the extraordinary contribution that Arthur Beetson made to rugby league and to Australian sporting life as a player and coach, including:
(A) having represented Australia on 47 occasions,
(B) in 1973 becoming the first Indigenous player to captain Australia in any sport,
(C) being awarded an Order of Australia in 1987 in recognition of service to the sport of rugby league,
(D) being inducted into the Australian Rugby League Hall of Fame in 2003,
(E) being named in the front-row in the rugby league ‘Team of the Century’, and
(F) becoming the seventh post-war ‘Immortal’ of the game; and
(iii) the powerful and tireless leadership that he showed to his sport, as a mentor to young people and to the Indigenous community;
(b) extends the deepest sympathy of all members of the Senate to the family and friends of Arthur Beetson; and
(c) calls on all members of the Senate to support initiatives to pay tribute to the contribution and achievements of Arthur Beetson to his sport and to Australian public life, such as the establishment of the Arthur Beetson scholarship for young Indigenous Australians.
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform for inquiry and report:
The prevention and treatment of problem gambling, with particular reference to:
(a) measures to prevent problem gambling, including:
(i) use and display of responsible gambling messages,
(ii) use, access and effectiveness of other information on risky or problem gambling, including campaigns, and
(iii) ease of access to assistance for problem gambling;
(b) measures which can encourage risky gambling behaviour, including:
(i) marketing strategies, and
(ii) use of inducements/incentives to gamble;
(c) early intervention strategies and training of staff;
(d) methods currently used to treat problem gamblers and the level of knowledge and use of them, including:
(i) counselling, including issues for counsellors,
(ii) education, and
(iii) self-exclusion;
(e) data collection and evaluation issues;
(f) gambling policy research and evaluation; and
(g) other related matters.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Monitoring of Whaling) Bill 2012
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to require the monitoring of whaling activities by foreign whaling vessels.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The speech read as follows—
Once again this summer, the Japanese Government sent a whaling fleet to the Southern Ocean to hunt minke and fin whales for meat in an apparent breach of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.
While the Australian Government has a case pending in the International Court of Justice to examine Japan’s alleged breach of the convention, Japan continues to pursue its so-called “scientific whaling” hunt.
But this year, the whalers went further than they had in past summers, entering Australia’s Whale Sanctuary, its territorial waters and World Heritage Area off Macquarie Island.
The whale sanctuary was created under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and prohibits all whaling activities in the waters up to 200 miles off the shore of Australia and its external territories.
The Australian Government was left sitting on its hands while the Japanese whaling vessels were in our waters, especially as it refused to despatch the Ocean Protector customs vessel which is tasked with the monitoring of illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean.
The presence of any whaling vessel in our whale sanctuary should be protested strongly and actively monitored to ensure the vessel does not attempt to illegally take whales and to emphasise Australia’s strong opposition to the practice.
To this end, I am introducing the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Monitoring of Whaling) Bill 2012 (the Bill) to create an obligation on the Australian Government to monitor foreign whaling vessels that enter our whale sanctuary.
The Bill inserts the new section 236A“Monitoring foreign whaling vessels” into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
It requires the government to send a Commonwealth vessel to monitor any foreign whaling vessel that enters or nears the whale sanctuary.
The Environment Minister must then publicly release the observations of this vessel within 30 days of that monitoring beginning and within 30 days after its completion.
A foreign vessel is already defined in the Act and for the purposes of this Bill a Commonwealth vessel includes any vessel that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth or one of its agencies, excluding those used by the defence forces.
Australians expect their government to act strongly in response to illegal whaling. This Bill will ensure that other countries are left with no illusions about our commitment to ending commercial whaling across the globe.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns the appalling human rights abuses and escalating violence in Syria, that has seen thousands of innocent civilians killed; and
(b) calls on President Assad to step down, to finally put an end to the intolerable bloodshed of the Syrian people.
That the Senate expresses grave concern:
(a) regarding discriminatory legislation against lesbian, bi, gay and transgender people currently before the Legislative Assembly of Saint Petersburg in Russia; and
(b) that these proposed laws undermine the human rights of lesbian, bi, gay and transgender people and breach human rights treaty obligations to which Russia is signatory.
That the Select Committee on Australia’s Food Processing Sector be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 29 February 2012, from 11.30 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 9 February 2012, from 5 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold public meetings during the sitting of the Senate, as follows:
(a) on Monday, 27 February 2012:
(i) from 10 am to 11.30 am, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into Australia’s trade and investment relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea, and
(ii) from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into Australia’s overseas representation; and
(b) on Monday, 19 March 2012, from 10 am to 11.30 am, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into Australia’s trade and investment relationship with Japan and the Republic of Korea.
That the Economics Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 9 February 2012, from 3.30 pm.
That the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, on the next day of sitting, report to the Senate on the failure of the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) to uphold the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania , in particular clauses 25 to 27 which stipulated immediate protection of 430000 hectares of high conservation value forests where logging, including clear-felling and burning of ancient forests and wildlife habitat, is continuing.
The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Australian Year of the Farmer 2012 is a year long celebration of the vital role farmers play in feeding, clothing and housing people – both here and overseas;
(b) acknowledges:
(i) that agriculture plays an integral role in Australia’s economy and prosperity, injecting more than $405 billion into the economy per year – 27 per cent of gross domestic product,
(ii) that there are 136 000 farms employing approximately 370 000 people and supports farming families across Australia,
(iii) that agriculture and related industries provide 1.6 million jobs, more than half are located in metropolitan Australia,
(iv) that farming exports totalled approximately $27 billion in 2010-11 – a great contribution to global food supply and security,
(v) that the majority of Australians (71 per cent) believe agriculture and related industries contribute to the Australian way of life and our identity as a nation,
(vi) the importance of the contribution Australian farmers make to the maintenance of our cultural and environmental heritage, and
(vii) that the Australian Year of the Farmer recognises those who make a significant contribution to our economic, social and environmental prosperity; and
(c) calls on the Government to support and provide funding for the initiatives of the Australian Year of the Farmer 2012 [http://www.yearofthefarmer.com.au].
(1) That the Senate:
(a) notes the Government has not complied with:
(i) the order of the Senate, made on 1 November 2011, ordering the production of information relating to the cost of measures attached to the mining tax over the current forward estimates, and
(ii) a number of other outstanding orders in relation to mining tax revenue estimates and related assumptions;
(b) notes the Government has not taken any action to meet its commitment to have the Information Commissioner arbitrate on any Government refusal to release information sought by the Senate; and
(c) affirms the importance of receiving the information about mining tax revenue assumptions and the costings of all the related measures promptly to facilitate proper scrutiny by the Senate of the proposed mining tax and all the related measures.
(2) That the orders of the day for the following bills may not be called on until the orders of the Senate have been complied with and the Senate has passed a resolution agreeing that the bills may be listed for debate:
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Minerals Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2011
Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (Imposition—General) Bill 2011
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (Stronger, Fairer, Simpler and Other Measures) Bill 2011.
Senate divided [12:13]
[The Deputy President—Senator Parry]
The time is coming where the Senate is going to have to flex its muscle. If the information is really commercial in-confidence, the Senate committee could meet in-camera, but what the Treasury is in fact saying is that bureaucrats are allowed to have crucial information but parliamentarians, who are being asked to vote on the relevant laws, are not. It is illogical and unacceptable.
That the Senate agrees with Senator Rhiannon who was reported in the official notes of an October 2000 SEARCH Foundation seminar commemorating the 80th anniversary of the foundation of the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) as arguing 'that the Green's Party is closest to the best of the CPA's politics and methods'.
The Senate Divided. [12:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
The Greens in Sydney come from many backgrounds. Environmental and resident activists. Nuclear disarmers. Dissidents from the Labor Party who have witnessed betrayals by both wings of that party. Feminists. Anarchists. Those inspired by the German Greens. Socialists of various kinds.
Standing order 66(3) provides that a formal motion shall be put and determined without amendment or debate ... In particular, the number of statements being made by leave in relation to complex motions leads to a de facto debate on those motions, contrary to standing order 66. This is because senators, instead of making statements, assert views in the nature of debate by mounting arguments and responding to positions expressed by others.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the failure of the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Economics References Committee, which were supported by members of four political parties and Senator Xenophon, for reinstating specific legislative provisions on price discrimination, tightening legislation to inhibit firms achieving market power through takeovers and calling on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to conduct further study into the increasing shares of the grocery market being taken by the generic products of the major supermarket chains,
(ii) the Government's refusal to contemplate improvements to the current competition laws on the basis that these laws have not been adequately tested in the courts,
(iii) that Coles has announced large cuts in the prices of some fruit and vegetables, and
(iv) that bodies such as Ausveg, the National Farmers' Federation, the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association and the Council of Small Business of Australia have expressed concern about the impact on farmers and small retailers if these price cuts are sustained; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) direct the Productivity Commission to report on the effectiveness of competition policy in the grocery retailing sector,
(ii) direct the ACCC to update its 2008 report on competition in the grocery industry, with particular reference to the market power of the two largest retail chains, the impact of their increasing use of generic product lines and the impact of large cuts in the price of specific food items on the viability of Australian farmers,
(iii) direct the ACCC to examine and report on the extent to which the cuts in fruit and vegetable prices initiated by Coles in early 2012 are affecting the prices of other goods sold by the major supermarket chains, their profits, the prices they pay their suppliers and the farmgate prices received by Australian farmers, and
(iv) ensure that the ACCC is encouraged and adequately funded to bring matters before the courts that would lead to the current competition laws being adequately tested.
The Senate divided. [12:38]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Register of the National Estate (RNE) is a list of more than 13 000 natural, Indigenous and historic heritage places throughout Australia, created in 1975 and currently maintained by the Australian Heritage Council, and
(ii) as of 19 February 2012, all references to the RNE will be removed from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and theAustralian Heritage Council Act 2003 ;
(b) recognises that:
(i) Australia's historic heritage makes a critical contribution to our national identity, community and economy,
(ii) the RNE was frozen on 1 January 2007, and a 5 year transition period was given for the Commonwealth, states and territories to assess and enter eligible places within their respective jurisdictions onto the appropriate heritage registers, and
(iii) if the transition process is not completed by 19 February 2012, thousands of heritage places will potentially be left without legislative protection; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) extend the 5 year transition period for phasing out the RNE as a statutory list by a further 12 months, from 19 February 2012 to 19 February 2013, as recommended by the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act, and
(ii) collaborate with the states and territories to ensure that the transition process is completed within that 12 month period.
The Senate divided. [12:45]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by 27 February 2012 by the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Senator Evans) any advice or documentation received by the Government regarding the cost of implementing $1 bet limits on poker machines, particularly in relation to the $1.5 billion figure referred to by the Minister in public comments.
The Senate divided. [12:55]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the final report of Sri Lanka's Lesson Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) was released publicly on 16 December 2011,
(ii) the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Rudd) stated that the Government would wait until the LLRC reported before taking any further action regarding allegations of war crimes committed during the final stages of the Sri Lankan civil war,
(iii) the Australian Government is yet to respond to the LLRC's final report,
(iv) Alistair Burt MP, the United Kingdom minister with responsibility for Sri Lanka has said that 'The British Government is, on the whole, disappointed by the report's findings and recommendations on accountability',
(v) the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, John Baird has said:
'(I) Canada remains concerned that the report does not fully address the grave accusations of serious human rights violations that occurred toward the end of the conflict.
(II) Canada continues to call for an independent investigation into the credible and serious allegations raised by the UN [United Nations] Secretary-General's Panel that international humanitarian law and human rights were violated by both sides in the conflict.
(III) the government of Sri Lanka must demonstrate the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law',
(vi) the Tamil National Alliance, the democratically elected representative voice for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka has called on the international community to institute measures that will advance accountability and encourage reconciliation in Sri Lanka, in keeping with the recommendations of the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts,
(vii) the report of the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka has said 'the LLRC fails to satisfy key international standards of independence and impartiality, as it is compromised by its composition and deep-seated conflicts of interests of some of its members', and
(viii) Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the International Crisis Group have said the LLRC does not adequately address the issue of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the final phases of the conflict between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam;
(b) expresses disappointment that the Federal Government has not issued a public response to the LLRC final report; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) acknowledge that the LLRC fails to adequately address the issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the Sri Lankan conflict, and
(ii) support calls for the UN Secretary-General and the UN Security Council to establish an independent international mechanism to investigate the issue of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Sri Lanka, as recommended by the report of the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka.
The Senate divided. [12:59]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Budget estimates 2010-11(Supplementary)—
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 2 March 2011 and 7 February 2012—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
Budget estimates 2011-12—
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 9 November 2011 and 7 February 2012—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
Budget estimates 2011-12 (Supplementary)—
Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 23 November 2011 and 8 February 2012—
Innovation, Industry, Research and Science portfolio.
Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 10 November 2011 and 8 February 2012—
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio.
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio.
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 10 November 2011 and 8 February 2012—
Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government.
Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
Parliamentary departments.
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 24 November 2011 and 8 February 2012—Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 9 November 2011 and 7 February 2012—
Attorney-General's portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute members:
Senator Colbeck to replace Senator Nash for the consideration of the 2011 12 additional estimates on 13 February 2012
Senator Williams to replace Senator Nash for the consideration of the 2011-12 additional estimates on 14 February 2012
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute members:
Senator Williams to replace Senator Nash on 9 February 2012 for the committee’s inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test
Senator McKenzie to replace Senator Nash on 17 February 2012, from 9 am to 2 pm; and Senator Humphries to replace Senator Nash on 17 February 2012, from 2 pm to 5.45 pm for the committee’s inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test
Participating member: Senator Nash.
Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011
Telecommunications (Industry Levy) 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.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNIVERSAL SERVICE MANAGEMENT AGENCY BILL 2011
The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 is the cornerstone of a package that I am introducing today to achieve continuity of key telecommunications safeguards in the transition to the National Broadband Network. The other bills in the package are the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy Bill) 2011.
The regulatory arrangements for the universal service obligation (commonly known as the USO) were designed for a market where there was a vertically integrated operator of a national telecommunications network. Implementation of the Government's National Broadband Network policy will result in a fundamental change to the structure of the Australian telecommunications market as Telstra's near ubiquitous national copper fixed line network is progressively decommissioned as NBN Co rolls out its next generation fibre network.
We are moving to an environment where all retail service providers will be able to offer high quality voice and high-speed broadband services nationally using the National Broadband Network. It is appropriate that as we move to this new environment the model for delivering universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes be reformed to facilitate the competitive supply of universal service and other public policy telecommunications outcomes. A regime that enables competitive supply arrangements will be of benefit to consumers and industry as it promotes more innovative, effective and efficient service delivery arrangements.
On 23 June 2011, the Government announced that it had entered into an agreement with Telstra to deliver universal service and other public interest services. As part of the reforms embodied in that agreement, the Government will establish a new agency, the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency to be known as TUSMA, which will manage the Telstra agreement and other contracts and grants (including the two existing contracts for the provision of the National Relay Service). TUSMA's remit is to ensure that all Australians continue to have reasonable access to universal service and other public interest telecommunications services.
The establishment of a statutory agency dedicated to the implementation and effective administration of telecommunications service agreements will promote high quality and efficient contract and grant management to maximise the benefit for consumers and manage risks appropriately, within a transparent and accountable legislative framework.
The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill establishes TUSMA and sets out the governance structure of the agency, including its functions and powers in contracting for public policy outcomes. It creates a rigorous transparency and accountability framework for TUSMA's activities, and also establishes arrangements for the collection of levies from the industry.
The Bill provides that TUSMA will be established as a statutory agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 , and its CEO and staff will be employed under thePublic Service Act 1999 . The day to day administration of TUSMA will be the responsibility of the CEO, but decisions that affect industry and consumers will be made by a Chair and other appointed members who together will have the right mix of skills and experience to fulfil TUSMA's statutory objectives.
TUSMA will, on behalf of the Commonwealth, be able to enter into and manage contracts or make and manage grants for financial assistance. These contracts and grants must address clear policy objectives based on the current legislated objectives for the standard telephone service and payphone components of the USO, the National Relay Service and the emergency call service, and also cover the provision of programs to support the continuity of supply of carriage services during the transition to the NBN. TUSMA will be required in performing its functions and exercising its powers to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the policy objectives are achieved.
The Bill provides for the Minister, by legislative instrument, to make standards, rules or benchmarks for the universal service components of the agreement with Telstra, and for future contracts and grants. Service providers with whom TUSMA has a contract will be required to comply with standards, rules or benchmarks.
The Bill includes transitional provisions to ensure that TUSMA is responsible and accountable for managing the Telstra agreement and the existing National Relay Service agreements.
TUSMA's reporting obligations will be extensive – not only will TUSMA be subject to existing reporting requirements under the FMA Act, but it will have additional obligations including maintaining public registers of grants and contracts and obligations to report annually to the Government and the Parliament on the performance of contracts and grants. The transparency and accountability provisions are important protections that will enable scrutiny and evaluation of TUSMA's performance.
The Government will commit base funding to TUSMA of $50 million over the two financial years 2012-13 and 2013-14, and $100 million per annum after that.
TUSMA's residual funding requirements will be met through a consolidated industry levy scheme which, from 1 July 2012, will replace the current USO and National Relay Service levies and also cover future funding for TUSMA's other responsibilities.
The accompanying Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 imposes an obligation on industry carriers to pay the levy. The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill covers arrangements for collecting the levy and determining liability.
The amount each telecommunications carrier has to pay towards the levy will be based, as is currently the case for the USO and NRS levies, on its eligible revenue as assessed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. The Australian Communications and Media Authority will remain responsible for collecting the levy and determining who must pay.
Transitional mechanisms are set out in the accompanying USO Reform Bill. The Government also made a commitment, when it announced the TUSMA arrangements in June this year, to review the levy arrangements and the need for any additional Budget funding, over and above the Government's committed base funding, during the course of the first two financial years of TUSMA's operation.
The Bill also provides for a review before 1 January 2018 of the Act, any legislative instruments made under the Act, and associated provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1997 .
This is an important package of legislation. Together, the three Bills will provide certainty for all Australians that telecommunications consumer safeguards will continue to be delivered in the transition to the National Broadband Network, under transparent and accountable arrangements. The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 contains the key measures in these reforms, by establishing an independent body that will transition the industry from regulated obligations to a more flexible service provider model that will promote greater efficiency, transparency and competition in public policy delivery.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM) BILL 2011
The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011 forms part of a package of legislation that I am introducing today to achieve continuity of key telecommunications safeguards in the transition to the National Broadband Network (NBN). The other bills in the package are the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011.
This Bill plays an important supporting role to the overall reforms for the delivery of telecommunications safeguards, which are largely set out in the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011. TUSMA will focus on managing the delivery of key telecommunications services under contracts or grants that the community expects will continue to be delivered effectively and efficiently. TUSMA will be accountable to the industry and to Government through extensive reporting arrangements. The residual costs of TUSMA that are not met from Budget funding will be met through a new Industry Levy Scheme based on current USO levy arrangements. The new levy will be imposed by the Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill.
TUSMA is expected to be operational by 1 July 2012 so it can take over responsibility for the Commonwealth ' s agreement with Telstra to deliver universal service outcomes and other public interest services. The Government intends that there be an approximately two year period for concurrent operation of contract and regulatory requirements before phasing out USO regulation. Over time, the current regulated obligations to provide voice services and payphones will transition to a model that is similar to the current arrangements for the provision of the National Relay Service, in that the Commonwealth (through TUSMA) will contract with service providers for the supply of these important services, without imposing specific regulatory obligations.
This Bill amends the universal service regime in the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 so that within two years of commencement of TUSMA operations, the Minister must consider whether it is appropriate to remove the current regulated USO on Telstra to make the standard telephone service and payphones reasonably accessible, and shift to a fully contractual model for provision of universal service outcomes.
The Government recognises the importance placed by many in the community on having access to basic voice services and payphones. Therefore the Bill provides that between 18 months and two years after the establishment of TUSMA, the Minister will be required to consider if Telstra:
has met relevant contractual and regulated obligations during the initial transitional period, and
will be likely to substantially comply with its ongoing contractual requirements for provision of standard telephone services and payphones.
The Minister will be required to separately consider the removal of the standard telephone service and payphone elements of current USO regulation. Each of these decisions will be subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance. In considering whether to lift USO regulation, the Minister will be required to obtain advice from both the TUSMA and from the communications regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, as to Telstra's record of compliance with its contractual and regulatory obligations for the standard telephone service and for payphones. The Minister will also be able to consider any other relevant matters.
If the Minister considers that there are satisfactory contractual arrangements in place in relation to payphones, Telstra's regulated obligations for payphones can then be removed across Australia. If the Minister considers that there are satisfactory contractual arrangements in place for the standard telephone service, Telstra's regulated USO obligations to supply the standard telephone service will be progressively removed in fibre areas as Telstra migrates customers from the Telstra copper network to the NBN fibre network in accordance with a final Migration Plan that has been approved by the ACCC. In areas where fibre is not being rolled out, and Telstra is not required to structurally separate, Telstra's regulated obligations to supply the standard telephone service will be removed. Linking the removal of USO regulation for the standard telephone service to the progressive NBN roll out in fibre areas and the migration of customers from Telstra's copper network to the NBN fibre network is consistent with the requirement that the package of Bills not commence operation unless Telstra is legally committed to implement structural separation.
If the conditions for regulatory removal are not met initially, the Bill provides the Minister with the power to defer consideration of whether regulation should be removed for an additional period of 18 months, with up to two such deferral declarations able to be made.
Removal of USO regulation in relation to the standard telephone service will not change the important safeguards (such as the Customer Service Guarantee) that apply to Telstra and all other providers of a standard telephone service.
The Bill makes a range of other transitional and consequential amendments to the Telecommunications Act 1997 and theTelecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999 . The Bill also makes transitional amendments to provide for the phasing out of the USO and NRS Levies (respectively) after 30 June 2012 given the transition to a new Telecommunications Industry Levy Scheme. This Bill also includes consequential amendments to ensure that the ACMA, as the communications regulator, has the ability to effectively enforce the new levy arrangements. The details for the assessment and collection of the new Industry Levy are included in the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011.
This is an important package of legislation. Together, the three Bills will provide certainty for all Australians that telecommunications consumer safeguards will continue to be delivered in the transition to the National Broadband Network, under transparent and accountable arrangements. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill makes necessary transitional changes to support the establishment of an independent body that will take the industry away from regulated obligations to a more flexible service provider model that will promote greater efficiency, transparency and competition in public policy delivery.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INDUSTRY LEVY) BILL 2011
The Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 is one of three bills that together will reform the delivery of universal service and other public interest services. The other bills in the package are the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Universal Service Reform) Bill 2011.
The Telecommunications (Industry Levy) Bill 2011 works with the provisions in the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, which set out a scheme for determining who must pay the levy, and for administering and enforcing that scheme. Under the Industry Levy Bill, if a person has a levy amount for an eligible levy period because of section 99 of the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill, then levy is imposed on that amount and a person is liable to pay the levy.
The persons who will have a levy amount are defined in the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill, and are telecommunications carriers or, if the Minister has made a legislative instrument to that effect, carriage service providers. Under the Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011, there is also provision for the Minister to exempt particular persons from being considered liable to pay levy.
The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy recently established a $25 million eligible revenue threshold for levy contributions, and it is the Government's policy that this important red tape reform will continue under the new legislative arrangements.
Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LIFE GOLD PASS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
This bill represents the next stage in the government's reforms to the parliamentary entitlements framework. The reforms to the framework are aimed at ensuring that members of Parliament are supported by an effective, efficient and transparent system of remuneration and entitlements.
On 15 December 2011, I announced that the government had accepted the recommendations of the independent Remuneration Tribunal (the Tribunal) in relation to the Life Gold Pass. The Tribunal recommended in the initial report of its review into parliamentarians' remuneration released last December, that the Life Gold Pass scheme be closed prospectively and that the entitlement of existing Life Gold Pass holders be reduced now from 25 to 10 domestic trips per financial year.
In its report, the Committee for the Review of Parliamentary Entitlements (the Belcher Committee) indicated that current Life Gold Pass holders should be permitted to retain a reduced entitlement to travel on the basis that former and current Senators and Members entered the Parliament with the understanding that post-retirement travel formed part of their benefits. The Belcher Committee also recommended that the current entitlement of Life Gold Pass be reduced from 25 to 10 domestic return trips per financial year.
The Life Gold Pass has a long history. The provision of travel benefits to sitting and retired Senators and Members, through issue of a Life Gold Pass, commenced on a limited basis in 1918 in the form of a Life Railway Pass and this was extended to include unlimited air travel in 1959. In 1973, an executive decision extended Life Gold Pass benefits to spouses and widows of Life Gold Pass holders.
In 2002, legislation was enacted to limit the number of return domestic trips available to Life Gold Pass holders, their spouses and widows. However, limiting the number of trips provided for all entitlees has not prevented ongoing criticism of the Life Gold Pass scheme on the grounds that its provisions exceed community standards.
Schedule 1 of this bill proposes to close the Life Gold Pass scheme prospectively so that a member who enters, or re-enters, the Parliament from the commencement of the bill will not be able to accrue an entitlement to a Life Gold Pass.
Sitting Senators and Members will remain eligible to accrue an entitlement to a Life Gold Pass where they serve the remainder of their relevant qualifying period prior to leaving the Parliament. A sitting Senator or Member who ceases to be a member of their house, and who becomes a member of the other chamber within three months will be regarded as having had continuous service in the Parliament and will continue to be eligible for a Life Gold Pass.
In line with the recommendations of the Tribunal and the Belcher Committee, the bill proposes to amend the Life Gold Pass Act to reduce the travel entitlement of existing Life Gold Pass holders, who have never held office as Prime Minister, and their spouses or de facto partners, from 25 to 10 domestic return trips per financial year from the 2012 13 financial year.
In my announcement of 15 December 2011, I acknowledged that some former members use the Life Gold Pass travel entitlement for the benefit of the community. However, I also acknowledged that there has been inappropriate use of the entitlement. The proposed reduction in the entitlement will constrain inappropriate use.
As the Tribunal recommended that the entitlement for Life Gold Pass travel be reduced now, the bill includes a transitional provision which limits the number of domestic return trips for the remainder of 2011 12 to a maximum of two. The transitional provision will apply from the later of the day on which the bill receives the Royal Assent or 1 April 2012.
The closure of the Life Gold Pass scheme to new members and the reduced entitlement will contribute to a more transparent and, in the end, a more simplified parliamentary entitlements framework.
Further, the Bill proposes changes to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 (1948 Act) to allow the Tribunal to limit windfall gains flowing to superannuation benefits for current and former parliamentarians from increases in additional office salaries.
Ministers of State and parliamentary office holders receive additional salaries as a percentage of parliamentary base salary. Any increase in the parliamentary base salary determined by the Tribunal, would flow to Ministers of State and parliamentary office holders.
Additional pensions paid to members of the superannuation scheme under the 1948 Act are linked to the additional salaries paid to parliamentary office holders and Ministers of State. Accordingly, any increase in additional salaries would create a windfall gain in relation to the superannuation benefits for current and retired Ministers or parliamentary office holders who are members of the 1948 scheme.
In its initial report, the Tribunal requested that the Parliament grant the Tribunal power to determine portions of additional salaries paid to Ministers of State and parliamentary office holders that would not be included in calculating superannuation benefits paid to members of the 1948 Act scheme.
This is consistent with provisions in the Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2011 which allow the Tribunal to determine a portion of any increase in parliamentary base salary which does not flow to the superannuation benefits of current and retired members of the 1948 scheme.
I announced on 15 December 2011 that the government would implement this recommendation of the independent Remuneration Tribunal. Schedule 2 of this Bill proposes the necessary amendments to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, with consequential amendments to the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, to implement the Tribunal's recommendation.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Significant Incident Directions) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Higher Education Support Amendment (VET FEE-HELP and Other Measures) Bill 2011 [2012]
That this bill be now read a third time.
… did not demonstrate consistent adherence to internal guidance, the FMA Act and FMA Regulations.
While issues were identified with the sources cited by DCCEE for campaign statements, this did not mean that the statements themselves were wrong or could not be supported by other sources of information.
This bill is the first major step in establishing the Australian emissions trading scheme.
We welcome the commitment from the Government, and their acknowledgement that those who live in rural, regional and remote areas should not be disadvantaged when it comes to telecommunications.
The following rules shall apply to questions:
questions shall not ask:
(h) for an expression of opinion;
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has not sought legal advice on the reported High Court challenge by South Australia to the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan as the basis for this challenge has not yet been stated by South Australia.
Information about any legal advice Murray Darling Basin Authority has obtained on the consistency of the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan with the Water Act should be obtained from Murray Darling Basin Authority.
Further information in response to questions from Senator Milne taken on notice by Senator Ludwig on Tuesday 7 February 2012
Did the Minister for Resources and Energy seek advice from the previous Attorney-General on the use of the Australian Federal Police to 'assist the energy sector and jurisdictional police to manage the increasing risk of disruptions' by environmental protesters?
I'm advised that the Minister for Resources and Energy wrote to the previous Attorney-General on 10 Sept 2009 to seek advice on how resources in the Attorney-General's portfolio could be used to manage unlawful protest activity in order to maintain peace and security.
The previous Attorney-General wrote back to the Minister for Resources and Energy on 6 November 2009 providing general advice on activities undertaken by the AFP and ASIO in monitoring issues-based groups, but not committing to specific action on this issue.
Both of these letters were previously released under FOI in January. It is not the intention of the Attorney-General to comment on AFP operational matters.
Is the information of private media monitoring contractors available through the FOI process?
I'm advised the AFP would evaluate material under the FOI Act prior to any release of the information.
