The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 9:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing, Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012
The Navy has turned back four boats to Indonesia. They were in sea-worthy shape and arrived in Indonesia. It has made a very big difference to people-smuggling that that happened … And we think turning boats around that are seaworthy, that can make the return journey, and are in international waters, fits in with that.
I speak of the claim often made by opposition politicians that they will, and I quote: 'turn the boats back'. This needs to be seen for what it is. It's a shallow slogan. It's nonsense.
The proposal in this document, Labor's policy, is that an unauthorised arrival who does have a genuine refugee claim would in the first instance get a short Temporary Protection Visa.
We want a short first-instance Temporary Protection Visa.
… the closure of the disgraceful offshore processing centre in Nauru. It was a disgrace, it was an international shame and it brought nothing but loathing of this country …
… how Nauru could ever be contemplated as some kind of success.
They believe they are coming to Australia, but they end up somewhere else. It is a virtual turnaround of boats.
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.
Labor committed to abolishing the Pacific Solution and this was one the first things the Rudd Labor Government did on taking office.
For these people at the front line of the border protection dilemma, the day-to-day practicalities are more important than the parlour games of the political debate. The crews typically rotate for eight weeks onboard then four weeks onshore, although the pressures are so high now that five sailors recently had to sail through their rostered onshore period.
They observe that many asylum-seekers appear well clothed and organised. Apparently a sailor recently was admonished by an asylum-seeker who wanted more care taken with his bag because it contained a laptop. Another sailor lamented; 'Last I checked, I was not a baggage handler at the airport, but a sailor in the Royal Australian Navy.'
By way of overview only and having regard to all the evidence I have concluded that the explosion was caused when a passenger or passengers deliberately ignited petrol which had collected in the bilge area below the deck of SIEV 36. Unleaded petrol in a container housed in a hatch near the bow of the boat had been deliberately spilt into the bilge. The ignition of the petrol resulted in almost instantaneous ignition of petrol vapour emanating from the spill.
When the explosion occurred, many of the passengers and navy personnel were thrown into the water. Again the video depicts what occurred. Keogh—
can be seen on the starboard side of the boat trying to direct passengers to leave the boat. He was very brave as were many others that day. He was unable to save one of the passengers who drowned in front of him. Standing Orders required that he remain on the boat and not enter the water unless directed to do so. He tried to help and took hold the seat of the wheel house which he intended to throw to the drowning man but it melted in his hand. Thereafter he remained on the burning vessel until he was extracted, despite the obvious danger of further explosions and him being injured himself.
In the process of the rescue, Corporal Jager was in danger because her life vest did not inflate and she believed she was drowning. Medbury and Boorman, who were crewing the RHIB that was portside of the SIEV at the time of the explosion, rescued her. In the process of doing so, they had great difficulty. She was clearly struggling, they were finding it difficult to get her on board. Shortly before they succeeded, a passenger was hanging on to her and preventing the rescue. Medbury either kicked the RHIB or kicked towards the passenger. Corporal Jager says that the passenger was kicked in the head. However, she conceded it happened in a split second and she could be mistaken. Medbury agreed that he was kicking towards the passenger to stop him from preventing Jager's rescue. I do not need to make any specific findings about this incident. The incident must be seen in the context of what was happening. There had been a violent explosion, people were screaming in the water. Corporal Jager was struggling and have drowned but for prompt action, the passenger concerned was in fact rescued anyway.
After high alert had been sounded, HMAS Albany returned to the scene. Albany's two RHIBs were launched and assisted with the rescue of ADF and passengers. The rescue was efficient, effective and in my opinion saved lives. There were many heroic acts that morning in the process of saving the passengers and crew of SIEV 36 and also in their treatment thereafter. For example, Corporal Jager, notwithstanding what she had been through, attended to the needs of several injured people with the Medical Officer Darby with seemingly inexhaustible energy and precision. Many passengers were saved because of their efforts. It can be said that but for the combined efforts of the Australian Defence Force, Border Protection Command, Australian Maritime Safety Authority (Rescue Co-ordination Centre), Off Shore Gas Installation Front Puffin, Truscott and medical teams from around Australia, many more lives would have certainly been lost.
I have already commented on the great efforts, professionalism and bravery of ADF members collectively in rescuing survivors from the SIEV 36. In my view, the individual efforts of ADF members Jager, Keogh and Faunt are worthy of specific mention; 1) I have already mentioned Jager in the previous paragraph; after being on the boat for some time during the night, she was blown off the back of the boat into the water by the explosion, she was in a state of shock and her life vest did not inflate, she was close to drowning with other survivors attempting to swim over her in order to be rescued, she was terrified. Yet, despite this trauma, after her rescue with her specialist medical training she attended to the survivors for the next 10 hours …
2) I have already mentioned the efforts of Keogh in paragraph 89 … 3) Faunt had only been on the SIEV 36 for a short time on the morning of the explosion, he realised the dangers of an explosion, he called "high alert", he attempted to appropriately deal with the developing situation, he was standing on top of the roof of the boat's coach house, the explosion blew him from the roof into the air and into the water, despite the shock and confusion engendered by this trauma, after rescue he remained on duty for several hours supervising the men under his command in relation to the rescue.
… we know that after about six and certainly 12 months in detention, mental health will deteriorate, and there's very good evidence for that.
We also know that people who have been through previous detention and torture and severe trauma of other kinds—
… are especially vulnerable to these effects, and particularly children and adolescents.
… where are my family? Where are they now? What are they feeling now? They might think that I am dead. They think that they have lost me.
I am a boy, who just sees dark and dark, and a minute is passing like one hour, a month is passing like a year. And have no sleep without tablet, no medicine available for reducing the pain, except rolling tear on my cheek.
I am a boy who in the mid of night, most of the time lonely sitting in the corner side the fence, looking at blue sky, at stars, weeping tears, during that time none is moving around.
All that deterrence strategies can achieve is to divert asylum seekers into equally irregular, equally risky routes to other countries in which protection may be found or to trap them in places where they receive little or no protection. We are unlikely through such means to spare asylum seekers from unnecessary suffering and premature death. We will simply spare ourselves from having to witness that suffering and death.
Under the offshore processing arrangements in place under the Pacific Solution, access to legal advice was extremely limited and the credibility of refugee status determination procedures was highly questionable. Many asylum seekers whose claims for protection were rejected under offshore status determination processes experienced persecution or serious threats to their safety and security after returning to their countries of origin. As many as 20 of them are believed to have been killed … Asylum seekers affected by the Pacific Solution were detained in remote facilities for often lengthy periods (up to six years in some cases), to the serious detriment of their health, particularly mental health, and general wellbeing. Throughout the life of the Pacific Solution, there were multiple incidents of self-harm, 45 detainees engaged in a serious and debilitating hunger strike and dozens suffered from depression or experienced psychotic episodes.
Dear Prime Minister
We are united in our opposition to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Offshore Processing and Other Measures) Bill currently before Parliament. We are also concerned that other legislative changes required to implement the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers will, if passed, see the Australian Parliament remove legislative safeguards for asylum seekers, reverse previous measures implemented to protect vulnerable people and breach Australia’s international obligations. We oppose any form of offshore processing and policies centred on deterrence and punishing people based on their mode of arrival.
We are particularly concerned that implementation of the Expert Panel’s recommendations will:
In MDA's experience many refugees and migrants are motivated to integrate into the Australian community, to adopt and share Australian values and beliefs and are eager to work hard to contribute to and 'give back' to their new country. Many of the clients and communities MDA works with also dedicate considerable time to volunteer activities within their community while maintaining jobs and undertaking study in order to create better lives for their families. Indeed, it is estimated that nearly 30% of people in Australia who were born overseas participate in formal volunteering—the number of informal volunteers is unable to be measured.
During the 2011 Queensland Floods the strength of Australia’s multiculturalism was demonstrated when, during the flood clean up MDA was inundated with offers from Brisbane refugee communities who were eager to help with the clean up, despite feeling traumatised by the flood event. Over a period of four days, MDA had approximately 120 volunteers from nine refugee communities contribute approximately 780 hours to the clean up process. Refugee communities assisted with all tasks from sweeping out muddy houses to carrying furniture and providing food in their local communities. One local community even held a BBQ sausage sizzle in a nearby park and provided much needed food and drink to over 200 weary local volunteers. For some refugees, being able to help others in the community was a practical way for them to show their support for their local community.
MDA received significant positive feedback from members of the community about the efforts of refugee communities. One elderly couple whose business premises was severely impacted by the floods told MDA workers that having scores of refugees helping them clean their premises and being able to talk to them about their experiences had completely changed their perspective and opinions about refugees.
On Wednesday 19 January 2011, the streets surrounding Milpera State High School's flooded campus at Chelmer, Brisbane were inundated with construction workers, residents and a significant army presence to control the traffic and surrounding areas. Over 20 Rohingyan men (from Burma) arrived to volunteer in the clean-up efforts to prepare the site for the massive construction to take place the following week. Many of the men and youth were at different stages of resettlement and each carried with them different stories from their refugee experience, all touched in some way by the heavy military presence from their time in Burma and in refugee camps in Bangladesh. While there was some trepidation about coming into contact with military personnel, it soon dissipated when our community members were greeted with warm smiles and friendly handshakes from the men and women in uniform. The community worked hard all day, barely stopping for breaks, reporting to their community development worker that they would stay all day if they were needed as they were working by choice as opposed to the forced slave labour they endured back in their home country.
… economically, multiculturalism has also brought significant benefits through creating global economic links and relationships; developing export markets; enhancing creativity and innovation through access to a range of cultural perspectives and diverse skills; introducing new goods and services; and increasing economic growth. Other considerable economic contributions by refugees and migrants are outward remittances to support families and communities in developing countries, which amounted to over US$2.815 billion in 2006 alone, and the establishment of businesses and entrepreneurial initiatives in Australia.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 9 OF 2012
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 August 2012 at 7.15 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2012 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
The possible human health risks from exposure to excessive noise from wind farms (defined as power stations that generate some or all of their power from wind).
The acoustically accepted definition of excessive noise in respect of wind farms.
The type of noise monitoring currently conducted on wind farms.
The type of noise monitoring these amendments will require wind farms to conduct in the future.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Various State Government Departments
Local Government Associations
Pacific Hydro
Acciona
Infigen
AGL
TRUenergy
Vestas
Keppel Prince Engineering
Clean Energy Council
Community Associations
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Economics (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
September 2012
Possible reporting date:
November 2012
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Selection of Bills Committee member
That the report be adopted.
