The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Air Navigation and Civil Aviation Amendment (Aircraft Crew) Bill 2011
The majority of these flights were quite busy. I found that my sleeping patterns were drastically affected to the point of fatigue. Clearly there are safety issues here pertaining to cabin crew if an emergency situation arises on the return flight from Saigon or Manila where the duty is 12 to 13 hours return.
The majority of the flights out of here from Darwin are all back of the clock, so you're leaving early evening and you're not getting back till quite early the next morning.
Before we actually get on a flight we have to go through a briefing; one is ... the questions are on emergency procedure, on occupational health and safety procedure, and a medical question.
I went to answer the emergency and the medical question when the cabin manager stopped me to get the Singapore crew to actually answer the questions, and basically they couldn't answer the emergency procedure and they couldn't actually answer the medical question.
It was the first time I've ever been scared of actually flying because if something went down I didn't know if that crew would be able to back me up.
… CASA is seriously concerned that the addition of a workplace relations function would oblige CASA to become involved in negotiations between AOC holders and their employees on pay and working conditions … The perception of CASA as an independent safety regulator could be compromised if it were to become involved in vetting the pay and working conditions of AOC holder’s employees.
If you live near a river, take a seat and eventually the dead bodies of your enemies will come floating by.
Qantas Sale Amendment (Still Call Australia Home) Bill 2011
The Qantas group purchases aircraft and allocates them to Jetconnect business, and the Jetconnect business operates those aircraft and charges them back.
… it was first and foremost a threat—a hollow one—to its workforce rather than a legitimate blueprint to turn around the company's fortunes.
It would be unfair to label the abandoned Asian plan as half-baked for it never reached that stage.
You don't need to be an aviation expert to realise the problem facing the industry is overcapacity. So how on earth does establishing a new airline solve that? And wouldn't it merely cannibalise your existing business?
Qantas built its enviable jet safety record on a superb, well-trained and well-funded engineering department that maintained planes to an impeccable standard.
Qantas is full of staff who reminisce about the good old days because the future does not look so bright. They are worried about what will happen tomorrow—not just to their jobs, but to the people who have trusted them with their lives.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 5 OF 2012
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 9 May 2012 at 7.29 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 21 September 2012 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee considered a proposal to refer the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, but agreed that the bill not be referred to a committee.
5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
10 May 2012
That the report be adopted.
That the following words be added to the end of the motion—
"and in respect of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012, the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 June 2012."
The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 762 standing in the name of Senator Fifield relating to the Australian economy; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 June 2012:
(a) whether any Indonesian minors are currently being held in Australian prisons, remand centres or detention centres where adults are also held, and the appropriateness of that detention;
(b) what information the Australian authorities possessed or had knowledge of when it was determined that a suspect or convicted person was a minor;
(c) whether there have been cases where information that a person is a minor was not put before the court;
(d) what checks and procedures exist to ensure that evidence given to an Australian authority or department about the age of a defendant/suspect is followed up appropriately;
(e) the relevant procedures across agencies relating to cases where there is a suggestion that a minor has been imprisoned in an adult facility; and
(f) options for reparation and repatriation for any minor who has been charged (contrary to current government policy) and convicted.
That, on Thursday, 10 May 2012:
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment;
(b) the routine of business from 3.30 pm to not later than 4.30 pm shall be statements relating to the imminent retirement of Senator Sherry;
(c) the routine of business from 6 pm to 6.30 pm shall be the tabling and consideration of committee reports; and
(d) the routine of business from 8 pm shall be:
(i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and
(ii) adjournment.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
That the Senate notes the interim report of the International Observer Group on elections in Malaysia, dated 29 April 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 5 May 2012, the President of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and the Director of the Gulf Center for Human Rights, Mr Nabeel Rajab, was arrested on arrival at Manama airport from Lebanon, and
(ii) Mr Rajab has been charged with 'cyber incitement' essentially for promoting the culture of human rights through the online media, especially Facebook and Twitter; and
(b) calls on the Government to make direct representations to Bahraini authorities for the immediate release of Mr Rajab and for democratic reforms in Bahrain.
That general business order of the day no. 55, relating to the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2], be discharged from the Notice Paper .
That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 4.15 pm to 5.30 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Migration be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 10.30 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, from 11 am to 11.30 am, as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 20 June 2012; and
(b) on Wednesday, 27 June 2012.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) on Wednesday, 20 June 2012, from 11.30 am to 1 pm; and
(b) on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, from 12.15 pm to 1 pm.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 June 2012, from 11.30 am to 12.15 pm, for a private briefing.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 18 June 2012, from 10 am to 12.30 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 25 November 2011 commemorates the United Nations' International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women –White Ribbon Day,
(ii) domestic violence occurs in every geographic area and in all socio-economic and cultural groups in Australia, in particular in regional and rural Australia and Indigenous communities,
(iii) the prevention and elimination of domestic violence is a goal of the Australian Government, and yet the Government has failed to fund the continuation of the pilot Bsafe program, which successfully operated in regional Victoria from 2007 to 2010, providing personal safety alarms to women and children at risk of domestic violence to prevent further violence and enable them to remain in their own homes and communities,
(iv) the cessation of the pilot Bsafe program, which was funded through a 3 year $340 000 federal grant that ended in December 2010, caused distress to the women and children and their families and friends who had come to rely on it,
(v) there is an extraordinary level of support for the Bsafe program from the beneficiaries, community workers, police, women's groups and the broader community across the country,
(vi) the Bsafe program won the national Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Award in 2010,
(vii) the Bsafe program was extremely cost effective, costing approximately $1 000 for the two safety alarms, and provided enormous benefits in reducing the risk and breaking the cycle of domestic violence, giving assurance to vulnerable women and children and allowing them to return to participating fully in society, as detailed in the Bsafe program evaluation report,
(viii) in Victoria the community sector is ready and eager to expand this potentially life-saving resource to women across the state, and
(ix) one woman who was a recipient of a Bsafe alarm asked 'How much does my life cost'; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) urgently fund the continuation of the successful pilot Bsafe program in regional Victoria to allow women and children continued access to the service, and
(ii) fund the extension of the Bsafe program to other regions in Victoria and into other states.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 1 November 2010, $120.5 million was made available to improve choice and access to maternity services and for eligible midwives to work in private practice in Australia,
(ii) to provide greater access to maternity care provided by midwives, Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) benefits were made available for services provided by eligible midwives, and
(iii) eligible privately practicing midwives are not currently able to work to their full scope of practice and claim MBS and PBS because access and admitting rights to public hospitals have not been established by state and territory governments; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Health and Ageing to work with the Council of Australian Governments and Australian health ministers to:
(i) urge state and territory action on access and admitting rights to public hospitals for eligible privately practicing midwives,
(ii) investigate any further support necessary for privately practicing midwives to transition into private practice, to work to their full scope of practice and access MBS and PBS benefits, and
(iii) consult with stakeholders.
That the Senate notes that South Australia has substantially adhered to River Murray extraction caps since 1968, whereas other states in the Murray Darling Basin have increased extractions by at least 3 000 gigalitres.
The Senate divided. [12:19]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) stromatolites are the oldest living organisms in the world,
(ii) Western Australia's Hamelin Pool contains the most diverse range of stromatolites in the world, is one of only three places on Earth where you can see living marine stromatolites, and these stromatolites are one of the major reasons for Shark Bay's World Heritage Listing, and
(iii) the recent decision by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to allow American researchers to cut down and remove 45 stromatolites from Hamelin Pool, would have a significant impact on the heritage values of the area if carried out; and
(b) calls on the Government to reassess this decision as a matter of urgency and prevent this or any other removal of stromatolites from going ahead unless and until there is greater transparency and justification for both the purpose of the research and the need for such a large quantity of samples.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 14 May to 20 May 2012 is Schizophrenia Awareness Week, and
(ii) people with severe mental illness can, on average, die up to 25 years earlier than the rest of the community and are at a higher risk of experiencing physical illness;
(b) recognises that:
(i) diabetes occurs in approximately 15 per cent of people with schizophrenia, a rate three times higher than in the general population, and
(ii) after 5 years, 28 per cent of people with respiratory disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder who also have schizophrenia have died, compared with 15 per cent of people with no serious mental health problems; and
(c) calls on the Government to show leadership in making the physical health issues of people with mental illness a priority across the national health system.
Senate divided. [12:30]
(President—Senator Hogg)
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Schoolkids Bonus Budget Measures) Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the Government's Budget announcement of a new payment for families to help with the costs of children in school.
It is part of this Labor Government's commitment to helping Australian families make ends meet.
And it shows our determination to continue supporting low and middle-income families as we return the Budget to surplus.
Our economic fundamentals are strong, unemployment is low and we are in the middle of a mining boom, but we recognise that it's not everybody's boom.
We understand that many working Australians are struggling to balance the family budget. For many families, the extra costs of sending children to school, and giving them a great education, can add to this pressure.
That's why, from 1 January next year, the Government will deliver a new payment to about 1.3 million Australian families with kids in school.
This payment – the Schoolkids Bonus – will be paid to the families of about 2.2 million children in primary and secondary schools across the country.
The Schoolkids Bonus will be delivered as an upfront payment to families in two instalments each year – before Term 1 and Term 3 – to help them cover the costs of their child's education.
Expenses like school uniforms and school shoes, text books, camps and excursions, as well as extracurricular activities such as music lessons.
Eligible families will receive a total of $410 a year for each child in primary school, and $820 a year for each child in secondary school.
The Schoolkids Bonus will replace the Education Tax Refund in 2013, and this bill also removes the Education Tax Refund for 2011-12 from taxation legislation.
For many families with children in school, the Education Tax Refund has made a big difference. However, we know that many families are not experiencing its full benefits.
This is especially the case for working families on low incomes – it's simply too tough to pay the school expenses first and then wait months, or even a year, to get 50 per cent back.
For busy families, it can also be hard keeping track of receipts, and then filling out all the paperwork at tax time.
Last year, more than 80 per cent of families did not claim the full amount they are entitled to. About 20 per cent did not claim a refund at all.
In total, about one million Australian families are missing out on the full benefit of the Education Tax Refund.
This Labor Government wants that to change.
And this is the right time to turn this assistance into an upfront payment, with the 1 July 2012 increase to the tax-free threshold meaning that more than a million people will no longer need to do a tax return.
The new Schoolkids Bonus will make sure that all eligible families get their full entitlement – not just those who can afford to spend the money upfront and claim later.
The Schoolkids Bonus means more support for families with kids in school.
It means not having to wait months to get something back.
It means not having to collect a pile of receipts, or fill out that extra paperwork at tax time.
Paid in full and upfront, the Schoolkids Bonus means working families getting the support they need, when they need it.
It's money in your pocket – and new support from the Gillard Government.
It's support that's there before the costs start rolling in.
It's extra support for more than one million Australian families – who have missed out in the past – and can now get every cent they deserve.
The Schoolkids Bonus will be available from 2013 to families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A, plus young people in school receiving income support payments such as youth allowance, ABSTUDY, disability support pension and veterans' educational allowances, on the eligibility test date.
Families will only need to notify Centrelink when their child first starts school so that the payments can begin.
After that, the bonus is automatically paid in January and July every year if they remain on the relevant linked payment, such as Family Tax Benefit Part A.
Parents will also need to let Centrelink know when their kids go to high school so they can move onto the higher payment.
The Government is delivering this new support because we know it can be tough to make ends meet, particularly when you're trying to get your kids through school.
Uniforms, school shoes, text books and excursions aren't cheap, and the costs can quickly add up. When the Schoolkids Bonus begins in January next year, it will help families relieve some of the pressure on the household budget.
But we also know that many families are feeling the pinch right now – and need a bit of extra support right now.
So as we transition to the Schoolkids Bonus, we want to do what we can right now to make sure we are looking out for low and middle-income families who are finding it tough to keep up.
This bill creates a one-off transitional payment – called the ETR Payment – which will pay out, in full, the Education Tax Refund to all eligible families for 2011-12.
This means families will receive their full Education Tax Refund entitlement for the 2011-12 tax year ahead of tax time – so parents won't have to worry about keeping receipts or making claims when they do their tax this year.
The one-off ETR payment will be $409 for a child in primary school and $818 for a secondary school child – the same maximum amounts that would have been available for the 2011-12 tax year. A family with one primary student and one secondary student will get more than $700 extra on average this year.
All 1.3 million families will get the maximum amount they are entitled to for the first time – and all will get their payments earlier.
They won't have to collect their receipts, and they won't have to fill out that extra paperwork at tax time.
This lump-sum payment will be paid to all families entitled to Family Tax Benefit Part A on May 8th this year for a school aged child, as well as to young people in secondary education who are receiving certain student income support payments on May 8th.
A similar ETR payment will be provided through amendments to Veterans' Affairs legislation for recipients on May 8th of payments under the Veterans' Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Education and Training Scheme.
The bill will also create an administrative scheme for the ETR payment, which will assist people who may not be able to access an appropriate ETR payment under the family assistance law or veterans' legislation – for example, a parent who was automatically paid the primary school rate for a child who is actually in secondary school.
In a tough Budget environment, this Government is making the hard decisions as we return to surplus.
But we are a Labor Government, driven by Labor values.
Labor will always stand up for Australia's low and middle-income families.
Families who do their very best with what they've got.
Who don't ask for much and who deserve a bit of extra support.
It's our job to make sure that those families who need a bit of extra help are getting it – and that's what the Gillard Government's Schoolkids Bonus will do.
Labor will always work to ensure that Australian families, particularly those putting their kids through school, have the support they need to make ends meet.
The Senate divided. [13:54]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [13:59]
In terms of the debt cap … we in the Budget are anticipating that we will stay below the current legislative debt cap at the end of each of the financial years. There is, however, potential for significant variability, significant variation and fluctuation within the year. That means there’s temporary spikes and dips above and below that debt cap …
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to questions without notice asked by Senators Payne and Fifield today relating to the 2012-13 Budget.
Additional funds for biosecurity and natural resource management activities were particularly welcome.
That the Senate notes the 2012-13 Federal Budget does nothing to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of storm clouds on the global horizon, as it:
(a) fails to cut spending;
(b) increases taxes;
(c) lifts the debt ceiling to $300 billion; and
(d) imposes the world's largest carbon tax.
Nothing could be worse for democracy than to adopt the practice of permitting knowledge to be overthrown by ignorance.
Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and good-will which ought to exist between the elector and the elected.
And so, as we think about it we shall find more and more how disfiguring a thing fear is in our own political and social life.
A political party must never be a party which chronically says "No."
If it never loses sight of its own ideas, it will be positive and creative.
In brief, Australian Liberalism must present itself as the party of action, and the party of the future. We are not the ANTI party, but the PRO party.
Understanding debt and its historical trends is important, as the level of debt provides one measure of the strength of public finances. Levels of public sector borrowing fluctuate in line with the economic cycle and the budget position. This paper briefly describes the various measures of debt and trends in government borrowing.
Gross debt represents a portion of the total liability a government owes to creditors.
While the gross debt measure provides information on government finances, it is only a partial indicator.
Gross debt does not incorporate amounts that are owed to government by other parties. Also governments, like an individual or businesses, hold assets which can be sold to meet their financial obligations. To capture the asset side of the equation, net debt needs to be considered.
Net debt is the most commonly quoted and well-known measure of a government’s financial strength.
Compared with gross debt, net debt is a better measure of a government’s overall indebtedness as it also captures the amount of debt owed to the government.
The case of Japan most clearly illustrates how only considering gross debt can result in a skewed interpretation of government finances.
Canada, which has a comparable amount of gross debt to France, Germany and the US, has a significantly lower level of net debt—
Spurred by robust business and consumer confidence, Australia’s economy is expected to grow even quicker in the next five years. 2011 to 2015 should see Australia’s GDP … grow by 4.81 to 5.09 percent annually … Likewise, Australia’s GDP … per capita is expected to experience healthy growth.
At some point this country has to revisit the area of industrial relations reform.
Mr. Swan unveiled the biggest package of budget cuts in 30 years hoping to turn a deficit of $A44.4 billion in the 2011-12 fiscal year ending June 30, into a surplus of A$1.5 billion in fiscal 2012-13.
To govern is to choose.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… in appropriate circumstances, the committee should notify the Senate of a failure to respond to a request by it for information;—
similar to the legislative and general purpose standing committees, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee should be given permanent inquiry powers.
standing order 24 be amended to specifically refer to the scrutiny of bills which excessive rely on delegated legislation for their operation ….
That the Senate take note of the report.
The statement read as follows—
Parliamentary Joint Committee of Law Enforcement
Tabling of the unexplained wealth report
Mr Speaker [President], I rise to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's report for its inquiry into unexplained wealth legislation and arrangements.
Unexplained wealth laws represent a relatively new form of criminal assets confiscation, whereby serious and organised criminals who cannot account for the wealth they hold may be liable for forfeiture of those assets to the state.
The value of unexplained wealth provisions lays in their ability to significantly undermine the business model of serious and organised crime. The incentive behind organised crime is to make money. By removing unexplained wealth from serious and organised criminal networks and associated individuals, this incentive is removed.
Furthermore, confiscation of criminal profits removes funds that are used as capital for thither criminal enterprise. Removing these funds significantly disrupts the ability of criminal networks to operate.
The committee was therefore pleased to see the introduction of unexplained wealth provisions into Commonwealth proceeds of crime legislation in early 2010.
