The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9.30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Screening) Bill 2012
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 18), at the end of subsection 41A(2), add:
; or (c) the procedure is a body scan and, as an alternative, the person chooses to undergo afrisk search.
If a person chooses to undergo a frisk search as an alternative to another screening procedure, a screening officer may frisk search the person to the extent necessary to screen the person properly.
… we'll be having full consultation and involvement with the Privacy Commissioner, with other organisations … including looking at health issues…
But we have a responsibility to use the best technology available.
The committee recommends that the use of frisk searches continue to be an alternative screening procedure at Australian international airports and, accordingly, that the bill not repeal section 95A of the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004.
That the Australian Government follow the lead of its counterparts in the United States of America and Europe and direct that screening of passengers using any active body scanning technology be conducted on a totally voluntary basis.
… where freedom of choice is practical, it should be offered to Australians in all possible circumstances.
(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (after line 28), after subsection 44(3A), insert:
(3AA) Body scanning equipment of a kind that has not previously been used for the screening of a person must not be used for the screening of a person unless equipment of that kind has been:
(a) tested for compliance with health standards prescribed by the regulations; and
(b) found to comply with those standards.
(3AB) Body scanning equipment that uses ionising backscatter x-ray technology must not be used for the screening of a person other than in exceptional circumstances. If such equipment is to be used for the screening of a person, the regulations must set out what those exceptional circumstances are.
The committee divided. [11:18]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [11:25]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marshall)
Higher Education Support Amendment (Student Contribution Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Mathematics, Engineering and Science (MES) are fundamental to shaping the future of Australia, and the future of the world.
Our future lies in creating a high technology, high productivity economy; to innovate and to compete at the high-end of provision. To do so, the technical skills and scientific awareness of the entire workforce must be raised. The number of MES graduates needs to increase to allow industry to expand in these areas. Yet our current performance is wanting, and we compare poorly to our leading Asian neighbours.
If we want to be a scientifically literate nation—we simply must inculcate the coming generations with an enthusiasm for the wonder, beauty and endless potential of science.
Science is awe inspiring—we need to stir the imagination of our youth so they pursue a career in science or, at the very least, grow into informed decisions makers who have some understanding of science and how it works.
Some of us in the room will remember the heady days of space travel and television as defining scientific images of our time.
The time has come to rekindle this type of excitement.
And there is no shortage of inspiration—the SKA and the Giant Magellan Telescopes, the Large Hadron Collider, the promise of commercial space flights, sustaining our environment and curing diseases are all big projects that stir the imagination and reinforce the importance of science to us all.
As part of raising an appreciation of science we need to make sure the coming generations are equipped to handle and make the most of the seemingly endless potential and applications of science in their lives.
We need science teachers and we need to support them through their careers. We need students. It won’t work without either. And to get them we will need to be careful, strategic and willing to invest.
To tackle and overcome the challenges of our time—we need science.
Mathematics, Engineering and Science (MES) are fundamental to shaping the future of Australia, and the future of the world … Our future lies in creating a high technology, high productivity economy; to innovate and to compete at the high-end of provision. To do so, the technical skills and scientific awareness of the entire workforce must be raised. The number of MES graduates needs to increase to allow industry to expand in these areas. Yet our current performance is wanting, and we compare poorly to our leading Asian neighbours.
These things take time—it takes a generation—but you just can't do it in the political timeframe …
… never admit this, but basically they're just thinking of the next election and the next budget.
Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.
... ABC's public affairs—AM, PM, The 7.30 Report, Lateline, Four Corners at its best—are irreplaceable. Taken together these programs represent by far the most important national political discussions we have7.
… a watchdog, dedicated to preventing the people's liberties from being burgled by holders of power.
… Australia needs an independent, fearless, professional ABC.
… a sentry who watches and warns; a guide who searches, maps and explains; a scribe who listens and records; a witness with the courage to speak; a host to debates amongst others; an advocate for the weak; a keeper of collective memory.
Next year the defence budget will fall in real terms by 10.5%, the largest year-on-year reductions since the end of the Korean conflict in 1953. As a result, defence spending as a share of GDP will fall to 1.56%, the smallest figure recorded by Australia since the eve of WWII in 1938.
The plans set out in 2009—
are in disarray; investment is badly stalled, and the defence budget is an unsustainable mess. Not only are cost pressures breaking out, but personnel and operating costs now dwarf capital investment.
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.
This appeal is compelled by two years of consistent and persistent complaints of health impacts during turbine operations and the fact that a recent turbine health impact study suggested that certain elements of wind turbine operation propagate health impacts.
Well, Chris, it's most interesting. It is this case: if you happen to be the host and have industrial wind turbines on your farming property in a rural area and you are earning somewhere between $9,000 and $15,000 a year you don't seem to suffer health effects; but if you're a neighbour down the road and you don't get the benefit of that annual income from having the turbines on your property it's amazing that you do seem to suffer the health effects.
There is overwhelming evidence that wind turbines can cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder-type diseases, as a nontrivial rate.
The attempts to deny the evidence cannot be seen as honest scientific disagreement …
The government updates its costings in the usual way in the budget and in budget updates, and that is the approach the government will be taking.
QUESTIONS
3a How is the government going to undertake to make the decision?
3b Is the government aware that Woodside have told marine researchers not to tell anybody about the fact that they had photographed the miniature spinner dolphins?
3c What action will the minister take to address this particular issue around the miniature spinner dolphins?
RESPONSE
3a Under the terms of reference for the joint federal-state strategic assessment for the Browse LNG precinct, potential impacts to protected matters, such as humpback whales and dolphins, must be appropriately investigated.
The minister will not be in a position to make a decision on this proposal until all matters required by the terms of the strategic assessment, with a focus on potential impacts to matters of national environmental significance, have been appropriately investigated by the Western Australian Government.
3b No.
3c Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) all cetaceans, including whales and dolphins, are protected in Australian waters.
Potential impacts to protected matters, such as dolphins, must be appropriately investigated and addressed by the Western Australian Government in its strategic assessment report and plan for the Browse LNG Precinct.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a question without notice asked by Senator Macdonald today relating to Australian Defence Force funding.
That consideration of government business continue from 6.50 pm till 7.20 pm today.
That, on Thursday, 16 August 2012:
(a) the hours of meetings shall be 9.30 am to adjournment;
(b) consideration of general business private senators’ bills under temporary order 57(1)(d)(ia) shall not be proceeded with;
(c) the routine of business from 9.30 am for 2 hours and 20 minutes, from 12.45 pm to 2 pm, and from not later than 4.30 pm shall be government business only and that the order of the day relating to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 shall be considered;
(d) consideration of non-controversial government business under temporary order 57(1)(d)(via) shall not be proceeded with;
(e) any proposal pursuant to standing order 75 shall not be proceeded with;
(f) consideration of general business and government documents under standing orders 57(1)(d)(x), (xi) and committee reports and government responses under 57(1)(d)(xii) shall not be proceeded with;
(g) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm; and
(h) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall not be proposed until a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister.
The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That following the 30th Olympiad the Senate congratulates our Olympians on their performances in London 2012.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 21 August 2012, from 12.30 pm.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 16 August 2012, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Low Aromatic Fuel Bill 2012.
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the Environment and Communications References Committee be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 16 August 2012, from 1 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 22 August 2012, from 9.30 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Improving Electoral Procedure) Bill 2012.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 16 August 2012, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the examination of the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate, from 11 am, as follows:
(a) on Thursday, 16 August 2012; and
(b) on Thursday, 13 September 2012.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 21 August 2012, from 12.30 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into health services and medical professionals in rural areas be extended to 22 August 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the week 6 August to 12 August 2012 was national Homeless Persons' Week, and
(ii) on any given night in Australia, approximately 105 000 people are experiencing homelessness;
(b) recognises that:
(i) mental illness is both a cause and consequence of homelessness, and
(ii) the Australian Council of Social Service's Community Sector Survey 2012 recently highlighted that the availability of secure and affordable housing, and care and treatment for mental illness, are the greatest areas of need for people experiencing poverty and disadvantage in Australia; and
(c) calls on the Government to consider and respond to underfunding, funding uncertainty and unmet need in the homelessness and mental health sectors.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Westpac ' s environmental credentials have assisted it to promote the bank ' s business,
(ii) Westpac was the first Australian bank to adopt the Equator Principles, agreeing not to fund projects that endanger communities or the environment, and is a signatory to the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative,
(iii) the Solomon Islands is listed as having the highest percentage loss of rainforest in the Pacific,
(iv) logging in the Solomon Islands is unsustainable and has led to significant pressure on the natural environment, friction within local communities, threats to food security and breaches of human rights, including the sexual exploitation of women and children,
(v) recent investigations show Westpac has provided loans to companies in the Solomon Islands which have been involved in illegal tree - felling, hiring of illegal workers and alleged non - payment of compensation for illegal logging,
(vi ) Westpac claims it has reduced lending to the forestry industry to 9 per cent of its loan book in the Solomon Islands and is taking on no new business in the Solomon Islands, yet it has recently gone guarantor for a new project to log pristine rainforest on Vella Lavella,
(v ii) the Australian Greens have written to the Banksia Environmental Foundation asking it to consider withdrawing past awards to Westpac because of this involvement, and
(viii ) Westpac has refused to investigate the loans it has made to those involved in illegal logging or to withdraw immediately from financing logging operations in the Solomon Islands; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) approach the Banksia Environmental Foundation, which administers the Prime Minister's Environmentalist of the Year awards with Government funding, to ask the foundation to review and consider withdrawing Westpac's past awards,
(ii) initiate talks with Westpac seeking a commitment to immediately end links with forestry in the Solomon Islands and contribute to forest restoration, and
(iii) conduct an investigation into the collapse of the forestry industry due to illegal practices which will impact on the whole Solomon Islands' economy and bring hardship to local people, if Westpac does not in the short-term withdraw from financing logging operations.
The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) reports of a surveillance system known as TrapWire operating in the United Kingdom, Canada and cities in the United States of America, including Washington DC, Las Vegas, New York and Los Angeles, and
(ii) TrapWire's features are reputed to include the ability to centralise and aggregate data from public surveillance cameras and share threat information across networks; and
(b) calls on the Government to confirm:
(i) whether the TrapWire system is deployed anywhere in Australia,
(ii) if Australian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have access to, or have in the past used, information provided by foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies using the TrapWire system, and
(iii) if the Government or its law enforcement and intelligence agencies have held discussions about acquiring the TrapWire system for use by government entities here.
(1) That the Senate notes that:
(a) on 18 March 2012, the Prime Minister promised former Senator Bob Brown, then Leader of the Australian Greens, that the Government would publish monthly updates on revenue collections from the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT); and
(b) the MRRT legislation came into effect on 1 July 2012.
(2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, no later than noon on the 20th day of every month, information relating to the MRRT revenue collected by the Government in the preceding calendar month, broken down by state or territory of collection and by commodity type.
(3) If the Senate is not sitting when a statement is ready for presentation, the statement is to be presented to the President in accordance with standing order 166.
(4) This order is of continuing effect.
The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that in 2012 Australia is commemorating the 70th anniversary of the War in the Pacific and acknowledging the contribution of our service personnel to the defence of Australia during that period of World War II at events and memorial services in Australia and elsewhere in the Pacific region;
(b) notes that:
(i) the 2/27th Battalion AIF was formed at Woodside in South Australia in May 1940 and disbanded in March 1946,
(ii) the 2/27th Battalion AIF fought in all the major World War II campaigns in which Australia was engaged and was awarded honours for the following battles: North Africa, Syria, The Litani, Sidon, Adloun, Damour, South West Pacific, Kokoda Track, Efogi-Menari, Buna-Gona, Gona, Ramu Valley, Shaggy Ridge, Balikpapan and Borneo,
(iii) during the campaign in New Guinea in 1942 the Battalion suffered heavy casualties during the battle at Brigade Hill on 8 September and at Gona in November and December, and
(iv) the Battalion continued fighting in New Guinea and was serving in Balikpapan, Borneo, when the war ended in August 1945;
(c) acknowledges the invaluable contribution of the 2/27th Battalion AIF throughout World War II;
(d) expresses its appreciation to the surviving members of the 2/27th Battalion AIF who served with courage and distinction in the Pacific War and other campaigns in World War II; and
(e) thanks all those who served in Australia's defence forces during World War II.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Gillard Government's acceptance of the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island and the continuing need for the Government to implement the full suite of the Coalition's successful policies.