That the following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 23 August 2012 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators’ bills:
No. 86 Health Insurance (Dental Services) Bill 2012 [No. 2]
No. 51 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 21 August 2012, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 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 Thursday, 16 August 2012, from 4 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) commemorates the 50th anniversary, in 2012, of the arrival of the Australian Army Training Team Vietnam in South Vietnam, beginning Australia's decade-long commitment to the Vietnam War;
(b) commemorates the 46th anniversary, on 18 August 2012, of the Battle of Long Tan, in which 18 Australian soldiers were killed and 24 were wounded in action;
(c) pays tribute to the 521 Australians killed in action in the Vietnam War and the thousands of veterans who returned home to the care of their families;
(d) acknowledges that many Vietnam War service personnel were very poorly treated by certain sections of the Australian community on their return, and that this treatment was unjust and, in many cases, affected their ability to resume life after wartime service; and
(e) welcomes the arrival in Australia of the Long Tan Cross, which will be displayed at the Australian War Memorial until April 2013.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the 4th anniversary of the death of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the most influential Russian writer and dissident of the 20th century, who:
(i) was imprisoned, denied medical treatment and finally exiled from the Soviet Union for daring to expose the truth about the horrors of communism,
(ii) struggling against great obstacles managed to write and eventually publish The Gulag Archipelago , a classic of anti-totalitarian literature that drew the world's attention to the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union against its own people,
(iii) after his deportation from the Soviet Union in 1974, continued to remind the world about the importance of rights and liberties enjoyed in the West but denied to the citizens of the Soviet Union and other communist states, and
(iv) received the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970, as well as numerous other prizes and awards for his contribution to literature, and the fight for freedom and against tyranny and oppression; and
(b) conveys its remembrances to the people of Russia.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Gillard Government proposes to seriously damage Australia's fishing industry and harm Australia's tourism industry by establishing the world's largest marine reserve without any scientific foundation,
(ii) the Gillard Government proposes to make the Coral Sea a no-go zone to Australians, but other countries, whose fishing practices are not as sustainable as Australia's, will still be able to fish in the Coral Sea,
(iii) Australians will be deprived of a vital food source from the Coral Sea, which covers more than 989 842 square kilometres, more than half the size of Queensland,
(iv) almost 78 per cent of east coast Queensland waters will be in marine parks, almost 8 times the international benchmark,
(v) Australia's oceans are amongst the healthiest and best managed in the world due in large part to the sustainable practices of our fishers,
(vi) scientists have agreed that fishing is not putting the Coral Sea at risk and that Green groups have also acknowledged this, and
(vii) the proposed network has nothing to do with science but everything to do with appeasing the Australian Greens politically, who keep the Labor Government in power; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) halt the current process of expanding marine parks to ensure that any future marine parks are based on objective scientific research and stakeholder input, and
(ii) undertake a risk assessment of the threats to Australia's marine environment from existing and future uses to assess the need for the proposed marine parks.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) between the United States of America, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, Brunei and New Zealand is being conducted in secret,
(ii) draft texts of the agreement are selectively aired to AT&T, Verizon, Cisco, the Motion Picture Association and other industry lobbyists, but blocked from democratically-elected parliamentarians, advocacy organisations and citizens,
(iii) concern expressed by experts and citizens from countries participating in negotiating the TPPA regarding its potential impact on access to medicines, local content media rules, high-tech innovation and limitations placed on governments to make policies and regulations on health, safety and economic stability, and
(iv) reports of the latest text of the intellectual property chapter being leaked, revealing the Australian Government's intention to defeat a proposed clause protecting domestic intellectual property laws; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) make the full TPPA draft texts and negotiations available to the public,
(ii) support the proposal of New Zealand, Chile, Malaysia, Brunei and Vietnam to permit a signatory to carry forward and appropriately extend into the digital environment limitations and exceptions in its domestic laws,
(iii) reject trade agreements that put the civil liberties, environment, public health and welfare of Australians at risk, and
(iv) commit to ending the exclusionary and undemocratic process of selectively including stakeholders in trade negotiations while blocking others, by making all trade negotiations public.
Fair Work Amendment (Small Business—Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work Act 2009, and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
FAIR WORK AMENDMENT (SMALL BUSINESS – PENALTY RATES EXEMPTION) BILL 2012
It is with both great pleasure and a little trepidation that I introduce this bill.
I am pleased because I believe this bill will trigger a discussion we urgently need to have.
But I also know this is an issue that some people consider 'too hot' to touch.
Penalty rates are a contentious subject. There is no doubt that workers deserve a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and penalty rates have played a part in that concept since the 1950s.
But things have changed in the last sixty years.
In many industries, we now have a seven day working week. While weekend penalty rates were originally intended to acknowledge employees' work outside the standard five-day working week, there are now many employees who consider their ordinary hours to include weekends, evenings and early mornings.
This bill is an attempt to balance the need for penalty rates and the strain they are placing on small businesses.
A Benchmarking Report by Restaurant and Catering Australia conducted late last year found that 18.2 per cent of respondent businesses reduced their hours because of the increase in penalty rates. Almost one third of the businesses said they employ fewer staff because of high labour costs.
And a significant 70.9 per cent of businesses indicated they would reduce the number of staff further if labour costs rose in the next twelve months.
Based on the average shift length of four hours, it means 509,356 shifts were lost during the year as a result.
That equals 2,945 jobs in the industry.
The same report found that 90.5 per cent of businesses ranked wage pressures as a major difficulty in running their business.
It is also important to note that Peter Strong, Executive Director of Council of Small Business Australia, has indicated his support for this bill. Mr Strong has worked closely with the Gillard Government on small business issues for many years, and I appreciate his support. I should also point out that he has recently shut his own business, a bookshop, on Sundays.
Mr Strong said in the media: "We need a workplace relations system that reflects the realities of the modern world. The current approach to penalty rates has cost the jobs of people who can only work on weekends and was not developed with a view of the needs of the whole community. University students, school students, women who can only work on weekends and others have lost income."
The aim of this bill is to acknowledge that many small business employees are missing out on shifts or even jobs because small businesses simply can't afford to open on days with high penalty rates.
My office is located on Rundle Street in Adelaide, an odd mix of high end designer stores and quirky small businesses. But recently, it's become much quieter on weekends.
I've spoken with small business owners from that precinct and elsewhere who have had to downsize to stay open on Sundays, and others who have decided to reduce their employees' shifts and close on Sundays.
And I've spoken to casual and part-time employees who say that, while they love their penalty rates, they'd be happy to get more shifts and work an extra day in exchange.
I appreciate not all people will feel like this. I do not like the idea of anyone being disadvantaged, but I believe this is a debate we need to have. It's clear there are many employees who are already being disadvantaged and being deprived of extra hours of work on weekends.
The provisions in this bill state that an employer in the restaurant and catering or retail industries who employs fewer than twenty full-time equivalent employees will not have to pay penalty rates during a week except where employees have worked more than ten hours in a twenty-four hour period or thirty-eight hours in one week.
The aim of this is to compensate employees who work outside the traditional thirty-eight hour week, or over what could reasonably be considered a working day. The definition of a small business as fewer than twenty full-time equivalent employees comes from the definition used by the Australian Taxation Office, as the general consensus in the industry is that the Fair Work Act definition of fifteen FTEs is too low.
These conditions will apply to all relevant current and future modern awards.
I look forward to the submissions, both for and against the bill, to the Senate Inquiry that I trust will ensue.
I know this bill will start a furious debate, and I hope it can be a constructive and useful one.
If it is not, if we cannot find some sensible common ground, then both small businesses and employees, including prospective employees, will end up being disadvantaged.
That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, no later than 11 September 2012, the following:
(a) documents relating to all current conditions for the operation, use, maintenance and monitoring of each current sea dumping permit issued by the Authority in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP);
(b) any document that details all current sea dumping sites in the GBRMP and Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, including coordinates and size of the dumping area;
(c) all documents relating to the consideration or analysis of land-based disposal alternatives for each current sea dumping permit issued by the Authority in the GBRMP, including the initial consideration/analysis plus any subsequent analysis in light of additional or changed dumping requirements or new or changed information;
(d) all documents that provide a long-term analysis of the impacts of the dumping, including direct, indirect, distal and cumulative impacts for each current sea dumping permit issued by the Authority in the GBRMP; and
(e) any documents relating to breaches of conditions and responses to those breaches, including compliance measures, such as remediation, changed conditions, fines or litigation, for each current sea dumping permit issued by the Authority in the GBRMP.
That the Senate—
(a) notes, in regard to the introduction of the factory ship FV Margiris to the Australian Small Pelagic Fishery, the range of significant and justifiable concerns, including but not limited to:
(i) the localised depletion of fish stocks,
(ii) mammalian by-catch, including seals and dolphins,
(iii) impacts on other industries, including tourism,
(iv) the assertion that this super trawler is only economically viable because it previously received European Union subsidies and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has lifted the fishery quotas,
(v) public access, transparency and scrutiny of any operational compliance data, and
(vi) the non-compliance of AFMA quota-setting processes with the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 (the Act); and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) reverse the decision to lift the quota for the Small Pelagic Fishery and examine the compliance of the AFMA-led process that led to this decision with the Act,
(ii) demonstrate that it has fully examined and mitigated the impacts of localised depletion that the FV Margiris will have and ensure that a bioregional approach has been taken in setting the harvest strategy under which this ship would operate, and
(iii) demonstrate that 100 per cent observer coverage will be achieved on-board to ensure compliance and minimal by-catch, given that the ship will operate 24 hours a day, and ensure all compliance data will be publically available.
The Senate divided. [12:05]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) family planning is key to achieving all Millennium Development Goals, especially Goal 5 which seeks to reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters and is the least likely goal to be achieved;
(ii) maternal mortality is a leading cause of death and illness for all women worldwide, with complications during pregnancy the biggest killer of girls aged 15 to 19;
(iii) over 200 million women who want to avoid pregnancy are not using a modern method of family planning;
(iv) in line with the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Programme of Action, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women,all couples and individuals should have the right to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means to do so;
(v) at the london Summit on Family Planning, hosted by the United Kingdom Government and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in July 2012, the Australian government announced it will double its funding for family planning services to more than $50 million per year by 2016, up from $26 million in 2010; and
(b) calls on the Government to continue to fund family planning,including funding for initiatives that assist developing country governments to improve access and reduce barriers to family planning in the 2012-13 budget and beyond.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The current penalty rates regime in Australian award structures do not encourage continuous 24 hour 7 day processing. Overtime and shift penalties are much higher in Australia than in New Zealand, which again contributes to lower productivity and lack of competitiveness in Australian made products
No, it has been irrelevant.
Everything seems to be more efficient over there—
than what it is here in Australia. The whole costing structure of production, packing, road transport, sea transport—every sector is cheaper than what it is here in Australia when you break every component down.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012
On Sunday, Ruddock and his Labor counterpart, Julia Gillard, visited the base, free of any prying media.
Yesterday, both were united in their praise of the facility. To the surprise of some of her colleagues, Gillard went out of her way to declare that she saw nothing wrong with how things were operating.
She said people had shelter, health care, adequate food, …
As long as refugees have little chance of finding safety through official channels many will be forced to seek protection through dangerous unofficial channels. A successful regional approach can only work if refugees and asylum seekers' access to protection is improved, as evenly as possible, across all regional countries.
Amnesty International believes that Australia has a key role to play in developing a regional approach to refugees that in the long term reduces the need for people to flee their homeland, in the medium term reduces the need for refugees to flee countries of first asylum and in the short term provides refugees with more access to official migration routes throughout the region.
This approach must never be viewed as a substitute for the long‐established obligation to offer protection to vulnerable people asking for our help.
It is a lack of safe options across the region which forces refugees onto boats to Australia. Improving this situation is absolutely key to stopping people taking dangerous boat journeys.
Resettlement is based on individual protection needs, it's not a mathematical formula and it's not based on time spent in a queue … We've got to make sure that if people who are genuine refugees are having to wait for solutions, it's not so long as to cause damage.