Unfortunately, the provisions that resulted from the Bill's passage through Parliament have not proved to be workable in over two years of operation. To date, no unexplained wealth proceedings have been brought before the courts due to a range of limitations.
The committee was therefore keen to examine these provisions more closely, and has made a number of significant recommendations in this report that will significantly enhance the effectiveness of the Commonwealth unexplained wealth provisions.
In particular, the committee has recommended major reform of the way unexplained wealth is dealt with in Australia as part of a harmonisation of Commonwealth, state and territory laws. While complementing the national strategic approach to organised crime, harmonisation may also allow the Commonwealth to make use of unexplained wealth provisions that are not linked to a predicate offence. This approach has been found to be the most effective, both in Australia and abroad.
The committee has therefore proposed that the Commonwealth seek a referral of powers from willing states and territories as part of a long term plan to develop a nationally consistent approach to unexplained wealth and organised crime. Harmonisation would also help to eliminate gaps that can be exploited between jurisdictions.
In addition, the committee has recommended a series of technical amendments that would ensure that unexplained wealth proceedings are efficient and fair, correcting deficiencies that were identified during the course of this inquiry.
Effective unexplained wealth legislation can take the profit out of criminal enterprise, undermining the business model of serious and organised criminal networks and protecting His, community from the damage caused by these individuals and organisations commend this report and its recommendations, and urge the government to ensure that crime doesn't pay.
The committee has a longstanding interest in securing effective unexplained wealth legislation, arising from the committee's study of international models to tackle organised crime during an overseas delegation in 2009. The committee heard from a number of jurisdictions that, while serious criminals may consider imprisonment to be an acceptable occupational hazard, taking their illicit profits was considered to be a far more serious blow.
Serious and organised crime, motivated by greed, power and money, has serious impacts, threatening the economy, national security and the wellbeing of Australians. The financial cost to the community is conservatively estimated to be around $15 billion a year.
As the Australian Crime Commission informed the committee, while serious and organised criminal groups continue to prove resilient and adaptable to legislative amendment and law enforcement intelligence and investigative methodologies, the reduction or removal of their proceeds of crime is likely to represent a significant deterrent and disruption to their activities.
Unexplained wealth legislation represents a new form of law enforcement. Where traditional policing has focussed on securing prosecutions, unexplained wealth provisions contribute to a growing body of measures aimed at prevention and disruption. In particular, unexplained wealth provisions fill an existing gap which has been exploited, where the heads of criminal networks remain insulated from the commission of offences, enjoying their ill-gotten gains.
The committee considered evidence regarding the requirement to link a Commonwealth scheme to a Commonwealth head of power, necessitating the inclusion of a link to a federally relevant offence. This is a significant limitation, as it undermines the most valuable aspect of unexplained wealth provisions — that they provide a means to target the heads of criminal networks who are often insulated from committing, or being implicated in the commission of offences themselves. Unfortunately, crime doesn't respect geographical boundaries or Constitutional restraints.
Summary of recommendations:
Given the intrusive nature of unexplained wealth provisions, the committee has sought to provide greater clarity and accountability for the use of the provisions. This includes:
Further support for unexplained wealth investigations in the form of:
Improving the operation of taskforces which involve the Tax Office through:
Streamlining the court process through:
Development of a consistent and effective national approach to unexplained wealth across Australia, through:
That the Senate take note of the report.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement
Tabling of the Report on 2010-11 Annual Reports of the Australian Crime Commission and the Australian Federal Police
Mr Speaker [President], I rise to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's report on its examination of the annual reports of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) and Australian Federal Police (AFP).
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement has a statutory duty to examine the annual reports of the ACC and AFP. The committee has had a long-standing responsibility to examine the annual report of the ACC. However, this was the committee's second opportunity to examine the annual report of the AFP since the committee's jurisdiction was widened in 2010. The committee held public hearings with both the ACC and AFP and appreciates the ongoing level of engagement with committee proceedings demonstrated by both agencies. The committee congratulates them both on another successful year.
The committee recognises that close cooperation between law enforcement agencies across the various jurisdictions is fundamental to effectively combating crime. It was interested to gauge the nature of this relationship through the annual reports review process.
In terms of initiatives which provide for greater cooperation, the ACC has established a presence in each state and territory which enables state police agencies to be briefed on the ACC's capability, whilst also improving the flow of information to the ACC itself. The AFP also places emphasis on relationships with its counterparts. Part of the AFP's efforts to refocus its attentions on reinvigoration of investigation and operational capabilities in 2010-11 went to improving relationships with national and international counterparts.
The importance of cooperation is also reflected in the nature of crime investigations, with joint investigations increasingly common. Fifty-four per cent of serious and organised crime investigations were conducted under a formalised joint agency agreement as of January 2012. The remaining 46 per cent comprised joint investigations but without formal agreement. The committee recognises that cooperation in the fight against serious and organised crime has taken on a heightened importance given that Australia has become an attractive target for international criminal groups as it is no longer isolated from and immune to world trends.
Whilst considering trends and changes in criminal activity, the annual reports examination process also provides the committee with an opportunity to consider the efficiency of internal agency procedures. One area of interest to the committee in this regard is the timeliness of complaint handling by the AFP.
The committee appreciates that the AFP has taken measures to improve the time it takes to deal with complaints since the committee reported on the matter in its last annual report examination, however the Ombudsman's most recent report noted a continued deterioration in timeliness.
The committee is concerned about the deterioration in the average time-run of complaints cases and recommends that the AFP annual report include the average number of days taken to resolve cases for each category of complaint. The addition of this information will enable the committee to monitor the timeliness of complaint resolution.
The committee appreciates the advances made by the ACC and AFP over the year of review. I therefore commend the committee's report to the Senate.
Trends and changes in serious and organised crime
The committee has a statutory duty to examine trends and changes in criminal activity, practices and methods and pursued these areas as part of its examination of the ACC Annual Report.
Trends identified by the ACC in relation to serious and organised crime include:
- enable traditional crimes such as fraud, drug trafficking, theft of personal identity information and child exploitation; facilitate criminal activity, including through enhanced communication and money laundering;
- conduct criminal activity against computer networks;
Australian Crime Commission Intelligence Products
As Australia's national criminal intelligence agency, the ACC has developed a niche role over the past three years to deliver specialist capabilities and intelligence to the law enforcement community and broader government.
To realise its stated objective to reduce the threat or impact of serious or organised crime though analysis of and operations against national criminal activity, the ACC provided strategic criminal intelligence services to law enforcement and government agencies.
In 2010-11, the ACC delivered 1398 intelligence products including three reports: Illicit Drug Data Report, Organised Crime Threat Assessment, and Organised Crime in Australia report.
The effectiveness of ACC operations was measured through stakeholder feedback by way of Key Performance Indicators or KPIs. Whilst setting a target of 90 per cent for strategic intelligence products, the ACC achieved a result of 100 per cent for this KPI.
In terms of its second KPI, enhancing an understanding of serious and organised crime, the ACC achieved a 70 per cent result. The committee noted in its report that this result may indicate partner agency dissatisfaction with the ACC's contribution and expects to continue monitoring this KPI to ascertain the significance of the result.
ACC Annual Report highlights
Investigations and intelligence operations into federally relevant criminal activity
The ACC's investigations and intelligence operations underpin its criminal intelligence services by providing unique intelligence collection capabilities.
ACC investigations are conducted in partnership with law enforcement agencies with the objective of disrupting and deterring federally relevant serious and organised criminal activity. During 2010-11, the ACC conducted 10 special intelligence operations and five special investigations whilst also undertaking a number of projects and contributing to various task forces.
ACC achievements during the year include:
Notwithstanding these achievements, the committee appreciates that the ACC's real value in terms of organised crime may be in the area of harm reduction impacts which are difficult to measure.
It is also difficult to assess the impact of the ACC's intelligence products particularly in relation to broader investigations, whilst the trend towards joint investigations makes measuring the contribution of a single agency more complex.
In order to assess this broader contribution, the committee may consider how best to assess the annual report's commentary on qualitative outcomes.
Illicit firearms assessment
Since February 2012, the ACC has been conducting a National Intelligence Assessment of the illegal firearms market and its links to gang activity in Australia.
The committee was informed by the ACC that a black market in handguns has operated for decades and that in recent drive-by shootings handguns have predominately been used. Firearms also enable organised crime to exercise authority and control over markets and their organisations.
Ombudsman's reports—extending a controlled operation
The committee considered the process of extending a controlled operation beyond three months in cases where the scope of the operation changed. In a previous examination of the ACC's annual report, the committee recommended that where a variation is sought which would change both the scope and duration of a controlled operation, that the scope change be approved internally and duration change by the AAT.
However, at the time of the Ombudsman's most recent report on the inspection of controlled operations records, there was apparent disagreement between the Ombudsman and ACC about what constitutes a 'significant alteration'.
The committee understands that the ACC altered internal policies in relation to controlled operations to reflect an agreed position reached between it, the Attorney-General's Department and the Ombudsman. As this matter is of considerable interest to the committee, it intends to consider the 2011-12 inspection results of the Ombudsman before making any further comment.
National Criminal Intelligence Fusion Capability
The National Criminal Intelligence Fusion Capability brings together specialists from various government agencies including the ACC, AFP, and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service.
Fusion is responsible for monitoring the most significant serious and organised crime threats. During 2010-11, it identified over 70 new persons of interest or high-threat targets though matching information already held by the Commonwealth.
Security breaches
The committee pursued questions concerning security breaches in relation to ACC documents. Since 2007, there have been 62 security breaches, including 18 in 2011. Of those, four were considered serious and related to the loss of information and in one case, a weapon. Whilst the committee was assured that the ACC has a strong self-reporting culture, it is concerned with the security breaches and will continue to assess the ACC's efforts to address the number of security breaches into the future.
AFP Annual Report highlights
In recent years, the AFP has increasingly focused on national and international operations in response to new and emerging challenges in areas such as counter terrorism, human trafficking and sexual servitude, cyber-crime, peace operations, protection and other transnational crimes.
Complaint handing
In relation to complaint handling, there were 920 complaints made against the AFP in 2010-11. This represented a 15 per cent increase compared to the previous year.
Of the complaints, there were 233 Category 3 complaints. These are serious misconduct matters that do not involve corruption but may give rise to termination of employment, breaches of criminal law and serious neglect of duty There were also 30 complaints related to corruption. The remaining 657 complaints were category 1 and 2 complaints relating to minor management, minor misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. Over half of all the complaints reported were made by another AFP member.
The timeliness of complaint handling was raised as a matter of concern by the committee in its last annual report and by the Ombudsman. In response, the AFP instituted measures to improve the time it took to deal with complaints. However, the Ombudsman's most recent report raised the matter again noting that the timeliness continued to deteriorate and that the measures taken by the AFP have not been effective.
Whilst appreciating that the AFP is currently reviewing the benchmarks for complaint handling timeframes, the committee raised concerns about the deterioration in the average run-time of complaints cases. In this regard, the committee made a recommendation that the AFP annual report include the average number of days taken to resolve cases for each category of complaint, to enable the committee to better monitor the timeliness of complaint resolution.
National security—policing
Key initiatives and programs undertaken by the AFP in relation to national security—policing include the:
• successful prosecution of three people for terrorism offences,
• establishment of a dedicated Terrorism Financing Investigations Unit; and
• establishment of a Countering Violent Extremism Team.
In terms of counter-terrorism, 96 per cent of AFP time was spent on high-impact to very high-impact cases. Of these cases, 82 per cent of time was spent on operational activity resulting in a prosecution, disruption or intelligence referral outcome.
International deployments
AFP personnel are deployed internationally to contribute to Australia's United Nations commitments as well as to regional security and rule of law initiatives.
During 2010-11, AFP contributed to UN missions in Cyprus, Sudan, Timor-Leste and Afghanistan. The AFP also contributed to capacity development programs in Cambodia, Timor-Leste, Vanuatu and other members of the Pacific Island Forum as well as the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands.
Operations—Policing
The AFP Crime Program has teams across Australia as well as operating internationally with teams in 30 countries. In 2010-11, Crime Program achievements included:
Drug Harm Index
At over $1 billion, the Drug Harm Index more than doubled its results from the previous year and exceeded its domestic target of $886 million.
That the Senate take note of the report.
STATEMENT BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT ON THE 2012-13 DRAFT ESTIMATES FOR THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AUDIT OFFICE
Mr President, the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act requires the Committee to consider draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office, with the Chair making a statement to the House on Budget day on whether, in the Committee's opinion, the Auditor-General has been given sufficient funding to carry out his duties.
In support of this process, the Auditor-General is empowered to disclose their budget estimates to the Committee, which we then consider in making representations to Government as necessary. This process reflects both the Committee's status as the Parliament's audit committee, and the Auditor-General's status as an independent officer of the Parliament.
The Committee met with the Auditor-General in March to review the Audit Office's draft estimates for the coming financial year.
The Auditor-General advised that, while not seeking additional budget supplementation at this time, the Audit Office is facing a number of cost pressures.
These pressures include: the cumulative effect of the efficiency dividends; increased employee costs; and contractor rate pressures. In addition, the ANAO continues to absorb the costs of the increased requirements as a result of changes to the Australian Auditing Standards.
Furthermore, recent changes to the Auditor-General's Act 1997 gave the ANAO new powers to undertake audits of key performance indicators and Commonwealth partners. These important expansions of the Auditor-General's mandate add further pressure to the ANAO's budget outlook.
The Committee recognises the essential role the Auditor-General plays in scrutinising Government processes and expenditure, and therefore endeavours to ensure the ANAO remains adequately resourced.
In this light, and although the Auditor-General has not requested additional funds in this budget, the Committee does not want to see the ANAO's new powers under-utilised or their discretionary work - such as the performance audit program -negatively impacted due to future budget constraints.
The Committee appreciates the efforts of the Auditor-General and his staff in maintaining a strong working relationship with the Committee. They have made themselves available to brief the Committee regularly and have been responsive to our requests for information on a variety of topics. The Committee looks forward to continuing a productive relationship with the Audit Office info the future.
The Audit Office's total revenue from Government is $74.306 million in 2012-13.
Mr President, the Auditor-General has advised that this appropriation is sufficient for him to discharge his statutory obligations and his work program for the year ahead.
On this basis, the Committee endorses the proposed Budget for the Audit Office in 2012-13 - but notes that any reduction in the draft estimates or additional pressure placed on the Audit Office without corresponding additional funds would be of concern.
I present a copy of my statement on behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit.
(signed)
Senator Bishop
May 2012
9. Tabling and consideration of committee reports – pursuant to standing order 62(4)
Government Whip (Senator McEwen) to present additional information received by legislation committees relating to the 2011-12 additional estimates hearings:
11. Order of business – It is proposed to consider business in the following order –
Business of the Senate – orders of the day
No. 1–Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee – Report – Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Bill 2012 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 2–Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2012 and the Social Security Amendment (Supporting Australian Victims of Terrorism Overseas) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 3–Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee – Report – Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012 [No. 2] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 4–Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – Report – Judges and Governors-General Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2012 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 5–Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee – Report – Skills Australia Amendment (Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency) Bill 2012 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 6–Environment and Communications Legislation Committee – Report – Telecommunications Amendment (Mobile Phone Towers) Bill 2011 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 7–Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee – Report – National Health Reform Amendment (Administrator and National Health Funding Body) Bill 2012 (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
No. 8–Economics Legislation Committee – Report – National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Charges) Bill 2012 [Provisions] (pursuant to Selection of Bills Committee report)
Broadcasting Services Amendment (Regional Commercial Radio) Bill 2012
Fair Work Amendment (Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industry) Bill 2012
Corporations Amendment (Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2012
Corporations Amendment (Further Future of Financial Advice Measures) Bill 2012
Bills received from the House of Representatives.
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.
Today I introduce a bill which will amend the Corporations Act 2001 to better protect consumers. This bill improves the capacity of the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), to act against unsatisfactory persons and it introduces a requirement for advisers to seek their clients' agreement every two years to continue to charge ongoing fees.
The initiatives in the bill implement part of the government's Future of Financial Advice reforms which is its response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia that was established in the wake of collapses such as Storm Financial. The recent TRIO collapse is also relevant. This bill represents the first part of the FOFA reform package.
Importantly, the bill includes two key measures to enhance consumer protection and instil more trust and confidence in financial planning. Ultimately these reforms will encourage more Australians to seek financial advice.
Firstly, the bill sets in place arrangements which require financial advisers to obtain their retail clients' agreement every two years in order to charge them ongoing fees for financial advice (that is the opt-in requirement). Currently, there are some clients of financial advisers that pay ongoing fees for financial advice who receive little or no service. Some clients are also unaware of the amount of those fees or continue paying them because they are disengaged. This scenario arises both where the advice fee is paid via a third party product commission, and directly from the client to adviser. This is occurring despite the fact that most ongoing advice contracts allow a client to 'opt-out' at any time.
This measure promotes the active renewal by the client to ongoing fees for advice, with opportunities for them to consider whether they are receiving value for money. It also assists disengaged clients from paying ongoing fees that they don't need to be paying.
The current disclosure of ongoing fees at engagement in the statement of advice is not a sufficient safeguard, because the disclosure is not ongoing. A client might be paying fees that were outlined in a statement of advice they received from an adviser years ago.
The basic requirement is that advisers must obtain their clients agreement to renew at least once every two years.
