The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
Questions asked during Committee stage of Senate Debate
National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010
Question: Transportation—Senator Rhiannon:
I ask the Minister to set out how [the transport route] has been handled and what the government's response is to the potential dangers of moving highly radioactive waste over such a long distance? Could you set out the form that the community consultation will take [on the transport route]? Or will the route be determined secretly? Will the consultation be on which route is to be used before it determined or is it to take place after the route has been determined?
Answer:
Community Consultation
As the regulator, ARPANSA is responsible for authorising the use of a site, for the construction and operation of a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility.
When applying for approval to use a site for a radioactive waste storage or disposal facility, the proponent will need to specify transport routes to the site.
In considering the siting approval, ARPANSA will undertake public consultation and may approve the application subject to various conditions.
The nature of AR P ANSA's public consultations was outlined in previous Senate Inquiries. As stated by then ARPANSA CEO Dr Loy:
"[The regulations require] I seek public submissions … My practice has been to supplement that process with a form of public hearing, which I call a public forum, whereby people who have made submissions can come forward, present their submissions and their views and have them questioned and challenged by a panel. All of that takes place in the open, in public, with a transcript published …"
On potential dangers of moving radioactive waste
Safe transport of a large quantity of radioactive waste was demonstrated in an Australian context in 1993-94, when 120 shipments of waste were moved from Lucas Heights (New South Wales) to Woomera (South Australia).
ARPANSA has previously public stated: "The transport of the material is an issue that the radiation protection community at least would regard as pretty much solved" (Dr John Loy, former CEO of ARPANSA in evidence to the 2005 Senate Inquiry into the Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Bill).
Internationally, there has never been an accident involving the transport of radioactive materials where there has been serious harm to people or the environment arising from the radioactive nature of the cargo.
There are fewer hazards associated with transporting radioactive waste than there are with flammable and corrosives substances such as fuel and acid, which are routinely transported in and between our cities.
Question:
Transportation—Senator Rhiannon—NSW Parliamentary Inquiry (2004)
Are you familiar with [the NSW transport of radioactive waste inquiry] and what is your response to those findings?
Answer:
The 2004 NSW Inquiry was undertaken at time when the Lucas Heights HIFAR research reactor was being replaced and a site at Woomera was being considered as the location of a radioactive waste management facility.
The findings of the Inquiry were internally inconsistent and not an accurate reflection of transportation practices for radioactive materials around Australia or the world.
For example, while the report stated transporting radioactive waste from NSW to a national facility should be avoided, it contradicted this finding by inferring that wastes from "dispersed sites" from all of Australia could be "collected on a regular basis" and transported to Lucas Heights for final storage.
Nonetheless, the report did highlight the safety record of the transport of radioactive materials.
The report made the following findings:
Question—Senator Rhiannon—Payne Report
The Payne Report highlights the lack of confidence when it comes to nuclear waste. What has been learnt from ANSTO's apparent failure to deal with security issues?
Answer:
The Payne Report was a 16-page report commissioned by the Sutherland Shire Council shortly after the events of September 11, 2001 as part of its campaign against the construction of the OPAL reactor in its municipality.
The report was solely reliant on information from public sources and Mr Payne's own observations. When writing the report, Mr Payne did not consult with ANSTO officers or national security authorities. Importantly, Mr Payne did not visit the site to ascertain the security arrangements. The Report was littered with factual errors.
At the time, the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) — the regulator of security at ANSTO—dismissed the report and advised that security requirements at ANSTO were fully in line with International Atomic Energy Agency and national standards.
Security Requirements
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 and the permits issued pursuant to that Act, ANSTO is required to ensure that adequate security measures are in place to protect their site at Lucas Heights.
ANSTO has comprehensive security protections in place, which are based on Australian and international best practice for the security of nuclear materials, radioactive sources and facilities.
ANSTO security is regularly reviewed by expert agencies to ensure security continues to meet the stringent national and international physical security protection standards. Those agencies include ASNO and ASIO.
A recent report from the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Nuclear Materials Security Index, ranked Australia as number one of 32 countries including the United Kingdom, United States and Japan in terms of nuclear security. The Nuclear Threat Initiative is a United States NGO that works to improve global security and fulfilment of the goals of non-proliferation treaties.
Questions—Senator Ludlam—radioactive waste management facilities around Australia:
How many places are there around the country for storing radioactive waste of various categories that would notionally be carted across to a central facility?
How many of these sites is estimated will we be able to decommission or stand down if we get a "remote dump out in the bush"?
Answer:
There are estimated to be over one hundred locations around Australia that store low-and intermediate-level radioactive waste.
These storage facilities include government stores, industrial facilities, universities and other research establishments.
Additionally, every significant hospital and university in Australia has some radioactive waste in storage. The total inventory of radioactive waste in all these holdings is relatively small.
Further details are available in Australia's 4th National Report to the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.
States and Territories are currently responsible for managing their own inventories of radioactive waste. Closure of non-Commonwealth storage sites will be a matter for State and Territory jurisdictions.
Some States have acted to establish their own centralised waste management facilities. For example, since 1991, Western Australia has disposed of its low level radioactive waste at the Mt Walton East Intractable Waste Disposal Facility.
It would be premature to comment on the number of sites that will close once a national facility as this can only be finalised once the location of the facility is known and States and Territories settle their intentions to use the national facility.
However, it is likely that legacy waste inventories will be relocated, allowing for store closures. Facilities where waste is continually generated, such as hospitals, will require ongoing operational stores. However the volume of radioactive waste in storage will decrease in light of the availability of disposal and centralised storage capabilities at a national facility.
It is recognised internationally that the risk of inadvertent loss, damage or theft of radioactive sources is minimised through waste management at centralised, purpose built facilities.
The Government's legislation is based on the principle of volunteerism and does not, of itself, assume that a site will be remotely located.
Question: Nominations—Senator Ludlam
"In broad as I can frame the question, are there any other sites under consideration and if so where are they?"
"Has anybody approached the Federal Government at any time — either the department or minister's office with an alternative proposal for a site?
Answer:
The Commonwealth Radioactive Waste Management Act 2005 currently allows the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory or a Land Council to volunteer sites for a facility.
The nomination of the site at Muckaty Station is the only nomination that has been made under that Act. No other nominations have been submitted to the Department or to the Minister.
The Department has not been involved in any desktop studies or further field work for potential sites since the site characterisation investigations undertaken by
Parsons Brinkerhoff.
As acknowledged in the Senate debate on the Bill (8 February 2012), from time to time the Government has received suggestions on locations for a radioactive waste management facility. None of these have been pursued.
Once the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 is passed, the Minister will only consider sites, volunteered by landowners, under the protections and legal framework afforded by the legislation.
The committee recommends that as soon as possible the Minister for Resources Energy and Tourism undertake consultations with all parties with an interest in or who would be affected by a decision to select the Muckaty Station site as the location for the national radioactive waste facility.
Try and make an effort to come down and talk to us. We want to invite you ... to come out here and come face to face with Traditional Owners.
… … …
We want to show you what we are talking about and why are we talking about it.
… … …
The old Warlmanpa people really want to see government people come out so we can talk face to face with them without writing letters, because we don't even know what Martin Ferguson looks like.
We want you to come face to face—you don't even know what we look like, we've only seen each other on TV or whatever, but we want to see each other face to fact where we can have a few questions to ask why you are not listening to the biggest forum of people.
… … …
As the Arlmanpa group, we want to tell you what the country means with the designs and with the paints we have on our body. We want to do the body painting to tell the story about the land ...
We want you to now that Traditional Owners are waiting to show you that the country means something to them.
We need our opposition to the nuclear waste dump to be understood and respected by Government and especially Minster Martin Ferguson.
All our tribes in Tennant Creek have been talking to each other and we will all get together to protest by doing traditional dance showing the design that represents the land Karakara in Muckaty Land Trust.
Our message is always: We don’t want the nuclear waste dump anywhere in the Muckaty Land Trust.
These are our concerns:
* We told the government that Karakara is sacred land.
* Only Men talk about the land. No women talk for Karakara in the Muckaty Land Trust.
* The site for the proposed nuclear waste dump is in an earthquake tremor zone. What if an earthquake opens the nuclear waste storage and radioactive waste falls into our groundwater basin? We don't get our water from the city, town or from the coast. It comes from right below us.
The Warlmanpa elders always said that the Karakara is not Milwayi country. Milwayi is a snake dreaming travelling through Karakara and Muckaty Land Trust to Helen Springs. Milwayi is the totem for the ancestors' ground. Is the government going to regret everything later when a disaster happens like what is happening in Japan right now?
The government should rethink about the whole nuclear cycle and leave our traditional cultural, spiritual homeland alone.
This Subcommittee recommendation flows directly from an examination of the history of waste-management efforts in the United States and other countries. We drew several lessons from the decades-long effort to site a repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada and from the ultimately successful completion of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility in New Mexico. One lesson is that support for a facility (or at least acceptance)—both in directly affected communities and on the part of the host state—is a critical element of success. A second is that transparency and accountability, along with the flexibility to adapt to new information and to the concerns of key constituencies, are essential to sustain public trust in decision-making processes and institutions. We believe that a good gauge of consent would be the willingness of the host state (and other affected units of government, as appropriate) to enter into legally binding agreements with the facility operator, where these agreements enable states, tribes, or communities to have confidence that they can protect the interests of their citizens.
The approach to repository development laid out under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1987 was highly prescriptive, subject to inflexible deadlines, and—as actually implemented—widely viewed as being driven too heavily by political considerations—
(as compared to independent technical and scientific judgments). By contrast, other countries—notably Canada, Finland, France, and Sweden—
have adopted a phased, adaptive, and consent-based approach to facility siting and development. Finland and Sweden, in particular, have each successfully sited a deep geologic repository with the support of the host community.
The roles, responsibilities, and authorities of local, state, and tribal governments (with respect to facility siting and other aspects of nuclear waste disposal) must be an element of the negotiation between the federal government and the other affected units of government in establishing a disposal facility.
… all affected levels of government (local, state, tribal, etc.) must have, at a minimum, a meaningful consultative role in all other important decisions.
… additionally, states and tribes should retain—or where appropriate, be delegated—direct authority over aspects of regulation, permitting, and operations where oversight below the federal level can be exercised effectively and in a way that is helpful in protecting the interests and gaining the confidence of affected communities and citizens.
… to engage in meaningful consultation on matters related to nuclear waste storage, transport, and disposal, and to exercise their proper regulatory roles and responsibilities in this context, local, state, and tribal governments need access to sound, independent scientific and technical expertise.
The UK government reinitiated its waste management program relatively recently—in 2001.
Engagement and consultation with the public as well as commitment to an open and transparent approach since the very beginning of the process played a significant role and to date three communities in northwestern England (Cumbria CC, Copeland BC and Allerdale BC) have expressed their interest in being involved in the site selection process.
Perhaps even more important, states and affected communities—in order to gain trust and confidence in the decisions taken by the waste management organization—must be empowered to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process.
This means being in a position to evaluate options and provide substantive input on technical and operational matters of direct relevance to their concerns and interests.
… … …
In sum, the Subcommittee believes that a new U.S. waste management organization should adopt the Swedish practice and set aside funding for participation by citizens, citizen groups, and other NGOs.
The availability of funding should be widely announced and reasonable criteria should be established against which to evaluate applications for financial support.
Trust, in fact, is often the core issue whenever different parties are involved in a complex adjudicatory process—and it can be especially difficult to sustain when much of the power or control is viewed as being concentrated on one side.
Second, the commission recommends that the responsibility for the nation’s nuclear waste management program be transferred to a new organization—one that is independent of the Department of Energy and dedicated solely to ensuring the safe storage and ultimate disposal of spent nuclear waste fuel and high-level radioactive waste.
Third, the commission recommends changing the manner in which fees being paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund—about $750 million a year—are treated in the federal budget to ensure they are being set aside and available for use as Congress initially intended.
(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 4 to 12), omit the clause, substitute:
3 Objects of Act
The objects of this Act are:
(a) to provide for the selection of a site for a radioactive waste management facility on voluntarily nominated land in Australia; and
(b) to ensure that the site selected is the most suitable site on the Australian continent for radioactive waste storage and management taking into account environmental considerations, geology, geography, hydrology, seismology, infrastructure and cultural heritage values; and
(c) to provide for the establishment and operation of such a facility on the selected site; and
(d) to ensure that parties with waste management responsibility take appropriate steps to ensure that, at all stages of radioactive waste management, individuals, society and the environment are adequately protected against radiological and other hazards;
so that radioactive waste generated, possessed or controlled by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity is safely and securely managed.
[objects clause]
the selection of a site for a radioactive waste management facility on voluntarily nominated land …
the establishment and operation of such a facility on the selected site …
The Senate divided. [13:56]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
A strongly led government regardless of who is actually in power must be preferable to the current state of flux.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Abetz) and Senators Brandis and Birmingham today relating to the Labor Government and the National Broadband Network.
… supporting him to try and save the Labor Party from itself. It's about trying to work out how we can best position our party to remain in government.
If Julia is returned or if I'm elected, then I think it's time for various of the faceless men to lay down the cudgels.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to Iran and nuclear weapons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Sherry from 27 February to 1 March 2012, on account of parliamentary business.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Nash from 27 February to 1 March 2012, for personal reasons.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 1 March 2012 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills:
No. 3 Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People Bill 2010
No. 20 Environment Protection (Beverage Container Deposit and Recovery Scheme) Bill 2010.
That the order of the Senate of 9 February 2012 authorising the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to hold public meetings be varied by omitting paragraph (a)(ii), and substituting: (a)(ii) from 5 pm to 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Australia's overseas representation.
Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I am pleased to introduce this bill which seeks to reverse the commercialisation of SBS.
Established in the 1970s, our second national broadcaster was the first multicultural broadcaster in the world. Australia's relative success as a multicultural society is owed in part to institutions such as SBS which tell the stories of our cultural diversity and reflect a uniquely Australian experience back to those who have made a home here.
From the outset, SBS was a publicly funded broadcaster and advertising was not permitted. It wasn't until the Special Broadcasting Service Act of 1991 that advertising was permitted during periods before programs commence, after programs end or during natural program breaks for a maximum of five minutes.
Over 7 million viewers and listeners who enjoy SBS in 60 languages per week have consistently lamented that their news, drama, sport and content that portrays and appreciates our multicultural society is interrupted by advertising
In 2007, due to financial pressures the station moved – arguable in contradiction of its Act, in spirit if not in letter – to full in-program advertising. This has degraded the SBS viewing experience. As long as advertising revenues continue to rise, the danger is that successive Governments could get away with the structural under-funding of the station.
This Bill seeks to wind back this trend so that SBS enjoys adequate funding to take full advantage of the education, employment and creative opportunities provided by digital multi-channeling and the NBN.
Considering it operates on less than a quarter of the budget of the ABC, SBS provides an extraordinary service of which we can all be proud. However, the troubled history of its hybrid funding model has reached a dangerous new stage.
Senators will be aware that this is the second iteration of a bill to remove advertising during programs from SBS. In the first iteration, I did not deprive SBS from revenues from advertising per se, rather I simply proposed the abolition of advertising on SBS during 'natural program breaks', in other words, restricting advertising to before and after programs.
Schedule 1 of this new bill clarifies the definition of 'natural program break' to bring advertising practices at the station back into line with the Parliament's original intention when debating the Special Broadcasting Service Act (1991).
Schedule 2 of the bill proposes a staged approach in which a proportion of additional funding in the forthcoming triennium will be set aside to retire advertising. How much is retired is at the discretion of station management. The bill proposes to allow the Minister by regulation to set aside a proportion of SBS funding for this purpose. In this sense the bill does not appropriate funds, it merely sets up a scheme whereby the station can use a proportion of future funding increases to wind back advertising that runs during programs.
Schedule 3 of the bill holds that by the funding triennium after the one commencing in 2012, advertising within programs will have been phased out altogether.
SBS radio will not be affected by this Bill .
The Greens are on the record as supporting an increasing in base funding to support the health of the station and to reduce the amount of television advertising it carries. The 2012-15 triennial funding round provides an opportunity to reset the course of SBS and cement its position as one of Australia's most important cultural assets.
Competitive pressures have now sharpened with the introduction of digital multi-channels, cannibalising advertising revenues and bidding up the price of appealing content. Since FY 09-10, advertising revenue growth rates have stagnated and are predicted to fall steeply into decline as highly profitable commercial broadcasters with thousands of hours of airtime to fill hoover up all available content and heavily dilute the value of advertising.
Ironically, the arrival of the commercial multi-channels was smoothed with a surprisingly generous public subsidy to the tune of $250m in waived licence fees for two years.
The Australian Greens believe it is essential in the next funding triennium to reverse the tide of commercialisation, before declining advertising revenues and rising viewer discontent force a crisis on the broadcaster. In addition, to thrive in an increasingly crowded and converging media market, SBS requires an injection of funds above and beyond that sufficient to end in-program advertising.
Analysis of answers requested at successive budget estimates sessions reveal that additional public funding of $45 million per year would be required to achieve this (see answer to Question 60 from Budget Estimates Hearings May 2011). This estimate is difficult to verify and does not necessarily model the increased 'scarcity value' of more restricted advertising timeslots at the top and tail of programs.
Withdrawing advertising could be achieved in a phased manner across the triennium, allowing the station in the short term to use the funding increase to address urgent priorities including first-run Australian content, expanded online services and an expanded slate of Aboriginal content through a proposed tie-up with NITV.
In framing this Bill, great regard has been given to do so in a manner that does not harm SBS. The Bill does not direct SBS to stop placing advertisements in television programs. It merely provides station management with an option to do that in exchange for monies already appropriated by the Parliament for SBS. If SBS exercise that option, it would be akin to the government buying out all the breaks in a program, while still allowing the station to top and tail programs with advertisements.
The challenge in putting this Bill together, was to make it workable in a tight funding situation, without tying the hands either of Government or of station management. In the event that SBS receives a substantial increase in their funding, which we hope is the case, the station will be required to use a portion of this funding increase to retire advertising during in-program breaks .
The Bill has been constructed to avoid a heavy handed approach. It's an attempt to achieve an outcome that will meet community expectations while allowing maximum flexibility. I commend it to the chamber.
That the Senate—
(a) condemns as a form of protest the destruction or desecration on Australian soil of the Australian National Flag, the Australian Aboriginal Flag, or the Torres Strait Islander Flag; and
(b) urges all people to show respect for these flags.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on higher education and skills training for agriculture and agribusiness be extended to 8 June 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the 4th anniversary of the apology to the Stolen Generations on 13 February 2012;
(b) affirms the sentiment expressed by the Senate on 13 February 2008 as a significant step to build a new relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians and recognise the suffering caused by past injustices;
(c) expresses its support for members of the Stolen Generations and for the activities happening across Australia on 13 February to mark the anniversary of the apology; and
(d) notes the new special collection that will be established in the Parliamentary Library of historical documents presented by the National Sorry Day Committee, which document our nation's shared journey toward reconciliation and the ongoing process of healing and justice for members of the Stolen Generations.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The completed dysfunction of the Labor Government.
Julia has lost the trust of the Australian people.
There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.
Julia has lost the trust of the Australian people.
Contempt. Demeaning. Ludicrous. Psychopath. Chaotic. Paralysis. Dysfunctional. Impossible.
Kevin Rudd described Julia Gillard as a "childless, atheist, ex-communist" at an Adelaide pub as he plotted a political comeback a year ago.
Some very big decisions were being contemplated, in health in particular, that's of course the closest experience that I had, that often there was an inclination to want to go and announce those things without there being proper cabinet discussion or consideration of the downsides rather than just some of the political or potential upsides.
I said, ‘Yeah, but we wouldn’t win the referendum. Look at the history of referendums.
... he wouldn’t get proper legal advice, he wouldn’t let officials properly prepare the pros and cons and if you don’t do that then you can’t actually assess what risks are involved for Government or the public in going down a course that might be populist and politically successful but ultimately will end in tears.
That the Senate take note of Closing the Gap Prime Minister's Report of 2012 document.
(a) Committee report
1. Environment and Communications Legislation Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency Bill 2011 and related bills [Provisions] (received 24 February 2012).