Commercial in-confidence information may fall within the FOI exceptions and not be released; however each document would need to be assessed on its merits.
Further information in response to a question from Senator Cash taken on notice by Senator Ludwig on Wednesday 8 February 2012
With respect to the second supplementary question "Given that this centre will soon open, can the minister please advise what work and consultation has been undertaken by the government with the local hospital and ambulance service at Northam to 'ensure the department's operations do not affect access to health services for the local community'?" I am advised the following:
• Primary health services for detainees at the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre at Northam will be provided on site by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's contracted detention health services provider, International Health and Medical Services - IHMS.
• Where necessary, specialist medical services, such as dentists and psychiatrists, will be brought in as part of the Department's contract with IHMS.
Further information in response to questions from Senator Xenophon taken on notice by Senator Ludwig on Wednesday 8 February 2012
With respect to the first supplementary question, "has the department investigated whether this is an appropriate use of such authorities and would the Qantas Group be meeting its obligations under the Migration Act?"
With respect to the second supplementary question, "Since the Fair Work Ombudsman investigation that commenced last year on the issue of foreign crews on Jetstar domestic leg flights, can the minister indicate whether the department has requested any information from the ombudsman and whether it has received any requests from the Qantas Group to issue other types of visas to cover cabin crew operating on these flights?"
That the Senate take note of the minister's statement.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Brandis and Birmingham today relating to the carbon tax.
... a clear line of sight between 52 statements presented as fact in the campaign and the sources cited in the matrix to support those statements.
Post July 1 we have obviously got another challenge to overcome and we're very keen on doing that.
Additional Treasury evidence supported the statement that more than 9 in 10 households (92 per cent) were estimated to receive some combination of assistance, lending support to the statement in the household mail-out.
The campaign did not contain any overt promotion of party political interests, party slogans or bias …
That the Senate take note of the Defence Security Authority vetting report.
That the Senate take note of the ministerial statement on live animal exports.
The CCA stands committed to working with Government and industry in assuring the welfare of Australian livestock, while maintaining a sustainable live export industry.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 1 of 2012
9 February 2012
1. The committee met in private session on Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 11.23 am.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 be referred imm ediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 February 2012 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 22 March 2012 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 March 2012 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the Telecommunications Amendment (Mobile Phone Towers) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 9 May 2012 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bill to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
9 February 2012
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To enable appropriate consideration of the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
27 February 2012
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip / Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To investigate the merits of reforming this area of law, particularly in terms of analysing the practical policy outcomes of the current sentencing regime, human rights and natural justice concerns and impact on the wider court system across Australia.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Human Rights Legal Centre
Legal Aid Commissions across states and territories Mark Plunkett
CDPP
Law Council of Australia
Rule of Law Institute of Australia
Australia Lawyers Alliance
Attorney-Generals Dept
Centre for Policy Development
DIAC
Judicial Conference of Australia
National Judicial College of Australia
Judicial Colleges of states and territories
Indonesian Consulate in Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
16 March 2012
Possible reporting date:
22 March 2012
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consideration of changes to income support payments.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Community Affairs Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
As determined by committee
Possible reporting date:
As determined by committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Telecommunications Amendment (Mobile Phone Towers) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To allow opportunity for detailed consideration of the Bill and to allow the Committee to hear from stakeholders and consider the practical implications of the Bill.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
The parties interested in this Bill will be similar to those providing submissions to the "Inquiry into the Telecommunications Amendment (Enhancing Community Consultation) Bill 2011, a Bill introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr Andrew Wilkie. A list of submitters can be found at
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Not specified
Possible reporting date:
March / May 2012
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip / Selection of Bills Committee member
That the report be adopted.
That:
(a) the documents, together with the final budget outcome 2010-11 and the Issues from the advances under the annual Appropriation Acts for 2010-11, be referred to committees for examination and report; and
(b) consideration of the Issues from the advances under the annual Appropriation Acts in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the day on which committees report on their examination of the additional estimates.
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio
Attorney-General's portfolio
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio
Defence portfolio
Defence portfolio (Department of Veterans‘ Affairs)
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio
Finance and Deregulation portfolio
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio
Health and Ageing portfolio
Human Services portfolio
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio
Infrastructure and Transport portfolio
Industry, Innovation, Science and Research portfolio
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio
Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio
Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport portfolio
Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio
Treasury portfolio.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute members:
Senator McEwen to replace Senator Urquhart from 9 am to 3 pm; and Senator Sherry to replace Senator Urquhart from 3 pm, for the consideration of the 2011-12 additional estimates on 15 February 2012
Senator Sherry to replace Senator Urquhart for the consideration of the 2011-12 additional estimates on 16 February 2012
Senator McEwen to replace Senator Urquhart for the consideration of the 2011-12 additional estimates on 17 February 2012
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Discharged—Senator Edwards
Appointed—
Senator Sinodinos
Participating member: Senator Edwards
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Wright for the committee’s inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012
Participating member: Senator Wright
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator McEwen to replace Senator Urquhart for the consideration of the 2011-12 additional estimates on 13 February and 14 February 2012.
SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE
INQUIRY INTO DEFENCE'S REQUEST FOR TENDER FOR AVIATION CONTRACTS
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
November 2011
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1 paragraph 9.28
The committee recommends that Defence:
Response - Agreed.
A probity plan specific to future procurements of air sustainment services to the MEAO has been developed and is attached. A specific instruction will be issued to mandate the development of a probity plan based on this template for all future procurements of air sustainment services to the MEAO. The template probity plan can also be tailored for other procurements undertaken by HQJOC, as required.
More generally, the necessary Defence procurement policy and operational guidance framework for the creation of a probity plan already exists (see Defence Procurement Policy Manual, 1 July 2011 edition (DPPM) at Chapter 5.4 Request Documentation, paragraphs 62, 63 and 65).
(i) proponent grievances and
(ii) the small and highly competitive nature of the commercial air charter market;
Response – Agreed
The attached probity plan specifically addresses the two risks listed above.
Response – Agreed in principle
Probity advisers will be appointed where it is consistent with the existing Defence procurement policy and operational guidance. The DPPM, Chapter 3.13, paragraphs 14 to 29, provide for the appointment of probity advisers based upon the Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) policy that 'the decision on whether to engage an external probity specialist should weigh the benefits of receiving advice independent of the process against the additional cost involved and include consideration of whether or not skills exist within the agency to fulfil the role'.
Based on past experience it is reasonable to assume that the future procurement of air sustainment services to the MEAO would meet the Finance policy requiring the appointment of a probity adviser, and the template Probity Plan referred to above is drafted on this basis.
Response - Agreed.
In the planned 1 December 2011 update of the DPPM, Defence will update Chapter 3.2 to expand the references to probity risk, and cross reference this chapter with Chapter 3.13 on ethics and probity in procurement. In addition, Defence will also release an updated chapter 3.13 as part of the planned 1 December 2011 update.
Recommendation 2 paragraph 10.9
The committee recommends that Defence reviews all Defence Instructions and related documents in respect of Reservists, full or part time, to ensure that real and potential conflicts of interest that might arise as a result of past, current or post separation employment are identified, reported and managed appropriately. In particular:
(a) Defence considers whether Defence Instructions DI(G) PERS 25-2 (Employment and voluntary activities of ADF members in off-duty hours) and DI(G) PERS 25-3 (Disclosure of interests of members of the ADF) should be extended to Reservists who are not engaged in continuous full-time service; or
(b) if there is no intention to extend the application of DI(G) PERS 25-2 and DI(G) PERS 25-3 to Reservists who are not engaged in continuous full-time service, Defence develops specific policies covering the civilian employment of, and the disclosure of conflicts of interests by, those personnel.
Response – Agreed.
Defence has incorporated DI(G) PER 25-3 into a revised version of DI(G) PERS 25-6 (Conflict of Interest and Declaration of Interest) which came into effect on 29 March 2011. The revised DI(G) PERS 25-6 applies to a “Defence Member” as defined in section 3 of the Defence Act. This definition of “Defence Member” includes Permanent members of the Navy, Army and Air Force, and members of the Reserves who (a) are rendering continuous full-time service or (b) are on duty in uniform.
DI(G) PERS 25-2 is currently under review and will be revised to include the definition of 'Defence Member' to align with the definition in DI(G) PERS 25-6.
As Defence has agreed to Recommendation 2(a) there is no requirement to develop the specific policies requested in Recommendation 2(b).
Recommendation 3 paragraph 10.21
The committee recommends that, prior to the re-tendering of any future contracts for the provision of air sustainment services to the MEAO, Defence ensures that:
(a) all Reserve personnel involved in the procurement complete a conflict of interest declaration; and
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with usual Defence procurement practice as set out in the DPPM, Chapter 3.13. In addition, the attached Probity Plan contains a specific requirement in this regard.
(b) commanding officers or supervisors in 1 JMOVGP:
(i) make a risk-based assessment as to which other Reserve personnel must complete a conflict of interest declaration and which personnel do not;
(ii) in making a risk-based assessment, give consideration to identifying and obtaining conflict of interest declarations from Reservists who have associations with the commercial air charter industry. Such associations may include:
(iii) document their decisions whether or not to require these Reservists
to complete a conflict of interest declaration.
Response – Agreed in principle.
Standard Defence probity arrangements provide that only those personnel who have a genuine 'need to know' have access to confidential tender information (eg. draft requirements, tenders, and evaluation material). This ensures that personnel who are not involved in the procurement do not access confidential information relating to the process or have an ability to influence the conduct of the process.
Further, if someone in the project team is approached by someone outside the project, an obligation to report such contact has been included in the attached Probity Plan.
Accordingly, it will be the responsibility of the project manager for a future procurement of air sustainment services to ensure that all relevant personnel complete conflict of interest declarations.
Recommendation 4 paragraph 10.22
The committee recommends Defence ensures that, in all future procurements of air sustainment services to the MEAO:
(a) should be signed prior to the commencement of the tender evaluation process or the development of the request (as applicable); and
(b) include declarations about possible conflicts of interest arising from their employment, prior employment, financial interests in potential suppliers or relationships with persons who have interests in potential suppliers.
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with Defence procurement policy and operational guidance which provides for the identification and management of conflicts of interest (see DPPM, Chapter 3.13). The probity plan templates available from the Commercial Policy and Practice Branch (CPP Branch), DMO Commercial Group, intranet site already contain a conflict of interest declaration proforma.
The timing for the completion of the conflict of interest declarations in certain circumstances is covered by the DPPM, Chapter 5.4 Request Documentation, paragraph 63, which states that 'If a probity plan is required, it should be developed and approved before commencement of the tender evaluation' at which point the conflict of interest requirements in the plan would apply (including any requirements regarding the timing for personnel to provide declarations).
In order to address the specific concerns of the Senate committee, a supplementary direction will be issued within 1 JMOVGP that all future MEAO air sustainment procurement activities must have a probity plan approved at the beginning of the procurement process (i.e. not just before the commencement of the tender evaluation).
1 JMOVGP will also direct that conflict declarations are to be obtained at the beginning of the procurement process. This requirement will also apply to all persons involved in the development of request documentation.
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with existing Defence procurement policy and practice (see DPPM, Chapter 3.13). The attached probity plan also expressly includes this requirement.
Recommendation 5 paragraph 11.20
The committee recommends that Defence:
Response – Agreed.
The DMO Commercial Group or the Defence Support Group, Non-Equipment Procurement Centre of Excellence (NEP COE) will assist 1 JMOVGP with the
drafting of any future business case for future decisions to market test the provision of air sustainment services to the MEAO, including ensuring the business case is in accordance with existing policy.
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with usual Defence procurement practice. For example, DPPM, Chapter 5.0, provides guidance on the development of procurement plans. The DMO Commercial Group or the NEP COE will assist 1JMOVGP, where required.
(a) continues to include in procurement strategies a requirement that members of the Air Transport Standing Offer Panel are given advance notice of any decisions to re-tender the contract, prior to the release of the RFT; and
(b) ensures that such requirements are implemented.
Response –Agreed in principle.
Defence will ensure that notice is provided to all potential suppliers in accordance with Commonwealth procurement policy as set out in the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). For instance, paragraph 5.2 of the CPGs requires that “All potential suppliers should have the same opportunities to compete for government business and must, subject to these CPGs, be treated equitably based on their legal, commercial, technical, and financial abilities.”
Advance notice of a future procurement of air sustainment services would be provided through Defence's Annual Procurement Plan (APP) (where the procurement is conducted as an open approach to the market).
1 JMOVGP will ensure that, in any future re-tendering, the tender release and closing dates for the request for tender meet or exceed the minimum time limits set out in the CPGs (see paragraphs 8.56 - 8.62; see also DPPM, Chapter 5.5 Tender Advertising, Submission and Receipt, paragraphs 6 – 11).
The CPGs relevantly provide:
'8.57 Agencies need to provide sufficient time for potential suppliers to
prepare and lodge a submission in response to an approach to the market. Time Limits discussed in this section represent minimum periods and should not be
treated as default time limits for potential suppliers to lodge submissions.”
'8.61 Where an agency intends to specify conditions for participation that
require potential suppliers to undertake a separate registration or pre-qualification procedure, the agency must state the time limit for responding to
the registration or pre-qualification in the approach to the market. Any such conditions for participation must be published in sufficient time to enable all potential suppliers to complete the registration and qualification procedures within the time limit for the procurement.'
Any future procurement process for MEAO air sustainment services will comply with the CPGs, including ensuring that there is sufficient time to enable tenderers to get aircraft onto the AO certificate.
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with existing Defence procurement policy. Defence implements the requirements of the Australian Industry Participation (AIP) National Framework via its Australian Industry Capability (AIC) program. Defence procurement guidance on the AIC program is set out in DPPM, Chapter 3.12. Defence plans to update Chapter 3.12 in its 1 December update of the DPPM.
All relevant ASDEFCON templates include clauses that explain how AIC is taken into account in the evaluation of tender responses as part of the overall value for money assessment.
(a) provides potential tenderers with an explanation of the reasons for re-tendering the contract and any changes to tender requirements from the previous request;
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with existing Defence procurement policy and practice. For instance, the covering letter that forms the first part of the relevant ASDEFCON tendering and contracting template prompts the user to provide tenderers with appropriate background information about the procurement. This could include the reasons for re-tendering the contract and any key changes to tender requirements from the previous request.
(b) provides potential tenderers with an explanation of how the evaluation criteria in the request documentation will be assessed; and
Response – Agreed in part.
Standard Defence procurement practice is to advise tenderers about the evaluation criteria and the basic rules governing tendering evaluation. In strategic and more complex procurements, the relevant ASDEFCON templates provide greater levels of specificity about how evaluation criteria are assessed, (eg by advising tenderers about what information will be used to assess which criterion). Also, if evaluation criteria are specifically ranked in terms of their relative importance or otherwise weighted, Defence procurement practice would require this order of ranking/weighting to be provided to all tenderers.
However, the detailed evaluation methodology which is used by tender evaluation teams to evaluate tenders is set out in the tender evaluation plan (TEP). In accordance with standard Commonwealth practice, the TEP is an internal document and is not normally provided to tenderers.
(c) includes in the request documentation, where applicable, an express statement of Defence's:
(i) preferred solution for meeting tender requirements, including
technical specifications; and
Response –Agreed in part.
Defence procurements do not tend to mandate a preferred solution as this can be seen by potential tenderers as favouring a specific tenderer and may stifle innovation and
otherwise limit the field of potential tenderers. Instead, and consistent with paragraphs 8.46 to 8.51 of the CPGs, the Defence approach is to analyse its requirements, undertake market research, and use this information to develop requirements/specifications which focus on the expected outcome from the procurement rather than specifying a particular way of meeting the requirement.
If Defence has specific requirements or technical specifications that must be met by tenderers, then Defence policy requires that these requirements and specifications be advised to tenderers. These would normally be included in the draft Statement of Work that is included as part of the request for tender.
(ii) intention to consider alternative solutions.
Response – Agreed.
This recommendation accords with existing Defence procurement practice and is reflected in standard Defence Conditions of Tender (for example, see ASDEFCON Complex Materiel Vol. 2, conditions of tender, clause 4.10).
Response – Agreed.
The issues identified at paragraph 11.15 of the Senate inquiry report are either generally consistent with existing Defence procurement policy and practice, or are being addressed for inclusion within that framework. For example, DPPM, Chapter 5.4 Request Documentation, and our ASDEFCON tendering and contracting templates, provide the guidance and framework respectively for drafting request documentation. The guidance and templates cover all CPGs requirements, including minimum content and format requirements, conditions for participation, essential requirements, evaluation criteria and technical specifications.
Another example is the current work within Defence to develop Tender Evaluation Better Practice Guides for the assistance of personnel undertaking procurements. Defence recently released the Better Practice Guide: Tender Evaluation in Simple Procurement, and a better practice guide for tender evaluation in more complex procurements is currently under development.
Recommendation 6 paragraph 12.10
The committee recommends that in all future procurements of air sustainment services to the MEAO, Defence develops and implements tender evaluation processes for assessing respondents' fitness and propriety to contract with the Commonwealth. Such evaluation processes should:
(a) identify criteria setting out requirements or indicators for being 'fit and proper' to contract with the Commonwealth;
(b) specify searches that may be conducted on tender respondents, their key personnel, proposed subcontractors and any associated companies (for example, parent or subsidiary companies)—including guidance on the scope of the searches;
(c) identify the possible implications of the findings of each of the specified searches; and
(d) enable the identification and assessment of potential risks arising from issues identified in these searches including:
(i) reputational damage to the Commonwealth, should it proceed to
contract with the relevant tenderer; and
(ii) proponent grievances about the relevant tenderer's fitness and
propriety to contract with the Commonwealth.
Response to (a) – (d) above – Agreed.
In the conditions of tender for all future MEAO air sustainment services procurements (and as reflected in the attached Probity Plan), Defence will reserve the right to undertake probity searches of tenderers and key personnel in order to assess the issues set out in the above recommendations.
This will require the tenderer, its proposed subcontractors, and their respective key personnel, to sign relevant consent forms – allowing the Commonwealth to seek such information.
The relevant clause for inclusion in the conditions of tender is as follows:
"The Commonwealth reserves the right to perform such security, probity or financial checks and procedures as it may consider necessary in relation to the tenderer and its subcontractors, their officers, employees, partners, associates or
related entities (including consortium members and shareholders and their officers or employees if applicable). These checks may include (without limitation):
-security and probity checks including criminal history checks; -corporate history checks;
-media checks;
-litigation searches (past, present or pending);
-reference checks; and
-any other checks which the Commonwealth considers relevant.
Each Tenderer agrees to provide, at its cost, all reasonable assistance to the Commonwealth to facilitate these checks being carried out (including executing all necessary consent forms)."
It should also be noted that all the current ASDEFCON templates already contain clauses that seek a significant amount of information of this kind, including :
Defence is currently developing a Tender Evaluation Better Practice Guide for complex procurements. This document will include detailed guidance on searches that may be conducted on tender respondents, their key personnel, proposed subcontractors and any associated companies, and implications of the findings.
Recommendation 7 paragraph 12.16
The committee recommends that Defence includes in all future tender evaluation documentation for the procurement of air sustainment services to the MEAO:
Response – Agreed.
The necessary Defence procurement policy and operational guidance framework already exists to implement these recommendations (see DPPM, Chapter 3.3 Financial Policy and Advice in the Procurement Process). Defence's existing probity and tender evaluation plan templates, and the ASDEFCON conditions of tender, permit financial statements to be obtained from tenderers and financial risk assessments to be undertaken. The Financial Investigation Service (FIS), DMO Commercial Group, is able to undertake financial assessments for procurement related matters.
The attached Probity Plan also requires suggested financial risk assessment to be undertaken as part of a future procurement process for air sustainment services to the MEAO, and requires the probity adviser to ensure these matters are considered as part of the tender evaluation.
Request to Auditor-General paragraph 12.22
The committee requests that the Auditor-General:
(a) Defence's governance arrangements for the identification and management of significant probity risks to the procurement process, including conflicts of interest, confidentiality and proponent grievances;
(b) Defence's program of procurement governance and process reforms, including those outlined in its evidence to the committee; and
(c) Any other matters considered relevant to probity risk management, or related governance matters, in respect of the procurement of air sustainment services to the MEAO.
(a) evaluate the implementation progress and impact of the reforms outlined in Defence's evidence to the committee; and
(b) recommend, as necessary, any further reforms to probity risk management and other governance arrangements in respect of the procurement of air sustainment services to the MEAO.
Response – Not applicable.
This recommendation relates to the Auditor-General. Defence will provide all necessary support to the Auditor-General, as required.
Recommendation 8 paragraph 12.23
The committee recommends that Defence report back to the committee by 1 May 2012 on progress being made to implement the reforms it has announced including:
Response – Agreed
Defence will report back to the committee as requested.
Recommendat ion 9 paragraph 12.25
Although the majority of recommendations apply to the procurement of air sustainment services to the MEAO, the committee recommends that Defence consider incorporating the principles and practices underpinning them as part of Defence wide non-equipment procurement policy.
Response – Agreed.
The majority of the principles and practices discussed in the recommendations are either consistent with existing Defence procurement policy, practice or templates (such as the DPPM or the ASDEFCON templates) or will soon be incorporated as a result of the DPPM 1 December 2011 update and the Tender Evaluation Better Practice Guides. These principles and practices apply to all Defence procurement as described in the DPPM.
In relation to training staff in the practical application of these principles and practices, for a number of years DMO, on behalf of Defence, has been working to improve the content of Defence procurement training courses. In June 2011, CPP Branch, DMO Commercial Group, finalised the design and content of the Simple Procurement Refresher course in consultation with representatives from Defence Education and Training Development (DETD). Delivery of this training course is expected to commence in October 2011. CPP Branch and DETD are also finalising the design of the Complex Procurement Refresher course. Improving Defence procurement training courses will lead to more highly skilled procurement professionals.
Corrections to Senate Report
1. Paragraph 3.7 of the Senate inquiry report states:
'Preparation for re-tender
3.7 Defence commenced preparation for the re-tendering process in late 2009.
Two key stages—which are discussed below—were the establishment of the Air Transport Standing Offer Panel in November 2009, and the preparation and approval of the procurement strategy. Headquarters, 1st Joint Movement Group
(HQ 1JMOVGP), within the Joint Operations Command, was the area within Defence responsible for conducting the procurement. The Commanding Officer of 1 JMOVGP was Group Captain Robert Barnes. His superior officer was the Deputy Chief of the Joint Operations Command, Rear Admiral Ray Griggs.'
This is not factually correct. The command relationship is between CO 1 HQJMOVGP (ie Group Captain Barnes) and CJOPS. In practical terms, DCJOPS deals with day to day issues. While DCJOPS is a superior officer from a rank perspective, this is not in a direct line accountability sense. In addition, the paragraph implies that then RADM Griggs was GPCPT Barnes' superior officer throughout the whole process. This is not the case as then RADM Griggs did not arrive in headquarters until May 2010. RADM Griggs did not take over as DCJOPS until July2010 having spent the first 5 weeks as acting CJOPS. DCJOPS during November 2009 was AVM Greg Evans (although between November 2009 and July 2010 there were several DCJOPS primarily due to a run of ill health).
2. The Senate inquiry report refers in a number of places to 'Dr Raymond Bromwich'. Mr Bromwich does not hold a doctorate, and accordingly the report should be corrected so that he is referred to as 'Mr Raymond Bromwich'. The relevant references are as follows:
page 23, footnote 104
page 26, footnotes 119 & 120
page 27, footnote 126
page 57, paragraph 4.2 and footnotes 1,2 & 4
page 58, footnotes 9 & 10
page 59, footnotes 11 and 12 (twice)
page 60, footnotes 17,18, 19, 20, 21 and 23
page 71, footnotes 42 & 43
page 75, paragraph 5.32 and footnotes 68 & 69
page 115, footnote 16 Appendix 4
Appendix 5 (14 July)
Note: The Probity Plan for Projects is available from the Committee Secretariat .
SENATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE
PART II – INCIDENTS ONBOARD HMAS SUCCESS BETWEEN MARCH AND MAY 2009 AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
December 2011
RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 1 paragraph 7.85
The Committee recommends that:
The Committee requests that the IGADF, the Fairness and Resolution Branch and Defence Legal keep a written record of the notes taken during their separate examinations and also a record of the discussions held between them when producing their joint findings. The purpose in having these notes retained, is to ensure that they would be available to the Committee should it resolve to consider matters further.
The Committee notes that for a number of years it has expressed concerns about the standard of investigations undertaken by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service (ADFIS). The most recent revelation about significant deficiencies in this investigative service is most disturbing. The Committee suggests to ADFIS that the shortcomings identified in the investigations that took place relating to incidents onboard HMAS Success in 2009 should not be treated as an 'aberration'. In the Committee's view, they should be considered in light of the committee's 2005 findings and ADFIS' continuing attempts to improve its investigations. It should be noted that the committee found in 2005 that the ADF had 'proven itself manifestly incapable of adequately performing its investigatory function'.
The Provost Marshal, through the Minister for Defence, has been providing the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee with periodic updates on the progress of reforms to the investigative service.
Response - Agreed In Part
The Government agrees with the intent of Recommendation 1, but there are practical considerations that apply to its implementation.
With specific reference to the sub-recommendation regarding IGADF, Mr Gyles is scheduled to deliver Part 3 of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry in the near future.
Part 3 is focused on examining Defence inquiry processes and the relationship of inquiries with administrative or disciplinary procedures.
As well, a number of broader cultural reviews are taking place in Defence, many of which may have implications for inquiry arrangements, complaint handling mechanisms and the roles that legal officers play in those processes. These reviews include the Inspector General of the Australian Defence Force's review into the management of incidents and complaints within Defence, again expected to be released in the near future.
As these reviews are Defence wide, they will clearly examine issues beyond HMAS Success. Consequently, the Government considers that any further specific HMAS Success focused review conducted in isolation from these broader efforts will be a duplication of those other reviews, be unlikely to significantly advance matters, and may complicate the current reviews underway. This broader focus (beyond HMAS Success) of the reviews should incorporate those matters at the heart of HMAS Success as well as other Defence related procedural strengths and weaknesses.
With specific reference to the sub-recommendation that Fairness and Resolution Branch (FRB) review the Equity and Diversity (E&D) Health Check and subsequent processes, the Government considers that the FRB is not an appropriate or competent authority to examine ADF inquiry processes and related legal advice: no valid construct (FRB or otherwise) exists in Defence for the HMAS Success related E&D health check. It was a Navy creation at the time.
As the subsequent inquiry processes that resulted from the 'health check' were under the Defence Inquiry Regulations, being an integral part of the Military Justice system, these do not fall within FRB expertise. FRB had no role to play in the technical detail of the Administrative Inquiries processes for the ADF or in their application as they applied to HMAS Success or more broadly.
With specific reference to Defence Legal and in particular the sub-recommendation that Defence Legal examine the legal advice, in respect of HMAS Success, provided by legal officers to the senior Navy officers at that time, especially on initiating inquiries and procedural fairness, with a view to identifying any weaknesses, inconsistencies or errors in, and the overall quality of this advice, Mr Gyles has already identified the weaknesses and deficiencies in the legal advice provided at Fleet Headquarters in relation to HMAS Success. Remedial actions are being considered as an element of those legal related recommendations of Parts 1 and 2 of the Commission of Inquiry Report. The Government considers that further examination of this legal advice is unlikely to realise any additional benefit.
Further, the Government asks the Committee to note that in implementing the Gyles recommendations, which included the comment that Navy Legal lacked candour in the manner in which it provided legal advice in the HMAS Success matter, and that Navy Legal needs a jolt, the CDF has already ordered a review of the command and control arrangements for all ADF legal officers. This will examine their structural and organisational independence from command, particularly in the context of being free from perceptions of inappropriate command influence. This broader review will look at the potential systemic issues that led to the failings in the Fleet Legal legal advice and what, if any, structural and organisational changes may be needed to ensure, as far as possible, the independence of legal officers from command across the ADF.
With specific reference to the sub-recommendation that having carried out their respective examinations, the IGADF, the Fairness and Resolution Branch and Defence Legal jointly consider their findings and together identify what needs to be done to rectify problems; and by 1 December 2011, provide the committee with a report on their finding, the lessons to be learnt and their joint recommendations, as detailed above, the FRB does not have a role in the Administrative Inquiry process. Noting this, the forthcoming Part 3 COI report and broader cultural reviews being undertaken, the Government cannot commit to provide the Committee with a report by 1 December 2011.
Notwithstanding the comments made, the Government has indicated it agrees with the intent of Recommendation 1 and proposes to consider it following the receipt of Part 3 of Mr Gyles' report and in the context of the results arising from the various cultural reviews that are currently underway.
Recommendation 2 Paragraph 9.10
The Committee recommends that the Provost Marshal in his next update to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on progress in reforming ADFIS include the lessons learnt from the investigations into matters relating to HMAS Success. The Committee is not interested in individual performances but the systemic shortcomings that allowed the mistakes to occur and importantly to go undetected for some time.
Response - Agreed
The Government agrees with Recommendation 2 and the Provost Marshal Australian Defence Force will provide a formal response as an integral part of his Annual Report to CDF and subsequently will report to the Chair of the Senate Committee for Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
Government Response
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Final Report
Inquiry into the Operation of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006
The Government welcomes the Committee's Final Report, and recognises the Committee's contribution to the further development of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the Commonwealth public sector integrity system generally.
The Government's approach to preventing corruption is based on the premise that no single body should be responsible. Instead, a strong constitutional foundation (the separation of powers and the rule of law) is enhanced by a range of bodies and government initiatives that promote accountability and transparency. The Commonwealth bodies involved in preventing corruption include:
This distribution of responsibility is a great strength in Australia's approach to corruption because it creates a strong system of checks and balances.
The Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity's (ACLEI's) primary role is to investigate law enforcement-related corruption issues, giving priority to systemic and serious corruption. ACLEI also collects intelligence about corruption in support of the Integrity Commissioner's functions.
The Integrity Commissioner must consider the nature and scope of corruption revealed by investigations, and report annually on any patterns and trends concerning corruption in law enforcement agencies.
In its report the Committee has made a number of recommendations concerning the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the Commonwealth public sector integrity system generally.
In this context, the Government is pleased to respond to the Committee's recommendations.
Recommendation 1:
The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 be amended so as to establish a 'second tier' to the Act. Agencies with a law enforcement function included in this second tier would be subject to limited ACLEI oversight, under which the head of an agency, or the minister responsible for the agency, may refer a corruption issue, on a voluntary basis, for consideration by the Integrity Commissioner. The Integrity Commissioner should also have the power to commence an investigation or inquiry into a corruption issue in a second tier agency on his or her own initiative.
Noted
The Government will consider whether it is appropriate to expand ACLEI's jurisdiction to include additional agencies that perform law enforcement functions.
The establishment of the Integrity Commissioner to investigate corruption in Commonwealth law enforcement agencies is still relatively recent. ACLEI's jurisdiction was extended beyond the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to include the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (ACBPS) on 1 January 2011. Before considering the inclusion of new agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction, the Government considers that it is appropriate to allow 12 to18 months for ACLEI to consolidate its existing jurisdiction following the inclusion of ACBPS. That experience can then be used to properly inform any further expansion of ACLEI's functions.
All of the agencies nominated by the Committee for inclusion as tier two agencies are subject to the Public Service Act 1999 and as such are bound by the APS Values and Code of Conduct. These agencies also have existing internal and external corruption prevention and investigation measures.
Recommendation 2:
The committee recommends that ACLEI's second tier jurisdiction should initially comprise the Australian Taxation Office, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, CrimTrac, the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
Noted
See the response to Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 3:
The committee recommends that the operation of a second tier in the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and the list of agencies prescribed in that tier be reviewed two years after initial establishment. This review should include consideration of whether any tier two agencies may more appropriately be subject to tier one prescription. Similar reviews should subsequently be conducted at two year intervals.
Noted
See the response to Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 4:
The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 be amended so as to ensure that secrecy and confidentiality provisions pertaining to law enforcement agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction do not prevent the Integrity Commissioner from receiving information necessary to the investigation of a corruption issue.
Agreed
The Government agrees that secrecy and confidentiality provisions that apply to agencies within ACLEI's jurisdiction should not prevent ACLEI receiving necessary information. Secrecy provisions in the AFP and ACC legislation contain explicit exceptions to ensure relevant information can be made available to ACLEI.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment Act (No 2) 2011 authorises the disclosure of protected information under the Customs Administration Act 1985 for the purposes of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006.
Recommendation 5:
The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 be amended so that the period of appointment of the Integrity Commissioner may be extended once, beyond the five year period of appointment, for a period of up to two years by the Governor-General on recommendation of the Minister, with the approval of the committee. Any such extension to the period of appointment should apply only to a serving Integrity Commissioner and should be approved no less than three months before the expiry of the current period of appointment.
Agreed in part
The Government will introduce amendments to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to enable the initial sum period of appointment of the Integrity Commissioner to be extended beyond five years, for a further period of up to two years.
As the position of Integrity Commissioner is a statutory appointment made by the Governor-General, it is a matter for the executive Government and it is not appropriate for it to be subject to approval by the Committee.
Recommendation 6:
The committee recommends that the Integrity Commissioner, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Public Service Commissioner, the Auditor-General and the Attorney-General's Department develop a more detailed and comprehensive definition of corruption for the purposes of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. A proposed definition should be circulated for public consultation, including this committee, no later than November 2011.
Agreed in principle
The Government agrees that the definition of corruption must be clear and appropriate, noting that the definition has relevance beyond the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006. The Government accordingly agrees that the Attorney-General's Department will work with relevant agencies to clarify the definition of corruption for the purposes of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 and undertake public consultation on this issue.
The outcome of this work could be either guidance concerning the definition or an amendment to the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 to clarify the definition itself.
The development of an effective draft definition of corruption will require research and careful discussion of the issues that is likely to take several months.
Recommendation 7:
The committee recommends that ACLEI and the Australian Public Service Commission continue to collaborate in the development of ethics training provided to public servants to include corruption prevention using ACLEI's specialised experience and knowledge.
Agreed
The Government agrees that ACLEI and the Australian Public Service Commission collaborate as appropriate in the development of ethics training provided to public servants to promote the importance of appropriate behaviour, including avoidance of corrupt activity.
Recommendation 8:
The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 be amended so as to provide a mechanism by which the Public Service Commissioner, with the consent of the Integrity Commissioner, could request assistance, including on behalf of any head of a Commonwealth agency, in investigating a serious corruption issue. Such a request would be made after consideration of whether ACLEI's unique experience and powers meant that ACLEI could provide greater investigatory value than the Australian Federal Police. Furthermore, to avoid overburdening ACLEI to the detriment of its primary law enforcement focus, such an arrangement should be funded by the requesting agency.
Noted
The Government encourages agencies to share expertise and resources in appropriate circumstances. It is important to ensure that the core work of ACLEI in investigating corruption issues within law enforcement agencies is not adversely affected.
This recommendation has the potential to constitute an open-ended second tier of agencies that could be subject to ACLEI oversight. The Government considers that any extended role for ACLEI in assisting Commonwealth agencies more broadly might be most appropriately more in the nature of an advisory role, rather than an investigative role. The investigative role is appropriately discharged by the AFP.
Conferring a referral role on the Public Service Commissioner would add a layer of procedural complexity in most cases. The exception would be in those matters where the Public Service Commissioner was personally investigating the suspected misconduct of an agency head under section 41(1)(f) of the Public Service Act; in those instances the Public Service Commissioner would consult the AFP about the carriage of matters that raised potential issues of serious corruption.
Recommendation 9:
The committee recommends that the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006 be amended so as to include a 'more conveniently dealt with' clause that would enable the Integrity Commissioner to refer to the Commonwealth Ombudsman issues that are not, or through the course of investigation, it is discovered are not, corruption issues but which do relate to misconduct.
Noted
The Government notes that the Integrity Commissioner currently may provide information to the Commonwealth Ombudsman, where this is appropriate. The Attorney-General's Department will continue to liaise with the Integrity Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman to ensure that these existing arrangements remain suited to their purpose.
In general, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction in relation to misconduct in APS agencies. Allegations of suspected misconduct by an APS employee should always be passed to the relevant agency head. If the allegation concerns misconduct by an agency head, including failure to deal properly with misconduct by his/her employee(s), that is a matter that can only be inquired into by the Public Service Commissioner.
Recommendation 10:
The committee recommends that the Australian Government conduct a review of the Commonwealth integrity system with particular examination of the merits of establishing a Commonwealth integrity commission with anticorruption oversight of all Commonwealth public sector agencies, taking into account the need to retain the expertise of ACLEI in the area of law enforcement.
Noted
The Government's approach to preventing corruption is based on the premise that no single body should be responsible. Instead, a strong constitutional foundation (the separation of powers and the rule of law) is enhanced by a range of bodies and government initiatives that promote accountability and transparency. This distribution of responsibility creates a strong system of checks and balances.
The Government has undertaken and continues to undertake significant work to improve the Commonwealth integrity system. This work includes:
The Government considers it appropriate to implement these measures before considering whether any further review should be conducted, and notes that on the available evidence there is no convincing case for the establishment of a single overarching integrity commission.
Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Human Rights Sub-Committee Report:
Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: Challenges and opportunities
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that
The Government supports this recommendation and acknowledges the value of parliamentary representatives participating in bilateral human rights dialogues. It has been the practice of successive governments to invite representatives of the Australian Parliament (including members of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the JSCFADT) to participate in delegations.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade would be pleased to provide briefings to the Human Rights Sub-Committee on the outcomes of bilateral dialogues.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that AusAID adopt a human rights-based approach to guide the planning and implementation of development aid projects.
The Australian Government promotes and protects human rights through its aid program, including in the areas of gender, disability, good governance, health, education, and law and justice. While the Government does not label it a 'rights-based approach', human rights principles are integrated into the planning and implementation of development aid projects.
The Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, commissioned by the Australian Government in November 2010, released their report in April 2011. The report noted that Australia's aid program is 'rich in activities that advance Australia's commitment to human rights'. The Panel also saw an opportunity to improve clarity and communication about the links between the aid program and human rights.
The Government's response 'An Effective Aid Program for Australia' (July 2011) meets this challenge by incorporating human rights into one of its key development objectives:
Improving governance in developing countries to deliver services, improve security, and enhance justice and human rights for poor people; and to improve overall effectiveness in aid delivery in partnerships between host governments and aid agencies.
Many aspects of AusAID's current policies and activities are working to advance human rights within the Asia-Pacific region. For example:
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that in responding to the need to make progress in the region on embracing and implementing the universal human rights principles contained in the core human rights treaties, the Australian Government should review its current strategies, consult closely with key regional stakeholders, and consider work already being undertaken on this issue. This should include consideration of:
The Government supports, and will continue to implement, this recommendation.
The Government has various strategies for promoting increased ratification of, and adherence to, core human rights treaties: bilaterally (through representations, dialogues and the aid program), regionally (through support for regional organisations that promote human rights) and multilaterally (through the United Nations). These strategies are kept under review.
The Government acknowledges the importance of consultation and engagement with key stakeholders and continues to look for ways to seek stakeholder views effectively. In promoting human rights in the region, the Government works closely with non-government organisations (NGOs), National Human Rights Institutions, and relevant authorities. The Government also recognises the importance of ongoing human rights education in the Asia-Pacific region, which it pursues through programs such as the Australia Awards initiative (for further information please see response to recommendation 4).
Through its aid program, the Government currently provides targeted funding and technical support to a number of countries in the Asia-Pacific region to assist them to meet their international human rights treaty obligations. For example:
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government establish a scholarship fund to enable individuals from non-government organisations and civil society groups in Asia and the Pacific, who work in human rights or relevant fields, to attend approved human rights courses in Australia.
The Government supports this recommendation and is pleased to report to the Committee that it is already being implemented through programs such as the Australia Awards initiative and the Australian Leadership Awards Fellowships.
The Australia Awards initiative, funded from the aid program, provides scholarships (up to 3700 in 2014) for study in Australia largely at the postgraduate level, and professional development opportunities in developing countries and in Australia.
The Australia Awards provide opportunities to address needs across governments, the private sector, NGOs and civil society. Individuals from non-government organisations and civil society groups in Asia and the Pacific are eligible for the Awards and can undertake approved human rights courses and other human rights training in Australia. AusAID works closely with whole-of-government and development partners to encourage applications that focus on priority issues, including human rights. In 2009 and 2010, students from Nepal, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Vietnam were enrolled in human rights courses at Australian universities through AusAID-funded scholarships.
Since 2007, AusAID has funded five human rights-related programs through the Australian Leadership Awards (ALA) Fellowships. The Fellowships are designed to provide short-term opportunities for study, research and professional attachment programs in Australia delivered by Australian organisations. For example, Justice Equality Rights Access International Ltd (JERA International) received an award in 2010 to host 12 Fellows from the All China Women's Federation and Research Centre for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and the Peking University Law School for Human Rights.
Training is also provided to NGOs and civil society groups in developing countries under the Human Rights Grants Scheme. In 2009-10, seven grants were provided to train representatives from NGOs on human rights issues.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government appoint a special envoy for Asia-Pacific regional cooperation on human rights, to undertake consultations with countries in Asia and the Pacific, and report to the Government within 12 months. The special envoy should engage in discussion in the region on how Australia can best support regional approaches to the protection and promotion of human rights, and the redress for human rights violations in the Asia-Pacific. The special envoy's responsibilities should be determined by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, but could include:
The Government does not support this recommendation.
While recognising the desirability of greater regional cooperation on human rights, the Government notes that evidence presented to the Committee strongly cautioned against Australia being seen to be the driving force behind the establishment of a regional human rights mechanism. The Government considers that supporting practical, grassroots activities and initiatives is a more effective way to promote human rights in the Asia-Pacific. This is considered more likely to achieve broad support from countries in the region for human rights objectives.
The Government also notes that its network of Posts throughout the Asia-Pacific often perform a similar function to the one proposed for a Special Envoy on Human Rights, including providing advice on how Australia can support regional human rights initiatives. For example, the Australian embassies in Jakarta and Singapore provided extensive information and advice to Canberra over a number of months on the negotiations surrounding the formation of the ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR).
This advice informed Prime Minister Gillard's announcement in October 2010 at the ASEAN-Australia Summit in Hanoi that Australia would provide funding to support engagement between the Australian Human Rights Commission and AICHR so that the two Commissions could build strong linkages. In addition, Australian Heads of Mission regularly make representations on human rights concerns to foreign governments in the region and Posts routinely report to Canberra on human rights issues.
The Australian Government is pleased with the recent appointment of a Human Rights Adviser by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. The Government encourages and supports the human rights activities being undertaken by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the Regional Rights Resource Team (SPC/RRRT) of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, including their work to explore a regional, demand-driven human rights mechanism.
The Australian Government also supports the Pacific Islands Law Officers' Network (PILON) in complementing the Pacific Islands Forum's efforts to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in the region. PILON's initiatives and activities in this respect are coordinated through the PILON Secretariat. For example, PILON members were encouraged at the 2009 meeting to consider their own legislative frameworks for compliance with international human rights instruments. In 2010, the PILON Secretariat, temporarily based in the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department, coordinated and distributed to members a discussion paper on the implications of a regional human rights charter for the Pacific. The Australian Government will continue to participate in PILON human rights activities and initiatives, coordinated through the PILON Secretariat.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON TREATIES
REPORT 110: TREATIES TABLED ON 18, 25 (2) AND 26 NOVEMBER 2009 AND 2 (2) FEBRUARY 2010
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Recommendation 3: Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Australia to amend the Agreement concerning Space Vehicle Tracking and Communication Facilities of 29 May 1980, as amended
Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Minister for Foreign Affairs write to all other ministers to remind them that, when they are planning to enter into a treaty, they must factor in the agreed 15 to 20 sitting day timeframe for the Committee to conduct its inquiry.
The Government agrees with the Committee that requests for the expeditious consideration of a treaty should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Dr Craig Emerson MP, wrote to Ministers on 16 September 2011 to remind them of the need to factor in the 15 to 20 sitting day timeframe when tabling treaty actions.
Treaty tabling timeframes are also highlighted in the 2011 edition of Signed, Sealed and Delivered - Treaties and Treaty Making: Officials' Handbook. This handbook contains the domestic and international legal framework supporting treaties and sets out the steps involved in treaty making, including critical timelines and individual departments' and agencies' responsibilities. It is widely distributed and readily available to assist officials from all Commonwealth agencies. When dealing with line agencies about tabling treaties, Treaties Secretariat staff regularly reinforce the information regarding the importance of maintaining the timelines set out in Signed, Sealed and Delivered. The need to factor in the agreed timeframe for Committee inquiries and deliberations in respect of treaty actions is also emphasised in the annual Treaty Seminar conducted by the Treaties Secretariat of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
Recommendations 4-7: Extradition Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India and the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters
The Government thanks the Committee for its consideration of the Extradition Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India and the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations.
Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that new and revised extradition agreements should explicitly provide a requirement that the requesting country provide annual information concerning the trial status and health of extradited persons and the conditions of the detention facilities in which they are held.
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
The Committee suggests that implementing this recommendation would mitigate perceived risks resulting from the introduction of the 'no evidence' standard in Australian extradition practice in 1986. The Government does not consider that the removal of the prima facie case requirement is directly relevant to the question of human rights protections available to a person following his or her surrender to another country. An assessment of whether or not an application for extradition has met the prima facie standard of evidence is separate from consideration of post-extradition issues such as the person's trial status, health and conditions of detention.
Further, and more importantly, the Government considers that the most appropriate time at which to examine any potential human rights concerns is before extradition occurs. The extensive review process during extradition proceedings provides ample opportunity for any such concerns to be raised and investigated.
This approach is consistent with Australia's obligations under international human rights law and mirrors Australia's approach to considering the risk of human rights abuses before an individual is removed from Australia under the Migration Act 1958. It is also consistent with international extradition practice. It is likely that current and potential extradition partners would not be prepared to accept the inclusion of explicit monitoring obligations in extradition arrangements with Australia.
The extradition process in Australia includes extensive procedural safeguards. These safeguards are included in the Extradition Act 1988, as well as in bilateral treaties. For example, Article 4(3)(d) of the Extradition Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India provides for the refusal of an extradition request where the Requested State believes that the surrender is likely to have exceptionally serious consequences for the person whose extradition is sought, including because of the person's age or state of health. This is in addition to other internationally accepted grounds of refusal, such as where the death penalty may be imposed or where the Requested State has substantial grounds to believe that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's race, sex, religion, nationality or political opinion.
Further, as noted in the Government Response to Report 91 of the Committee, Australia has established monitoring mechanisms in relation to Australian nationals who have been extradited overseas. This monitoring is able to be conducted because of the consular rights provided for under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the resources provided to support Australia's consular network. The consular role reflects the Australian Government's particular responsibility for assisting its nationals while overseas.
Also consistent with the Government Response to Report 91, the Government has agreed to include additional information on persons extradited from Australia in the Annual Reports of the Attorney-General's Department, including information on:
extradition requests granted by Australia and the categories of the relevant offences by reference to the countries which made the request the number of Australian permanent residents extradited, and any breaches of substantive obligations under bilateral extradition agreements noted by Australian authorities.
Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that all Australians who are subject to extradition should receive a face to face meeting with an Australian consular official, except where the person has made explicit their objection to consular assistance to the satisfaction of consular officers.
The Government accepts this recommendation. Current Australian Government procedures ensure that, wherever practically and legally possible, consular officials visit Australians who are imprisoned overseas at least annually, and normally more frequently than this. In some limited circumstances, face to face meetings may not be practicable or necessary. For example, in a large country such as the United States where there are significant numbers of Australians imprisoned, they are widely dispersed and consular staff are familiar with the standard of prison conditions, consular assistance can be provided satisfactorily via regular telephone calls to the prisoner.
Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that, when a foreign national is extradited from Australia to a third country, the Australian Government formally advise the government of that person's country of citizenship that one of its nationals has been extradited from Australia to a third country.
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle. When foreign nationals are detained in Australia for the purposes of extradition, law enforcement officers will generally inform them that they are entitled to request that their consular authorities be informed of their detention, and consular authorities are entitled to visit and communicate with the person. In accordance with the constraints of disclosure of personal information under the Privacy Act 1988, the Government will only notify the extraditee's country of citizenship of their detention and extradition if the individual consents to the disclosure of personal information.
Recommendation 7: The Committee supports the Extradition Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India and the Treaty between Australia and the Republic of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and recommends that binding treaty action be taken.
The Government accepts this recommendation. Regulations have been made under the Extradition Act 1988 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987. The treaties entered into force on 20 January 2011.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate notes the reflections of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) on the President of the Senate, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard), the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig), Senator Boswell, the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate (Senator Joyce) and Senator Cash.
… it is necessary for the Senate to be protected from the corrupting influence of a senator negotiating a $1.6 million corporate donation for their party, which has led to questions being asked, points of order taken, and votes being cast in the interests of the donor.
I think your decision to effectively reject my application in the matters regarding Senator Boswell, Senator Cash and Senator Joyce was correct.
Members of the old guard have been heard referring to Brown as a 'megalomaniac'.
Angry Greens believe Senator Rhiannon set out to embarrass her leader over the privileges reference with a string of media releases and press conferences over donations and a notice of motion on lobbyists as the Senate vote loomed and in its aftermath … 'It's too much of a coincidence,' one Greens insider insisted.
We—
would have considered that a large donation from one person—considering we have worked very hard and in some ways we have led the campaign around political donations—may not have been wise for us.
but considers the call from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) to debate Australia's economy, and his proposals which would lead to a $70 billion deficit and extensive job losses, as a more appropriate matter for debate in the Opposition's private senators' time.
While both Brown and Rhiannon insist they work well together—and others attest to this—there is little love lost between them. "I know Bob doesn't like Lee and I know Lee doesn't like Bob," says one insider. In 2009, Brown opposed Rhiannon's nomination for the Senate, instead backing Kate Faehrmann, the then 39-year-old executive director of the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council, who went on to win election to the New South Wales upper house. "We need to be bringing new blood into the Greens. Those of us who came out of the 1980s have contributed a lot, but our job is becoming one of elder statespeople," Brown said in a pointed reference to Senator Rhiannon.
Almost none of Mr Wood's $1.6 million was spent in New South Wales. … The Greens New South Wales election campaign did not have any involvement in accepting this money or determining how it would be spent.
We, the New South Wales Greens, would have considered that a large donation from one person, considering we have worked very hard and in some ways we have led the campaign around political donations, may not have been wise for us.
They have poisoned Bob's image in New South Wales. They have made him out to be a centrist and trying to bully them and control everyone and take away the power of states' rights.
That Senator Cash's motion be amended to insert the following words after 'Senator Cash':
but considers the call from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) to debate Australia's economy, and his proposals which would lead to a $70 billion deficit and extensive job losses, as a more appropriate matter for debate in the Opposition's private senators' time.
An amendment must be relevant to the question to which it is proposed to be made.
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.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… options to improve the system for the funding of political parties and election campaigns, with particular reference to:
(a) issues raised in the Government’s Electoral Reform Green Paper - Donations, Funding and Expenditure, released in December 2008;
In Australia, as in other democracies around the world, the potential for large and undisclosed sums of money in election and campaign financing has become more and more a matter of concern to the public. Perceptions of the potentially distorting nature of large donations—either cash or other resources—to political parties will degrade the public’s trust in the integrity of the political process. These perceptions of possible influence need not be only concerns about potential undue influence in the narrow sense of how government decisions are made, but in a broader sense: concerns that parties and politicians dependent on large donors will be if not compliant, then at least receptive, or that large donors may get access that others do not.
The perception of undue influence can be as damaging to democracy as undue influence itself. It undermines confidence in our processes of government, making it difficult to untangle the motivation behind policy decisions. Electors are left wondering if decisions have been made on their merits.
Well it’s a frustration … When I took this role on I genuinely believed that the Government was going to take a different approach to mental health reform. They’d certainly made clear in opposition that they were determined to address the long standing problems in this area.
… after two years … it was pretty clear we were getting nowhere.
No. 25 of 2011-12— Administration of Project Wickenby: Australian Taxation Office; Australian Crime Commission; Australian Federal Police .
No. 26 of 2011-12— Capacity development Indigenous service delivery: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Department of Health and Ageing .
I am in the Craig thompson electorate of Dobell and I am horrified at the allegations about him. I feel the enquiry has taken far too long and it should be finalised and we should be told what is going on. I didn't vote for him and I and a lot of my friends in the area want this sorted out now. Julia Gillard has to answer the questions. I watched question time today and there were no questions answered again. We want answers.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) 5
(b) 0 (1 July to 29 August 2011)
(2) (a) 4
(b) 1
(3) Investigation 1: Section 13(3) and Section 13(11)
Investigation 2: Section 13(3)
Investigation 3: Section 13(3) and Section 13(11)
Investigation 4: Section 13(3) and Section 13(11)
(4) Penalties applied included:
1 reprimand
1 termination of employment
1 reduction in salary
1 resignation prior to sanction being imposed
(5) 0
(1) How many hours of the Western Australian Football League (WAFL) has the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcast in each of the following financial years and what was the production cost in each year:
(a) 2007-08;
(b) 2008-09;
(c) 2009-10; and
(d) 2010-11.
(2) How many hours of WAFL does the ABC plan to broadcast in each of the following financial years and what is the projected cost in each year:
(a) 2011-12;
(b) 2012-13; and
(c) 2013-14.
(3) Does the ABC have any formal plans to reduce the hours of broadcast of WAFL football.
(4) Does the ABC have any formal plans to stop the live telecast of WAFL games.
(5) If the ABC has no formal plans to reduce hours or stop live broadcasts, what discussions have occurred at management level about potential changes to WAFL broadcasting.
(6) What sporting events played in Western Australia, apart from the WAFL, does the ABC currently telecast on a regular basis.
(7) What local Western Australian sports will be broadcast by ABC television if WAFL is no longer broadcast live.
(8) How many hours of programming has the ABC produced in Western Australia in each of the following financial years and what was the production cost in each year:
(a) 2007-08;
(b) 2008-09;
(c) 2009-10; and
(d) 2010-11.
(9) How many hours of programming does the ABC expect to produce in Western Australia in each of the following financial years and what is the projected cost in each year:
(a) 2011-12;
(b) 2012-13; and
(c) 2013-14.
(1) The ABC has broadcast the following hours of the Western Australian Football League (WAFL) in each of the following financial years:
(2) The ABC negotiates sporting contracts on a regular basis. The ABC is presently in negotiation with WAFL with regard to the coverage of the 2012 and 2013 seasons.
(3) Please see response to (2) above.
(4) Please see response to (2) above.
(5) Please see response to (2) above.
(6) The ABC has recently televised the following events played in WA:
(7) Please see responses at (2), (4) and (6) above.
(8) Total amount of programming hours produced in WA in each financial year and the corresponding cost to the ABC was as follows:
Television Production Plans - Produced in WA - Forecast (including facilities)
Financial Year Total Hrs Total Forecast (Cash + Labour + Facilities - Revenue)
(9) The ABC is presently in negotiations with WAFL with regard to the coverage of the 2012 and 2013 seasons. ABC TV expects to commission a similar level of program hours across other genres as per 2011.
(1) What discussions were held by the Ministers and/or the Prime Minister, their offices or Departments with the Australian Men's Shed Association (AMSA) involving the appointment of Mr Andrew Stark as its Communications Manager.
(2) What funding has the AMSA received from the Government in the 2010-11 financial year and how much will it receive in the 2011-12 financial year.
(3) Was any of the funding provided to the AMSA on the basis that it would appoint a Communications Manager; if so, what were the reasons and proposed job description for the position; and was the department involved in the selection process.
(4) Has the Minister or Prime Minister provided a reference to Mr Stark; if so, can copies be provided of any written reference or notes from a call.
(1) The Minister for Health and the Minister for Indigenous Health have not had any discussions with the Australian Men's Shed Association (AMSA) about the appointment of Mr Andrew Stark. The Department of Health and Ageing did not hold any discussions with AMSA in relation to the appointment of Mr Andrew Stark prior to Mr Stark's appointment.
(2) Under the Funding Agreement with the Department of Health and Ageing, AMSA received $1,000,000 (GST Exclusive) for the 2010-11 financial year and will receive $1,000,000 (GST Exclusive) in the 2011-12 financial year. One quarter of total funding to AMSA is allocated to practical support for sheds through the Australian Government Shed Development Program.
(3) One of the requirements of the Funding Agreement was the recruitment of a National Marketing/Fundraising Manager to assist in securing future sustainability of AMSA to support men's sheds. The Department of Health and Ageing was not involved in the development of a job description or the selection process. Mr Stark was employed by AMSA as National Marketing, Fundraising and Communications Manager.
(4) The Minister for Health and the Minister for Indigenous Health have not provided any reference for Mr Stark.
(1) Has the department had any dealings with the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors (ABSA).
(2) Is the department aware of any concerns with ABSA.
(3) How does the department check the work of groups like ABSA in the delivery of programs like the Green Loans program and the mandatory disclosure in residential building scheme.
(4) Has the department received any complaints in relation to the conduct of ABSA.
(5) Does the department have any concerns with the conduct of ABSA.
(6) Can details be provided, including the program and date, of how much funding the ABSA has received from the department.
(1) Yes, the Department has had dealings with ABSA.
(2) ABSA was the sole and successful tenderer for the function of the Assessor Accrediting Organisation (AAO) under the Green Loans Program. Issues in relation to ABSA in this role were raised in the 2010 Independent Inquiry—Green Loans Program (Faulkner Review), Review of the Green Loans Program (Resolution Consulting), ANAO Performance Audit of the Green Loans Porgram and the Senate Inquiry into the Green Loans Program. The then Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, then responsible for the Green Loans Program, responded to issues raised in the Faulkner Review. The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency also responded to the Faulkner Review and ANAO audit. The Government responded to the Senate Inquiry. The documents mentioned above are available at:
(3) As an AAO under the Nationwide Home Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) Scheme, ABSA provides an annual report to the Department on how they meet the requirements of the NatHERS AAO Protocol (see www.nathers.gov.au/assessors/index.html)
(4) Please refer to Part (2).
(5) Please refer to Part (2).
(6) In 2011-12, ABSA has been contracted to complete two studies for the Department in relation to NatHERS:
(a) a scoping study on development of a common NatHERS certificate—$22,990 (incl GST); and
(b) development of a NatHERS software users guide—$48,500 (incl GST).
In regard to a joint media release issued on 6 July 2011, stating the Government's commitment to provide 'fair and appropriate supplementation' to help support any phased in pay increase, as a result of the Social and Community Sector equal pay case, will the Minister confirm that the Government will only provide a supplementation and not fully cover any costs of employers.
The Australian Government is committed to achieving pay equity for Australian workers.
The Government's funding commitment in the equal remuneration case for social and community services (SACS) workers was clarified on 10 November 2011 when the Prime Minister announced that the Government will provide over $2 billion, phased in over a six year period, to fund its share of any wage increases awarded by Fair Work Australia (FWA).