The renewal notice empowers a client to renew or end the ongoing fee arrangement. If the client does not respond to the renewal notice, they are assumed to have terminated the advice relationship and no further fees can be charged by the adviser. If an adviser breaches by overcharging after a client has not opted in, they could be subject to a civil penalty. The maximum amount of this civil penalty which is lower than others in the Corporations Act, reflects the tailoring of the penalty to the nature of the offence.
There is considerable flexibility as to when and how advisers obtain the renewal notice. The bill also provides additional grace periods if a client inadvertently opts out by not responding to the renewal notice in time.
The disclosure notice is an important supplement to the renewal requirement. It includes fee and service information about the previous and forthcoming 12 months, and assists clients to understand whether they are receiving a service from their adviser commensurate with the ongoing fee that they are paying.
The renewal obligation applies to new arrangements after 1 July 2012, but does not apply to existing clients of financial advisers. However the annual disclosure obligation will apply to all clients of advisers.
Overall, the measure is about the focus being on the client, and what is in the client's best interest. This is line with the existing practice of many advisers. Not only is this the fair thing for the client, it is also professional best practice.
There has been a lot said about the cost that this measure will impose on financial advisers, and with this a variety of estimates of that cost. It is a matter of fact that for advisers that charge on a pure fee-for-service basis (that is, per hour or per piece of advice), the renewal measure will impose no cost whatsoever.
It is true that for advisers that have no contact with particular clients for a period of more than two years, then opt-in will impose a cost on that adviser either in chasing up the client or in losing the business altogether. However, it is not fair to characterise this latter case—the cost of losing business—as a new cost. The cost exists in the system right now, the only difference being that it is the disengaged client—rather than the disengaged adviser—that currently bears the cost.
This measure remedies that situation and ensures that the client, and their retirement savings, comes first.
Secondly, the bill enhances the capacity of ASIC to supervise the financial services industry and protect investors.
Providers of financial services must be licensed by ASIC as part of facilitating investor confidence that those persons are competent and are of good fame and character. Licensees also have representatives who act on their behalf.
ASIC has powers to protect the public, including powers to apply a variety of administrative remedies against a licensee (or its representatives) that breach the law.
During the PJC Inquiry, ASIC raised concern with its ability to protect investors by restricting or removing unscrupulous operators from the industry. A number of factors were impacting on the exercise of ASIC's powers, including decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) relating to when someone 'will' breach the law, the difficulty with removing individuals given the focus on licensees in the Corporations Act and the lack of scope for ASIC to remove representatives in certain circumstances, such as where they are not of good fame and character.
The changes implement the PJC recommendations in this area and will strengthen ASIC's administrative powers as they apply to licensees and representatives to strengthen the gate keeping function of the licensing regime and extend ASIC's powers to remove unsatisfactory persons from the industry.
The changes to the licensing and banning thresholds include that ASIC can refuse or cancel a licence, or ban a person, where the person is likely to contravene (rather than will breach) the law. ASIC may also remove representatives if they are not competent, of good fame and character or involved in its licensee's breach of the law.
The changes generally align the thresholds for licensing and banning with similar provisions under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, which ASIC also administers.
As with the exercise of any administrative powers, an ASIC decision will be based on the individual circumstances of each case, but would generally take account of factors such as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct, the internal controls on the licensee or the person and the previous regulatory record of the person.
Existing review rights in relation to ASIC decisions about licensing and banning continue to apply, including to the AAT.
These changes should result in ASIC exercising its administrative powers more efficiently and effectively to protect investors.
In summary, the measures in this bill support the key public policy objectives of FOFA to improve consumer trust and confidence in the financial advice they receive, and improve professional standards.
Today I introduce a bill to amend the Corporations Act 2001 to bring into effect significant reform to the regulation of financial advice, which in turn will enhance trust and confidence in the sector.
Great nations do not remain great by pretending they can stay as they are. For every generation of Australians, it doesn’t matter if it’s in business or the community or in politics or the media, it falls to every generation to leave the place better than we found it.
Financial planners and those who work in financial services industry, implicitly, if not explicitly, understand that this change is an inevitable part of life. I believe that most financial planners see it as part of their role to make their dealings with their customers such that after having dealt with a planner, they’re better off than if they had never dealt sought financial advice.
This is why I’m a believer in the importance of financial advice, because we must endeavour in whatever we do to leave those in our families, in our immediate families, those in our streets, in our neighbourhoods, in our towns, in our communities ideally better off than before they had transactions with us. I believe that rule applies in business, in community, in sport and in politics.
The initiatives in the bill implement part of the Future of Financial Advice reforms, which forms the government’s response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services' Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia. This bill represents the second of two tranches to implement the FOFA reform package, with the first tranche being introduced into this House last month.
The bill includes two key measures representing integral components of the reforms which go to the heart of boosting professionalism in the financial advice industry.
Firstly, the bill imposes a statutory best interests duty on financial advisers. As its name suggests, the duty requires advisers to act in the best interests of their clients, and to put their client’s interests ahead of their own.
The best interests duty is a legislative requirement to ensure the processes and motivations of financial advisers are focused on what is best for their clients. It is true that this will ultimately lead to better advice in many cases, but first and foremost it is about regulating conflicts, not the intrinsic quality of the advice provided.
The best interests duty does not require that advisers give the best advice. It does not invoke punishment if, with the benefit of hindsight, the advice does not prove to be perfect. It is not about guaranteeing clients the best investment returns on products.
In being able to satisfy the duty, the Bill strikes a balance between certainty and flexibility for the adviser. The duty requires the provider of the advice to take steps that would be reasonably regarded as being in the best interests of the client, given the client’s relevant circumstances.
In other words, discharging the duty will be relatively simple in some situations, and more involved where the circumstances are more complex.
By the same token, for the adviser that wants certainty around compliance above all else, the general obligation is supplemented by a provision setting out steps which, if satisfied, will be deemed sufficient for the adviser to have fulfilled the general obligation.
This is a common sense proposal which is long overdue. For the majority of advisers, this merely codifies how they already go about their business in dealing with clients. For those advisers that have not always put their client’s interests first, this reform will no doubt require them to make changes to the way that they do business. This can only be a good thing, both for the client, and for the advice industry generally.
Secondly, the bill implements a key aspect of the government’s response to the Ripoll Report—a ban on the receipt of conflicted remuneration by financial advisers, including commissions from product issuers.
It is absolutely crucial to the integrity of the advice industry—or any industry involving a high degree of trust and responsibility—that the consumer can be confident that the adviser is working for them.
It is only by ensuring that advisers’ only source of income is from their clients that clients can be sure that the adviser is working for them, rather than a product provider.
For the most part, advisers will not be able to receive remuneration (from product issuers or from anyone else) which could reasonably be expected to influence financial advice provided to a retail client.
If an adviser is confident that a particular stream of income does not conflict advice, then these reforms do not prevent them from receiving that income. For example, in the case of the receipt of income related to volume of product sales or investible funds, there is a presumption that that income would conflict advice. However, this is a presumption only, and if the adviser can demonstrate that the receipt of the income does not conflict advice, then such remuneration will be permissible under the bill.
But the message is clear—if in doubt about whether certain remuneration will conflict the advice that they provide to their client—the adviser would be prudent to err on the side of caution.
I should note that despite this necessary and overdue measure to eradicate conflicted remuneration, I am encouraged to see that a very large proportion of the industry is already moving away from product commissions and moving to a fee-for-service model. This is not only better for the client, but it is also best professional practice.
The most professional advisers working under a full fee-for-service model, who have already turned-off their trail commissions, will not be impacted by these reforms, except that there will now be a level playing field in the industry as far as legitimate remuneration sources is concerned. Increased transparency of fees will also assist consumers in comparing different advice costs, thereby enabling greater competition across the sector.
Also banned is the receipt of ‘soft-dollar’ or ‘non-monetary’ benefits over $300, with some exceptions around education and professional development. This creates hard obligations in regard to the practice that industry codes require of their members already.
The bill also contains some additional measures in relation to other forms of remuneration.
Advisers will not be able to charge asset-based fees (that is, fees calculated as a percentage of client funds) on client monies which are borrowed. Under the current law, an adviser can artificially increase the size of their advice fees by ‘gearing up’ their clients. While most planners advise their clients responsibly in this regard, such a fee model does not engender the right behaviour and is prohibited under the Bill.
I should emphasise that there is nothing to prevent advisers under this measure from recommending a gearing or borrowing strategy to their client. To the contrary, if this is in the client’s best interests then they should proceed with such a strategy. However, they will need to charge the client for those services in some other way, for example, by charging flat fee or hourly rate. Advisers can continue to charge asset-based fees on client funds that are not borrowed.
The bill also bans volume-based shelf-space fees from funds managers to platform operators. In short, product issuers will not be able to purchase ‘shelf-space’ on a platform menu by paying inflated fees. Platforms should be incentivised to put the most appropriate products on their menus, rather than lease positions to the highest bidder. Payment flows which represent reasonable value for scale will remain permissible.
Finally, while these measures around remuneration are important, they represent a large change to the industry and to individual businesses. It is for this reason that existing trail commission books will be ‘grandfathered’. This means that commissions from business entered into prior to the reforms can continue. Of course, commissions on new business and clients after 1 July 2012 will not be allowed.
This is a just outcome, and provides an adequate cushion for the industry to transition once the new laws are in place.
The government’s financial advice reforms complement our commitment to progressively increase the superannuation guarantee from 9 to 12 per cent. You cannot encourage Australians to save more for their retirement without ensuring the system is operating in their best interests.
In summary, the measures in this Bill support the key public policy objectives of FOFA to improve consumer trust and confidence in the financial advice they receive, and improve professional standards.
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012
Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 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.
Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 2) 2012
I am pleased to present:
Together with:
They represent the 3rd tranche of legislation that implements the government's reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system announced in June last year.
These bills are cognate and are being brought before the House together.
They contain reforms designed to provide better access to the anti-dumping system for Australian industry, and to ensure any applicable remedies are available as quickly as possible.
Substantive Measures
This 3rd tranche of legislation includes four substantive reforms to the Anti-Dumping regime.
1. All facts available provision
First, this bill clarifies the CEO of Customs and Border Protection and the Minister's power to take 'all facts available' into account when:
This reform ensures that our anti dumping system better reflects the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
2. Expanding CEO/Minister powers — Continuation Inquiries
Second, this bill removes the need for a separate review of anti-dumping measures and continuation inquiries to be run in close proximity to each other.
This is achieved by enhancing the powers that the CEO and the Minister have to conduct a continuation inquiry to allow for similar results to those currently available in a review of measures.
Through this amendment, Customs and Border Protection will be able to recalculate the level of the duties of an anti-dumping measure during a continuation inquiry.
This reform will streamline the process, meaning quicker outcomes for all interested parties.
3. Removing Limitations – profit and normal value
Third, this bill implements the recommendation of the International Trade Remedies Forum—to remove the current limitation to the inclusion of profit when calculating the 'normal value' of a good in its country of origin, in certain circumstances.
This amendment improves the effectiveness of the ' particular market situation ' provisions in the Customs Act — by providing greater flexibility for Customs to more accurately determine the ' normal value ' of goods.
These first three reforms are delivered through this b ill .
4. Additional forms of interim dumping duty
The fourth reform is delivered by the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Amendments Bill (No. 1) 2012 which amends the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975..
This allows for different forms of interim duty to be applied from those currently used.
The types of interim dumping duty which could be used will include an ad valorem duty, a fixed amount of duty, a combination duty, or a floor price mechanism.
The methods for working out these new forms of interim dumping duty will be outlined in regulations to be made in support of this amendment.
Release of the two working group reports
Today I am also releasing two reports from the International Trade Remedies Forum (the ITRF) that make important recommendations to improve the Anti-Dumping system.
The International Trade Remedies Forum is made up of 21 members representing manufacturers, producers and importers, as well as industry associations, trade unions and relevant government agencies:
The first report examines Australia's 'particular market situation' provisions. It was prepared by the Market Situation Working Group made up of representatives from:
The report makes 16 recommendations. The government will implement all of them.
One of the recommendations (3.4) is to remove the legislative limitations to determining profit when constructing the 'normal value' of a good.
This reform is made in this bill.
Other recommendations include:
The government will implement these changes administratively – through changes to the relevant guidelines, manuals and other arrangements.
The second report was prepared by the Market Situation Working Group of the ITRF, made up of representatives from:
It made 11 recommendations—and the government will also implement all of them.
These include:
In accepting the recommendations in these two reports, the Government is demonstrating its commitment to reforming Australia's anti-dumping system through reforms which improve access and reduce the time and complexity associated with making and investigating anti-dumping applications.
In doing this, we also reaffirm our commitment to ensuring Australia's anti-dumping system complies with our international trade obligations.
Together, the bills in this tranche of reforms and the 22 recommendations from these reports will make a number of important reforms to our anti dumping system.
Foreshadowing Tranche Four Reforms
The fourth and final tranche of legislation to implement the anti-dumping reforms announced last year is planned to be introduced in the next Parliamentary sittings.
The fourth tranche will contain reforms in three broad areas:
It will amend the subsidies provisions of the Customs Act to ensure they better reflect the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
These changes will increase the clarity of these provisions by removing long-term interpretive issues that stakeholders have identified with these provisions.
Second, it will establish an anti-circumvention framework in Australia.
The framework will prevent parties involved in importing goods into Australia which are subject to anti-dumping measures illegitimately circumventing Australia's anti-dumping system to avoid duties.
Anti-circumvention schemes have already been implemented overseas in the United States, the European Union, New Zealand, Brazil and, most recently, in India.
The development of an overarching framework to address circumvention practices will send a strong warning to foreign businesses which intentionally seek to avoid measures imposed through our anti-dumping system.
Third it will strengthen the provisions that deal will non-cooperation.
I want to ensure Australia's anti-dumping system is effective in dealing with parties that do not cooperate with anti-dumping investigations. The next tranche of legislation will include further amendments to support the Minister's power to impose tougher dumping margins for parties that refuse to provide necessary information within a reasonable period.
Conclusion
These reforms directly address the concerns of business, workers and unions.
They will implement the reforms announced in last year—and provide for a clearer and fairer system.
I am pleased to present this bill:
The Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping) Amendments Bill (No. 1) 2012.
Together with the previously mentioned bill:
The methods for working out these new forms of interim dumping duty will be outlined in regulations to be made in support of this amendment.
Together with the other reforms, this represents the third tranche of legislation implementing the Government's reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system.
Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012
Tax Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) 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.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (Schedule 4) Bill 2012 contains amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that will repeal and replace Schedule 4 of that Act.
Schedule 4 delivers a wide range of tariff concessions, which have the effect of reducing or removing the normal rate of customs duty that would otherwise apply. These concessions lower costs for businesses and individuals importing goods.
However, the current Schedule 4 is complex and difficult for industry and importers to use.
During 2010, the government announced a Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership to examine and simplify the tariff concession regime. Under this Partnership, the relevant government departments, including Customs and Border Protection; Finance and Deregulation; and the then Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, conducted a review of Schedule 4.
The review included consultation with relevant government agencies, a public discussion paper and consultation with key industry bodies. The consultation process showed that stakeholders, especially business, support a more user-friendly tariff concession regime.
Significant recommendations of the review included removing items that are redundant or have no clear policy intent, consolidating items that have similar coverage and restructuring the Schedule to place similar items together.
The Schedule 4 bill that I have just tabled gives effect to those recommendations.
In addition, the revised Schedule 4 formally incorporates the extension, to 31 December 2014, of the SPARTECA–TCF Scheme that relates to textile, clothing and footwear concessions for prescribed Forum Island countries. This extension was contained in Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2012, tabled in Parliament on 16 February 2012.
The bill also contains consequential amendments to the Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. When enacted, the Schedule 4 bill will result in a re-numbering of the items in Schedule 4. As the GST and related acts refer to existing items in Schedule 4, the Schedule 4 bill contains amendments to those acts to update those references.
When enacted, the Schedule 4 bill will reduce the existing tariff concession schedule to around half the current number of items and improve its clarity and usability. However, the Schedule 4 bill will preserve the scope of the various concessions and their concessional duty rates.
This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements.
Schedule 1 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to implement the 2011-12 budget measure to disallow deductions against government assistance payments.
The Schedule responds to the High Court decision in the Commissioner of Taxation v Anstis where it was held that expenses incurred in satisfying an activity test for taxable government assistance income are deductible.
The consequence of the High Court decision is that taxpayers with the same level of income have different tax liabilities depending on whether or not they receive taxable government assistance income that is eligible for a tax offset.
Leaving the tax law unchanged will create inequality in the tax system. Amending the tax law to overturn the High Court decision will increase equity by ensuring that taxpayers with the same level of income pay the same tax. This measure will also provide certainty as to the scope of eligible deductions.
From 1 July 2011, taxpayers who receive taxable government assistance income that is eligible for a tax offset will no longer be able to claim a deduction for expenses they incur in satisfying an activity test to qualify for assistance income. government assistance income in scope of the amendment includes ABSTUDY, Austudy, Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance. This recognises that taxable government assistance payments are effectively tax-free.
The government considers that the most targeted and timely assistance is provided through the transfer system, not the tax system.
This is why the government has introduced several key measures aimed at supporting students, including start-up scholarships for new university students, relocation scholarships for those studying away from home and reducing the age of independence for Youth Allowance to 22.
These measures provide more timely assistance to students when they need it most.