(b) Government responses to parliamentary committee reports
1. Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee––Report––The administration and purchasing of disability employment services in Australia (received 17 February 2012)
2. Community Affairs References Committee––Report––Consumer access to pharmaceutical benefits (received 22 February 2012)
(c) Government documents
1. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service––Report for 2010-11––Correction (received 10 February 2012)
2. National Residue Survey––Report for 2010-11 (received 17 February 2012)
3. National Rural Advisory Council (NRAC)––Report for 2010-11 (received 21 February 2012)
4. Commonwealth Grants Commission––Report on GST revenue sharing relativities––2012 update (received 24 February 2012)
(d) Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
1. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
2. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:
Australian Government response to the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee's Report
The administration and purchasing of Disability Employment Services in Australia
February 2012
Introduction
1. The Senate referred the inquiry into the administration and purchasing of Disability Employment Services in Australia (the Inquiry) to the Senate Standing References Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (the Committee) on 22 August 2011.
2. The Committee report, The administration and purchasing of Disability Employment Services in Australia (the Report) was tabled on 25 November 2011.
3. The Committee majority made 11 recommendations regarding purchasing arrangements for the Disability Employment Services—Employment Support Services (DES-ESS) for 2013-2015.
4. Through submissions and hearings the Inquiry was able to document a range of views about a number of issues. There were some clear and divided opinions reflecting different interests in this area.
5. A number of DES employment service providers and their peak bodies expressed a preference not to have to go through a tender process at all or are seeking to limit the number of providers required to do so.
6. Other employment service providers that have been largely or entirely excluded from delivery under DES, and their peak employment service bodies, on the whole supported the decision to go to tender.
7. It is the view of the Australian Government that the interests of people with disability should be paramount in determining these matters. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and other disability consumer organisations such as MS Australia and the National Council on Intellectual Disability provided submissions supportive of the DES-ESS tender decision based on the interests of people with disability.
8. In addition the Department for Education Employment and Workplace Relations (the Department) put the view that the DES-ESS tender decision serves the public interest, as well as those of people with disability and employers.
9. In designing the new DES programs, it is relevant to note that there were extensive consultations, beginning in 2008. Furthermore, there were consultations undertaken in advance of the 2011-12 Budget decisions on DES procurement. Evidence contained within the Report largely reflected the positions known through those earlier consultative processes.
10. The Government recognises that the Committee has sought to strike compromises between competing service provider interests. However, in doing so it has given insufficient weight to the public interest and the interests of people with disability.
11. A competitive tender process primarily based on performance is the most promising mechanism for:
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Department consider exploring alternative purchasing models for DES-ESS, especially in relation to the purchasing of specialist provider services.
Response
Not Supported.
The Government believes that people with disability and their employers deserve access to the best possible employment services. A competitive open tender is a tried and proven mechanism that has proven to give fair and balanced outcomes. A tender will result in the contracting of the best possible employment services so more people with disability in more places in Australia benefit. After this tender, the public will be able to have confidence that the best possible providers are delivering these services.
The Government acknowledges that competitive tender processes can involve some disruption to the market for participants and for employers. However, contracting the best providers will more than compensate for any short-term disruption that may occur during the transition and will deliver better outcomes for people with disability. Depending on the individual management of organisations, tendering can result in a temporary slow-down in performance over the tender period. However, there is evidence that the outcomes of a competitive tender have a positive effect on efficiency and the delivery of quality services to job seekers. For example, research by the Productivity Commission into the previous Job Network program showed that competition between providers and the use of outcome payments created strong incentives for providers to improve efficiency and find better ways of achieving job outcomes for job seekers.
The Government will work closely with providers and stakeholders to put in place a transition plan that minimises disruption for participants and employers. Services and support will continue. Where job seekers move to a new provider, services are likely to improve with providers that have demonstrated their performance through the tender process.
The Department has successfully managed changes in DES providers and the transition of job seekers on numerous occasions as part of regular business. In addition to the role of the Government and Department, providers have a role in providing clear and accurate information to job seekers or their families during any transitioning of the job seeker to another provider.
It is also acknowledged that there may be organisations within the industry, both providers currently delivering DES-ESS and other potential tenderers, that have limited experience in preparing and submitting a response to a tender for employment services. The Government will, therefore, be taking steps to ensure that organisations are as well-prepared as possible for the DES-ESS tender by developing a range of communication products to support the tender process.
Finally, the current arrangements in relation to both business share and direct registration of eligible job seekers provide flexibility in the way the system currently works to cater for some organisations to deliver services based on a very small business share.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that any purchasing process for DES-ESS, including competitive tendering, be delayed by a further 12 months to avoid unnecessarily disrupting service provision during a time of improving performance.
Response
Not supported.
Unlike DES – Disability Management Service (DES-DMS) and Job Services Australia (JSA) providers, DES-ESS providers were not required to demonstrate their capacity to deliver services through a competitive tender when the program was established. Existing providers of the program DES-ESS replaced were instead offered contracts, irrespective of performance.
As such, there was no opportunity in 2009 for new providers to enter the DES-ESS market. There was also no opportunity for existing providers to compete for additional DES-ESS business. At the time, the Government signalled its intention to run a competitive tender process for DES-ESS in the future. This decision was also taken in the context of significant stability for many providers that have received recurrent funding without being required to tender – in some cases, for many years.
Contract extensions are being offered to all DES-ESS providers until 3 March 2013 to allow providers a full two years to engage with the DES-ESS model prior to the collection of performance data to determine the tender. This will also extend the term of the current DES-ESS contract to three years in total. Furthermore, a longer than usual transition period has been allocated to support a sensitive and effective handover of participants and their employers.
The Government notes the concerns raised in the Committee's Report about the timing of the DES-ESS tender given that the Government is simultaneously implementing reforms to the Disability Support Pension (DSP). These measures are designed to increase the workforce participation of people on the DSP and will have limited impact on DES providers and no impact on the tendering process.
As the Department indicated in its submission to the Inquiry:
"the flexibility of the employment services model enables major government reforms to be incorporated. DES providers will be expected to deliver employment services and record information as per the current Deed and guidelines. Providers will not be involved in the assessment process nor be expected to develop specific reports for the DSP Assessor."
The concerns expressed by some providers that the changes will mean an increase in less motivated job seekers onto their caseload are overstated. The estimated additional 10,000 job seekers per year flowing into DES in 2011-12 and 2012-13 have similar characteristics to job seekers currently being assisted by DES providers and the increase will also occur across all providers and their sites over an extended period of time.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the contract duration be extended from three to five-years. The contract should include a mid-point review to ensure that consistent poor performance is identified and addressed.
Response
Supported in principle.
The Government shares the views of the broader employment service and disability consumer sectors that the awarding of contracts should be primarily based on performance as assessed through a competitive tender process. The Government also recognises some merit in five year contracts in which the additional certainty could assist in establishing and growing a business; offering greater security to staff and stakeholders; and building relationships with employers, other local service providers and the community.
Five year contract periods do, however, present some risks. Foremost is the need to ensure that expenditure of Commonwealth funds is efficient, effective, economical and ethical, and represents value for money to the Commonwealth. To do this, there would need to be flexibility built into a longer contract to accommodate change without the need for a renegotiation, for example to cater for changes in economic conditions. Furthermore, there is a need to ensure continual levels of high performance over a five year period. Some of these issues would be addressed through a mid-term business reallocation process.
Employment services contracts are generally for periods of three years with provision for extensions. However, in practice, DEEWR has exercised this extension provision for most contracts, effectively making the contract periods much longer. As has been noted in the Department's submission, many current DES-ESS providers have been contracted for many years without the need to tender.
Under the current purchasing arrangements the Deeds of DES-DMS providers, who were subject to a tender process in 2009, will be extended by an additional three years, taking the entire period to five years and four months. For the first time, organisations that are not delivering sustainable jobs for participants will be subject to a business reallocation process during the DES-DMS contract extension period.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the scale of the proposed tender be limited to service providers below the national star-rating median.
Response
Not Supported.
The Government's view is that people with disability deserve access to the best possible services. A tender process is an open and transparent way of ensuring that the best possible providers are delivering services to job seekers.
The Inquiry was presented with considerable evidence that a competitive tender process primarily based on performance will contribute to an improvement in service provision to people with disability.
Through the DES-ESS tender process, the Government will test whether there are other organisations able to deliver higher levels of servicing to job seekers than providers currently performing at average or low levels.
Setting the benchmark high for DES-ESS underscores the Government's commitment to quality services for people with disability, and means that job seekers, employers and the community at large can be confident that the best possible providers are delivering those services. It is simply not good enough to assume that average, or three-star performance, in a never-contested market represents quality service for people with disability.
Attempts to draw parallels between the DES-ESS tender arrangements and the arrangements for JSA (that is, the offer of contract extensions to JSA providers rated three stars and above), are unfounded. JSA was established in 2009 after a full, open tender process to test the market and this was a key consideration in designing the current JSA procurement arrangements. By contrast, all DES-ESS providers were offered contract rollovers, irrespective of performance.
However, rather than replicate the JSA arrangements and have a full tender for DES-ESS, the Government has decided to reward high performing providers with a contract extension. This will ensure some stability for people who are currently receiving services from high performing providers.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that a transition strategy for clients be released at the same time as the Exposure Draft Request for Tender to allow interested parties to provide feedback at an early stage to the Department.
Response
Supported.
The Government recognises that DES-ESS participants are some of the most vulnerable job seekers in Australia. The Department will commence the DES-ESS Transition Period from 1 November 2012. In preparation for the smooth transfer process for participants, employers and providers, the Department released a transition objective and statement of principles in the third DES Industry Information Paper on 20 January 2012.
The objective of the transition is to ensure a smooth transfer to the future contracting arrangements that has minimal disruption to participants, employers and providers, and maintains the continuity of service.
The Department proposes to manage the DES—ESS transition process using the following principles:
* remain connected with their current DES—ESS provider, or
* be referred to a new or gaining DES—ESS provider taking into account their individual needs and circumstances.
The Department will continue to work closely with industry through the following consultation mechanisms.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Department, in consultation with key stakeholders, consider the DES performance framework regression modelling information with a view to public release in ways that are accessible, meaningful and helpful to advancing program objectives.
Response
Supported in principle.
The Star Ratings regression model is a sophisticated and complex tool which takes into account a range of factors, including the characteristics of job seekers such as disability. Due to this complexity, not all details of the regression model have been published to date. The Department intends to make information available, on the overarching principles that drives the regression model, to reduce any misinterpretations and any misuse.
The Star Ratings regression model was available for wide public consultation during its development. Information on the DES Performance Framework and Star Ratings system is available on the Department's public website and also on the Employment Service Provider Portal. Further, the Department conducted a series of information sessions for DES providers around Australia in 2010 to explain the DES Performance Framework and DES Star Ratings model in detail.
The statistical regression has been used in the calculation of Star Ratings since it was developed in 1999 for Job Network. Since statistical regression has been used in Star Ratings calculations, it has been subject to a number of independent reviews. These reviews by Access Economics, the South Australian Centre for Economic Studies, and other reviews of employment services by the likes of the Productivity Commission and the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO), have highlighted the significant role that Star Ratings play in fostering ongoing performance improvements and providing incentives for delivering services to more disadvantaged job seekers.
The Government notes the Committee's view that the regression model is understandable once it is explained and intends to further release principle level information on the regression model in a way that is understandable and transparent to stakeholders.
Further, issues relating to the DES performance framework have been referred to the DES Reference Group for further discussion.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the Department develop a robust and quantifiable quality assessment mechanism for services under the DES-ESS, and incorporate that assessment mechanism into the performance framework.
Response
Supported in principle.
Quality plays an important role in the DES Performance Framework. Since 1 January 2002 organisations delivering disability employment programs have been required to be certified as meeting the Disability Services Standards in order to receive funding from the Australian Government. This certification is undertaken by auditors that are independent of the Government.
The Disability Services Standards cover issues such as the privacy, dignity, value, and employment conditions of the person with a disability, and the skills and training for service provider staff working with clients with disability. It is a requirement in the DES Deed that all providers hold current certification against the Disability Services Standards.
Reliance on this certification for the majority of quality assessment in DES helps to remove duplication of quality assurance checking. Further, failure to maintain certification may result in the Department taking remedial action under the Deed against the relevant DES provider. Such action may be taken regardless of a provider's performance against other Key Performance Indicators.
Quality also plays an important role in DES contract management. The information collected for day to day contract management processes at the local level also provides important input to the formal performance discussions held with DES providers biannually.
It is inherently difficult to incorporate a quality of service or a quality of employment assessment mechanism into the DES Star Ratings model. However these elements will be reviewed in any future development of the DES Performance Framework.
The Government notes that an Industry Reference Group, consisting of provider and consumer peak bodies, developed and agreed to the DES Performance Framework and Key Performance Indicators. The extensive work undertaken in the development of the DES Performance Framework ensures that the performance of all providers in DES are assessed in a fair and consistent manner and that participants with specific disability types are taken into account in the DES Performance Framework.
Further, the introduction of the Connections for Quality measure on 1 January 2012 gives DES providers the opportunity to publish both claims and achievements against service quality indicators. This measure will enhance public scrutiny of service quality, and provide job seekers and employers with more informed choices in relation to their individual service needs and a mechanism to provide feedback to the Department on the quality of the services they receive.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Department consider a trial monitoring program of 52-week employment outcomes for clients of DES-ESS providers.
Response
Supported in principle.
The Government notes that including a longer-term measure in the DES Performance Framework has merit and would further identify and reward sustainable employment. However, it would require an evaluation strategy and significant administrative changes such as variations to the Deed and changes to the current DES Performance Framework. Consideration will be given to the benefits and justifications for making the required changes.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that the Department establish regular, proactive monitoring practices to identify incidents where the star-rating system is manipulated by providers.
Response
Supported in principle.
The Government's view is that these arrangements are already in place. The Department already uses a comprehensive range of monitoring and detection strategies to identify activities and practices that impact on the integrity of employment programs. These strategies cover a broad spectrum of activities from centralised data monitoring to site visits and discussions with providers and more detailed feedback from program participants or other third parties through program assurance and customer service lines.
Through its governance arrangements and program monitoring the Department is confident that the vast majority of providers comply with the spirit, intent and letter of their Deed with the Department, the Disability Services Standards and associated requirements for professional service provision to support people with disability.
The Department also has comprehensive and long-standing program governance arrangements which ensure the ongoing quality and accountability of all its employment services programs. This approach meets Commonwealth Government requirements and is reviewed regularly, to ensure its currency and effectiveness. Employment services programs undergo regular audits (both internal and external via the ANAO). The Department also regularly updates its processes in response to these activities and any recommendations by the ANAO.
Major program changes for the commencement of new contracts are subject to Commonwealth Department of Finance and Deregulation 'Gateway Reviews'. These are detailed reviews of governance arrangements for the implementation of program reforms. The DES program underwent a Gateway Review throughout 2009 and 2010, with a final 'Green' assessment awarded – the highest rating possible.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that the Department include in the Disability Employment Services – Employment Support Services contract:
Response
Supported in principle.
The Government believes that there is sufficient information available and contractual mechanisms in place to manage inappropriate practices. Non-payable outcomes and non-payable job placements are already defined in the existing DES Deed, which comprehensively detail when an outcome cannot be claimed. The contractual definitions of these outcomes will be strengthened in the DES Deed 2012 – 2015 to further support the management of inappropriate practices. However, some practices which may be termed 'scheming' or 'sharp practices' are more difficult to categorically rule as inappropriate. In determining if a practice is (or could potentially be) in breach of the Deed or in other ways inappropriate, the relevant policy intention, the specific circumstances of the job seeker in question and the broader situation must be taken into account.
Under clause 56 of the DES Deed there is already a range of actions open to the Department to implement for breaches of the Deed as follows:
(a) suspending any or all of the following:
(i) referrals in respect of some or all of the Services, including at some or all Sites; or
(ii) any payment under this Deed, in whole or in part;
(b) imposing additional conditions on the payment of Fees, Funds, Reimbursements or Ancillary Payments or use of the Employment Assistance Fund;
(c) reducing or not paying specific payments that would otherwise have been payable in respect of the relevant obligation;
(d) reducing the total amount of Fees, Funds, Reimbursements or Ancillary Payments, permanently or temporarily;
(e) where DEEWR has already paid the relevant Fees, Funds, Reimbursements or Ancillary Payments under this Deed, recovering the equivalent amount as a debt;
(f) imposing additional financial or performance reporting requirements on the Provider;
(g) reducing Participant numbers, the Provider's share of available places and/or the business levels of the Provider, permanently or temporarily;
(h) reducing the scope of this Deed; and
(i) taking any other action set out in this Deed.
Breaches of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (deliberate fraud or deception) would be referred for prosecution and are punishable by imprisonment.
As part of the ongoing review of employment programs and their identified risks, where discrepancies between policy and practice are found, findings may result in provider education, recovery of fees, fraud investigation or even the issue of a breach of contract notice. The outcomes for fraud investigations are used to further strengthen the Department's prevention and detection strategies.
In all cases of suspected or detected fraud, a referral to the Department's Investigation Branch must be made by relevant DEEWR staff in accordance with the Department's Fraud Control Plan 2011-2014 and accompanying Fraud Referral Protocol.
Recommendation 11
The committee recommends that the Department collect and publish statistics regarding:
Response
Not Supported.
During the course of the Inquiry, a number of claims were made regarding provider behaviour assumed to influence measured performance. The Report notes that evidence was not provided to support many of these allegations, despite it being sought by the Committee. As such, the Government does not see value in routinely publishing these statistics from a program and quality assurance perspective.
The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, in answers to Questions on Notice, stated that:
Service representatives supported, and services signed up to, the performance rating system and star rating framework. The system, good and bad, is applied to all services. Criticism of the star rating system has only emerged from services when the Minister announced the tender parameters.
Some allegations, such as statements that job placement and payments were made for positions in Australian Disability Enterprises have been responded to clearly by the Department. Such behaviour is in breach of the DES Deed and actionable by the Department as detailed in the response to recommendation 10.
The Department responded in detail to many of the allegations presented through submissions and hearings to the Inquiry, including details of the auditing, monitoring and contract compliance mechanisms available to manage them.
For example, in the response to the Questions on Notice from the Inquiry, the Department provided the following statement to outline the actions taken in response to allegations of inappropriate practices:
"DEEWR has not taken any DES Provider to prosecution for breaches under the current DES contract. Of the 1.05 million claims made under the DES contract (from 1 March 2010):
An examination of a sample of these claims has identified that the majority of offsets / recoveries and almost all of the withdrawn claims, are as a result of provider self identification of invalid claims."
In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, it is clear that the existing mechanisms detailed by the Department in this response are adequate to respond to compliance issues where there are grounds to do so.
Response to the Recommendations of the Community Affairs References Committee Report on Consumer Access to Pharmaceutical Benefits
RECOMMENDATION 1
The committee recommends that the government examine ways in which there can be greater engagement with consumers in decisions to create new therapeutic groups, particularly when considering the potential impacts new therapeutic groups may have on consumers.
Response
The Government supports the recommendation and is currently looking at new ways to enhance the consumer input in Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) matters.
An important development that occurred during the course of the inquiry was the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Commonwealth and Medicines Australia, with effect until 30 June 2014. Under the terms of the MoU (Clause 16), the Government has undertaken not to create any new therapeutic groups over the period of the agreement with two exceptions:
The Therapeutic Group Premium (TGP) pricing policy has been in place for 13 years and represents an extension of the evidence-based assessment of cost-effectiveness that is required by legislation for subsidy on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). It ensures that the Government does not pay extra unless there is evidence of extra benefit.
As of the August 2011 Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits there are only seven drug products that attract a therapeutic group premium (five for hypertension and two for ulcers) out of over 3,900 on the PBS. In the therapeutic areas of cardiology and gastroenterology where medicines with therapeutic group premiums exist, there are multiple alternatives with no premium and options for exemption for those patients who cannot take another drug on clinical grounds.