It will certainly affect relations if (Australia) turns boats away …
We don't want them to die at sea. You can imagine that there are children and women as well.
Under the unjust regime set up by the previous government, unauthorised arrivals who were owed protection under Australia’s international obligations were only eligible for TPVs in the first instance.
It meant that refugees had no travel rights, reduced access to refugee settlement services such as English language programs, employment and income assistance, and could not be reunited with other family members.
The Temporary Protection visa was one of the worst aspects of the Howard government’s punitive treatment of refugees, many of whom had suffered enormously before fleeing to Australia.
More than 95 per cent—
of TPV holders who were irregular maritime arrivals went on to get a permanent visa to live in Australia.
Labor will end the so-called Pacific solution—the processing and detaining of asylum seekers on Pacific islands—because it is costly, unsustainable and wrong as a matter of principle.
The Pacific solution was a cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise …
The Pacific solution is now a ridiculously expensive farce, and the government should end it immediately.
Labor is committed to developing a comprehensive and lasting solution …
If we compare the flow of asylum seekers to the OECD countries and to Australia in the years 2000 to 2009 it is quite clear that the flows of asylum seekers in Australia followed very closely those to other OECD countries.
A 'key Liberal Party strategist' told a US diplomat in Canberra in November last year, that the issue of asylum seekers was 'fantastic' for the Coalition and 'the more boats that come the better'.
And we think turning boats around that are seaworthy, that can make the return journey and are in international waters, fits in with that.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That Senator Birmingham be appointed to the Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees.
That the report be printed.
That the report be printed.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A message has been received from the House of Representatives forwarding the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012 for concurrence.
That the bill may proceed without formalities and that this bill and be now read a first time.
I do not accept that any changes to detention policy in this country have led to an increase in arrivals. First of all, there has not been an increase in arrivals and, secondly, we know that the indefinite long-term detention of arrivals did not prove to be a barrier to people continuing to make the journey.
Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures …
At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Government has accepted the Coalition's policy of offshore processing of asylum seekers on Nauru and Manus Island; and
(b) calls upon the Government to implement the full suite of the Coalition's successful policies and calls upon the Government to immediately:
(i) restore temporary protection visas for all offshore entry persons found to be refugees;
(ii) issue new instructions to Northern Command to commence to turn back boats where it is safe to do so;
(iii) use existing law to remove the benefit of the doubt on a person's identity where there is a reasonable belief that a person has deliberately discarded their documentation; and
(iv) restore the Bali Process to once again focus on deterrence and border security.
… welcomes the fact that an additional 4000 refugees from Malaysia will obtain a durable solution through resettlement to Australia. The potential to work towards safe and humane options for people other than to use dangerous sea journeys are also positive features of this Arrangement. In addition, the Malaysian Government is in discussions with UNHCR on the registration of refugees and asylum-seekers under the planned Government programme announced in June on the registration of all migrant workers.
The Arrangement and its implementing guidelines contain important protection safeguards, including respect for the principle of non-refoulement; the right to asylum; the principle of family unity and best interests of the child; humane reception conditions including protection against arbitrary detention; … and the ability to receive education, access to health care, and a right to employment.
Fear can never be a proper or useful ingredient in those mutual relations of respect and goodwill 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.
Circumstances have changed since the limited number of turn-backs of irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers in Australia over a decade ago. The legal context has changed. The attitudes of many regional governments have evolved …
Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures …
The Opposition says … that a detention centre on Nauru would work as a disincentive. We disagree …
It has been a matter of record in this House that Nauru, a Christmas Island style detention centre further away, will not break the people smugglers' business model.
Doing things, attempting things, taking a risk. I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been here.
With reference to comments made by the Minister on the Fairfax Radio Network on 13 February 2012 in relation to a meeting with Qantas:
(1) When was the Minister briefed by Qantas.
(2) Was the Minister aware that items discussed in the meeting may be commercial-in-confidence.
(3) Why did the Minister choose to release the information.
(4) Did the Minister seek the permission of Qantas prior to publically speaking on the matter.
(5) If permission was not obtained, is the Minister concerned about the message this may send to the business community concerning the Minister's management of market sensitive information.
The Minister and his Office communicate with representatives of Qantas on a regular basis.
The Minister treats information provided during discussions with all stakeholders appropriately.
There is nothing inappropriate about the Minister's comments on Fairfax Radio on 13 February 2012.
With reference to Part 6 of the Administrative Arrangements Order, relating to workplace relations policy development, advocacy and implementation:
(1) Can all materials be provided that have been produced by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) since 2007 that promote:
(a) flexible workplace relations policies and practices; and
(b) workplace productivity, including in each case details of:
(i) the distribution of these materials, and
(ii) how many of each has been produced and distributed.
(2) Can details be provided of what labour market research is coordinated by the department, including a breakdown of the:
(a) number of staff involved in the research; and
(b) total cost of preparing each item of research.
(3) How many briefs have been prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that relate to DEEWR Outcome 5.
Question (1)(a) and (b)
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) has produced various materials that promote flexible workplace relations policies and practices and workplace productivity. In addition, DEEWR has contributed to material developed by the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and developed material used during the Fair Work Education and Information Program (FWEIP) in 2009.
As part of the 2009-10 National Work Life Balance Awards, DEEWR published a variety of documents including a finalists booklet, application form, guidelines for applicants and selection criteria and a general information fact sheet. These documents were distributed both in hard copy and via the public DEEWR website which contains information on DEEWR programs including the National Work-Life Balance Awards. A copy of the National Work-Life Balance Toolkit is provided at Attachment A, available from the Senate Table Office
The DEEWR website also promotes other programs regarding the Department's work on flexibility in the workplace including the Fresh Ideas for Work and Family program which ran from 2009-2011. The DEEWR website also contains a number of fact sheets on the Fair Work System including the Fair Work Act 2009 – an overview, which provides information on how the Fair Work Act 2009 provides a balance between work and family life. Further, the DEEWR website contains information on the Government's current workplace relations flexibility policies such as Paid Parental Leave and assistance to employees experiencing domestic violence. Please refer to the DEEWR website at:
http://www.deewr.gov.au/WorkplaceRelations/Pages/default.aspx.
While DEEWR has overarching responsibility for workplace flexibility policy, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has responsibility for educational and promotional activities regarding the Australian Government's Fair Work system including flexible working arrangements, however DEEWR does provide assistance to the FWO on the development of these materials as necessary.
As part of the Government's commitment to providing support to employees with family responsibilities, the FWO has developed a number relevant factsheets and Best Practice Guides to assist small to medium-sized businesses in implementing best practice initiatives. These include best practice guides on use of individual flexibility arrangements, work and family and parental leave. The guides highlight key aspects of the federal workplace relations system, provide information on best practice concepts, strategies on how these concepts can be implemented and the benefits for the business in doing so. These guides are accessible at:
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/BestPracticeGuides/03-Use-of-individual-flexibility-arrangements.pdf
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/resources/best-practice-guides/pages/work-and-family.aspx and
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/resources/best-practice-guides/pages/parental-leave.aspx.
The FWO has also produced a best practice guide on "Improving Workplace Productivity Through Bargaining." This guide is available on the FWO's website at:
http://www.fairwork.gov.au/resources/best-practice-guides/pages/improving-workplace-productivity-through-bargaining.aspx.
Fact sheets were also produced by the Department based on material provided to FWEIP providers in 2009. A number of these fact sheets included references to flexible working arrangements, including details about the right to request flexible working arrangements and the requirements that enterprise agreements must include a flexibility term. Extracts from relevant FWEIP fact sheets are provided at Attachment B.
It is not possible for the Department to readily identify how many copies of the various materials referred to above were produced and printed for public distribution. Any estimate would require considerable departmental resources to determine.
Question (2)(a) and (b)
In terms of labour market research relating to workplace relations policy development, advocacy and implementation, the Department is providing funding for an Australian Research Council Linkage Project relating to flexible work in Australia. The study is focused on identifying flexibilities that enable workforce participation and skill development and use, and their implications for work-life outcomes in Australia. The total amount of funding to be provided is $255,000, supplemented by an in-kind contribution of $30,000 (GST exclusive). The Department does not collect the number of individual staff working on research projects.
Question (3)
DEEWR has not prepared any briefs for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Briefing relating to DEEWR Outcome 5 is provided to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. It would be at the Minister's discretion to forward any such briefing to an interested Minister or their Department.
Attachment B
Extract Fact Sheet 1—Compliance with FWA Employers
What are the new provisions for parents requesting flexible working arrangements?
Eligible employees who are parents or who have caring responsibilities for children who are under school age, or children under 18 who have a disability, have the right to request flexible working arrangements, such as changes to their:
A request for flexible working arrangements must be made in writing, setting out the details of the change(s) sought and the reason(s) for the request. Employers have 21 days to provide a written response to the requesting employee, including reasons for the decision. Requests can only be refused on reasonable business grounds.
Where a request is refused by an employer, Fair Work Australia or another authorised party can be asked to resolve the refusal, so long as an enterprise agreement, contract of employment or other agreement that is in place permits them to do so.
Extract Fact Sheet 2—Entitlements—I am a parent. Can I request flexible working arrangements?
Eligible employees who are parents or who have caring responsibilities for children who are
under school age, or children under 18 who have a disability, have the right to request
flexible working arrangements, such as changes to their:
hours of work
patterns of work
work location
A request for flexible working arrangements must be made in writing, setting out the details
of the change(s) sought and the reason(s) for the request. Employers have 21 days to
provide a written response to the requesting employee, including reasons for the decision.
Requests can only be refused on reasonable business grounds.
Where a request is refused by an employer, Fair Work Australia or another authorised party
can be asked to resolve the refusal, so long as an enterprise agreement, contract of
employment or other agreement that is in place permits them to do so.
Extract Fact Sheet 3—Collective Bargaining Framework:
What terms must be included in an enterprise agreement?
The following mandatory terms must be contained in all agreements:
Flexibility Term
Agreements are required to include a flexibility term. The "flexibility term" must enable an employee and his or her employer to agree to an individual flexibility arrangement. This arrangement would allow the employee and the employer to vary the effect of the agreement in relation to the individual employee and the employer in order to meet the genuine needs of both parties.
The flexibility term must set out the particular terms of the agreement which may be varied by an individual flexibility arrangement. The terms that are selected will be a matter for bargaining.
Extract Fact Sheet 4—Overview of Fair Work Australia
What will Fair Work Australia consider?
To approve an enterprise agreement, Fair Work Australia must be satisfied that certain
requirements have been met. This includes that:
the agreement has been made with the genuine agreement of the employee's covered
by the agreement;
the agreement passes the better off overall test (from 1 January 2010) and does not
include any unlawful terms or designated outworker terms;
the group of employees covered by the agreement was fairly chosen;
the agreement specifies a date as its nominal expiry date (not more than four years
after the date of Fair Work Australia approval);
the agreement provides a dispute settlement procedure; and
the agreement includes a flexibility clause and a consultation clause.
and one reference is made to 'productivity' as follows:
Extract Fact Sheet 5—Fair Work Ombudsman Overview
What are the functions of the Fair Work Ombudsman?
The functions of the Fair Work Ombudsman are to:
promote harmonious, productive and cooperative workplace relations;
promote and monitor compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009.
(1) Given that the Post Office licensee has been informed that there will be a number of changes to the license agreement and that one of these changes is to reduce the counter mail delivery:
(a) does Australia Post intend to restrict counter mail deliveries at the Post Office; if so, will the counter mail deliveries be restricted to just 752 mail recipients; if not, what amount of counter mail deliveries will be delivered;
(b) how many people rely on this means of delivery to receive their mail;
(c) is the figure of a minimum of 4 400 recipients correct; if not, why not;
(d) where and how was this figure determined;
(e) when the new counter mail delivery measure has been put in place: (i) what will happen to the balance of the deliveries, and (ii) how will Australia Post service those residents in the future;
(f) will the number of Post Office box leases be expanded; and
(g) (i) what process was used to determine which residents would be eligible for this service and which residents would not, and (ii) who made this decision.