Schedule 2 removes the ability of complying superannuation entities to treat certain assets (primarily shares, units in a trust and land) as trading stock, which is consistent with the general industry practice of treating these assets on capital account.
These changes promote certainty in the superannuation industry by removing the present ambiguity concerning the appropriate tax treatment of gains and losses made from the sale of shares owned by a complying superannuation entity.
Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the ex-gratia payments to New Zealand Special Category Visa holders who were affected by the recent floods in New South Wales and Queensland. These ex-gratia payments are made for disasters where the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment has been activated, and are of an equivalent amount.
By exempting these disaster relief payments from income tax, the maximum amount of assistance is provided to affected individuals. A tax exemption for these payments is consistent with the exemption provided for equivalent payments made in response to other disasters, such as the widespread floods of the 2010-11 summer, and Cyclone Yasi.
Schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to implement the 2011-12 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook measure to phase out the dependent spouse tax offset.
The dependent spouse tax offset originated around three-quarters of a century ago – a time when the single income family was the norm and the welfare system was in its infancy. This was a time when a breadwinner was expected to 'maintain' a spouse even without children, and there were limited employment opportunities for women.
In today's modern economy, where unemployment is around 5 per cent, increasing employment participation and expanding the workforce is vital for the strength of our economy and the living standards of our community.
That is why the government is phasing out the tax offset for taxpayers with a dependent spouse born on or after 1 July 1952 to reduce the disincentive for dependent spouses from undertaking paid employment.
From 1 July 2012, taxpayers with a dependent spouse born on or after 1 July 1952 will no longer be eligible for the dependent spouse tax offset.
Dependent spouses with children are not affected by this measure, nor are taxpayers whose dependent spouse is a carer, an invalid, or permanently unable to work. Taxpayers eligible for the zone, overseas forces or overseas civilian tax offsets are also not affected by this measure.
Schedule 4 will introduce minor amendments to ensure that taxpayers who maintain a dependent spouse are only able to claim one offset in respect of that spouse in determining their zone, overseas forces or overseas civilian tax offset entitlement.
Schedule 5 includes several miscellaneous amendments to the taxation laws.
Amendments such as these are periodically made to correct minor technical or drafting defects in the taxation laws, and to address unintended outcomes. Advancing these amendments gives effect to the Government's long-standing commitment to uphold the integrity of the taxation system.
Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
That the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Health Insurance Amendment (Professional Services Review) Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Professional Services Review (PSR) Scheme and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process (MPRC) are important parts of the government's efforts to support the provision of high quality, appropriate and safe health services for patients. They protect the integrity of Medicare.
The Professional Services Review Scheme is a peer review process for investigating whether a practitioner has engaged in inappropriate practice in the provision of services under the Medicare Benefits Scheme or Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.
Medicare Participation Review Committees are independent statutory committees that make determinations on whether a practitioner should maintain the right to participate in Medicare.
This bill makes amendments to the provisions for the Professional Services Review and the Medicare Participation Review Committee process in the Health Insurance Act 1973 (the Act).
The proposed amendments do not alter the purpose of the Professional Services Review or the Medicare Participation Review Committee process. These amendments strengthen the ability of the Professional Services Review to protect the integrity of Medicare, improve administration and clarify issues raised in recent court decisions.
The Bill addresses issues raised in a recent Federal Court decision, Kutlu v Director of Professional Services Review [2011] FCAFC 94. The Federal Court's decision in this case brought into question the validity of findings of the Professional Services Review if the consultation process for appointing a person as a Professional Services Review Panel Member or Deputy Director had not been followed.
In cases where practitioners have been found by a Professional Services Review Committee to have practised inappropriately and are serving periods of disqualification, the Federal Court's decision could result in these practitioners being able to provide services under Medicare. This could compromise public health and safety.
The bill will address this issue by retrospectively validating past Professional Services Review findings that have been brought into question because a Panel member or Deputy Director was not validly appointed. These Professional Services Review processes will be held to be valid and effective.
The government considers that retrospective legislation is necessary and justified in this case to remove uncertainty about a number of Professional Services Review findings, where practitioners have been found by a committee of their peers to have practised inappropriately.
The bill has a legitimate objective in rectifying the effect of technical errors in the appointment process. The retrospective provisions aim to ensure that action taken to protect the integrity of services provided under Medicare may be relied on.
These validating provisions are not intended to apply to parties to proceedings for which leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia has been given before the bill is assented to, if the validity of a Professional Services Review appointment is in issue in those proceedings.
However, the bill will allow the Director of the Professional Services Review to establish and re-refer matters to a new PSR Committee in such cases. This will mean that practitioners, who have been found to have engaged in inappropriate practice by their peers, and have successfully challenged a Professional Services Review process on the grounds of irregularity in the appointment process, may be re-referred to a new PSR Committee for investigation if the Director decides to do so.
Other provisions
The bill also includes a number of provisions that strengthen the Professional Services Review's capacity to protect the integrity of Medicare, improve the operations of the Scheme, and respond to the recommendations of a review of the Scheme in 2007.
The Professional Services Review currently applies to only some, not all, of the types of health professionals who can provide services under Medicare. The bill will enable the PSR Scheme to be applied to all health professionals who provide Medicare services.
The bill includes amendments to improve the protection of the public under the Professional Services Review.
If the conduct of a person under review poses a threat to patient life or health, the Director of the Professional Services Review will be required to contact the relevant body that is authorised to recall patients for independent medical review. The Bill also requires the Director to notify the relevant registration body.
The quality of patient care can be placed at risk if practitioners undertake unreasonably high numbers of services. In 1999, medical professional groups agreed that 80 or more unreferred attendances on 20 or more days in a 12 month period constituted inappropriate practice.
This bill clarifies in legislation that a practitioner who performs this number of services is automatically deemed by the legislation to have practised inappropriately, unless they can provide evidence that exceptional circumstances existed.
Patients will also be protected by amendments that will require all persons who are disqualified from Medicare due to a Professional Services Review or Medicare Participation Review Committee process to display a notice to inform patients that services will not attract Medicare benefits.
The bill clarifies the respective role of the Professional Services Review and Medicare Participation Review Committees, so that the PSR investigates inappropriate practice, and MPRCs review practitioners where they have contravened a relevant civil penalty provision or committed a relevant criminal offence.
Other amendments improve the administration of the Professional Services Review following its review in 2007. These amendments include clarifying processes where a person is unable to participate due to illness, or where the person under review dies, and making minor administrative changes.
Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are two of the key pillars of Australia's health system. Robust structures to prevent inappropriate practice are essential if they are to benefit all Australians for years to come.
This bill will ensure that the Professional Services Review continues to protect the integrity of Medicare and to support high quality, appropriate and safe health services for all Australians.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to cease the automatic cancellation regime currently in place for student visa holders who breach the academic progress or attendance requirements of their student visa. This responds to the 2011 Strategic Review of the Student Visa Program and concerns raised in the 2011 Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) report, Management of Student Visas.
In December 2010, the government appointed the Hon. Michael Knight AO to conduct the first strategic review of the student visa program to help enhance the quality, integrity and competitiveness of the student visa program. Mr Knight reported to the government in June 2011 and on 22 September 2011 both the report and the government response were released. The government supports in principle all of Mr Knight's recommendations.
A principal focus of the Knight review report is on improved integrity measures in the student visa program. To this end, the Knight review recommended that the automatic cancellation of student visas be abolished and replaced with a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance.
Student visa holders are subject to a number of visa conditions that reflect the intention of the student visa program. Key to the integrity of the program is visa condition 8202 that requires international students to maintain course progress and attendance in class. The ability of a student visa holder to maintain course progress and attendance is considered an indicator of their genuine engagement in studies. Providers are required to monitor the course progress of their international students and their attendance in class under the provisions of the National Code, a legal instrument under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act). While providers are required to define their own policies in relation to course progress or attendance, at a minimum, they must intervene to assist an international student who has failed more than 50% of the units attempted in any one study period or who is at risk of failing to attend between 70 and 80 percent of total course contact hours. Where a provider assesses the international student as not achieving satisfactory course progress or attendance, they must report them for a breach of condition 8202.
Under the current regime, an education provider is required under section 19 of the ESOS Act, to report breaches of student visa condition 8202 to the Secretary of the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (Innovation). The provider must first give the student 20 working days notice in which to access complaints and appeals processes.
The provider is then required to notify the student visa holder of the breach under section 20 of the ESOS Act. It is this notification that triggers the application of the automatic cancellation provisions under the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act). The notice requires the student visa holder to attend an office of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) within 28 days of the date of the notice to make any submissions about the breach. If the student visa holder does not comply with the notice, their visa is automatically cancelled under the Migration Act by operation of law at the end of the 28th day after the date of the notice. Consequentially, any family dependent visa holders would also have their visas cancelled. International students whose visa was automatically cancelled are subject to an exclusion period for applying for further visas for up to three years.
Both the Knight review and the ANAO have recommended the abolition of the automatic cancellation regime. The Knight review found that automatic cancellation gives education providers extraordinary power over international students. It argued that the increase in automatic cancellations in recent years has been driven, in part, by the emergence of some providers who will use the automatic cancellation mechanism carelessly or even maliciously. It also found that the process was deleterious for some genuine international students who require help and monitoring rather than having their visas cancelled. Further, it found the regime to be hindering the effective use of compliance resources.
The Knight review also found that the process has attracted continued adverse commentary from the Federal Court, with the majority of automatic cancellations made between May 2001 and December 2009 having been overturned, affecting some 19 000 cases. This factor was echoed by the ANAO which noted systematic flaws and vulnerabilities in the regime. The ANAO also shared the views of the Knight Review in respect of the resource-intensive process that the regime requires whereby integrity and compliance units must respond to every education provider report rather that pursue targeted areas of compliance concern.
The Australian community expects there to be consequences if a student visa holder breaches visa conditions. However, the automatic cancellation provision fails to properly account for the severity of the breach, any exceptional circumstances or whether or not a breach actually occurred. The lack of discretion imposes unnecessary administrative costs on international students, education providers and the government. It creates uncertainty and complexity for student visa holders.
For example, while students have the opportunity to stop the automatic cancellation process by attending an office within 28 days of the section 20 notice being sent, where they fail to do so, their visa is automatically cancelled at the end of the 28th day after the date of the notice, regardless of whether or not the breach may actually have occurred. Further, if a student visa holder applies for a revocation of an automatic cancellation, the decision maker can only decide to revoke where it is found that the breach either did not occur or was due to exceptional circumstances. The regime provides no discretion for a decision-maker to distinguish between a genuine student visa holder who may be struggling academically and one who deliberately breaches the conditions of their student visa.
Critically, the automatic cancellation regime directs government resources away from pursuing more egregious student visa breaches. In particular, the Knight review found that the automatic cancellation regime was in fact hindering the effective use of student compliance resources within DIAC. It found that up to 80 per cent of DIAC student integrity resources are predominantly allocated to dealing with the automatic cancellation-related caseload, including dealing with student visa holders approaching DIAC to stop the automatic cancellation process and managing requests for the revocation of an automatic cancellation. This means that reports for breaches that do not fall within the automatic cancellation regime cannot be prioritised, even though, upon further investigation, some of these reports may be for more serious non-compliance.
This bill would amend the ESOS Act to remove the requirement under section 20 for a registered education provider to send a notice to a student visa holder who breaches condition 8202 of their student visa. It is intended that on or after the day the amendments in this bill commence, registered education providers will no longer be required, or able, to send a notice under section 20 of the ESOS Act. As a consequence, student visas will no longer be subject to automatic cancellation under the Migration Act.
Instead, a student visa holder who breaches a visa condition by not achieving satisfactory course progress or not achieving satisfactory course attendance will be considered under the existing discretionary cancellation framework in the Migration Act. Under this framework, the education provider would still be required to report a breach of a prescribed condition of a student visa under section 19 of the ESOS Act. Details of the reported breach would be considered by DIAC for possible compliance action. The absence of automatic cancellation would not mean that such breaches will be taken any less seriously. In addition to following up on breaches of attendance and course progress, DIAC will be able to better-prioritise other reports that may indicate serious non-compliance, including where an international student fails to commence their course. DIAC will be working with DIISRTE to develop targeted reports to assist in identifying all types of breaches associated with the student visa program and targeting those that represent the highest risk.
This bill would also make necessary consequential amendments to the ESOS Act to require an education provider to give particulars of any change in contact details or other prescribed details of a student visa holder within 14 days after the provider becomes aware of the change. This is broadly consistent with other obligations on education providers under the ESOS Act, for example for a provider to report any changes in the identity or duration of a student’s course within 14 days after the event occurs.
The amendments would ensure the best possible transition from an automatic to a discretionary cancellation regime without compromising immigration integrity. They would maximise the likelihood of student visa holders receiving information and notification affecting their immigration status. It will also assist in the conduct of any subsequent immigration compliance activity.
It is intended that the amendments in the bill would apply to student visas in effect at the time of commencement unless the international student has been sent a notice by an education provider under section 20 of the ESOS Act before the commencement of this bill. Any student visa holder sent a notice under section 20 of the ESOS Act before the date of commencement would still need to attend a DIAC office within 28 days or face the automatic cancellation of their student visa. However, if automatically cancelled, the former student visa holder would still be able to apply for a revocation of the cancellation. Revocation applications would be available until the visa would have ceased if not for the cancellation if the former student visa holder remains onshore, or within 28 days of the cancellation if the former student visa holder has left Australia.
Conclusion
In summary, student visa holders will no longer have their visas automatically cancelled. These changes will provide for a fairer, merits based cancellation process and will allow integrity and compliance resources to be more targeted to areas of highest risk.
These measures are intended to support the international education sector which is one of Australia's largest export industries and is important to Australia in supporting bilateral ties with key partner countries, supporting employment in a broad range of occupations throughout the Australian economy, as well as delivering high-value skills to the economy.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
The job, Mr President, of every senator of this parliament is to help shape a better Australia.
It's to listen carefully to the Australian people, respect the hard-won dollars they pay in tax, do our honest best to make people's lives easier not harder, and honour the commitments we make to those who vote for us.
If that's how we discharge our duties as members of parliament, politics is an honourable calling, the public can respect their MPs and MPs can respect each other even when we disagree.
My values are the product of an Australian life, a real life much like yours, with Margie, raising three daughters in suburban Sydney, paying a mortgage, worrying about bills, trying to be a good neighbour and a good citizen; appreciating that no one has a monopoly of virtue or wisdom, and grateful that our country has normally been free from the class struggle that's raged elsewhere to other countries' terrible cost.
In a healthy democracy, people need not agree with everything a government does but they should be able to understand its purpose and to appreciate why it could be for the long term good of the nation as whole.
The fundamental problem with this budget is that it deliberately, coldly, calculatedly plays the class war card.
It cancels previous commitments to company tax cuts and replaces them with means-tested payments because a drowning government has decided to portray the political contest in this country as billionaires versus battlers.
It's an ignoble piece of work from an unworthy Prime Minister that will offend the intelligence of the Australian people.
So on behalf of the Liberal National Coalition, I assert these fundamental truths:
Government should be at least as interested in the creation of wealth as in its redistribution.
Government should protect the vulnerable not to create more clients of the state but to foster more self-reliant citizens.
The small business people who put their houses on the line to create jobs deserve support from government, not broken promises.
People who work hard and put money aside so they won't be a burden on others should be encouraged, not hit with higher taxes.
And people earning $83,000 a year and families on $150,000 a year are not rich, especially if they're paying mortgages in our big cities.
Australia needs more successful people and more opportunities for people to succeed, yet this government's message is: the harder you try, the harder we'll make it for you.
Mr President, from an economic perspective, the worst aspect of this year's budget is that there is no plan for economic growth; nothing whatsoever to promote investment or employment.
Without a growing economy, everything a government does is basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.
With a growing economy, it's possible to have lower taxes, better services and a stronger budget bottom line as Australians discovered during the Howard era that now seems like a lost golden age of prosperity.
As this budget shows, to every issue, this government's kneejerk response is more tax, more regulation and more vitriol.
The Treasurer referred just once on Tuesday night to what he coyly called the carbon price before rushing to assure people that it wouldn't affect them.
If the carbon tax won't hurt anyone why is the government topping up compensation in this budget?
If the carbon tax won't hurt anyone, why did the Prime Minister promise six days before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under the government she led?
If the carbon tax won't hurt anyone why are Labor senators now frightened to go doorknocking even in their heartland?
Let's be clear about this: no genuine Labor government would be hitting the families and businesses of Australia with the world's biggest carbon tax at the worst possible time.
No genuine Labor government would be hitting our economy with what amounts to a reverse tariff making Australian businesses less competitive and Australian jobs less secure compared to our overseas rivals who face no such tax.
It doesn't matter how many times the Treasurer refers to a Labor government with Labor values, the real Labor people with whom I mix beyond the parliamentary triangle despair of the politicians who have sold their party's soul to the Greens.
Mr President, I applaud the Treasurer's eagerness to deliver a surplus – but if a forecast $1.5 billion surplus is enough to encourage the Reserve Bank to reduce interest rates, what has been the impact on interest rates of his $174 billion in delivered deficits over the past four years?
How can the Treasurer be so confident of next year's skinny surplus when this year's deficit, forecast to be $23 billion in last year's budget, has now grown to $44 billion?
How can he be confident that next year's surplus won't evaporate completely given that it's already shrunk from $3.5 billion in last year's budget and the cumulative budget bottom line has deteriorated by $26 billion in just 12 months?