In announcing its commitment to provide supplementary funding, the Government has encouraged State and Territory governments to commit to funding their share of the cost flowing from any wage increase awarded in this case.
The Prime Minister also announced that the Government would put a joint submission with the Australian Services Union (ASU) and other applicant unions to FWA on appropriate pay rises for SACS workers. The joint submission was filed on 18 November 2011. If FWA agrees to this submission, it will deliver very significant pay rises for the SACS workers covered by the equal remuneration application.
The phased introduction proposed in the joint submission recognises the complex funding arrangements in the sector, which involve local, state and territory governments, not for profit organisations, commercial providers and the Commonwealth.
This will allow community sector organisations delivering Commonwealth-funded programs to pay the new rates, without reducing services to the community. The Government will also increase funding under Commonwealth-State agreements that cover social and community sector employees.
In regard to the debate on impact of negative gearing on the housing market at the recent Tax Forum:
(1) Did the temporary suspension of negative gearing during the Keating Government lead to an increase in rents across the country.
90 No. 60—1 November 2011
(2) What proportion of negatively geared properties are newly constructed rather than existing properties.
(3) Would the abolition of negative gearing lead to an ongoing decrease in the rate of return on investment property, or just a one-off fall in prices, and does the department have any estimate of the size of any price fall.
(4) Do any overseas countries allow negative gearing; if so, can a list be provided describing any relevant differences to the Australian situation.
(1) Press Release No. 87 of 15 September 1987 which announced the then Government's decision to remove restrictions in the tax law applying to the negative gearing of rental property investments suggested that the supply of rental accommodation was only one of the factors which led to the suspension of quarantining of rental losses.
The Press Release stated that the Government had conducted extensive reviews of interest deductions in respect of primary production investments and corporate share purchases. In both of these cases it was decided that, as a matter of principle, interest deductions should be permitted against income from any source. The quarantining of rental property investments was left as the only case of its type in the Australian tax system. As a consequence, investors tended to move out of rental property investments into other, unquarantined, forms of activity, dampening the growth in the provision of rental accommodation. It also meant that the revenue savings from the measure in 1986-87 ($11 million) was substantially less than the initial forecast of $55 million.
There was data available to Treasury such as tax returns data and changes to the 'privately-owned dwelling rents' sub-component of the CPI which indicated that investors were moving out of rental property investments.
Treasury has not undertaken further analysis on this issue.
(2) This data is not available to Treasury or the ATO.
(3) It would be difficult to quantify whether limiting the ability to offset rental losses against other income would lead to a decrease in the rate of return on investment property, or just a one-off fall in prices. The impact of changes to negative gearing on house prices is difficult to quantify because of a number of factors. These factors include the ratio of negative geared properties to owner occupied housing; the extent to which the benefit provided by negative gearing is reflected in housing prices or whether the benefits are shared with renters through the provision of lower rents; and a range of other factors which impact on housing supply and interest rates.
The 2009 Review into Australia's Future Tax System found that while their proposed reforms to taxes could play a significant role in addressing housing affordability, other policies are likely to be more significant such as removing impediments to housing supply (Report to the Treasurer (page 420)).
As noted by the Review, the increase in house prices that occurred around the start of the decade was attributed by the Productivity Commission (2004) and the Reserve Bank (2003) primarily to strong growth in demand. This demand reflected a range of factors, including growth in average household incomes, increased credit availability, and relatively low interest rates. In the short term, when housing supply is relatively fixed, price increases are an inevitable response to strong demand (Report to the Treasurer (page 414)).
The Review also noted that sustained high levels and strong growth of housing prices are only possible when housing supply cannot increase to meet movements in demand. It recommended that COAG should place priority on a review of institutional arrangements (including administration) to ensure zoning and planning do not unnecessarily inhibit housing supply and housing affordability (Report to the Treasurer (page 422)). This recommendation has been accepted by the Government.
There are other factors that influence the price of housing which make it difficult to quantify the effect of removing or reducing the benefits of negative gearing would have on housing prices including:
- other taxes including the exemption of owner-occupied housing from the personal income tax and the capital gains tax system, stamp duties on housing transactions, GST on the price of supplying new housing, council rates and land taxes; and;
- infrastructure charges which are poorly implemented or designed.
(4) It can be difficult to compare taxation arrangements across jurisdictions. Australia's taxation system is generally more favourable towards leveraged investments, in particular housing, compared to other investments. In addition to negative gearing, a 50 per cent CGT discount is also available on the disposal of rental property. Capital gains on the sale of a person's main residence are typically exempt and the implicit value of rental services provided by owner-occupied does not form part of the occupier's assessable income. The effect of inter-country differences in these and other variables (such as tax rates and the deductibility provisions) cannot be determined.
Below is an outline of the ability to claim a tax deduction for loans used to purchase investment properties in some comparable overseas jurisdictions:
Given that mining towns in the Pilbara region of Western Australia
have some of Australia's highest rents and costs of living; how are the social impacts of the proposed Browse liquefied natural gas (LNG) precinct at James Price Point near Broome to be addressed, in particular, ensuring that:
(a) housing costs for Broome residents, which are already high, will not be
inflated to unaffordable levels by an influx of persons associated with the
Browse LNG precinct;
(b) small businesses do not suffer the unsustainable wage inflations which are usual in other Western Australian mining towns; and
(c) Broome residents will have adequate access to community services, such as hospitals and doctors.
The Western Australian Government has primary responsibility for planning matters associated with major development proposals such as the Browse LNG precinct near Broome.
The Australian Government is currently working with the Western Australian Government on a strategic assessment of the Browse LNG Precinct proposal under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). This will include an assessment of the short and longer term environmental, economic and social impacts associated with the project. Under the EPBC Act, the Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is required to consider any potential impacts on matters of national environmental significance. The Minister will also take into account the principles of ecologically sustainable development in making a decision on whether to approve an action or class of actions in relation to the proposed Browse LNG project.
The Commonwealth, state and local governments all have a role in the provision of community services to the residents of the Shire of Broome. For example, the Commonwealth Government, through the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) funds service providers to deliver a range of community, family and individual support programs. To date in 2011-12, FaHCSIA has committed funding of around $12 million to a range of services in the Shire of Broome and over $50 million across the Kimberley region of Western Australia, including almost $30 million for Community Development Employment projects, around $1 million for Family Relationship Centres and approximately $6.4 million for municipal services.
As Broome is recognised as an area of workforce shortage it also qualifies for a number of Australian Government programs to improve access to health services. This includes the General Practice Rural Incentives Program that aims to encourage medical practitioners to relocate to and practise in rural and remote communities. Medical practitioners relocating to Broome may be eligible for a Rural Relocation Incentive Grant of up to $60,000.
In addition, the Australian Government is funding a number of specific initiatives to improve local health services in Broome. This includes providing $7.9 million in 2009-10 from the Health and Hospital Fund to construct a 12 bed paediatric unit at the redeveloped Broome Regional Resource Centre and $16.9 million in 2011-12 to upgrade and expand the Broome Hospital.
(1) Can details be provided of how many girls aged 17 or under have entered Australia on partner visa or prospective spouse visa over the past 5 years, including their country of origin.
(2) Has the Government conducted a review of the visa criteria or conditions in light of concerns raised by child safety campaigners.
(3) Does the Government conduct any regular follow up of the on-going welfare of under-age women who have entered Australia for the purpose of marriage.
(4) Has the Government sought legal advice on whether the issuing of visas to 'child brides' contravenes domestic marriage laws.
(5) Is the Government aware of any marriages conducted in connection to a prospective spouse visa which have required special permit from an Australian court for the marriage of a minor.
(6) What steps does the department take on a case-by-case basis to be satisfied that applicants can demonstrate their genuine and ongoing partner relationship with their sponsoring partner.
(1) In the last 5 years, the Department granted 207 Prospective marriages visas to 17 year old applicants. All but a few of these were women. The table below shows their nationalities.
No Prospective marriage visas were granted to applicants under the age of 17.
In relation to Partner visas, preliminary analysis of the data indicates that approximately 13 visas were granted overseas and two were granted in Australia to applicants under the age of 18 but over the age of 16. Their nationalities are as follows:
(2) The Department has not conducted any specific reviews of the visa criteria or conditions, nor have any child safety campaigners approached the Department directly with any concerns. However, the Department has measures in place to protect the welfare of minor applicants, which include refusing visa grant in cases where the sponsor has a conviction for a registrable offence.
(3) The Department does not conduct any regular follow up of the on-going welfare of women under the age of 18 who have entered Australia as holders of a Partner or Prospective Marriage visa. All new migrants are, however, given access to information about legal services through a number of products managed by the Department. Of particular relevance to Partner migrants is the Beginning a life in Australia booklet, which contains information about services in Australia. It also contains information about criminal offences and legal rights. This booklet is currently available on the Department's website in 37 community languages. In addition to the above, holders of Partner or Prospective Marriage visas also have access to services under the Settlement Grants Program administered by the Department. Services include information provision and casework services as well as referral to mainstream agencies following an assessment of individual needs.
(4) The Migration Act explicitly states that a marriage will only be recognised under migration legislation if it is recognised as valid under the Marriage Act 1961. In a similar way, in order to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Prospective Marriage visa, there must be no impediment to the proposed marriage in Australian law. This means it must be demonstrated that the visa applicant and their sponsor will be aged 18 or over when the intended marriage will occur. Alternatively, if either the applicant for a Prospective Marriage visa or his or her prospective spouse is under 18 at the time of the proposed marriage, a Judge or magistrate must have made an order under section 12 of theMarriage Act 1961 authorising the marriage.
(5) The Government is not aware of any marriages conducted in connection to a Prospective marriage visa which have required a special permit from an Australian court for the marriage of a minor.
(6) A range of legislative measures and risk profiling tools are available to case officers to ensure integrity in the Partner and Prospective Marriage visa programs and minimise any potential abuse. These include:
Sponsorship limitations on repeat sponsors;
A two stage process for Partner visa applicants where the couple must demonstrate that they have continued to be in a genuine relationship for at least two years after the Partner visa application was lodged;
A requirement that the applicant and sponsor provide evidence to support their claims, including statutory declarations from third parties;
A range of options to further investigate claims, including document verification, interviews with sponsors and applicants, home visits and evidence that a Notice of Intended Marriage has been lodged with an authorised marriage celebrant in the case of a Prospective Marriage visa application;
Risk matrices developed by the individual posts to assist the determination of the level of risk associated with an application; and
Where an application includes a person under the age of 18, the sponsor is required to provide police clearances.
(1) When was the Minister first made aware of the Tasmanian Government's decision to cut $58.1 million out of elective surgery over the next 3 years.
(2) Given that more than 100 hospital beds are closing in Tasmania as a result of these elective surgery cuts, what, if any, guarantees have been sought and provided that the new 195 overnight beds as part of the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment will be fully staffed.
(3) Given that the Tasmanian Government has clearly breached the National Health Reform Agreement with their cuts to elective surgery, what actions will the Federal Government be taking to enforce compliance with that agreement.
(1) On Friday 30 September 2011, the office of the previous Minister for Health and Ageing was informed that Tasmania would make an announcement on 4 October 2011. The details were advised on 4 October 2011.
(2) While the Tasmanian Government is responsible for the operation of the Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH), under the terms of the Project Agreement for the Redevelopment of Royal Hobart Hospital the Tasmanian Government is required to support the delivery of improved and efficient health care services to all of Tasmania through the redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital including 195 new overnight, on-campus beds (increasing capacity from 371 to 566 beds). This expansion is due for completion in mid-2016
(3) The Commonwealth is continuing to consider a range of options.
With reference to the Minister's announcement on 2 November 2011, regarding a new accreditation scheme for 457 visa applications:
(1) How many additional staff: (a) have been employed or will be employed to work in this area; and (b) will be required to manage this accreditation process.
(2) What is the process to determine if a company meets the criteria set out for accreditation?
(3) Who ultimately decides if a company receives accreditation?
(4) Is there an avenue of appeal if a company applies for, but is refused, accreditation?
(5) How does a company satisfy the requirements for accreditation?
(6) Can a company re-apply to receive accreditation once their application has been refused?
(7) How will the department monitor compliance with the accreditation scheme?
(8) What other visa classes have expedited processing in place (i.e. Enterprise Migration Agreements etc).
(9) What percentage of visa applications submitted to the department will now have the possibility of consideration under expedited processing.
(10) What will happen in regard to the length of time of any existing sponsorship arrangements in place under a 457 visa.
(11) Are visa holders required to lodge a new application; if so, when and what are the public policy reasons behind this decision.
(12) What gains and improvements does the department hope this expedited processing will make i.e. reduction of 457 visa processing times.
(1) Existing Subclass 457 visa processing officers in the five processing centres will assess and decide applications for accreditation. The existing Subclass 457 visa policy section in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's national office will manage the policy settings for the accreditation scheme.
No additional staff have been engaged to assess applications for the accreditation scheme or manage the accreditation process.
(2) In order to qualify for accredited status, a business must first meet all the requirements for standard business sponsorship.
A business which meets the requirements for standard business sponsorship may, at the same time, seek to be approved for 'accredited status'.
To be approved for accredited status, the processing officer must be satisfied that the business:
(3) Subclass 457 visa processing officers will assess and decide all applications for sponsorship accreditation as delegates of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
(4) There is no avenue to appeal a decision to refuse a request for accredited status.
Businesses whose request for accredited status is refused, however, may still be approved as a standard business sponsor if they meet the requirements for approval as a standard business sponsor.
If a business makes an application for approval as a standard business sponsor and is refused, they may seek merits review of this decision with the Migration Review Tribunal.
(5) Together with meeting all of the requirements for standard business sponsorship, a business must demonstrate that they meet all of the additional characteristics for sponsorship accreditation detailed in the response at question two. The business may demonstrate it meets the additional characteristics by completing the relevant questions on form 1196S 'Sponsoring overseas employees to work temporarily in Australia' (or its electronic equivalent) and providing supporting documentary evidence.
(6) Yes, the refusal of a request for accredited status does not prevent any future applications.
(7) If a sponsor is approved for accredited status but does not maintain the characteristics outlined in the response to question two, accredited status can be revoked. This means the sponsor will revert to standard business sponsorship status and no longer receive priority processing. The validity length of the sponsorship cannot be changed, and will remain at six years.
Sponsors with accredited status are subject to the monitoring regime which applies to standard business sponsors. All sponsors are required to comply with a series of 'sponsorship obligations'.
The Department has monitoring officers and inspectors based in sponsor monitoring units around Australia who are responsible for monitoring compliance with the sponsorship obligations. Sponsors who are found to have not complied with the sponsorship obligations may be barred from using the program or have their approval as a sponsor cancelled. In addition, sponsors may be subject to civil penalties for egregious non-compliance.
(8) The department has committed to process all Subclass 457 visa applications for positions in the resources sector in five days, provided the application is complete on submission. This commitment will also apply to complete visa applications submitted in association with EMAs.
The current median processing time for a Subclass 457 visa is 19 days, which is 39 per cent faster than in 2006-07.
Further to this, different classes and subclasses of visas have processing arrangements in place which provide for certain applications to be processed as a higher priority than others. For example:
Apart from these formalised arrangements, particular cases may be given a higher priority where there is a demonstrated compelling or compassionate circumstance.
(9) The Subclass 457 visa program is entirely demand driven, and as such the department cannot predict how many businesses may, in the future, apply for accredited status and how many visa applications will be made in association with sponsors who are approved for accredited status.
(10) Standard business sponsors are approved for a period of three years. Sponsors who are approved for accredited status will be approved for a period of six years.
The length of the sponsorship agreement has no bearing on the length of the Subclass 457 visa granted to persons sponsored by the business. A Subclass 457 can be granted for a maximum of four years.
(11) Subclass 457 visa holders are not required to lodge a new visa application if their sponsor seeks, or is approved, for accredited status.
(12) With a median processing time for all applications of 19 days, processing times for 457 visa applications are already at historically low levels. The benefit of the scheme is that sponsors with a demonstrated record of compliance with migration and workplace relations laws will receive the best possible processing times for nominations and visa applications lodged in association with their sponsorship.
As those sponsors who are likely to be approved for accredited status are sponsors who use the program frequently and have a good record of compliance, most will already be receiving expeditious processing. The implementation of the accreditation scheme means that these sponsors can seek formal recognition of their excellent track record, entitling them to priority processing.
In regard to the alleged incident at Curtin Immigration Detention Centre, that resulted in a female security guard being found semi-conscious suffering head injuries requiring hospital treatment on 2 November 2011:
(1) Can the department confirm the details surrounding this incident?
(2) At what time was the guard discovered and by whom?
(3) Where was the guard located?
(4) Can the minister confirm that there was a fire burning in a nearby washing machine?
(5) What was used to start the fire?
(6) At what time were the various chain of command posts notified?
(7) When was the Minister's office notified?
(8) When were the police and/or ambulance notified?
(9) What treatment was provided on site?
(10) At what time did the ambulance transport the guard to Derby Hospital?
(11) What treatment was provided at Derby Hospital?
(12) What investigations are being undertaken into the matter and who is investigating, is it:
(a) Serco;
(b) the department; and/or
(c) the Australian Federal Police.
(13) Has the attacker and /or attackers been identified?
(14) What action has or will be taken against the perpetrators of the assault?
(15) How long was the guard in Derby Hospital?
(16) Was the guard able to return to work following the incident?
(1) At 3:20am Australian Western Standard Time (AWST) on the morning of 2 November 2011, a female Serco officer was heard over the radio by other Serco officers saying, “put it down”. Serco officers initiated an immediate search in response to the radio transmission, noting that a fire alarm had been activated in the laundry room in the Foxtrot building. The female Serco officer was found on the ground of the laundry room in a semi-conscious state and appeared to have sustained a blow to her right cheek. A small fire was also observed in one of the washing machines and was immediately extinguished. The female Serco officer received immediate medical treatment at the site of the incident and was subsequently taken to the medical clinic at the Curtin IDC. She was transferred to the Derby Hospital shortly after for further treatment and observation.
(2) The female Serco officer was found at 3:22am AWST on the morning of 2 November 2011 by other Serco officers.
(3) The female Serco officer was located on the ground of the laundry room in the Foxtrot building.
(4) A small fire was found alight in one of the washing machines in the laundry room.
(5) A toilet roll, orange peels and pistachio nuts were found at the site of the fire and appear to have been used to light the fire.
(6) Notification of chain of command occurred at:
(7) A situation report on the incident was sent via email to the Minister's staff at 7:01am, AEST, on the morning of 2 November 2011.
(8) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) Operations Coordination Centre was verbally advised of the incident via telephone at 7:36am AWST on 2 November 2011. Written advice was subsequently provided to the AFP at 10:34am AWST on 2 November 2011. An ambulance was not required to attend the Curtin IDC.
(9) The female Serco officer was treated immediately at the scene of the incident and subsequently transferred to the medical clinic for further assessment.
(10) The female Serco officer was transported to the Derby Hospital at approximately 3:50am AWST by Serco. An ambulance was not required to attend the facility.
(11) The treatment provided to the female Serco officer by the Derby Hospital has not been disclosed to the department for privacy reasons.
(12) The incident was referred to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The AFP sent officers to the Curtin IDC on 3 and 5 November to examine the crime scene and conduct an investigation into the incident. The AFP investigation into this matter is ongoing.
(13) The investigation by the AFP is ongoing. Any questions in relation to the investigation should be referred to the AFP.
(14) The investigation by the AFP is ongoing. Any questions in relation to the investigation should be referred to the AFP.
(15) The female Serco officer was transported to the Derby Hospital at approximately 3:50am AWST and was discharged from the hospital at 5:30am AWST on 2 November 2011.
(16) The female Serco officer returned to work at the Curtin IDC on 4 November 2011.
With reference to the answer to question no. 64 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:
(1) Given that the response noted that the media unit consists of 24.3 full-time equivalent staff, of which eight are in the 24 hour, 7 day per week Media Team (24/7 Media Team), can an explanation be provided as to the business requirement to keep such a large media unit.
(2) What sort of tasks are expected of the 24/7 Media Team.
(3) Is there a shift-work allowance for the 24/7 Media Team; if so: (a) can a description be provided as to how it operates; and (b) how much is paid annually in shift allowances.
(4) How many people are 'on call' outside hours at any particular time.
(5) How much of the Communications and Media Unit's workload is:
(a) devoted to dealing with various issues i.e. irregular maritime arrivals, drug hauls at borders etc; and (b) spent on 'positive promotion' of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service and how much is spent on 'crisis management'.
In October 2011, the paid FTE for the Communication and Media unit was 22.0.
The breakdown of those staff by classification is as follows:
The communication and media function within Customs and Border Protection includes two separate sections – the Communication Section and the Media Section is currently headed by a CL5 officer. Both sections are part of the Corporate Governance and International Strategy Branch which is headed by a SES Band 1.
The Communication Section consists of four small teams. Each team consists of 2-3 staff dedicated to each Program within the Agency, that is Border Enforcement, Passenger and Trade Facilitation and Corporate Operations as well as Digital and Online Communication. The Digital and Online Communication team also provides an in-house graphic design function.
The Communication Section is responsible for providing strategic (internal and external) communication advice to the organisation including:
The Media Section consists of six staff and is responsible for:
The media team is staffed from Monday to Friday from 7.00am until 6.30pm. On-call arrangements are in place from 6.30pm until 7.00am, Monday to Friday and from 6.30pm Friday until 7.00am Monday. There is only one officer on-call at any time and the officer is generally at the CL3 or CL2 level. However, they are provided support by a CL4 or the CL5 officer during on-call hours.
The on-call officer is paid a restriction allowance for the on-call hours, is able to access either time-in-lieu or overtime for hours worked outside of regular hours.
The restriction allowance approximately $300 per week for a CL2 and $340 for a CL3. Staff from both the Media and Communication section are available for on-call duty.
In regard to the Crisis Coordination Centre (CCC):
(1) Has Emergency Management Australia (EMA) increased in size to provide the 20 officers manning the CCC, or has this been manned from existing resources.
(2) Are all elements of the CCC ready-to-go or is there a particular functionality that is yet to become operational.
(3) To what extent does the Parliament House Briefing Room duplicate the functionality of the CCC.
(1) EMA has not increased in size to staff the CCC. The CCC is staffed from existing resources.
During the Steady State the CCC operates with approximately 22 AGD officers (business hours) and six shift staff (after hours). The Steady State refers to periods of time when the CCC is not responding to a specific major incident, however continuous monitoring and assessment of all-hazards both nationally and internationally is maintained.
The Crisis State refers to when a major incident has occurred or is emerging and a CCC incident team is stood up to coordinate Australian Government actions. The CCC has been established to manage up to three concurrent incidents at a time and can house approximately 100 officers from the Australian Government or states and territories. Any relevant Australian Government or jurisdictional agency can be represented within the CCC with incident teams tailored to respond to the actual event/s.
(2) All elements of the CCC are active; there is no particular functionality that is yet to become operational.
(3) The new facility that houses the CCC has been designed to provide more physical space for Australian Government and state and territory officials to work together, to allow better connectivity back to those official's home agencies and appropriate systems to coordinate information of all classifications. The new facility provides a direct link to the Parliament House Briefing Room (PHBR) and direct connectivity to First Ministers' Departments through the telepresence suite and other secure video teleconferencing connections.
The PHBR provides the Prime Minister and Cabinet access to ICT systems of all classifications and videoconferencing capabilities, which allow for remote participation in meetings, the participation of state and territory First Ministers, relevant Australian Government agencies and with diplomatic posts and selected foreign leaders. The PHBR is supported by the CCC during domestic incidents.
The CCC develops briefing and decision support materials of all classifications including Geospatial information. This can be transferred to the PHBR via a number of ICT systems that connect the two facilities. The PHBR is also supported by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) crisis management arrangements during international incidents and the Department of Defence for military led operations.
With reference to the Prime Minister's joint media release of 17 October 2011 with the Acting Premier of Queensland, 'Queensland communities boosted by continued reconstruction investment':
(1) As the Minister who administers the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangement framework through the 'long standing natural disaster arrangements' referred to in this media release, where in the budget will the
'more than $1.1 billion' in funding announced for the Darling Downs and South West come from.
(2) Is this funding, that would have been provided anyway, under existing arrangements, or is this a new policy commitment.
(3) Will the Strengthening Grantham initiative be funded out of the department or elsewhere.
(4) Why was Grantham identified as requiring a special appropriation for this initiative and what role did the department play in identifying Grantham.
(5) Were any other sites identified as potential recipients of this kind of project; if so, which sites were considered and why were they rejected.
(6) Are there other towns across Australia that were identified as being worthy of this kind of relocation initiative; if so, does the Government intend to fund similar projects in other towns.
(1) The $1.1 billion announced on 17 October 2011 will be funded under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA). NDRRA funding has been appropriated in the 2011-12 budget and forward estimates.
(2). The intent of the NDRRA is to support State and Territory governments in their relief and recovery efforts as well as provide financial assistance to restore essential public assets damaged by an event. This funding is not a new policy commitment.
(3) The Strengthening Grantham initiative will be funded under NDRRA. Funding has been appropriated in the 2011-12 budget and forward estimates.
(4) A special appropriation was not made for the Strengthening Grantham initiative. Funding was provided under the NDRRA. The Department played no role in identifying Grantham for the relocation initiative.
(5) The identification and promotion of disaster resilience projects is primarily the responsibility of the State and Territory governments. The Government has not received any other requests to fund similar projects in other towns under the NDRRA.
(6). Refer to answer for question 5.
In regard to the spectrum for public safety agencies:
(1) What advice has the department received on the feasibility of providing the 800MHz band to public safety agencies instead of the 700MHz band and can a copy of this advice be provided; if not, why not.
(2) How will the 850-870 portion of the 800MHz band be cleared of the current tens of thousands of narrowband users and over what timeframe.
(3) Why do the terms of reference of the Government's Public Safety Mobile Broadband Steering Committee not allow it to consider both the 700MHz and 800MHz spectrum for public safety before it reports in the first half of 2012.
(1) The Attorney-General's Department has actively participated in the Public Safety Mobile Broadband Steering Committee, which has been tasked with providing an implementation plan and business model for a nationally interoperable mobile broadband capability for public safety agencies, and the potential for a possible allocation of spectrum from the 800 MHz band in this regard.
Information on the suitability of 800 MHz band spectrum in support of deploying this capability has been provided to the Steering Committee by the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE), the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) and the consulting firm engaged by the Steering Committee, Gibson Quai-AAS. A Fact Sheet prepared on this topic by DBCDE is available from:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/139120/Fact_sheet_3-700_MHz_v_800_MHzSuitability_for_Australian_public_safety_use.pdf.
(2) The Attorney-General's Department does not have portfolio responsibility for spectrum allocation and/or management. A Fact Sheet prepared on this topic by DBCDE is available from:
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/139128/Fact_sheet_7-800_MHz_band_spectrum-review_and_allocation_process.pdf.
(3) The terms of reference for the multijurisdictional Public Safety Mobile Broadband Steering Committee allow for consideration of both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz spectrum for public safety agencies and its report to the Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management will include consideration of this issue.
In regard to Emergency Management Australia briefings to state and territory emergency services agencies:
(1) What sort of information is being provided in these briefings and can copies of any material be provided; if not why not.
(2) Has the department received any feedback on these briefings; if so, can copies of such feedback be provided; if not, why not.
(3) Do the briefings include any information about Emergency Alert, particularly in light of the issues in the recent use of Emergency Alert in the Mitchell chemical fire in the Australian Capital Territory.
(1) The Pre-Season briefings were conducted in each State and Territory over the period 30 September 2011 to 14 October 2011. The Director General of Emergency Management Australia chaired the briefing and led discussion on the Australian Government arrangements including timely Australian Government assistance to jurisdictions. Support is achieved through effective service delivery coordinated through the Australian Government Crisis Coordination Centre and working within the
Australian Government Crisis Management Framework. Discussion also included the importance of information sharing, the deployment and utilisation of Liaison Officers and joint planning and prioritising of resources. Included in the briefing was updated information on the provision of financial assistance under the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment and the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.
Australian Government agencies involved in the Pre-Season briefings were the Bureau of Meteorology, Geoscience Australia, Department of Human Services and the Department of Defence.
The Bureau of Meteorology provided an overview of the weather outlook for the relevant jurisdictions and included an Australian weather outlook highlighting the prospect of a return of La Nina which in turn will increase the likelihood of higher than expected rainfall, increase chances of cyclones and severe storms.
Geoscience Australia provided an overview of the mapping capability available and the services which could be offered during an event. The ability to provide emergency service agencies services information such as baseline geographic information, hazard detection alerting products (Sentinel hotspots, earthquake and tsunami alerts), disaster mapping and impact analysis (event specific exposure data and modelling) was highlighted.
Humans Services informed of the current processes in place for the provision of services to the community in relation to assistance during significant events. The delivery of a range of Australian Government disaster recovery payments and services to individuals and communities affected by domestic and off-shore events, which includes: Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, Funeral / Memorial Assistance, Income Recovery Subsidy and Social Work / Case Management Assistance.
The Australian Defence Force presented information on the arrangements currently in place for the provision of assistance by Defence during times of emergencies. Information was also provided on tasks that Defence can undertake during emergency response (lift and mobility, communications, situational awareness, coordination, shelter, health and welfare, weight of numbers).
This year's briefings included facilitated scenario-based discussion exercises between Emergency Management Australia, Defence and the states and territories. These exercises were used to refine communication and information sharing arrangements, identify capacity constraints in the most common types of emergencies if concurrent major disasters struck and identify likely support that would be requested of the Commonwealth.
The presentations delivered can be provided, but would be better suited if delivered as part of a briefing.