(2) Given that the Post Office licensee has been informed that Australia Post intends to restrict delivery to one delivery point per area:
(a) is it true that there will be a restriction on delivery points for the Lightning Ridge region; if so, what will be the restriction;
(b) how many delivery points will be cut in this review;
(c) is it correct that Australia Post will only pay for one delivery point for each area, such as Simms Hill, despite the fact that upwards of 200 people may live in that area and that the remaining 199 people will need to use a Post Office box or have their mail returned to sender;
(d) what delivery points other than Simms Hill will be affected; and
(e) who will identify the delivery point to be serviced and who will identify the 199 people that will no longer be serviced and will have to take up the option of delivery to a Post Office box at extra expense.
(3) Does Australia Post have a community service obligation to provide mail services that are reasonably accessible to all Australians wherever they reside; if so, how does Australia Post justify the actions being proposed in Lightning Ridge.
(4) Is Australia Post refusing to accept Lightning Ridge residential addresses as verified, despite the fact that they are valid local addresses, well known by the community.
(5) Is Australia Post also stating that incorrectly addressed Post Office box mail, where the Post Office manager/owner knows that street address, now cannot be redirected and must be returned to sender.
(6) Does Australia Post intend that all mail for a Post Office box holder, not correctly addressed to a Post Office box, be returned to sender; if so:
(a) (i) is the Post Office currently paid a mail service payment to help manage this mail, and (ii) does Australia Post intend to remove this payment;
(b) does Australia Post uphold this policy and send its own mail to their clients' PO box and not to their home address in areas where this policy is stipulated; and
(c) how will the senders of mail to these recipients know to address the mail to a PO box and not a home address.
(7) Given that the Post Office has been informed of new arrangements for mail sorting:
(a) does Australia Post intend to change the rate of the outward mail processing fee in Lightning Ridge by demanding that all mail for the local community leave the Post Office and be transported to the nearest delivery centre for sorting before being transported back to that Post Office and then have staff from that Post Office unload the mail from the delivery truck that has now been sorted at the local delivery point;
(b) does this mean that the new process for a letter handed over the counter at the Post Office to go to a delivery point just 2 metres from the counter, could take up to 3 days; and
(c) by what measure is this new process more efficient and goes towards providing a more effective mail service.
(8) Does Australia Post intend to remove the telephone subsidy paid to rural licensees; if so:
(a) is this due to the increased cost of rural licensees to contact the network offices, located in major cities, which in the case of Lightning Ridge is now located in Sydney;
(b) if the increased cost is not the reason, why then is the subsidy being removed; and
(c) will Australia Post be breaking its agreement by the removal of this subsidy.
(9) Where the licensee can demonstrate an increase of counter delivery points, do the additional payments for each of those delivery points form part of the agreement made with Australia Post; if not, why not.
(1) The Lightning Ridge licensee has not been informed that there will be any changes to their Licensed Post Office (LPO) Agreement. Any changes will occur only on assignment of the licence to a new licensee.
(a) It is intended to conduct a poll of Lightning Ridge town residents this year to determine whether they wish to have a 'to the property' mail delivery. This may have an impact on the number of counter delivery points currently provided from the Lightning Ridge Licensed Post Office.
(b) Based on verified data Australia Post provides an across the counter delivery service to 752 delivery points at Lightning Ridge LPO. Australia Post does not have data on how many people live at these individual delivery points.
(c) Under the LPO Agreement licensees are paid on the number of verified delivery points. The verified figure currently stands at 752.
(d) Please see answer to (c) above.
(e) There is no new counter mail delivery measure being implemented, however as per (a) above residents will shortly be able to choose whether to continue the existing counter delivery service or a 'to the property' delivery by mail contractor.
(f) Australia Post's Post Office Box (POB) service is provided under the LPO Agreement by the licensee. Australia Post is unable to comment on future leasing trends in Lightning Ridge at this stage.
(g) Please see the response to a). Any decision to introduce to the property delivery is based on Australia Post's ability to be able to service these points. In Lightning Ridge's situation this has been determined to be the boundaries of the Lightning Ridge township.
(2) (a) Australia Post is not proposing to alter existing delivery policy other than as described in answer (1) (a). (b) Please see above answer. (c) No, the licensee is being paid as per the LPO Agreement on the basis of verified delivery points.
(d) Please see above response to (c)
(e) Please see above response to (c)
(3) Australia Post's Community Service Obligations are detailed in the Australian Postal Corporation Act, 1989. At present, mail delivery to Lightning Ridge residents is either through counter mail delivery for the opening hours of the post office or the customer may choose to lease a Post Office Box with 24 hours access. Based on customer feedback, Australia Post is now able to conduct a poll of eligible residents in the Lightning Ridge township to determine whether they wish to have a “to the property” delivery. Australia Post is meeting its obligations.
(4) No, all correctly verified addresses are accepted.
(5) All mail received at a Post Office is to be delivered as addressed. The responsibility for ensuring mail is correctly addressed rests with the sender. Should a mail article not be collected or be unable to be delivered, the mail would be returned to sender.
(6) No, mail addressed to a street address that does not receive delivery, assuming no current redirection is in place, would be delivered across the counter or (should street mail delivery be introduced) through the mail contractor.
(a) A mail service payment is paid where Australia Post requires the licensee to undertake mail sorting and acceptance prior to 8am or after 6pm. Or where a critical mail circulation situation applies. It is not paid for mail sorting as other payments such as the mail management fee, Post office box fee and counter mail delivery fee apply to this function. The current mail service payment is not intended to be removed under the existing LPO Agreement.
(b) Please see response to 6 above.
(c) Please see response to 5 above.
(7) (a) There are no changes to existing mail sorting arrangements nor payments at the Lightning Ridge LPO. The payment rate may be varied at the time of assignment.
(b) Please see (a)
(c) Please see (a)
(8) (a) No, where warranted the telephone subsidy to licensees will continue. Over the years however many requirements for a licensee to communicate with Australia Post by telephone have been replaced by a toll free number e.g. EPOS Helpdesk, Stock warehouse, Shared Services Division, Armaguard, IT help Desk.
(b) Where warranted the telephone subsidy will continue to be paid. NB: There is no change to the existing licensee's telephone subsidy.
(c) The subsidy for the existing licensee is not being removed. Upon assignment entitlement to this subsidy is to be reviewed with the new licensee.
(9) As per the LPO Agreement where a counter delivery point listing provided by the licensee can be verified the appropriate payment will be made. Alternatively, under the formula detailed in the LPO Agreement, a mail count to identify the volume of mail would appropriately pay the licensee.
In regard to claims made by Mr Wilson, a former Wall Street resource analyst, of ongoing interference by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) since authoring a research report in 1996 and associated comments on the shooting deaths of seven Indigenous protestors at the Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Grasberg mine site in West Papua in 1994:
(1) How has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of interference by ASIO with his employers, family, friends, peers, neighbours and business.
(2) Has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of inappropriate and inadequate oversight and review by the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) of this matter; if so, how was that investigation carried out and what was the outcome.
(3) Has the Minister requested any information from ASIO, IGIS or from other sources in considering Mr Wilson's request for an investigation into the allegations concerning ASIO and IGIS; if so: (a) when and to whom was the request made; (b) what details were requested; and (c) was a response provided; if so, can details or a copy of that response be provided.
(4) Why has IGIS decided not to investigate any matters raised, despite Mr Wilson providing substantive additional allegations and detailed information concerning inappropriate ASIO interference subsequent to IGISs preliminary investigation in 2004.
(5) What did the preliminary investigation conducted by IGIS in 2004 consist of, and in regard to this: (a) was ASIO asked if there was any substance to the complaints raised by Mr Wilson about ASIO abuse and interference; (b) were any of the people named by Mr Wilson contacted or interviewed; and (c) was evidence against Mr Wilson that depended on the provision of intelligence by a foreign intelligence service, such as the United States of America, independently verified and corroborated by ASIO.
(6) Has Mr Wilson ever been, or is he currently, the subject of an ASIO investigation.
(7) Has ASIO ever targeted Mr Wilson's family, friends, peers, neighbours, lawyers or business associates.
(8) What other Australian agencies are, or have been, involved in investigating and/or the interference with Mr Wilson since 1996, as outlined in his complaints about ASIO and IGIS.
(1) My Department advises Mr Wilson's complaint has been examined by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) and that no further action is required.
(2) My Department has considered the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of inappropriate and inadequate oversight and review by the IGIS.
(3) No.
(4) and (5) The Office of the IGIS has advised that:
It is not the usual practice of the Inspector-General to discuss individual complaints which have been made to her office. This practice has been adopted both to protect the privacy of individuals who make complaints and to protect the activities of the Australian intelligence community from unnecessary or unreasonable exposure.
It is the standard practice of government and government agencies not to comment publicly on intelligence matters.
As Mr Wilson has previously self-disclosed that he has made complaints to the Inspector-General, the Inspector-General is able in these circumstances to advise that she and one of her predecessors have previously examined Mr Wilson's claims and determined that there were insufficient grounds on which to proceed to a full inquiry. This remains the position of the current Inspector-General.
(6) ASIO is an agency that is administered by the Attorney-General. This question is best answered by the Attorney-General. Please see the response provided to Senate Question 1871.
(7) ASIO is an agency that is administered by the Attorney-General. This question is best answered by the Attorney-General. Please see the response provided to Senate Question 1871.
(8) My Department is not aware of any Australian agencies that are, or have been, involved in investigating and/or interference with Mr Wilson.
In regard to claims made by Mr Wilson, a former Wall Street resource analyst, of ongoing interference by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) since authoring a research report in 1996 and associated comments on the shooting deaths of seven Indigenous protestors at the Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Grasberg mine site in West Papua in 1994:
(1) How has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of interference by ASIO with his employers, family, friends, peers, neighbours and business.
(2) Has the Minister or the department investigated the allegations raised by Mr Wilson of inappropriate and inadequate oversight and review by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) of this matter; if so, how was that investigation carried out and what was the outcome.
(3) Has the Minister requested any information from ASIO, IGIS or from other sources in considering Mr Wilson's request for an investigation into the allegations concerning ASIO and IGIS; if so:
(a) when and to whom was the request made;
(b) what details were requested; and
(c) was a response provided; if so, can details or a copy of that response be provided.
(4) Why has IGIS decided not to investigate any matters raised, despite Mr Wilson providing substantive additional allegations and detailed information concerning inappropriate ASIO interference subsequent to IGIS's preliminary investigation in 2004.
(5) What did the preliminary investigation conducted by IGIS in 2004 consist of, and in regard to this:
(a) Was ASIO asked if there was any substance to the complaints raised by Mr Wilson about ASIO abuse and interference;
(b) Were any of the people named by Mr Wilson contacted or interviewed; and
(c) Was evidence against Mr Wilson that depended on the provision of intelligence by a foreign intelligence service, such as the United States of America, independently verified and corroborated by ASIO.
(6) Has Mr Wilson ever been, or is he currently, the subject of an ASIO investigation.
(7) Has ASIO ever targeted Mr Wilson's family, friends, peers, neighbours, lawyers or business associates.
(8) What other Australian agencies are, or have been, involved in investigating and/or the interference with Mr Wilson since 1996, as outlined in his complaints about ASIO and IGIS.
(1) Mr Wilson was advised that the appropriate body to investigate his concerns regarding ASIO was the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS).
(2) As the IGIS falls within the Prime Minister's portfolio, the Prime Minister or her Department are best placed to respond to this matter.
(3) On 8 March 2011 the Attorney-General's Department wrote to Mr Wilson and suggested he contact the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security regarding his concerns about the activities of ASIO.
(4) As the IGIS falls within the Prime Minister's portfolio, the Prime Minister or her Department are best placed to respond to this matter. The Office of the IGIS has advised that:
“It is not the usual practice of the Inspector-General to discuss individual complaints which have been made to her office. However, as Mr Wilson has previously self-disclosed that he has made complaints to the IGIS, in these circumstances the IGIS has advised that she and one of her predecessors have previously examined Mr Wilson's claims and determined that there were insufficient grounds on which to proceed to a full inquiry.”