The Senate committee acknowledged the work undertaken by the Government to educate and inform consumers and prescribers at the time the therapeutic group policy was introduced and these approaches are detailed in the report. Important elements of this education campaign still operate to explain the therapeutic groups currently available, together with the alternatives and the process for seeking exemptions from a therapeutic group premium on behalf of a patient. The community pharmacy network is an important source of information on PBS medicines with either a brand or a therapeutic group premium while the PBS information line (1800 020 613) is also available to assist consumers in this area.
Health consumers have a unique and important perspective on health services as the users and beneficiaries of health care and ultimately those who pay for it. The Government is currently looking at new ways to enhance the consumer input in PBAC matters, such as:
Both the Government and the PBAC have a long history of improving such input from patients and from the general community. The PBAC has a consumer representative as a full member of the committee; comments are sought from the general public on subsidy applications on the PBAC agenda and these are provided to the PBAC when the submissions are considered; and the PBAC may request a formal consumer impact statement from the Consumers Health Forum when considering the impact of a health condition and the possible improvement in the quality of life for people using the proposed treatment.
Although no new therapeutic groups will be created over the period of the MoU except in specific and limited circumstances, the Government in the development of any future therapeutic groups will endeavour to engage consumers in meaningful consultation, as appropriate within the Budget context. Therapeutic groups remain a valuable pricing policy to reduce costs to the PBS. The policy reflects a 13 year long view of successive governments that PBS patients and taxpayers should pay comparable prices for similar health outcomes.
RECOMMENDATION 2
The committee recommends that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee:
Response
The Government supports the recommendation in principle. We consider that transparency in decision making is important, but note that the current processes are appropriate.
The Government and the PBAC have a long history of improving consumer input from patients and the general community via various avenues and in providing information about PBAC recommendations. Information about therapeutic groups is available on the Department of Health and Ageing’s website at www.pbs.gov.au/browse/therapeutic-group; while information about PBAC recommendations, in the form of public summary documents, are available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/public-summary-documents-by-product
As required under the National Health Act 1953 (the Act), the PBAC gives clear advice to the Minister to the effect that a drug or medicinal preparation should, or should not, be treated as interchangeable on an individual patient basis with another drug or medicinal preparation.
Further this matter has been the subject of a Federal Court case that considered the validity of the PBS Statins – Higher Potency (HP) therapeutic group comprising the drugs rosuvastatin (Crestor®) manufactured by AstraZeneca Pty Ltd and atorvastatin (Lipitor®) manufactured by Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd. This matter was brought by AstraZeneca against the Minister of Health and Ageing and members of the PBAC. The hearing on this matter was held in Sydney before Justice Buchanan on Friday 25 March.
In his decision, delivered on 12 May 2011, Justice Buchanan found that the PBAC had performed its functions in accordance with the Act, in providing advice that atorvastatin and rosuvastatin should be treated as interchangeable on an individual patient basis. His Honour found that neither the PBAC, nor the Minister, are required to consider the individual dosages of the medicine when assessing interchangeability for the purposes of forming therapeutic groups under the Act. This means the Statins-HP therapeutic group was validly constituted and savings from the creation of the therapeutic group will continue.
This court decision has confirmed the Government’s position that consideration of interchangeability at the drug level, and not at the form and strength level, is consistent with the Act. In light of this decision, it was considered that the existing information and processes are adequate and that publication of further definitions is not required.
RECOMMENDATION 3
The committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing provide regular and ongoing education and information to prescribers to ensure they are aware of the exemptions from payment of a brand premium and the process for seeking those exemptions on behalf of a patient.
Response
The Government supports the recommendation in principle.
There was some concern expressed during the inquiry that not all doctors may be aware that they are able to seek an exemption from a therapeutic group premium on behalf of their patients.
However the number of drug products on the PBS with a therapeutic group premium, and hence the option to apply for an exemption for an individual patient, is very low. As of the August 2011 Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits, therapeutic group premiums apply to only 7 out of over 3,900 drug products and are in the field of gastrointestinal medicine and cardiology. Some prescribers outside of these fields may be unfamiliar with the process for seeking exemption to a TGP, however we do not consider the concerns expressed by the clinicians appearing before the committee are representative of clinicians working in those fields where Therapeutic Group Premium (TGP) drugs are prescribed.
All prescribers have ongoing access through the Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits and their computer dispensing software to the specified clinical criteria by which they may apply for exemption from a therapeutic group premium for their patient. The process by which this happens is the same one prescribers already use to apply for approval from Medicare Australia to prescribe certain restricted drugs on the PBS. The Schedule of Pharmaceutical Benefits, in both in hard-copy and web-based versions, also contains a separate, regularly updated TGP policy section featuring the PBS items that still attract a therapeutic group premium and the process whereby individual patient exemptions may be sought. The Government will continue to use these mechanisms to ensure prescribers are informed about TGPs.
RECOMMENDATION 4
The committee recommends that:
Response
This recommendation will be considered in conjunction with the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee in its report on the Government’s administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme presented on 17 August 2011.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—
Discharged—Senator Hanson-Young
Gambling Reform—Joint Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Bilyk
Appointed—
Senator Sherry
Participating members: Senators Di Natale and Madigan
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Wright for the committee’s inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010
Participating member: Senator Wright.
Access to Justice (Federal Jurisdiction) Amendment Bill 2011
National Health Amendment (Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement Initiatives) Bill 2012
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 9) Bill 2011
First Reading
That these bills be now read a second time.
The speeches read as follows—
ACCESS TO JUSTICE (FEDERAL JURISDICTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2011
Introduction
This Government has a proud history of reforms that facilitate access to justice. This Bill marks the latest tranche of those reforms.
Discovery
The Bill will implement legislative reforms regarding discovery during Federal Court litigation that were recommended in the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Managing Discovery report, tabled in Parliament in May 2011.
The Attorney-General initiated that Inquiry in May 2010, following the 2009 report by the Attorney-General’s Department’s Access to Justice Taskforce, A Strategic Framework for Access to Justice in the Federal Civil Justice System. The Taskforce identified the high and sometimes disproportionate costs of discovery as a specific barrier to justice.
The ALRC made practical recommendations aimed at the Federal Court taking greater control over the discovery process, many of which have already been implemented by the Court in its new Rules, or are under active consideration by the Court. I acknowledge the effort the Federal Court continues to put into refining its case management processes, including those relating to discovery.
The Government also welcomes current consideration by the Federal Court and National Judicial College of Australia of how judicial education and training can better equip judges to manage the discovery process.
The two recommendations to be implemented by this Bill will give the Federal Court stronger powers to deal with the costs of discovery, and clarify that oral examinations can be used to assist to identify which kinds of documents should be subject to discovery. This will support judges in their role as robust case managers.
I am confident that this package of reforms will give the Federal Court the tools it needs to control discovery more tightly, assisting in the delivery of a more accessible and effective system of civil justice.
Suppression and non-publication orders
The Bill will also implement – with some minor variations – the model legislation developed by the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on suppression and
non-publication orders in the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court.
There has been criticism of the volume and breadth of suppression orders granted by some State courts. As a result of these concerns, after extensive consultation, in 2010, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General developed model legislation on suppression orders.
This Bill will implement that model law in relation to the federal courts – in the interests of national consistency and to provide a more robust and comprehensive legislative framework.
The Bill has several advantages over the current arrangements for the making of suppression orders in the federal courts:
This Bill will provide a more transparent and accountable legislative regime for courts to make suppression orders. By ensuring that courts can only make suppression orders when they are clearly justified – and in as narrow terms as necessary to achieve their purpose –the Bill appropriately recognises the fundamental importance that open justice plays in the administration of justice, and ultimately in upholding the rule of law.
Vexatious proceedings
Vexatious litigants have the capacity to absorb an enormous amount of judicial and registry staff’s time, to the detriment of other litigants waiting to have their cases dealt with.
It was for this reason the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General developed a model law on vexatious proceedings. This law has already been implemented in Queensland, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. This Bill will implement the model law in the High Court, Federal Court, Family Court and Federal Magistrates Court.
It is important to bear in mind that a self-represented litigant, or a litigant who has challenging behaviour (perhaps caused by mental illness), is very different from a vexatious litigant. With advice and assistance, many self-represented litigants are often able to adequately formulate and articulate their claims, or to obtain legal representation to enable them to do so. Those with challenging behaviours may be able to obtain professional assistance of another kind. I want to emphasise that these are not the kinds of litigants intended to be addressed by this Bill.
Rather, vexatious litigants are those who frequently bring proceedings that are, for example, an abuse of process, designed to annoy others, or have no reasonable grounds.
Although the federal courts already have existing powers to deal with vexatious litigants, these powers are located across various legislation and court rules, and differ in detail. The Bill will establish a more comprehensive and consistent legislative regime across all four federal courts.
While an order preventing access to the courts should not be made lightly, where a person has frequently instituted or conducted vexatious proceedings in any Australian court or tribunal, a court will be able to make an order that a person not be able to commence any subsequent proceedings in that court without first obtaining the leave of the court.
The intention is that, once nationally consistent laws are passed, a vexatious litigant will no longer be able to repeatedly initiate proceedings in different courts with hopelessly doomed litigation.
It is essential that court resources are devoted to cases that have merit, and cases which cannot be resolved by other means. The courts need appropriate powers to be able to deal with clearly unmeritorious cases brought by vexatious litigants. This Bill will deliver that.
Family law jurisdiction
The Bill will also remove the current jurisdictional ceiling on Family Law Magistrates in Western Australia that applies in family law property matters.
This will bring Western Australia’s Family Law Magistrates into line with the family law property jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Federal Magistrates Court in the rest of Australia, and give the Family Court of Western Australia more flexibility in the allocation of cases.
Ensuring that disputes are dealt with at the most appropriate level is an important aspect of access to justice.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal fees
The Bill also makes amendments relating to fees in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These amendments will serve two purposes.
Firstly, they will allow applicants to make a valid application for review where they do not have the money to pay immediately, but where there is a time limit for making the application.
Secondly, they will allow regulations to be made to prescribe fees to be paid by any party to proceedings. This will allow regulations to be made to give the Tribunal the discretion to impose fees on respondent government agencies which unsuccessfully defend Tribunal proceedings, unless there were compelling reasons for proceeding to a hearing.
This is intended to provide a financial incentive to promote better primary decision making and early resolution of disputes where possible.
These are both important access to justice measures, aimed at early dispute resolution and ensuring that applicants can access the review of government decisions.
Conclusion
This Bill will implement a number of important measures that will improve access to justice in a variety of ways.
The reforms to discovery, family law property jurisdiction and vexatious proceedings aim to ensure that valuable judicial resources are used appropriately, efficiently and effectively: for the benefit of all litigants.
Reforms to suppression orders create a framework that safeguards the public interest in open justice and accountability, reinforcing an important aspect of the administration of justice.
Finally, reforms to fees in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will facilitate fairer access to the review of Government decisions – encouraging better decision making by Government agencies and earlier dispute resolution.
All these reforms are consistent with the Strategic Framework for Access to Justice¬ implemented by this Government – designed to facilitate accessible and equitable dispute resolution, at the most appropriate level, delivered through efficient and effective means.
I thank all involved for their work in developing this Bill, which is an important part of the Government’s ongoing access to justice initiatives.
NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (FIFTH COMMUNITY PHARMACY AGREEMENT INITIATIVES) BILL 2012
Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill may proceed without formalities and now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
NUCLEAR TERRORISM LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011
Second Reading Speech
The Bill implements the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism.
The Convention recognises that acts relating to nuclear material and other radiological material and devices can pose a serious threat to international peace and security.
The Convention is an important tool in the international fight against terrorism and the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction.
It fills a gap in existing international regimes by recognising the potential for nuclear weapons, facilities and radioactive material to be used to carry out acts of terrorism.
The Convention establishes frameworks for criminalising certain conduct relating to nuclear material and other radiological material and devices and international cooperation in the prevention, investigation, prosecution and extradition of persons who commit those offences.
Some of the obligations under the Convention are already satisfied.
For example, existing provisions in the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act 1987 implement some of the Nuclear Terrorism Convention's provisions.
While some aspects of the conduct prohibited by the Convention are consistent with measures Australia has already taken, some amendments to Commonwealth legislation are necessary to fully implement the Convention.
The Bill creates new offences for specific conduct that is prohibited by the Convention.
This includes:
The offences will not be limited to conduct by Australians and in Australia, but will apply in a broad range of situations where the Convention requires States Parties to assert jurisdiction.
For example, the offences will cover situations where the offender is a foreigner if the offence is committed on board an Australian ship or aircraft or against an Australian citizen.
The Bill also contains minor technical amendments to the Nuclear Non Proliferation (Safeguards) Act 1987 updating various provisions to take account of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and amending the definition of Australian Aircraft by replacing the reference to the Air Navigation Regulations (which is no longer correct) with a reference to the Civil Aviation Act 1988.
Australia is committed to ratifying all international counter-terrorism instruments as an integral part of strengthening its legal framework to fight terrorism.
Ratifying this Convention will send a strong message to the international community and demonstrate Australia's continued commitment to addressing the threat of terrorism.
It will represent an important contribution by Australia to the second Nuclear Security Summit, which will take place in the Republic of Korea in March 2012.
In addition, it will strengthen Australia's efforts to encourage other countries in our region to ratify the 16 international counter-terrorism instruments.
It is in this context that the Government today commends to the chamber the Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2012
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2012
Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2012
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.
FAIRER PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES BILL 2011
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011 will amend various acts to give effect to a 2009-10 Budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentives tiers.
The new arrangements will commence on the later of 1 July 2012 or the day on which the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 receives royal assent or the day on which the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 receives royal assent. However, they will not commence at all unless both the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 and the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge— Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 receive royal assent.
The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 May 2009 and
19 November 2009, where it was passed on 2 June 2009 and 3 February 2010 respectively. This Bill was previously introduced into the Senate on 15 June 2009 and 4 February 2010 and on 9 September 2009 and 9 March 2010, respectively, a motion moved in the Senate that this Bill be read a second time was defeated.
The Government re-introduced this Bill because we want to make the private health insurance rebate fairer and more sustainable into the future.
The Government supports a mixed model of balanced private and public health services. We are committed to a sustainable private health system, and to ensure it remains sustainable the Government will rebalance support for private health insurance to provide a fairer distribution of benefits.
Let me emphasise one point that has been missing in much of the debate about these changes. The vast majority of taxpayers with private health insurance will not be affected by the means testing this legislation introduces. Singles earning $83,000 or less and couples and families earning $166,000 or less will receive the same rebate as they currently enjoy.
In fact, the Government’s changes will ensure that these taxpayers receive a greater share of the private health insurance rebate than they currently get.
Under the rebate model we inherited from the Howard Government, approximately 14 per cent of single taxpayers who have incomes above $83,000 receive about 28 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to singles based on an average premium—or twice their population share.
And approximately 12 per cent of couple taxpayers who have incomes above $166,000 receive about 21 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to couples based on an average premium—again, almost twice their population share.
So when the Opposition was in Government it designed a system that favoured wealthier income earners. That is people like myself and the Opposition Spokesperson on Health – not the cleaners and security guards who work in this building.
How does the Leader of the Opposition reconcile his track record on this issue when he was Health Minister with the crocodile tears he was crying for the ‘forgotten families’ in his Budget reply?
Under our reforms, the 14 percent of single taxpayers earning more than $83,000 with private health insurance will receive about 12 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to singles based on an average premium.
Similarly, the 12 per cent of couple taxpayers earning more than $166,000 will receive around 9 per cent of the total private health insurance rebate paid to couples based on an average premium.
Far from being an attack on families as some have alleged, this Bill reinforces an important principle that has underpinned the Australian tax-transfer system for decades - that the greatest share of benefits are provided to those on lower incomes.
There is a second crucial principle at stake here – the need to ensure our health system is placed on a sustainable footing for the future.
Spending on the private health insurance rebate is growing rapidly and is expected to double as a proportion of health expenditure within the next 40 years.
Clearly this presents challenges in the current fiscal environment. It is estimated that these reforms will result in savings to Government expenditure of around $2.4 billion across the forward estimates. This will help ensure that the Government’s support for private health insurance remains fair and sustainable.
The Opposition’s previous refusal to support this legislation has already hit the 2010-11 Budget bottom-line by $890 million. If we don’t act now the fiscal consequences will only worsen. Treasury estimates that not passing this legislation will have a cumulative impact on health spending of around $100 billion over 40 years.
No-one professing an interest in good fiscal management can ignore these statistics.
The Opposition has also said on the record that if they oppose savings measures they will identify where these savings can be found in the Budget. On 22 June, Kevin Andrews said in the House of Representatives “if we are going to oppose measures which the Government puts forward and that opposition will lead to a cost to the budget, we will identify where the savings are going to be made in the budget in order to compensate for that loss to the budget.”
I challenge the Opposition to find an area in the Health portfolio where an equivalent saving of $2.4 billion can be found, that will not have a noticeable impact on health outcomes as is the case with means testing the private health insurance rebate.
So the Government will act.
From 1 July 2012, the Government proposes to introduce three new private health insurance incentive tiers. The tiers will mean high-income earners receive lower Government payments for private health insurance but will face an increase in costs if they opt out of private health cover.
The Government’s commitment to retaining the private health insurance rebate remains. Rebates for low and middle income earners will be unchanged, with the Government continuing to pay 30 per cent of the premium cost for a person earning $83,000 or less and couples and families earning $166,000 or less. The existing rebates for older Australians will remain in place for people earning below these thresholds—35 per cent for people aged 65 to 69 years and 40 per cent for people aged 70 years and over.
These people will continue to have no surcharge liability if they decide not to take out appropriate private health insurance.
The new tiered system will be introduced for higher income earners and will set three different rebate levels and surcharge levels based on income and age. The purpose of this is to reduce the carrot but increase the stick and ensure those who can afford to contribute more for their health insurance do so. The Government does not believe it is appropriate for low-income earners to subsidise the private health insurance costs of high-income earners.
Tier 1 will apply to singles with an income of more than $83,000 and couples and families with an income of more than $166,000. For these people the private health insurance rebate will be 20 per cent for those up to 65 years, 25 per cent for those aged 65 to 69, and 30 per cent for those aged 70 and over.
The Medicare levy surcharge for people in this tier who do not hold appropriate private health insurance will remain at one per cent.
Tier 2 applies to singles earning more than $96,000 a year and couples and families earning more than $192,000. The rebate will be 10 per cent for those up to 65 years, 15 per cent for those aged 65 to 69, and 20 per cent for those aged 70 and over. The surcharge for people in this tier who do not have appropriate private health insurance will be increased to 1.25 per cent of income.
Tier 3 affects singles earning more than $129,000 a year and couples and families earning more than $258,000 a year. No private health insurance rebate will be provided for people who fall within the third tier and the surcharge for avoiding private health insurance will be increased to 1.5 per cent of income for these people.
Annual indexation to average weekly earnings of the tiers income thresholds will ensure that these changes remain equitable and can be maintained into the future.
There has been some hysterical claims made in recent times about the effects of these changes.
None more so than the claim in a Private Healthcare Australia (then the Australian Health Insurance Association) Report that 1.6 million people would abandon private health cover if the Government introduced a means test for the rebate.
I won’t waste any time pointing out the flaws in this Report, but I would draw the attention of the Senate to the statement about the impact of the rebate changes issued to the Australian Stock Exchange by the private health insurer nib on 4 May 2011 which said, and I quote:
“our analysis indicates any impact would be moderate, which is in line with previous Treasury estimates which … rely upon the countervailing influence of the Medicare Levy Surcharge and proposed increases.”
As the nib statement points out, the Government is retaining a system of carrots and sticks that will minimise the impact of the proposed changes.
The increased Medicare levy surcharge for people on higher incomes will help ensure that about 99.7 per cent of insured people remain in private health insurance. This is because those high-income earners who receive a lower rebate will face a higher tax penalty for avoiding private health insurance.
It is estimated that approximately 27,000 people may no longer be covered by private health insurance hospital cover and this might result in 8,600 additional public hospital admissions over two years.
When considered against the fact that public hospitals have around 4.7 million admissions per year, the impact of this measure will be insignificant.