(2) Jurisdictions have provided verbal feedback following the briefings, indicating that they were well received. There is a consensus that yearly pre-season briefings provide a useful vehicle to share information between jurisdictional and Australian Government agencies.
(3) The briefings are about the provision of services and support from Australian Government to jurisdictions during emergency events and for jurisdictions to discuss their capability for response. Jurisdictions briefed on their various methods of communicating with the public and their awareness campaigns, but Emergency Alert was not specifically discussed at these presentations.
In regard to breaches of model litigant rules (MLR):
(1) What processes does the department have to monitor all Commonwealth litigation to ensure that agencies comply with the MLR.
(2) What is the cost of monitoring compliance with the MLR.
(3) When were the MLR last reviewed and by whom.
(4) Can a copy of the review report be provided, if one exists.
(5) Why did the department fail to include key data on breaches of the Legal Services Directions (LSD) in its 2010-11 annual report, and was this:
(a) an administrative oversight and at what level in the department; or
(b) a conscious decision and at what level and for what reason.
(6) In relation to the 2010 and 2011 release of the breaches of the LSD data which the Attorney-General made in August 2011, is the department concerned about any trends that appear to be forming.
(7) Can a breakdown be provided of the data into the breaches of the LSD, including what the breach was for and how many of the breaches related to agencies failing to act as model litigants.
(8) Why did the most recent release of the LSD breaches data not include data on the 'still under investigation' category.
(9) In relation to the criticism in the Denlay v FCT case which was decided in the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland in 2010: (a) what lessons have been learnt in relation to taking steps towards bankruptcy against a taxpayer engaged in objecting to an Australian Taxation Office (ATO) assessment; and (b) does the department's area with responsibility for MLR outcomes have an involvement in the prosecution of such cases; if so, did it challenge the course taken by the ATO.
(10) In relation to the decision by Edmonds J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and Metcash (August 2011): (a) what action has been taken by the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner and/or the ACCC in relation to the judge's comment that certain government witnesses gave 'unreliable evidence'; and (b) does this comment alone constitute a breach of the MLR; if so: (i) what investigation has occurred and with what results, and (ii) what was the cost of this case to the Commonwealth.
(11) Given that the MLR procedures refer to certain sanctions for breaches of the MLR: (a) what are these sanctions; and (b) how many times have the sanctions been imposed.
(12) For all MLR breaches in the 2010-11 financial year, can a breakdown be provided by agency and/or department, along with the action and/or outcome.
(13) Do departments and agencies each appoint an MLR contact person so that that person can independently assess whether all available evidence has been handed over to the party against whom an agency might be taking legal action; if so, with what effect; if not, has this been considered.
(14) Can a breakdown be provided, by case, of the costs for each of the 20 most expensive pieces of litigation (civil and criminal) finalised during the 2010-11 financial year.
In relation to the question as a whole, the Commonwealth 'Model Litigant Rules' are set out in paragraph 4.2, Appendix B (The Commonwealth's Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant) of the Legal Services Directions 2005 (the Directions). These model litigant obligations exist as part of the overall obligations the Directions impose on Commonwealth agencies in relation to the handling of claims and litigation.
In relation to the Senator's specific questions:
(1) The Directions provide the framework for the way in which the Department monitors the Commonwealth's compliance with model litigant obligations in the handling of civil claims and litigation. In order to ensure compliance with model litigant obligations the Department:
On occasion, judicial officers and tribunal members comment on their expectations of the conduct of a Commonwealth litigant including the obligation to act as a model litigant. In some instances critical comments are made. Generally, these comments are referred to the Department and the conduct of the relevant Department or Agency in the proceedings is reviewed in terms of its compliance with the Directions, including the model litigant obligations.
(2) The cost is not directly measured, as monitoring compliance with the model litigant obligation is performed as part of the functions of the Office of Legal Services Coordination.
(3) The model litigant obligation was last amended in 2008 by the Attorney-General.
(4) The explanatory statement for the 2008 amendments to the Directions is attached.
(5) (a) an administrative oversight and at what level in the department; or
(b) a conscious decision and at what level and for what reason.
The failure to include data on breaches of the Directions in the Department's 2009-10 annual report was an administrative oversight by the Department. The Office of Legal Services Coordination is the area within the Department with relevant responsibility. It is the long standing practice of the Department to publish data about compliance with the Directions in its Annual Report. This practice has not changed. The omission was corrected with the urgent publication of the statistics on the Department's website. The 2009-10 statistics were also included in the 2010-11 Annual Report. The statistics were uploaded to the website in August 2011, and the Annual Report was published in October 2011.
(6) As outlined in (7) below, of the 24 breaches in 2009-10 there was one breach of the model litigant obligations, with the remaining breaches mainly related to tied work (para 2), consultation (para 10) or agency reporting (para 11). Of the 18 breaches in 2010-11, there were no model litigant obligation breaches. One breach related to engagement of counsel, with the remaining breaches being reporting (para 11) breaches.
The Department will continue to monitor agency conduct with a view to requiring all Commonwealth agencies to achieve the highest professional standards in its handling of claims and litigation.
(7)—
(8) The number of breach matters still under investigation is set out in the final column of Table 6 of Page 63 of the Department's 2010-11 Annual Report.
(9) This question is more appropriately directed to the Australian Taxation Office
(a) As noted in the response to question 1, the Department raises issues in relation to compliance with the Legal Services Directions (including the model litigant obligation) with agencies. Consistent with this, the matter of Denlay has been discussed between the Office of Legal Services Coordination and the Australian Taxation Office.
(10) This comment has been taken into account in the Office of Legal Services Coordination investigation.
(a) Judicial comment does not establish a finding of a breach of the Legal Services Directions.
(i) The investigation into this matter is ongoing, so I am unable to comment further at this stage; and
(ii) The cost of individual cases is not reported to the Attorney-General's Department.
(11) The purpose of the Directions is to improve standards and levels of compliance across the Commonwealth in respect of the purchasing of legal services and the conduct of the Commonwealth in civil claims and litigation. Any sanctions in relation to non-compliance of the Directions, and the requirement to report a breach, are intended to encourage a culture of compliance.
The Departments Compliance and Enforcement Strategy is under review.
The Department provides an outreach education program to ensure increased awareness of, and compliance with, the Directions by the Commonwealth and its legal services providers.
In assessing compliance, the Department consults where appropriate with the relevant agency on a case by case basis to ensure appropriate remedial action is taken to avoid recurrence.
The types of sanctions that could be imposed by the Attorney in cases of serious breach include:
No sanctions were imposed in the 2010-11 financial year.
(12) There were no breaches of the model litigant obligation in the 2010-11 financial year.
(13) No. Any arrangement to appoint a model litigant contact person would be made on an agency by agency basis. There is no current requirement for each agency to have a designated model litigant contact person.
(14) No. Each year agencies are required by the Directions (para's 11.1(ba) & 11.1(da)) to make public and report to OLSC on agencies legal services purchasing and expenditure during the preceding financial year in respect of its legal services expenditure. Reporting on expenditure is not required to be done on the basis of a breakdown per individual piece of litigation. Agencies are not required to report on expenditure on legal services expenditure on criminal matters which are not covered by the Directions.
In 2010 the Department released the Commonwealth Legal Services Expenditure Report 2009-10. The report is available on the Attorney-General's Department website at:
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/CommonwealthLegalServicesExpenditure_CommonwealthLegalServicesExpenditure2009-2010
2009-2010 was the first time the Department had released this report. The Department is in the process of publishing the 2010-11 report.
————————
Attachment A
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
ISSUED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Judiciary Act 1903
Legal Services Directions
Legislative background
Under section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903, the Attorney-General may issue legal services directions applying generally to Commonwealth legal work (as defined in that section) or in relation to Commonwealth legal work performed in relation to a particular matter. The power to issue legal services directions was conferred having regard to the Attorney-General's responsibility, as first law officer, for legal services provided to the Commonwealth and its agencies, including Commonwealth litigation, and for the provision of legal advice to Cabinet.
Legal Services Directions were initially issued under this provision in 1999. They are administered by the Attorney-General with the assistance of the Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC) in the Attorney-General's Department. OLSC provides assistance and advice to agencies about the operation of the Directions. OLSC also publishes relevant information about the Directions (such as Guidance Notes on their interpretation and emerging issues) on its website: http://www.ag.gov.au/olsc .
Policy background to the Legal Services Directions
The Directions set out requirements for sound practice in the provision of legal services to the Commonwealth.
The Directions are an important mechanism to manage, in a whole-of-government manner, legal, financial and reputation risks to the Commonwealth's interests. They give agencies the freedom to manage their particular risks, which agencies are in the best position to judge, while providing a supportive framework of good practice.
For example, the rules about the conduct of tied work ensure that the Commonwealth minimises the risk that portfolio-specific approaches to questions of public international law or constitutional law (for instance) will impair the Commonwealth advancing and maintaining a consistent and clear position on such matters.
Another example of how the Directions provide support for good practice can be found in paragraph 10 which sets out requirements for consultation with an agency in relation to a request for advice concerning the interpretation of legislation administered by that agency. Such requirements minimise both the chance for unnecessary and inefficient duplication of work and the chance of inconsistent positions being taken by agencies on the same legislative provisions.
The Directions are a legislative instrument and have the force of law. Sanctions can be imposed for non-compliance. These sanctions may include the issue of a specific Direction by the Attorney-General, in relation to the conduct of a particular matter or the use of a particular legal services provider. They may also include adverse comment on an agency or a provider being made to the Attorney-General or the relevant Minister.
History of the Directions
In 2004, the Attorney-General initiated a review of the Directions of 1999. As a result, a new instrument was issued in 2005.
This Statement explains the provisions of the Directions, and draws attention to aspects of the Directions which differ from those issued in 2005.
Contacting OLSC
Questions about the interpretation and operation of the Directions can be directed to OLSC. Contact details are as follows.
Telephone (02) 6250 6611
Facsimile (02) 6250 5968
Mail: Assistant Secretary
Office of Legal Services Coordination
Attorney-General's Department
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
Email: olsc@ag.gov.au
Website: http://www.ag.gov.au/olsc
SECTIONS
Section 1
Section 1 of the instrument sets out the name of the instrument.
Section 2
Section 2 specifies that the instrument commences on 1 July 2008.
Section 3
Section 3 provides for the amendment of the previous Directions which were issued to take effect from 1 March 2006.
SCHEDULE 1: LEGAL SERVICES DIRECTIONS
PART 1 FMA Agencies
Paragraph 4 (Claims and litigation by or against the Commonwealth or FMA agencies)
Paragraph 4.2 of the Directions provides that claims are to be handled and litigation is to be conducted by the agency in accordance with The Commonwealth's Obligation to Act as a Model Litigant, at Appendix B to the Directions.
The amendment will extend the provision to note that the agency is not to start legal proceedings unless it is satisfied that litigation is the most suitable method of dispute resolution. This obligation in relation to commencing legal proceedings will be found at new paragraph 5.1 in Appendix B to the Directions.
Paragraph 11 (Agency responsibility)
A new subparagraph 11.1(da) has been added to require Chief Executives of agencies to report to OLSC within 60 days after the end of each financial year about their agency's legal services expenditure and the legal work of the agency, using a template approved by OLSC. The mandatory use of the template will assist in obtaining consistent information that will in turn allow for a better and more accurate analysis of Commonwealth legal services expenditure.
A consequential technical amendment is required to subparagraph 11.2(b) to enable a new subparagraph 11.2(ba) to be inserted into paragraph 11.2.
A new subparagraph 11.2(ba) imposes a responsibility on Chief Executives of agencies to provide specified details to OLSC on an annual basis about aspects of the agency's use of persons appointed by the Attorney-General under section 63 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to receive service in proceedings to which the Commonwealth is a party.
A new set of provisions (paragraphs 11.3, 11.4 and 11.5) introduce a requirement on the Chief Executives of agencies to ensure that in procuring legal services the agency does not adversely discriminate, subject to an actual conflict of interest arising, against legal services providers that have acted, or may act, pro bono for clients in legal proceedings against the Commonwealth or its agencies.
PART 2 Extended or modified application of the Directions
Paragraph 12 (Extended application of Directions to non-FMA bodies)
A new paragraph 12.3A has been included to extend the application of the amendments to the Directions to bodies that are not agencies regulated by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The extended application of the amendments is designed to protect the legal, financial and reputation interests that underlie the rest of the Directions.
In particular, by requiring agencies regulated by the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to also report on their legal services expenditure, it will provide OLSC with more comprehensive information about legal services purchasing across whole of government.
Paragraph 12A (Obligations of persons appointed under section 63 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to receive service)
This is a new paragraph that imposes an obligation on persons appointed by the Attorney-General under section 63 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to accept service, to report to the agency on whose behalf service has been accepted, about the receipt of the service using a template approved by OLSC.
The use of a standard Notice will ensure that agencies are aware that, although a particular provider has accepted service, agencies are free (subject to the tied work rules in the Directions) to instruct the legal services provider of their choice to have carriage of the matter.
General notes
The notes provide examples, interpretive assistance and further information on issues concerning or closely relating to the Directions.
Note 2A titled 'Who can receive service in proceedings to which the Commonwealth is a party' clarifies that lawyers providing legal services to the Commonwealth or its agencies who are appointed by the Attorney-General under section 63 of the Judiciary Act are the only persons able to receive service on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Appendix A (Tied areas of Commonwealth legal work)
The technical amendments to paragraph 6 and subparagraph 8(a) are to provide for consistency of language used in the Directions.
Appendix B (The Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant)
This Appendix explains the nature and scope of the Commonwealth's obligation to act as a model litigant, which has received long-standing recognition in Australian common law.
New subparagraph 2(aa) has been inserted to require the Commonwealth and its agencies to make an early assessment of the Commonwealth's or the agency's prospects of success in legal proceedings that may be brought against the Commonwealth or its agencies; and the Commonwealth's potential liability in claims against the Commonwealth or its agencies.
The amendment made to paragraph 2(e)(i) is a technical consequential amendment.
New subparagraphs 2(e)(iii) and 2(e)(iv) are inserted to require the Commonwealth and its agencies to continue to consider other methods for resolving the dispute throughout the course of litigation. This is to make it clear that the consideration of alternate methods of dispute resolution; for example, settlement negotiations or formal alternative dispute resolution; is a continuing obligation.
A new paragraph 5 has been substituted for the previous provision in order to emphasise the importance of agencies doing all they can to resolve disputes without recourse to litigation. The Commonwealth or its agencies are only to start court proceedings if other methods of dispute resolution (eg alternative dispute resolution or settlement negotiations) have been considered.
Paragraph 6 and its note are omitted to ensure consistency in the Directions as the amendments require arrangements to be made so that a person participating in any settlement negotiations on behalf of the Commonwealth or an agency can enter into a settlement.
In regard to Projects of Concern:
(1) How many Projects of Concern industry consultation sessions have been conducted by the Minister or his delegate and for each session:
(a) on what date was it held;
(b) where was it held, and
(c) who was invited and who attended.
(2) What was discussed at the Projects of Concern industry consultation meetings.
(3) What actions were agreed to at those meetings:
(a) at a collective level;
(b) by project, and
(c) by contractor.
(4) How are contract specific obligations and issues, including confidentiality, managed at those meetings where the meetings are held in open forum with other contractors?
(5) What is the legal effect of the resolutions or decisions made at these meetings and are they legally binding under the relevant contracts.
(6) When did the Independent Project Performance Office (IPPO) become responsible for Projects of Concern and can a description the role of the IPPO in relation to Projects of Concern be provided.
(7) If the decision is taken to install the phased array radar on all eight Australian and New Zealand Army Corps frigates under Project SEA 1448 Phase 2B:
(a) what will be the cost, and
(b) when will the final system be installed on the eighth ship.
(8) What is the expected in-service date for the first future frigate under project SEA 5000?
(9) To what extent was the Australian Industry Capability Program or advancement of Priority Industry Capabilities identified and prioritised as a selection criterion in the tender documentation for the LAND 121 Phase 3 project.
(10) Has the Defence Materiel Organisation finalised its advice to government on a preferred tenderer/way forward for this project; if so, when was it forwarded to government for final consideration.
(1) Please refer to the 19 October 2011 Supplementary Budget Estimates Question on Notice 17 for a full list of meetings, dates, locations and attendees.
(2) As stated in the 29 June 2011 Ministerial Media Release on reforms to the Projects of Concern system, the Minister for Defence Materiel conducts the Projects of Concern summits with Defence and company representatives to ensure individuals are being held to account for the progress of remediation efforts. Discussions at the summit cover all aspects of project activity and remediation, and are commercial in confidence.
(3) As also stated in the June Media Release, an action from each meeting is for the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and company to update the project's remediation plan. This plan identifies remediation objectives, milestones, and project actions over the following six months, as well as the agreed basis for removal from the Projects of Concern list. All actions are assigned to an individual, accountable officer from Defence or the company. Remediation plans are commercial in confidence.
(4) The meetings are not held in an open forum. Attendance at each meeting is restricted to Defence and company representatives directly involved in the project. This allows commercially sensitive activities and contract obligations to be discussed freely.
(5) The discussions have no direct legal effect. However, agreements made at a summit meeting can lead to a contract amendment.
(6) As advised in the June Media Release, the Independent Project Performance Office (IPPO) began operating on 1 July 2011. The Projects of Concern Directorate is now part of the IPPO Branch within DMO.
(7) (a) The total project cost to install the Anti-Ship Missile Defence upgrade in all eight ANZAC frigates is in excess of $650 million, including the funds already spent on upgrading HMAS Perth.
(7) (b) The final system will be installed in the eighth ship in 2017.
(8) As outlined in the Defence White Paper 2009 and the public Defence Capability Plan (DCP), it is the Government's intention to replace the ANZAC Class frigates with a new generation of naval surface combatants under SEA 5000. It is expected that Defence will commence work on developing this project for Government consideration beyond 2019. While the indicative initial operational capability for this project is financial year 2027-28 to financial year 2029-30 (as per the public DCP), final dates will be determined later in the project development process.
(9) The industry capacity necessary to support the capabilities/equipment that will be acquired through LAND 121 Ph 3 is not a Priority Industry Capability. The revised tender for the project included a criteria that addressed Australian industry participation in the project. It was not prioritised as all evaluation criteria are considered as part of selecting the final preferred tender. The revised tender identified industry requirements for manufacture of modules and through-life support in Australia.
(10) As announced by the Government on 12 December 2011, Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles Australia has been selected as the preferred supplier tenderer and will now enter into detailed negotiations to provide up to 2,700 protected and unprotected medium and heavy vehicles under LAND 121 Phase 3B.
In regard to an Early Indicators and Warning System (the system):
(1) How many projects have activated the triggers established as part of the system and can a breakdown be provided of each post first-pass and post second-pass example.
(2) How many internal reviews have been established and conducted as a result of the activation of these triggers and can a list be provided of all completed and ongoing internal reviews.
(3) What is the average duration of these internal reviews and what resources are dedicated to their conduct, including a breakdown of those resources using average hours and work days needed to conduct the review.
(4) How many full diagnostic examinations (Gate reviews), listed as completed and ongoing, have been:
(a) recommended; and
(b) conducted.
(5) What is the average duration of a Gate review and what resources are dedicated to their conduct, including a breakdown of those resources using average hours and work days to conduct the review.
(6) Has a Gate Review Board been formed for each Gate review as announced by the Government in May 2011.
(7) For projects in contract, has the conduct of internal or Gate reviews had any effect on the Commonwealth fulfilling its contractual obligations.
(8) What changes have been made to the triggers since the system was established in May 2011.
(9) How many independent experts have been contracted to provide advice to Gate reviews, indicating for each review:
(a) who has been contracted;
(b) how much work they did or are doing on that review;
(c) when they did that work; and
(d) how much they have been or will be paid.
(10) What contracting methodology has been used for these engagements and have all of these engagements been published on AusTender.
(1) The first quarterly Early Indicators and Warnings (EI&W) report, completed in September 2011, identified 16 pre-Second Pass capability development projects and six post–Second Pass projects that breached the EI&W thresholds. A list of the projects will be published.
(2) Projects that trigger EI&W thresholds are reviewed by the Director General of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Independent Project Performance Office (IPPO) to determine if a Gate Review is required. There have been four such Gate Reviews for the following projects:
JP2089 Phase 2B, SEA1390 Phase 4B, JP2025 Phase 5 and Land 17 Phase 1A.
(3) Typically, for each Gate Review, an experienced analyst from the DMO Gate Review team and an External Board member review the project over a period of approximately two weeks. The total time varies with each project depending upon size and complexity. This analysis leads to the provision of an agendum paper to the Gate Review Board members highlighting key concerns confronting the project.
The membership of each board is tailored according to the nature of the project; the larger, more complex the project, the more senior the board members. Each board then runs for approximately four hours, plus a 1–2 hour pre-brief. The board members may choose to conduct additional sessions. The board comprises a chair, usually one of the DMO General Managers or a DMO Division Head; one or two external members; and two to four other DMO managers across the spectrum of legal, finance, engineering and project management disciplines.
(4) (a) In May 2011, the Minister for Defence directed that the DMO Gate Review program be expanded to an annual review of all DMO major capital projects. There are approximately 180 major projects to be reviewed each year.
(b) This calendar year approximately 90 projects will have been reviewed.
(5) See the answer to Q3.
(6) The composition of each Gate Review Board is identified two months ahead of the review.
(7) No, the role of the Board is to review the status of a project, and provide direction to DMO line management.
(8) No changes have been made.
(9) (a) The panel of External Board Members (independent experts) currently numbers 15, rising to 20 by April 2012.
Current external members are:
Mr Ross Smith Procurement consultant, ex Department of Defence and Finance
Dr Ralph Neumann FAICD Physicist, ex Department of Defence
Mr Roger Howick FCCA Ex industry CFO
Mr Ian Irving Engineer, project manager, ex industry executive
RADM Rtd Peter Purcell AO Project manager, Company Director, ex navy engineer
Mr Frank Lewincamp PSM Ex Department of Defence; DIO, DMO
Mr Barry Barnes Engineer, project manager, ex industry executive
RADM Rtd Oscar Hughes AO Project manager, ex navy engineer
AVM Rtd Clive Rossiter AO Consultant, ex RAAF engineer
Mr Rod Locket Engineer, ex industry CEO
Mr Garry Seaborne Engineer, shipbuilding project manager
CDRE Ret Merv Davis AM Ex industry CEO, ex navy engineer
Dr Ian Williams PSM Ex Department of Defence; DMO
Mr John Gallacher Engineer, project manager, ex industry CEO
Mr Alan Johnson Engineer, project manager, ex industry CEO
(b) An External Board Member averages 32 hours work per Gate Review. The number of Gate Reviews each has done to date varies from 5 to 20.
(c) This calendar year the external members will have sat on some 90 reviews. Next calendar year they will be sitting on some 180 reviews.
(d) In financial year 2010/11 expenditure on external members was $580,000. In financial year 2011/12 expenditure to date is $627,000, with an end of year forecast of approximately
$2 million.
(10) External Members are engaged on individual 12 month contracts at a standard hourly rate. They are paid a monthly fee plus time and materials for each Gate Review. All engagements have been published on AusTender.
In regard to Technical Skills Shortage:
(1) What work has been done by the department to assess technical skill levels within the Australian Defence organisation generally and as needed to achieve Force 2030, and can copies of any reports that have been prepared since 1 December 2007 be provided.
(2) (a) How are technical skill levels for the purposes of meeting current and future operational requirements and for the purposes of delivering Force 2030 measured within the Australian Defence organisation; and (b) what are the current technical skill levels in the: (i) department, (ii) Army, (iii) Navy, (iv) Air Force, and (v) Defence Materiel Organisation.
(3) How did the Navy reach the decision to award bonuses of up to $80 000 per annum to engineers, as reported in the media on 22 September 2011.
(4) What work has been done within the department to assess technical skill levels within the Defence industry and the Australian industry generally, to the extent that it affects the department and the delivery of Force 2030.
(5) Can a breakdown be provided by service and by group, of how many engineers are currently employed.
(6) (a)What are the churn rates within the department for engineers; (b) what are the separation rates for engineers; and (c) how do these churn and separation rates compare with applicable benchmarks.
(7) On what basis are engineers within the department engaged.
(8) Which current and future procurement projects are most dependent upon, and therefore vulnerable to, a shortage in technical skills, engineering skills in particular.
(9) Is a lack of technical skill currently jeopardising the department's capacity to fulfill its obligations under any major capital project contracts; if so, which projects and which contractual obligations.
(10) What 'Job Families', Graduate Programs and career structures are in place within the department to attract and retain technical staff, in particular engineers, and which specific engineering specialities are recognized and how.
(1) The Defence Strategic Workforce Plan 2010-20 articulates Defence's approach to workforce planning in support of the Defence White Paper 2009 and Defence's Strategic Reform Program. This plan draws heavily upon the intent of the broader strategic planning environment, and the implications for Defence's workforce and how Defence will deliver the workforce it requires to build Force 2030.
The Defence Strategic Workforce Plan 2010-20 provides a balanced discussion about the challenges faced by both the military and civilian workforces, and facilitates the provision of guidance for the development of respective Service and Group People Plans.
(2) (a) Current and future workforce needs are identified through a broad range of means. Defence uses the Defence Workforce Planning Cycle to aid in workforce planning – this cycle uses key strategic inputs such as the White Paper, Defence Planning Guidance, Joint Operations Concept, Defence Capability Statements, the Defence Capability Plan and the Strategic Reform Program to inform the broader Workforce Plan.
(2) (b) The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) current technical skill levels are underpinned by key capabilities that Technical Officers are expected to be skilled in at each level within the framework. The Materiel Engineering Council has determined that the following capabilities are the top ten priority skilling areas for Technical officers;
Defence is not immune from the challenges facing some sectors of the broader employment market in Australia. Defence is closely examining labour market trends, and internal workforce trends, to determine which components of the Defence workforce may come under pressure in the short and longer term.
Over the next 5 years the most significant employment growth in Australia will be in a number of occupations which are closely aligned to Defence critical skill areas. Future workforce data suggests that there may be impacts for Defence in some job categories or specialisations in the next 5 years due to a range of factors including the resources boom and an ageing workforce.
Defence notes that the demand in Australia for technical trades, engineers, and particular health and Information Communication and Technology (ICT) roles, is continuing to grow, and that Defence will need to continue to review its employment offer to retain such specialist skills.
(3) On 20 September 2011 the Chief of Navy announced a financial bonus offer for selected ANZAC and COLLINS class Marine Technician (MT) sailors. The scheme does not offer $80,000 per annum—it offers a maximum of $80,000 in return for two years service for the highest targeted qualification, scaled down to $40,000 for two years service (in two one year increments of $20,000) for the lowest targeted qualification.
The decision to offer a bonus was arrived at following consideration of the potential impact that increasing rates of separation in these groups might have on Navy's ability to continue to deliver the appropriate level of ANZAC and COLLINS capability, and in the longer term, other Navy capabilities.
This bonus is designed to encourage key MT personnel within the ANZAC and COLLINS classes to remain in the Navy to ensure we have suitably trained people providing the appropriate level of supervision and support to keep our ANZAC frigates and COLLINS submarines at sea and, importantly, to enable us to more quickly qualify the many marine technician and other categories of sailor who are coming through the training system.
(4) In 2009, Defence surveyed DMO's 50 largest Australian-based suppliers, seeking information on their defence industry skill levels. Between them, the surveyed firms account for around 95 per cent of DMO's domestic expenditure with prime contractors. The survey results form a skills 'baseline' to which defence industry can be compared in future, to identify structural shifts in the defence industry workforce, and to make comparisons against skilling requirements in non-defence areas of the economy.
In this respect, the results from the survey are currently assisting Skills Australia structure a more comprehensive and forward looking review of whether sufficient skills exist in domestic defence industry to support Defence and the delivery of Force 2030 and how the capacity and capability of the domestic defence industry can be enhanced. For example, the survey is being used by Skills Australia to devise a set of skills categories relevant to defence industry and the survey's results are likely to be used by Skills Australia to help determine trends in the availability of particular skills over time.
The Priority Industry Capability (PIC) health checks completed to date—for Combat Clothing, Infantry Weapons, Dry Docking and Common User Facilities, and Acoustics—have had a strong focus on the availability within domestic industry of labour skills necessary to support the capital equipment and systems considered to be of the greatest strategic significance to the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The process of checking the health of these PICs has involved direct and detailed discussions with relevant defence contractors on the make-up of their workforces. These discussions included skills profiles, age profiles, geographic concentrations and mobility. Importantly, the process looked explicitly at future demand for skills and seeks to match this to supply.
DMO has conducted an Engineering and Technical training needs analysis of the entire Engineering and Technical workforce within DMO.
The DMO Institute Expansion Program for the Engineering and Technical Job Family is progressing in accordance with the Industry Skilling Program Enhancement (ISPE) initiative.
DMO corporately sponsored training to the Australian Defence Force Academy, University of NSW (UNSW) for specialist Engineers (i.e. Systems Engineers).
DMO is providing sponsorship for the 2012 Systems Engineering Conference to support DMO Engineers Continuous Professional Development.
(5)
(1) This data, correct as at 31 October 2011 shows officers between O02 (Lieutenant and equivalent) and O05 (Lieutenant Colonel and equivalent) and includes 8 Air Force officers at the O01 level (Pilot Officer).
(2) The above tables show employees who belong to the 'Engineering and Technical' job family. Employees in the DSTO are typically categorised as belonging to the Science and Technology job family and are not included in the above results.
(6) (a) and (6) (b) Current Human Resource reporting tools within the department are not currently designed to report on churn rates. Separation rate data provides some indication of the movement of engineers and is set out in the following tables (correct as at 31 October 2011).