(5) See answer to question (4).
(6) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.
(7) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.
(8) Consistent with longstanding practice, it is not appropriate to comment on operational matters.
Given that feed-in tariffs from household solar energy systems, paid as cash, are assessed as income for all social security income support payments: how much money does the Government save, broken down by each social security income support payment type, as a result of income derived from cash payments from feed-in tariffs.
Solar panel feed-in tariffs paid as an electricity account credit are not assessed under the income support income test.
The Department of Human Services advised that they cannot separately identify cash solar panel feed-in tariffs income reported by income support recipients. Therefore, the information sought is not available.
(1) Was the cost of $13 million, cited when the NMC was opened in 1991: (a) the cost for the entire facility or for the cyclotron itself; and (b) taxpayer funded; if so, to what extent.
(2) On what basis was the decision made to decommission the NMC.
(3) Was it the manufacturer's advice to decommission the machine.
(4) What was the manufacturer's assessment of the operational problems of the NMC.
(5) Is the IBA built 'Cyclone 30' still operating in other countries.
(6) Why have other operators obtained longer life cycles from their equipment than the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation.
(7) What was the cost of decommissioning the NMC.
(8) Is the NMC's residual value of $2 million, cited during the 2010 11 Senate Budget estimates hearings of the Economics Committee, the book value or the actual sale price.
(1) (a) The cost of $13 million was for the cyclotron itself; (b) The construction of the NMC was funded by government through a special appropriation.
(2) In the last years of its operation, the NMC became unreliable, due primarily to equipment failures in a facility approaching the end of its operating life. After considering the results of an external review of the facility, the ANSTO Board decided that further investment and high maintenance costs were no longer justifiable, as reliability could not be guaranteed.
(3) No.
(4) Not applicable – see response to (3) above.
(5) Yes.
(6) The Government cannot answer on behalf of other operators.
(7) $2.2 million.
(8) The book value.
1) Given that on 31 May 2011 the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B carcinogen, and the inability of the Australian telecommunication industry to obtain public liability insurance for potential health effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), what financial provision is the Australian Government making to cover future public liability claims and health costs for Australians for illnesses caused by EMR.
2) Given that, for more than 10 years, Switzerland has been operating with an EMR standard that is 1 per cent of the current Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency standard (proving this to be both technically and economically viable), why is Australia not adopting this precautionary approach in light of the WHO classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B carcinogen.
1) The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is aware that the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as Group 2B or 'possibly carcinogenic to humans', based on limited evidence on wireless phone use and certain brain tumours. The IARC found evidence on exposure from mobile phone base stations and cancer to be inadequate.
We recognise that the IARC classification can be a concern to the community. Of reassurance to the public should be that ARPANSA gives consideration to these issues and offers advice on ways to reduce personal exposures from handsets.
Exposures to the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones and base stations are regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to levels set by ARPANSA in its Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields—3 kHz to 300 GHz (2002) (ARPANSA Standard). This Standard includes a precautionary requirement to minimise unnecessary public exposure to radiofrequency fields. Typical exposures to the public from mobile phone base stations are well below international and Australian exposure limits and far below the localised exposures from mobile phone handsets.
2)In Australia, although there are no precautionary limits per se, the ARPANSA exposure standard requires a minimisation of public radiofrequency fields exposure "…which is unnecessary or incidental to achievement of service objectives or process requirements, provided this can be readily achieved at reasonable expense." This is in line with the WHO's recommendations.
With reference to correspondence sent from the department's Ministerial Liaison and Support Section on 19 April 2012:
(1) Why did it take 2 months for the department to provide basic acknowledgement and advice that the matter would be passed to a different Minister.
(2) Has the Minister provided any guidance to the department on the timeframes within which the department is required to respond; if so, can a copy of the advice be provided.
(3) Given that the initial letter sought 'urgent advice', is it common for a basic response to take 2 months; if so, why; if not, why did it occur on this occasion.
(4) Does the Minister consider the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme to be an important issue requiring attention.
(1) to (3) There are established time frames for responding to ministerial correspondence within the Department of Health and Ageing (see attachment A). Every effort is made to respond in a timely manner noting that complex issues and cross portfolio issues may require additional time.
The issue raised in Senator Abetz's letter is a cross portfolio issue between the Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Human Services and it required consultation between those two agencies to determine who was best placed to respond.
(4) The Australian Government considers access to affordable, high quality oral health care for all Australians of importance, particularly for low income earners and disadvantaged people. While the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme provides services for some parts of the population, it is not well targeted to assist those Australians most in financial need. The Government intends to close the scheme to put in place more appropriate policies.
Attachment A
Can itemised lists be provided detailing: (a) the amount paid to Professor Jonathan West for work on the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement; and (b) whether any of the signatories to the original Statement of Principles received government funds; if so, how much.
(a) The total cost of the Tasmanian Forest Independent Verification process, led by Professor Jonathan West, is approximately $2.05 million. Exact final figures cannot be provided at this time as some work is still underway, but total payments made as at 29 June 2012 are $1,897,288.26.
This total figure includes $130,000 for Professor Jonathan West's services, plus $302,540.44 for the other five expert members of the Independent Verification Group for their contribution to the comprehensive assessment of the Tasmanian forestry industry's timber supply requirements and the conservation values of nominated areas of Tasmania's native forests.
It also includes a total of $1,464,747.82 paid to 27 expert organisations and individuals to produce data, modelling and sub-reports to support the Independent Verification Group's analysis, plus ongoing technical support from industry and environment nominees, peer review and administration costs.
(b) In order to support their involvement in the Statement of Principles process, in June 2011 industry were provided a total of $120,000, employee representatives a total of
$80,000 and conservation non-government organisations a total of $40,000. This funding has been used to support a range of coordination activities including industry, employee and community engagement in the process and support programs.
Industry groups included:
Forest Industries Association of Tasmania
National Association of Forest Industries
Tasmanian Forest Contractors Association
Australian Forest Contractors Association
Tasmanian Country Sawmillers Federation
Timber Communities Australia
Empl o yees were represented by:
the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
Conservation non-government organisations include:
Australian Conservation Foundation
Environment Tasmania
The Wilderness Society was not funded at this time as it had suspended its involvement in the process.
In June 2012 the Signatories were granted the following additional amounts to support their ongoing involvement in intensive negotiations to reach an agreement which optimises wood supply and conservation outcomes. The following three organisations were provided $20,000 each to support their interstate representatives' involvement in Hobart negotiations:
Timber Communities Australia
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
Australian Conservation Foundation
The following seven organisations were provided $5,000 each to support the involvement of their Tasmanian representatives' in the Hobart negotiations:
Forest Industries Association of Tasmania
Australian Forest Products Association
Tasmanian Forest Contractors Association
Australian Forest Contractors Association
Tasmanian Sawmillers Association
The Wilderness Society
Environment Tasmania
All figures GST Exclusive
(1) With reference to the committee of experts developing the new System of Environmental–Economic Accounting chaired by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), how much progress is being made in other countries towards improving measures of economic wellbeing.
(2) Why are environmental expenditure accounts for Australia no longer produced.
(3) Are there any plans for the ABS to produce multifactor productivity estimates that also include inputs of natural and environmental resources.
(4) Why has the ABS taken the view that subsoil assets do not exist until we find them, rather than regarding the asset as having always been there, thereby revising back the series when a new deposit is discovered.
(5) How does the ABS respond to claims by Professor John Quiggin that a productivity slowdown has not occurred as there was no significant productivity acceleration in the 1990s.
(1) The System of Environmental-Economic Accounts (SEEA) outlines a measurement framework to capture the interactions between the environment and the economy. Development and application of environmental-economic accounts is an important part of the ABS's overall efforts to better understand well-being more generally, consistent with international and national interest in a wider range of indicators as recommended by international experts such as Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi. Statistical measures for quantifying environmental depletion and degradation are still under development, but many countries produce SEEA style flow accounts for water, energy and emissions including China, South Africa, Mexico, Israel, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Australia and the Netherlands.
(2) It is not possible for the ABS to satisfy all demands for statistical information and the ABS has prioritised the environmental information work program to focus on annual Water and Energy Accounts and developing experimental accounts on Waste and Land.
(3) The ABS has no current plans to produce multifactor productivity estimates that also include inputs of natural and environmental resources. The ABS's ongoing research program into improving the measurement of productivity is reviewed annually after consultation with key stakeholders, including the Productivity Commission. The ABS has conducted research into the measurement of natural resource inputs and their impact on the Mining Industry multifactor productivity (MFP) statistics. This work was presented at the 2011 Australian Conference of Economists in Canberra.
(4) The national balance sheet is produced by the ABS in line with the international standard, the System of National Accounts 2008. In the national accounts, an economic asset is defined as a tangible or intangible product on which right of ownership is exercised and whose holding or use procures economic advantages for the owner. Resources which are unknown or are not exploitable do not have an economic value. For sub-soil reserves of mineral and energy resources, increases in the known stock levels are the result of mineral exploration and price and cost movements.
(5) ABS productivity statistics are compiled in accordance with internationally recognised methodologies consistent with the System of National Accounts 2008 as documented in Chapter 27 of Australian National Accounts: Concepts, Sources and Methods (cat. no. 5216.0). The ABS has an ongoing commitment to improving productivity measures and welcomes discussion on these methodologies.
Will the Minister commit to delaying any declaration of Muckaty as the final location for the proposed nuclear waste site under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012 until the matters pertaining to the nomination currently before the Federal Court of Australia are resolved.
The Government has made clear it will respect the Court's decision.
(1) Given that the shark product data collected by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) is of a 'greater resolution' than that held by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), why is ABS data publically available yet AQIS will not publically release shark product export data for the period 2008 to 2011.
(2) Can a list be provided detailing the total quantity of shark fin exported under the trade codes FU0316 (shark fin) and FU0180 (dried shark fin), listed separately, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, including:
(a) the total quantity, by weight, for each export code;
(b) each Australian port from which the shark fin was exported; and
(c) the destination of the export.
(3) Can a list be provided detailing the total quantity of shark product exported under the trade codes FC0560, FF0520, FF0957, FF1226, FF1350, FF1702, FU0291, FU0299, FU0313, FU0388, FU0389, FU0414, FF0316 and FU0180, listed separately, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, including:
(a) the total quantity, by weight, for each export code;
(b) each Australian port from which the shark fin was exported; and
(c) the destination of the export.
(4) For the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011, does the total quantity, by weight, of shark products exported under each of the above trade codes correspond with reported catches from Commonwealth, state and territory fisheries and reported to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
(5) Following the TRAFFIC review of South African shark imports and a subsequent letter from TRAFFIC to the former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mr Peter McGauran, in 2007, what measures has the Government taken to improve the quality of shark import and export data.
(6) What action has the Government taken to ensure imports of seafood into Australia are 'responsible', through being consistent with all elements of the FAO Technical Guidelines for the Responsible Fish Trade.
(7) Will the Government consider adopting a risk assessment method consistent with that being developed by TRAFFIC for the United Kingdom Joint Nature Conservation Committee as a way of identifying species that are not consistent with responsible fish trade.
(8) Will the Government consider adopting a similar regulation to that adopted by the European Union to limit the access of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) derived fisheries products into the Australian marketplace, by requiring the validation of all exports to Australia by Flag States that the products have been caught legally.
(9) Given that under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and, in particular, clause 9ZO (Prohibited ways of processing fish) of the Regulations made under section 14 of the Act, the caudal lobe and the dorsal, pectoral or caudal fins of sharks of the class Chondrichthyes may be removed from the carcass before the fish is landed and received by a fish receiver permit holder, a ban that enables species identification on landing and in turn monitoring that catches are within prescribed limits, protected species monitoring and compliance with legal size limits, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012:
(a) to what extent has the Australian Fisheries Management Authority investigated compliance with this measure;
(b) how many shark landings (in-port), at sea and fish receiver inspections have been observed;
(c) how many compliance breaches were recorded and have any offenders been successfully prosecuted;
(d) if no compliance monitoring has taken place, why not; and
(e) if illegal shark finning activity has been recorded, what quantity of shark and shark fin, by weight, was apprehended.