Not surprisingly, every independent inquiry into immigration detention has drawn attention to the poor mental health of detainees and the particular risks to children's well-being … Such research has revealed high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and panic attacks, attempted suicides and self harm. The longer people are held in detention, the worse the symptoms are likely to be, adding to the already high levels of psychopathology among those who've experienced persecution, harassment, torture and physical assaults.
The people of Australia must understand we are not criminals, we are homeless. If peace in Afghanistan come back, we can’t stay (in Australia) because we love our country, we all want to help our nation. If Afghanistan have peace—no body come across a big ocean with 99 per cent chance of death for 1 per cent chance, in small boat come here and many Afghani died in Malaysia to Indonesia trip, this ocean … All Afghani people take risk and our life risk because they want to work here for peace … Their life in danger—because of this they cross the ocean to reach here and want protected in Australia.
… the Labor Party is the party of truth telling . When we go out into the electorate and make promises, do you know what we would do in government: we would keep them.
There is no doubt that the bulk of the reason for the 50 per cent or thereabouts increase in electricity prices, for example, in New South Wales over the last few years has been because of investment in poles and wires.
The increase in the cost of wholesale electricity is almost entirely attributable to the introduction of a price on carbon by the Australian government.
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the carbon tax.
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 Ludlam today relating to Mr Julian Assange.
We are deeply shocked by the British government's threats against the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian Embassy and their suggestion that they may forcibly enter the embassy.
The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
Government response to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report
Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011
Introduction
On 3 March 2011 the Senate referred the Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011, for inquiry and report.
The Committee held a public hearing on 16 March 2011 taking evidence from officers of the Department and AUSTRAC. The Committee tabled its report on 21 March 2011 with three recommendations.
Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre establish appropriate memoranda of understanding for the sharing of intelligence with the new designated agencies outlined in the Bill.
Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department review relevant options with a view to introducing an appropriate oversight mechanism to monitor the handling of credit information for the electronic verification of identity pursuant to the Bill.
Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill, noting recommendations 1 and 2.
The Bill was subsequently passed by both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent on 28 June 2011.
As the recommendations were not addressed during the debate of legislation, a response has not been provided to the Committee about the Government's position in relation to its recommendations. This document forms the Government's response.
Government response to Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC) establish appropriate memoranda of understanding for the sharing of intelligence with the new designated agencies outlined in the Bill.
The Government supports this recommendation and has taken steps to implement it.
Memoranda of understanding (MOUs) have been finalised with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation and the Office of National Assessments, and MOUs with the Defence Signals Directorate and Defence Intelligence Organisation are close to finalisation.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) review relevant options with a view to introducing an appropriate oversight mechanism to monitor the handling of credit information for the electronic verification of identity pursuant to the Bill.
AGD has reviewed relevant options for an oversight mechanism to monitor the handling of credit information pursuant to Recommendation 2.
A breach of the verification of identity provisions contained in the Bill will constitute an interference with privacy and a person affected by an alleged breach may complain to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988.
The Privacy Act 1988 has specific mechanisms in place to regulate the use of credit reporting data by credit reporting agencies. AGD does not consider that the Anti Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 is the appropriate vehicle to further expand on the current obligations of credit reporting agencies.
Accordingly, AGD considers that no further action is necessary.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill, noting recommendations 1 and 2.
The Bill was passed by the Senate on 16 June 2011 and received Royal Assent on 28 June 2011.
Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Inquiry into the National Classification Scheme
At the time of the Senate Committee undertaking its Inquiry, and prior to its report being finalised, the Government referred the National Classification Scheme (NCS) to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) for review. Recommendation 30 of the Committee's report is that the ALRC be directed to consider the findings, proposals and recommendations of the Committee's report.
The ALRC review was considered necessary to modernise the system of classification in Australia and allow it to keep pace with developments in technology now and into the future. When the current NCS commenced in 1995, classifiable content and the way it was delivered to consumers was relatively static.
The ALRC review was designed to consider not only classification categories, but the whole classification system including the legislative framework to ensure it continues to be effective in the 21st century.
The ALRC was considered the most appropriate body to conduct the review as it had previously conducted an inquiry into laws relating to classification and censorship in 1991. The ALRC's 1991 Report established the basis for the current NCS.
The terms of reference for the ALRC's 2011-12 review (which were subject to public consultation prior to being finalised) stated:
Having regard to:
I refer to the ALRC for inquiry and report pursuant to subsection 20(1) of the Australian Law Reform Commission Act 1996, matters relating to the extent to which the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), State and Territory Enforcement legislation, Schedules 5 and 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and the Intergovernmental Agreement on Censorship and related laws continue to provide an effective framework for the classification of media content in Australia.
Given the likelihood of concurrent Commonwealth reviews covering related matters as outlined above, the Commission will refer relevant issues to those reviews where it would be appropriate to do so. It will likewise accept referral from other reviews that fall within these terms of reference.
Such referrals will be agreed between the relevant reviewers.
1. In performing its functions in relation to this reference, the Commission will consider:
i. relevant existing Commonwealth, State and Territory laws and practices
ii. classification schemes in other jurisdictions
iii. the classification categories contained in the Classification Act, National Classification Code and Classification Guidelines
iv. any relevant constitutional issues, and
v. any other related matter.
2. The Commission will identify and consult with relevant stakeholders, including the community and industry, through widespread public consultation. Other stakeholders include the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, the Classification Board and Classification Review Board as well as the States and Territories.
The ALRC reported to Government on 29 February 2012 and the Government released, via tabling in the Parliament, the final report on 1 March, 2012.
The current NCS is a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments. Under the Intergovernmental Agreement that underpins the scheme, the Commonwealth has agreed to consult states and territories about any meaningful changes to the scheme. Indeed, the current Commonwealth legislation has unanimous agreement requirements in relation to certain aspects of the scheme such as proposed changes to the classification categories and Classification Guidelines.
Consequently, the Commonwealth has sought the views of all States and Territories about the ALRC Report. Once those comments are received, the Commonwealth will be able to further develop its position on the ALRC recommendations (incorporating consideration of Senate Committee recommendations where appropriate) and, in due course, finalise the Government response to the ALRC Report.
In developing its response, the Government will also give consideration to how the ALRC recommendations interact with those of the Convergence Review. Although there are discrete components of each report, there is also substantial overlap in some key respects.
Since the tabling of the ALRC Report, the Government has been able to consider how the Senate Committee's recommendations might interact with those of the ALRC. The comments in relation to each recommendation below are made in that context.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that an express statement should be included in the National Classification Code which clarifies that the key principles to be applied to classification decisions must be given equal consideration and must be appropriately balanced against one another in all cases. Currently, these principles are:
Government Response – noted
The National Classification Code (the Code) states that classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the four guiding principles that the Committee outlines in Recommendation 1. This requires the Classification Board to give equal consideration to the principles in the Code to the extent possible in each decision-making circumstance. What principles should underpin classification legislation, and whether those considerations should be weighted, or not, will be considered in the context of the Government's response to the ALRC Review of the NCS.
Recommendation 2
Further to Recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the fourth key principle in the National Classification Code should be expanded to take into account community concerns about the sexualisation of society, and the objectification of women.
Government Response – noted
See response to Recommendation 1.
Recommendation 3
The committee notes that there has been no further consideration by the Senate of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee's 2008 report, Sexualisation of children in the contemporary media. The committee recommends that the Senate should, as a matter of urgency, establish an inquiry to consider the progress made by industry bodies and others in addressing the issue of sexualisation of children in the contemporary media; and, specifically, the progress which has been made in consideration and implementation of the
recommendations made in the Sexualisation of children in the contemporary media report.
Government Response – noted
This recommendation is directed at the Senate.
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games and the Guidelines for the Classification of Publications 2005 should be revised so that the preamble to both sets of guidelines expressly states that the methodology and manner of decision-making should be based on a strict interpretation of the words in the respective guidelines.
Government Response – not agree
The Classification Guidelines (the Guidelines) are not 'self-standing' but are part of a package of legislation consisting of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act), the Code and the Guidelines. In Adultshop.Com Ltd v Members of the Classification Review Board (2008) the Court discussed the relationship between the Act, the Code and the Guidelines and confirmed this view noting that the Guidelines need to be read in conjunction with the Code.
Section 9 of the Classification Act provides that publications, films and computer games are to be classified in accordance with the Code and the Guidelines. The Act contains certain matters that the Board must also take into account in making decisions on the classification of a publication, film or computer game, including those set out in s11.
The ALRC has made recommendations about future classification instruments, recommendation 9-3 in particular.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the emphasis on context and the assessment of impact should be removed as principles underlying the use and application of the Guidelines for the Classification of Films and Computer Games.
Government Response – not agree
Consideration of context and impact are crucial to the making of classification decisions. In the media classification environment, context refers to the circumstances that surround a particular event or situation and impact is the influence or effect upon an audience (for the purpose of determining whether content should be classified at a lower or higher classification). A classifiable element such as nudity in the context of a documentary about the anatomy of the human body would warrant an entirely different classification rating to nudity in a film mainly concerned with sex. Similarly, a classifiable element such as drug use will have a different impact, and warrant a different classification, depending on the type of drug and whether the depiction is discreet or explicit.
See also response to Recommendation 4.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce Standing Community Assessment Panels to assist in the determination of community standards for the purpose of classification decision-making.
Government Response – noted
Classification Board Members are appointed to be broadly representative of the Australian Community. They are appointed in consultation with participating Ministers in the NCS and must not hold office for a total of more than 7 years.
Historically, Community Assessment Panels (CAPs) are people from the community taking part in focus group sessions who are recruited to represent a range of characteristics, across such criteria as age, gender, family status and ethnicity. They view media content and carry out classification exercises by the same methods and using the same decision-making tools as the Classification Board. CAPs have been engaged periodically to test the degree to which the decisions of the Classification Board are in line with community standards.
As part of its review, the ALRC undertook an exercise involving members of the community viewing content and reacting to it. The report of that aspect of the review can be found at: http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/community-attitudes-higher-level-media-content-community-and-reference-group-forums-con.
The ALRC made recommendations about research and community standards, namely Recommendation 9-4 (a) to (e). The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the classification of artworks should be exempt from application fees.
Government Response – noted
The ALRC made the following relevant recommendations:
The National Classification Scheme should be based on a new Act, the Classification of Media Content Act. The Act should provide, among other things, for:
(a) what types of media content may or must be classified;
(b) who should classify different types of media content;
(c) a single set of statutory classification categories and criteria applicable to all media content;
(d) access restrictions on adult content;
(e) the development and operation of industry classification codes; and
(f) the enforcement of the National Classification Scheme, including through criminal, civil and administrative penalties for breach of classification laws (Recommendation 5-2)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide a definition of 'exempt content' that captures all media content that is exempt from the laws relating to what must be classified. The definition of exempt content should capture the traditional exemptions, such as for news and current affairs programs. The definition should also provide that films and computer games shown at film festivals, art galleries and other cultural institutions are exempt. Providers of this content should not be exempt from obligations to take reasonable steps to restrict access to adult content (Recommendation 6-3)
Beyond these, the ALRC did not specifically recommend that artworks be classified.
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 8
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, pursue with relevant states the removal of the artistic merit defence for the offences of production, dissemination and possession of child pornography.
Government Response – agree
The Attorney-General's Department understands that artistic merit is no longer a defence to child pornography in NSW. The defence was removed in NSW from s 91G of the Crimes Act 1900.