(1) This data, correct as at 31 October 2011 shows officers between O02 (Lieutenant and equivalent) and O05 (Lieutenant Colonel and equivalent) and includes 8 Air Force officers at the O01 level (Pilot Officer).
(1) Note – DMO workforce management practice is to include ongoing and non-ongoing staff in these statistics. Defence workforce data only contains ongoing/permanent staff.
(6) (c) ADF engineering and technical separation rates are only benchmarked against historical internal trends. Attempts in the past to benchmark against other Defence Forces (such as Canada) have proven inconclusive owing to different remuneration structures.
(7) Engineers are employed in those roles where the needs for engineering skills or experience have been identified.
(8) The work of the Defence Materiel Organisation is technical and complex. All Defence projects are dependent on technical and engineering skills to some degree. Engineering and technical skills improve the DMO's ability to assure value for money—and to reduce capability risks, schedule risks, cost risks, reliability risks and safety risks.
Off the shelf procurements have a lesser requirement for engineering and technical skills. Where the capability requirement allows, the DMO uses off the shelf options as a means of reducing risk. This also allows technical skills to be directed to more complex procurement or sustainment business areas.
At the other end of the spectrum, systems integration is particularly challenging. Supporting modern operations requires an organisational capability to select, procure, integrate and make interoperable a very complicated system of systems. This requires scarce high-level engineering and technical skills to adequately manage the risks.
The effectiveness of risk mitigation for most DMO projects is influenced by the availability of appropriate technical skills. Nearly every electronic systems project, guided weapons project and platform modification project is dependent on engineering and technical skills—which is a substantial portion of the Defence Capability Plan.
Like many organisations reliant on technical skills, the DMO is experiencing an ongoing challenge with attracting, developing and retaining high quality engineers and other high quality technical professionals. This is best characterised as a long term problem that the DMO is working consistently to address—it is not, overall, a crisis. Noted skills shortfalls being experienced today by the DMO include radio frequency engineers, software engineers, satellite communications engineers, tactical data link engineers, systems engineers, guided weapons engineers and technical experts in simulation.
The DMO has a wide range of programs and activities in place or planned to ameliorate attraction, retention and development challenges.
Further, the importance of engineering and technical skills in sustaining military capability should not be forgotten. As can be seen from Mr Rizzo's Plan to Reform Support Ship Repair and Management Practices —and our experience with sustaining the Collins class—maintaining complex capabilities after delivery relies heavily on strong engineering and technical skills.
The study by Skills Australia to map the current skill sets in Australian defence industry is underway, and will examine the skills that will be required over the next 10 years and beyond, and how we might bridge the gaps. Until the study's results are available in mid 2012, it is difficult to determine whether particular procurement projects are vulnerable to skills shortages.
In addition, as checks of the health of the remaining eight Priority Industry Capabilities are progressed, a clearer idea of skills issues relating to industry capabilities of relatively high strategic value should be available. These checks will cover the broad capability areas of high frequency and phased array radars, electronic warfare, mission and safety critical software, systems integration, anti-tampering, signature management, munitions, and the Collins combat system.
(9) Defence, in particular the DMO, has a substantial workforce of engineers and staff with other technical skills. In most cases the available talent can be managed to adequately treat most of the foreseeable risks. On the one hand, the DMO's technical workforce could be stronger which would reduce the risk and the pressure on DMO management. Realistically though the DMO's technical workforce can never entirely achieve the ideal quality nor be of unlimited quantity.
Risks to the DMO's capacity to fulfil its obligations under any major capital project contracts are addressed wherever possible and if particular risk mitigation (such as technical skills) cannot be relied on, other risk controls will be explored and applied. So it is not simply that a deficit in skills will automatically lead to project failure.
The contemporary skills challenge is characterised by regional variations. Defence's experience is that technical skill supply and demand vary significantly by location and are strongly influenced by the local economy and industry. Perhaps the most acute challenges for the DMO are presently in Western Australia, where competing for the experts needed to sustain maritime platforms and conduct munitions maintenance is proving difficult during a resources boom.
(10) All Australian Public Service (APS) jobs in Defence are given a job code according to the Defence APS Standard Classification of Occupations and assigned to a Job Family. A Job Family identifies at the broadest level the categories of related occupations across the APS workforce in Defence.
Defence has fifteen APS Job Families. There is an Engineering and Technical Job Family. Each Job Family has a senior level sponsor who has responsibility for developing career path guidance within their Job Family, and specifying the skills, learning and development (including experience) requirements for those career paths. The existence of career pathways in a Job Family does not limit the ability of employees to move to positions in other Job Families is they are suitable.
Defence provides a variety of attraction and professionalisation strategies to support its job families. These include, but are not limited to, early engagement strategies such as the Defence Technical Scholarship program, entry level programs such as the Defence Graduate Development Program, Materiel Graduate Scheme, the Civilian Engineering Development Program, ADFA Engineering Undergraduate Scheme, Materiel Work Experience Program and Materiel TAFE Employees Scheme targeted at attracting and retaining technical staff, including engineers. Memoranda of Agreement have also been established with Engineers Australia and the Australian Maritime College.
Additionally, Defence Force Recruiting has strategies in place to improve recruitment to technical and engineering categories in the Australian Defence Force, including specialist recruiting teams in the engineering and technical space.
Defence recognises a number of engineering academic disciplines through its entry programs including: civil, mechanical, electrical, communication, aerospace communication, chemical, electrical, instrumentation and control, software, systems, aeronautical computer systems, naval architecture, space, telecommunications, mechatronic, information, materials.
Defence delivers a range of professionalisation and training programs for Engineers. These include Certification of professional engineers and technical officers through Engineers Australia. Additional professionalisation and training programs are being investigated including submarine design and development courses for engineering and technical officers.
In regard to the Strategic Reform Program:
(1) For each of the following financial years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13: what are the current gross savings targets, costs and net savings for each reform/savings stream (an updated table, is required, equivalent to p. 27 of the SRP booklet 2009, which includes gross savings targets, stream costs and net savings).
(2) (a) What were the actual figures achieved for each reform/savings stream (gross savings, costs, net savings) for the 2009-10 financial year that led to the achievement of the target gross savings of $797 million; and
(b) what were the total program costs for the 2009-10 financial year (actual) and total savings (net).
(3) (a) What were the actual figures achieved for each reform/savings stream (gross savings, costs, net savings) for the 2010-11 financial year that led to the achievement of the target gross savings of $1.016 billion; and
(b) what were the total program costs for the 2010-11 financial year (actual) and total savings (net).
(1) Investment funds can be allocated to both cost reduction and non-cost reduction streams, and to Groups and Services for a variety of reform activities. Therefore a 'net savings' view is not reflective of the purpose of SRP investment funds as they can not be solely attributable to cost reduction streams.
*Summation variances are due to rounding.
** Strategic Reform Project (SRP) cost provisions are consolidated into a central provision. SRP costs cannot be attributed to streams.
(2) (a) Refer to the Defence Annual Report 2009-10 Volume 1 Department of Defence, Table 1.1 2009-10 SRP Reform Stream cost reductions
(b)—
(3) (a) Refer to the Defence Annual Report 2010-11 Volume 1 Department of Defence, Table 1.1 2010-11 Key SRP Achievements
(b)—
(1) What is the current status of the Force Structure Review, and has it formally commenced; if so, when did it commence and when will it be completed.
(2) What is the current status of the Force Posture Review.
(3) What is the current status of implementation of the recommendations of the Kinnaird and Mortimer reviews.
(1) In the 2009 Defence White Paper, the Government announced its intention to prepare new White Papers at intervals of no greater than five years. To ensure that the development of future White Papers is as comprehensive as possible, a strategic risk assessment, a force structure review, and an audit of the Defence budget are to be conducted in the year prior to any White Paper.
The Minister for Defence has announced the Government's intention to deliver a new White Paper in early 2014. In order to meet this timeline, Defence has commenced preparation for a force structure review, which will be conducted in 2012. The results of the review will be reported to Government by early 2013.
(2) The Force Posture Review Expert Panel, Dr Hawke and Mr Smith, are on track to provide me with a progress report in December 2011. The final report will be provided to Government in the first quarter of 2012. Government will respond once the report has been received and considered. It is too early to pre-empt the report's findings.
(3) One of the key elements of the Defence Procurement and Sustainment Review, conducted by Mr David Mortimer AO in 2008, was to consider progress in implementing the 2003 Kinnaird Review of Defence Procurement.
The Mortimer Review noted the success of the Kinnaird reforms and provided a detailed analysis of the implementation of those reforms which can be found at Annex B to the Mortimer Review report.
The majority of the Mortimer recommendations have been implemented. In particular the following key initiatives are in place:
Ministers also noted in August 2011 that the Kinnaird and Mortimer reforms have improved the rigour applied to the capability development process. Ministers noted that there had been 20-25 per cent reduction in schedule slippage for those projects subject to the Kinnaird and Mortimer reforms as compared with earlier projects.
In regard to recruitment:
(1) (a) How many applications have been received for the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Materiel Organisation (CEO DMO); and (b) how many of these applications were from: (i) industry, (ii) the Government sector, (iii) the department; and (iv) overseas.
(2) Can a copy be provided of the recruitment pack.
(3) When is a decision and announcement expected.
(4) To whom will the CEO DMO report.
(5) Will anyone outside DMO report to the CEO DMO; if so, who and can a description be provided of those arrangements.
(6) What will be the relationship between the CEO DMO and the Head Capability Development Group and the soon to be appointed Associate Secretary Capability.
(7) Has the position of Deputy CEO DMO been advertised.
(1) (a) and (b) (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) The Secretary of Defence engaged the services of EWK International to undertake an executive search for the CEO DMO role. A number of high quality applications were received as a result of formal advertising and a national and international search process. The Secretary of Defence and the Selection Advisory Committee are currently conducting a merit selection process to identify a suitable candidate.
(2) The Merit Selection exercise has not yet been finalised, however, usual Defence process would preclude access to recruitment documentation by third parties who are not directly involved in the process.
(3) The successful candidate will become known in due course.
(4) The CEO DMO has responsibilities to the Minister for Defence through the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force.
(5) No.
(6) The detail of the relationship between these roles is currently under consideration.
(7) No, the role of Deputy CEO DMO currently has an acting incumbent performing the duties.
In regard to quarterly accountability reports:
(1) Has the list of ‘designated key projects’ been determined and the reporting mechanism instituted; if so, can a list be provided.
(2) Has the first report been provided as planned in October 2011; if so, can a copy be provided.
(3) How does the list of ‘designated key projects’ differ from those projects listed as Projects of Concern, those projects included in the Major Projects Report, and those projects that trigger Early Indicators and Warning system.
(4) How does the quarterly accountability reporting mechanism ‘improve accountability and pick up problems early’ in any way not achieved through the Early Indicators and Warnings system.
(1) A list of ‘designated key projects’ has yet to be finalised.
(2) The first report was provided as planned. A copy is not provided as it is a classified document.
(3) Designated key projects are high priority projects on which Defence provides regular and rigorous quarterly reporting to the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Materiel, the Secretary for the Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force. There is no requirement for projects to be under stress to be designated for quarterly review, only that they are a priority capability for Defence. In this way, they are different to Projects of Concern.
(a) Projects of Concern are those projects identified as having very significant technical, cost and/or schedule difficulties.
(b) The DMO Major Projects Report (DMO MPR) is an annual report presented by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) to Parliament and the Australian public about the status of selected DMO major acquisition projects.
(c) Projects that trigger the Early Indicators and Warning system are running late, over budget or not delivering the capability required.
(4) The Quarterly Accountability Report provides more rigorous reporting on select high priority projects and is individually signed off by the senior executives responsible for the project.
(1) What is the current schedule delay for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) program, measured in months.
(2) Which Early Indicators and Warnings has the AWD program triggered.
(1) The Joint Ministerial Media Release of the Ministers for Defence and Defence Materiel on 26 May 2011 was based upon advice from the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) Alliance on changes to the allocation of block assembly work for the AWD construction program and information that without this action the first ship would be two years late.
The AWD Alliance also advised that the allocation changes would reduce the delay of the completion of Ship 1 by up to 12 months and of all three AWDs by up to 12 months.
Based on this initial analysis, the DMO and the AWD Alliance are working to a delay of 12 months on the contracted 90 month delivery schedule for the first Air Warfare Destroyer; a 13.3 per cent schedule slip where the Early Indicators and Warning System (EI&W) schedule trigger point is 20 per cent.
(2) Action taken by the AWD Aliance to limit potential slippage mitigated the risk of further schedule slip and predated the implementation of the EI&W System. The AWD Program has triggered no EI&W criteria or thresholds since the implementation of the EI&W System in June 2011.
Have the defects reported with the Australian soldier Multicam pattern clothing, as reported in the Daily Telegraph of 19 September 2011, 'Exposed:
Diggers Fighting Unholey War', been rectified as directed by the Minister for Defence Materiel in September 2011;
if so, when was this completed and was the correction of these problems covered under warranty and if not under warranty, was an additional cost incurred and how much.
Defence is working with the uniform manufacturer to incorporate feedback from the operational trial to enhance both the effectiveness and durability of these uniforms. These changes include moving to a slightly heavier but more durable fabric, as well as modifying some of the pockets to improve access and reduce the likelihood of the uniforms catching when moving through heavy undergrowth and confined spaces. All of these changes have been incorporated into the baseline design and will be included in the next order of uniforms, which will start arriving from the United States in January 2012.
Deployed soldiers have also been issued an extra set of uniforms (an increase from two sets to three) from the attrition stock held in theatre to ensure they have sufficient uniforms readily accessible if any garments do rip. Future deployments will be issued four sets per soldier.
The work that has been done by the contractor to incorporate the feedback from the operational trial and the testing that was conducted to support the decision to move to the more durable fabric was all done at nil cost to the Commonwealth. The unit cost for the uniforms has also remained unchanged.
The final configuration for the Australian made uniforms that are due to be delivered from mid-2012 will incorporate the feedback from the operational trial. As the uniforms will be made in Australia, they will not be made from the same fabric as the trial uniforms, but will be made from the cotton/polyester fabric used in the Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform.
How many new jobs will be created as a result of the $18.7 million upgrade to the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) facilities at Scottsdale, Tasmania, including jobs during the construction/upgrade phase and jobs at the DSTO facility after it becomes fully operational.
The $18.7 million Reinvestment in Australian Defence Force Specific Nutritional Capability project, Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), Scottsdale, Tasmania, will upgrade facilities and infrastructure to meet Defence's nutrition and food science research and development needs for the next 30 years. Works include the refurbishment and expansion of the food technology facilities, upgrades to existing chemistry and nutrition laboratories, and improvements to working accommodation.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) conducted its hearing of the project on 27 July 2011 and Parliament approved the project on 12 October 2011. Construction is expected to commence in early 2012 and be completed by early 2014. During the construction phase, it is estimated that an average of 30 job opportunities will be created, peaking at around 60 working on site during the fit out and finishing stage for the refurbished and expanded buildings.
The DSTO facility at Scottsdale, Tasmania, directly employs 28 personnel and indirectly impacts other economic activity, mostly the delivery of goods and services. There is no planned increase in DSTO staff as a result of the project.
(1) How many first and second pass approvals are planned for the remainder of the:
(a) calendar year; and
(b) financial year, including 'intermediate pass' approvals planned or approvals that may need to go back to government again after completion, and any instances of combined first and second pass approvals.
(2) For each approval in paragraph (1), what is:
(a) the project planned;
(b) its expected date; and
(c) the value in government expenditure that will flow.
(3) What is the total value of Defence Capability Plan projects deferred beyond the forward estimates since the Defence White Paper was finalised in 2009, using the current 2011-12 financial year as the reference point.
(1) (a) As at 16 December, 46 projects* have been approved. (b) As at 16 December 28 projects* have been approved.
* Project approvals include first, second and other passes.
(2) (a) and (b) and (c) The planning of the progression and approval of the projects are located within the Public Defence Capability Plan (DCP).
The DCP is reviewed regularly to take account of changing strategic circumstances, new technologies and changed priorities, in the context of the overall Defence budget. The plan sets out the proposed investment in new capability, reviewed and revised as part of the financial year 2011-12 budget and subsequent DCP updates (most recent August 2011).
(3) In comparing the Draft DCP 2012-21 (released at the D&I Conference 2011) to the approved DCP 2009-19 (accompanying the Defence White Paper), the following 3 projects have deferred Year-of-Decision beyond the forward estimates:
(1) Of the $1.1 billion identified in the 2010 Budget for soldier/force protection over the forward estimates:
(a) how much has been committed in contracts; and
(b) how much has so far been spent.
(2) Can a breakdown be provided for each expenditure item under the package in paragraph (1), including the items purchased/ordered, contract value and amount spent so far; for money not yet spent, what further expenditures are planned and to what value.
(1) Of the $1.1 billion identified in the 2010-11 Budget for soldier/force protection over the forward estimates as well as the $0.5 billion of funding provided under Operation SLIPPER:
(a) an amount of $875.1 million has been committed; and
(b) $537 million has been spent to 30 June 2011, with $215.2 million in 2009-10 and $321.8 million in 2010-11.
(2) Due to the classified nature of the capabilities being procured under the package a breakdown by individual initiative is not publically available. Of the initial estimate of $1.6 billion, an amount of $26.7 million is no longer required as the acquisition costs were less than expected, $126.4 million was re-programmed from 2010-11 to 2011-12 in the 2010-11 Additional Estimates and $1.8 million from 2009-10 is being re-programmed from within the funding allocated to Groups.
(1) Of the $445.7 million in funding to support Australian Defence industry as noted in the Government's Defence Industry Policy in June 2010 (Building Defence Capability: A Policy for a Smarter and More Agile Defence Industry Base): what is the full planned breakdown for distribution of those monies by program and year.
(2) Of the $445.7 million:
(a) how much has been so far approved for distribution under each program and cumulatively;
(b) how much has been actually distributed, under each program and cumulatively; and
(c) to which contractors or entities has the funding been awarded, including how much, when, under which program and for what.
(1) and (2):
Annex A , B, C and D – are available from the Senate Table Office .
They contain...
Summary of budget for Programs and Initiatives funded under the 2010 Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS) as at 23 November 2011
The 2010 Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS) for Australian industry, titled Building Defence capability: A policy for a smarter and more agile Defence industry base, announced support of more than AUD $445.7 million out to 2018-19. This support is provided for a range of programs and initiatives that industry can access to improve their competitiveness, their capacity for innovation, their ability to enter export markets and the skills of their workforce.
The Annex shows a summary of the original budget for programs and initiatives launched in the 2010 DIPS, the planned budget as at November 2011, current commitments and expenditure to date, for the initiatives and programs announced on Friday 25 June 2010, by the then Minister for Defence Materiel and Science (The Hon Greg Combet). All figures are expressed as out turned dollars.
Additional funding of AUD $15.79 million has been injected into the Capability Technology Demonstrator program, and re-phasing of the Priority Industry Capability Innovation Program to ensure grants allocations in the final year of the program can be met has required AUD $2.37 million to be re-phased beyond financial year 2018-19. Other minor adjustments total a reduction of AUD $1.05 million.
The 2010 Defence Industry Policy Statement (DIPS) lists a number of additional programs, being the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) Business Access Offices (BAO), the Defence Industry Innovation Board (DIIB) and the Defence Industry Skills Taskforce (DIST) that are funding neutral in the Policy Statement and continue to be delivered within the standard annual DMO operating budget. The Rapid Prototyping Development and Evaluation Program and the Capability Development Advisory Forum are managed and delivered by Capability Development Group (CDG) and are also cost neutral in the Policy; also being delivered within the annual CDG allocated operating budget.
(1) Given that the Minister has stated that the contingency allowed for in the AIR 6000 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program is running out, in terms of cost and schedule for the JSF program, what amount of contingency remains.
(2) What are the terms of reference/mandate for the Scheduled Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology (SCRAM) team review being undertaken by the Defence Materiel Organisation into the JSF program under AIR 6000.
(3) When will the SCRAM team report and to whom.
(4) (a) Does the SCRAM team have the power to recommend that Australia defer or cancel its current or future orders for F-35 Lightning II (JSF) aircraft; and
(b) what are the options under the terms and conditions of the order that is currently in place for 14 aircraft.
(1) While Australia uses the official United States Department of Defense cost estimates as the basis for our own, we have always adopted a more conservative approach to Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) cost estimates than has the United States. Australia has always included contingency funding, but the Government does not divulge the contingency levels for sound commercial reasons. The estimated cost of Australia's first 14 JSF aircraft does, however, remain within the Government's programmed approval.
In terms of schedule risk, Australian project staff in the United States Air Force test and evaluation program in the United States from early 2012 (through 2017) greatly mitigates risk to our schedule.
(2) and (3) In parallel with the United States Government's current review of the JSF Program's progress, Defence's New Air Combat Capability Project continues to independently monitor the JSF Program's schedule compliance. The Schedule Compliance Risk Assessment Methodology being applied is that used by the Defence Materiel Organisation to assess risk in major projects. Under direction from Australia's JSF project manager, an independent Defence Materiel Organisation team visited Lockheed Martin in the United States in late October 2011 to discuss JSF progress. Our project office's risk assessment, and any recommendations, will be part of an overall submission to Government in early 2012 and will inform further decisions on JSF in late 2012.
(4) (a) No.
(b) While the Government has committed to buying 14 JSF aircraft, it has yet to sign an order for aircraft. The Government has only approved the funding for 14 JSF aircraft and paid for some initial long lead items for Australia's first two aircraft. A final decision that will commit Australia to a binding contract for these first two aircraft will not occur until early 2012.
(1) What are the department's guidelines for posting of married couples who are both serving members of the Australian Defence Force.
(2) What steps does the department take to ensure that married couples are posted to a common location wherever possible, and do these guidelines vary between the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
(1) The Department has policies in place that apply to members of the three Services where the members of the couple are from different Services. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) recognises that members who are lawfully married, or are in a recognised de facto relationship, have an expectation that they will be able to enjoy their life together. However, the staffing requirements of individual Services, and the dispersed locations of the various ADF units, can make the collocation of ADF couples difficult to achieve. These policies provide a mechanism for ADF couples to collocate where practicable, consistent with Service requirements.
(2) Service staffing requirements and operational imperatives, combined with the dispersed localities of the various Defence units and establishments, can make collocation of some ADF couples difficult to achieve. However, whenever practicable, and consistent with Service requirements, Service Career Management Agencies will attempt to collocate inter and single-Service couples. Couples are informed to recognise that there are clear limitations to the scope to achieve this, for example:
In regard to HRL Limited, has any funding, insurance, guarantee or other support been sought from the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation during the current or the previous terms of Government; if so: (a) what sort of support was sought; (b) what was the value of the support; and (c) what is the status of the request or application.
I am advised that no funding, insurance, guarantee or other support has been provided to HRL Limited by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1104 (Senate Hansard , 1 November 2011, p. 119), of the eight individuals who were part of a group of 22 identified as being participants or organisers in the Christmas Island riots, arrested and charged with various offences and who are now accommodated at a detention centre on the Australian mainland:
(1) To which detention centre on the Australian mainland were each of those eight individuals transferred from Christmas Island and on what date.
(2) Since their initial transfer from Christmas Island to the Australian mainland have any of those eight individuals been transferred to a different detention centre on the Australian mainland; if so, for each of those eight individuals to which detention centre (or detention centres) have they been transferred and on what date did each transfer take place.
(1) One client departed Christmas Island on 5 April 2011 and was transferred to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre (IDC).
One client departed Christmas Island on 6 May 2011 and was transferred to Northern IDC.
One client departed Christmas Island on 24 June 2011 and was transferred to Perth IDC.
One client departed Christmas Island on 28 June 2011 and was transferred to Perth IDC.
One client departed Christmas Island on 29 July 2011 and was transferred to Northern IDC.
One client departed Christmas Island on 19 August 2011 and was transferred to Northern IDC.
Two clients departed Christmas Island on 28 September 2011 and were transferred to Maribyrnong IDC.
(2) Of the eight individuals referred to in question on notice no. 1104, six have been further transferred since their initial placement on the Australian mainland. The transfer and accommodation details for these six individuals are as follows:
One client was transferred from Villawood IDC to Perth IDC on 7 June 2011. He was then transferred back to Villawood IDC on 23 June 2011. The client was removed from Australia on 1 November 2011.
One client was transferred from Northern IDC to Perth IDC on 21 June 2011. He was transferred back to Northern IDC on 24 June 2011 and as at 24 November 2011 continues to be accommodated at that facility.
Two clients were transferred from Perth IDC to Maribyrnong IDC on 23 September 2011. As at 24 November 2011 both clients continue to be accommodated at that facility.
Two clients were transferred from Maribyrnong IDC to Melbourne Immigration Transit Accommodation on 17 November 2011. As at 24 November 2011 both clients continue to be accommodated at that facility.
With reference to a recent Four Corners program on 7 November 2011 and comments by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) that the Government has undertaken to change the process for notifying the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee of activities that may affect the outstanding universal values of our world heritage properties to 'make sure there'll be a more routine method of notification':
(1) What will this new process involve, and when will it be in place.
(2) Will the Government's new process be consistent with paragraph 172 of the UNESCO document, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention by:
(a) ensuring the World Heritage Committee is informed of the Government's intention to undertake or to authorise major restorations or new constructions as soon as possible, and prior to the Government making any decisions that would be difficult to reverse; and
(b) allowing adequate time and appropriate procedures so that the World Heritage Committee has the opportunity to advise the Minister prior to any decision on appropriate solutions to ensure that the outstanding universal value of the property is fully preserved.
(1) The process requires the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to report quarterly to the World Heritage Centre on proposed developments that are determined under section 12 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as likely to have a significant impact on the world heritage values of any of Australia's world heritage properties. The first of these reports was provided to the World Heritage Centre in October 2011, with quarterly reports to be provided thereafter as required.
(2) (a) Yes, the process requires proposals to be notified at the assessment stage of the process and prior to any approval decisions.
(b) Yes.
(1) What is the government’s policy on the disclosure of details to the public and media regarding soldiers wounded in Afghanistan.
(2) While the numerical total of soldiers wounded in Afghanistan is disclosed, have there been instances wherein the details about the timing and nature of those wounds has remained ambiguous; if so, can an explanation be provided.
(3) Will the Minister retroactively correct the public record as to how and when each individual was wounded.
(4) Does there need to be a greater level of transparency on the reporting of Australian Defence Force casualties.
(1) Defence aims to provide public information on every operational incident involving battle casualties (wounded and killed in action). Operational tempo, ongoing operations and special operations are three factors which may lead to occasional differences in the timing and detail of reporting. However, media information about casualty figures are updated as appropriate when operational circumstances permit.
Defence guidance on the release of public information during incidents includes:
(a) The Australian Defence Force (ADF) will not release the names of casualties until Next of Kin (NOK) notification procedures have been completed.
(b) The ADF will not comment on the circumstances or causes of an incident until any investigation has been completed and if it is likely to be subjected to disciplinary proceedings.
(c) In order to align with the civilian practice for reporting patient medical condition without compromising the medical-in-confidence nature of the wounds and injuries, Defence has adopted a nomenclature for public information relating to battle casualties.
Public release of names:
(a) Names of ADF members (not afforded protected identity status) remaining in an operational area following an announced wounding or injury will not be released.
(b) Names of ADF members (not afforded protected identity status) returning to Australia for treatment will remain protected until authorised for release by the individual member concerned. Names of ADF deceased will be released in consultation with the member’s family.
(c) Only Special Forces soldiers, who have protected identity status, may have their names withheld when they are admitted into non-military hospitals.
(d) There is no policy to hide the identity of other Australian soldiers undergoing medical treatment and rehabilitation in private or public hospitals.
(2) The Defence website carries the latest statistics of ADF fatalities and casualties, including a year-by-year breakdown of these incidents. Delays in reporting fatalities and casualties can occur for a range of reasons:
(a) Defence will, as a matter of policy, seek only to confirm fatalities and casualties following next of kin notification.
(b) Delays in reporting can also occur for operational security reasons and releasing information close to the time of the incident would place ADF personnel at an increased risk of harm.
(c) Delays in reporting can also occur when an ADF member presents some time after the wounding occurred. This has occurred recently for example following delayed onset of symptoms.
(3) The Department of Defence is currently conducting a detailed investigation of its casualty records for Afghanistan, which were created prior to the standing up of Headquarter Joint Operations Command in late 2009. Prior to this time the Department did not have in place a consistent and unified process of collating and releasing information. Where an error in public reporting, e.g. the number of wounding incidents, has occurred the public record will be corrected.
Where there have been historical inconsistencies with how personnel wounded in action in Afghanistan has been publicly reported, it does not detract from the care provided to wounded soldiers, and where required the ongoing rehabilitation of individuals who were wounded during their service to the nation.
(4) Defence’s reporting of fatalities and casualties seeks to strike a balance between meeting the public interest in reporting fatalities and casualties, while respecting the individual rights of ADF personnel to privacy and confidentiality.
It is always the intent of Defence to disclose information that is in the public interest. The current policy and practice of reporting battle casualties (wounded and killed in action) provides sufficient information to the Australian public without compromising the medical-in-confidence and personal privacy of the individuals involved.
In regard to the approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act) for the Olympic Dam expansion:
(1) In granting approval to the Controlling Provision 'Nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22a)' what limitation has the Commonwealth placed on the magnitude of the approved mining project to correspond to the scale covered by the Environment Impact Statement (EIS) documentation that was accepted by the Minister and the subject of procedural fairness in public consultation, ie for a facility capable of producing up to 750 000 tonnes of copper per annum and the associated environmental impacts—rather than the significantly larger scale of project anticipated in the original 2005 EPBC Act referral of up to 1 000 000 tonnes per annum of copper production.