The Ipsos Syndicated Survey: Health Care & Insurance - Australia 2011 was released in November 2011. According to Ipsos approximately 40,000 would drop their private hospital insurance– provided that insurers inform their members about the impact of Lifetime Health Cover and the Medicare levy surcharge.
In summary, this measure will make private health fairer, more balanced and more sustainable in the long term. By maintaining a carefully designed system of carrots and sticks, it will have a negligible effect on both private health insurance premiums and the public hospital system.
At the same time, low and middle income earners who choose to have private health insurance will continue to enjoy the benefit of a significant Government rebate.
FAIRER PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE) BILL 2011
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge) Bill 2011 will amend the Medicare Levy Act 1986 to give effect to the Budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentives tiers.
This Bill will commence concurrently with the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011.
This Bill was previously introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 May and 19 November 2009 where it was passed on 2 June 2009 and 3 February 2010, respectively. This Bill was previously introduced into the Senate on 15 June 2009 and 4 February 2010. On 9 September 2009 and 24 February 2010 a motion moved in the Senate that this Bill be read a second time was defeated.
This Bill is being introduced again to give effect to the Budget measure to introduce the private health insurance incentives tiers that will make the private health rebate fairer.
The Medicare Levy Act 1986 determines whether an individual is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge in respect of their taxable income or that of their spouse. The individual’s income for surcharge purposes determines whether a person must pay the surcharge. If the individual’s income exceeds prescribed income thresholds they will need to pay the appropriate level of surcharge.
This Bill inserts the new tier system in order to determine which level of surcharge a person must pay where they do not hold appropriate private health insurance.
FAIRER PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE INCENTIVES (MEDICARE LEVY SURCHARGE—FRINGE BENEFITS) BILL 2011
The Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Bill 2011 will amend the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to give effect to the Budget measure to introduce three new private health insurance incentives tiers.
This Bill will commence concurrently with the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011.
This Bill was previously introduced into the House of Representatives on 27 May and 19 November 2009 where it was passed on 2 June 2009 and 3 February 2010, respectively. This Bill was previously introduced into the Senate on 15 June 2009 and 4 February 2010, and on 9 September 2009 and 24 February 2010 a motion moved in the Senate that this Bill be read a second time was defeated.
This Bill is being introduced again to give effect to the Budget measure to introduce the private health insurance incentives tiers that will make the private health rebate fairer.
The A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge—Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 determines whether an individual is liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge in respect of a reportable fringe benefits total they or their spouse may have. The individual’s income for surcharge purposes determines whether a person must pay the surcharge. If the individual’s income exceeds prescribed income thresholds they will need to pay the appropriate level of surcharge.
This Bill inserts the new tier system in order to determine which level of surcharge a person must pay where they do not hold appropriate private health insurance.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Abetz moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the consideration of the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2012 and related bills.
I grow tired of saying this: Labor is committed to the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.
The truth is I never had a secret plan to scrap the private health insurance rebate and, contrary to Mr Latham's diaries, do not support such a claim. For all Australians who want to have private health insurance the private health insurance rebate would have remained under a Labor government. I gave an iron-clad guarantee of that during the election.
The difference between Tony 'rock-solid, iron-clad' Abbott and me is that, when I make an iron-clad commitment, I actually intend on keeping it.
The Liberals continue to try to scare people into thinking Labor will take away the rebates. This is absolutely untrue.
The Senate divided. [17:55]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 AUTUMN SITTINGS
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (LIFE GOLD PASS) AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
Following the release of the initial report of the Remuneration Tribunal (the Tribunal), Review of the Remuneration of Members of Parliament , on 15 December 2011, the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (the bill) seeks to implement the Government's commitment to abolish the Life Gold Pass (LGP) entitlement prospectively so that it is not available to those who enter or re-enter the Parliament following the commencement of theMembers of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012 .
The bill also reduces the number of return trips available to an existing LPG holder, who has never held office as Prime Minister, and his or her spouse or de facto partner and the spouse or de facto partner of a sitting member who has qualified for a LGP (entitled person) from 25 to 10 per financial year. Consistent with the Tribunal's recommendation that the entitlement for existing LGP holders be reduced now, the bill includes a transitional provision for the last quarter in this financial year or the date of Royal Assent, whichever is the later, limiting the number of return trips available to two, where the entitled person has at least two unused return trips from his or her 2011-12 financial year entitlement.
The bill also amends the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 and makes consequential changes to theParliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 (1948 Act) to grant the Tribunal the power to limit the flow of windfall gains to the superannuation benefits for current and former parliamentarians covered by the 1948 Act, from increases in the additional salary for Ministers of State and parliamentary office holders.
Reasons for Urgency
The bill should be introduced and passed in the 2012 Autumn sittings to ensure the number of return trips for existing LGP holders is reduced from the start of the 2012-13 financial year. It is also preferable that the transitional provision apply from 1 April 2012.
It is also important that the Tribunal has the capacity to limit any windfall gains that could flow to the superannuation benefits of current and former Ministers of State and parliamentary office holders covered by the 1948 Act, from a determination of the Tribunal on parliamentary remuneration. The Tribunal has indicated that it will not determine any variation in parliamentary remuneration, terms and conditions, or any associated matters, until measures have been enacted to address the potential windfall gains. Delays in passage of the bill will mean that the Tribunal is not able to properly fulfil its role in determining parliamentarian's remuneration.
Nuclear Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
I firmly believe that our generation can build a world of ever-expanding development, security and human rights—a world "in larger freedom". But I am equally aware that such a world could be put irrevocably beyond our reach by a nuclear catastrophe in one of our great cities.
In the chaos and confusion of the immediate aftermath, there might be many questions. Was this an act of terrorism? Was it an act of aggression by a state? Was it an accident? These may not be equally probable, but all are possible. Imagine, just for a minute, what the consequences would be. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people would perish in an instant, and many more would die from exposure to radiation.
The global impact would also be grave. The attention of world leaders would be riveted on this existential threat. Carefully nurtured collective security mechanisms could be discredited. Hard-won freedoms and human rights could be compromised. The sharing of nuclear technology for peaceful uses could halt. Resources for development would likely dwindle. And world financial markets, trade and transportation could be hard hit, with major economic consequences. This could drive millions of people in poor countries into deeper deprivation and suffering. As shock gave way to anger and despair, the leaders of every nation represented here at this conference—as well as those who are not here—we would have to ask: How did it come to this? Is my conscience clear? Could I have done more to reduce the risk by strengthening the regime designed to do so?
… rejects the suggestion that nuclear weapons in the hands of some pose no threat, while in the hands of others they place the world in mortal jeopardy. Governments possessing nuclear weapons can act responsibly or recklessly. Governments may also change over time. Twenty-seven—
thousand nuclear weapons are not an abstract theory. They exist in today's world.
… immediate and determined efforts need to be made to rid the world of nuclear weapons and the threat they pose to it. The destructiveness of nuclear weapons is immense. Any use would be catastrophic.
The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity—
The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons and assurance that they will never be produced again.
The relative ease with which a multinational illicit network could be set up and operated demonstrates the inadequacy of the present export control system. The fact that so many companies and individuals could be involved (more than two dozen, by last count)—and that, in most cases, this could occur apparently without the knowledge of their own governments—points to the shortcomings of national systems for oversight of sensitive equipment and technology. It also points to the limitations of existing international cooperation on export controls, which relies on informal arrangements, does not include many countries with growing industrial capacity, and does not include sufficient sharing of export information with the IAEA.
… In a modern society characterized by electronic information exchange, interlinked financial systems, and global trade, the control of access to nuclear weapons technology has grown increasingly difficult. The technical barriers to mastering the essential steps of uranium enrichment—and to designing weapons—have eroded over time. Much of the hardware in question is "dual use", and the sheer diversity of technology has made it much more difficult to control or even track procurement and sales.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012.
Members of Parliament (Life Gold Pass) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
7. Schedule 3 Immediately after the commencement of the provisions covered by table item 6.
(2) Page 9 (after line 15), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 3—Determinations and reports about politicians' pay and entitlements
Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973
1 After section 7
Insert:
7AA Process for making determination or report about members of Parliament
(1) Before making a determination or report under this Act relating to a member of the Parliament (including a Minister of State), the Tribunal must:
(a) make a call to the public for submissions; and
(b) publish on its website each submission received (but only with the consent of the person making the submission); and
(c) conduct a public hearing in relation to the matters that are the subject of the proposed determination or report.
(2) The Tribunal must publish on its website a transcript of public hearings conducted under paragraph (1)(c).
2 Section 7A
Before "The Tribunal", insert "(1)".
3 At the end of section 7A
Add:
(2) The Tribunal's reasons for a determination or report under this Act relating to a member of the Parliament (including a Minister of State) must address:
(a) any submissions received under subsection 7AA(1); and
(b) any evidence given in a public hearing conducted under that subsection.
4 At the end of section 11
Add:
(3) This section applies subject to section 7AA (process for making determination or report about members of Parliament).
The Committee divided. [20:18]
The Chairman—Senator Parry
That this bill be now read a third time.
That government business orders of the day nos 1 (National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010) and 2 (National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2010) be postponed to the next day of sitting.
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 [2012]
A registered trade mark is bit like putting a barbed wire fence around your brand. You're warning competitors to stay away as you own the rights to that word, image or logo.
That these bills be now read a third time.
That government business order of the day no. 4 (Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011) be postponed till the next day of sitting.
Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
The current presumption against bail for persons sought for extradition is appropriate given the serious flight risk posed by the person in extradition matters, and Australia's international obligations to secure the return of alleged offenders to face justice in the requesting country. The High Court in United Mexican States v Cabal had previously observed that to grant bail where a risk of flight exists would jeopardise Australia's relationship with the country seeking extradition and jeopardise our standing in the international community.
This invaluable collection also set in place the foundations for other important collecting institutions, such as the National Gallery of Australia and the National Portrait Gallery.
I am satisfied the best design has been selected. It is a wonderful design and shall make the federal capital [of Australia] the finest in the world … what we wanted was the best the world can give us and we have got it.
I have planned a city not like any other city in the world. I have planned it not in a way that I expected any governmental authorities in the world would accept. I have planned an ideal city—a city that meets my ideal of the city of the future.
freedom of the press … cannot be limited without being lost.
As it is a relatively new industry, whilst the processes are understood, it takes some time to understand the properties associated with any hydrogeological setting … In a situation where you have done extraction for a limited amount of time, you are working with less information and the uncertainties are higher.
(1) What measures and/or procedures are in place to prevent contraband or weapons being brought into detention centres.
(2) Since 1 January 2008, have any contraband or weapons been detected in detention centres; if so, can the following in relation to each detention centre be provided:
(a) what items were found;
(b) where those items were found;
(c) on what date they were found; and
(d) what action was taken against the person or persons identified as being involved.
(1) Section 252 of the Migration Act 1958 provides detention service provider staff and officers of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship the powers to search clients for weapons. This includes powers to search clothing and property. In addition, there are a number of measures and procedures in place to prevent contraband or weapons from being brought into immigration detention facilities. These ensure the department is able to meet its obligations with regard to maintaining the good order of its detention facilities.
There are a range of items that are either not permitted or are controlled in detention facilities, such as weapons, illicit drugs and associated paraphernalia, alcohol, flammable sprays, liquids and solids, sharp items, pornographic or offensive material, mobile phones with visual and audio recording devices, and other visual and audio recording devices.
All clients and their property are screened before entering immigration detention facilities. Screening may include a client walking through screening equipment, or the passing of hand-held screening equipment over or around the client and the client's possessions, or passing the client's possessions through screening equipment. Any controlled items are stored securely with the client's property and cannot be accessed by the client. All controlled items are returned to the client when the person leaves immigration detention. Illegal items are secured and referred to the police.
All mail to people in immigration detention is screened and any item that is regarded as suspicious is opened in the presence of the client.
All staff and visitors entering immigration detention facilities are screened via x-ray facilities. Items brought into detention facilities are also screened and controlled items are stored securely. Illegal items are referred to the police. The Migration Act 1958 does not provide detention service provider staff or officers of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship the powers to search a visitor's clothing.
(2) Since 1 January 2008, there have been a number of items located in immigration detention facilities that are not permitted. These items may be located upon entry, during routine searches in immigration detention facilities or during other searches that occur from time to time often as a result of information. The table below summarises the detection of items that are not permitted in immigration detention facilities since 1 January 2008.
Actions taken by the detention services provider in relation to items located in immigration detention facilities that are not permitted are recorded in multiple systems depending upon the nature of the items located. The very detailed information sought in the question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to manually interrogate relevant systems. The department estimates that this would take a departmental officer an average of 30 minutes for each incident. This equates to approximately 24 working days.
The possession of items not permitted in immigration detention facilities may affect the placement of the client within the immigration detention network. Action can also be taken against clients who exhibit illegal or antisocial behaviour, such as the possession of weapons or illicit drugs. The detention service provider may develop individual behavioural agreements with clients who exhibit illegal or antisocial behaviour, which allow for the implementation of interventionist or restrictive measures.
Recent amendments to the Migration Act make provision for a person to fail the character test if convicted of an offence while in immigration detention. This may, in turn, affect a client's visa outcome.
The following table summarises items detected in immigration detention facilities that are not permitted for the period 1 January 2008 to 30 May 2011.
In regard to Lao People ' s Democratic Republic ' s (Laos ' ) proposed Xayaburi Dam on the mainstream of the Mekong River, Australia ' s support to the Mekong River Commission (MRC), and Australia ' s bilateral aid to Mekong countries bordering the Mekong River:
(1) As a major donor to the MRC, and for the MRCs Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement under the 1955 Mekong Agreement (PNPCA), what position does the Australian Government hold on the proposed Xayaburi Dam, and the other proposed mainstream dams on the Mekong River.
(2) What is the Australian Government ' s understanding of the current status of the PNPCA.
(3) Does the Australian Government consider that obligations under the procedures have been met, and whether they are completed or still ongoing .
(4) What messages will Australia be sending to the Mekong governments in the lead up to the proposed ministerial meeting to discuss the Xayaburi Dam .
(5) Given that the Vietnam and Cambodian Governments have made clear public statements regarding their concerns with the Xayaburi Dam, including support for the recommended 10 year moratorium on the dams, how will Australia support these countries ' clearly stated public views on the Xayaburi Dam and the PNPCA.
(6) Will the Minister, or an Australian Government representative, meet bilaterally with the Lao Government to encourage a renewed commitment by Laos to international dialogue and decision making, via regionally mandated processes, for the Xayaburi Dam; if so, what messages will the Australian Government give to the Lao Government.
(7) Given Australia ' s previous influential role in Development Partner considerations of the proposed dams, will the Australian Government join with other governments such as Vietnam and the United States of America, in publicly supporting the recommendations of the Strategic Environmental Assessment and call for a 10 year moratorium on decisions regarding the Mekong mainstream dams.
(1) The Australian Government regards the development and use of the waters of the Mekong River Basin as sovereign decisions for Mekong governments. However the Australian Government is concerned that deliberation processes about Mekong water resources development are transparent, well-informed and inclusive, as the livelihoods of millions of people may be affected. The Australian Government's technical support provided under the Australian Mekong Water Resources Program and policy advocacy about the Procedures for Notification, Prior Consultation and Agreement (PNPCA) process supports this ambition.
(2) The MRC met at ministerial level in Siem Reap, Cambodia from 7-9 December 2011 to further discuss the proposed Xayaburi Hydropower Dam proposal. There was no direct statement on the Xayaburi Hydropower Dam issued at that meeting. Member countries agreed to conduct further studies on the sustainable development and management of the Mekong River, including the impacts of mainstream hydropower development projects. The MRC has not officially announced that the formal Xayaburi Hydropower Dam deliberation process has completed.
(3) The Australian Government notes the status of the formal Xayaburi Hydropower Dam deliberation process is uncertain. The Australian Government, and other MRC development partners, consider that there are many key remaining knowledge gaps about the potential impact of Xayaburi Hydropower Dam proposal and other Mekong mainstream dam proposals. The potential impact of the Xayaburi Hydropower dam proposal, and others like it, on fisheries and sediment flows are areas that in particular warrant further research. Therefore Australia and other MRC development partners have urged (through a range of fora that includes the MRC), that the results of research work into these issues needs to be made available and discussed with all relevant stakeholders before any Lower Mekong mainstream dam proposal proceeds to construction, including the Xayaburi Hydropower Dam.
(4) Australia took the lead in formulating a joint MRC development partner statement, which addressed the dam, delivered to the 7-9 December 2011 MRC Council meeting. In this statement donors welcomed the decision reached at the Council meeting to conduct further studies on the sustainable development and management of the Mekong River, including the impacts of mainstream hydropower development projects. The statement noted that the study should draw upon the best of international scientific, social and economic advice and holistic consultation processes and that MRC development partners would assist the MRC to ensure this was realized. The statement urged that the results of the research work needed to be available and discussed before any Lower Mekong mainstream dam proposal proceeds to construction, including the Xayaburi Hydropower Dam.
(5) The Australian Government will continue to engage with all MRC Member States in support of dam deliberation processes that are well-informed, transparent and allow for contestability. The Australian Government's aim is to support, and advocate for, robust deliberative processes in the countries and communities most affected. The Australian Government wants to ensure the benefits and costs are fully considered, and that as a result, informed decisions are taken by the governments of the Mekong basin countries. The Australian Government's support for, and engagement with, the MRC and its Member States supports these objectives.
(6) Australia's Ambassador to Laos has raised the Xayaburi Hydropower dam on several occasions with senior members of the Government of Laos. These have included the Minister in the Prime Minister's Office and Head of the Water Resources and Environment Administration, the Minister for Planning and Investment, and the Minister for Natural Resources and Environment. During these meetings Australia advocated for a transparent and well informed Xayaburi hydropower dam deliberation process that would allow for meaningful discussions by all interested stakeholders. Australia and other donors have continued to call for this through the Joint MRC development partner statement to the December 2011 MRC Council meeting.
(7) The Australian Government has not called for a 10 year moratorium of Mekong mainstream dam construction. The Australian Government judges it would be more productive to continue to engage with MRC Member States in support of dam deliberation processes that are well-informed, transparent and allow for contestability. The Australian Government's aim is to support, and advocate for, robust deliberative processes in the countries and communities most affected. The Australian Government wants to ensure the benefits and costs are fully considered, and that as a result, informed decisions are taken by the sovereign nations of the Mekong basin.
What is the accumulated sum of outstanding and written off debt from consular assistance rendered since the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report, Helping Australians abroad: A review of the Australian Government ' s consular services was tabled in 1997.
The current sum of outstanding debts from consular loans is $1,425,256 (as at 31 August 2011).
To provide information on all written-off debt would entail a significant diversion of resources and in these circumstances I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Minister's portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Minister's portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
DFAT
(1) There has been no reduction in the average staffing levels in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) as a result of the efficiency dividend or other budget cuts in 2010-11 or 2011-12.
(2) There are no plans for a reduction in the average staffing level.
(3) No changes are underway or planned for DFAT's graduate recruitment. DFAT has no plans to reduce its intake for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
AusAID
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) In 2012 the AusAID Graduate Program will increase from 25 to 50 participants and the program period will be extended from eleven months to two years.
Austrade
(1) There have been no staff reductions as a result of the efficiency dividend . At 1 July 2011, Austrade had reduced, by 17, offshore locally engaged positions at various levels in the established markets of North America (Denver, Honolulu, Kansas, Miami, San Diego and Montreal) and Europe (Copenhagen, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Dublin) . These reductions were guided by a comprehensive review of Austrade announced by the Minister for Trade on 17 May 2011 which redistributed resources to maximise the organisation ' s value to Australian companies doing business internationally and also met the portfolio savings target of $2.223 million per year .
(2) See response to 1.
(3) A graduate program and a trade commissioner development program will commence in 2011–12.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC)
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) Nil.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) Nil.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Minister's portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Minister ' s portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
For the purpose of answering the question, staffing is measured by Average Staffing Levels (ASL) . As a Government Business Enterprise, the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) operates on a commercial and competitive basis and does not receive any parliamentary appropriations and is not subject to the efficiency dividend.