The forecast surplus relies on the continuation of record terms of trade even though growth in China is moderating and Europe is still in deep trouble.
Yet on Treasury's own estimates, a decline in the terms of trade of just four per cent would turn the surplus into a $1.9 billion deficit next year and $5.1 billion the year after.
As everyone who's managed a household budget knows, shuffling costs from one year to another, as the Treasurer has, doesn't make them go away; and a tiny surplus in one year doesn't outweigh huge deficits in other years.
Even if the Treasurer is right, it will take 100 years of Swan surpluses to repay just four years of Swan deficits.
Mr President, I know what it's like to deliver sustained surpluses because I was part of a government that did; indeed, sixteen members of my frontbench were ministers in the government that delivered the four biggest surpluses in Australian history.
By contrast, no one will know whether the Treasurer has actually delivered his micro-surplus till late next year; is it any wonder that he seems to be suffering from surplus envy.
If the budget really was coming into surplus, it stands to reason that the government would have no further need to borrow.
If the government really thinks that a surplus can be delivered, as opposed to being merely forecast, why is it proposing to add a further $50 billion to the Commonwealth's debt ceiling?
I challenge the government to stop hiding this massive lift in Australia's credit card limit in the Appropriation Bills and to present it, honestly, openly to the parliament as a separate measure where it will have to be debated and justified on its merits.
Mr President, just two months ago, the Prime Minister said that “if you are against cutting company tax, you are against economic growth. If you are against economic growth, then you are against jobs”.
In dumping her commitment to company tax cuts, the Prime Minister has reinforced her trust problem: why should this year's budget commitments be any more reliable than previous ones, especially when so much is such obvious spin.
The Treasurer boasted about his aged care changes but failed to mention that everyone who is not a full pensioner faces up to $10,000 a year more for in-home aged care and up to $25,000 a year more for residential care.
He hailed the delivery of the National Disability Insurance Scheme but neglected to mention that it was short-changed $2.9 billion from the Productivity Commission's version.
He trumpeted more money for the states' dental schemes but not his plans to abolish the Medicare dental scheme.
He highlighted more spending on the Pacific Highway but not the get-out clause that it has to be matched 50:50 by NSW, not 80:20 as agreed with the previous NSW Labor government.
The Treasurer insisted that military spending could be cut, breaking more commitments in the process, without harming our defence capability even though defence spending, as a percentage of GDP, will soon be at the lowest level since 1938.
Mr President, the Australian people deserve better than this and they're looking to the Coalition for reassurance that there is a better way.
The Coalition has a plan for economic growth; it starts with abolishing the carbon tax and abolishing the mining tax.
Abolishing the mining tax will make Australia a better place to invest and let the world know that we don't punish success.
Abolishing the carbon tax would be the swiftest contribution government could make to relieving cost of living pressure; it would take the pressure off power prices, gas prices and rates; it would prevent more pressure on transport prices.
Abolishing the carbon tax would make every job in our economy more secure.
It would help to ensure that we keep strong manufacturing, vibrant agriculture, growing knowledge-based industries and a resilient services sector – as well as a mining industry – in a vigorous five pillar economy.
Mr President, Australians understand that a tax reduction to compensate for a tax increase is not a real cut; they know that the only sustainable tax cuts are based on a permanent decrease in the size of government or a permanent increase in the wealth of our nation.
Under the Coalition, there will be tax cuts without a carbon tax because we'll find the savings to pay for them.
The Howard government turned a $10 billion budget black hole into consistent surpluses averaging almost one per cent of GDP; it turned $96 billion in net Commonwealth debt into $70 billion in net assets.
The Coalition identified $50 billion in savings before the last election and will do at least as much again before the next one.
It's not as if savings are impossible to find.
Why should the government commit nearly $6 billion to power stations that the carbon tax would otherwise send bankrupt rather than just drop the carbon tax?
Why spend billions to put people out of work rather than into it?
Why does the Defence Materiel Organisation need 7000 bureaucrats especially when major equipment purchases are being put off?
Why does Australia need to spend millions to join the African Development Bank?
Why spend $50 billion on a National Broadband Network so customers can subsequently spend almost three times their current monthly fee for speeds they might not need?
Why dig up every street when fibre to the node could more swiftly and more affordably deliver 21st century broadband?
Why put so much into the NBN when the same investment could more than duplicate the Pacific Highway, Sydney's M5 and the road between Hobart and Launceston; build Sydney's M4 East, the Melbourne Metro, and Brisbane's Cross City Rail; plus upgrade Perth Airport and still leave about $10 billion for faster broadband?
And why spend another $1.7 billion on border protection cost blow outs because the government is too proud to admit that John Howard's policies worked?
Mr President, the Treasurer boasts that our economy will be 16 per cent bigger by mid 2014 than it was in mid 2008 before the Global Financial Crisis.
What he doesn't mention is that over the previous six years growth was 22 per cent; and over the six years before that – spanning the Asian Financial Crisis, the Tech Wreck and September 11 – the Howard government achieved growth of 26 per cent while still implementing far-reaching economic reforms like the GST.
Strong economic growth will be the over-riding aim of the next Coalition government; we've done it before and can do it again.
We'll cut business red tape costs by at least a billion dollars a year by requiring each government agency to quantify the costs of its reporting and compliance rules and delivering an annual savings target.
Public service bonuses won't be paid unless these targets are met.
There'll be a once-in-a-generation commission of audit to review all the arms and agencies of government to ensure that taxpayers are getting good value for money.
We will respond carefully but decisively to the problems that the community has identified in the Fair Work Act so that small businesses and their staff can get a fair go and our productivity can increase.
We'll restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the successor of the Cole Royal Commission which I established, as a strong cop on the beat and the guarantor of $6 billion a year in productivity improvements in a vital industry.
And Mr President, where union officials and business people commit the same offence they should face the same penalty; what's more, unlike the government, we didn't need the Fair Work report into the Member for Dobell to realise that some unions are corrupt boys clubs.
We'll work with the states to put local people in charge of public schools and public hospitals because they should be as responsive to their patients and to their parents as businesses are to their customers.
Our objective is to bring to the running of public schools and hospitals the “have a go mindset” that the move to the Job Network, that I oversaw, brought to employment services under the former government.
Mr President, the Coalition wants more Australians to be economic as well as cultural contributors.
That's why work-for-the-dole, or some other serious undertaking, should be mandatory for long-term unemployed people under 50.
Welfare quarantining for long term unemployed people should be extended from the Northern Territory to the rest of the country.
Where unskilled work is readily available, unemployment benefits should be suspended for fit people under 30 – as recommended by Warren Mundine, a former Labor Party National President.
And yes, there will be a fair-dinkum paid parental leave scheme, giving mothers six months at full pay with their babies, to bring Australia into the 21st century, finally, and to join the 35 other countries whose parental leave schemes are based on people's pay.
Parental leave is a workplace entitlement not a welfare benefit so should be paid at people's real wage, like sick leave and holiday pay.
Plus there'll be a Productivity Commission inquiry to consider how childcare can be made more flexible and more effective, including through in-home care, so that more women can participate in a growing economy if that's their choice.
I will continue to work with Noel Pearson to help shift the welfare culture that's sapped Aboriginal self-respect and with Twiggy Forrest to get more Aboriginal people into the workforce.
I will keep spending a week every year volunteering in Aboriginal communities and I hope that a tribe of public servants will soon have to come with me to gain more actual experience of the places we are all trying to improve.
That's what good social policy does: it empowers people to make the most of their lives and to prove to themselves what they can do rather than what they can't.
That way, it reinforces good economic policy.
Mr President, in a productive and competitive economy, it should be easier to get things built, provided they meet the best environmental standards – so the Coalition will allow the states to be a one-stop-shop for environmental approvals.
The Coalition will reward conservation-minded businesses with incentives to be more efficient users of energy and lower carbon emitters.
Our policy means better soils, more trees and smarter technology – unlike the carbon tax which is socialism masquerading as environmentalism.
There will be a standing Green Army, an expanded version of the Green Corps that I put in place in government, to tackle our landcare problems so that beaches and waterways can be cleaner and land more productive.
The next Coalition government will fund infrastructure in accordance with a rational national plan based on published cost-benefit analyses.
We'll also find the most responsible ways to get more private investment into priority projects so that the new roads, public transport systems and water storages that we need aren't so dependent on the taxpayer.
Mr President, too often, government's focus is on the urgent rather than the important; on what drives tomorrow's headline rather than on what changes our country for the better.
We are supposed to be adapting to the Asian century, yet Australians' study of foreign languages, especially Asian languages, is in precipitous decline.
The proportion of Year 12 students studying a foreign language has dropped from about 40 per cent in the 1960s to about 12 per cent now.
There are now only about 300 Year 12 Mandarin students who aren't of Chinese-heritage.
Since 2001, there has been a 21 per cent decline in the numbers studying Japanese and a 40 per cent decline in the numbers studying Indonesian.
If Australians are to make their way in the world, we cannot rely on other people speaking our language.
Starting in pre-school every student should have an exposure to foreign languages.
This will be a generational shift because foreign language speakers will have to be mobilised and because teachers take time to be trained.
Still, the next Coalition government will make a strong start.
My commitment tonight is to work urgently with the states to ensure that at least 40 per cent of Year 12 students are once more taking a language other than English within a decade.
Mr President, the Coalition can find responsible savings to cover tax cuts without a carbon tax and emissions cuts without a carbon tax because, at least until the budget has returned to strong surplus, our plan for a stronger economy and a fairer society involves more efficiency rather than more spending.
Mr President, there is little wrong with our country that a change of government wouldn't improve.
On day one, a new government would order the carbon tax repeal and accept Nauru's standing offer to reopen the detention centre.
Within a week, the navy would have new orders to turn around illegal boats.
Within a month, the commission of audit would be making government more efficient.
Within three months, the parliament would be dealing with carbon tax, mining tax and border protection legislation.
Within a year, national infrastructure priorities would be agreed and there would be more cranes over our cities.
Every day, with every fibre of my being, I would be striving to help Australians be their best selves.
Mr President, as someone whose grandparents were proud to be working class, I can feel the embarrassment of decent Labor people at the failures of this government.
As Ben Chifley famously said, the goal of public life, our “light on the hill” should not be making someone prime minister or putting an extra sixpence in people's pockets but rather “working for the benefit of mankind, not just here but wherever we can lend a helping hand”.
I regret to say that the deeper message of this week's budget is that the Labor Party now only stands for staying in office.
Everyone knows that the Prime Minister is a clever politician but who really trusts her to keep any commitments?
She said she'd never challenge the former Prime Minister but did.
She said there'd never be a carbon tax but has imposed one because, she claimed, the Greens made her do it.
The Prime Minister told Andrew Wilkie: “there will be mandatory pre-commitment under the government I lead” but now tells clubs and pubs “there will be no mandatory pre-commitment under the government I lead”.
This week, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have constantly invoked Labor values.
Were they Labor values the Prime Minister showed in carpet-bombing Kevin Rudd's reputation; or in turfing Harry Jenkins as speaker for Peter Slipper; or in protecting Craig Thomson, the Member for Dobell, to this very day despite Fair Work Australia's findings?
Because by a government's actions will its values be judged.
Budget week hasn't just been about the budget – under the circumstances how could it be; it's been about the Prime Minister's integrity and judgment.
As long as Labor keeps voting in this parliament to protect the Member for Dobell and keeps paying his legal fees, his suspension from the caucus won't end the sleaze factor paralysing this government.
Decent Labor people shouldn't be bluffed by the deal with independents into keeping a leader who is trashing a once honourable political party.
Before this government dies of shame, it should find a leader who isn't fatally compromised by the need to defend the indefensible.
Then this parliament can once more be a proper contest of ideas between those who see bigger government and those who see empowered citizens as the best guarantee of our nation's future.
As budget week has demonstrated, minority governments are too busy managing the parliament to manage the economy properly. While they're surviving, not governing our country is drifting, not flourishing.
With each broken promise, with each peremptory change, with each tawdry revelation, with each embarrassing explanation, the credibility of this government and the standing of this parliament is diminished.
But a shrunken government diminishes us all; that's why our country needs a change.
I want to reassure the people of Australia that it does not have to be like this; we are a great people let down by bad government that will pass.
There is a better way.
The Coalition stands ready to restore hope, reward and opportunity so that, once more, all Australians can face a bright future with confidence.
… it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.
We cannot face the challenges of the future with the tools of the past.
A surplus provides our best defence against dramatic changes in the global economy.
Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Report:
Exposure Drafts of Australian Privacy Amendment Legislation: Part 1 – Australian Privacy Principles
May 2012
Summary table of Government response to recommendations
The following tables summarise the Government's response to the recommendations from the Committee's report.
Of the Committee's twenty nine recommendations:
References in this table to chapters and recommendation numbers generally reflect references used in the Committee's report.
CHAPTER 3 – General issues
Recommendation 1
3.30 The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
re-assess the draft Australian Privacy Principles with a view to improving clarity through the use of simpler and more concise terms and to avoid the repetition of requirements that are substantially similar.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government will consider options to improve overall clarity. In particular the Government will review the drafting of the Australian Privacy Principles to avoid repetition of requirements that are substantially similar.
Recommendation 2
3.32 The committee recommends that reconsideration be given to the inclusion of agency specific provisions in the Australian Privacy Principles in the light of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner's suggestion that agency specific matters should, in the first instance, be dealt with in portfolio legislation.
Response: Not accept
The Government does not agree that it is appropriate for all specific agency activities to be included in portfolio legislation. While portfolio legislation will normally provide the lawful authority for an agency to undertake certain powers, functions and activities, it is also necessary in exceptional circumstances to take the additional step of including specific exceptions in the APPs to make clear that specific activities of agencies will not contravene APPs obligations.
Some of the exceptions have been included to provide additional certainty about the operation of the APPs on legitimate activities undertaken overseas, including those in urgent or emergency situations. Others preserve existing exceptions in the Information Privacy Principles (IPPs), eg that enable the collection, use/disclosure etc of personal information for law enforcement purposes.
In the case of the Defence Force exceptions in APP 3(3)(f) and APP 8(2)(i), they are intended to clarify the circumstances where the collection of sensitive information may occur without consent outside Australia, and where personal information generally may be disclosed to an overseas recipient. The Defence Force undertakes a range of activities in other countries that involve the collection and disclosure of personal information (sometimes in remote and emergency situations) and it is important that there is certainty about its ability to undertake these activities without breaching the APPs. For readability purposes, it is also important to clearly outline how these activities interact with APPs obligations.
Similarly, in the case of agencies with diplomatic and consular functions or activities, there are exceptions in APP 3(3)(e), APP 6(2)(f) and APP 8(2)(h), that are intended to clarify that such agencies can collect, use/disclose etc such information both within and outside Australia. Government officials from agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) who are based overseas regularly collect and disclose to their agencies in Australia personal information as part of its diplomatic and consular functions. It would be impractical for DFAT and other agencies to seek the consent of foreign government officials and other individuals, about whom these agencies report to Australia, to collect and disclose their personal information to the Australian Government. Moreover, the act of seeking this consent would undermine the success of DFAT's core operations by revealing to the subject of such information flows that they are occurring. Similarly, it is necessary for government officials based overseas to report to DFAT in Australia in discharging its consular responsibilities, especially in the event of an overseas crisis where overseas officials are expected to assist Australians. The exceptions in APP 3(3)(e), APP 6(2)(f) and APP 8(2)(h) are not new exemptions to existing privacy laws, but seek to clarify the interactions between DFAT's and other agencies' existing functions and the APPs.
As with the Defence Force exception, it is important that there is certainty about the ability of these agencies to undertake these activities without breaching the APPs. For readability purposes, it is also important to clearly outline how these activities interact with APPs obligations. The Government will work with the OAIC to develop appropriate guidelines on the exceptions relating to diplomatic and consular functions and activities.
It is important to note that certain Commonwealth agencies, such as CrimTrac, operate in a unique fashion within the APP framework. In the majority of circumstances, CrimTrac operates as the custodian of personal and sensitive information; it is not the primary collection agencies. The allowances at APP 3 (3)(d) will ensure that CrimTrac can continue operating effective national sharing solutions that support law enforcement and policing across Australia, without breach.
On the general exemptions for law enforcement activities, these already exist in the IPPs (eg IPP 10(1)(d) and IPP 11(1)(e). It is important that these are retained to ensure that law enforcement bodies have clarity that the activities they can undertake with personal information at the moment will continue to be the case under the new APPs.
There has been careful consideration given to the inclusion and breadth of agency specific provisions in the proposed APPs and the Government considers that each is justifiable.
Recommendation 3
3.73 The committee recommends that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner develop guidance on the interpretation of 'personal information' as a matter of priority.
Response: Support
The Government agrees that OAIC guidance on the interpretation of the 'personal information' would be useful in assisting entities and individuals to understand the application and scope of the new definition, especially given the contextual nature of the definition.
The Government encourages the development of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
Recommendation 4
3.90 The committee recommends that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner develop guidance on the meaning of 'consent' in the context of the Privacy Act as a matter of priority.
Response: Support
The Government agrees that OAIC guidance on the meaning of 'consent' would be useful to provide clarity to entities and individuals about the application and operation of that term. The Government notes that this is consistent with ALRC recommendation 19-1 that also recommends that the OAIC should develop and publish further guidance about what is required of agencies and organisations to obtain an individual's consent under the Privacy Act.