(10) For the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012:
(a) how many foreign fishing vessels have been observed and apprehended fishing in the Australian Fishing Zone;
(b) how many of these vessels were in possession of shark or shark fin;
(c) what was the total quantity, by weight, of shark and shark fin taken illegally by foreign fishing vessels; and
(d) what was the composition (species) of the illegal take of sharks.
(11) Given that the 2007 Australian Institute of Criminology report, A national study of crime in the Australian fishing industry, identified evidence of illegal activity in obtaining shark fins and noted the high value of fins as a driver of illegal activity, stating: 'in the Northern Territory, stakeholders considered that large scale and well-organised shark finning had developed in northern Australia, with family groups and companies involved':
(a) what measures has the Government taken to address the issue since the publication of the report;
(b) what evidence is there that the measures have been successful; and
(c) if no action has been taken, why not.
(1) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) does not collect data for the purpose of public reporting. The information held by DAFF in relation to shark produce export data is commercial in nature and is not made publically available.
(2) A list of data for shark fin (and shark product) that includes the product descriptor codes, weight and destination can be provided for the previous 12 months. After 12 months, data is archived without the product descriptor code detail. Port information has not been included to protect the identity of individual businesses.
The following table contains shark fin and shark product data for the last 12 months (1 July 2011-30 June 2012) for the product descriptor codes (FC0560, FF0520, FF0957, FF1226, FF1350, FF1702, FU0291, FU0299, FU0313, FU0388, FU0389, FU0414, FU0316 and FU0180) by weight and destination.
The following table contains information retrieved from archives for 2008- 30 June 2011 for high level product type, weight and destination.
(3) Please refer to the response to Question 2.
(4) It is not possible to make a valid comparison between the total quantity of shark products exported with the reported catches from Commonwealth, state and territory fisheries, as reported to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. This is because:
(5) The World Customs Organization (WCO) sponsors and maintains the International Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. Australia is a signatory to the harmonized system. Since 1988, the harmonized system has formed the basis of Australia's commodity classifications for traded goods, including imports and exports, and the dissemination of international trade statistics. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is the lead agency for its implementation in Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics hold data on shark product exports which is derived using the harmonised system of tariff codes.
The WCO reviews the harmonized system every five years to reflect changes in industry practice, technological developments and changes in international trade patterns. The fourth and most recent review of the Harmonized System was completed in June 2010, and came into effect on 1 January 2012. These changes were implemented in Australia as part of the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Bill 2011, which clarified several tariff lines relating to shark products, and created a new tariff line for shark fins (smoked, salted or dried).
Assessing the potential for a more comprehensive shark trade data collection system to improve shark conservation and management is also an action item in Australia's second National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (Shark Plan 2). Under the plan's operational strategy, DAFF will 'Assess the potential for more comprehensive trade data collection and analysis to improve shark conservation and management outcomes and implement a more comprehensive trade data collection system as appropriate'.
(6) Australia's systems are largely consistent with the voluntary FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fish Trade that were adopted in 2008. For example, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides a legal framework for the imports and exports of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) listed species.
The EPBC Act:
Australia does not require documentation with every import of seafood that attests to its conformance with the FAO's voluntary guidelines, and forcing compliance with these guidelines would not be consistent with free trade policy.
(7) The government is not currently considering a risk assessment method as a way of identifying species that are not consistent with responsible fish trade.
Australia assesses imports of fish products based on sanitary and phytosanitary standards, consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization, and whether imports comply with relevant measures adopted under those regional fisheries management organisations of which Australia is a member.
(8) Schemes to track fisheries products from catch to market place can be effective tools in combating illegal fishing. Catch documentation schemes should be appropriately adapted for the particular needs and objectives of the organisation or fishery to which it relates. In Australia's view, the European Union's (EU) scheme is not likely to be the most effective system for all fisheries or organisations.
Three of the organisations of which Australia is a member use catch documentation schemes to trace or monitor catch of specific fishery resources. This includes the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (southern Bluefin tuna), the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (toothfish) and the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (bigeye tuna). A fourth, the Western Central Pacific Fishery Commission, is currently considering the most appropriate objectives and design for catch documentation schemes to monitor certain species.
Furthermore, Australia's market and trade characteristics are distinct from the EU, which is one of the world's largest import markets for fish products. As a result, the EU's regulation may not be the most appropriate approach for addressing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing from an Australian perspective. Australia will continue to work with regional partners through the Regional Plan of Action (RPOA) to Promote Responsible Fishing Practices Including Combating Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing in the South East Asia Region and continue efforts under the Pacific Island Forum Fisheries Agency to address IUU in the region.
(9) Clause 9ZO of the Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 stipulates the way fish can be processed before being received by a fish receiver. In respect to sharks the clause states that no caudal lobe, dorsal, pectoral or caudal fin can be removed before being received by a fish receiver.
(a) AFMA has in place a comprehensive intelligence driven, risk based targeted domestic compliance program. Shark finning, along with other matters identified as posing risks to the integrity of AFMA's fisheries management arrangements, are monitored and treated by AFMA as part of its compliance program which includes targeted field inspections. These inspections of vessels and fish receiver premises are conducted based on risk analysis and relevant intelligence information holdings. These inspections monitor compliance levels against all Commonwealth fisheries management arrangements, including the landing and receipt of sharks. Since 2008 AFMA has investigated five specific matters concerning allegations of illegal shark finning.
(b) Field inspections conducted by AFMA are multi functional and not species specific. Consequently each inspection has the potential to detect illegal shark finning activities. The following table provides the breakdown on the total number of domestic field inspections covering all Commonwealth fisheries by financial year up to 30 June 2012.
(c) For the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012 there was one breach recorded in relation to shark finning with the master of one fishing vessel being prosecuted and convicted. In this case the master was fined $4,000 plus court costs.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) Since 1 July 2008 AFMA has seized 24.1 kilograms of shark fin from one domestic operator.
(10)(a) The following table details the number of sightings of foreign fishing vessels and the number of illegal fishing vessels apprehended in the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) from 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012. The sightings data does not reflect the actual number of illegal boats because it includes multiple sightings of the same vessels made on consecutive surveillance flights, sightings of fishing vessels legitimately transiting the AFZ and sightings of Indonesian sail powered vessels transiting to and from an area of waters inside the AFZ where they are permitted to fish.
Vessel Sightings and Apprehensions (to 30 June 2012)
Note: The Provisional Fisheries Surveillance and Enforcement Line (PFSEL) is a median line negotiated in 1981 between Australia and Indonesia to delimitate overlapping claims to Exclusive Economic Zones by both countries in waters north of Australia. Australia has undertaken not to exercise jurisdiction for fisheries surveillance and enforcement purposes in respect to swimming fish species north of the PFSEL against Indonesian licensed vessels.
(b) The following table details the number of vessels apprehended and the number of those vessels which were found to have shark product found on board for the period 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2012.
(c) No reliable data is available to determine the total quantity of shark fin taken illegally by foreign fishing vessels. The table below, however, provides details on the quantity of shark product found onboard those foreign vessels apprehended inside the AFZ.
Quantity of Shark Products Found on Board1 (to 30 June 2012)
1 The catch data is collated during the initial boarding at sea at the time of the apprehension
2 Weights and quantities provided are estimates provided by the boarding officer and have not been verified
3 Catch numbers and amounts are exclusive; catch is reported either by number or by weight
4 No information is available to split this data between fish and shark products
(d) The species composition of sharks taken by foreign fishing vessels inside the Australian Fishing Zone will vary depending on the location of the fishing activity and the type of fishing gear being used, however the main species taken by foreign fishing vessels in order of volume are Silky Shark, Blue Shark and Black Tip Shark.
(11) (a) Shark fisheries in waters off northern Australia are managed through joint authority arrangements between the Commonwealth, Queensland, Northern Territory (NT) and Western Australian governments. Through the joint authority arrangements, the States/NT have assumed responsibility for day to day management and this includes the enforcement of the relevant State/NT laws under which the fisheries are managed. In the Northern Territory the Police are the responsible agency for the enforcement of NT fisheries laws.
In other parts of Australia where the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over shark fishing AFMA has imposed a range of measures to address the risk of shark finning. These include the introduction of possession limits on the number of shark carcases which can be carried on board vessels and restrictions on the extent to which processing can be conducted at sea and the form in which fish processors are permitted to receive shark.
AFMA, through its general deterrence program, conducts targeted inspections of both Commonwealth endorsed fishing vessels and fish receiver premises to monitor compliance levels with a range of Commonwealth fisheries management arrangements (including the landing and receipt of shark carcasses).
(b) Between 2008-09 and 2011-12 AFMA's risk assessment rating associated with shark finning has declined. This is based on data analysis on catch landings and exports, the lack of credible evidence gleaned from investigations conducted into allegations of shark finning, a reduction in intelligence reports and allegations relating to shark finning and the low incidence of matters detected during targeted field operations.
(c) not applicable.
How many recipients of Clean Energy Future Household Assistance Package payments have been found to be:
(a) deceased; (b) living outside Australia; and (c) not eligible for such a payment.
(a) Clean Energy Advance payments were not made to known deceased customers. It is possible a payment may have been paid to a deceased customer where the department had not been advised of the death before the determination for payment was made.
(b) Household Assistance legislation does not provide for Clean Energy Advance payments to be paid to individuals that are permanently or temporarily outside of Australia at the time of determining eligibility for payment. For those customers temporarily overseas, the legislation does provide for customers to be assessed for eligibility for the Clean Energy Advance payment upon return to Australia.
The department paid a Clean Energy Advance payment to around 6.5 million customers between May and June 2012. The Department has a suite of robust integrity checks. These checks have detected that around 31 customers were outside of Australia at the time of payment and were not reported as overseas at the time they were paid a Clean Energy Advance. Some of these customers have since returned to Australia and are eligible for payment. The remaining customers will be assessed for eligibility for payment upon their return to Australia and most will be eligible for a payment. The actual payment amount is based on the number of days remaining between the date returned to Australia and the end of the Clean Energy Advance period. Where it is found the customer was not eligible for payment, a debt may be raised in relation to the Clean Energy Advance and other pensions, family payments or income support payments, depending on the circumstances.
(c) Aside from the potential customer cohort identified above in (b), there are no known instances where a customer that has been paid a Clean Energy Advance has subsequently been found not to be eligible.
Given that the Australian National University Student Union has used funds acquired under compulsory student unionism to purchase jelly beans for a free giveaway: (1) Is the Government's reintroduction of compulsory student unionism being implemented as intended. (2) Did the Government envisage the spending of funds on jelly beans. (3) Does the Government consider this an appropriate use of funds acquired in accordance with compulsory student unionism.
The Government has not reintroduced compulsory student unionism. Universities are prohibited under the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act) from requiring students to become members of student organisations or to pay fees in respect of those organisations.
Does the Government support the findings of Fair Work Australia's report into the Health Services Union.
The Government is confident that Fair Work Australia conducted independent investigations into the Victoria No. 1 Branch and the National Office of the Health Services Union (HSU). The Government has publicly stated that it is a matter for the Courts to determine whether the breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 or the rules of the HSU have occurred.
With reference to the Incoming Minister brief that was released following a question on notice, which contained a Hot Issue brief on the implementation of Government policy in line with changes to the Labor Party policy platform, what changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 are being pursued by the Government outside the current review process.
The Government is constantly considering the operation of the Fair Work Act and whether the operation of the Act can be improved. As part of this approach, the Government is considering the recommendations of the independent Fair Work Review panel.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1570 (Senate Hansard, 8 May 2012, p. 2802), which states 'as the investigations are completely independent of the Government, the Government will consider the findings of the KPMG review before deciding whether to comment publicly on this matter': (1) Given this comment, what prompted the Minister's announcement of changes to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. (2) Will the Government make any further changes following the KPMG report.
(1) The comment relates to a question on notice (no. 1570) about the length of time taken by Fair Work Australia to complete investigations. In light of the release of the Fair Work Australia reports on the investigations into the Victoria No. 1 Branch and the National Office of the Health Services Union, the Government considered it appropriate to announce amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 in order to improve financial disclosure and transparency rules, provide for targeted training in financial management, and quickly restore public confidence in the general operation of registered organisations.