(1) T he following agencies have not had their budgeted ASL reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget changes: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, CrimTrac, Federal Court of Australia, Copyright Tribunal of Australia, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal , Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
As identified in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements the Attorney-General ' s Department and the following agencies have had reductions in budgeted ASL as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget changes: Australian Crime Commission, Australian Federal Police, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Family Court of Australia, High Court of Australia, and the National Native Title Tribunal .
The budgeted reductions are anticipated to be across a broad range of the portfolio ' s functions, areas and classifications in response to Government priorities over the forward estimates.
(2) The following agencies do not have planned staff reductions: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, CrimTrac, Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, High Court of Australia, Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Attorney-General ' s Department
The Department operates within budget and deploys employees between programs in response to Government priorities . In the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, the Department has forecast a reduction of 25 ASL, of which 21 ASL are directly related to changes in funding received for New Policy Proposals and four relate to a general reduction in staff numbers . The planned staffing reduction will be managed by natural attrition.
Australian Crime Commission
The ACC is planning to reduce its staffing levels by approximately 23 ASL . The ACC will manage this reduction through voluntary redundancies, natural attrition and the expiry of non-ongoing contracts . Measures are in place to ensure that priority areas of the ACC are allocated the resources required to perform their functions.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
As outlined in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statement the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is planning a reduction in the average staffing level (ASL) of 90. The majority of staffing reductions will occur in the Passengers Division with average ASL levels being reduced by 87 over four years . There will also be a small number of other staff reductions across the agency. This reduction will be managed through natural attrition and adjustments to recruitment programs.
Australian Federal Police
As stated in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statement the AFP is anticipating a reduction of 72 ASL . The organisation has reduced its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) during the 2011-12 financial year due to natural attrition, retirements and voluntary redundancies . The voluntary redundancy program is part of a normal workforce management program for the organisation . The AFP will continue to exercise financial restraint.
As part of the Government ' s commitment to increase the number of sworn investigators by an additional 500, the 2011-12 budget process was projected to achieve 359 FTE against this New Policy Initiative.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
Yes. AUSTRAC is planning to reduce its staffing numbers. The number will be determined in light of the outcomes of other savings measures . This reduction will primarily be achieved through natural attrition and workforce planning strategies. Progress will be monitored throughout the year and other measures will be considered should the required reduction target not be met.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
There are plans for further reductions. Staffing number reductions will be achieved across the broad range of office functions rather than in relation to specific areas, classifications, services or programs. As stated in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements the staffing levels expected for the out years are
(a) 2011-12 anticipated ASL 513;
(b) 2012-13 anticipated ASL 508;
(c) 2013-14 anticipated ASL 496;
(d) 2014-15 anticipated ASL 494.
Family Court of Australia
As outlined in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, the Family Court of Australia is planning to reduce its staffing levels by an approximate 25 ASL . Staffing reductions in the Court will be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth's redeployment principles which give a high priority to redeploying excess employees across the APS and stress that compulsory retrenchment should be avoided.
Federal Court of Australia, Copyright Tribunal of Australia and Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
There will be a need for further staff reductions but there are no plans at this stage on how these will be achieved.
National Native Title Tribunal
There are plans for further reductions. The staffing levels expected for the out years are
(a) 2011-12 anticipated ASL 154;
(b) 2012-13 anticipated ASL 150;
(c) 2013-14 anticipated ASL 145.
(d) 2014-15 anticipated ASL is expected to plateau at 145.
The reduction in staffing will be achieved through implementing the Tribunal ' s Workforce Plan 2011-14, produced in August 2011. Measures to date include the following decisions:
to merge three sections (Legal, Research and Library) into one section, as at 26 September 2011, and associated involuntary redundancies;
to further reduce staffing levels in Finance and Human Resources;
continuing to further reduce staff numbers, through natural attrition wherever possible.
(3) There are no planned changes across the portfolio to graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs with the following exceptions:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
The Graduate Development Program is anticipated to increase by 19 participants for the calendar year 2012.
A small increase in numbers for the National Trainee Training Program is anticipated for the calendar year 2012 .
The Indigenous Graduate Program is anticipated to decrease by one participant for the calendar year 2012 .
National Native Title Tribunal
As part of its Indigenous Employment Strategy, the Tribunal hopes to be able to offer a cadetship, traineeship or internship to an Indigenous employee each year.
What was of the department's total expenditure on travel for the 2010-11 financial year, and of this, what sum was spent on:
(a) first class air travel;
(b) business class air travel;
(c) economy class air travel;
(d) international air travel; and
(e) domestic air travel.
For the department's expenditure on travel refer to the 2010-11 DFAT Annual Report page 284, Financial Statements 2010-11, Note 3B. Following is a breakdown of the air travel booked in Australia through the department's Travel Management Company:
(a) First class air travel
$1,448,234
(b) Business class air travel
$20,529,172
(c) Premium Economy class air travel
$13,901
(d) Economy class air travel
$2,697,565
(e) International air travel
$20,438,958
(f) Domestic air travel
$4,249,914
What was the department's total expenditure on hospitality and entertainment for the 2010-11 financial year, and of this, what sum was used for entertainment provided:
(a) overseas;
(b) within Australia; and
(c) in conjunction with the United Nations Security Council bid.
For the financial year 2010-11, the department spent $4.75 million in Australia and overseas on hospitality and entertainment.
The composition of entertainment and hospitality expenditure overseas and in Australia:
(a) Overseas $4.02 million
(b) Australia $0.73 million
TOTAL $4.75 million
(c) Hospitality and entertainment expenditure relating to the United Nations Security Council bid has been incurred both through a range of specific events and as part of broader hospitality events across the diplomatic network. To collate records to identify this expenditure would entail a significant diversion of resources and, in these circumstances, I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
What was:
(a) the department's total expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year on:
(i) information and computer technology,
(ii) consultancies,
(iii) external accounting,
(iv) external auditing,
(v) external legal services, and
(vi) membership and grants paid to affiliate organisations; and
(b) for each category in (a), what was the program breakdown of this expenditure.
Total expenditure for 2010-11 in each of the requested categories is detailed below:
(a) (i) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report,Section 5, page 284.
(ii) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report,Section 4, Appendix 12 – Consultancy services, page 232.
(iii) External accounting: $0.056 million.
(iv) External auditing expense: $0.467 million. Of this $0.45 million relates to a notional charge for the annual audit conducted by the Australian National Audit Office. This is reported in the Financial Statements at Note 12 within the 2010-11 Annual Report (Resources received free of charge).
(v) External legal services: $3.080 million.
(vi) Refer 2010-11 Annual Report,Section 4, Appendix 11 – Grants and contributions, page 229.
The department does not itemise expenditure at the level of detail sought. To fully report expenditure at the level of detail asked would require a significant diversion of resources and I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1011 (Senate Hansard, 11 October 2011, p. 106), how much has been paid by way of legal aid in the pursuit of the cases.
Have any detainees or former detainees at immigration detention facilities initiated legal action against the Commonwealth for illegal detention: if so:
(a) how many;
(b) how many claims have been: (i) settled, or (ii) contested in court, by the Commonwealth;
(c) what has been the: (i) average, and (ii) total cost of settling these claims to date;
(d) which law firms, centres or practitioners have acted for such claimants;
(e) how many claimants has each firm, centre or practitioner represented; and
(f) has any firm, centre or practitioner been in receipt of funding from the Commonwealth for acting on behalf of detainees or former detainees; if so, in each case, how much was the funding].
Further to the interim answer tabled on 22 November 2011, the Attorney-General's Department has obtained additional information on services provided by legal aid commissions.
Legal Aid New South Wales has reported that for the relevant period costs and disbursements recovered by Legal Aid NSW were $218,006.
Victoria Legal Aid (VLA) has confirmed that it is assisting four former child detainees at immigration detention facilities in actions against the Commonwealth for illegal detention. VLA advises that it would not be appropriate to disclose information about costs at this point in time as it may have a bearing on the outcome; including VLA's ability to recover some or all of its costs from the Commonwealth.
VLA does not anticipate that it will usually or frequently fund claims for compensation by immigration detainees.
With reference to the answer to question BE11/0081 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, in which it was indicated that the Enterprise Migration Agreement templates were under development:
(1) Have they been finalised?
(2) Can a template be provided?
(3) Which projects will potentially have the ability to use an Enterprise Migration Agreement?
(4) Which projects have sought an Enterprise Migration Agreement to date?
The Enterprise Migration Agreement template which is a legal contract is currently being developed in conjunction with the Department's legal area. The Enterprise Migration Agreements Submission Guidelines published early September 2011 (copy attached) provide comprehensive information on requirements for the program. The final template will reflect these guidelines. The Department expects the template to be finalised in coming months in time for the first Enterprise Migration Agreement to be given effect.
Enterprise Migration Agreements will be available to all State/Territory government approved resource projects with a capital expenditure of more than two billion Australian dollars and a peak workforce of more than 1500 workers during the construction phase.
The Department continues to actively liaise with a number of large scale resource companies that are interested in making a submission for an Enterprise Migration Agreement. To date, one formal submission to access an Enterprise Migration Agreement has been received. For commercial reasons, the Department does not consider it appropriate to disclose the company's details until such a time as the submission is approved.
For each of the following financial years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11:
(1) In relation to the export of sawn native forest timbers from Western Australia:
(a) what quantity of sawn jarrah, karri and marri was exported from Western Australia on a per species basis;
(b) from which ports was the timber exported;
(c) who was the owner of the timber at the point of departure from Western Australia;
(d) which ports received the timber (for each port, provide details of the quantity of each species received, for each year specified); and
(e) who was the owner of the timber at the point of arrival overseas (for each owner, provide details of the quantity of each species received, for each year specified).
(2) In relation to the export of whole native forest logs from Western Australia:
(a) what quantity of whole native forest logs was exported from Western Australia on a per species basis;
(b) what was the financial value of the logs exported on a per species basis;
(c) from which ports were the logs exported, (for each port, provide details of the quantity of each species exported, for each year specified); and
(d) which ports received the timber, (for each port, provide details of the quantity of each species received, for each year specified).
(1) Please note: the native timber Marri (Corymbia Calophylaa) is not identified by Customs, and is not recorded as such in the dataset available to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The answers provided below relate to jarrah and karri only.
(a)
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 6006.52 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 1074.408 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 8724.27 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 1235.693 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 8193.844 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 1163.641 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 8970.34 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 1177.354 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 8505.352 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 2916.469 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) 9433.152 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) 809.812 tonnes
(b)
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Brisbane 3.43 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 5977.489 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Melbourne 17.201 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Perth 8.4 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 1039.234 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Melbourne 35.174 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 7976.181 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Melbourne 712.58 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Perth 0.25 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Sydney 35.259 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 1235.693 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 6919.438 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Melbourne 1274.406 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 1103.394 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Melbourne 21.394 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Sydney 38.853 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 8160.132 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Melbourne 453.896 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Perth 1.546 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Sydney 354.766 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 1047.736 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Melbourne 129.618 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 8494.024 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Melbourne 11.328 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 2896.025 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Melbourne 20.444 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Fremantle 9410.887 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Perth 1.09 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Sydney 21.175 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Fremantle 809.812 tonnes
(c) The confidentiality provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905 prevent the disclosure of this information.
(d)
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Hong Kong 97.475 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 3548.259 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 703.387 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 135.316 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Baltimore 28.718 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Bangkok 112.28 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Belawan 2 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Busan (Pusan) 3.43 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Cape Town 54.748 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Chilung (Keelung) 14.132 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Felixstowe 15.877 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hachinohe 37.789 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hamburg 3.41 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Helsinki(Helsingfors) 35.41 tonnes 7
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Honolulu 16.391 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 86.515 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kuching 18 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) London 18 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Long Beach 41.802 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Los Angeles 15.004 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) New York 72.052 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Malaysia 18.38 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Vietnam 37.299 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 549.747 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 223.324 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Thessaloniki 1 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tokyo 87.541 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yantian 29.227 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Singapore 618.258
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 152.032 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Cape Town 0.056 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Felixstowe 88.74 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) New York 14.79 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 156.094 tonnes
FIN YR 2005—2006 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Tauranga 44.438 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Christmas Is. 0.1 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Hong Kong 44.775 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 3504.439 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 306.079 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 34.937 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Busan (Pusan) 78.36 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Cape Town 203.314 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Gothenburg 75.014 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hachinohe 109.218 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Helsinki(Helsingfors) 49.134 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Honolulu 16.666 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 1299.971 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kuching 48 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) La Spezia 284.041 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Long Beach 87.151 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) New York 46.448 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Malaysia (a) 38.266 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-USA 131.751 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Vietnam 161.302 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Pasir Gudang 13.94 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Rotterdam 114.993 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 882.722 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 303.89 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tianjin 24.69 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tokyo 283.873 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tomakomai 17.243 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tsingtao (Quingdao) 99.262 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Wellington 34.003 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Xiamen 34.38 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yantian 207.938 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yokohama 188.37 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor)All Ports-Singapore 462.527 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 350.252 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Kelang 45.86 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) La Spezia 63.747 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 88.014 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Shanghai 62.845 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Tauranga 130.148 tonnes
FIN YR 2006—2007 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Tianjin 32.3 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Hong Kong 19.08
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 2789.832 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 175.612 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 199.648 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Baltimore 83.875 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Bangkok 136.235 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Busan (Pusan) 33.43 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Cape Town 182.97 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Christchurch/lyttelton 22.389 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Gothenburg 109.84 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hachinohe 68.389 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hamburg 14.424 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Helsinki(Helsingfors) 168.605 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Ho Chi Minh City 17.048 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Honolulu 17.565 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 1769.618 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kuching 68.86 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Laem Chabang 50.70 tonnes 3
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Long Beach 112.877 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Napier 15.273 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Korea Republic 32.919 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Malaysia (a) 17.79 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Other and Unspecified Ports-Vietnam 35 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Seattle 14.598 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 1418.945 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 160.481 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tianjin 9.723 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tokyo 186.41 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tsingtao (Quingdao) 17.97 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Xiamen 13.962 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yokohama 229.773 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Hong Kong 38.853 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Singapore 507.245 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 271.884 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 243.315 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Shanghai 97.067 tonnes
FIN YR 2007—2008 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Tianjin 5.277 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Christmas Is. 1.12 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Hong Kong 14.4 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 4261.393 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 475.706 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 27.245 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Baltimore 116.405 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Bangkok 53.688 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Busan (Pusan) 394.771 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Cape Town 16.016 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Gothenburg 17.774 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hachinohe 37.011 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Hamburg 16.358 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Helsinki(Helsingfors) 34.966 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Ho Chi Minh City 273.726 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Honolulu 32.361 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 1638.538 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kuching 41.5 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Long Beach 29.009 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Napier 66.787 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Rotterdam 16.723 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 1067.384 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 48.831 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tokyo 196.522 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tsingtao (Quingdao) 48.555 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yokohama 43.551 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Singapore 646.534 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 59.65 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Kelang 16 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Los Angeles 72.395 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-China(Exclta 129.618 tonnes
FIN YR 2008—2009 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 253.157 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 5399.967 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 93.431 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 11.328 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Colombo 32.112 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Ho Chi Minh City 45.58 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 2167.642 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Long Beach 17.132 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Napier 72.783 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Osaka 19.872 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Philadelphia 14.626 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Seattle 14.92 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 320.4 tonnes 04
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tanjung Pelepas 211.368 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 46.342 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tianjin 21.199 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Yokohama 16.646 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Cocos Islands 0.3 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Singapore 2435.299 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 85.578 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Kelang 136.8 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 207.489 tonnes
FIN YR 2009—2010 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Shanghai 51.003 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Christmas Is. 1.804 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Cocos Islands 0.516 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) All Ports-Singapore 4543.637 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Antwerp 75.664 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Auckland 32.579 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Da-Nang 174 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Honolulu 15.5 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Kelang 2912.433 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Napier 122.017 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shanghai 990.62 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Shenzhen (incl. Yantian, Shekou and 39.695 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tanjung Pelepas 369.624 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tauranga 93.888 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tianjin 40 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Jarrah(Eucalyptus marginata) Tokyo 21.175 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) All Ports-Singapore 301.101 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Antwerp 42.925 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Busan (Pusan) 18 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Kelang 38.631 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Other and Unspecified Ports-New Zealand 356.155 tonnes
FIN YR 2010—2011 Karri(Eucalyptus diversicolor) Tanjung Pelepas 53 tonnes
(e) The confidentiality provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905 prevent the disclosure of this information.
(2) Data for whole native logs is not captured by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
In regard to the decision made by Qantas on 29 October 2011 to lock out its staff and ground its fleet: (1) How many meetings has the Minister or the Minister's office had with Mr Alan Joyce or Qantas executives, and for each meeting what was the date and time? (2) Can details be provided of the damage to Qantas caused by the union's campaign of industrial action as outlined by Qantas? (3) Was the Minister ever informed of the likely consequences of this damaging campaign on the survival of the airline?
I am advised that Minister Evans was in regular contact with all parties to the dispute, as stated in media statements prior to 29 October 2011.
Qantas has publicly stated its reasons for notifying a lock-out of employees and consequent decision to ground the Qantas fleet. Neither the Department nor my Office is in a position to verify Qantas' statements about the financial impact of protected industrial action by employees on its business.
I am advised that Minister Evans received a range of correspondence from constituents, industry groups, unions and other stakeholders expressing concern about the effect of the Qantas dispute on all parties involved. Minister Evans repeatedly urged the parties to negotiate in good faith and expressed concern about the Qantas dispute in public statements and media interviews prior to 29 October 2011.
In regard to the decision made by Qantas on 29 October 2011 to lock out its staff and ground its fleet: (1) How many meetings has the Minister or the Minister's office had with representatives of the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Licensed Engineers Association or the Australian and International Pilots Association in the past 12 months, and for each meeting what was the date, time and who was present. (2) Can details be provided of the damage to Qantas caused by the union's campaign of industrial action or any intention to cause damage as outlined by any of these unions. (3) Was the Minister or the Minister's office ever informed of the union's intention to continue industrial disputation?
(1) I am advised that Minister Evans was in regular contact with all parties to the dispute, as stated in media interviews and public statements prior to 29 October 2011.
(2) No. Qantas has made some statements about the financial impact of protected industrial action by employees on its business, however, the Department is not in a position to verify these statements. Officials of the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and the Australian and International Pilots Association have made statements about the objectives of their protected industrial action against Qantas. However, the Department is not in a position to verify these statements.
(3) Officials of the Transport Workers Union, the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association and the Australian and International Pilots Association made public statements at various times about taking protected industrial action against Qantas.
In regard to the decision made by Qantas on 29 October 2011 to lock out its staff and ground its fleet:
(1) At what time was the Minister's office informed that Qantas intended on locking out staff from Monday and grounding the fleet?
(2) At what time was the Minister informed that Qantas intended on locking out staff from Monday and grounding the fleet?
(3) Was the message conveyed that Mr Alan Joyce was available to speak to in regards to the advice that was provided?
(4) At what time was advice requested from the department?
(5) At what time was advice received from the department?
(6) At what time was a teleconference with ministers convened?
(7) At what time did the teleconference with ministers take place and which ministers were involved?
(8) Were any other people who were not Ministers involved in the teleconference; if so, who?
(9) Which minister made the final decision for the Government to take action under section 424 of the Fair Work Act 2009
(the Act)?
(10) At what time did the Minister intervene under section 424 of the Act?
(11) At what time was a brief:
(a) prepared; and
(b) provided to the lawyers representing the Government at Fair Work Australia.
(12) Was the Minister in receipt of any advice prior to 29 October 2011 that the Qantas dispute was having a damaging effect on any sectors of the Australian economy; if so, can details be provided, including who the advice was from and what was the advice?
(13) Was the Minister aware of any calls prior to 29 October 2011 for the Government to take action on the Qantas dispute; if so, can details be provided, including from whom the calls were made, the concern expressed and the Minister's action.
(14) Prior to 29 October 2011 and since May 2011, did the Minister or anyone in the Minister's office request information or prepare a note or briefing for the Minister on the use of sections 424 or 431 of the Act; if so, can details be provided including the date, who prepared the information and the reason for the request.
(15) Was the Minister aware that Qantas, under provisions of the Act, could take action to lock out their staff?