The change aligned NSW child pornography laws with the Commonwealth, but means that NSW is inconsistent with other states and territories. This could be problematic where charges are laid for offences taking place in various jurisdictions.
The Commonwealth will raise the inconsistency issue with the Standing Committee of Law and Justice.
Recommendation 9
The committee recommends that provision be made in the Classification Act 1995 for an exemption for cultural institutions, including the National Film and Sound Archive, to allow them to exhibit unclassified films. This exemption should be subject to relevant institutions self-classifying the material they exhibit and the Classification Review Board providing oversight of any decisions in that regard.
Government Response – noted
Section 5B of the Classification Act already allows for films to be exempt from classification if they are of a community or cultural type. There is also a film festival exemption scheme that allows festivals to screen unclassified films under certain conditions, however, exemptions are generally granted under the condition that each film is to be screened a maximum of four times during the course of a film festival/event and that audiences are restricted to age 18+.
The ALRC made a recommendation about exempting from classification films and computer games screened or demonstrated by certain entities including cultural institutions, namely Recommendation 6-3.
The ALRC also recommended that, under the proposed new NCS, the Classification Review Board cease to operate (Recommendation 7-9).
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
See also response to Recommendation 7.
Recommendation 10
The committee recommends that the Australian Government take a leadership role through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in requesting the referral of relevant powers by states and territories to the Australian Government to enable it to legislate for a truly national classification scheme.
Government Response – noted
The ALRC made the following relevant recommendations:
The Classification of Media Content Act should be enacted pursuant to the legislative powers of the Parliament of Australia (Recommendation 15-1).
The Classification of Media Content Act should express an intention that it cover the field, so that any state legislation operating in the same field ceases to operate, pursuant to s 109 of the Constitution (Recommendation 15-2).
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 11
In the event that a satisfactory transfer of powers by all states and territories is not able to be negotiated within the next 12 months, the committee recommends that the Australian Government prepare options for the expansion of the Australian Government's power to legislate for a new national classification scheme.
Government Response – noted
See response to Recommendation 10.
Recommendation 12
The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General should consider the development of uniform standards for the display and sale of material with a Restricted classification.
Government Response – noted
Consistency across jurisdiction is desirable for the consumer, industry and for compliance monitoring.
The ALRC made recommendations that are relevant to sale, display and restriction of access to content, in particular: recommendations 5-2, 8-5, 10-1 to 10-4 and 13-2. Consistency of laws and classification obligations nationally was also a key consideration for the ALRC in making recommendations 15-1 and 15-2 for a Commonwealth-only NCS.
The ALRC also recommended renaming the 'Refused Classification' category of content 'Prohibited' (Recommendation 11-1).
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 13
The committee recommends that:
Government response – noted
In relation to the first bullet point of this recommendation, see response to Recommendation 12.
In relation to the second bullet point of this recommendation, the ALRC made the following recommendations:
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that content providers should take reasonable steps to restrict access to adult content that is sold, screened, provided online or otherwise distributed to the Australian public. Adult content is:
(a) content that has been classified R 18+ or X 18+; or
(b) unclassified content that, if classified, would be likely to be classified R 18+ or X 18+.
The Classification of Media Content Act should not mandate that all adult content must be classified (Recommendation 10-1)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide the Regulator with the power to issue 'restrict access notices' to providers of adult content. For the purpose of issuing these notices, the Regulator should be empowered to determine whether the content is adult content (Recommendation 10-2).
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that the reasonable steps that content providers must take to restrict access to adult content may be set out in:
(a) industry codes, approved and enforced by the Regulator; and
(b) standards, issued and enforced by the Regulator.
These codes and declarations may be developed for different types of content, content providers and industries, but could include:
(a) how and where to advertise, package and display hardcopy adult content;
(b) the promotion of parental locks and user-based computer filters;
(c) how to confirm the age of persons accessing adult content online; and
(d) how to provide warnings online (Recommendation 10-3).
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 14
The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Commonwealth and the states and territories should establish a centralised database to provide for information-sharing on classification enforcement actions.
Government Response – noted
In February 2011, the then Minister for Justice wrote to Police Ministers and the Minister for Employment and Economic Development in Queensland requesting bi-annual reports on compliance and enforcement action taken in relation to classification laws. This initiative was agreed to by the Commonwealth, States and Territories at the Classification Enforcement Contacts Forum 2010.
These reports are now being compiled by the Classification Liaison Scheme (CLS) which is administered by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department and is responsible for collating and sharing the information received.
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the response to the ALRC recommendations and, in particular, in relation to the role of the states and territories under a new NCS.
Recommendation 15
The committee recommends that the Classification Liaison Scheme should substantially increase its compliance and audit-checking activities in relation to, for example, compliance with serial classification declaration requirements.
Government Response – noted
The Classification Board currently has responsibility for conducting audits of serial declarations. All serial declarations are audited during the term of the declaration.
CLS compliance checks have increased from 701 in 2007/08 to 917 in 2010/11.
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the response to the ALRC recommendations and, in particular, in relation to the role and size of the CLS under a new NCS.
Recommendation 16
The committee recommends that the Classification Liaison Scheme should have at least one representative in each state and territory.
Government response – noted
The ALRC envisages a new approach to compliance and enforcement in relation to classification matters. In particular it makes the following recommendations:
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide for enforcement of classification laws under Commonwealth law. (Recommendation 16-1)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide a flexible range of compliance and enforcement mechanisms allowing the Regulator, depending on the circumstances, to:
(a) issue notices to comply with provisions of the Act, industry codes or standards;
(b) accept enforceable undertakings;
(c) pursue civil penalty orders;
(d) refer matters for criminal prosecution; and
(e) issue infringement notices. (Recommendation 16-2)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide for the imposition of criminal, civil and administrative penalties in relation to failing to comply with:
(a) notices of the Regulator;
(b) an industry code or standard;
(c) restrictions on the sale, screening, online provision and distribution of media content;
(d) statutory obligations to restrict access to media content; and
(e) statutory obligations to classify and mark media content. (Recommendation 16-3)
The Classification of Media Content Act should require the Regulator to issue enforcement guidelines outlining the factors it will take into account and the principles it will apply in exercising its enforcement powers. (Recommendation 16-4)
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 17
The committee recommends that the Classification Liaison Scheme should be charged with responsibility for establishing and maintaining the centralised database to provide for information-sharing on classification enforcement actions, as proposed in Recommendation 14.
Government Response – noted
See response to Recommendations 14 and 16.
Recommendation 18
The committee recommends that the Classification Liaison Scheme should provide assistance to state and territory law enforcement agencies in relation to enforcement actions for failure to respond to call-in notices issued by the Director of the Classification Board.
Government Response – agree
This recommendation is already implemented. CLS officers currently provide assistance to law enforcement agencies in relation to referrals from the Director of the Classification Board of non-compliance with a call-in notice, or any other classification matter. Currently, CLS officers request the relevant State and Territory police to enforce breaches of call-in notices. All of the evidence establishing an offence will be presented by CLS. Such CLS assistance is prioritised and can also include presentations on content, offences and evidentiary certificates, as well as provision of witness statements, on site assistance and any other help requested.
Generally, CLS Officers meet with the nominated Classification Enforcement Contact in each law enforcement agency when conducting compliance checks in their jurisdiction.
Recommendation 19
The committee recommends that more detailed information should be included in the Attorney-General's annual report about the operations of the Classification Liaison Scheme.
Government Response – agree
Currently the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department provides information about the number of compliance checks conducted by CLS Officers.
It would be possible to include more detailed information about CLS. Further information about the activities undertaken by CLS can be included such as presentations delivered, meetings held and referrals. This will be included in future annual reports.Recommendation 20
The committee recommends that the Australian Government should increase the size of, and commensurate funding to, the Classification Liaison Scheme as a matter of priority.
Government Response – noted
See response to Recommendation 16.
Recommendation 21
The committee recommends that the Australian Government should, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, signal its intention to make enforcement actions for failing to respond to call-in notices a matter of priority.
Government Response – agree
Under the current Scheme, each individual jurisdiction determines its own enforcement priorities. Enforcement of failure to comply with a call-in is not a matter for the Commonwealth but is a matter for States and Territories. The Commonwealth refers any non-compliance to States and Territories as a matter of course.
The then Minister for Justice wrote to States and Territories in February 2009 seeking their cooperation in addressing the low levels of compliance with classification enforcement laws.
The Government will raise this issue through the Standing Council on Law and Justice.
See also response to Recommendation 16.
Recommendation 22
The committee recommends that, to the extent possible, the National Classification Scheme should apply equally to all content, regardless of the medium of delivery.
Government Response – agree
The ALRC and the Convergence Reviews have considered these issues as central to future regulation of media content. In particular, recommendation 5-1 and 5-2 of the ALRC Report and recommendation 1(a) of the Convergence Review which states:
1 a) Parliament should avoid enacting legislation that either favours or disadvantages any particular communications technology, business model or delivery method for content services.
The Government agrees in principle but will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 23
The committee recommends that industry codes of practice under current self-regulatory and co-regulatory schemes, including those under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the ARIA/AMRA Labelling Code and the advertising industry, should be required to incorporate the classification principles, categories, content, labelling, markings and warnings of the National Classification Scheme. The adoption of these measures by industry should be legally enforceable and subject to sanctions.
Government Response - noted
In chapter 6 of the report on the review of the NCS, the ALRC makes recommendations about the content (irrespective of its method of deliver or access) that should be classified under a new NCS as follows:
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that feature films and television programs that are:
(a) likely to have a significant Australian audience, and
(b) made and distributed on a commercial basis,
should be classified before content providers sell, screen, provide online, or otherwise distribute them to the Australian public. The Act should provide for platform-neutral definitions of 'feature film' and 'television program' and illustrative examples. Examples of television programs may include situation comedies, documentaries, children's programs, drama and factual content. (Recommendation 6–1)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that computer games that are:
(a) likely to be classified MA 15+ or higher; and
(b) likely to have a significant Australian audience; and
(c) made and distributed on a commercial basis,
should be classified before content providers sell, screen, provide online, or otherwise distribute them to the Australian public.
The Act should provide for platform-neutral definitions of 'computer game' and illustrative examples. (Recommendation 6–2)
In chapter 8 of its report on the review of the NCS, the ALRC discusses advertising and concludes that advertising should not be brought within the scope of the NCS. It makes a specific recommendation for advertisements for classifiable content to be managed under the existing self-regulatory arrangements for advertising and amendments to advertising codes.
Beyond these recommendations, the ALRC does not specifically recommend that self-regulated media content be required to adopt the classification and other related obligations of the NCS.