The Government encourages the development of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
Recommendation 5
3.114 The committee recommends that the Government, in consultation with the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, give consideration to the provision of a transition period for entities to fully comply with the implementation of the new Privacy Act.
Response: Accept
The Government agrees with the Committee that the introduction of the new Australian Privacy Principles will require entities to develop and implement changes to practices and policies.
The Government will therefore consult with the OAIC and other relevant stakeholders in determining an appropriate transition period.
CHAPTER 4 – Australian Privacy Principle 1 – open and transparent management of personal information
Recommendation 6
4.45 The committee recommends that a note be added at the end of APP 1(5) which indicates that the form of an entity's privacy policy 'as is appropriate' will usually be an online privacy policy.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government notes the Committee's concerns on APP 1(5) and will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation.
The Government also notes that the Committee considered that the provision should be re-drafted to clarify that privacy policies must be available to both individuals and entities (para 4.44). The Government will also look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation on that issue.
CHAPTER 5 – Australian Privacy Principle 2 – anonymity and pseudonymity
Recommendation 7
5.37 The committee recommends that the wording of APP 2(2)(a) be reconsidered to ensure that the exception to the anonymity and pseudonymity principle cannot be applied inappropriately.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government will reconsider the wording of APP 2(2)(a) and consider options to clarify that the 'required or authorised by or under an Australian law' exception applies at the time that the identification of the individual is required by the entity.
Further, as noted in the Committee's report (para 5.32), the Government accepted an ALRC recommendation (16-2) that encourages the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC to clarify when an act or practice will be required or authorised by or under law.
The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
CHAPTER 6 – Australian Privacy Principle 3 – collection of solicited personal information
Recommendation 8
6.35 The committee recommends that in relation to the collection of solicited information principle (APP 3), further consideration be given to:
Response: Accept in part
The Government does not support the removal of the term 'reasonably' from the 'necessary' test in APP 3.
The requirement on entities to collect only personal information that is reasonably necessary to their functions, requires the collection of personal information to be justifiable on objective grounds, rather than on the subjective views of the entity itself. This is intended to expressly clarify that the test is objective (rather than implied) and to enhance privacy protection.
Making it clear that the necessity of the collection must be reasonable is intended to reduce instances of inappropriate collection of personal information by entities.
The Government notes the Committee's view that it remains to be persuaded that the inclusion of 'reasonably' provides a higher, or even the same, level of privacy protection as the wording in NPP 1. To give reassurance to the Committee, this will be made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum when the final bill is introduced in Parliament.
The Government agrees that the application of the 'directly related to' test to organisations should be reconsidered. The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation.
CHAPTER 7 – Australian Privacy Principle 4 – receiving unsolicited information
Recommendation 9
7.44 The committee recommends that the term 'no longer personal information' contained in APP 4(4)(b) be clarified.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government agrees that further clarification about the term 'no longer personal information' would be beneficial for entities in applying APP 4.
The Government considers this should come from guidance developed by the OAIC. Such guidance would provide clarification about the process of rendering personal information 'non-identifiable', or the steps necessary to destroy personal information. This flexibility is necessary because de-identification procedures may evolve over time and may differ depending on the form the information is held in (eg electronic v non-electronic). In addition, OAIC guidance will be useful in outlining how to destroy or render non-identifiable personal information that forms part of other information or records (eg historical records).
The OAIC guidance would also be useful in advising about the other elements in APP 4(4) that are relevant to the requirement to destroy or de-identify, ie how to apply the 'as soon as practicable', and 'lawful and reasonable to do so' test in APP 4(4).
The Government notes that this is consistent with ALRC recommendation 28-5 (which the Government accepted) that the OAIC should develop and publish guidance about the destruction of personal information, or rendering such information non-identifiable.
The Government encourages the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
CHAPTER 10 – Australian Privacy Principle 7 – direct marketing
Recommendation 10
10.46 The committee recommends that the drafting of APP 7 be reconsidered with the aim of improving structure and clarity to ensure that the intent of the principle is not undermined.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government notes the Committee's general concerns about the drafting of APP 7 and will consider options to improve clarity and structure.
Recommendation 11
10.60 The committee recommends that the note to APP 7(1) be redrafted to better reflect the position outlined in the Government response.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation to clarify the operation of the 'Direct Marketing' Principle to agencies.
Recommendation 12
10.66 The committee recommends that the Australian Information Commissioner develop guidance in relation to direct marketing to vulnerable people.
Response: Support
The Government agrees that OAIC guidance about direct marketing to vulnerable people would be beneficial to entities in understanding their privacy responsibilities when engaging in direct marketing to individuals such as children.
The Government notes that this is consistent with ALRC recommendation 26.7(e) (which the Government supported) that the OAIC should develop and publish guidance to assist organisations in complying with the 'Direct Marketing' principle including 'the obligations of organisations involved in direct marketing under the Privacy Act in dealing with vulnerable people'.
The Government accepted that recommendation and encouraged the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
Recommendation 13
10.81 The committee recommends that the structure of APP 7(2) and APP 7(3) in relation to APP 7(3)(a)(i) be reconsidered.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government notes the Committee's concerns about the structure of APP 7(2) and APP 7(3) and the need to consider further simplification of these provisions. The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation.
CHAPTER 11 – Australian Privacy Principle 8 – cross-border disclosure of personal information and sections 19 and 20
Recommendation 14
11.41 The committee recommends that a note be added to the end of APP 8 making reference to section 20 of the new Privacy Act.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government agrees that there would be benefit in outlining the interaction between APP 8 (cross border disclosure of information) and section 20 (Acts and practices of overseas recipients of personal information). The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation.
Recommendation 15
11.53 The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet develop explanatory material to clarify the application of the term 'disclosure' in Australian Privacy Principle 8.
Response: Accept
The Government will provide more explanation about the application of the term 'disclosure' in APP 8 in the Explanatory Memorandum of the finalised Bill.
Recommendation 16
11.64 The committee recommends that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner develop guidance on the types of contractual arrangements required to comply with APP 8 and that guidance be available concurrently with the new Privacy Act.
Response: Support
The Government supports this recommendation and notes it is consistent with the Government response to ALRC recommendation 31-7 that the OAIC should develop and publish guidance on certain matters including 'the issues that should be addressed as part of a contractual agreement with an overseas recipient of personal information'.
The Government encourages the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
Recommendation 17
11.103 The committee recommends that, when the Australian Government enters into an international agreement relating to information sharing which will constitute an exception under APP 8(2)(d), the agency or the relevant minister table in the Parliament, as soon as practicable following the commencement of that agreement, a statement indicating:
Response: Not accept
The Government does not agree that the tabling in Parliament of an international agreement relating to information sharing is warranted.
As noted by the Committee, the Parliament is able to scrutinise treaties through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Lower level agreements are subject to scrutiny and accountability by the Executive.
In some instances, international partners may not enter into agreements where the terms are to be made publicly available. In addition, the provisions of some agreements should remain confidential where disclosure could be reasonably expected to cause damage to international relations, the enforcement of law and protection of public safety.
Recommendation 18
11.105 The committee recommends that further consideration be given to the wording of the law enforcement exception in APP 8(2)(g) to ensure that the intention of the provision is clear.
Response: Not accept
The Government does not consider it necessary to further clarify the law enforcement exception in APP 8(2)(g), which is available to Australian law enforcement bodies for the disclosure of information to overseas bodies 'similar' to Australian law enforcement bodies, where it is necessary for law enforcement activities by, or on behalf or, an Australian law enforcement body.
The Committee noted concerns raised by the OAIC that the term 'similar' could result in the exception being broadly interpreted.
The Government believes the use of the term 'similar' is sufficiently clear and narrow to ensure that an enforcement body can only disclosure personal information to an overseas recipient that is a like body. There are additional safeguards that require the enforcement body to 'reasonably believe' that disclosure is 'reasonably necessary for one or more 'enforcement related activities' before disclosure can occur.
Recommendation 19
11.120 The committee recommends that section 19, relating to the extraterritorial application of the Act, be reconsidered to provide clarity as to the policy intent of the provision.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation to provide clarity as to the operation of proposed s 19 (extraterritorial operation) of the Act.
Recommendation 20
11.133 The committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet develop explanatory material in relation to the application of the accountability provisions of section 20.
Response: Accept
The Government agrees that there would be benefit in providing additional explanation about the application of section 20, and will therefore include this in the Explanatory Memorandum to the final Bill when it is prepared.
CHAPTER 12 – Australian Privacy Principle 9 – adoption, use or disclosure of government related identifiers
Recommendation 21
12.33 The committee recommends that the term 'reasonably necessary' be replaced with 'necessary' in APP 9(2)(a), (b) and (f).
Response: Not accept
The Government notes the Committee's view that any exception to the identifiers principle should only be applied where it has been objectively determined that it is necessary for a permitted purpose. The Government believes the inclusion of 'reasonably' in the current wording of the exceptions in APP 9 expressly (rather than impliedly) clarifies that the test for disclosure is objective. This will have the effect of enhancing privacy protection by encouraging more appropriate disclosures of government related identifiers by organisations.
The Government notes the Committee's comments elsewhere in the report about whether the use of 'reasonably' when used with 'necessary' provides a sufficiently high level of privacy protection compared to the existing NPPs, where an objective test is implied. To give reassurance to the Committee, it will be made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum to the final bill that the use of 'reasonably' is intended to confirm the use of an objective test, and therefore to provide the same level of protection.
Recommendation 22
12.38 The committee recommends that the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner undertake a review of agency voluntary data-matching guidelines, including emerging issues with the use of government identifiers, and that the outcome inform further consideration of the extension of APP 9 to agencies.
Response: Support
The Government believes a review of agency voluntary data-matching guidelines would be a useful basis for any future consideration about APP 9.
The Government notes that the Information Commissioner has an existing function in relation to interferences with privacy to undertake research into, and to monitor developments in, data processing and computer technology (including data-matching and data-linkage) to ensure that any adverse effects of such developments on the privacy of individuals are minimised, and to report to the Minister the results of such research and monitoring (s 27(1)(c) of the Privacy Act).
The Government will encourage the review of agency voluntary data-matching guidelines by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to review the guidelines and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in reviewing the guidelines.
CHAPTER 13 – Australian Privacy Principle 10 – quality of personal information
Recommendation 23
13.35 The committee recommends that proposed APP 10(2), pertaining to the quality of personal information disclosed by an entity, be re-drafted to make clear the intended use of the term 'relevant'.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation to make it clear that the 'relevance' requirement in APP 10(2) relates to the purpose of use or disclosure of the personal information.
CHAPTER 14 – Australian Privacy Principle 11 – security of personal information
Recommendation 24
14.36 The committee recommends that a definition of the term 'interference' used in proposed APP 11(1)(a), pertaining the security of personal information, be provided or a note included in the legislation to explain its meaning in this context.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government agrees that further clarity could be provided on the meaning of 'interference' in APP 11(1)(a) and will therefore look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation.
Recommendation 25
14.38 The committee recommends that the Australian Information Commissioner provide guidance on the meaning of 'destruction' in relation to personal information no longer required and the appropriate methods of destruction of that information.
Response: Support
The Government supports this recommendation and notes that it is consistent with the Government response to ALRC recommendation 28-5 that the OAIC should develop and publish guidance about the destruction of personal information, or rendering such information non-identifiable.
The Government encourages the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
CHAPTER 15 – Australian Privacy Principle 12 – access to personal information
Recommendation 26
15.43 The committee recommends that, in relation to the proposed exceptions provided for in APP 12(3):
Response: Accept in principle
The Government agrees that there would be value in providing further clarification about the operation of the exceptions in APP 12(3).
The Government supports the development of OAIC guidance about the operation of the 'frivolous and vexatious' exception to assist in addressing concerns that it may be used to deny an individual access to their own personal information, eg in the circumstances identified in the Committee's report relating to health information or where individuals might be in conflict with a particular organisation. The Government encourages the development and publication of appropriate guidance by the OAIC. The Government notes that the allocation of OAIC's resources to develop guidance and its timing is a matter for the OAIC. The Government will encourage the OAIC to liaise with entities in developing guidance.
The Government agrees with the Committee's view that further clarity would be beneficial about the stage at which the negotiations exception in APP 12(3)(e) could be invoked. The Government will consider options for providing this additional clarity in the Explanatory Memorandum to the final bill.
The Government agrees that it would be beneficial for further clarity to be provided about the interaction between APP 12(3)(j), 12(5) and 12(9) with a view to ensuring that the rights currently provided for in NPP 6.2 in the Privacy Act are not diminished. The Government will consider how further clarification can be best achieved.
Recommendation 27
15.46 The committee recommends that a note be added to proposed APP 12(4)(a) to clarify that a reasonable period of time in which an organisation must respond to a request for access would not usually be longer than 30 days.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government considers this would best be achieved through OAIC guidance which notes that, if granting access is straight forward, it would often be appropriate for an organisation to grant access within 14 days, or if giving it is more complicated, within 30 days.
Recommendation 28
15.47 The committee recommends that APP 12(8) be amended so that it is made clear that access charges imposed by organisations should only be charged at a level reasonably necessary to recoup costs incurred by the entity.
Response: Accept in principle
The Government notes that this provision is based on existing NPP 6.4. There has been no suggestion that, in practice, NPP 6.4 been applied unreasonably by organisations. However, the addition of a new requirement for organisations to make an assessment about charges reasonably necessary to recoup costs would be a useful measure to prevent unreasonable amounts being charged. The Government will make it clear in the Explanatory Memorandum that an excessive charge amount would include recouping costs above the actual amount incurred by the organisation.
CHAPTER 16 – Australian Privacy Principle 13 – correction of personal information
Recommendation 29
16.34 That the decision to omit the term 'misleading' in APP 13, relating to the correction of personal information, be reconsidered.
Response: Accept
The Government notes that the Committee remains concerned about the exclusion of the term 'misleading' in APP 13.
The Government will look to develop appropriate amendments to the draft legislation or include additional explanation in explanatory material. The Government will also consider consistency of terminology with APP 10 which relates to the quality of personal information. Under that APP, entities have to ensure the personal information they use or disclose is accurate, up-to-date, complete and relevant.
Government Response to the Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Inquiry into Australia's relationship with the countries of Africa: Recommendations
Government to Government Links
Recommendation 1
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should undertake a comprehensive review of Australia's diplomatic representation in Africa with a view to opening an additional post in Francophone Africa.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee.
The Government sees value in the establishment of an additional diplomatic post in Francophone Africa. The composition of the network of diplomatic posts overseas is under constant review and the Government will pursue the establishment of a new post in the region as soon as possible.
Recommendation 2
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should, pending the implementation of Recommendation 1, increase the number of Australia-based French speaking diplomatic staff in its West African High Commissions. They should have specific responsibility for covering Australia's interests in Francophone West African countries.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee.
The Government recognises the importance of French-language skills for diplomatic staff at posts in Francophone Africa and has increased the number of French language-designated speaking positions in West Africa. There are now four French language-designated positions in Australia's missions to Abuja and Accra – 50 per cent of Australia's positions to these posts, including the Head of Mission in Abuja. Australia's mission to Paris is now accredited to five African countries which adds further to the number of diplomatic staff with French language skills working in Africa.
Recommendation 3
As a short to medium term measure, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should increase the number of honorary consuls appointed to represent Australia in African countries.
The Government agrees with the recommendation of the Committee.
The Government has appointed four new honorary consuls since the Committee's Inquiry, several others are in the process of appointment and the Government will continue to appoint more where appropriate. There are now five Honorary Consulates operating in Africa: Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, Nigeria (Lagos), and Uganda. One other (Cape Town in South Africa) is temporarily closed and five more (Cameroon, Namibia, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia) are at various stages in the process of being established.
Recommendation 4
The Government should increase the number of Australian parliamentary delegations to specific African countries particularly to those with increasing significance to Australia.
The Government supports the recommendation of the Committee.
Australia's Aid Program
Recommendation 5
AusAID should provide funding assistance to capacity building programs such as that conducted by the Australian Leadership Program for Africa and similar organisations.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation to support capacity building and leadership development.
AusAID is providing Africans with a range of capacity building and leadership development opportunities in Australia and in Africa. African candidates are eligible to apply for Australian Leadership Awards (scholarships). In 2011, for the first time, 18 African candidates were selected to receive Australian Leadership Awards that will commence in 2012. These are Masters-level courses with an additional leadership component. Australian organisations, including the Australian Leadership Program for Africa, can apply for funding under the Australia Leadership Award Fellowships (ALAF) Program to host fellows from African countries for up to three months for research, training, work attachments and mentoring. In 2011, 98 African candidates were supported through the Program. These and other Australia Awards Alumni are also provided with leadership and capacity-building support upon return to their home country. The Government has committed to offering up to 1,000 Australia Awards per year by 2013.
Recommendation 6
AusAID should increase funding for the Australian Business Volunteers program so that it can expand coverage to African countries.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
Australian Business Volunteers (ABV) is part of a consortium - with Austraining International - that is a core partner of the Australian Government's recently launched Australian Volunteers for International Development (AVID) initiative. Through the AVID initiative, AusAID is expanding support for volunteers in Africa including through the ABV–Austraining consortium. Feasibility and planning assessments are currently underway for possible ABV placements in Africa.