(16) Did the Minister have any concerns prior to 29 October 2011 that the ongoing Qantas dispute was having an impact on the Australian economy or sectors within it; if so, did the Minister take any action to deal with those concerns.
(1) & (2) As the Prime Minister has publicly stated, the Government was advised around 2pm on Saturday 29 October 2011 that Qantas was grounding its fleet in preparation for a lockout. The Prime Minister has also confirmed that the Government did not have any earlier advice that planes would be grounded at 5pm. Minister Evans is also on the public record as confirming that Qantas gave the Government a 'couple of hours' notice.
(3) I am advised that Mr Joyce spoke in person to Minister Evans.
(4) & (5) I am advised that at 3.38pm on 29 October 2011 the Deputy Secretary for the Department
(Deputy Secretary), spoke with the Minister about Qantas' decision on 29 October 2011 to lock out employees and ground its fleet. During this conversation the Minister sought and was provided with oral advice from the Deputy Secretary. The Minister then requested written advice from the Department, which was provided at around 4.35pm that afternoon.
(6), (7) The issue has been addressed in public statements made by Minister Evans and Minister &
(8) Albanese.
(9) The Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations.
(10) The Australian Government Solicitor filed the Minister's application to terminate protected industrial action at Qantas under section 424 of the Act with Fair Work Australia at 8.48 pm. The hearing commenced at 10.09 pm.
(11) The Department instructed the Australian Government Solicitor
(AGS) at approximately 5 pm on 29 October 2011 to file the Minister's application with Fair Work Australia and to represent the Minister in this matter. AGS briefed Senior Counsel on the Minister's application at 6.30 pm on 29 October 2011.
(12) Several stakeholders suggested on the public record that the dispute was having a damaging effect. Legal advice concerning the Qantas dispute was provided to the Minister prior to 29 October 2011. The content of that advice is subject to legal professional privilege. So as to preserve that privilege, and recognising the public interest in governments being able to seek and receive legal advice in confidence, it would not be appropriate to provide the further information sought.
(13)A number of stakeholders
(excluding Qantas and the relevant unions) requested Government 'intervention' in the dispute before 29 October 2011. These requests are on the public record. As Minister Evans has noted on the public record, all of the parties were suggesting that they could reach a negotiated settlement and did not ask the Government to intervene.
(14) Yes. Legal advice concerning the Qantas dispute was provided to the Minister in the period May 2011—29 October 2011 in relation to ss 424 and 431 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The further details that are sought about that advice are subject to legal professional privilege. So as to preserve that privilege, and recognising the public interest in governments being able to seek and receive legal advice in confidence, it would not be appropriate to provide the further information sought.
(15) Yes.
(16) As Minister Evans has noted on the public record, the parties were suggesting that they could reach a negotiated outcome and did not seek Government intervention. I am advised that Minister Evans encouraged the parties, on a number of occasions, to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement.
(1) What was the total operating expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What was the increase from the 2009-10 financial year.
(3) What is the difference between the budgeted and actual expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year.
(4) With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0012 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which states 'with their terms ending on 30 June 2010, 21 members did not seek reappointment, or were not reappointed for a further term', of these 21 members:
(a) how many did not seek reappointment;
(b) how many were not reappointed; and
(c) of those who were not reappointed what was the reason in each case.
(5) With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0005 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which states 'fees for the period from 1 March 2011 are subject to current negotiation and have not yet been invoiced':
(a) what is the status of the of the 'current negotiation'; and
(b) has it been completed; if so, what were the fees invoiced to the Independent Protection Assessment Office for this period; if not, why not.
(6) How many additional tribunal members were appointed effective 1 July 2011.
(7) In regard to each of the following Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):
(a) fewer than 5 per cent of tribunal decisions set aside by judicial review;
(b) 70 per cent of bridging visas (detention cases) decided within 7 working days;
(c) 70 per cent of RRT cases decided within 90 calendar days;
(d) 70 per cent of MRT visa cancellation or revocation cases decided within 150 calendar days;
(e) 70 per cent of MRT cases decided within 350 days;
(f) fewer than 5 complaints received per 1 000 cases; and
(g) at least 40 per cent of decisions published, can an analysis be provided of whether they were met for the 2010-11 financial year and 2011-12 financial year to date, and if a KPI was not met, why was it not met and what action has been taken.
(8) What has been the set-aside rate for the RRT and the MRT for the 2011-12 financial year to date by country of origin and visa category, and how does this compare with previous years.
(9) How many decisions have been made from 1 July 2011 to date by the RRT.
(10) How many decisions have been made from 1 July 2011 to date by the MRT.
(11) What has been the total cost of running the tribunals in the 2011-12 financial year to date.
(12) How many set aside decisions of the tribunal have been challenged by the minister in the 2011-12 financial year to date.
(13) With reference to an online article 'Immigration tribunals warn of tough times' (by Adam Gartrell on Ninemsn , 14 October 2011), in which the tribunals head Mr Denis O'Brien is quoted as saying 'Meeting the target of finalising 70 per cent of RRT cases within 90 days will be a significant challenge in 2011-12', what is the basis for this statement.
(14) What will be the cost impact of the Government's new onshore processing policy and the prediction that up to 600 irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs) may arrive per month on the tribunal's operations, and are the tribunals making provisions for the expected increased arrivals and onshore processing; if so, what are they; if not, why not.
(15) How many IMAs are currently subject to the Protection Obligation Determination (POD) process which replaced the Refugee Status Determination process used for IMAs, and of this number, how many IMAs have had their claims for protection processed by the POD process.
(1) The tribunals' total operating expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year was $46.0 million.
(2) The tribunals' operating expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year was $1.2 million higher than the $44.8 million for the 2009-10 financial year.
(3) The tribunals' budgeted total operating expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year (for finalising 8,300 cases, as per the Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11) was $42.5 million. The tribunals' recorded an actual total operating expenditure of $46.0 million in finalising 9,181 cases.
(4) (a) Four members did not seek a further appointment.
(b) Seventeen of the 42 members who sought reappointment were not appointed for a further term.
(c) The appointments were advertised and applicants, including members seeking reappointment, were assessed against the selection criteria by a selection committee in accordance with the Australian Public Service Commission's guidelines in relation to the appointment of statutory office holders. Those applicants who were rated most highly against the selection criteria were recommended for appointment.
(5) (a) Following negotiations, a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the tribunals and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) on 9 August 2011.
(b) Under the terms of the 9 August 2011 MOU, the tribunals invoiced DIAC fees totalling $326,721 (excluding GST) for the provision of legal services and country advice services to the Independent Protection Assessment Office (IPAO) for the period 1 March 2011 to 31 August 2011.
(6) Twenty-three new tribunal members were appointed for periods of five years on 1 July 2011 comprising one senior member, 10 full-time members and 12 part-time members. In addition four full-time members were promoted to senior members.
(7) (a) The key performance indicator of fewer than 5% decisions set aside by judicial review was met in the 2010-11 financial year and 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 0.3% of MRT and 1.1% of RRT decisions were set aside by judicial review. In 2011-12, no decisions made have yet been set aside by judicial review.
(b) The key performance indicator of 70% bridging visas decided within seven working days from lodgment was met in the 2010-11 financial year and in 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 96% of bridging visas were decided within seven working days from lodgment. In 2011-12, 98% of bridging visas were decided within seven working days from lodgment.
(c) The key performance indicator of 70% of RRT cases decided within 90 calendar days from receipt of the Department's documents was met in the 2010-11 financial year, but not met in 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 71% of RRT cases were decided within 90 calendar days. In 2011-12 to date, 52% of RRT cases were decided within 90 calendar days.
Reasons for cases taking longer than 90 days are included in reports to the Minister prepared every four months under section 440A of the Migration Act 1958 and tabled in Parliament. The report covering 1 July to 31 October 2011 is currently being prepared. For this reporting period, factors contributing to a lower compliance rate were increased lodgments and a reduction in member capacity, with members unavailable while undertaking independent protection assessments in relation to irregular maritime arrivals.
(d) The key performance indicator of 70% of MRT visa cancellation cases decided within 150 calendar days from lodgment was not met in the 2010-11 financial year or in 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 60% of MRT visa cancellations were decided within 150 days from lodgment. In 2011-12 to date, 25% of MRT visa cancellations were decided within 150 days from lodgment.
The capacity to decide MRT visa cancellation cases within 150 days of lodgment has reduced as lodgments have increased and members have been unavailable while undertaking independent protection assessments in relation to irregular maritime arrivals.
(e) The key performance indicator of 70% of MRT cases decided within 350 calendar days from lodgment was not met in the 2010-11 financial year or in 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 55% of MRT cases were decided within 350 calendar days from lodgment. In 2011-12 to 31 October, 56% of MRT cases were decided within 350 calendar days from lodgment.
The capacity to decide MRT cases has reduced as lodgments have increased and members have been unavailable while undertaking independent protection assessments in relation to irregular maritime arrivals.
(f) The key performance indicator of fewer than five complaints received per 1,000 cases decided was met in the 2010-11 financial year and in 2011-12 to date. In both the 2010-11 and 2011-12 financial years, fewer than three complaints per 1,000 cases were received.
(g) The key performance indicator of at least 40% of decisions published was met in the 2010-11 financial year and in 2011-12 to date. In 2010-11, 43% of all decisions were published. In 2011-12 to date, 44% of all decisions were published.
(8) Between 1 July and 31 October 2011 36% of decisions have been set aside by the MRT and 26% by the RRT. By comparison, in 2010-11, 41% of MRT decisions and 24% of RRT decisions were set aside.
The following tables present the set aside rates for MRT, by visa category, and RRT, by country of origin, from 1 July to 31 October 2011 and the 2010-11 and 2009-10 financial years.
MRT SET ASIDE RATES (AND CASES SET ASIDE) BY VISA CATEGORY
RRT SET ASIDE RATES (AND CASES SET ASIDE) BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
(9) Between 1 July and 31 October 2011, 816 cases were decided by the RRT.
(10) Between 1 July and 31 October 2011, 2,227 cases were decided by the MRT.
(11) The tribunals' total operating expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year to 31 October was $16.5 million.
(12) No tribunal decisions have been challenged by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in the courts in the 2011-12 financial year to 31 October 2011.
(13) The tribunals have experienced large increases in lodgments over the last two years and member capacity has reduced through members who are working as independent protection assessors for the IPAO.
Since 2008-09, lodgments to the MRT and RRT have increased by 33%, rising from 9,960 to 13,281 in 2010-11. Although the tribunals' membership was recently boosted by the appointment of 23 new members to a total of 112 members, 20 members are currently appointed as independent protection assessors, and the tribunals operated for much of 2010-11 with 81 active members. These factors resulted in the tribunals' on-hand caseload almost doubling since 2009, with the number of cases on hand increasing from 6,919 on 1 July 2009 to 13,726 at 31 October 2011.
(14) Funding adjustments are currently being considered and negotiated with the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Updated expense estimates will be provided as part of the 2011-12 Additional Estimates process.
(15) As at 20 November 2011, 3,399 people had been screened into the POD process, with the RSA process continuing in parallel for those people already in that process. Of these, 817 people had been granted a Protection visa and 474 people referred for independent merits review.
In regard to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio, can a breakdown be provided of spending for the 2010 11 financial year and an estimate of spending for the 2011-12 financial year, in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel, including a further breakdown for economy versus business class travel and domestic versus international travel;
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancies;
(f) education or training for staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
The below tables provide expenditure outcomes for 2010-11 and estimates for expenditure for 2011-12.
(a) Advertising
(b) Travel – expenditure is not recorded in the financial ledger in a way that readily identifies economy versus business. To provide this level of detail would require examination of thousands of records which is an unreasonable diversion of departmental/ agency resources.
Note: Comcare and FWO do not keep separate records of domestic and international travel.
ACARA have not separated the 2011-12 estimate into domestic and international travel.
ABCC and SWA travel figures are for airfares only.
(c) Hospitality and Entertainment
(d) Information and Communications Technology
(e) Consultancies
1 Includes legal consultancies
(f) Education or training for staff
(g) External Accounting
1 Included in consultancies; not separately identified.
(h) External Auditing (including Resources Received Free of Charge)
1 Relates to ANAO only. The cost of other auditing services is included in consultancies and is not separately identified.
(i) External Legal
(j) Memberships or Grants paid to affiliate organisations
Please note ASQA and TEQSA commenced operations during the 2011-12 financial year.
The Australian Learning and Teaching Council is in the process of being wound up. All financial and administrative records are in the hands of the liquidators and therefore no information is able to be provided at this time.
With reference to the answer to question no. AET 157, taken on notice during the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings of the Economics Legislation Committee, which stated that 5.8 full-time equivalents within the department are working on housing affordability:
(1) To what extent are taxation issues relating to housing included in the work or analysis of these staff.
(2) Can a detailed outline be provided of the work of these staff relating to 'identifying currently underutilised land'.
The Treasury considers a comprehensive range of housing and housing related issues. These have included taxation issues from time to time.
Issues relating to underutilised land also arise. The main area of activity however relates to work lead by the Department of Finance and Deregulation as part of the Commonwealth Land Audit which identifies underutilised Commonwealth land.
In regard to Australia Institute's research and survey of July 2011 ('What you don't know can hurt you' – Institute Paper No. 6) on public attitudes about online competition:
(1) How is the department promoting a competitive online market place.
(2) What stakeholder engagement has it undertaken to examine how vertical search engines are able to compete on an equal basis.
(3) What consideration has the department given to the need for network neutrality in ensuring effective growth in the digital economy.
(4) Has the department encountered concern from stakeholders regarding transparency of search engine rankings and how is this likely to influence their position in the digital economy.
(1) How is the department promoting a competitive online market place.
The department is responsible for three government initiatives that promote an informed and competitive online market place:
Digital Enterprises
The Digital Enterprise program is designed to help small-to-medium enterprises and not-for-profit organisations better understand how they can maximise the opportunities from greater digital engagement enabled by the NBN.
The program will provide group training seminars as well as one-on-one advice on how participants can use the NBN to make greater use of online opportunities to conduct their existing processes more efficiently and better achieve their organisational goals.
The program was established to contribute to the Australian Government's vision for Australia as a leading global digital economy by 2020. In particular, this program is designed to contribute to the Digital Economy Goal that by 2020 Australia ranks in the top five OECD countries in relation to the percentage of businesses and not-for-profit organisations, using online opportunities to drive productivity improvements, expand their customer base and enable jobs growth.
The Digital Enterprise program will provide $10 million in grant funding over three years from 2011-12 to the first communities to benefit from the NBN.
Digitalbusiness.gov.au
Digitalbusiness.gov.au provides small and medium businesses and community organisations with up-to-date information and advice about establishing or enhancing their online presence.
A regularly updated blog provides ongoing information about issues in the field and new Government initiatives, while case studies provide users with practical examples of businesses and community organisations that have already found success online.
The website provides practical instructions on what people can do to go online and access the benefits and resources of the internet.
Digital Hubs
Digital Hubs will provide training to narrow the gap between those Australians who engage online and those who do not. Digital Hubs will enable local residents to increase their online engagement and better understand the opportunities presented by the NBN by demonstrating applications enabled by high-speed broadband.
This training will include advice on performing operations online such as using a search engine effectively.
(2) What stakeholder engagement has it undertaken to examine how vertical search engines are able to compete on an equal basis.
The department is aware of the Australia Institute's report's concerns that Google is used for the vast majority of searches in Australia. The department is monitoring this issue, however it notes that Australians are free to choose between search providers on a case-by-case basis.
(3) What consideration has the department given to the need for network neutrality in ensuring effective growth in the digital economy.
The government considers its role in the development of the digital economy as an enabler, as this transformation is very much a market-led phenomenon. Much of the network neutrality debate has occurred in the US where there is wide use of unlimited data broadband plans and associated network congestion. The Government is seeking to avoid congestion by building ubiquitous, high-speed bandwidth across the nation.
(4) Has the department encountered concern from stakeholders regarding transparency of search engine rankings and how is this likely to influence their position in the digital economy.
The department is aware of industry concern surrounding the transparency of search engine rankings. The department notes however that consumers can choose from a range of search engine providers to access information. There are no plans to regulate the algorithms used by search engine providers to generate their rankings.
(1) What arrangements for information sharing between the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) and the Office of the Child Support Registrar were in place from 2001 to the coming into law of the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Act 2010 (the Act).
(2) What is the nature of the information sharing arrangements in place between the ATO and the Office of the Child Support Registrar following the coming into law of the Act.
(3) (a) Are the documents forming the information sharing arrangements:
(i) private or restricted access documents, and
(ii) able to be recovered under freedom of information; and
(b) if access to the documents is restricted, on what basis is access restricted.
(4) On what date was the first formal administrative arrangement put in place to allow authorised access to taxation information by the Office of Child Support Registrar.
(1) Following the Government's administrative arrangements order of October 1998, the Child Support Agency (CSA) was established as a separate entity from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) and other agreements were put in place to support effective ongoing collaboration between the agencies to ensure legislative requirements are met on an ongoing basis. These agreements set out the protocols for the exchange of taxpayer information and facilitate compliance with the information-handling obligations of CSA and the ATO.
Information sharing arrangements were included in an agreement between CSA and the ATO which came into effect on 2 August 1999. Further, an MOU was signed on 30 June 2004, with the objective of formalising the links between the agencies in relation to information required to support CSA's assessment, collection and enforcement activities. On 6 September 2007, a head MOU between the agencies came into effect. A subsidiary arrangement under the head MOU for access by CSA to ATO information was signed on 19 November 2009. A revised version of the subsidiary arrangement came into effect on 25 November 2011.
(2) The information sharing arrangements between the ATO and CSA have not changed since the coming into law of the Tax Laws Amendment (Confidentiality of Taxpayer Information) Act 2010 . This Act consolidated the secrecy provisions that had previously existed in 18 taxation law Acts and placed them in Division 355 of Schedule 1 to theTaxation Administration Act 1953 . The Act did not change the effect of the legal authority under which the ATO may disclose taxpayer information to the Child Support Registrar. ATO officers have remained able to disclose taxpayer information to the Child Support Registrar 'for the purpose of administering theChild Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 or theChild Support (Assessment) Act 1989 ' (item 7 in table 1 in subsection 355-65(2) of Schedule 1 to theTaxation Administration Act 1953) . The new taxation secrecy framework had no effect on the Child Support Registrar's information gathering powers under child support legislation. The Registrar continues to be able to exercise powers in the child support legislation to require the Commissioner to provide information about taxpayers, including tax file numbers.
(3) The MOU and subsidiary arrangements between the ATO and CSA have generally not been published. They may, like any document, be the subject of a request under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 . The 19 November 2009 'Subsidiary Arrangement – Access to Tax Office Information' is now available to the public on the Parliament of Australia website.
(4) The first formal administrative arrangement put in place in relation to access to taxation information by CSA was the agreement relating to information sharing arrangements that came into effect on 2 August 1999. This administrative arrangement did not in itself allow access to information. It merely set in place administrative arrangements for carrying out activities involving both the ATO and CSA, including the disclosure of information as permitted or required by relevant taxation and child support laws.
In regard to the answer to question on notice no. BE11/0577 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, who is on the Community Consultation Committee and who determined who would be on it.
The Community Consultation Group (CCG) comprises of key stakeholders drawn from Tasmanian Government agencies, local government representatives, organisations and groups that have approached Serco or DIAC with the offer of voluntary services, and others as guided by the protocol set out in the Detention Services Manual, Chapter 4 "Community Consultative Group Protocol".
CCG membership will comprise of:
Membership was by invitation from the Regional Manager, DIAC after consultation with the Chair. Nominations for CCG membership can also be proposed by existing members.
A formal committee was established and meetings were held on 7 September 2011 and 29 November 2011.
The CCG is Chaired by Air Marshal Ray Funnell, a member of the Council for Immigration Services and Status Resolution (CISSR).