Instead, the ALRC made the following suggestion:
The Classification of Media Content Act should enable the Regulator to approve industry codes that provide for the voluntary classification and marking of content that is not required to be classified. The Regulator should encourage the development of such codes for:
(a) computer games likely to be classified below MA 15+;
(b) magazines likely to be classified R 18+ or X 18+; and
(c) music with a strong impact. (Recommendation 6–4)
Chapter 13 of the ALRC Report further deals with possible industry Codes of Practice making the following recommendations:
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide for the development of industry classification codes by sections of industry or persons involved in the production and distribution of media content; and for the Regulator to request that a body or association representing a particular section of industry develop a code. (Recommendation 13-1)
Industry classification codes may include provisions relating to:
(a) methods of restricting access to certain content;
(b) the use of classification markings;
(c) methods of classifying media content, including by authorised industry classifiers;
(d) guidance on the application of statutory classification criteria;
(e) maintaining records, reporting classification decisions and quality assurance;
(f) protecting children from certain content;
(g) providing consumer information in a timely and clear manner;
(h) providing a responsive and effective means of addressing community concerns, including complaints handling; and
(i) reporting to the Regulator on the administration of the code. (Recommendation 13-2)
The Classification of Media Content Act should enable the Regulator to approve an industry classification code if satisfied that:
(a) the code is consistent with statutory obligations to classify and restrict access to media content and statutory classification categories and criteria;
(b) the body or association developing the code represents a particular section of the media content industry; and
(c) there has been adequate public and industry consultation on the code. (Recommendation 13-3)
The Classification of Media Content Act should enable the Regulator to determine an industry standard if:
(a) there is no appropriate body or association representing a relevant section of industry; or
(b) a request to develop an industry code is not complied with. (Recommendation 13-4)
The Classification of Media Content Act should enable the Regulator to enforce compliance with a code against any participant in the relevant section of the media content industry, where an industry classification code relates to media content that must be classified or to which access must be restricted. (Recommendation 13-5)
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 24
The committee recommends that industry bodies wishing to exercise classification decision-making functions should be required to be accredited by the Australian Government.
Government Response – noted
In the ALRC Report, the following recommendations are relevant to the Committee's recommendation:
The Classification of Media Content Act should enable the Regulator to determine, of the content that must be classified, what content must be classified by the Classification Board. The determination should be set out in a legislative instrument. (Recommendation 7-1)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that, other than media content that must be classified by the Classification Board, media content may be:
(a) classified by the Classification Board;
(b) classified by an authorised industry classifier; or
(c) deemed to be classified because it has been classified under an authorised classification system. (Recommendation 7-4)
The Classification of Media Content Act should provide that industry classifiers must have completed training approved by the Regulator and be authorised by the Regulator to classify media content. (Recommendation 7-5)
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 25
The committee recommends that the Classification Board should be responsible for the development of a content assessor's accreditation, including formalised training courses for all industries covered under the National Classification Scheme.
Government Response – agree
The Classification Act already provides that the Director of the Classification Board may authorise individuals to assess and make recommendations on the classification and consumer advice for certain material. This includes the additional content for a previously classified film or exempt film (s 22D); television series and series related content (s14B); and computer games (s17 (3-5)). These are known as the Additional Content Assessor scheme (ACA); the Authorised Television Series Assessor scheme (ATSA); and the Authorised Assessor Computer Games scheme (AACG). Section 31(3)(a) of the Act provides that the Director of the Classification Board may authorise a person to make assessments of the likely classification of unclassified films or computer games for advertising purposes. This is the Authorised Advertising Assessor (AAA) scheme.
In order to become an authorised assessor, a person must complete the relevant training course. Courses are devised by the Attorney-General's Department in consultation with the Classification Board and must be approved by the Director. Courses are conducted by training officers from the Attorney-General's Department experienced in assessing material and making classification recommendations to the Classification Board.
Once training has been satisfactorily completed, trainees receive a certificate signed by the Director granting them Authorised Assessor status.
The Department also runs courses for distributors of telecommunications media to become Trained Content Assessors as provided for under Schedule 7 of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
ALRC Recommendation 7-5 is also relevant here.
Although the Committee's recommendation is already implemented, the Government will consider the underlying policy considerations when developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 26
The committee recommends that the accreditation of content assessors should be subject to disqualification as a result of poor performance.
Government Response – agree
Under the current authorised assessor schemes, individuals can have their authorisation revoked. For example, under s 5 of the Classification (Authorised Television Series Assessor Scheme) Determination 2008, the Director may revoke an authorisation of a person as an
ATSA if that person submits an assessment that is misleading, incorrect or grossly inadequate.
The ALRC recommends that the Regulator should be enabled to, amongst other things, revoke the authorisation of industry classifiers (Recommendation 7-12).
Although the Committee's recommendation is already implemented, the Government will consider the underlying policy considerations when developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 27
The committee recommends that transgressions of classification requirements within codes of practice by industry participants should, if verified by the Classification Board, be punishable by substantial monetary fines.
Government Response – noted
See response to Recommendation 16.
Recommendation 28
The committee recommends that the terms of appointment for members of the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board should be for a maximum period of five years, with no option for reappointment.
Government Response – noted
Appointments to the Classification Board are currently made on the basis of a broad cross-section of community representation. This must be balanced with the needs of industry by ensuring consistent standards are maintained irrespective of the makeup of the Board. The 1991 ALRC Review of the classification scheme recommended that Classification Board member terms be limited to a maximum of 7 years.
The ALRC has recommended the retention of an independent classification board but is silent about the appropriate length of term for members.
The ALRC makes a number of recommendations about the role of the Classification Board in relation to decision-making and benchmarking (for example, Recommendations 7-2 and 7-3). It also recommends that the Classification Review Board cease to operate in the new NCS (Recommendation 7-9).
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 29
The committee recommends that the Australian Government should establish a 'Classification Complaints' clearinghouse where complaints in relation to matters of classification can be directed. The clearinghouse would be responsible for:
• receiving complaints and forwarding them to the appropriate body for consideration;
• advising complainants that their complaint has been forwarded to a particular organisation for consideration; and
• giving complainants direct contact details and an outline of the processes of the organisation to which the complaint has been forwarded.
Government Response – noted
Recommendations 13-2, 14-1 and 14-2 of the ALRC Report are relevant to this recommendation.
The Government will consider the Committee's recommendation in developing the Government response to the ALRC recommendations.
Recommendation 30
The committee recommends that the Attorney-General should specifically direct the ALRC to consider, as part of its current review of the National Classification Scheme, all the findings, proposals and recommendations put forward in this report.
Government Response – agree
This was done by the then Minister for Justice on 12 September 2011, and the Committee was advised at this time.
Australian Government Response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report No. 427 Inquiry into National Funding Agreements
August 2012
General Comments
The Australian Government agrees with the broad thrust of the report. The Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations (IGA FFR), which commenced in 2009 and establishes the framework for the Commonwealth's financial relations with the States and Territories (the States), represents the single most significant shift in Commonwealth-State financial arrangements in decades.
Previously, federal financial relations were characterised by the Commonwealth placing a high degree of prescription on a large number of payments to the States, which constrained flexibility and innovation in service delivery. The new federal financial relations framework (FFR framework) provides States with flexibility to deliver quality services where they are most needed. It also increases governments' accountability to the public through a focus on the achievement of outcomes, clearer specification of roles and responsibilities, and enhanced public performance reporting. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council's 2011 report on the progress of the COAG reform agenda found that governments have made significant progress in realising many of the institutional features of the IGA FFR.
The Commonwealth has taken a range of steps to support the realisation of the IGA FFR. In 2010 the Commonwealth led, in conjunction with the States, a major review of agreements under the IGA FFR (the 'Heads of Treasuries Review'). Following the review, the Commonwealth has led work to improve performance frameworks in the National Agreements, to ensure that progress is measured and all jurisdictions are clearly accountable to the public and COAG for their efforts. To ensure the necessary cultural change to embed the FFR framework occurs across Commonwealth agencies, Commonwealth central agencies developed comprehensive guidance material (the 'Drafters' Toolkit') to assist portfolio agencies in drafting new agreements under the IGA FFR.
Further information is provided in response to the recommendations.
Response to the Recommendations
Recommendation No. 1
The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation examine the interaction between the new grants framework and grant payments delivered under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations. The report should propose options to remove inconsistencies and improve governance arrangements for all grants provided to States and Territories (States).
A copy of the report should be provided to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit (JCPAA), with the Government's Response to this recommendation—and both should be made publicly available.
Response
The Government disagrees with the recommendation. The interaction between the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) and the IGA FFR has already been examined as part of the Heads of Treasuries (HoTs) Review, in consultation with the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) and the Department of Finance and Deregulation. The Treasury has used this Review to develop and disseminate new guidance to Commonwealth line agencies.
Both frameworks contain accountability requirements which reflect the nature of the funding provided. The IGA FFR framework is focussed on giving the States flexibility in the achievement of outcomes for which funding is provided by the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the range of programs that fall under the Commonwealth grants framework is diverse and their administration requires the careful exercise of judgement in applying the key principles for grants administration, as articulated in the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines (CGGs). This results in different accountability requirements depending on the nature, size and purpose of the granting activity.
The Commonwealth grants policy framework is underpinned by the CGGs, which were introduced from 1 July 2009. The CGGs contain mandatory requirements and better practice guidance designed to promote transparency and establish a robust accountability framework around grants administration in the Commonwealth. Payments made under the IGA FFR have been specifically excluded from the definition of "grant" under the Financial Management and Accountability Regulations 1997 and, as a result, from the CGGs, on the basis that separate accountability mechanisms exist under that framework to manage those payments effectively in the context of Commonwealth-State relations.
Where States obtain Commonwealth grant funding through programs that are not covered by the IGA FFR, for example, through competitive or targeted grant processes, it is appropriate that they are subject to the same accountability requirements as other grant recipients. While this may result in different accountability requirements for the States depending on whether funding is received through the IGA FFR process or from grant programs covered by the CGGs, this appropriately reflects the different nature of program funding and the level of autonomy and discretion involved.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation is currently undertaking the Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review (CFAR), a multi-year review of the operation of the Commonwealth's financial framework from first principles. A discussion paper was released publicly on 27 March 2012 and is available at http://cfar.finance.gov.au. The objective of the discussion paper was to facilitate consultation and broad public discussion on the Commonwealth financial framework. The discussion paper noted the interaction of the CGGs with the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 and sought feedback from stakeholders to assist in determining what reforms might be considered when the Department of Finance and Deregulation puts forward options to the Government later in 2012.
Recommendation No. 2
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government makes the recommendations and a summary of the findings of the Heads of Treasuries Review public, along with the associated Government response and implementation strategies.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation.
The Government also notes that in response to the review, COAG established in February 2011 a steering group, led by Senior Officials from First Ministers' and Treasury agencies, to take forward the key and related recommendations arising from the HoTs Review, to consider improvements to the governance and performance reporting framework and to tackle deficiencies in the design of current agreements identified by the HoTs Review and reports of the COAG Reform Council (CRC), to reinforce COAG's commitment to performance and public accountability.
As part of this process, the performance frameworks of each of the six National Agreements (NAs) and select National Partnership (NP) Agreements were reviewed to ensure that progress is being measured and that all jurisdictions are clearly accountable to the public and COAG for their efforts. The reviews were conducted by working groups comprising officials from Commonwealth, State and Territory treasuries, First Ministers' departments and portfolio agencies. The reviews were conducted in consultation with Standing Council data groups, the CRC and the Secretariat to the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision.
The reviews addressed aspects of the performance reporting frameworks identified as requiring attention in the HoTs Review and in reports by the CRC and the Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision. The outcomes of the reviews provided the basis of recommendations to COAG on improvements to each agreement's performance framework. All reviews have now been completed. COAG agreed on 13 April 2012 to a revised National Agreement on Skills and Workforce Development and a revised NP on Homelessness. COAG also endorsed a report on the completion of improvements to the NP on Indigenous Economic Participation. On 25 July 2012, COAG agreed a revised National Disability Agreement (NDA), National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA), National Education Agreement and National Healthcare Agreement. COAG also agreed the review of the performance framework of the National Indigenous Reform Agreement out-of-session. These documents are available from the COAG website: www.coag.gov.au. Further work will be done in 2012 to develop provisional benchmarks with quantifiable targets for the NDA and NAHA.