(2) What were the issues in question in the 'adequacy test' of the EIS documentation conducted under the Act over the 5 month period from the proposed Supplement to the EIS having been provided by the proponent on 2 December 2010 before public release of an accepted final EIS in May 2011.
(3) What further information, if any, did the department seek from the proponent regarding satisfaction of the 'adequacy test' applied to the Supplement to the EIS.
(4) In the formal assessment of the final EIS in the exercise of your powers under section 132 of the Act, what further information, if any, did the Minister or delegate seek from the proponent so that sufficient information was before you on the relevant impacts on matters protected by the Act in order to be able to make a decision under section 133 of the Act—including under the 'Nuclear Action' controlling provisions for the protection of the environment from nuclear actions.
(5) What use, if any, was exercised of the 'stop the clock' provisions of the Act in the formal assessment period, and if exercised, on what issues was that undertaken and what further information was sought.
(6) In acknowledging that assessment under the Act applied to all environmental impacts of the proposed project and that this approval now also applies to the existing Olympic Dam mining operations (Condition 81 Scope), what new conditions were placed on the existing Olympic Dam operations (other than Condition 21 to 'phase out the use of evaporation ponds as soon as possible') – operations which were previously assessed by the Commonwealth in the mid 1990's under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 and prior to the EPBC Act.
(7) Will the Minister give a commitment for public release and public consultation on the proposed 'Environmental Protection Management Plan' which is required from the proponent before substantial works may be commenced before Ministerial assent may be granted to this plan.
(8) Noting that the tailings storage facility (TSF) is to cover some 4 000 ha up to a height of 65 metres and the mining operations set out in the EIS are for a design leakage/seepage rate of up to 8.2 million litres a day with an average leakage rate of 3.2 million litres a day from the TSF over the proposed decades of mining to 2051, what is the design relationship between increasing the area of the tailing storage facility that is lined and the resultant environmental protection outcome in consequent reduction of the proposed leakage/seepage rate.
(9) What is the capital expenditure on the proposed lining of the tailings storage facility—which is arbitrarily limited to that of the central decant area of 400 by 400 metres in each tailings cell, a total lined area of only some 4 per cent of the total area of the tailings storage facility.
(10) What is the required investment in capital expenditure on environmental protection measures to properly line the tailings storage facility to exercise effective control of tailings so as to prevent leakage of liquid radioactive tailings waste from the tailings storage facility.
(11) In the exercise of Ministerial responsibilities under the Act to protect the environment in this assessment process and in this decision, is it the case that the department did not require the proponent to provide capital expenditure estimations on environmental protection measures to further limit or prevent leakage from the tailings storage facility; if there was no requirement, why not.
(12) Does the department consider that the capital expenditure costs of environment protection measures in radioactive waste management is a 'commercial in confidence' matter for the proponent.
(13) Why did the Minister not apply section 134(1) of the Act, as a necessary condition to be applied for the protection of the environment from nuclear actions a matter protected under section 21 of the Act, to impose the most stringent conditions to guarantee the prevention of leakage of tailings waste, including the requirement of effective mitigation measures such as adequate lining of the proposed tailings storage facility.
(14) Why has approval been granted to cause a plume of seepage leachate in groundwater from the tailings storage facility which the EIS documentation cites (draft EIS Ch.12 p.371) will affect groundwater levels for up to 6 km from the tailings storage facility and which Approval Condition No.26 then seeks to regulate so that the plume must not come within 20 m of the surface (80 m AHD) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister.
(15) Why is the proponent being allowed to avoid the needed investment in capital expenditure to control radioactive wastes, to protect the environment and to prevent leakage from the tailings storage facility.
(16) In the Commonwealth's support for the South Australian government's proposed mine rehabilitation bond of some $72 million for the whole of mining operations at Olympic Dam, is it the case that the required investment in capital expenditure for effective lining of the TSF to control and to prevent leakage of these acid liquid radioactive and heavy metal wastes would on its own exceed the value of this proposed bond.
(17) Who does the Federal Department understand is to be the responsible entity for the TSF post mine closure at Olympic Dam given that the South Australian government Assessment Report (Chapter 4 p.41) cites that the 'Responsible entity post closure'' for the open pit is the South Australian government, however it lists the responsible entity for the tailings storage facility post closure as 'Not stated'.
(18) Given that tailings storage facility uranium mine tailings present a serious long term hazard to the environment and to health what are the long term responsibilities and liabilities of the proposed 'responsible entity' under this approval for the Olympic Dam surface tailings storage facility—post proposed closure of mining operations in 2051 and the Approval's cited limited 10 year period of mine rehabilitation conditions up to 2061.
(19) Why has the proponent apparently been granted approval to produce these long term hazardous radioactive tailings, to 'dispose' of the tailings in largely unlined surface piles, and to then avoid formal legal ongoing responsibility and liability for the tailings and for the potential environmental and health impacts from the tailings post mine closure under the conditions of this approval that apply up to only 2061.
(20) Given the Commonwealth government's statutory required conditions and standards for isolation of uranium mine tailings from the environment at the Ranger mine under the Atomic Energy Act 1953 that: 'By the end of operations all tailings be placed in the mined out pit…in such a way to ensure that the tailings are physically isolated from the environment for at least 10 000 years', and 'Any contaminants arising from the tailings will not result in any detrimental impact for at least 10 000 years', what mine closure and rehabilitation assessment, plans and investment costings, if any, were required from the Olympic Dam proponent to achieve these correspondent conditions and standards in the management, storage and long term disposal of uranium wastes at Olympic Dam.
(21) Why was the proponent not required to submit assessment information on the potential to rehabilitate the proposed open pit—at least to the extent of disposing of the tailings into the pit.
(22) Given that the primary objective of the Act is to provide for protection of the environment and that section 136(2)(a) obliges the Minister to take the Principles of the Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) into account in making a decision, including the need for a precautionary approach to the avoidance of likely environmental harm, why has the Minister not felt legally compelled to impose the most stringent conditions and standards in this case.
(23) Is it the case in this approval that in failing to rehabilitate this open pit the mining proponent BHP Billiton will effectively avoid some billions of dollars in mine clean up and rehabilitation costs and leave the pit as a permanent feature and scar on the landscape to form a hyper saline lake of some 300 m depth in the base of the 1 km deep pit that will be contaminated by radionuclides and heavy metals.
(24) Following 6 years of the Act EIS assessment process, why does approval condition 32 'Mine closure' leave it up to the proponent to: (a) draft a set of environmental outcomes that are to be achieved indefinitely post closure; (b) draft a set of assessment criteria to achieve these outcomes; (c) have yet to decide how to propose to cover the tailings (at 32.c.ii); and (d) conduct a 'Safety Assessment' to determine the 'long term (from closure to in the order of 10 000 years) risk to the public and the environment from the tailings storage facility and the rock storage facility'.
(25) Is it the role and the responsibility of the Minister under the Act to set the required environmental outcomes and assessment criteria for mine closure approval conditions and to know the potential extent of the risk to the public and to the environment before granting an approval to the proponent for the proposed mining operations.
(26) Following 6 years of the Act assessment the approval grants the proponent 2 further years from the date of the approval to provide a 'Mine Closure Plan' for assessment and further approval by the Minister, will the Minister give a commitment to make this proposed 'Mine Closure Plan' public and to provide public consultation on the proposed plan before further Ministerial assent is to be granted.
(27) Noting the South Australian government announced on 12 October 2011 that as part of the proposed Indenture agreement the proponent will be provided with the long term security required to proceed in the project by the grant of freehold over the expanded mining lease at Olympic Dam an area of 49 700 ha (ie of 497 square kilometres) of Crown Land, why was this proposed extensive grant of freehold title over an area of nearly 500 square kilometres of Crown lands not included in the EIS documentation and not addressed in the relevant matters subject to public consultation—including with Aboriginal interests—in the EIS process.
(28) Has the Commonwealth government been a party to this proposed extensive grant of an area of nearly 500 square kilometres of Crown lands to a mining proponent BHP Billiton, the largest and richest mining company in the world.
(29) When did the Commonwealth government learn of this proposed grant of freehold title over the expanded Special Mining Lease.
(30) What are the implications for Native Title rights and interests, and what Native Title Act process may be involved, in this proposed grant of freehold title over Crown lands to the proponent BHP Billiton.
(31) Given the Minister was not provided with assessment information by the proponent in the EIS documentation on the proposed extension of the period of extraction of waters from the Great Artesian Basin for further decades up to 2051 (the period of the approval now granted for all mining operations at Olympic Dam), what further information—if any—was sought from the proponent under section 132.
(32) What assessment, was undertaken by the Minister and the department regarding this proposed extension of the period of extraction of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) waters in the Minister's responsibilities to the environmental impacts of this mining matter on the community of native species dependent on natural discharge of groundwater from the GAB, the "Mound Spring Community" listed as an endangered ecological community and a matter protected under section 18 of the Act.
(33) Why has the fundamentally important matter of setting of compliance criteria been left to be set by the proponent, in: approval condition 27 and 28 Extraction of water from the Great Artesian Basin to 'ensure that water extraction from Wellfield A and B in the GAB…does not have a significant adverse impact on groundwater dependent listed threatened species or Ecological Communities' and with the relevant compliance criteria to be set by the proponent in their preparation of the 'Environment Protection Management Plan' (under Condition No.4).
(34) Why has the Minister granted approval for open pit mine operations, infrastructure, processing and transport predicated on production of a uranium infused bulk copper concentrate for precedent overseas sale and processing and proposed export direct to China – a matter that is not sanctioned under any of Australia's bilateral uranium sales agreements.
(35) Noting that the Commonwealth Assessment Report (dated 13 September 2011, Nuclear Security and Safety at p.57-59) acknowledges that 'There is not currently in place a bilateral safeguard agreement with China that covers the export of the uranium contained within the copper concentrate. Such an agreement would need to be finalised before any export of copper concentrate can take place. ASNO would determine the accounting arrangements and security measures required' why has this approval pre-empted the potential outcome of a required future new or amended nuclear treaty with China, a matter that has yet to be negotiated with China, or to be put to the Australian Parliament, or to be put to the required Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry, and that may not be realised.
(36) Why did the Minister not assess the feasible alternative of an expansion of the long standing practice at Olympic Dam to produce a copper product on site, or decide to reject this part of the application for the proposed precedent sale and overseas processing of a uranium infused bulk copper concentrate.
(37) What responsibility does the Minister accept for the consequent environmental and radioactive risks in this proposed precedent sale and overseas processing of a uranium infused bulk copper concentrate of up to 1.6 million tonnes per annum, and in the resultant waste management requirements for some 1.2 million tonnes per annum of Olympic Dam mine wastes to be dumped in China over decades up to 2051.
(38) In assessing the world's largest ever proposed uranium mining project the department's "Olympic Dam expansion assessment report EPBC 2005/2270" (13 September 2011) states at p.10 that: "the department has not recommended conditions in relation to radiation protection for workers at the Olympic Dam mine site', why has the Minister not placed any specific conditions (other than compliance with existing Codes) in relation to radiation protection for workers at the Olympic Dam mine site.
(39) The Minister's approval condition radiation No.14 requires a Dose Constraint for Members of the Public for radiation exposure from Olympic Dam operations to be no more than 300 micro-Sieverts in a year unless otherwise agreed by the Minister, noting that the correspondent South Australian government Radiation Condition No.34 states that this reference level is to be specific to public doses at Roxby Downs and at the proposed Hiltaba Village, will this Commonwealth Dose Constraint also apply to non-designated uranium mine workers at the Olympic Dam mine site.
(40) What is the proportion of workers and the actual numbers of workers and of any contractors at the proposed expanded Olympic Dam mine site that are proposed to be formally designated as uranium mine workers and fall under the current International Commission on Tasiological Protection (ICRP) regulatory limit of 20 mSv a year, rather than the current public exposure limit of 1 mSv a year.
(41) Will train drivers transporting the uranium infused copper concentrate and truck drivers transporting uranium oxide be given the protection of the Minister's new approval condition radiation No.14 to require a Dose Constraint for Members of the Public for radiation exposure from Olympic Dam operations to be no more than 300 micro-Sieverts in a year.
(42) Given that projected ionising radiation exposure levels for key categories of designated uranium mine workers at Olympic Dam are far in excess of the independent European Committee on Radiation Risk (ECRR) recommended total ionising radiation permissible dose standard of 5 mSv a year for designated nuclear and uranium mine workers, what assessment if any did the Minister and the Department undertake in consideration of the independent ECRR recommendation, a matter that was put to the Minister to take into account in public submissions and a matter that he is able to legitimately consider under section136(2)(e) 'any other information' that he has relevant to impacts of the action, as an example standard relevant to the impacts of the proposed nuclear action at Olympic Dam.
(43) Noting that the department's 'Olympic Dam expansion assessment report EPBC 2005/2270' states that an 'expert review by Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency concludes that the total radiation dose to pit workers under unlikely worst case conditions may be up to 12 mSv/y' and then says that this may be expected to be reduced to below 10 mSv/y, and that 'The predicted average doses to hydrometallurgical and refinery workers were stated to range from 3 mSv/y to 5 mSv/y and up to 9 mSv/y for smelter workers' (p.7), what commitment can the Minister provide for the Commonwealth government to conduct a health study of past, current, and future uranium mine workers, and when will that study start.
(44) Why does the Minister and the department's Assessment Report place no Conditions on greenhouse gas emission issues given that the proposed project involves a significant increase in greenhouse pollution of some 4.1 (Gas electricity option) to 4.7 Mt Co2e per annum, and that it is within the Minister's powers to do as the project involves a nuclear action sec.21 and the matter protected under s.34 is 'the environment' and that sec.134 allows the Minister to impose conditions on an approval that are necessary or convenient for protection of this matter.
(45) Why has the Minister not required the Federal government's current climate change policy for an 80 per cent cut by 2050 on 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels to be applied in this case, instead of the proposed SA government condition of a now out dated policy setting in BHP Billion's 2009 draft EIS commitment to a 60 per cent cut by 2050 on 1990 levels—which was then the South Australian State Strategic Plan Target.
(46) Why has the Minister not required the proponent to use Renewable Energy (RE) for electricity generation, other than the South Australian government condition to only require use of RE to power the desalination plant (35 Mw) and for pumping of desalinated water to the mine site (22 Mw), when the use of RE presents the most effective greenhouse mitigation measure to limit and manage emissions from the project's proposed additional 650 Mw electricity demand. (Noting that an on-site heat recovery cogeneration energy efficiency measure is also said to provide up to 250 Mw at full production levels).
(47) Why has the Commonwealth allowed a perverse outcome in a massive public subsidy to the world's largest mining company through the diesel fuel rebate with BHP Billiton to receive an annual rebate of up to $85 million at an average diesel use of 480 million litres a year at full production levels, for a total subsidy to BHP Billiton of over $3.2 billion for the proposed use of approximately 17 900 million litres of diesel from the start of open pit construction throughout Olympic Dam mining operations up to 2050—a long term perverse disincentive to adopt other cleaner options.
(1) The scope of the approved project is that described in the referral (2005/2270) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as varied on 24 October 2008 and 9 June 2010. This indicates an approximate production rate of 750,000 tonnes per annum of refined copper equivalent.
(2) The issue in question in the 'adequacy test' was whether, in accordance with section 104(3) of the EPBC Act, as it applied to the project (i.e. pre-February 2007 version of the Act), the Minister had adequate information for the purposes of making an informed decision on approving under Part 9 of the EPBC Act (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action.
(3) Further information was sought from BHP Billiton relating to: the stability of the open pit and rock storage facility; stability of the tailings storage facility under earthquake loading; infiltration modelling in relation to the closure strategy for the tailings and rock storage facilities; progressive rehabilitation; capacity for neutralisation of acidic seepage from the tailings and rock storage facilities; geochemical modelling of seepage from the tailings storage facility; workforce exposure to radon, post closure radiation doses; groundwater modelling; hydrodynamic modelling; operation of the desalination plant under different flow regimes; construction of the intake pipe for the desalination plant; dissolved oxygen in receiving waters; ecotoxicity testing for the desalination plant; noise and dust impacts; and the gas pipeline.
(4) No further information was sought by the Minister or his delegate under section 132 of the EPBC Act.
(5) The clock was not stopped in the formal assessment period. However, the Minister wrote to BHP Billiton on 21 December 2010 advising that the statutory timeframe in the EPBC Act was unlikely to be met due to the complexity of the project and the need to align with state/territory processes.
(6) Schedules 1 and 7 of the approval conditions also apply to the existing operation and, as such, can be regarded as 'new' conditions. Condition 28, however, reflects the existing environmental requirements on BHP Billiton under their uranium export permit.
(7) The Minister will consider the need for public consultation on the Environmental Protection Management Plan when it is submitted for approval.
(8) The department's assessment was that, taking into account the poor quality of groundwater below the tailings storage facility and the natural attenuation of seepage from the tailings, increasing the area of lining in the tailings storage facility would not result in improved environmental protection and may lead to geotechnical instability in the tailings storage facility.
(9) Questions about capital expenditure should be addressed to BHP Billiton.
(10) See answers to questions 8 and 9.
(11) No capital expenditure estimates were required as the environmental protection measures proposed by BHP Billiton were considered to be adequate.
(12) Where capital expenditure costs are relevant to the Minister's decision making, the Minister, or the department, will consider whether this material is commercial in confidence, if required.
(13) The Minister applied the conditions necessary to protect the environment.
(14) Condition 26 regulates the height of the groundwater mound below the tailings storage facility to ensure there is no interaction with surface vegetation. Conditions 22, 24 and 25 regulate lateral movement of seepage.
(15) The proponent must make the capital expenditure necessary to comply with the approval conditions.
(16) Questions about capital expenditure should be addressed to BHP Billiton.
(17) These matters are governed under State law. Subclause 24(10) of the Schedule to the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) Act 1982 provides that freehold land granted over the area of a special mining lease will revert to the State at the expiration of the period ending two years after the termination of the relevant lease.
(18) The approval condition for the mine closure plan includes requirements on the approval holder to ensure that the mine tailings do not present a serious hazard to the environment and public health. This includes a comprehensive safety assessment to determine the long-term risks to the public and the environment from the tailings storage facility. The approval holder will be required to achieve the environmental outcomes in the approved mine closure plan. If the outcomes are not achieved prior to the expiry date of the approval under the EPBC Act, the approval holder may be in breach of the approval conditions, unless the approval is extended. Conditions 34 and 35 of the approval allow the minister to impose a bond up to the full cost of implementation of the mine closure plan.
(19) BHP Billiton must dispose of tailings in a properly constructed facility and meet the environmental outcomes in the mine closure plan as required under condition 32 of the approval.
(20) BHP Billiton was required to provide a summary mine closure plan in the environmental impact statement. Condition 32 of the approval requires the proponent to prepare a mine closure plan within two years of the date of the approval, or prior to construction of the tailings storage facility, whichever date is the earliest. This plan must be approved by the Minister. The condition requires the plan to contain a comprehensive safety assessment to determine the long-term risk to the public and the environment (from closure to in the order of 10,000 years) from the tailings storage facility and rock storage facility.
(21) This information was provided in section 4.1 of the Supplementary Environmental Impact Statement 2011.
(22) The Minister has imposed the most stringent conditions needed to protect the environment.
(23) The open pit will remain as a permanent feature.
(24) The environmental impact statement demonstrated conceptually, to the Minster's satisfaction, how the mine could be closed and that the long term environmental risks could be acceptably managed. Condition 32 requires the proponent to prepare a detailed comprehensive closure plan for the Minister's consideration and approval. The Minister will determine the adequacy of the plan and the environmental outcomes and assessment criteria to be used.
(25) In approving the proposal, the Minister was satisfied that he had adequate information on the long-term risk to the public and the environment to make a decision.
(26) The Minister will consider the need for public consultation on the mine closure plan when it is submitted for approval.
(27) The tenure of the mining lease is a matter for the South Australian Government.
(28) No
(29) When the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2011 was introduced to the South Australian Parliament on 18 October 2011.
(30) In accordance with the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Act 2011, freehold title will not be granted until the South Australian Minister is satisfied that native title is or will be extinguished. The South Australian Government, BHP Billiton and the native title parties have negotiated a proposed Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) under the Native Title Act 1993 for the surrender of native title rights and interests in return for significant benefits for the native title parties as well as Indigenous people in the broader region. Authorisation of the ILUA is not expected until February/March 2012, with execution of the ILUA, including registration, to follow.
(31) The Minister's approval of the Olympic Dam expansion did not extend the period of extraction of water from the Great Artesian Basin. This extraction was assessed under the now repealed Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974. The period of extraction remains the same as approved by the Australian and South Australian governments following that assessment.
(32) See answer to question 31.
(33) The Minister will set the compliance criteria, not the proponent. The proponent will propose criteria for the Minister's consideration and approval.
(34) The decision to approve the project under the EPBC Act is separate to any other regulatory requirements that may apply to the project. BHP Billiton will need to have all relevant regulatory approvals in place to proceed with the project.
(35) See answer to question 34.
(36) The proposal the Minister was required to assess was that referred (and as varied) under the EPBC Act.
(37) The EPBC Act applies only to impacts of the action on the environment within the Australian jurisdiction.
(38) As noted on page 10 of the department's assessment report: 'The requirements for protection of workers are extensive and comprehensively regulated and monitored by the South Australian Government'.
(39) A dose constraint is a target for the optimisation of radiation protection, however, it is not a dose limit. It is a way of encouraging good practice and ensuring doses are as low as reasonably achievable. The Code of Practice and Safety Guide, Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing (ARPANSA 2005) notes that it is common practice in Australia to designate occupationally exposed employees who are likely to receive doses that are a significant fraction of the dose limit (for example, more than 5 millisievert per year). Designated workers are monitored more intensively and work to a higher dose constraint than non-designated employees who receive low doses and are monitored less intensively. Depending on the situation, non-designated workers may be occupationally exposed at sufficiently low levels that a dose constraint similar to the case for a member of the public dose constraint can be applied.
(40) This question should be addressed to BHP Billiton.
(41) Truck driving, where the load is uranium oxide, and train driving, where the load is copper concentrate, would be classified as an occupational exposure situation and the occupational dose limit applies.
(42) The assessment was informed by advice from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency, as Australia's pre-eminent body on radiation protection matters. The approval conditions require compliance with the Code of Practice for Radiation Protection and Radioactive Waste Management in Mining and Mineral Processing developed by the Agency and used by state/territory agencies. The code takes account of recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The Commission is an international non-governmental body of leading experts that issue radiation protection recommendations based on current best scientific understanding.
(43) This question should be addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing.
(44) The Australian Government has a national market-based approach to address greenhouse gas emissions, including the introduction of a carbon price. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions will also be subject to a plan to be approved by the South Australian Government.
(45) See answer to question 44.
(46) The Australian Government has a market-based policy that will encourage companies such as BHP Billiton to move to renewable energy sources.
(47) Questions relating to taxation rebates should be addressed to the Treasurer.
In regard to information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office and the Child Support Agency:
(1) What checks are made by the Commissioner of Taxation to ensure that releasing individual Tax File Number (TFN) information to the Child Support Registrar is lawfully authorised.
(2) What percentage of cases handled by the Child Support Agency (CSA) are TFNs obtained under section 150D of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 (the Assessment Act).
(3) Is it correct that under section 150D of the Assessment Act the Registrar is not required to seek a client's permission to use a TFN or seek a statement in writing from a client authorising the Commissioner of Taxation to release their TFN to CSA.
(4) Is the Commissioner of Taxation provided with a copy of a statement in writing from the Child Support Registrar to confirm the particular individual client has authorised the Commissioner to give the individual's TFN information to the Child Support Registrar when the TFN is not obtained under section 150D of the Assessment Act.
(5) Is a record kept of requests to access child support liable parent's TFNs made by the Child Support Registrar under section 150D of the Assessment Act or under section 16C of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 (Registration and Collection Act).
(6) Is a record kept of the statements in writing provided by a paying parent to the Child Support Registrar under section 150C(2) or (3) of the Assessment Act or in section 16B(4) or (5) of the Registration and Collection Act.
(7) Does the process for releasing the TFN information of individuals to the Child Support Registrar differ from the process for releasing the TFN information of individuals to other Commonwealth officers; if so, in what way does the process differ.
(1) Disclosure of TFN information by the Commissioner of Taxation to the Child Support Registrar is authorised under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. Requests to the Commissioner for TFN information by the Registrar are made through agreed channels by authorised officers. Arrangements for the provision of ATO information to the Child Support Registrar, including those relating to security, privacy and confidentiality, are managed through a formal agreement established under the Head Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies. The agreement specifies the kinds of information the Registrar will request the Commissioner to provide on a regular basis to support child support administration, outlines the processes through which the information will be provided, and also describes arrangements for non-standard or irregular requests for information.
(2) CSA does not keep records of the method by which a customer's TFN is obtained.
(3) Yes.
(4) No.
(5) No.
(6) If a statement is provided, pursuant to section 16B(4) or (5) of the Registration and Collection Act, this record would be kept by CSA. Section 150C of the Assessment Act was repealed by the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011.
(7) Yes. CSA staff obtain TFN information by directly accessing Tax Office systems. This differs from the way other agencies gain TFN information. The circumstances in which the Commissioner of Taxation may release TFN information to other Commonwealth officers is very limited. Where a person indicates in a TFN application form that they need a TFN to give to Centrelink or to the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the ATO will send the person's TFN to the relevant agency if the person has authorised the ATO to do so. The taxation legislation authorises disclosure of TFN information by the Commissioner to facilitate the administration of specific aspects of social security and higher education legislation. There is no regular provision of TFN information to other agencies for those purposes. Requests for TFN information are assessed to determine whether the release of TFN information is authorised under relevant legislative provisions.
(1) In regard to the King Sound boundary of the west Kimberley National Heritage listing, is the boundary:
(a) to the shoreline; if so, how is the 'shoreline' defined;
(b) to the high tide line;
(c) to the low tide line; or
(d) to the Australian Height Datum.
(2) As the only listed National Heritage value for King Sound is the historical use of the galwa (Aboriginal raft), is the Minister aware:
(a) that the King Sound area has the highest tides in Australia; if so, why is this not a listed heritage value;
(b) of the published scientific paper by Semeniuk and Brocx that describes the: (i) international geo-heritage significance of King Sound, and (ii) the King Sound mangrove forests as globally unique; if so, why are they not listed heritage values; and
(c) that the King Sound mangrove forests are recommended by the Australian Heritage Council to be registered on the National Estate; if so, why are they not listed as a heritage value.
(1) (a) Yes, the relevant part of the West Kimberley National Heritage place boundary in King Sound is the south-western boundary, which follows the shoreline from latitude 17.482S to longitude 123.103E. "Shoreline" is not defined in the EPBC Act. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines "shoreline" as "the line along which a large body of water meets the land".
(b) No.
(c) No.
(d) No.
(2) While the historical use of the galwa (double log raft) is the only listed national heritage value for most of King Sound, parts of the sound are also encompassed by the geological heritage value of the Kimberley ria coast, the aesthetic value of the coast, and the value associated with the 1688 William Dampier landing.
(a) Tidal movements in the west Kimberley were considered by the Australian Heritage Council in its assessment but were not found of themselves to be of national heritage value. Tidal movements are acknowledged as part of the aesthetic value of the coast and the historical use of the galwa .
(b) The department advises that the paper by V Semeniuk and M Brocx entitled "King Sound and the tide-dominated delta of the Fitzroy River: their geoheritage values" was published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia in June 2011, one year after the Council completed its assessment.
The Australian Heritage Council considered the mangrove forests of King Sound in its assessment, but did not find them to be of national heritage value.
(c) The King Sound mangrove forests have not been recommended by the Australian Heritage Council for listing in the Register of the National Estate.
In regard to travel or accommodation expenses, has the Government or any Regional Development Australia committee paid Mr Paul Budde, or any organisation that Mr Budde is affiliated with, any money, including the covering of any travel or accommodation expenses; if so, what were these payments for, how much did the payments total, and can an itemised list of any separate payments and the reasons for them be provided.
The Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government has not made any payments to Mr Paul Budde or Paul Budde Communication Pty Ltd. Each Government department would need to be asked about their own payments. The Department does not collect or hold financial information about the individual payments made by Regional Development Australia (RDA) committees. RDAs are independent bodies that are focused on growing their regions and the economic development of regional Australia. In performing this role they undertake a wide range of activities as part of their normal operations, including regional planning, working with local stakeholders and conducting forums.
In regard to the Facebook page entitled 'Steve Austin' (the webpage) which targeted serving gay and lesbian Defence members and to which current and serving members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) subscribe or contributed:
(1) Can a list be provided of each rank and the number of persons who hold that rank of the defence members who contributed or subscribed to the webpage.
(2) Were the ranks inferior or superior to that of the members of the ADF targeted by the website.
(3) Of the contributors and/or subscribers to the webpage who were junior in rank to those targeted, was a charge of insubordination pursuant to section 26 of the Defence Force Disciplinary Act 1982 (the Act) contemplated; if not, why not.
(4) What is the difference under the Act between conduct and language that is vilifying of a superior officer and conduct and language that is 'threatening, insubordinate or insulting.
(5) Does vilifying behaviour of an officer constitute insubordination under the Act or any other disciplinary provisions of the ADF.
(6) Does the Act make unlawful language or conduct that is vilifying of a superior officer.
(7) Can a list be provided of the laws, rules or regulations which apply to Defence Members prohibiting vilifying behaviour.