The membership of the CCG is as follows:
CISSR Representative (Chair)
Regional Manager, DIAC
Director Case Management, DIAC
Contract Manager, DIAC
Detention Operations Manager, DIAC
Centre Manager, SERCO
Senior Programs Manager, SERCO
Program and Activities Manager, SERCO
Senior Operations Client Welfare Manager, SERCO
Community Liaison Officer, SERCO
Health Services Manager, IHMS
Mental Health Team Leader, IHMS
Mayor, Brighton Council
Australian Red Cross South Tasmania Representative
Tasmania Asylum Seeker Support Group Representative
Tasmanian Council of Churches
Public Affairs Officer Tasmania
Migrant Resource Centre Representative
Department of Premier and Cabinet Representative x 2
Phoenix Centre Representative
Centacare Representative x 2
Occupational Therapy Tasmania
(1) In regard to the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout:
(a) Why has NBN Co dismissed the use of existing teleports in Australia;
(b) Why is NBN Co not looking to maximize Australian content; (i) what orbital slots is NBN Co using; (ii) how did it procure the orbital slots; and (iii) at what cost; and
(c) Are the orbital slots fully coordinated with adjacent satellite operators?
(2) In regard to NBN Co satellite services:
(a) How many users is NBN Co intending to serve with the two Ka-band satellites and what is the estimated cost on a per user basis;
(b) Can the satellite service be delivered more cost effectively through hosted payloads; if not, why not;
(c) What have senior NBN Co procurements staff stated to industry during discussions that their vision is that NBN Co will become the satellite operator in Australia;
(d) Is there an intention to re-create Aussat;
(e) Why is NBN Co building a large organisation to procure, design and manage the satellite service when it could be done by specialist organisations;
(f) Why has it taken more than 2 years to develop the project;
(g) Can the Minister or NBN Co advise if NBN Co will provide government-subsidised satellite services to large multi-national enterprises; and (i) what is the cost per user for the interim satellite service, (ii) how does this compare to commercially available services, and (iii) can the interim satellite service be scaled with additional leased capacity on other satellites; if not, why not.
(1) In regard to the National Broadband Network (NBN) rollout:
(a) Why has NBN Co dismissed the use of existing teleports in Australia?
NBN Co Limited (NBN Co or the Company) is a Government Business Enterprise established to build and operate the National Broadband Network (NBN). Infrastructure investment decisions taken by the Company are considered by the NBN Co Board in the Company's commercial interests. This would include 'build versus lease' infrastructure investment decisions such as those relating to satellite teleports.
NBN Co has performed a detailed analysis and determined that no existing or newly proposed teleport meets its stringent service delivery requirements.
(b) Why is NBN Co not looking to maximise Australian content?
On 19 January 2010, NBN Co extended an invitation for Capability Statements from experienced Satellite Network operators and equipment providers capable of supporting the delivery of NBN Co's Long Term Satellite Service (LTSS) requirements.
This process has allowed NBN Co to test the market to determine what capabilities are available both from Australian and international providers.
While the Government expects NBN Co to maximise the use of Australian content and solutions where practical and economic to do so, it is reasonable that NBN Co may consider international providers as part of its high capacity broadband satellite service given they have a proven ability to deliver large-scale satellite projects.
(c) What orbital slots is NBN Co using? How did it procure the orbital slots? And at what cost? Are the orbital slots fully coordinated with adjacent satellite operators?
NBN Co has identified four orbital slots and is working with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) on the orbital slot filing and coordination process.
(2) In regard to NBN Co satellite services:
(a) How many users is NBN Co intending to serve with the two Ka-band satellites and what is the estimated cost on a per user basis?
The NBN Co Corporate Plan 2011-13, which was publicly released on 20 December 2010, indicates that the Long Term Satellite Service (LTSS) will serve up to 200 000 users (pg. 71). The Corporate Plan provides combined capital expenditure for both the LTSS and the fixed wireless network, which is approximately $3.2 billion to FY2021 (pg. 135).
(b) Can the satellite service be delivered more cost effectively through hosted payloads, if not, why not?
As part of the Request for Capability Statement process initiated on 19 January 2010, NBN Co tested the market to assess the viability of different arrangements including a hosted payload model and this approach was considered as part of planning for the Long Term Satellite Service.
NBN Co has advised that there is not sufficient capacity available through current or soon to be launched satellite networks to effectively meet NBN Co's requirements of delivering a 12/1 Megabits per second (Mbps) service with an Average Busy Hour Throughput (ABHT) of 300kbps for up to 200 000 end users.
(c) Why have senior NBN Co procurement staff stated to industry during discussions that their vision is that NBN Co will become the satellite operator in Australia?
It is not the Government's intention for NBN Co to be the sole satellite operator in Australia.
NBN Co's long term satellite objective is to provide affordable, high-speed broadband to the 3 per cent of Australian premises which will not have access to fibre to the premises or fixed wireless technology.
(d) Is there an intention to re-create Aussat?
No.
(e) Why is NBN Co building a large organisation to procure, design and manage the satellite service when it could be done by specialist organisations?
NBN Co assessment to date, including the Request for Capability Statement process initiated on 19 January 2010, has not found that outsourcing these aspects of the Long Term Satellite Service (LTSS) would help meet the requirements of delivering a 12/1 Mbps service with an ABHT of 300kbps for up to 200 000 end users.
It is also important to note that NBN Co is deploying the LTSS to integrate with its fibre and fixed wireless networks. In this context, NBN Co has indicated there is a clear benefit in developing in-house expertise to harmonize the coordinated rollout of the three technologies.
(f) Why has it taken more than 2 years to develop the project?
NBN Co has an objective of delivering fibre to the premises to 93 per cent of Australian premises and next-generation fixed wireless and satellite services to the remaining 7 per cent. NBN Co as a start-up company has commenced work concurrently on the fibre, wireless and satellite footprints.
On 7 September 2010, the Prime Minister announced that as the NBN is built, regional areas will be given priority to ensure they can more quickly overcome the 'digital divide' they currently experience. Fibre will be built in regional areas as a priority and NBN Co has brought forward the introduction of wireless and satellite services so that regional Australia can get access to better broadband as soon as possible.
On 1 July 2011, NBN Co announced the commercial launch of an interim satellite service which offers enhanced broadband services to eligible regional and remote end users, ahead of the commencement of the Long Term Satellite Service in 2015. This approach is consistent with the Statement of Expectations provided by the Government to NBN Co on 17 December 2010.
(g) Can the Minister or NBN Co advise if NBN Co will provide government-subsidised satellite services to large multi-national enterprises?
The Long Term Satellite Service (LTSS) is designed to provide affordable, high-speed broadband to premises outside the fibre and wireless footprints. The Government intends that the LTSS will connect homes, small and medium enterprises, and community or government service organisations such as schools, hospitals, health clinics and councils.
(h) What is the cost per user for the interim satellite service? How does this compare to commercially available services? Can the interim service be scaled with additional leased capacity on other satellites, if not, why not?
The Interim Satellite Service (ISS) is being offered at wholesale pricing consistent with NBN Co's uniform national wholesale pricing for a 12/1 Mbps service. This equates to a wholesale access cost of $24 per month.
As of November 2011, retail price plans from ISS retailers started from $29.00 per month.
Feedback from NBN Co indicates that there is not sufficient capacity available through current or soon to be launched satellite networks to effectively meet NBN Co requirements of delivering a 12/1 Mbps service with an ABHT of 300kbps for up to 200 000 end users.
(1) Given that in October 2011 a document entitled 'Revised SW Network September 2011' was discovered, are the proposed boundaries on that map the Commonwealth's proposed boundaries.
(2) Is it correct that when the current marine planning process is finished, Australia will have more sanctuaries that the rest of the world combined.
(3) Can the Minister provide the relevant scientific data on which these new proposed marine park areas have been based.
(4) Can the Minister provide the submissions received from the consultation process so that it is possible to assess the basis on which the submissions provide a sound basis for creating new national marine parks.
In regard to the proposed Commonwealth South-West marine reserves:
(1) The document referred to by the Senator does not represent the boundaries for the proposed South-west marine reserves network.
(2) Australia is one of many countries establishing marine reserves, also known as marine protected areas, to meet commitments made by the Howard Government at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development and to meet obligations that Australia has as signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Australia ' s marine reserves and their zoning have not been finalised. Therefore, it is not possible to compare the size and extent of the sanctuaries zones within the Australian system with what exists or is proposed in other countries.
(3) The reserve design is based on the Goals and Principles for the Establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) in Commonwealth waters, which were finalised in 2007 by the Howard Government, drawing on lessons learnt through the earlier development of marine reserves in the South-East region.
Key inputs into the process include:
The department ' s website has a list of online datasets that have been used in developing marine bioregional plans. The list includes datasets from CSIRO and Geosciences Australia. The Goals and Principles for the Establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Commonwealth Waters are also on the department ' s website.
(4) The formal consultation period invited submissions on a marine reserve proposal released by Government. The submissions received are being considered in revising the network. Where individuals and organisations have agreed, their submissions will be made publicly available. It is anticipated that this will occur early in 2012.
In regard to the National Health and Medical Research Council report into naltrexone implants, can the names of the persons who wrote the original draft and all those who were involved in the review be provided.
The 'Naltrexone implant treatment for opioid dependence–Literature Review' (Literature Review) was drafted by staff within the office of the National Health and Medical Research Centre (NHMRC). The Group Head overseeing this work was Professor John McCallum.
The resulting draft literature review was considered by an expert reference group convened by NHMRC. Details of the reference group are available on NHMRC's website. The Literature Review was updated to incorporate the reference groups' comments.
The Literature Review was subsequently peer reviewed by the following five external experts:
In regard to the Australian Labor Party's National Conference, did the department provide any briefing notes to the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary in anticipation of the conference or on request; if so, what was each briefing note in relation to.
No briefing notes were provided to the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary by any areas of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, including the Tertiary, Skills and International Groups which are now part of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education under Machinery of Government changes.
In regard to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre:
(1) What number of detainees have been released after they were granted permanent visas and, of those, how many have remained in Tasmania.
(2) Have any of the detainees of the detention centre been allowed into the community while not having been granted permanent visas; if so, how many.
(1) Departmental records indicate that, between 1 September 2011 and 31 January 2012, 264 clients were granted Protection visas.
Departmental records also indicate that seven clients in Pontville IDC who were granted Protection visas, were settled in Tasmania . Two of these have since moved interstate.
(2) Departmental records indicate that, between 1 September 2011 and 31 January 2012, 21 clients from Pontville IDC were approved for community detention.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. 72 taken on notice during the 2011 12 Supplementary Budget Estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:
(1) Can statistics be provided on the number of regulations promulgated for each of the past 5 calendar years, including a break-up by department.
(2) Does the department have information on where Australia fits in the world league table of regulation makers for example United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa and the United States of America; if so, can a table detailing that information be provided.
(3) Does the department liaise with its state and offshore counterparts to benchmark the production of new regulations, and has it attended any conferences on this topic; if so, can the conference outcomes be provided.
(4) Has the department inquired into the level of powers conferred by regulation rather than by statute; if so, were these inquiries conducted internally and/or by external consultants to examine this matter and can a copy of the results/outcomes be provided.
(5) (a) What role, if any, does the department play in minimising the growth of regulations; (b) what checks and balances are in place; and (c) which branch and section of the department is responsible for recommending policy on growth of new regulations and/or administrative procedures relating to new regulations.
(6) What mechanisms are in place within the department to expunge old and outdated regulations and, if these mechanisms are different for other departments, can an outline be provided of those that differ from the Attorney-General's Department.
(7) What role does the Office of Parliament Counsel play in generating new regulations and does it have a role in monitoring and/or advising on 'regulation creep', for example, does it have an internal procedure to ensure that, where possible, material which might be included in subsequent regulations is actually inserted into a parent statute.
(1) Information on Australian Government law by type, year and portfolio is available free of charge on the whole of government ComLaw website www.comlaw.gov.au as maintained by my department.
(2) My department has provided ComLaw data to independent benchmarking bodies notably the Australian Productivity Commission and the international Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (the OECD), and the results of such benchmarking are available online (see www.pc.gov.au and www.oecd.org respectively).
Comparisons between jurisdictions are problematic if only because, to quote the Productivity Commission's 2011 report on Identifying and Evaluating Regulation Reforms, “Australia is one of the few countries to have a complete database of all major government regulation”.
(3) Under the current Administrative Arrangements Order, monitoring and reducing the burden of government regulation is a function of the Department of Finance and Deregulation. My department's focus is on legislative drafting and publishing, and on specific policy issues such as criminal law.
(4) In 1992 the Administrative Review Council released a report on rule-making by Commonwealth agencies which made a range of relevant recommendations. This report is available online (see www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/arcHome.nsf).
In response, guidelines on what matters should be dealt with only through Acts were developed and these have now been endorsed by successive governments. They form part of the Legislation Handbook published by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (see www.pmc.gov.au).
In addition, the first Legislative Instruments Bill was introduced. The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 now provides for the Parliament to veto or disallow any legislative instrument unless it has previously agreed to exempt an instrument from disallowance or from registration.
(5) Under the current Administrative Arrangements Order, reducing the burden of government regulation is a function of the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Details of key policies and processes can be found in the Best Practice Regulation Handbook (see www.obpr.gov.au).
(6) Under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, all legislative instruments are subject to sunsetting, that is, they cease automatically after 10 years unless they are exempt from sunsetting or their sunsetting is deferred in accordance with that Act.
The first large list of sunsetting instruments will be tabled on or after 1 October 2012, and if no action is taken all the instruments listed will sunset on 1 April 2015. Instruments will be listed and will sunset at 6-monthly intervals afterwards.
More frequent reviews may be undertaken as required by specific Acts, at the discretion of individual lawmakers and as issues emerge. More information about such matters can be found in the Productivity Commission report mentioned above (see www.pc.gov.au).
(7) The Office of Parliamentary Counsel (OPC) drafts government Bills based on instructions from policy departments and agencies. more information about policy approval processes and about OPC's role can be found in the Legislation Handbook (see www.pmc.gov.au).
When drafting provisions that delegate the power to make laws, OPC gives careful consideration to factors including how much Parliamentary scrutiny may be appropriate, how often changes may be needed, and the existing structure of an Act and any instruments made under it.
With reference to each review currently being conducted, or recently conducted, by the department, can a list be provided detailing the:
(a) name of the review;
(b) individuals, groups and companies conducting the review;
(c) individuals, groups and companies being paid;
(d) terms of reference;
(e) timeline;
(f) cost per stage;
(g) anticipated final cost;
(h) scheduled reporting date, including any preliminary stages and the final report;
(i) reasons why the work was not conducted by senior executive service members of the department; and
(j) departmental officer who commissioned the review.
The response to Senate Questions on Notice 776,777 and 778 details all reviews that were being undertaken by Defence as at 31 October 2011. That response also covered reviews that were completed in the period 1 January to 30 June 2011.
The following reviews are currently being conducted or were recently concluded (since 31 October 2011) by the Department of Defence as at 31 January 2012.
Review No. 1
Review No. 2
Review No. 3
Review No. 4
Review No. 5
Review No. 6
Review No. 7
Review No. 8
Review No. 9
Review No. 10
Review No. 11
Review No. 12
Review No. 13
Review No. 14
Review No. 15
Review No. 16
Review No. 17
Can a list be provided detailing all external submarine related advisors or consultants employed by: (a) Deep Blue Tech Pty Ltd; and (b) ASC Pty Ltd, including the value of each contract, for each calendar year from 2009 to 2011 inclusive.
(a) and (b) No – to do so could harm the Commonwealth and the nation's interests by prejudicing the ability of the companies to engage experts in the future to assist with the resolution of submarine issues and could give other nations insight into Australia's defence preparedness.
With reference to the Australian Hydrographic Service:
(1) What was the total number of days spent at sea in 2011 by the Leeuwin Class Hydrographic Ships, including how many:
(a) of these days related to 'Operation Resolute' (as a number or a percentage of total days at sea); and
(b) square nautical miles (or a more convenient unit) were surveyed.
(2) What was the total number of days spent at sea in 2011 by the Paluma Class Survey Motor Launches, including how many:
(a) of these days specified related to 'Operation Resolute' (as a number or a percentage of total days at sea); and
(b) square nautical miles (or a more convenient unit) were surveyed.
(1) In 2011, the Leeuwin Class Hydrographic Ships spent 317 days at sea.
(a) of these days 80.5 per cent to related 'Operation Resolute'; and
(b) 2476 square nautical miles or 7882 linear nautical miles were surveyed.
(2) In 2011, the Paluma Class Survey Motor Launches spent 408 days at sea.
(a) of these days none related to 'Operation Resolute'; and
(b) 668 square nautical miles or 9459 linear nautical miles were surveyed.
(1) How are Long Service Leave (LSL) entitlements protected under the Fair Work Act 2009.
(2) Did the Prime Minister, as the workplace relations spokeswoman, promise to have a new legislated regime for LSL entitlements by June 2009; if so, to what stage has this progressed.
(1) The Fair Work Act 2009 provided a new a legislated entitlement to long service leave. Long service leave forms part of the National Employment Standards (NES). In general terms, under the NES employees are entitled to long service leave in accordance with their applicable pre-modernised award. If an employee's pre-modernised award does not contain an entitlement to long service leave, their leave entitlements are determined by the applicable state or territory long service leave legislation.
(2) The existing long service leave NES is a transitional entitlement pending the development of a uniform national long service leave standard. To my knowledge, there was no commitment to achieve this measure by June 2009. The Government is continuing to work with states and territories to reach agreement on a national long service leave standard. Given the diverse range of long service leave provisions in state and territory legislation, reaching agreement is a complex task.
(1) Since 24 November 2007, on how many occasions has responsibility for the Sport portfolio been transferred between departments, and what was the total cost of each transfer.
(2) What is the anticipated cost to transfer the Sport portfolio from within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport, and will this cost be met from existing departmental resources.
(3) How many public servants will be required to work from a new office location as result of the transfer in (2), and what is the anticipated total cost to relocate the staff.
(4) Is the transfer of the portfolio expected to deliver demonstrable improvements in productivity.
(5) What is the purpose of this transfer of the Sport portfolio.
(1): Since 24 November 2007, the Sport Portfolio has transferred three times: from the Department of Communication, Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA) to the Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) on 3 December 2007; from DoHA to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) on 14 December 2010; and lastly, from PM&C to the Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport (DRALGAS) on 14 December 2011.
The Office for Sport does not have records of the costs associated with its transfer between departments.
(2): There are no estimates of the costs associated with the current transfer of the sport portfolio. Any additional costs will be met from existing departmental resources.
(3): As at 30 January 2012, two staff members in the Office for Sport have been required to physically relocate as a result of the move from PM&C to DRALGAS. The total cost was $3,630 including GST.
(4) The Office for Sport will continue to deliver against its performance indicator of delivering improved opportunities for community participation in sport and recreation, and excellence in high-performance athletes, including through investment in sport infrastructure and events, research and international cooperation.
(5)These new arrangements will ensure there is an appropriate focus on the arts and sport in regional as well as non-regional Australia, while also recognising the strong linkages with local government in the delivery of community sports.
With reference to the Browse Basin liquefied natural gas (LNG) precinct (James Price Point) and the strategic assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act):
(1) Given that Woodside Petroleum Ltd has announced it is seeking to delay the final investment decision until 2013 at the earliest, and the Western Australian Supreme Court has found the proponent does not have secure tenure at the site, will the Minister:
(a) place the strategic assessment on hold; if not, why not; and
(b) expand the assessment process to consider alternative sites; if not, why not.
(2) Is the Minister aware of a recent Main Roads Western Australia announcement that AECOM Australia Pty Ltd has been selected as the preferred proponent in a joint venture with Brierty Ltd for the construction of the Browse Basin LNG precinct access road.
(3) Is the Minister aware that AECOM was engaged by both the Western Australian Department of State Development and Main Roads Western Australia as environmental consultant for flora and fauna surveys as part of the Commonwealth and state environmental impact assessment processes, for both the gas hub and the access road to James Price Point.
(4) Is the Minister concerned that the 'targeted survey' conducted by AECOM for threatened bilbies in the vicinity of the proposed road failed to find any bilbies, while a volunteer citizen science project run by the local community found and filmed colonies of bilbies in the vicinity of the gas hub and the proposed road.