Recommendation No. 3
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and central agencies investigate whether additional measures are needed to encourage and enforce the application of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations' principles and associated guidelines, and that the findings of the investigation be publicly released and provided to the Committee.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and other central agencies continue to pursue a range of measures to promote the application of the IGA FFR principles and associated guidelines. This includes the development and promulgation of the Drafters' Toolkit which incorporates:
This information is available on the website of the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations: www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au
The Drafters' Toolkit and other aspects of HoTs Review implementation were the subject of correspondence from the Secretary of the Commonwealth Treasury to relevant portfolio agency secretaries on 23 December 2011, which was later copied to relevant departmental Chief Financial Officers.
Recommendation No. 4
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and central agencies, in consultation with appropriate experts, develop a set of agreed definitions for assurance requirements to be used in NAs, NPs and IPs.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. The IGA FFR and the Drafters' Toolkit set out the requirements for NAs, NPs and IPs.
The IGA FFR specifies that NPs must focus on outcomes and outputs rather than inputs. Consequently, it provides for a reduction in Commonwealth prescriptions on service delivery by the States, and states that agreements will not include financial or other input controls, giving the States more flexibility in how services are provided to achieve the outcomes for which they are responsible.
Recommendation No. 5
The Committee recommends that a structured approach be developed and implemented by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and other central agencies to ensure relevant staff receive specific training to enhance understanding of the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and develop the skills required to meet outcomes focused performance reporting requirements.
Response
The Government agrees with the recommendation. In addition to the development and dissemination of the Drafters' Toolkit (see response to Recommendation 3), Commonwealth central agencies continue to pursue a range of measures to enhance understanding of the IGA FFR and develop the skills required to meet outcomes-focussed performance reporting requirements.
Following COAG's agreement to the HoTs Review, Treasury held two forums to discuss the findings and recommendations of the review with officials of all relevant portfolio agencies. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet holds regular meetings with other Commonwealth central agencies and relevant portfolio agencies to discuss COAG and IGA FFR related issues. Commonwealth central agencies also engage with relevant portfolio agencies on a routine basis, providing advice on IGA FFR matters and draft agreements, as well as overseeing formal clearance processes for the development and agreement of NPs, IPs and Project Agreements (PAs). The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is also developing a presentation on the IGA FFR and how to develop agreements under the FFR framework. The presentation will be delivered jointly with Treasury to Commonwealth portfolio agencies on a targeted basis.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation is currently reviewing its financial management education strategy including the most effective way to meet education needs across the Commonwealth. This includes working with the Australian Public Service Commission (APSC) to develop and deliver base level financial management framework training to officers new to the Senior Executive Service. Commonwealth central agencies are exploring opportunities to leverage the Department of Finance and Deregulation's work in this area to develop and deliver education products to enhance the awareness and understanding of the requirements of the FFR framework.
Recommendation No. 6
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in consultation with other central agencies, establish processes to ensure that there is clarity of the outcomes to be achieved and these are clearly reflected in national funding agreements. The committee asserts that to underpin the achievement of outcomes, mutual understanding of the end goal must drive the cultural change, the training and skill development, and the quality and timeliness of data collection and publication. At all times, outcomes should be the focus in the development of all NAs.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. As outlined in the response to Recommendation 2, on 13 February 2011 COAG agreed, in response to the HoTs Review, to review the performance frameworks of each of the six NAs and select NPs to ensure that progress is being measured and that all jurisdictions are clearly accountable to the public and COAG for their efforts.
In addition to the work to implement the HoTs Review, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Treasury work continuously with relevant portfolio agencies to develop NPs and IPs under the IGA FFR that have a strong focus on specifying outcomes and identifying robust performance measures and data to assess progress in achieving outcomes over time.
Recommendation No. 7
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, in collaboration with agencies such as the Australian Public Service Commission, should lead a process to provide training across the broader Australian Public Service which incorporates information on the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations to explain the importance of the Agreement and its principles.
Response
The Government agrees with the recommendation. As mentioned in response to Recommendation 3, guidance materials have been developed for relevant staff in affected agencies. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is developing a presentation on the IGA FFR and how to develop agreements under the FFR framework. The presentation will be delivered jointly with Treasury to Commonwealth portfolio agencies on a targeted basis. An improved COAG website has also been launched.
As mentioned in response to Recommendation 5, Commonwealth central agencies are also exploring opportunities to leverage the Department of Finance and Deregulation's work with the APSC, to develop and deliver education products to enhance the awareness and understanding of the requirements of the FFR framework.
Recommendation No. 8
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth works through the Council of Australian Governments to ensure that States develop and implement a similarly structured approach to foster cultural change throughout departments and agencies and ensure all staff receive relevant training to enhance understanding of the framework and develop the skills required to meet outcomes focused performance reporting requirements.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. The Drafters' Toolkit (see response to Recommendation 3) was developed and agreed in consultation with State and Territory central agencies. At their meeting of 9 December 2011, HoTs agreed to disseminate and promote the Drafters' Toolkit to its respective portfolio agency secretaries or equivalents. The Secretary of the Commonwealth Treasury wrote to relevant portfolio agency secretaries on 23 December 2011.
States have also undertaken a range of measures to foster cultural change to ensure all staff receive relevant training to understand the IGA FFR and to develop the skills required to meet outcomes-focussed performance reporting requirements. More information provided by the States is available at Attachment A.
Recommendation No. 9
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and central agencies report back to the Committee within six months on work undertaken to move towards the 'single report to multiple agencies' ideal and the potential to develop a set of standard data requirements for areas of national interest.
Response
The Government agrees with the recommendation. The Government supports streamlining reporting requirements and consolidating data collections wherever possible to reduce the reporting burden. This objective will always be balanced with the need to have data that are fit-for-purpose, timely and robust.
In response to the Committee's request to report back, significant progress has already been made to move towards the 'single report to multiple agencies' ideal. In particular, agencies like the Productivity Commission and the CRC already draw almost entirely on secondary information sources rather than approaching providers and States directly for the same information. There are several areas of work underway to consolidate data collections, including:
(a) the development of National Minimum datasets to improve performance reporting against NAs and NPs;
(b) the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER) data collations;
(c) Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) and National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) data collections; and
(d) the Australian Bureau of Statistics 'Measuring Wellbeing' framework.
Additionally, METeOR, the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare's (AIHW's) Metadata Online Registry, is a repository for national metadata standards for health, housing and community services statistics and information. The catalogue of holdings of AIHW data is an online searchable catalogue of a selection of data held by the Institute for statistical purposes.
Recommendation No. 10
The Committee recommends that the Prime Minister through the Council of Australian Governments, take steps to respond to the reports and recommendations of the Council of Australian Governments' Reform Council within three months.
Response
The Government agrees with the recommendation. COAG has already undertaken to respond to CRC reports and recommendations within three months.
Recommendation No. 11
The Committee recommends that the Prime Minister table COAG Reform Council reports in the Commonwealth Parliament one month after submission to COAG, and that relevant Productivity Commission reports are tabled as soon as practical. Once tabled, these reports should be automatically referred to an appropriate Joint Standing Committee for review.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. The CRC releases publicly its NA performance and NP assessment reports, and Productivity Commission reports are already tabled in Parliament within 25 sitting days of being received by the Treasurer. However, in some instances neither the CRC nor COAG release certain reports. This occurs, for example, when the contents are commercial-in-confidence. Consequently, COAG reserves the right to withhold certain reports if there is a compelling reason to do so.
Recommendation No. 12
The Committee recommends that signed National Partnerships are tabled in Parliament, along with a complementary Ministerial Statement.
Response
The Government disagrees with the recommendation. All agreements under the IGA FFR are available publicly on the website of the Standing Council on Federal Financial Relations.
Recommendation No. 13
The Committee recommends that the Prime Minister deliver an annual Statement to the House:
- outlining the Commonwealth Government's perspective on the contribution of national funding agreements to the improvement of the well-being of Australians; and
- summarising the number of current, new, upcoming and expired NAs and NPs.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation, but considers that the recommendation's objective is delivered through other existing avenues. COAG's contribution to the improved well-being of Australians is already canvassed by a range of agencies through a number of different reports by the CRC, the Productivity Commission and indirectly through the measures of Australia's wellbeing reported by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
For example, the CRC produces an annual report, COAG Reform Agenda: Report on Progress , and a number of reports on progress under the NAs and certain NPs. Similarly, the Productivity Commission reports on the 'Impacts and Benefits of COAG reforms' and provides COAG with information on progress through its Report on Government Services. Finally, COAG itself reports on its progress through the communiqué published after each meeting and published on its website.
All NAs, NPs, IPs and PAs are available publicly on the SCFFR website which is updated regularly. Information on upcoming and expired agreements is published in Budget Paper 3 and Part 3, Attachment D of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which are public documents tabled in Parliament.
Recommendation No. 14
The Committee recommends that the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and central agencies investigate steps so that Portfolio Budget Statements and annual reporting requirements provide a more comprehensive picture of the performance and outcomes of programs under National Partnerships across government.
Response
The Government notes the recommendation. The CRC already reports on progress against those NPs that support the objectives of an NA, much of which is summarised in its annual COAG Reform Agenda: Report on Progress and in its annual NA performance reports. The CRC also reports on whether performance benchmarks have been achieved in NPs with reward payments. For other NPs, Commonwealth agencies may publish progress or final program reports on their websites.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation is already taking steps to improve the guidance it provides to agencies on performance reporting in the Portfolio Budget Statements as part of its response to a recent ANAO Performance Audit Report (No.5) 2011-12: Development and Implementation of Key Performance Indicators to Support the Outcomes and Programs Framework . The Department is also considering the inclusion of further guidance on how to reference performance reporting for programs delivered through NAs.
States and Territories are responsible for delivering the majority of outcomes and outputs under NPs. The primary purpose of Commonwealth agency annual reports, on the other hand, is to report on the performance of the Commonwealth agency in relation to services provided.
Recommendation No. 15
The Committee recommends that, in light of the range of review activity currently underway, the Commonwealth Government take this opportunity to institute and deliver on the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations' full potential. With these changes Australia will be well positioned to continue on the reform pathway in the coming decade.
Response
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Attachment A
STATE AND TERRITORY ACTIVITIES TO FOSTER CULTURE CHANGE WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ON FEDERAL FINANCIAL RELATIONS
That the Senate take note of the reports.
… the Government table in Parliament a document setting out its priorities and objectives, including the anticipated costs and benefits of the agreement.
The Governor-General must not ratify a treaty unless both Houses of Parliament have, by resolution, approved the ratification.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012
Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2012
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together, and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
Introduction
Twelve months ago, the Government announced 'Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system' —a policy document setting out the most significant reforms to Australia's anti-dumping system in over a decade.
I am pleased today to present the Customs Amendment (Anti-dumping Improvements) Bill (No. 3) 2012—the fourth and final tranche of legislation to implement the reforms in the Streamlining policy.