(8) Of the laws, rules or regulations listed above, can an explanation be provided as to why Defence members have not been proceeded against pursuant to those laws, rules or regulations.
(9) What was the name and rank of the officer who decided not to proceed against Defence members who contributed or subscribed to the webpage.
(10) With reference to the Defence Instruction (General) and, in particular, the provisions of the instruction relating to Unacceptable Behaviour and Workplace Bullying, can an explanation be provided as to whether vilifying behaviour is or is not: (a) unacceptable behaviour; (b) bullying; (c) insubordination; (d) insulting; or (e) threatening.
(11) Did the conduct of the webpage and participation on the webpage amount to vilification.
(12) Can a copy of the legal advice provided to the ADF regarding this matter be provided.
(13) Is vilifying behaviour contrary to military discipline and order.
(1) A Defence investigation identified 32 serving members of the Australian Army who had accepted friend requests from the Facebook page entitled 'Steve Austin' (the webpage). A list of each rank and the number of persons who hold that rank is below: (a) Captain – One; (b) Warrant Officer Class Two – One; (c) Sergeant – One; (d) Corporal – 13; (e) Lance Corporal – Six; and (f) Private – Ten.
(2) The ranks of the ADF members targeted by the website ranged from Private to Major.
(3) Yes.
(4), (5) (6) and (7) For ADF personnel, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA) is the primary Act for the purposes of discipline. Vilification is not specifically and explicitly defined in the DFDA. The DFDA also enables the ADF to enforce Commonwealth Laws as applicable in the Jervis Bay Territory. Section 26 of the DFDA defines insubordinate conduct as conduct or language that is threatening, insubordinate or insulting to or about a person where the person is a superior officer and the language is used in that person's presence.
Despite not being explicitly mentioned in the DFDA, vilification of any kind is unacceptable and Army considers the targeting of any person who is, or is thought to be, gay or lesbian to be repugnant and contrary to both Army's values and those of the wider community.
Additionally members of the ADF remain subject to state and Commonwealth laws. Defence must also comply with the requirements of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, and the acts administered by the Commission, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania prohibit vilification on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and relationships. In these jurisdictions, vilification refers to communications made in public that incite 'hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of' a person or group of people on the grounds of their sexual orientation and or gender identity.
(8) Defence, like the broader community, is coming to grips, in both a legal and policy sense, with the rapidly evolving nature and potential of social media. Defence recognises this and is currently reviewing its social media policies, following the conduct of the Social Media Review announced by the Minister for Defence on 11 April 2011. This will include a review of the legal and policy requirements associated with misuse of social media.
Under the current legal and policy framework within Defence, 'befriending' a site does not – in and of itself – provide sufficient legal basis to sustain a disciplinary or legal charge. A small number of identified members posted comments to the Facebook page, but, this information was not deemed, by investigators to be of a vilifying nature.
Lessons learned from recent events have been translated into the delivery of additional equity training, which has been provided to units to reinforce the responsibilities of individuals. Within the Australian Army, all units have participated in a cultural awareness program, which has reinforced Army's values of Courage, Initiative and Teamwork, as well as Army's nine core soldier behaviours. This awareness program was designed to generate discussion among unit personnel on a wide range of equity and diversity issues and to reinforce the need for all Army personnel to take personal responsibility for their actions. Army continues to actively work to promote a fair and tolerant workplace and maintains the view that any kind of vilification is abhorrent.
(9) The Chief of Staff at Army Headquarters has taken administrative action in the form of a written warning to all 32 identified ADF members who became friends of the Facebook page. This warning has been retained on file for future reference.
(10) Refer to the answers above.
(11) Refer to the answers above.
(12) Legal advice is privileged and is not proposed to be released on public interest grounds.
(13) Yes. Refer to the answers above.
In regard to the Facebook page entitled 'Steve Austin' (the webpage) which targeted serving gay and lesbian Defence members and to which current and serving members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) subscribe or contributed:
(1) On what date were all persons targeted and named on the webpage advised of the fact by the ADF.
(2) Has the Minister been briefed on the anti-Semitic and Nazi linkages connected with the webpage.
(3) Are persons who were targeted by the webpage required to continue working with Defence members who subscribed or contributed to the webpage.
(4) Has the ADF warned its members to 'check their privacy settings' when joining webpages that might be regarded as hate and vilification sites.
(5) Is there a list of words and expressions that are vilifying, insulting , racist, sexist or homophobic that are explicitly prohibited from being used by Defence members.
(1) By 1 November 2010.
(2) Yes.
(3) Six persons where identified on the webpage. One of those members has discharged from Army and another is in the Standby Reserves. Three of the members remain in units that contain members of Army who were identified in the investigation. Those three members have indicated a desire for this to occur. One member has identified a desire not to be directly involved with members identified in the investigation. That individual is currently in a workplace that allows this separation to be managed.
(4) Army conducted cultural training sessions for staff on 31 May 2011 that highlighted the significance of privacy settings in social media. Army also wrote to the 32 ADF members identified in the investigation and made a similar point.
(5) There is no list of words and expressions that are explicitly prohibited from being used by Defence members. The Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 (DFDA), however, provides for the discipline of members engaged in unacceptable behaviour. Additionally, members of the ADF remain subject to state and Commonwealth laws (see response to parts 4-7 of Senate Question on Notice No. 1473).
I refer to the Facebook page entitled 'Steve Austin' (the webpage) which targeted serving gay and lesbian Defence members and to which current and serving members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) subscribe or contributed:
(1) Of those serving Defence members who chose to join this webpage and/or contribute to its content, how many have been subject to any discipline.
(2) If Defence members were subject to discipline, what form did this take and when did it occur.
(3) Have any Defence members who chose to subscribe to the webpage or contribute to its content, been issued with a Notice to Show Cause as to why they should continue to serve in the military; if not, why not.
(4) When did officials within the ADF become aware of this webpage.
(5) On what date did military officials take action against the webpage and its subscribers and what form did this action take.
(6) On what date was a formal complaint lodged against this webpage.
(7) When was the first interview of a Defence member conducted.
(8) Of the Defence members who contributed or participated on the webpage, how many were interviewed and how many provided: (a) Written responses; (b) Verbal responses; or (c) Written and verbal responses.
(1) and (2) See response to part 9 of Senate Question on Notice 1473.
(3) Not applicable. See response to part 8 of Senate Question on Notice 1473.
(4) (5) and (6) The first known notification was made to a domestic military police unit on 5 August 2010. Army Headquarters became aware on 11 August 2010 and made a formal complaint to Facebook on the same day. The Facebook site was removed by Facebook administrators by 12 August 2010.
(7) The first interview by the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service of a Defence member was conducted on 16 August 2010.
(8) Thirty two personnel were interviewed. A combination of written and verbal responses was provided.
I refer to the Facebook page entitled 'Steve Austin' (the webpage) which targeted serving gay and lesbian Defence members and to which current and serving members of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) subscribe or contributed:
(1) When did members of the ADF become aware of this webpage by choosing to subscribe to it or by contributing to its content.
(2) How many serving members of the ADF specifically took action to subscribe to this webpage or to contribute to its content.
(3) Is there a mandatory reporting requirement for abusive or vilifying conduct in the ADF; if so, how many Defence members who were aware of this webpage and/or contributed to it informed the authorities about the abuse and vilification it contained and advocated.
(4) What instrument creates a mandatory requirement to report abusive or vilifying conduct.
(5) If none of the Defence members who subscribed to this webpage and/or contributed to its content reported the webpage to military authorities, what action has the ADF subsequently taken to reprimand or penalise such Defence members for their inaction in reporting this abuse.
(1) Unknown.
(2) See response to part 1 of Senate Question on Notice No. 1473.
(3) Defence personnel have a responsibility to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of themselves and others in the workplace. Consistent with this requirement, all Defence personnel must promptly report to their supervisor, commander or manager (as appropriate), incidents of unacceptable behaviour that are beyond their ability or authority to manage. The existence of the web page was reported to Defence from a number of its members through various channels. The first known report was to a domestic military policing unit on 5 August 2010.
(4) Defence Instruction (General) PERSONNEL 35-3—The Management and Reporting of Unacceptable Behaviour.
(5) ADF personnel do not have a mandatory reporting requirement to report vilification or abusive behaviour that is instigated by a party outside of Defence, as was the situation in this incident.
In regard to the Water for the Future programs referred to in the September 2010 Incoming Government Brief:
(1) What are the eight ongoing Water for the Future programs.
(2) Who has been conducting the 'high level review' of these programs, and has this review been completed; if so, when; if not, when is it expected to be completed.
(3) Has any report been provided to the Minister as a result of this review; if so, when; if not, when is it expected to be provided.
(4) Has any report been provided to Cabinet as a result of this review; if so, when; if not, is one expected to be provided and when.
(5) What changes, if any, have been made to the programs as a result of this review.
(6) Will the report and/or findings be released publicly; if so, when.
(1) The eight ongoing Water for the Future programs are:
Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure
Restoring the Balance in the Basin
Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative
National Water Security Plan for Cities and Towns
Green Precincts
National Rainwater and Greywater Initiatives
National Urban Water and Desalination Plan
Water Smart Australia
(2) to (6) The review is being conducted by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, and is currently in progress. When it is complete it will be considered by the Australian Government.
How many firearms were imported in each of the past 10 years and how many of these were: (a) long guns; and (b) short guns.
The number of commercially imported*# firearms for years 2001 – 2010 is as follows:
* Commercial firearms are goods that have been imported into Australia in accordance with Customs import declaration requirements, even if by a private user.
# Figures provided include air firearms as well as conventional firearms.
## Long arms include rifles, shotguns, military, antique firearms and uncategorised air-firearms; and for 2003 onwards, paintball markers.
It should be noted that Customs and Border Protection's data collection and recording arrangements were amended in 2004. Accordingly, data prior to 2004 is not directly comparable with current statistics.
In regard to Centrelink's 2 hectares rule:
(1) How many Centrelink recipients are affected by the rule.
(2) How many of these recipients are aged pension recipients.
(3) How many rural pensioners have been forced to sell their homes as a result of this rule.
(4) What is the average property size affected by this rule.
(1) 11,654 recipients are affected by the rule, as at 9 December 2011.
Those affected are income support payment customers and their partners who:
(i) are paid a part rate income support payment because of the asset test; and
(ii) have the value of land in excess of 2 hectares adjacent to their home counted in their assets.
For Social Security Income Support payments, a person's principal home is generally exempt from the assets test. This exemption can include the land on which the house stands, as long as the land is on a single title and does not exceed two hectares. This is sometimes referred to as the “two hectares rule”. Any additional land, or other real estate assets, will generally be included as an asset.
The exemption for the person's principal home can include more than two hectares, as long as the land is on a single title, where the following criteria are met:
(i) the customer (or their partner) is of age pension age and receives, or qualifies to receive Age Pension, Carer Payment, or Service Pension paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs;
(ii) the customer has a 20 year continuous attachment to the land as their principal home; and
(iii) they are making “effective use of productive land” to generate income, taking into consideration their capacity to do so.
The definition for “effective use of productive land” includes:
(i) the person or a family member operating a farming business on the land; or
(ii) the person is leasing the land to someone else for a commercial rate of return; or
(iii) the land has limited or no potential for commercial use, e.g. 'lifestyle blocks'.
(2) 10,057 of these recipients are Age Pensioners.
(3) The Department of Human Services does not hold this information.
(4) The Department of Human Services does not hold the information required to determine the average property size affected by this rule.
(1) Has the Attorney-General ascertained whether there are any charges to be laid by the Government of the United States of America (US) against Mr Julian Assange, including under the US Espionage Act of 1917 or other statutes.
(2) Has the government ascertained, whether formally or informally, the accuracy of reports of a sealed indictment of a US Grand Jury.
(3) What steps, if any, has the Attorney-General taken to establish any facts pertaining to paragraphs (1) and (2).
(4) Does the Government define the work of Mr Assange in his capacity as Editor in Chief of Wikileaks as 'having implications for Australia's foreign relations', thereby enlivening the Intelligence Services Act 2001.
(5) Can the Attorney-General confirm that the Government would not permit the extradition of Mr Assange to the US should he return to Australia.
(6) Why has the Government failed, or refused, to supply an answer to the question asked during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on 2 June 2011 regarding a public interest immunity ground for a blanket refusal to answer any question arising from information in US cables made public through Wikileaks.
(1) I am not aware of any charges by the United States Government against Mr Assange, including under the US Espionage Act or other statutes. The decision to lay charges is a matter for the US authorities. The Australian Government would expect any charges laid against Mr Assange to be carried out in accordance with due process.
(2) No.
(3) These are matters for the US authorities. At this stage, it would be premature to speculate on what further representations the Government may make in relation to Mr Assange's case.
(4) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters, or to confirm or deny whether any particular person or organisation is the subject of an intelligence investigation.
(5) Australia's extradition relationship with the United States is governed by the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the United States of America, done at Washington on 14 May 1974, as amended by the Protocol done at Seoul on 4 September 1990. Within this framework:
It is inappropriate to make a commitment in relation to the extradition of an individual in advance of a formal determination on the merits of the case.
(6) It is not appropriate to comment on leaked United States documents because it may cause damage to national security, defence, or international relations.
In regard to the Minister's responsibility for the protection of consular and legal rights of all Australian citizens overseas and the answer to question on notice no. 1282 regarding Mr Julian Assange:
(1) On what dates have consular officers 'been in regular touch with his lawyers'.
(2) When consular officials 'attended all eleven of Mr Assange's court appearances' did any interaction or exchange occur with Mr Assange or his legal team.
(3) As a result of attending all eleven of Mr. Assange's court appearances, what reporting did consular officials provide and to whom.
(4) On the three occasions when the Australian Government sought assurances from Sweden that Mr Assange's case would be handled in accordance with due process (7 December 2010, 5 January and 10 February 2011): (a) did the Government seek specific assurances that Mr Assange would not be subject to the temporary surrender mechanism that could specifically result in his extradition to the United States of America (US); if so did the government seek such assurances in the form of writing or through verbal communications; and (b) what was the Government told by the Swedish authorities and in what form.
(5) Given the answer to question 1282 indicated that the Government 'has no formal advice of any Grand Jury investigation' when the question asked as to whether the Government sought advice, has the Government actually sought clarification, formally or informally, from the US Government about the existence of a Grand Jury investigation and as to what crimes for which Mr. Assange is being investigated.
(6) What legal or other advice has the department sought and from whom regarding Mr Assange's current extradition process.
(7) To whom has the department provided legal and other advice regarding Mr. Assange's current extradition process.
(1) Consular officers have communicated (via letter, email, telephone or face to face) with Mr Assange's lawyers – Birnberg, Peirce & Partners – on the following dates in 2011: (a) 15 December (b) 9 December (c) 5 December (d) 29 November (e) 28 November (f) 15 November (g) 9 November (h) 7 November (i) 2 November (j) 28 October (k) 25 October (l) 19 September (m) 8 August (n) 14 July (o) 13 July (p) 12 July (q) 6 July (r) 30 June
Prior to this, consular officials were in contact with Mr Assange's previous legal team.
(2) Consular officials were able to speak with Mr Assange prior to his 7 February hearing but not at his other court appearances. Consular officers spoke with Mr Assange's lawyers at the courts following his appearances on 24 February, 12 July and 13 July 2011. Consular officers were in contact with Mr Assange's lawyers following the court hearings on 2 November and 5 December 2011.
(3) Consular officials reported to DFAT and other relevant Government agencies through the diplomatic cable network.
(4) (a) No. This is because there is no distinction, in terms of the legal protection afforded a person whose extradition is being sought, between "temporary surrender" and extradition. "Temporary surrender" is not an alternative to extradition. It is how extradition is described in a situation where the person whose extradition is sought is either already on trial or imprisoned in the country which has received the extradition request. It describes the option the requested State has in this situation to interrupt its own proceedings in the country seeking the extradition. All protections available to the person whose extradition is sought apply equally to an extradition that is a "temporary surrender". Provision for "temporary surrender" is an increasingly common feature in modern extradition relationships and is not unique to the relationship between the US and Sweden. It is included in Australian extradition treaties and in the Extradition Act 1988. It is also included in all extradition relationships between the US and member states of the European Union, including the United Kingdom. (b) Australian officials were advised orally by Swedish officials that Mr Assange's case would be afforded due process.
(5) Yes.
(6) The Department has sought advice from the Attorney-General's Department on Australia's extradition process. The Department has also sought information on extradition law, processes and practice from authorities in the United Kingdom and Sweden.
(7) The Department has provided information to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his office on Mr Assange's current extradition process. The Department has shared information with other relevant agencies in Australia on Mr Assange's current extradition process, including the Attorney-General's Department. The Department has shared information on this matter with Mr Assange's lawyers and with Senator Ludlam.
In regard to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM):
(1) What are the current staff numbers in the BoM field offices in north and northwest Queensland.
(2) Have those numbers changed over the past year.
(3) Are there any plans to decrease these staffing levels over the next 3 years.
(4) Are there plans to move any of these positions to the BoM head offices in either Brisbane or Melbourne.
(5) Can the number of Observers, Technical Officers (Meteorology) and Meteorologists be provided, as at December 2011 (present time) and as at December 2001 (10 years ago) for each of the following:
(a) those located in each state and territory capitals, including a total of all; and
(b) those located outside the state and territory capitals (exclude from these figures in (a) and (b) staff specifically dedicated to defence and civil aviation).
(6) What are the current numbers of Senior Executive Service (SES) staff located at the: (a) Head Office in Melbourne; and (b) in the state capitals.
(7) What were the staff numbers 5 years ago for SES positions located at the: (a) Head office in Melbourne; and (b) the state capitals.
(8) Is the new radar at Herveys Range in Townsville, built to replace an old radar at Mount Stuart during 2011, providing accurate forecasts.
(9) Are there any recorded incidents where showers in the region of the Townsville Airport were not 'seen' by the Herveys Range radar; if so, can details be provided.
(1) and (2) Headcount including maintenance and leave relief staff.
(3) At this stage there are no plans for significant changes to the staffing levels in the field offices listed in questions 1 and 2. Changes may result from the introduction of the Next Generation Forecast and Warning System in 2013 but this has yet to be determined.
(4) Decisions on the staffing levels within Bureau offices depend on service requirements and changes in technology. They can also depend on the availability of staff to work in some locations. Staff numbers and locations are constantly under review to optimise the service.
(5) (a)
(b)
(6) and (7) The table below outlines the SES numbers in 2006 and 2011. The increase in SES numbers is due to the addition of new functions under the Water for the Future program, the National Plan for Environmental Information and the transfer to the Bureau of the Ionospheric Prediction Service. Victorian totals include the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, a joint arrangement with CSIRO.
(8) Hervey Range radar was installed as part of the ongoing radar upgrade program and replaced Mt Stuart radar. The Bureau's radars provide rainfall estimation, and not forecasts, by detecting the reflection of radar signals from water droplets. Every radar has unique characteristics and limitations which are determined by the location and type of the radar. Due to the complexity of the terrain near Townsville the radar was positioned in an elevated location to enable the better detection of severe weather such as thunderstorms, tropical cyclones and potential flooding over a larger geographical area. This means that some low-level rainfall may go undetected. Recent maintenance and calibration checks have ensured that the radar is now operating to specifications.
(9) The Bureau has received some comments on the radar's ability to detect low-level showers. In response, the Bureau has recently adjusted the radar settings to capture rainfall closer to the ground and has conducted further calibration and maintenance checks on the radar.
(1) Given that the Minister has stated that he is concerned that the retail supply chains are getting so badly damaged and consumers' choices are being limited, can an explanation be provided as to whether the Labor Government members were fully advised prior to introducing the National Competition Policy that it was not based on classical market theory but the Baumol based 'contestability theory', which supported corporate market dominance.
(2) Is the Minister aware that the Baumol based 'contestability theory' was the basis for the major recommendation for removing the restrictions on price discrimination by retailers to their suppliers.
(3) Is the Minister aware that in their 2008 grocery price inquiry, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) avoided admitting that the basic pre-conditions of 'contestability' did not exist in Australia's retail grocery sector.
(4) Is the Minister also aware that the ACCC avoided assessing the impacts of the National Competition Policy on the Australian retail grocery sector in their 2008 grocery price inquiry.
(5) Given that the ACCC chose to ignore that the majority of Australia's primary producer organisations advised it that there was a growing gap between farmgate and retail prices, how will the Minister ensure that the ACCC will properly assess the serious concerns and complaints of Australia's grocery supply sector.
In October 1992, all levels of Government agreed to establish an independent inquiry into competition policy in Australia (known as the Hilmer inquiry), which conducted extensive public consultation and reported to Government in 1993. The Hilmer report was released publicly, prompting widespread discussion and review of the principles proposed and their basis in economic theory including independent analysis of the potential benefits of the Hilmer reforms by the Industry Commission (a predecessor of the Productivity Commission). The Hilmer report considered a wide range of evidence, submissions and economic theories, including but not limited to contestability theory, in arriving at its recommendations.
Publishing comprehensive analysis of the reform proposals and articulating the economy-wide benefits of reform culminated in 1995 with all Governments agreeing to an ambitious plan to promote enhanced competition, known as the National Competition Policy (NCP), which was implemented over a ten year period. In 2005, the Productivity Commission Review of National Competition Policy Reforms estimated that NCP reforms have served to permanently increase Australia's GDP by around 2.5 per cent or $A20 billion.
National Competition Policy and the subsequent Council of Australian Government's reform agenda play an important role in enhancing competition in the Australian economy to promote economic growth and efficiency. A fundamental principle underlying competition policy is that the competitive process – which maximises the wellbeing of both consumers and producers – should be protected, rather than individual competitors or particular market structures.
The then Trade Practices Act 1974 contained an explicit prohibition from 1974 to 1995 on specific types of price discrimination which had the effect of substantially lessening competition. The repeal of the former section 49 of the Act, which prohibited anti competitive price discrimination, was recommended by the Swanson Committee, the Blunt Committee and the Hilmer Committee. The inquiries raised various concerns, including that the former prohibition: caused price inflexibility; reduced price competition; was contrary to economic efficiency; and had not been of assistance to small business. The Hilmer Committee noted that price discrimination generally enhances economic efficiency, except where such conduct would contravene sections 45 (anti competitive agreements) or 46 (misuse of market power).
The prohibition was subsequently repealed in 1995. Its repeal was subsequently endorsed by the Dawson Committee.
International experience has been consistent with the repeal of section 49. Canada repealed its anti competitive price discrimination provision in 2009. The United States Antitrust Modernisation Commission in its 2007 report recommended that the Robinson-Patman Act 1936 (RPA) be repealed. This was consistent with the reviews which reported in 1955, 1969 and 1977 that recommended the repeal or substantial overhaul of the RPA.
In the Report of the ACCC inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries in 2008, the ACCC concluded that the grocery retailing market is 'workably competitive' but that there are a number of factors that limit the level of price competition. The report also noted the positive impact that ALDI has had on grocery prices competition. Since the release of the report, Costco has also entered the Australian market and the expansion of ALDI has led to further price competition.
The ACCC, as the independent regulator responsible for the investigation and enforcement of the competition and consumer laws, is actively monitoring issues in the supermarket sector and is equipped to take action should evidence arise of a breach in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Government is confident in the capability of the ACCC to enforce the law.
In regard to the answer to question on notice no. 19 taken on notice during the 2011 12 supplementary Budget estimates hearings of the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee:
(1) If the discussions referred to were not formally minuted by the department, were they informally minuted; if so, can details be provided.
(2) In the event that no minutes were kept whatsoever, can the department advise why and at whose instruction, given that the Minister indicated that he was 'sure' that there were minutes.
I confirm that I had ongoing discussions with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry during the period 30 May 2011 and 2 June 2011.
It is a long standing practice of successive governments not to disclose discussions between ministers and their departments. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry provided written advice to me at a number of times during this period. Details of which have been released under Freedom of Information Act.
In regard to the answer to question on notice no. 45 taken on notice during the 2011-12 supplementary Budget estimates of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, in which the committee was advised that officials were not involved in discussions with parliamentarians and that clearly this disclosure was not seen as diminishing the capacity of members and senators to properly discharge their parliamentary duties, the question was asked as to whether the Prime Minister was involved in any discussions with any parliamentarians over the particular issue of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement.
(1) Was the Prime Minister involved in such discussions; if so, with whom. (The content of the discussion clearly should not be sought and is not being sought).
(2) If this information is not to be provided, can an explanation be provided as to why many other Ministers have volunteered that they have been consulted by Members of Parliament in relation to various projects.
(3) Does the Prime Minister believe that such disclosures have diminished the capacity of members and senators to discharge their parliamentary duties.
(1) The Prime Minister regularly communicates with government and cross-bench parliamentarians, including Tasmanian members and senators.
(2) and (3) The Prime Minister is not in a position to provide an answer on behalf of other ministers or speculate on the nature of responses to other questions on notice.
In regard to the proposed Commonwealth South-West Marine Parks:
(1) Can the Minister confirm when the Commonwealth's proposed boundaries will be released to the public.
(2) What is the process in implementing the proposed boundaries.
(3) Has the Western Australian Government been consulted in the preparation of these boundaries; if so, what is its position on the draft boundaries; if not, why not.
In regard to the proposed Commonwealth South-West Marine Parks:
(1) The Commonwealth's proposed boundaries will be released to the public in the first half of 2012.
(2) The implementation of the proposed boundaries is a two phase process involving the declaration of a marine reserve network followed by development of a management plan for the network.
Once final marine reserve network proposals have been released, there will be a separate process to formally proclaim the marine reserve networks under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). This includes:
(3) The Western Australian Government was consulted in the preparation of the draft boundaries and has provided a written submission during the public consultation stage. In its submission, the Western Australian Government confirms its support for marine reserves and its commitment to working with the Australian Government on marine biodiversity protection. For details of the submission, contact the Western Australian Government.
Has the department appointed a former adviser to Ms Gillard as a Director in the Workplace Relations group; if so: (a) what are the duties of the officer; (b) will the officer be working on any aspects of the review of the Fair Work Act 2009; and (c) is the officer employed in an ongoing or non-ongoing position.
Ms Andrea Lester, workplace relations adviser to the former Deputy Prime Minister, the Hon Julia Gillard MP, is engaged in a non-ongoing capacity with the department for the period 26 October 2011 to 26 February 2011. For the period 26 October to 16 December 2011, Ms Lester's duties were to assist the Workplace Relations Policy Group on the equal remuneration case for social and community sector workers. Ms Lester did not work on the post-implementation review of the Fair Work Act 2009 during this period.
From 16 December 2011, Ms Lester is backfilling in the office of the new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations until permanent staff are appointed. These arrangements are in line with the Department of Finance and Deregulation Ministerial entitlements guidelines which determine that portfolio departments are responsible for the provision of relief staff for periods up to 12 weeks in duration.
(1) Has the department advertised for a number of Executive Level 2 positions in the Workplace Relations Policy Group; if so, how many positions are available.
(2) For each position, can the following information be provided:
(a) the branch in which the position is available;
(b) the duties of the position;
(c) whether the position is ongoing or non-ongoing; and
(d) whether it is a new position.
Yes, on 1 December 2011, the department advertised for a number of Executive Level 2 positions in the Workplace Relations Policy Group. There is currently one ongoing position available, Manager, Workplace Flexibility Team in the Diversity and Flexibility Branch. The position is an existing vacancy. The recruitment process will be utilised to establish an order of merit to fill future vacancies in the Group, if required.
Broadly, the duties of the vacant position are to manage a team to provide workplace relations policy advice, specifically in respect to workplace flexibility and undertake liaison as required.
In regard to the Marine Bioregional Planning Program:
(1) What will the total cost be to patrol police and administer the Coral Sea marine park once it has been declared.
(2) Which government agencies will be responsible for monitoring any illegal fishing methods, such as drift nets, super seiners and long liners.
(1) The boundaries and zoning of the proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve have not been finalised and are subject to further consideration as part of an extensive public consultation process. Costs for administering the reserve will be subject to the finalised reserve design and management requirements.
(2) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has the lead role in compliance monitoring of marine reserves, with assistance from other Commonwealth agencies. Where appropriate and by agreement, State agencies may also be involved for specified compliance services. Monitoring arrangements for a Coral Sea Reserve are yet to be determined.
(1) How were grant funding allocations for Medicare Locals determined.
(2) What is the total amount of funding allocated to the Australian Capital Territory under
the grants program.
(3) Did the Member for Canberra discuss these grants for the Canberra electorate with the Minister.
(4) Did the Member for Fraser discuss these grants for the Fraser electorate with the Minister
(5) Did Senator Lundy discuss these grants for the Australian Capital Territory with the Minister.
(1) A total of $493 million (GST Exclusive) has been allocated over four years, from 2010-11 to 2013-14, to establish and operate Medicare Locals.
To accommodate for relative differences in the characteristics of each Medicare Local catchment and population, core funding has been allocated on a weighted population approach that takes into account:
(2) In 2011-12, the total amount of core funding allocated to the ACT Medicare Local is
$2.27 million (GST exclusive). A further $1.95 million (GST exclusive) is also allocated to the ACT Medicare Local in 2011-12 for programs run through the Medicare Local, including, but not limited to the Access to Allied Psychological Services (ATAPS), After Hours, Closing the Gap and Practice Incentives Programs.
(3) (4) (5) The Minister for Health has not discussed the funding allocation for the ACT Medicare Local with the Member for Canberra, Member for Fraser or Senator Lundy. The Minister for Health is advised that the former Minister for Health and Ageing has not discussed the funding allocation with the Member for Canberra, Member for Fraser or Senator Lundy.