(5) In line with the EPBC Act, will the Minister require a reassessment of the proposed James Price Point access road that is not reliant on environmental information provided by a company with a commercial interest in the project being approved; if not, why not.
(6) In relation to the answer to question on notice no. 1427, does the Minister accept that the requirement for the establishment of a scientific peer review panel for the strategic assessment is in fact contained in the report Browse LNG Precinct: Scope of the Strategic Assessment , and not in the Strategic Assessment Terms of Reference document.
(7) Is the Minister aware that this scoping report, a key part of the strategic assessment process under the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act and the EPBC Act, states on page 180 that, 'Given the significant environment and the scale and complexity of the proposal, there is required a high level of confidence of the technical work underpinning the Strategic Assessment. As such there is an intention to undertake ongoing reviews of the strategic assessment process and of all deliverables and outputs. Arrangements for Peer review, including the establishment of a Peer Review Panel consisting of members from government and non-government sectors are to be advised'.
(8) Will the Minister request that the Peer Review Panel be instigated to undertake a peer review of all the scientific studies and documentation relied on by the proponent; if not, why not.
(1) (a) The strategic assessment and Plan for the Browse LNG Precinct will be considered after it is submitted by the West Australian Government, the lead proponent. Once finalised and submitted the Minister will determine whether the proponent has adequately addressed all relevant matters.
The EPBC Act does not contain provisions to place strategic assessments 'on hold'.
(b) The terms of reference for the strategic assessment report require an analysis of economically and technically feasible options outside the Kimberley.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes.
(4) On 26 May 2011, a delegate from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities determined, under the EPBC Act, that the proposal to build an access road to James Price Point was not a controlled action, if carried out in a particular manner. This decision requires Main Roads Western Australia to ensure measures are in place to minimise impacts on the Greater Bilby during road construction. In October 2011 the department received an ecological report prepared on behalf of two groups (the Goolarabooloo and the 'Broome No Gas Community') regarding the presence of Greater Bilby in the James Price Point area. The department has considered this new information, however, it does not alter the department's view regarding the likely significance of the works undertaken to date.
(5) The Minister is satisfied there are adequate measures in place to minimise impacts on the Greater Bilby during the construction of the access road to James Price Point.
(6) and (7) Yes. There is a proposal to establish a peer review panel outlined in the Browse LNG Precinct: Scope of the Strategic Assessment report prepared by the WA Government in 2010. However, preparation of a scoping report is not a requirement under the EPBC Act strategic assessment process.
(8) Once the strategic assessment and plan is finalised and submitted to the Minister for consideration, the Minister will determine whether the proponent has adequately addressed all relevant matters and, if necessary, whether any independent peer review is required.
With reference to the review of the Fair Work Act 2009:
(1) How much is each member of the review panel being paid to participate.
(2) What secretariat support has been provided.
(3) What advice was sought from the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) prior to the announcement of the details of the review.
(4) Does the department consider the post-implementation review to be in conformity with the requirements of the OBPR.
(5) When were the: (a) draft terms of reference; and (b) shortlist of people or bodies under consideration to conduct the review, first sent to the Minister's office by the department.
(6) Was the Productivity Commission on the shortlist of people or bodies considered to conduct the review; if not, why not.
(1) Each Panel member of the Fair Work Act Review (Review) is being paid $550 per hour (including GST) for a maximum of eight hours a day. The appointments are part-time and Panel members will be remunerated for actual time worked, not for each day of the Review period.
(2) The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is providing secretariat support for the Panel.
(3) The department sought advice from the Office of Best Practice Regulation (OBPR) regarding the requirements of a post-implementation review (PIR). The terms of reference for the Review were assessed by the OBPR as meeting those requirements.
(4) Yes, as the OBPR has advised the department that it considers the Review to be in conformity with its requirements for a PIR.
(5) Draft terms of reference and individuals who might be considered to conduct the Review were initially provided to the office of the former Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations on 19 October 2011.
(6) The department did not identify the Productivity Commission as a potential organisation to undertake the Review. This is because it was considered important that the person or persons undertaking the Review have a practical knowledge and appreciation of contemporary workplace relations issues and practices.
With reference to a text message sent by the Member for Fraser:
(1) Did the Prime Minister receive a text message from the Member for Fraser in November 2011 lobbying Canberra to host the G20 Summit; if so, did the Prime Minister respond and did the response indicate support or otherwise for the proposal.
(2) Is it standard practice for members of parliament to make representations to the Prime Minister by text message.
(1) The Member for Fraser is a strong advocate for his electorate and the Australian Capital Territory, including in relation to host city arrangements for the G20 meeting in 2014. The disclosure of specific communications between members and senators and the Prime Minister in the answer to a question on notice could tend to diminish the capacity of members and senators to properly discharge their parliamentary duties. As indicated in the Prime Minister's media statement issued on 4 November 2011, "Australia to host G20 in 2014", a decision on G20 host city arrangements will be made in due course.
(2) Members and senators communicate with the Prime Minister using a variety of means.
With reference to the Australian Electoral Commission and the 2007 federal election:
(1) How many cases of multiple voting were detected for the seat of McEwen, and of that number how many:
(a) cases were due to administrative error; and
(b) people were spoken to in order to determine this figure.
(2) How many people admitted to multiple voting, and what action, if any, was taken against them.
(1) Following the 2007 election, the names of 134 electors enrolled in the Division of McEwen were found to be marked off a certified list more than once.
(a) 122:
(b) All 134 electors whose name had been marked off more than one certified list were sent an enquiry letter, by express post. Reminder letters were sent to 29 electors, also by express post. 130 replies were received, 1 elector was found to be deceased after polling day and 3 electors did not respond.
(2) 8. After consideration of their responses and review by the AEC's Chief Legal Officer all eight were issued with a warning letter.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1202 (Senate Hansard , 2 November 2011, p. 8060):
(1) For individuals identified as possibly having voted more than once, how many are believed to have voted: (a) twice; (b) 3 times; (c) 4 times; (d) 5 times; (e) 6 times; (f) 7 times; (g) 8 times; (h) 9 times; (i) 10 times; and (j) more than 10 times.
(2) (a) What is the highest number of multiple voting activities by one individual; (b) how were their actions followed up; and (c) did they receive a police warning.
(3) For each voter that was issued with a police warning, how many times had they multiple voted.
(4) How many: (a) males; and (b) females, are believed to have multiple voted.
(5) Can a list be provided detailing how many multiple voters were aged: (a) 18 to 25, in yearly increments; (b) 26 to 75, in ten yearly increments; and (c) 76 and over.
(1) Following investigation of certified list marks from the 2010 election the names of 16,210 electors were found to be marked off a certified list more than once. Of that number:
(a) 16,107 were marked twice.
(b) 77 were marked 3 times.
(c) 16 were marked 4 times.
(d) 6 were marked 5 times.
(e) 1 was marked 6 times.
(f) 0 were marked 7 times.
(g) 1 was marked 8 times.
(h) 1 was marked 9 times.
(i) 1 was marked 10 times.
(j) 0 were marked more than 10 times.
(2) (a) The highest number of marks recorded against one individual's name was 10.
(b) The elector that was marked 10 times was investigated, including being interviewed, by the AFP. As a result of that investigation the AFP advised that, as there was no corroborative evidence available to the commission of an offence, no further action would be taken.
(c) No.
(3) 3 official cautions were issued to electors that had been marked 3, 2 and 2 times respectively.
(4) Of the 1,458 electors who admitted to multiple voting:
(a) 676 were male; and
(b) 782 were female.
(5) Of the 1,458 electors who admitted to multiple voting:
(a) 19 were age 18;
(b) 23 were age 19;
(c) 12 were age 20;
(d) 22 were age 21;
(e) 24 were age 22;
(f) 23 were age 23;
(g) 23 were age 24;
(h) 16 were age 25;
(i) 175 were age 26 – 35;
(j) 263 were age 36 – 45;
(k) 227 were age 46 – 55;
(l) 147 were age 56 – 65;
(m) 141 were age 66 – 75; and
(n) 343 were age 76 and over.
(1) Is the defence radar on Turkey Hill, Acland intended to be moved for the stage 3 expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine (Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 referral no. 2007/3423); if so, will this be at the expense of the taxpayer.
(2) Do army helicopters transiting from the nearby Oakey base avoid the existing New Acland Coal Mine to escape dust damage to engines.
(3) Does the stage 3 expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine have any other implications for national defence operations in the area.
(1) The Defence outer marker beacon located on Turkey Hill is integral to the Instrument Landing System used by aircraft landing at the Army Aviation Centre, Swartz Barracks, Oakey. Defence is in discussions with New Acland Coal Pty Ltd regarding its requirement to access the site at Turkey Hill, however, an agreement has not been reached at this time. If the beacon is to be relocated in support of the Stage 3 expansion, the costs associated would be borne by New Acland Coal Pty Ltd.
(2) Army helicopters currently avoid the mine site to avoid the:
(a) risk of dust damage to engines;
(b) impact of white light on night vision flying; and
(c) risk associated with blasting operations to low flying aircraft.
(3) The development of the stage 3 expansion of the New Acland Coal Mine will require Defence to realign its flight paths to avoid the mine site. Other than this, Defence does not see any other implications for national defence operations in the area.
With reference to the Queensland floods recovery efforts:
(1) What delegated responsibilities have the Attorney-General or other ministers given to the Minister regarding disaster management or recovery.
(2) How many decisions, listed by month, has the Minister made as the Minister Assisting on Queensland Flood Recovery.
(3) How many representations has the Minister made to other ministers or the non-government sector in this role.
(4) What is the Minister's greatest achievement in this role.
(5) How many media releases have been made by the Minister regarding the Queensland floods recovery, and on what dates were they made.
(1) The Prime Minister appointed me to the role of Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery on 5 January 2011, in addition to my responsibilities as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. (The title of this role was changed to Minister Assisting on Queensland Flood Recovery, by the Prime Minister on 14 December 2011.)
In this role, I was delegated specific responsibility at a Commonwealth level for overseeing community recovery from widespread flooding in Queensland and subsequently damage from Tropical Cyclone Yasi which occurred in February 2011, and ensuring the Australian Government was providing all necessary assistance. This responsibility included the coordination and oversight of Commonwealth Ministerial involvement in Queensland flood recovery and reconstruction, and working with the Queensland Government and local councils to ensure Commonwealth support was delivered effectively.
(2) I make decisions on a day to day basis through administrative functions, as well as a member of various Cabinet committees. Cabinet committee responsibilities held by me are: National Disaster Recovery Cabinet Committee, Regional Australia and Regional Development Committee, and Australian Government member on the Disaster Recovery Cabinet Committee (Queensland Cabinet)
(3) I have made twenty-four written representations to Ministers and one to the non-government sector.
(4) The Australian Government has consistently said it is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Queenslanders as they work to recover and rebuild after the devastating floods and tropical cyclones over 2010-11.
Across the State, $756 million in reconstruction projects are completed, a further $1,965 million worth of projects are in market (under construction or out to tender), and there are $834 million of projects that will soon be released to market.
The Government provided emergency payments that significantly supported individuals, business and local government, committed a total of $5.65 billion to recovery and the reconstruction, quickly provided an advance payment of $2.2 billion so that Queensland could get rebuilding underway quickly, provided an advance payment of $50 million under the Tropical Cyclone Yasi recovery package, and on 7 February 2012 advanced a further $1.9 billion to Queensland, bringing the total advanced to $4.1 billion, or approximately 80 per cent of the total.
Urgent grants were made to 673,000 Queenslanders, totalling $775 million, through the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment, and nearly 60,000 workers were assisted with funds totalling $69.5 million through the Australian Government's Disaster Income Recovery Subsidy.
A contribution of $11 million was made to the Queensland Premier's Disaster Relief Appeal, and the Prime Minister's Business Taskforce was created to mobilise business efforts across Australia.
A total of $206 million was provided to the $315 million Queensland Local Council Package, a joint initiative with the Queensland Government to help local governments repair utilities so that disaster-affected communities had water and sewerage facilities, transport infrastructure and employment support. $6 million to help Queensland's vital tourism industry and $4.2 million towards an $8.4 million funding pool for high-priority environmental recovery work came from this package.
Small businesses, primary producers and not-for-profit organisations have been assisted with recovery through concessional loans and cleanup and recovery grants:
Category B: Concessional interest rate loans (up to $250,000):
Category C: Cleanup and Recovery Grants (up to $25,000):
Category D: concessional interest rate loans (up to $600,000):
More than 4,900 workers were helped through grants totalling $49.3 million through the Queensland Natural Disaster Jobs and Skills Package; 613 employers hit by Cyclone Yasi were given $22 million through the Wage Assistance grants to help them give continued employment to 4,700 staff; and $6.9 million from the Rural Resilience Fund provided 325 jobs in Operation Cleanup.
In terms of mental health, more than 3,800 Queenslanders suffering grief and trauma were helped through increased mental health services, provided at a total cost of just under $88 million. Almost 3,000 more have received assistance through the financial counselling service to help manage their financial recovery.
(5) I have released 82 media releases, regarding the Queensland disaster recovery, on the following dates:
January 2011: 4th, 18th (2), 19th
February 2011: 16th, 18th, 23rd, 26th
March 2011: 2nd, 22nd, 24th, 25th
April 2011: 1st, 6th (3), 8th, 15th, 27th, 30th
May 2011: 4th, 6th, 10th, 24th (30), 27th
June 2011: 7th (2), 9th, 14th (2), 28th
July 2011: 28th
August 2011: 5th, 9th, 19th (2), 28th (2), 29th, 31st
September 2011: 14th, 15th, 21st ,28th
October 2011: 7th, 27th
November 2011: 2nd, 3rd, 9th (2), 10th
December 2011: 22nd
What have been the precise dates of the Prime Minister's: (a) weekly; and (b) ad hoc, meetings with the Leader of the Australian Greens, Senator Brown, since the signing of the Labor-Greens agreement.
The Prime Minister has met the Leader of the Australian Greens, and other members of the parliamentary cross-benches, on a regular basis during the current Parliament.
With reference to remarks made by the sentencing judge on the conviction of the individuals charged with plotting an attack on the Holsworthy army base, in particular, that ' they also had an expressed hatred of Australian people and non-Muslims who they repeatedly referred to as " infidels "' :
(1) Were the individuals convicted of this offence Australian citizens; if so, were they Australian citizens by virtue of: (a) birth; or (b) a citizenship ceremony.
(2) If the convicted individuals were Australian citizens by virtue of a citizenship ceremony, what research into their antecedents was undertaken to determine their suitability for Australian citizenship.
(3) Given the outcome of this prosecution and the apparent views of those convicted, is the department considering any changes to its methodologies for determining the suitability of individuals for Australian citizenship.
(1) Two of the individuals convicted are Australian citizens—one by birth; one by conferral. The third individual is the holder of a provisional partner visa. The person who acquired Australian citizenship by conferral arrived in Australia as a child and resided continually in Australia up until the time he acquired citizenship.
( 2 ) Australian citizenship legislation requires that a person be of good character to be approved for Australian citizenship by conferral . The arrangements for checking this criterion are based on:
In relation to the individual who was an Australian citizen by conferral:
( 3 ) This case does not suggest a need to alter methodologies for assessing suitability for Australian citizenship . The individual acquired Australian citizenship as a child many years before the criminal activity occurred in 2009.
With reference to the upgrade of the national Emergency Alert telephone warning system indicated in the media release, 'National phone warning system gets upgrade thanks to Commonwealth and Victorian Governments', dated 13 January 2012:
(1) How will existing emergency alert warning systems that provide information to registered numbers be affected by the implementation of the upgraded system.
(2) Will there be any periods of operational outage during the system upgrade; if so, for how long.
(3) Is there a means of adjusting the radius of the physical emergency zone for alerts on an ad hoc basis.
(4) What methods will be adopted by the Federal Government to ensure each state and territory has the required training and abilities to operate the upgraded system.
(5) How much funding is being provided by the: (a) Federal Government; and (b) Victorian Government.
(1) A significant enhancement to the existing national telephone-based emergency warning system (Emergency Alert and Western Australia's StateAlert) will be delivered through the location based capability.
The existing system sends warning messages to landlines and to mobile phones based on the customer's registered service address. The enhancement will enable emergency services agencies to send SMS warning messages to mobile phones based on the last known location of the handset.
The upgraded system will enable state and territory emergency services agencies to elect to send warnings to mobile phones based on the registered service address and/or based on the last known location of the mobile handset. Sending the SMS warning message to the last known location or the registered service address, or both, will be an operational decision in each case.
Negotiations with telecommunications carriers are being led by Victoria. The Victorian Government (on behalf of all states and territories) has signed a contract with Telstra Corporation to deliver this enhancement. It is understood that Telstra has committed to Victoria to deliver location based SMS warnings to mobile telephones on their network in time for the next disaster season (November 2012).
Negotiations with the other telecommunications carriers, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia, are ongoing.
(2) The Emergency Alert system is designed with full redundancy and the project schedule is designed to minimise any operational impact.
(3) Emergency Alert has an intuitive and sophisticated drawing tool which is used to define the geographic boundaries of the emergency warning message area on a detailed map (for example, a region, town, street, block or shopping centre) by drawing a polygon.
Using the drawing tool, the polygon can be created using a variety of techniques to increase or decrease its size or create a customised shape through nominating desired boundary points.
(4) Primary responsibility for the protection of life, property and the environment rests with the states and territories in their capacity as first responders. Emergency Alert is a state and territory capability and as such states and territories manage the operation of the capability. Accordingly, the Commonwealth will not issue guidelines to the state and territory emergency services agencies for training and/or the operation of Emergency Alert and StateAlert prior to the location based capability enhancement being implemented.
Victoria holds the Head Agreement with the service provider for Emergency Alert, Telstra. The Victorian Department of Justice has issued a Recommended Use Guide and developed National Telephony Warning System Guidelines in consultation with jurisdictional users of Emergency Alert. The Recommended Use Guide is part of the Emergency Alert Training Manual and will be updated with the necessary information prior to the implementation of the location based capability. This information will continue to be available via the Help Tab on Emergency Alert's live environment and training website.
We understand that further training will be made available by Victoria to all states and territories ahead of the implementation of the location based enhancement. The training for the use of the system is based on the 'Train the Trainer' model. Each jurisdiction will provide the appropriate number of suitably qualified trainers to participate in the 'Train the Trainer' program who will in turn then train their jurisdiction's users. Telstra as the Service Provider of the Emergency Alert system (which will include the user interface for the location based enhancement) has been contracted to run multiple 'Train the Trainer' sessions.
Qualified users will also continue to have access to a separate stand alone training environment, the Emergency Alert Service Desk, Victorian Government project team and good practice learnings.
(5) Funding to establish the location based capability for telephone-based emergency warnings has not been announced, so as to not prejudice ongoing negotiations with the telecommunications carriers.
It is stressed that while the upcoming upgrade to the Emergency Alert and StateAlert systems is an important addition to emergency warning systems capabilities, telephone-based emergency warnings are only one means for emergency services agencies to warn the community.
Communities should not rely solely on receiving a telephone-based emergency warning. Once a decision to warn communities in an emergency has been made, emergency services agencies will determine what method will be used—for example radio, web, or television—and whether a telephone alert needs to be issued.
With reference to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre:
(1) Can a list be provided detailing how many: (a) television sets; and (b) DVD players and other related devices, have been supplied to the detention centre, including their cost.
(2) How many of these items have been broken, damaged or otherwise interfered with requiring repairs or replacement, stating which, and advising the total repair bill to date and the total replacement cost to date.
(1) There are 22 combination television/DVD units located at the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre. These units are rented by the Detention Services Provider at a total cost of $3,806 per month.
(2) No television/DVD units have been broken or damaged, therefore no costs have been incurred for repairs or replacement.
With reference to the answer provided to question on notice no. 1211 (Senate Hansard, 2 November 2011, p. 8072), what was the 'new or improved technology or business skills' introduced to Australia by Ta Ann Tasmania Pty Ltd.
It is a long-standing practice of the Government to consider commercial information provided to the Government by employers to be confidential. The Government does not disclose information about the commercial affairs of sponsors as this could adversely affect their business and prejudice the future supply of information to the Government.