As I foreshadowed in March, when I introduced the third tranche of legislation, this fourth bill implements reforms across three broad areas.
First, it will better align Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing system with those of our WTO counterparts.
Second, it introduces provisions designed to address the circumvention of trade measures. These important amendments establish, for the first time, a mechanism for Australian industry to apply to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service for an inquiry into business practices which are designed to avoid the payment of dumping or countervailing duties.
Third, it strengthens our system's ability to address parties' non-cooperation during the investigation process.
It also makes a number of minor corrections to Part XVB of the Customs Act 1901 (Customs Act).
I will now step through each of these in more detail.
Aligning subsidies provisions with the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
First, the bill amends the provisions dealing with countervailable subsidies to more accurately reflect the World Trade Organization Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In particular, this bill:
Anti-circumvention inquiries
Second, this bill introduces a new division in Part XVB of the Customs Act, Division 5A—Anti-circumvention inquiries . This division will allow Australian industry, or the Minister, to initiate an anti-circumvention inquiry.
Circumvention is a trade strategy used by the exporters and importers of products to avoid the full payment of dumping or countervailing duties. Circumvention activities take various forms and exploit different aspects of the anti-dumping and countervailing system. For example:
Division 5A empowers the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to inquire into those circumvention activities and provide me with a report recommending whether the original notice should be altered or remain the same. As a result of these amendments, I will be able to extend the original notice imposing the anti-dumping measures to cover the circumvention activities of exporters or importers if I am satisfied that, as a result of the prescribed circumvention activity, the duties which would have otherwise been paid on imported goods have not been paid.
Stronger provisions to address non-cooperative parties
Third, this bill strengthens the provisions that deal with non-cooperation in sampling exercises in investigations, continuation inquiries or reviews under Division 5 of Part XVB of the Customs Act.
Sampling exercises are undertaken where the number of exporters who provide information is so large as to make a determination for each individual exporter impracticable. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service will be able to limit the examination either to a reasonable number of exporters which are a statistically valid sample, or to the exporters who are responsible for the largest percentage of the volume of the exporters from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated.
Currently, an exporter of goods which are the subject of an investigation must have been either a selected exporter or a residual exporter. A residual exporter would generally receive a duty equal to the weighted average of the examined selected exporters' duty rate imposed by the measures. This would normally be more than the rate for an exporter who failed to cooperate in the investigation.
The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's view has been that residual exporters only exist in cases where the sampling provisions were applied. In a recent Trade Measures Review Officer decision a loophole was identified which could lead to a counterproductive outcome that benefits non-cooperating exporters, that is, they may receive a more favourable rate than the rate provided under the current approach.
This amendment will prevent potential manipulation of this provision by creating three categories of exporters: cooperative, residual and uncooperative.
As a result, I will be able to determine:
This approach is consistent with the approach taken in a number of other jurisdictions.
This reform will ensure that Australia's anti-dumping system effectively deals with parties that do not cooperate with investigations. This ensures that I have the power to impose tougher dumping margins for parties that refuse to provide necessary information within a reasonable period.
Conclusion
This bill completes the implementation of the legislative reforms outlined in the Government's Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system .
The Streamlining reforms represent the most extensive improvements to the anti-dumping system in a decade and address long-standing systemic issues such as those identified in the Productivity Commission Inquiry Report No.48,Australia's Anti-dumping and Countervailing System .
But more can be done to ensure that the system can respond to new and emerging trends.
During consultations on the implementation of these reforms, the International Trade Remedies Forum highlighted a number of areas that need further improvement. These include:
I am looking at all of these areas and where legislative reform is required—we will bring forward further legislation for the Parliament's consideration.
There is still more to do. This bill is an important step—and I commend it to the House.
The Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Measures No. 1) Bill 2012 contains several amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (the Customs Tariff).
Items 1 and 2 of the Schedule to the Bill provide for the listing of Serbia as a Developing Country for the purposes of the Australian System of Tariff Preferences, with effect from 1 March 2012.
This listing accords Serbia a reduction in customs duty on a defined range of goods imported into Australia.
This action is consistent with Australia's approach to other states which were formerly part of Yugoslavia.
Item 7 of the Schedule to the Bill re-inserts subheading 5308.10.00, applicable to coir yarn, in the Customs Tariff. This subheading was incorrectly omitted from the Customs Tariff in the Customs Tariff Amendment (2012 Harmonized System Changes) Act 2011.
Those amendments were previously given effect through the tabling of Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2012 in the House of Representatives on 16 February 2012.
The remaining amendments in the Bill correct a number of technical errors that have occurred in the Customs Tariff.
These corrections maintain the quality of the text of the Customs Tariff and ensure that Australia's Customs Tariff is correctly aligned with the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System that forms the basis of the Customs Tariff.
These corrections do not affect the classification of goods or customs duty payable.
In the past month the Government has introduced into this Parliament a suite of bills that represents the most significant overhaul of Australia's maritime industry since its establishment in 1912.
We have introduced the National Law Bill to establish a single National Marine Safety Regulator in Australia and the Navigation Bill that modernises the 100 year old Navigation Act.
I also had the great pleasure to introduce the Government's Stronger Shipping for a Stronger Economy legislative reforms.
These reforms became law last Thursday and from 1 July commence the vital work of revitalising Australia's shipping industry.
This Government has also amassed a substantial body of work in the protecting Australia's precious marine environment.
In this Parliament alone, we have increased penalties for the discharge of oil or oil residues by ships in Australian waters from $220,000 to $11 million; banned the carriage or use of heavy grade oils on ships in the Antarctic Area, legislated practices for ship to ship transfers of oil carried as cargo and implemented incremental changes to the maximum sulphur level of marine fuel oil.
This bill continues the Government's commitment to our marine environments.
The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 amends the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to strengthen Australia's comprehensive marine pollution prevention regime.
As a Government, it is our duty to ensure that our laws for prevention of marine pollution are adequate, up to date and consistent with international law.
The International Maritime Organization has adopted a number of Conventions which are intended to reduce pollution by ships.
The most important of these Conventions is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships which is generally referred to as MARPOL.
MARPOL has six technical Annexes which deal with different aspects of marine pollution.
These are pollution by oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage, garbage and air pollution.
About 150 countries have adopted at least some of these Annexes.
Australia has adopted all six.
In July 2011 the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization adopted amendments to Annex IV, V and VI of MARPOL.
The main purpose of this bill is to implement those amendments in Australia.
The amendments to MARPOL, which will enter into force internationally on 1 January 2013, will:
This bill will also clarify the application of roll back provisions in Australia's territorial sea to clarify application of offences committed outside the three nautical mile limit.
In addition, the bill will repeal the Stevedoring Levy (Imposition) Act 1998 and the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 which relate to the former stevedoring levy.
Payment of the stevedoring levy in accordance with the two Acts ceased in May 2006 and the two Acts are no longer of any effect.
Since coming to power in 2007 this Government has significantly improved the protection of Australia's marine environment.
This bill continues that work.
The Gillard Government is driving historic reforms in infrastructure and transport in Australia.
From 2013, maritime safety, rail safety and heavy vehicles will, for the first time, have nationally consistent laws.
This will cut the number of transport regulators operating across Australia from 23 to 3.
This reform will improve safety, simplify the compliance task for transport operators and boost national income.
The Transport Safety Investigation Amendment Bill 2012 supports the creation of a National Rail Safety Regulator by empowering the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) to conduct investigations in all jurisdictions; including, importantly, extending its rail investigation function to metropolitan railway lines.
This bill and the Rail Safety National Law passed by the South Australian Parliament in May this year, replaces seven separate regulatory authorities, 46 pieces of State/Territory and Commonwealth legislation including seven rail safety Acts, nine occupational health and safety Acts, and seven dangerous goods Acts.
In 2009 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a national approach in regulating the safety of rail.
Three years of hard work, by all jurisdictions and industry stakeholders has delivered this historic reform.
By 1 January 2013 the National Rail Safety Regulator will be in place, established through complementary State and Territory legislation, and the ATSB's existing investigation coverage will extend to match that of the regulator.
Rail reform fixes the history of inconsistent regulatory and investigation practices between the states and territories that has constrained productivity in rail transport across jurisdictional borders.
Since 2003 the ATSB has had rail safety investigation functions and powers under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003.
However, until now the ATSB has been confined to investigating occurrences involving interstate rail travel.
The ATSB has limited the use of its powers on an understanding reached with the States.
This bill changes that.
For the first time, the ATSB will have responsibility for investigations on the critical metropolitan passenger and freight rail networks.
There will be more investigations across a greater range of safety matters.
In carrying out its function, the ATSB's statutory independence from the regulator and industry will be preserved.
The ATSB's focus will continue to be on improving safety rather than on apportioning blame or providing the means to determine liability.
No amendments are required to the Transport Safety Investigation Act to broaden the ATSB's role.
However, the bill will clarify the Act's reliance on the territories power in the Constitution for the purpose of the ATSB conducting investigations within the territories.
The bill also contains an amendment to enable state and territory Ministers with a responsibility for rail transport to request the ATSB to conduct an investigation in their jurisdiction.
This recognises that the states and territories are significant stakeholders in rail safety.
COAG has agreed criteria for the ATSB automatically commencing an investigation, including where there has been a death or significant mainline derailment or collision.
Further, through assessing data available from all accident and incident notifications, the ATSB will determine whether other occurrences require investigation in order to address emerging hazards and risks.
With the ATSB to assume a national jurisdiction for rail safety investigations, the ATSB will be better positioned to examine other emerging safety trends of importance to the entire industry.
The final amendment in the bill clarifies that some information the ATSB obtains and generates may be disclosed in accordance with regulations made under the Act.
While this amendment will have effect with respect to the ATSB's general investigation functions and powers, it will have immediate importance for the establishment of a confidential reporting scheme.
The scheme will cover the aviation, maritime and rail industries.
For rail it will mean the industry will, for the first time, have a national confidential reporting scheme.
This will be another important component of the national rail safety system.
This bill, along with the broader reforms being undertaken by this Government and the states and territories assures the public and all parts of the Australian rail industry, that the safety of rail operations in this country is an absolute priority.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing and Other Measures) Bill 2012
It is very difficult for me as High Commissioner, who has to deal with the whole world, to be convinced that 6000 is a very important problem.
I understand that in the psychology of Australia, the collective psychology, this is an important problem … but you need to understand also the global perspective.
Clearly one of the lessons from the past experience under the Pacific Solution was that protracted, prolonged displacement in far-flung islands of the Pacific very rapidly causes serious and long-term psycho-social harm to people. We do not want to go back to those experiences.
When you're confronted with that reality—
… and you have the capacity to try and construct a different way that would prevent that but, at the same time, provide thousands more people with protection, and you decide not to do it for whatever reason, then I can't really live with myself on that basis.
I don't want to stay awake at night thinking about this issue and imagining how terrified a young kid or a woman would be in a violent ocean, slipping below the waterline with no one around to save them or protect them. The images of that are just too horrific.
There are risks that we're going to have to monitor carefully, and work hard to ensure that they don't result in damaging people. But there are greater risks with doing nothing.
Australia’s continued commitment to taking in thousands of refugees each year, often from some of the most protracted situations in Africa and Asia, is to be commended. On a per-capita basis, Australia is UNHCR’s biggest resettlement country.