Recommendation 7
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism should establish and fund a special unit tasked with establishing a regulatory framework model for the mining and resources sector which African countries could consider adopting according to their requirements.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation to provide assistance to African countries in mining governance.
On 25 October 2011, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the Prime Minister announced the Government's new Mining for Development Initiative. The Initiative will benefit a range of developing countries, including African countries.
The flagship activity under the initiative, the International Mining for Development Centre, will, amongst other things, assist in capacity building for personnel in developing countries in the development of regulatory frameworks for application in the mining sector in Africa (and elsewhere).
An additional component of the Initiative is the establishment of a Government Linkages program. This program will enable federal, state and local government agencies to work with counterparts in developing countries, including Africa, to share expertise including on Australian regulatory frameworks and regulations. This will assist African countries establish and refine their own legal mining frameworks.
In addition to this new initiative, the Government, through the Australian aid program, is already providing assistance to support development of regulatory frameworks in Africa's mining sector, including with the assistance of the Queensland and Western Australian State Governments. In 2011, Australia hosted three study tours on mining regulation and governance for 80 African mining officials from 17 countries. Australia also provided 70 short course awards covering a range of mining regulatory issues and is providing technical assistance to a number of countries to assist them reform and strengthen their mining regulatory frameworks.
Recommendation 8
DFAT should coordinate regular meetings between AusAID, NGOs, and Australian resource companies engaged in Africa, with a view to facilitating aid and development delivery cooperation to take advantage of their differing and complementary strengths.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
The Government, through DFAT and other relevant agencies including AusAID and DRET is presently engaged in dialogue with resource companies and NGOs on their common interests in engagement in Africa. This includes dialogue on future opportunities to work together, where this makes sense.
In its response to the Independent Review of Aid Effectiveness, the Government emphasised that the fundamental purpose of the aid program is to help people overcome poverty. The Government also outlined that the aid program will be delivered through fewer – but larger – programs in fewer sectors. A range of relatively small partnerships with a number of mining companies focussed on areas proximate to their mine sites does not meet the principles outlined in the Government's response to the aid review. The Government nonetheless agrees that there are some opportunities for leveraging development impact through partnerships with the mining industry.
As part of the 'Mining for Development Initiative', the Government announced $22 million for a Community and Social Development program which will support partnerships to improve social, environmental and economic outcomes related to mining in developing countries, including in Africa.
The Government will continue to use events such as Africa Down Under in Perth and the Mining Indaba in South Africa to bring together the government, private, academic and NGO sectors to network and share experiences on development and sustainable mining principles and best practices.
Education Links
Recommendation 9
AusAID's scholarships program should include providing scholarships to African students to undertake tertiary education in Africa. This could involve study at African universities and at Australian universities with links with Africa such as Monash South Africa.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
The Government's Australia Awards (scholarships) Program already provides opportunities for post-graduate in-Africa study, and therefore recognises the sound principle of supporting nationals of a country to study locally and contextualise their studies.
The Program provides a range of post-graduate Short Course Awards (for periods of study, research and work attachment of up to three months) in various technical areas. These courses may be delivered either in Australia or Africa (or a mix of both) through partnerships between Australian registered training organisations and African institutions. The research component of Masters and PhD Awards (up to 12 months) may also be undertaken in Africa.
One of the aims of the Australia Awards Program is to build links with Australia through providing in-Australia learning opportunities at the post-graduate level. This also assures the quality of the education provided. Post-graduate study is an area of weakness for many African universities. Australia's tertiary education institutions are highly regarded by African countries as are Australian qualifications.
Recipients of Australia Awards are required to return to their home country on completion of their study program to apply their learning to the benefit of their home country. AusAID maintains contact with Australia Awards alumni and provides them with access to professional development opportunities in-Africa.
Recommendation 10
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations should:
- undertake research, education and training functions;
- engage with industry;
- raise the profile of African Studies in Australia; and
- provide value to both government and non-government end-users.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation and the recent efforts of Australian universities to improve coordination of educational engagement with Africa through the establishment of an Australia Africa Universities Network.
DEEWR is unable to fund the establishment of a Centre of Africa Studies at this time. Mechanisms and priorities for supporting increased educational engagement with Africa and with other regions and countries will be considered in the development of the five year national strategy to support the sustainability and quality of the international education sector.
Trade and Investment
Recommendation 11
The Government should increase the number of Austrade offices and personnel that are based in Sub-Saharan Africa.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
In May 2011 Trade Minister Craig Emerson announced a comprehensive reform of the Australian Trade Commission, Austrade, aimed at better meeting the needs of Australian businesses.
The government recognises that emerging markets across Africa offer growing prospects for Australian businesses. As part of the reform, Austrade will strengthen its presence in Sub Saharan Africa as resources become available.
Recommendation 12
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship should expand the issuing of e-visas across Africa, with priority to establishing the service in countries where there is the potential to expand trade, academic, research and other links.
The Government agrees in principle with the Committee's recommendation.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) supports the objective of expanding links with African countries through facilitating access to visas. All African countries have access to eVisa facilities for lodgement of applications for Long Stay (Temporary) Business visas and General Skilled Migration visas. In addition, Botswana, Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa have eVisa access to applications for select student visas.
Fast tracking and label free facilitation arrangements are now in place for low risk applicants such as Government ministers, senior Government officials and senior business people. These applications are processed within 48 hours and without the requirement to supply a passport. These fast arrangements were developed in consultation with Austrade and have been widely used by Australian mining companies operating in Africa.
Future eVisa access for other types of visas is being considered but will be subject to technical considerations and risk assessment. Assessment of risk is based on a country's visa grant/refusal rates, incidence of visa holders not returning to their countries, overstayer numbers and illegal worker notices issued.
It should be noted that because of high rates of document and identity fraud in various African countries, all applications, whether they are lodged electronically or physically, require the provision of supporting documentation which adds to the time required to process a visa application.
To reduce delays, DIAC has appointed agents in a number of African countries, to accept applications and/or to verify identity. For example, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) has been appointed to provide document verification services in 23 African countries where DIAC does not have offices. A service delivery partner (VFS Global) has been engaged to operate Australian Visa Application Centres (AVACs) in Kenya (Nairobi), Nigeria (Abuja and Lagos), South Africa (Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and Pretoria) and Zimbabwe (Harare).
These new arrangements have significantly improved visa processing times and the integrity of the process. Further expansion of these arrangements in Africa is under consideration.
The department is committed to continuing to improve service for all clients and is actively looking at expanding access to online visa services generally.
Recommendation 13
The Government should undertake steps for Australia to become an EITI compliant country.
The Government notes the Committee's recommendation.
On 27 October 2011, the Australian Government announced that, in consultation with state and territory governments, industry and non-government organisations, it will undertake a domestic pilot of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). An Australian EITI pilot will apply the EITI principles to information gathered from governments and a sample of Australian and multi-national companies operating in Australia's extractives sector. The sample will include companies of various sizes extracting a range of commodities from different jurisdictions.
The pilot will enable the Government, civil society and industry to promote international acceptance of the EITI, test the applicability and usefulness of EITI principles in the Australian context, and determine costs and benefits of the EITI approach for the Australian community. The Government will use the results and evaluation of the pilot to determine whether Australia should implement EITI and become an EITI compliant country.
A steering committee of Commonwealth and state and territory governments, industry and non-government organisations' representatives will oversee the pilot's conduct.
The pilot's data collection period of 12 months is scheduled to commence 1 July 2012, after which data analysis, reporting and evaluation phases will follow. The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism will provide up to $500,000 to fund the EITI pilot.
Recommendation 14
The Government should promote corporate social responsibility and continue to promote the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative principles and other corporate social responsibility instruments to the Australian mining sector, in particular at the Australia Down Under Conference, and especially to new entrants and small operators.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
The Government has used events such as Africa Down Under and the Mining Indaba Conference in South Africa to bring together the government, private, academic and NGO sectors to promote and share experience and leading practice on corporate social responsibility (CSR), and other sustainable mining practices and principles and will continue to do so, including by promoting awareness of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) principles.
On 31 August 2011, AusAID organised a social responsibility session as part of the Murdoch University Africa-Australia Research Forum at Africa Down Under which was attended by the private sector, NGOs, academia and government (Australian and African) officials.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Resources and Energy jointly launched a new handbook on Social Responsibility for the Mining and Minerals Sector in Developing Countries during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in October 2011. The handbook was developed by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism in partnership with AusAID and in consultation with the Australian mining industry, the Minerals Council of Australia and academia. It is a guide to leading practice in social responsibility for resources companies operating in developing countries, to ensure communities receive long-term benefits from mining. It outlines key considerations for socially responsible mining development for companies operating, or planning to operate, in developing countries and draws on leading practice examples both in Australia and overseas. .
Recommendation 15
The Government should facilitate contacts between mining sector companies, NGOs, and the broader private sector who are able to assist them in creating and executing corporate social responsibility policies.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
As noted in the response to recommendation 14, the Government will continue to use events such as Africa Down Under and the Mining Indaba in South Africa to bring together the government, private, academic and NGO sectors to promote and share experience and leading practice on corporate social responsibility practices.
Furthermore, the Government announced A$22 million for a Community and Social Development program as part of the Mining for Development Initiative to support partnerships to improve social, environmental and economic outcomes related to mining in developing countries, including in Africa.
More broadly, the Australian Government has taken action to encourage corporate social responsibility in a number of ways, including through promoting the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains of Minerals from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas and support for the UN Global Compact. These are guidelines for companies committed to sustainability and responsible business practices.
Recommendation 16
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should establish, and provide adequate funding for an Australia-Africa Council.
The Government agrees in principle with the Committee's recommendation.
While the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has insufficient funding to establish at this time an Australia-Africa Council along lines similar to those currently existing for other countries and regions, the Government will give consideration to establishing a Council in the future.
Recommendation 17
The proposed Australia-Africa Council should include within its goals, support for activities that encourage and facilitate cultural interchange and exchange, particularly including the Australian African community.
The Government agrees with the Committee's recommendation.
The establishment of other Foundations, Councils and Institutes by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been one effective way to develop further cultural interchange and exchange between Australia and other countries. The Government will take this recommendation into account in further consideration on establishment of an Australia-Africa Council.
Government Response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Report:
Examination of the Annual Report of the Australian Crime Commission 2009-10
May 2012
The Government welcomes the Committee's Report. The Committee makes two recommendations about the Australian Crime Commission's practice of varying controlled operations under Part 1AB of the Crimes Act 1914. The Government is pleased to respond to the Committee's recommendations.
Recommendation 1:
The committee recommends that where a variation to a controlled operation authority is sought that would change both the scope and duration of the authority beyond three months, that the scope should be approved internally by the appropriate authorising officer and the change in duration of the controlled operation authority beyond three months should be approved by the AAT.
Recommendation 2
The committee further recommends that if there are any administrative or legislative impediments to the approach outlined in Recommendation 1, that the Government make appropriate adjustments to administrative arrangements or legislation as necessary to enable such an approach.
Accepted in part
The Government agrees to the approach recommended by the Committee where a variation to the scope of a controlled operation authority does not result in a significant alteration to the nature of the controlled operation.
In accordance with subsection 15GO(5) of the Crimes Act 1914, if the variation to the scope of the authority would result in a significant alteration to the nature of the controlled operation, the appropriate authorising officer cannot approve the variation. In these circumstances, it will be necessary for the law enforcement agency to seek a new authority. No extension to the duration of the original authority will be necessary in such circumstances.
There are no legislative impediments to the approach outlined in Recommendation 1 in relation to variations of controlled operations authorities. The Australian Crime Commission continues to consult closely with the Attorney-General's Department and the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, to ensure that the meaning of 'significant alteration to the nature of a controlled operation' is correctly reflected in relevant administrative procedures.
That the committee reports be printed in accordance with the usual practice.
That consideration of the committee reports and government responses to committee reports just tabled be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
19. Tabling of documents
(a) By President
Responses to resolutions of the Senate:
In regard to the Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio, how many reviews, advisory councils or inquiries has the Government conducted or commissioned since 2007 and:
(a) what is the cost of each;
(b) who chairs or chaired each review, advisory council or inquiry;
(c) have any of these made any recommendations in relation to the Fair Work Act 2009;
(d) has the Government taken action on any of these reviews; and
(e) has the Government taken action on any recommendations in relation to the Fair Work Act.
Details of reviews, advisory councils and inquiries conducted in the Employment Workplace Relations portfolio from November 2007 until October 2011 are in the following table.
^This cost has been updated since it was last provided in response to previous questions
*GST does not apply to these costs
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Provisional Savings and Costs – Gross SRP Stream Savings' for:
(a) information and communications technology;
(b) inventory;
(c) logistics;
(d) non equipment procurement;
(e) Reserves;
(f) shared services; and
(g) workforce.
Cost reductions under the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) are based on annual budgets. In 2011-12 the cost reductions under the SRP is $1,283.9 million. This will be achieved through initiatives under seven SRP streams distributed as follows:
1. Information and Communication Technologies—$147.5 million;
2. Smart Sustainment (including Inventory)—$ 370.2 million;
3. Logistics—$8.3 million;
4. Non-equipment Procurement—$206.6 million;
5. Reserves—$28.1 million;
6. Workforce and Shared Services—$237.6 million; and
7. Other cost reductions—$285.5 million.
*Summation variances are due to rounding
These figures have been updated since their publication in "Strategic Reform Program: Delivering Force 2030".
The annual budgets for activities targeted through streams have been reduced by amounts that reflect cost reductions agreed by Government. As at 31 December 2011, Defence had expensed 46.1 per cent of annual budgets captured by SRP streams.
Based on an expected pattern of expenditure over the 6 months to end June 2012, Defence is confident it will deliver its required business outcomes within these reduced annual budgets.
Defence will publish the stream cost reductions achieved for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report 2011-12 which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Provisional Savings and Costs – SRP Stream Costs' for:
(a) information and communications technology;
(b) inventory;
(c) smart maintenance;
(d) logistic;
(e) non equipment procurement;
(f) preparedness and personnel and operating costs;
(g) Reserves;
(h) shared services;
(i) workforce; and
(j) Mortimer implementation.
There are no savings associated with the 'SRP Stream Costs'. The 'SRP Stream Costs' are those funds allocated for SRP-related reform. The SRP includes over $2 billion in the Defence Budget to 2018-19 in order to support investment and enable implementation of reforms over the SRP life to 2018-19. In 2011-12, investments to enable reforms have been made in Information and Communications Technology, Smart Sustainment (including Inventory) and Workforce and Shared Services.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Provisional Savings and Costs – SRP Stream Net Savings' for:
(a) information and communications technology;
(b) inventory;
(c) smart maintenance;
(d) logistic;
(e) non equipment procurement;
(f) preparedness and personnel and operating costs;
(g) Reserves;
(h) shared services; and
(i) workforce.
The cost reduction programs and investment programs are managed separately to ensure that Defence achieves its agreed outcomes and can develop reform projects that will deliver enduring benefits. Investment funds can be allocated to both cost reduction and non-cost reduction SRP reform streams, and to Groups and Services for a variety of reform activities. As such the investment funds can not be solely attributable to cost reduction streams, and thus not considered on a net basis.
Developing a 'net' view by reducing the SRP cost reduction target by the total SRP investment funds is misleading due to the different nature of the programs and their management, as it is not a one-to-one relationship.
Defence will publish the stream cost reductions achieved for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report 2011-12 which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program 'Other Savings' for the following areas:
(a) zero based budgeting review;
(b) minor capital program;
(c) facilities program;
(d) administrative; and
(e) productivity.
The annual budgets for activities targeted through streams have been reduced by amounts that reflect cost reductions agreed by Government. As at 31 December 2011, Defence had expensed 46.1 per cent of annual budgets captured by Strategic Reform Program (SRP) streams. Based on an expected pattern of expenditure over the 6 months to end June 2012, Defence is confident it will deliver its required business outcomes within these reduced annual budgets.
Defence will publish the stream cost reductions achieved for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report 2011-12 which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(1) Which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy fleet were fully operational ready for tasking with a full crew complement and capable of completing Unit Ready Days and Tasking Ready Days. (2) How many actual sea going fully operational days were achieved by each submarine.
(1) As explained in responses to Senate Question on Notice No.759 of July 2011 and Questions on Notice No.34, No.37, and No.38 of from the October 2011 Estimates hearing, Navy applies the definition of 'operating cycle' in unclassified responses to questions on the operational status of naval vessels. The operational status of submarines in accordance with this definition for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 has been reported in the response to Senate Question 1601. Over the same period, HMAS Waller was fully crewed until August 2011, after which the crew transferred to HMAS Collins for the remainder of 2011. HMASFarncomb andDechaineux were fully crewed over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011. As explained in the response to Question on Notice No.34, and in a written response to a similar question raised during the private briefing to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on 11 October 2011, Defence has not and does not use the term 'task ready days'.
(2) The actual sea going days achieved by each submarine is not disclosed for national security reasons. Defence continues to offer to provide more detailed information in private briefings to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) fleet were non operational; and
(b) for each submarine that was non operational, what was the reason for its non operational status.
(2) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, which submarines in the RAN fleet were: (a) fully operational and ready to respond to 'war like' situations; and (b) for what periods.
(3) What was the cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods: (a) 1 July to 31 December 2011; and (b) 1 January to 31 December 2011.