(2) The Government has committed to examine the KPMG Review report when finalised and implement any additional changes that may be required as a result of that Review.
With reference to the statement made during question time on 19 March 2012, that the Minister would 'draw it [the Fair Work Australia report into the Health Services Union] to the attention of the ATO [Australian Taxation Office]': (1) Was the report referred to the ATO; if not, why not. (2) Did the Minister refer the report to any other agency.
(1) On 19 March, the ATO advised my office that they were aware of the report into the Victorian No. 1 Branch of the Health Services Union and as such it was not necessary to refer it to them.
(2) No. The report was made publicly available on the Senate Standing Committees on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations website on 7 May 2012.
Has the Minister received a copy of the Fair Work Act Review; if so, is the Minister confident that it will satisfy the requirements of an Office of Best Practice Regulation post-implementation review.
The Fair Work Act Review report was provided to me on 15 June 2012. The report was assessed by the Office of Best Practice Regulation as meeting the best practice regulation requirements for a post-implementation review prior to being provided to me.
With reference to the Government's amendment to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012:
(a) who was consulted prior to the amendment being circulated; and
(b) which stakeholders supported the amendment.
The Government consulted with a number of stakeholders, prior to the amendments being circulated.
Details of those consultations remain a matter between the Government and the stakeholders.
In regard to the Minister's address to the ACTU Congress on 18 June 2012, which made reference to a list that the Government had 'ticked off', can details be provided of what else on this list the Government plans on legislating.
The Minister did not address the ACTU Congress on 18 June 2012.
(1) Is the Minister aware of the Howe Inquiry.
(2) Given that the report based many of its findings on the Race to the Bottom: Sham Contracting in Australia's Construction Industry report released by CFMEU Construction and General, which was subsequently discredited by the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) review into sham contracting, does the Minister agree with the ABCC's findings or with the Australian Council of Trade Unions report.
(1) Yes, I am aware of the Howe Inquiry.
(2) The Government is currently considering the Howe Inquiry report and its recommendations.
With reference to the promise made by the Treasurer in the 2011–12 Federal Budget, that the Government would create half a million jobs:
(a) how many jobs have been created; and
(b) how many will be created.
(a) In contrast to most developed economies, Australia's labour market has performed strongly since the onset of the global financial crisis. Australian employment has grown by around 800,000 persons since late 2007, while the rest of the world has shed over 25 million jobs, in net terms, over the same period.
(b) The Government's employment forecasts were updated in the 2012–13 Budget released on 8 May 2012. Over the two years to the June quarter of 2014 and in net terms, 360,000 jobs are expected to be created.
In regard to the Fair Work Australia (FWA) investigation into the Health Services Union and the Government's response: (1) What is the policy justification for allowing FWA to wholly outsource inquiries that it has been asked to conduct. (2) Does the Minister agree that FWA cannot cooperate with police. (3) With reference to a letter from a Detective Sergeant of the Victorian Fraud and Extortion Squad, which stated that FWA's advice was based on 'misconceived understanding', does the Minister believe FWA can cooperate with police; if not, why not.
(1) The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 (the Amending Act) amended the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the RO Act) to provide that the General Manager (GM) of Fair Work Australia (FWA) can delegate her or his inquiry or investigation powers under sections 330, 331, 332 and 333 to a member of FWA staff who is an SES employee or acting SES employee or to any other person or body that the GM is satisfied has substantial or significant experience or knowledge in accounting, auditing, financial reporting or conducting compliance audits or investigations.
This amendment will ensure that, where necessary, the GM is able to utilise a range of skills and qualifications which may not be readily available in FWA in conducting his/her investigation and inquiry function. However, a number of safeguards are included to ensure accountability where the inquiry or investigation function is delegated, for example whilst the delegate of the GM will be able to obtain information in the same way as the GM, a notice to produce or attend to provide information will only be able to be issued by the GM or a Senior Executive Service employee. Further, the decision as to whether to take further action following an investigation will remain with the GM.
(2) and (3) Following the passage of the Amending Act there is now no doubt that the GM can disclose certain information to relevant law enforcement agencies. In this regard the Amending Act:
(a) inserted an explicit power for the GM to disclose information obtained during an investigation that is likely to assist in the administration or enforcement of a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory; and
(b) amended paragraph 336(2)(c) of the RO Act to explicitly provide that following an investigation the GM of FWA can refer a matter to police for action in relation to possible criminal offences.
Prior to these amendments legal advice provided by the Australian Government Solicitor to the GM, which was publicly released by the GM, raised doubts as to the extent to which she could refer material to police.
With reference to media reports that the company Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd (Seafish) is seeking to bring the 'super trawler' Margaris to Tasmania, to be docked at Devonport in order to fish in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery:
(1) Has the Commonwealth recently increased the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for this fishery; if so, when and by how much.
(2) What data did the Commonwealth rely upon to increase the quota and when was this data last updated.
(3) Is the data reviewed according to the precautionary principle before there are any alterations in the TAC.
(4) Have there been any written or verbal discussions between the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments regarding this company, its trawler proposal and the TAC in the fishery.
(5) Have there been any discussions between Seafish and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) regarding the trawler proposal or the TAC; if so, has the Minister been involved in or informed of these discussions.
(6) Have Seafish or AFMA consulted with commercial or recreational fishers in Tasmania about the trawler proposal; if so, what was the outcome.
(7) Has modelling been done on the impact of the trawler on Tasmanian fisheries.
(1) The combined total allowable catches in the Small Pelagic Fishery for 2012-13 are
36 300 tonnes; an increase of 6 000 tonnes from the 2011-12 combined total allowable catches of 30 300 tonnes. The total allowable catch for some species increased while others decreased. The biggest change was jack mackerel east which increased from 4 600 tonnes in 2011-12 to 10 100 tonnes.
(2) The total allowable catch for jack mackerel east was increased on the basis of the report 'Application of daily egg production to estimate biomass of jack mackerel' by the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania (2011).
(3) Data is reviewed by the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group before it recommends total allowable catches for species and regions each season. The Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, which is used in the catch setting process, is precautionary taking into consideration both species productivity and broader ecosystem impacts. The total allowable catch for jack mackerel east was set at less than 7.5% of the estimated spawning biomass for the 2012-13 season. If the total allowable catches for all species and regions are taken in full in the 2012-13 season, at least 90 per cent of the estimated spawning stock biomass will remain for future years.
(4) AFMA regularly communicates with state counterparts about routine fisheries management issues. State representatives are invited to attend meetings of resource assessment groups and management advisory committees which provide advice to the AFMA Commission. A permanent observer from the Tasmanian Government attended the meeting of the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group where the allowable catches for 2012-13 were considered.
(5) Seafish Tasmania has discussed with AFMA the possible operation of the FV Margiris in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery. I have been briefed on the discussions AFMA has held with Seafish Tasmania. I note AFMA is yet to receive an application and AFMA has not made any undertakings in regard to the Margiris operating in Australian waters.
(6) AFMA meets with recreational fishers and commercial fishers often on a number of matters. It is not the role of government to comment on commercial consultations.
(7) Catches of commercially targeted species in the Small Pelagic Fishery are limited to total allowable catches which apply regardless of the size of vessels used in the fishery. Therefore, should the Margiris operate in the fishery it will not be able to take catches greater than the total allowable catches set each season. In addition should the vessel operate in the fishery it will be subject to all domestic fishery management arrangements imposed by AFMA. These include catch limits, requirements for carrying AFMA observers to monitor fishing activities and the use of bycatch mitigation equipment, such as seal excluder devices.
With reference to partner visa applications:
(1) How many (a) individuals; and (b) women, are currently on the waiting list for a Partner (Provisional) (Class UF) visa
(2) From which countries do these individuals come
(3) What is the average waiting period for this visa
(4) What are the fees paid to the Department for processing applications for this visa
(5) How many departmental staff are engaged in processing the applications
(6) How many applications have been received from Australian citizens
(7) Is priority given to Australian citizens
(8) Is there an internal review process for applications that are rejected at the first instance; if not, why not.
(9) What is the cause of delays in processing applications for this visa.
As at 30 June 2012, there were 14 245 primary applicants for a Class UF Provisional Partner1 visa awaiting an outcome on their application. Of those, 9 889 are females.
Appendix A provides the breakdown by citizenship for the 14 245 Provisional Partner visa applicants currently awaiting finalisation of their applications.
The average processing time of a Provisional Partner visa application for the 2011 – 12 program year was 204.7 days.
As at 1 July 2012 the Visa Application Charge (VAC) for a combined Partner visa application is $2060. This covers both the subclass 309 and 100 applications.
In February 2012, there were approximately 221 decision makers in the overseas environment making decisions on Partner category visa applications. 126 of these were Australian based officers, while the remainder 95 were locally engaged officers.
The Department cannot report on the number of staff who only process Provisional Partner visa applications. This is because operational demands at posts vary constantly and officers may work on more than one visa caseload at any one time.
Departmental records indicate that for the program year 2011 – 2012, the Department received 12 966 Partner visa applications involving an Australian citizen sponsor.
Priority is not given to Australian citizens. In accordance with Ministerial Direction 43 (the Direction), applications are processed in the order in which they are received. The Direction allows for applications to be given priority processing if compelling or compassionate circumstances exist. However, there is no provision to prioritise an application on the basis that the sponsor is an Australian citizen.
The Department's former internal review body, the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO), was abolished in 1999, leaving the migration sector with a single tier of merits review. The abolition of the MIRO was the result of a desire to reduce review process times and increase resource efficiency.
The general rule is that a decision of a primary decision-maker to refuse a visa application can be reviewed by the Migration Review Tribunal, Refugee Review Tribunal or Administrative Appeals Tribunal if the application is made in Australia or if the visa applicant has an Australian citizen or permanent resident sponsor.
While the Department aims to finalise applications within the advertised service standards2, a number of factors may delay the processing of a Partner category visa application. These include:
————————
1 By lodging an application for a Provisional (Subclass 309) (Class UF visa, applicants automatically also apply for the Permanent (Subclass 100) (Class BC) visa.
2 Current service standards, as advertised on the Department’s website are 5 months for Low risk countries and 12 months for high risk countries. ‘Low risk’ applies to nationals from countries which issue Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) eligible passports; high risk countries are those which are not ETA eligible.
Appendix A
Breakdown of Partner visa applications awaiting finalisation (by citizenship)
With reference to procurement procedures undertaken by the department to implement the following initiatives:
(1) Which of the above initiatives have been fully implemented and on what dates.
(2) Have any of the above initiatives not yet been fully implemented; if so, which initiatives and why.
(1) The following initiatives have been implemented:
Probity advisors are engaged on a case by case basis dependent on the risk, complexity and value of the procurement. This is an ongoing requirement. Defence refers to probity guidance that is included in the Defence Procurement Policy Manual; Australian National Audit Office Better Practice Guide Fairness and Transparency in Purchasing Decisions; and the Department of Finance and Deregulation’s Buying for the Australian Government, Ethics and Probity in Procurement.
The NEP Centre of Excellence (COE) was established in Defence Support Group (DSG) on 1 July 2010 and offers procurement support and advice for procurement activities conducted across Defence. The COE (recently renamed to the Defence Procurement and Contracting Branch (DPCB)) provides support to ensure more robust and consistent commercial approaches within the procurement activity it supports across the Department.
The Non-Equipment Chief Procurement Officer (NECPO) position was established on 1 July 2010. For the period March – June 2012, 40 requests for endorsement of spending proposals valued over $1million were received. From 2 July 2012, as a result of the implementation of Non Materiel Procurement Shared Services, NECPO has been renamed Defence Chief Procurement Officer (DCPO) and the Non Equipment Procurement and Contracting Branch (NEPCB) has been renamed the Defence Procurement and Contracting Branch (DPCB). In addition to the endorsement of spending proposals over $1 million, all requests to establish Non Materiel Procurement (NMP) standing offer panels will also require endorsement.
Defence participates in Whole of Government procurement activities such as stationery and travel. In addition, Defence standing offer panels have also been created for office furniture; accommodation furniture and appliances; physical and recreational equipment; MRO hardware and tools; and OH&S.
The Working Group was established and the first meeting held on 1 September 2010 with invited stakeholders from Defence Groups and Services. The last meeting to date was held on 10 May 2012.
The website is established and has, to 2 July 2012, had 47235 hits.
On 26 September 2011, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence issued Joint Directive 26/2011 advising the establishment of the Defence Procurement Assurance Review (PAR) process. Defence Support Group has since conducted PAR Gate Reviews for Defence Force Recruiting, Health, Childcare, Logistics and Major Capital Facilities (MH60R) procurements. A review is currently being conducted for the Base Services Re-tender.
DSG has provided procurement practitioners for major procurement activities such as Defence Force Recruiting, Health and Logistics. Staff are currently working with Defence Legal to implement Defence arrangements under the Attorney- General’s Whole of Australian Government legal multi user list.
The Defence Support Group Procurement and Contracting Branch maintains internal status reporting for all major non-equipment procurement activity over $1m that it has endorsed or supported.
DSG compiles and publishes the Defence Annual Procurement Plan on AusTender and also conduct a mid year review and update. DSG staff provide ongoing support to Defence procurements, assisting and advising on the drafting of Tender documentation and the publication of these on AusTender. DSG also provide support with the development of tender documentation, evaluation of tenders and contract negotiations.
The strategy for recruitment and retention of suitably skilled procurement professionals engaged by DSG is to recruit personnel with some procurement skills and provide access to appropriate professional training, on the job training and coaching to increase skill levels to a suitable level. Retention of fully qualified procurement staff is an ongoing issue due to the competitive remuneration available in the private sector. The further introduction of Shared Service Reform allows DPCB the opportunity to fully develop staff skill levels and to provide better career structures for procurement staff wishing to seek advancement in their field of expertise without needing to leave the Group or Defence.
(2) The following initiatives not yet been fully implemented:
The business centre was established on 1 February 2011 and is on track to complete the majority of transition by end of December 2012. Under the new shared services arrangements, the centre has transferred to Chief Finance Officer Group. Defence Support Group is continuing to develop and implement an interim electronic forms solution to streamline purchase order processing and to eliminate data entry duplication.
The category management model that defines roles, responsibilities and processes has been developed. Following a pilot in the office supplies category which has resulted in significant savings, the model has been refined and will be implemented across specific NMP categories.
With reference to the incident at Darwin airport on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 involving the Adagold Aviation Pty Ltd contracted Middle East Area of Operation (MEAO) aircraft, operated by the carrier Hi Fly:
(1) Can a full and detailed description be provided of the ‘heavy landing’ that occurred during this incident.
(2) Given that the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure provided a very different answer to the one that was provided at the 2011-12 additional estimates hearing of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, stating that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) made no inspections of the MEAO contracted aircraft, (question on notice no. 1727, Senate Hansard, 8 May 2012, p. 2862), if CASA did not inspect the two Hi Fly aircraft, why was it said that they did.
(3) Who inspected the aircraft involved in the ‘heavy landing’ incident and what damage was found to have occurred.
(4) For how long was this aircraft out of service.
(5) Given that it was also said that bad weather conditions contributed to the incident, yet weather reports for 28 February 2012 record that it was a fair and clear day with light winds, why was it claimed that bad weather contributed to the ‘heavy landing’.
(6) Can a copy of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report of the incident be provided.
(1) On 29 February 2021, MEAO Air Sustainment Aircraft suffered a heavy landing at Darwin Airport, while en-route to the Middle East. The heavy landing was assessed to be due to weather and wind effect. The aircraft completed the landing and proceeded to the terminal without further incident. No injuries were reported as a result of this event.
The replacement aircraft was dispatched to resume the service approximately 24 hours later, in accordance with contractual requirements. The aircraft suffering the heavy landing underwent technical inspection at Darwin.
On 9 March 2012, this aircraft departed Darwin and recovered to a Lufthansa deeper maintenance facility for further detailed investigation and assessment. No damage to the aircraft was found as a result of the landing and it was cleared by the relevant Portuguese and European aviation authorities to resume service on 11 April 2012.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau continues on investigate the incident in accordance with its standards.
(2) The response made by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure is correct in that no safety inspection of the MEAO contracted aircraft was made by CASA in relation to the hard landing incident. CASA has conducted a total of four safety inspections since contract commencement in November 2010 and full details are contained in the response to Question on Notice No. 113 taken from the Senate Additional Estimates hearing on 15 February 2012. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) continues to investigate the incident in accordance with its standard procedures.
(3) Initial inspections were undertaken by the aircraft operator Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineers (LAME) in accordance with European and national aviation authority regulations. Further detailed inspection was undertaken by LAME at the Lufthansa maintenance facility. No damage was found to have occurred as a result of this incident.
(4) The aircraft was out of service for approximately six weeks, from 29 February 2012 until 11 April 2012. See response to part 1 above for further details.
(5) The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is investigating the incident and a full report is expected in due course.
(6) As at 9 July 2012, the investigation by the ATSB was still ongoing. The report status can be monitored and a copy obtained from the ATSB website (www.atsb.gov.au)
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1867:
(1) What funding has the department provided to supplement the Cabinet Trust Fund in each of the following years: (a) 2008; (b) 2009; (c) 2010; (d) 2011; and (e) 2012, to date.
(2) Have ministers been advised of an increase in the contribution required to cover the increased costs associated with providing catering to Cabinet and its committees.
I am advised that the answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
(1) Further to Questions on Notice 1867, 1810 and 1696, and consistent with long standing practice, the Cabinet Trust Fund covers 50 per cent of the costs associated with providing catering to Cabinet and its committees. The remaining costs are met by the department.
(2) Ministers' contributions are sufficient to meet the required contribution to the costs of catering for Cabinet and its committees.
(1) Given the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) as the national Commonwealth regulator does not have jurisdiction outside Australia, why was the agency appointed to coordinate the whole-of-government response to the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
(2) From what open sources does ARPANSA draw information in its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
(3) From what sources within the Japanese Government does ARPANSA draw information for its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
(4) Since the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearings in May 2012, has ARPANSA sought detailed knowledge of the status and serious risks posed by the spent fuel pool at Reactor 4 at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
(5) Given that the last advice posted on the ARPANSA website is dated 24 February 2012, and given that the situation in Japan has altered in terms of the reopening of nuclear power plants, when will this advice be updated.
(6) Does ARPANSA have sufficient resources to continue to provide ongoing monitoring and advice to the public and the Government on the ongoing situation at the Fukushima Daiichi site.
(1) ARPANSA was not the coordinator of the whole-of-government response for Australia to the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident. Rather ARPANSA provided advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Inter Departmental Emergency Task Force (IDETF) and the Australian Government.
(2) ARPANSA has used open sourced information from the Japanese Government, the Independent Investigation Commission and from the operators of the Fukushima nuclear power plants, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), to provide advice. In addition ARPANSA used published assessments undertaken by international agencies, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Health Organization and the French-based Institut de Radioprotection et de Surete Nucleaire. Information was also sourced from internationally reviewed scientific journal publications.
(3) ARPANSA drew information from within the following sectors of Japanese Government for its monitoring and advice for Australians on the situation at the Fukushima Dai-ichi site:
(a) Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet;
(b) Food Safety Commission;
(c) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology;
(d) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare;
(e) Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries;
(f) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry; and
(g) Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency.
(4) Yes.
(5) ARPANSA updated its web advisory on Fukushima on 6 July 2012 confirming that the safety situation at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi site remains unchanged.
(6) Yes.
Given evidence provided to the 2011-12 additional estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee on 15 February 2012 by Mr Carl Magnus Larsson, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), regarding a KPMG review of a report by the audit and fraud unit of the Department of Health and Ageing into the possible influence on a 2007 Yttrium-90 investigation as a result of a relationship between Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) staff and someone at ARPANSA:
1) Was the report delivered by KPMG to ARPANSA by the end of March 2012 as envisaged.
2) What terms of reference were provided to KPMG.
3) What amount was KPMG paid to conduct this review.
4) Will ARPANSA make the report public; if not, why not.
1) No, the KPMG Report was delivered to ARPANSA on 19 June 2012.
2) The terms of reference provided to KPMG by ARPANSA were that KPMG was to:
3) $75,000.
4) Yes, the report was released under a Freedom of Information (FOI) request on 16 July 2012 and a redacted version of the report is available on the FOI disclosure log section of ARPANSA’s website at link: www.arpansa.gov.au/AboutUs/disclosure.cfm
(1) Is the Government providing any financial, technical, preliminary or drafting support towards a regulatory framework for Burma's extractive industries sector:
(a) if so: (i) which government agency is responsible, (ii) what type of assistance is being provided and at what cost, and (iii) how many staff are assigned to the task; and
(b) if not, given there has been a request from the Burmese Government for this type of assistance: (i) have there been any discussions within Australia towards providing support, and (ii) has the Government discussed the provision of this assistance with other members of the international community.
(2) With the increase in Australian aid to Burma, and the commitment to increasing this assistance to $100 million in 2015 is Australia looking to establish a formalised aid agreement with the Burmese Government; if so:
(a) what would this agreement include; and
(b) does the Government intend to provide financial assistance directly to Burmese government departments.
(1) No.
(a) N/A.
(b) (i) Yes, but analysis of the state of the Burmese extractive industries sector and the prospects for reform is required to inform these discussions. This work is currently under development. (ii) The Government has regular discussions with bilateral donors regarding programs in Burma. In the course of these discussions, some donors have raised the prospect of supporting reform in Burma's extractive industries sector.
(2) Yes.
(a) The agreement would establish the framework under which Australian aid projects are implemented. It would outline the responsibilities of both governments with respect to the aid program, including: how the governments would coordinate the aid program; aid program personnel; review and evaluation; and facilitating supplies and professional and technical material. It would specify the legal obligations of both governments relating to: tax exemptions; liability; intellectual property rights; security; and transportation costs.
(b) Not at this time.
(1) Is the Minister aware of the 29 June 2012 report (ntnews.com.au) regarding the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism, Mr Martin Hoffman, raising concerns with St. Ignatius College, Riverview, New South Wales after a boarder from Tennant Creek addressed students about the Governments plan to build a nuclear waste dump at Muckaty.
(2) Was the Minister aware of the Deputy Secretarys approach to the school seeking a right of reply to the assembly speech delivered by this 15 year old.
(3) Did the Minister approve the Deputy Secretary approaching the school offering a briefing or debate in a private discussion, open debate or interview format.
(4) Will the department undertake to travel to Tennant Creek to offer the same briefing that was offered to the schools principal or participate in the same debate as proposed for St. Ignatius College, Riverview.
(1) Yes. .The Minister read the newspaper report.
(2) No.
(3) No. It was a personal matter.
(4) Departmental officers have already conducted briefings on management of radioactive waste at Muckaty Station and nearby locations at Helen Springs and Renner Springs in the immediate vicinity of the nominated land at Muckaty Station. Consultations will be held at more distant locations such as Tennant Creek (130 kilometres from Muckaty Station) in the event that land in the region is selected as the site for a national radioactive waste management facility.
For each year since 2008-09 to date, how many refugees have been taken by Australia from sources other than irregular arrivals?
The number of people, other than irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs), to whom Australia has granted a refugee or protection visa since 2008-09 to 2011-12 is published in DIAC Annual Reports and can be found on the DIAC website at:
http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/
(1) Are ministers required to furnish the Prime Minister or her department with statements of their interests; if so, when did the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) do so.
(2) When did the Prime Minister become aware that Senator Bob Carr had retained his shareholding in his private company, R.J. Carr Pty Ltd.
(3) Has the department been asked to provide advice on whether Senator Bob Carr's retention of this shareholding is consistent with the Prime Ministers Standards of Ministerial Ethics; if so: (a) when was this request made; (b) on what date was this advice provided; (c) what was the advice; and (d) will the Prime Minister make this advice public as per clause 7.4 of the Standards of Ministerial Ethics.
(4) Has the Prime Minister or any member of her staff discussed this issue with Senator Bob Carr; if so: (a) on what dates; (b) what was the outcome; and (c) was Senator Carr advised to dispose of this shareholding or that he could retain this shareholding.