(4) What was the total cost of operating the six submarines for the periods: (a) 1 July to 31 December 2011; and (b) 1 January to 31 December 2011.
(5) What was the total cost of upgrading the six submarines for the periods: (a) 1 July to 31 December 2011; and (b) 1 January to 31 December 2011.
(6) What were the crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the periods: (a) 1 July to 31 December 2011; and (b) 1 January to 31 December 2011.
(1) (a) (b) (2) (a) (b). As explained in responses to Senate Question on Notice No.759 of July 2011 and Questions on Notice No.34, No.37, and No.38 from the October 2011 Estimates hearing, Navy now applies the definition of 'operating cycle' in unclassified responses to questions on the operational status of naval vessels. The operational status of submarines in accordance with this definition for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 has been reported in the response to Senate Question No.1601.
(3) (a) The total cost of maintaining the six submarines over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $214.5 million.
(b) The total cost of maintaining the six submarines over the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 was $477.3 million.
(4) (a) The total cost of operating the six submarines over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $81.9 million.
(b) The total cost of operating the six submarines over the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 was $165.6 million.
(5) (a) The total cost of upgrading the six submarines over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $20.3 million.
(b) The total cost of upgrading the six submarines over the period 1 January to 31 December 2011 was $45.2 million.
(6) (a) Submarines were crewed as follows over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(i) HMAS Collins – full complement from August 2011 following transfer of the crew from HMAS Waller.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb – full complement throughout.
(iii) HMAS Waller – full complement until August 2011, at which time the crew transferred to HMAS Collins.
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux – full complement throughout.
(v) HMAS Sheean – not crewed throughout.
(vi) HMAS Rankin – not crewed throughout.
(6) (b) Submarines were crewed as follows over the period 1 January to 31 December 2011:
(i) HMAS Collins – not crewed until August 2011, then full complement for the remainder of the year.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb – full complement throughout.
(iii) HMAS Waller – full complement until August 2011, then not crewed for remainder of year.
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux – full complement throughout.
(v) HMAS Sheean – not crewed throughout.
(vi) HMAS Rankin – not crewed throughout.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(1) Which naval vessels were fully operational with a full crew complement.
(2) Which naval vessels were not fully operationally ready for immediate tasking.
(3) For each naval vessel that was non-operationally ready, what was the reason for its non operational status.
(4) What were the operational strengths on all naval vessels of the: (a) engineering officers and sailors; and (b) non engineering officers and sailors.
Major Surface Combatants and Amphibious Ships:
(1) to (3) During the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 the operational availability status of Surface Force naval vessels is summarised in the table below.
(4) Excluding HMA Ships Anzac/Stuart and Arunta, which were de-crewed at different stages of the second half of 2011, the operational manning strengths in the Navy's crewed Surface Force vessels during the period were as follows:
(a) Ninety six per cent crewed with engineering officers and 92 per cent crewed with engineer sailors; and
(b) Ninety six per cent crewed with non-engineering officers and 90 per cent crewed with non-engineer sailors.
Submarines:
(1) to (3) During the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 the operational availability status of Submarine Force vessels is summarised in the attached table.
(4) The operational manning strengths in the Navy's Submarine Force during the period were:
(a) One hundred per cent crewed with engineer officers and 95 percent crewed with engineer sailors; and
(b) Ninety per cent crewed with non-engineer officers and 97 percent crewed with non-engineer sailors.
Mine Hunting and Clearance Diving Forces:
(1) to (3) During the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 the operational availability status of Mine Hunting and Clearance Diving Force are summarised in the attached table:
(4) The operational manning strengths in the Navy's Mine Hunting Force vessels (with the exception of Hawkesbury and Norman in Extended Readiness Availability) during the period were:
(a) Manning for all Mine Counter Measures (MCM) platforms was commensurate with tasking requirements. Mine Hunters were 98.6 per cent crewed with engineering officers (roles are performed by Chief Petty Officer marine technicians borne as senior technical officers) and 87.5 per cent crewed with engineering sailors. Engineering Department consists of both mechanical and electrical technicians; the majority of engineering manning shortfalls came from the Electrical Technician Branch. Mine Sweeper Auxiliary Wallaroo was commensurate with tasking requirements as of July 2011 at 7 days notice for sea, 100 per cent crewed with engineering officers roles (performed by Petty Officer marine technicians borne as senior technical officers) and 100 per cent crewed with engineering sailors.
(b) Due to an extant deficiency in qualified mine warfare and clearance diving officers, the Mine Hunters were manned with 83 per cent of the required skill set. Supplementation of the qualification requirements was achieved through the use of mine warfare officers and Australian Naval reserves. Non-engineering departments were manned with 93 per cent skill set required to achieve necessary tasks.
Hydrographic Forces:
(1) to (3) During the period 01 July to 31 December 2011 the operational availability status of Hydrographic Forces is summarised in the attached table:
HMA Ship Operationally Available Not Operationally Available Comment
Note: Shepparton lost 22 days due to an undiagnosed viral -like illness that infected many of the crew and key command members. Appropriate health measures were taken including not exposing operational reliefs to the illness and therefore the ship was kept alongside until key personnel were fit for sea. The ship remained fully crewed, but remained alongside to ensure full and expeditious recovery of crew from illness.
(4) The operational manning strengths in the Navy's hydrographic vessels during the period were:
(a) Hydrographic units were 100 per cent crewed with engineer officers and 100 per cent crewed with Engineer Sailors
(b) Hydrographic units were 100 per cent crewed with non-engineer officers and 100 per cent crewed with non-engineer sailors.
Patrol Boat Force:
(1) to (3) During the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 the operational availability status of Patrol Boat Force vessels is summarised in the attached table.
HMA Ship Operationally Available Not Operationally Available Comment
(4) The operational manning strength in the Navy's Patrol Boat Force during the period was:
(a) 92.5 per cent crewed with engineer officers and 88.3 per cent crewed with engineer sailors; and
(b) 98 per cent crewed with non-engineer officers and 89.1 per cent crewed with non-engineer sailors.
(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011: (a) what was the hospitality spend for each agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary; and (b) for each hospitality event, can the following details be provided: (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the purpose, (iv) the cost, and (v) the number of attendees. (2)For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, can details be provided of the total hospitality spend for the office of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary. 1609 Minister representing the Minister for Defence 1610 Minister representing the Minister for Defence Materiel 1611 Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
(1) (a) The Defence Portfolio's total expenditure on Hospitality (excluding the Minister's Office and minor Portfolio bodies), for the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011 is $658,977. Details for each agency are shown on Table 1.
(b) Details of: date, location, purpose, cost (GST exclusive) and number of attendees of each event are provided at Table 2.
(2) Table 3 provides Hospitality spend for the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011, for Minister for Defence, Minister for Defence Materiel and Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Details provided include: date, location, purpose and cost (GST exclusive) of each event for the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011.
Attachments: *
Table 1: Summary of Hospitality and Representational Allowance Expenditure for the Period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011.
Table 2: Event Level Detail for Defence, DMO and DHA.
Table 3: Event Level Detail for Ministerial Hospitality.
* All attachments are available from the Senate Table Office.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(1) (a) Did the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary travel overseas on official business; if so:
(i) to what destination,
(ii) for what duration, and
(iii) for what purpose; and
(b) what was the total cost of:
(i) travel,
(ii) accommodation, and
(iii) any other expenses.
(2) (a) Which departmental and uniformed personnel accompanied the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary on each trip; and
(b) for those personnel, what was the total cost of:
(i) travel,
(ii) accommodation, and
(iii) any other expenses.
(3) (a) Apart from ministerial staff and uniformed and civilian departmental personnel, who else accompanied the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary on each trip; and
(b) for each of these people, what was the total cost of:
(i) travel,
(ii) accommodation, and
(iii) any other expenses.
(1) The costs of all travel undertaken by each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary are paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD). All costs are tabled in Parliament every 6 months in a report titled 'Parliamentarians Travel'. This report contains the information requested, including dates, destination and purpose of travel. It is also published on the DoFD website.
(2) This question is similar to Question on Notice No.66 from the February 2012 Senate Additional Estimates hearing. The information requested in this question has therefore been provided in response to Question on Notice No.66 from the Estimates hearing.
(3) The costs of all official travel by accompanying Members of Parliament Act (Staff) 1984 employees to the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretary are paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DoFD). All costs are tabled in Parliament every 6 months in a report titled 'Parliamentarians Travel'. This report contains the information requested, including dates, destination and purpose of travel. It is also published on the DoFD website.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what productivity improvement savings have been made by the department and by the Defence Materiel Organisation.
Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis; they are not broken up by sub-category of productivity improvement, one-offs or other descriptors.
Cost reductions under the SRP are based on annual budgets. In 2011-12, the cost reductions target for the Department and the Defence Materiel Organisation is $1,283.9 million.
The Department will publish the stream cost reductions achieved under SRP for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) what specific productivity improvement savings have been made in Smart Sustainment reform; and
(b) what one off savings been made.
(a) and (b) Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis; they are not broken up by sub-category of productivity, one-offs or other descriptors.
The Smart Sustainment stream is comprised of a range of specific initiatives across the spectrum of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). These initiatives are at various stages of maturity and SRP governance closely monitors the progress of these initiatives against the planned schedule and achievement of agreed cost reductions.
Defence will publish the stream cost reductions achieved for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report 2011-12 which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) what specific savings over the period 2010 to 2019 have been made in the implementation of Smart Maintenance techniques; and
(b) what one off savings been made.
(a) and (b) Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis, they are not broken up by sub-category of implementation of smart maintenance techniques, one-offs or other descriptors.
The Smart Sustainment stream, which includes inventory, is comprised of a range of specific initiatives across the spectrum of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). These initiatives are at various stages of maturity and SRP governance closely monitors the progress of these initiatives against the planned schedule and achievement of agreed cost reductions.
The Department will publish the stream cost reductions achieved under SRP in the Defence Annual Report which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) of the savings expected over the period 2010 to 2019, what specific savings have been made in Storage and Distribution (Logistics) Reform where the adoption of automated technologies and improved business practices ensure cost effectiveness and efficiency; and
(b) what one off savings been made.
(a) and (b) Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis, they are not broken up by sub-category of the adoption of automated technologies, improved business practice, one-offs or other descriptors.
The Logistics stream comprises several initiatives including: the consolidation and rationalisation of the wholesale storage and distribution network; modernisation of land material maintenance services; and the introduction of automated identification technology to more efficiently track and manage Defence inventory. These initiatives are at various stages of maturity and SRP governance closely monitors the progress of these initiatives against the planned schedule and achievement of agreed cost reductions.
Defence will publish the stream cost reductions achieved for the full financial year in the Defence Annual Report 2011-12, which is expected to be released in late 2012.
In regard to all agencies within the department or within the responsibility of the Minister, including the Australian Institute of Marine Science, for the period 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011, what flights were taken by agency staff between: (a) Townsville and Canberra; and (b) Canberra and Townsville, including details on whether they were direct or indirect flights.
(1) In regard to the Household Assistance Scheme (HAS) and the Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) service programs:
(a) can details be provided as to:
(i) where, and (ii) by whom, all of the set top boxes provided to households are manufactured;
(b) what brands of set top box are supplied under these programs, including:
(i) the exact model number, and (ii) how many of each model have been installed to date;
(c) who is responsible for purchasing the set top boxes;
(d) who is responsible for deciding which set top box is installed in each household; and
(e) what testing or other form of quality control does the Government undertake before approving each set top box model for use.
(2) Is the Government aware of any modifications made in Australia to set top boxes that have been imported; if so, can details be provided.
(3) Under the programs, who bears the cost for:
(a) replacing faulty set top boxes; and
(b) any call out fees or costs associated with repairing or replacing faulty set top boxes, including details on the exact costs incurred to date associated with faulty set top boxes.
(4) Can details be provided of the unit price for each set top box purchased at the point of sale from manufacturers, and information relating to:
(a) the exact price paid to contractors for each set top box, including cost details if the price varies;
(b) how the price paid to contractors for each unit is determined; and
(c) how the cost per unit of the set top box is taken into account when determining the price paid to contractors for each set top box.
(1) (a) (i) The terrestrial set-top boxes used for the Household Assistance Scheme (HAS) are both manufactured in China. The Viewer Access Satellite Television (VAST) set-top box is manufactured in South Africa
(ii) The terrestrial set-top boxes supplied under HAS are manufactured by two companies; Bush and Hills. The VAST set-top box supplied under HAS and SSS is manufactured by Altech UEC.
(b) (i) The terrestrial set-top boxes:
Bush BHAS01UR
Hills HD94003C.
Satellite set-top box:
Altech UEC DSD4121.
(ii) Bush BHAS01UR: 30,902.
Hills HD94003C: 36,502.
Altech UEC DSD4121: 6,121.
(c) The department does not purchase set-top boxes individually from manufacturers. Set-top boxes are supplied by service contractors. Service contractors are procured through an open and competitive tender process, which the department runs through AusTender, the Commonwealth's procurement website. The department selects successful tenderers (and their proposed set-top boxes) on an assessment of value for money, in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.
(d) The HAS is being rolled out region by region. Each region is made up of a collection of service areas. Each service contractor is allocated specific service areas and they provide the set-top box that the department has deemed provides the best value for money. With VAST services, the same set-top box is provided in each service area because there is only one VAST certified set-top box.
(e) As part of the quality assurance checks in each tender, service contractors provide test reports demonstrating compliance against Australian Standards for set-top boxes, to the department. The department use these test reports to judge the best value for money set-top boxes, which takes place during the tender evaluation process.
(2) The Government is not aware of any modifications that have been made to set-top boxes that have been imported to Australia.
(3) (a) Each set-top box provided under HAS and SSS comes with a twelve month warranty period that protects the customer against faults in the set-top boxes. Any faulty set-top boxes are replaced by the service contractor, at their own expense.
(b) Under the Deed of Agreement with the department, the head service contractor is responsible for providing an in-home, twelve month warranty for faulty parts, manufacture or workmanship relating to the set-top box, cabling, antenna, installation and satellite services provided to the customer. If the equipment cannot be replaced or fixed at the customer's premises, then the service contractor must arrange for the collection and delivery of the equipment to and from the customer's premises at no expense to the customer or the department.
(4) (a) Details regarding the price paid to service contractors for each set-top box cannot be provided, as these figures are commercial-in-confidence. The department does not intend to release these actual costs as this may impact the outcome of current and future procurement processes.
(b) Tenderers provide pricing for a range of cost elements which are assessed during the tender evaluation process. The department selects successful tenderers and their proposed set-top boxes on an assessment of value for money, in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.
(c) The pricing for the set-top box covers the complete cost of the set-top box, including design to best assist HAS customers, manufacture, delivery to the service contractors, appropriate taxes and the twelve month warranty period.
With reference to Fair Work Australia's report Investigation into the Victoria No.1 Branch of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009:
(1) When did the Minister:
(a) first receive a copy of the report;
(b) commence reading the report; and
(c) conclude reading the report.
(2) In regard to the report's referral to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):
(a) when did the Minister decide to refer the report to the ATO;
(b) what was the date and time of referral; and
(c) can a copy of the accompanying covering letter be provided.
(3) Can details be provided as to which other agencies the Minister has referred the report, including:
(a) the time and date of each referral; and
(b) a copy of the covering letter accompanying each referral.
(4) Why has the report not been referred to the Victoria Police Fraud Squad.
(1) The report of the Delegate of the General Manager of Fair Work Australia (FWA) concerning the investigation into the Victorian No.1 Branch of the Health Services Union was posted to the Senate Education Employment and Workplace Relations Additional Budget Estimates Committee webpage on 16 March 2012. I obtained a copy of the report on that day from that source and concluded my initial reading of the report on the morning of 19 March 2012.
(2) I informed the Parliament that, in relation to the report I 'would draw it to the attention of the ATO'. The report is a public document and, as such, is available to any interested agencies.
(3) The report is a public document and, as such, is available to any interested agencies.
(4) The report is a public document and, as such, is available to any interested agencies.
With reference to the contract signed in June 2007 by the Commonwealth Government, the Muckaty Land Trust and the Northern Land Council, regarding the location of a nuclear waste dump:
(1) Did the Northern Land Council receive a payment of $200 000 from the Commonwealth Government upon the acceptance of the Muckaty Land Trust nomination.
(2) Does the Northern Land Council have a responsibility or liability in relation to the receipt and disbursement of these funds.
(3) If traditional owner signatories wish to withdraw from the contract, will: (a) recipients of funds; and (b) the Northern Land Council, be required to repay funds from the initial disbursement of $200 000.
(1) Yes. It is noted that the Northern Land Council (NLC) provided detailed advice regarding this payment in oral testimony on 30 March 2010 to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and in a written response dated 28 April 2010 to questions on notice from the Committee (Senator Ludlam and Senator Crossin).
(2) Under the deed, the NLC was responsible for the receipt and disbursement of the funds for the benefit of the traditional Aboriginal owners and other Aboriginals concerned in relation to the nominated site. The NLC detailed its fulfilment of that responsibility in its oral and written testimony to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in 2010. Accordingly, the NLC has no liability for these funds.
(3) (a) and (b) The site nomination deed was signed by representatives of the Commonwealth, the NLC and the Muckaty Aboriginal Land Trust, rather than by individual traditional owners in their own right. This accords with the structure and requirements of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. Accordingly, any question of individual traditional owners withdrawing from the deed (or associated liability as to payments received) does not legally arise.