(5) Did a spokesperson for the Prime Minister tell the Australian Broadcasting Corporation PM program that, Minister Carr has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations in relation to this matter and that the Prime Minister is satisfied that Minister Carr's arrangements are consistent with the standards of ministerial office; if so, on what: (a) advice; and (b) authority, was this spokesperson acting.
(6) Is the Prime Minister aware of Senator Bob Carr's insistence in the Senate on 27 June 2012 that because this company is dormant his retention of this shareholding is entirely consistent with the standards of ministerial ethics.
(7) As of 27 June 2012, had the Prime Minister sighted the advice on which Senator Bob Carr is relying; if not, has the Prime Minister subsequently sighted this advice and if so, when.
(8) Is Senator Bob Carr's retention of his shareholding in R.J. Carr Pty Ltd consistent with the Standards of Ministerial Ethics; if not, has his refusal to relinquish this shareholding constituted a prima facie breach of the Standards of Ministerial Ethics.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs has declared his interests to the Prime Minister in accordance with the Standards of Ministerial Ethics. The Minister's arrangements are consistent with the standards of ministerial office.
(1) Does the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) have an industry strategy to deal with localised depletion within fisheries; if so, can details be provided; if not, what attempts has AFMA made to address this issue.
(2) Does AFMA have any modelling to show the length of time it takes for small pelagic fish to repopulate an area following localised depletion: if so, can a copy of that modelling be provided; if not, what data is AFMA relying on to ensure recovery from localised depletion events.
(3) Is there a spatial management plan for the small pelagic fishery to ensure localised depletion events cannot occur; if so, can a copy of the plan be provided; if not, how will the fishery be managed to guard against localised depletions.
(4) How would any new or adjusted spatial management plans or spatial management conditions be arrived at, by whom, and how would they be funded.
(5) Given that modelling indicates that Tier 2 level exploitation rates may pose a greater threat to fish stocks than Tier 1 levels, even though Tier 1 levels of exploitation may be at a higher rate, and given that Tier 2 levels do not require ongoing validation by the daily egg production method (DEPM) assessments of fish stocks, what is the justification for not requiring ongoing DEPM assessments for Tier 2 levels to ensure stocks are protected.
(6) Have assessments been done on the fishing induced mortality of lanternfish or on the related ecosystem based impacts; if so, can copies of those assessments be provided; if not, on what data is AFMA relying to determine the impact of activities on lanternfish or related ecosystem based impacts and can a copy of that data be provided.
(7) Why was the harvest strategy general meta-rule used to increase jack mackerel (east) recommended biological catch from 5 000 tonnes to 10 600 tonnes when the research meta-rule presents a better fit within the harvest strategy for such a situation.
(8) Is it true that the review of the SPF Harvest Strategy is many months, if not a year, overdue and that if completed it would better consider issues critical to this debate such as localised depletion and the sustainability of Australian fish stocks.
(9) Do any safeguards and protocols exist within the AFMA Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch setting process to remove any conflicts of interest regarding financial advantage; if so, what are they and when were they last reviewed.
(10) What effort has been undertaken to test the ability of Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) to work on a trawler the size of the FV Margiris, given the net size, shape, and construction materials to be used.
(11) Given that Seafish Tasmania has only used SEDs on trawlers approximately one-third the size of the FV Margiris, what evidence is there to support the view that SEDs will lessen or eradicate mammalian by-catch.
(12) Is there potential for SEDs to act as a method of removing dead mammalian by-catch before such occurrences can be observed and recorded.
(13) Does any standing AFMA policy block public access, transparency, or scrutiny of any compliance data that would be collected on a single 'super trawler' like the FV Margiris.
Catch quota in the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) is divided between east and west zones which spreads effort and lowers the risk of localised depletion. Further, state waters and many Commonwealth Marine Reserves are off limits to mid-water trawling. In addition, the annual fishery assessment for the SPF aims to determine the likelihood of localised depletion. AFMA considers under the current management arrangements the risk of localised depletion is low, but that the risk will continue to be monitored and will be discussed at the upcoming SPF Harvest Strategy review commencing in August 2012.
Further, I have established a working party consisting of members of industry and recreational fishing groups (SPF Working Party) to seek agreement on operational measures for the FV Margiris including responses to concerns about localised depletion. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is supporting this working group.
Research into SPF species shows they are mobile, often moving in response to dynamic oceanographic factors such as the Tasman Front and the East Australian Current.
CSIRO and other science agencies have conducted studies and ecosystem modelling to assess the position of small pelagic fish in the food web. These have shown that in Australian ecosystems there is a diverse range of species and food-web pathways such that top predators are not heavily reliant on the SPF species as may be the case in other parts of the world.
Scientific studies have also determined that at catch levels of around 30 000 tonnes per annum the South Australian sardine fishery is not impacting on the healthy functioning of the local ecosystem. This strongly suggests that, at the much lower catch levels in the SPF over a much larger area, the risk of ecosystem impacts from localised depletion are low.
(3) AFMA considers that under the current management arrangements the risk of localised depletion is low. Quota allocations in the SPF are divided into east and west zones by a line along 146°30' East. This spreads effort across zones and lowers the risk of localised depletion. Part of the Australian Fishing Zone is closed to midwater trawling under existing marine protected areas and exclusion from state waters.
(4) See answer to (3).
(5) The SPF Harvest Strategy provides the framework for setting total allowable catches (TAC). It uses a three tiered approach which allows for a higher potential TAC depending on the level of information known about a stock. Tier 1 allows for the highest potential catch because it is based on a quantitative stock assessment technique, which includes a DEPM survey, therefore there is more certainty in the stock size. Tier 2 still requires a detailed stock assessment to be completed each year but it is based on less information and therefore results in a more precautionary TAC.
If a DEPM survey is undertaken for a stock then the assessment will be at Tier 1, not Tier 2.
If Tier 2 levels were not adjusted to take into account new information they may pose a greater risk to fish stocks than Tier 1. However, Tier 2 maximum levels can be reviewed and changed through:
the SPFRAG recommending catches below the maximum levels to take into account additional information
regular reviews of the Harvest Strategy
the ability to use the meta-rule to take new information into account (increasing or decreasing the maximum catches).
The SPF Harvest Strategy has been in place since 2008. It is based on scientific research and advice and was developed in consultation with scientists, industry members and the recreational and environmental sectors. It is consistent with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy.
The SPF Harvest Strategy is available on the AFMA website at www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/small-pelagic-fishery-harvest-strategy/
(6) AFMA has assessed almost 2000 species as part of the Ecological Risk Assessment process, with 69 species being identified as high risk. Lanternfish are not part of this group.
Lanternfish have been caught in the SPF but only rarely. They have been caught more often in other fisheries and are assessed in the Ecological Risk Assessments for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector Otter Trawl Fishery and the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fisheries. All species assessed were found to be low risk expect for large scaled lanternfish. This was assessed as medium risk in the Otter Trawl Fishery because of spatial uncertainty of the species.
These assessments are available on the AFMA website at www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/Ecological-Risk-Management/.
(7) The SPFRAG applied the general meta-rule because the recommended biological catch was increased in 2012 on the basis of research published in 2011. While the SPF Harvest Strategy has a meta-rule for additional catch allowance to support an exploratory fishing and research program, this was not appropriate because the research had already been done. No application was made to use the research meta-rule.
(8) The SPF Harvest Strategy is required to be reviewed within the first 12 months of its commencement and at least every three years following. The Harvest Strategy commenced in 2008 and was reviewed in October 2009. There is currently a review of the Harvest Strategy being conducted which is within the three year time frame specified since the last review.
(9)Total allowable catches for Commonwealth fisheries are set by the AFMA Commission, an independent, expert-based group. Industry members are excluded by legislation from being AFMA Commissioners.
AFMA's policies on the roles and responsibilities of members of the bodies that advise the AFMA Commission (Management Advisory Committees and Resource Assessment Groups) describe how conflicts of interest should be dealt with. This includes that members must disclose conflicts of interest.
The policy on Management Advisory Committees was last reviewed in 2009 and the policy on Resource Assessment Groups was last reviewed in 2005. The Management Advisory Committee Policy can be found at www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/publications-and-forms/fisheries/fisheries-management-papers/.
(10) Seafish Tasmania has advised AFMA that the Dutch company developing their SED has conducted research in the north and central Atlantic, North Pacific, and Antarctic waters to develop similar release systems for large unwanted species. While the SED has not been operationally tested in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, the material used in the net has already been tested by the Dutch company and the SED design is upward opening to comply with Australian best practice. Research has shown that upward opening SEDs reduce the risk of mortalities of marine mammals.
AFMA assesses and monitors SEDs used on Commonwealth fishing boats. The SED used on the Margiris will be monitored through high levels of onboard AFMA observer coverage. AFMA will satisfy itself that the SED is effective and if it is not require modifications to be made.
(11) The design of bycatch reduction devices is dependent on the size of the target fish species, the size and type of animal to be excluded and the size of the net. The size of the boat is not relevant.
(12) AFMA understands that an upward excluding device will be fitted to the net. This will increase the ability of onboard observers to record any mortalities that may occur. It is important to note that the upward excluding device is designed to allow mammals to exit the net alive.
(13) AFMA can release information if it is specifically authorised by legislation and where it is necessary to carry out its functions. AFMA has a policy to guide general release of information into the public domain which is designed to release information fit for its purpose while maintaining reasonable confidentiality for the fishing industry. The policy does not generally provide for single boat-level information to be released to the public but provides a level of accountability to the Australian community through release of fishery-level information.
(1) How many Commonwealth fisheries officials would be aboard the FV Margiris, or a ship of similar size and capability, to observe its operation.
(2) If only one observer is aboard the FV Margiris, or a ship of similar size and capability, can details be provided as to how that individual would be able to provide 100 per cent coverage when fishing operations can continue per day for 24 hours.
(3) How many observers would be required to provide 100 per cent coverage of the FV Margiris, or a ship of similar size and capability.
(4) (a) How much funding has been allocated to video or e-monitoring as a method of reducing observer costs; and (b) what research is available on the accuracy of this method of observation.
(1) There is currently a requirement for observer coverage on at least the first 10 trips of a new boat in the fishery and, depending on the nature of any proposed fishing operations, AFMA will consider extending this requirement.
In light of occupational health and safety restrictions on hours that observers can work, AFMA will make an assessment on the level of coverage on each trip once the fishing plans of the boat are known. This may mean more than one observer is aboard the vessel or that electronic monitoring may be required.
(2) Please see response to question 1.
(3) Please see response to question 1.
(4) Three trials of e-monitoring have been completed to assess the effectiveness of e-monitoring on boats in different Commonwealth fisheries. These trials cost a total of approximately $1.5 million which was funded by the Australian Government. For the 2012-13 financial year, approximately $460 000 has been allocated to cover the operational costs to input and analyse data from AFMA's e-monitoring program.
Research papers from the three e-monitoring research trials are publicly available on the AFMA website at www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/data-collection/e-monitoring/ and from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
(1) Will the Government or department provide a guarantee that the FV Margiris will not fish the high-seas, outside Australia's 200 mile nautical boundary where it can operate without prudent controls, before, after, or during, the time the boat is flagged in Australia.
(2) Is the Government or the department aware of any subsidies, direct or indirect, that the owners of the FV Margiris may be receiving from the European Union to help fund the operations of the boat while it is fishing in or transiting through Australian waters.
(1)In most cases only the flag-state of the boat can control its operations on the high seas. If the boat is flagged to Australia, it will be treated the same as any other Australian fishing boat. That is, the same rigorous controls will apply to the FV Margiris as apply to any other Australian fishing boat fishing on the high seas.
(2)No
Given the response received in the answer to question on notice no. 1889 concerning the declaration of Muckaty in the Northern Territory as the final location for the proposed nuclear waste site under the National Radioactive Waste Management Act 2012, will the Minister delay the declaration of Muckaty as the site until after the Federal Court of Australia case is resolved.
My media release of 13 March 2012 noted that in relation to litigation in the Federal Court concerning the nominated land [on Muckaty Station], the Government will not act on this site until this matter is resolved by the Court.