Conflict and upheaval, the traditional drivers of displacement, are increasingly compounded … by a number of inter-related and mutually reinforcing global trends. These include population growth, urbanization, food and water scarcity, and, most dramatically, the effects of climate change.
Resettlement opportunities also still fall far short of requirements, with spaces available for only ten per cent of the nearly 800,000 refugees needing resettlement worldwide today.
… we want to build a system and the centrepiece of this is not Nauru and Manus. Everybody has been focusing on those things because of the politics, but the centrepiece is all about creating a proper and fairer system in the region for people to apply to - one that would be safe and produce outcomes in a more timely way
… legislation to support the transfer of people to regional processing arrangements be introduced into the Australian Parliament as a matter of urgency.
The Senate divided. [17:10]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [17:17]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate calls on the Government to:
(a) after at least 9 months, but no later than 12 months, of the commencement of the provisions of this bill, commission a further report by the members of the Expert Panel of Asylum Seekers, to consider all aspects of the offshore processing legislative framework (including any human rights and other consequences) and to determine whether this framework has been successful in reducing the number of irregular maritime arrivals; and
(b) require this Panel to complete such a report within three months; and
(c) publicly release this report within 14 days of its receipt by the Government.
The Senate divided. [17:22]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
… offshore entry persons, including offshore entry persons in respect of whom Australia has or may have protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol, should be able to be taken to any country designated to be an offshore processing country;
New subsection 198AB(3) provides that in considering the national interest for the purposes of —
the Minister:
The Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament:
(a) a copy of the designation; and
(b) a statement of the Minister’s reasons for thinking it is in the national interest to designate the country to be an offshore processing country, referring in particular to any assurances of a kind referred to in paragraph 198AB(3)(a) that have been given by that country; and—
(c) a copy of any written agreement between Australia and the country relating to the taking of persons to the country; and
(d) a statement about the Minister’s consultations with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in relation to the designation, including the nature of those consultations; and
(e) a summary of any advice received from that Office in relation to the designation; and
(f) a statement about any arrangements that are in place, or are to be put in place, in the country for the treatment of persons taken to the country.
… a broad meaning and refers to matters which relate to Australia’s standing, security and interests. For example, these matters may include governmental concerns related to such matters as public safety, border protection, national security, defence, Australia’s economic interests … Measures for effective border management and migration controls are in the national interest.
This is the mechanism whereby the Minister can exempt persons from the duty to be taken to an offshore processing country where the individual assessment of their circumstances that is undertaken prior to a person being taken to an offshore processing country, indicates that taking the person to that country would not be appropriate. For example, the person may have vulnerabilities that cannot be accommodated in the offshore processing country, or have protection claims against the offshore processing country (in addition to those they claim to have against their country of origin or habitual residence).
… if the Minister thinks that it is in the public interest …
From this point forward, anybody who comes to Australia by boat runs the risk of being transferred to an offshore processing place. From this point forward—
anybody who comes to Australia by boat should be very clear about the possibility of not being processed and resettled in Australia.
A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all contracting states.
2. A refugee shall enjoy in the Contracting State in which he has his habitual residence the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the courts, including legal assistance and exemption from cautio judicatum solvi .
3. A refugee shall be accorded in the matters referred to in paragraph 2 in countries other than that in which he has his habitual residence the treatment granted to a national of the country of his habitual residence.
(a) a copy of the designation; and
(b) a statement of the Minister’s reasons for thinking it is in the national interest to designate the country to be—
(c) a copy of any written agreement between Australia and the country relating to the taking of persons …
(d) a statement about the Minister’s consultations with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees …
(e) a summary of any advice received from that Office …
(f) a statement about any arrangements that are in place, or are to be put in place …
But then you go on to say that:
(3) The Minister must comply with subsection (2) within 2 sitting days …
(4) The sole purpose of laying the documents referred to in subsection (2) before the Parliament is to inform the Parliament of the matters referred to in the documents and nothing in the documents affects the validity of the designation. Similarly, the fact that some or all of those documents do not exist does not affect the validity of the designation.
… public safety, border protection, national security, defence, Australia’s economic interests, Australia’s international obligations and its relations with other countries. Measures for effective border management and migration controls are in the national interest. Measures to develop an effective functioning regional cooperation framework and associated processing arrangements to better manage the flows of irregular migrants in our region are also in Australia’s national interest.
(1) Schedule 1, item 25, page 10 (after line 12), after section 198AD, insert:
198ADA 12 month limit on transfer to regional processing country
(1) The Minister must ensure that a person who is transferred to a regional processing country under section 198AD is transferred to Australia no later than 12 months after the day on which the person arrived in the regional processing country.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person who is not in the regional processing country 12 months after the day on which the person arrived in the country.
(3) Section 198AD does not apply in relation to a person who is transferred to Australia under subsection (1).
… a strengthened regional approach will not be effective, or its benefits will be reduced, if those who choose to seek asylum through irregular means gain advantage from doing so over those who claim asylum through established mechanisms.
Schedule 1, item 25, page 10 (after line 12), after section 198AD, insert:
198ADA 12 month limit on transfer to regional processing country
(1) The Minister must ensure that a person who is transferred to a regional processing country under section 198AD is transferred to Australia no later than 12 months after the day on which the person arrived in the regional processing country.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a person who is not in the regional processing country 12 months after the day on which the person arrived in the country.
(3) Section 198AD does not apply in relation to a person who is transferred to Australia under subsection (1).
The Committee divided. [19:33]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 6 (lines 26 to 29) , omit subsection 198AB ( 2 ), substitute:
(2) The only conditions for the exercise of the power under subsection (1) are that the Minister:
(a) thinks that it is in the national interest to designate the country to be a regional processing country; and
(b) is satisfied that the country has in place appropriate protection and welfare arrangements that are consistent with Australia’s, and the country’s, obligations under international law (including the Refugees Convention).
[protection and welfare arrangements]
Schedule 1 , item 25 , page 7 (after line 13) , after subsection 198AB ( 4 ), insert:
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (2), the country has in place appropriate protection and welfare arrangements if:
(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:
(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and
(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and
(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and
(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and
(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and
(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and
(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
(a) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country include arrangements to ensure that a person taken to the country under section 198AD:
(i) will be treated in a manner consistent with human rights standards under international law, including by not being subject to arbitrary detention; and
(ii) will have appropriate accommodation; and
(iii) will have access to appropriate physical and mental health services; and
(iv) will have access to educational and vocational training programs; and
(v) will be provided with assistance in preparing any asylum claim or visa application; and
(vi) in respect of any asylum claim or visa application made by the person, will have access to an appeal mechanism that affords natural justice to the person; and
(b) the protection and welfare arrangements in place in the country are monitored by a body consisting of representatives of Australia and the country.
The High Court’s decision does not align with the Government’s policy intention which is that the Minister’s consent under section 6A of the IGOC Act is not required for a noncitizen child to be removed, taken or deported from Australia under the Migration Act. This intention is given effect by item 8 of Schedule 2. As such, this amendment is a consequential amendment as a result of item 8. Subsection 6A(4) is effectively replaced by the amendments to section 8 made by item 8 of Schedule 2.
Under the interpretation of the law set out by the High Court last month, the removal from Australia of an unaccompanied minor is practically extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Similarly, the fact that some or all of those documents do not exist … does not affect the validity of the designation.
… and the government should stand warned that the coalition will scrutinise the protections very carefully if they seek to bring countries forward to be designated in this way.
The Committee divided. [20:31]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
Schedule 1, item 25, page 12 (after line 16), at the end of Subdivision B, add:
198AI Review of regional processing
(1) The Minister must cause an independent review of regional processing under this Subdivision to be undertaken:
(a) within 12 months after the Minister first designates a country under section 198AB; and
(b) at least once every 12 months after the first review is undertaken under this section.
(2) A review under this section must include a review of the protection and welfare arrangements that each regional processing country has in place for persons taken to the country under section 198AD.
(3) The Minister must cause a copy of a report of a review under this section to be released publicly within 14 days after the Minister receives the report.
The Committee divided. [21:09]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
Page 2 (after line 2), after clause 3, insert:
4 Application of amendments
However:
(a) the amendments (including any repeals) made by this Act have effect only for a period of 24 months from the commencement of this Act; and
(b) any Act amended by this Act has effect after that period of 24 months as if the amendments had not been made.
… the operational aspects underpinning the current provisions in the Arrangement need to be specified in greater detail as part of a broader revision to enhance the protections for transferees that it aims to provide.
The Committee divided. [22:17]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
That this bill be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [22:21]
(The President—Senator John Hogg)
The products of the engineering industries are the processes of the rest of the economy.
Youth Allowance is currently paid at $402.70 a fortnight … significantly lower than the minimum wage and the poverty line. The weekly payments is $405.05 below the minimum wage ($606.40 a week) and $269.28 a week below the Henderson poverty line ($470.63 a week). Youth allowance recipients receive $28.75 a day to live on.
With reference to the Government commissioned report, 2008 Audit of the Defence Budget which identified that ‘a real growth rate of 3.5% in capital expenditure on SME [Specialised Military Equipment] [is required] just to replace today’s equipment. To deliver the capabilities proposed in the recommended Force Structure Option requires a growth rate of 4.2%’: As at 31 December 2011, what will be the amount required to fund, in nominal dollars, the major capital equipment program each year from 2010 11 to 2029 30, so as to fund the White Paper ‘Force 2030’ initiatives.
At the time of the 2009 Defence White paper, and at the Senate Estimates hearing on Wednesday 3 June 2009, Defence outlined that the estimated overall cost of buying the capability outlined in the White Paper would be between $245-$275 billion out to 2030.
However, this has been revised down to approximately $200-$230 billion out to 2030 due to the appreciation of the Australian Dollar against the US Dollar.
(1) Will the Government work with Turkish and New Zealand authorities to accredit travel providers offering travel packages to Gallipoli in April 2015; if so, how?
(2) What advice does the Government currently provide to Australians wishing to travel to Gallipoli in 2015 in regard to travel planning?
(3) When does the Government expect to make an announcement about public consultation on the proposed lottery scheme for ticketing at the Anzac Centenary commemorations in Turkey in April 2015?
(1) There is a broader issue currently under discussion between the governments of Australia, New Zealand and Turkey about the numbers of visitors wishing to attend Anzac Centenary commemorations in Turkey in April 2015. Resolution of this issue will not revolve around accreditation of tour operators, many of whom are based in the United Kingdom. Discussions about managing the demand to attend in 2015 includes the provision of advice to tour operators in Australia, New Zealand, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
The Government will assess all options in consultation with our New Zealand and Turkish counterparts and provide advice, as required, to tour operators and the public on the final outcome of these deliberations.
(2) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) focus has been to inform tour operators, who are a major conduit of information to prospective visitors. Information is provided to tour operators on the DVA website at:
http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/gallipoli/Pages/index.aspx
http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/Pages/index.aspx
This same information is provided to people who contact DVA.
(3) The term “lottery”, as recently raised in some newspapers, implies the sale of tickets in order to win a prize. The Government has no intention of demeaning the memory of the service and sacrifice of Australians who served at Gallipoli, or diminishing the significance of the Anzac Centenary, by offering tickets for sale.
The Government is currently holding discussions with the New Zealand and Turkish Governments about managing the demand to attend Anzac Centenary commemorations in Turkey in April 2015, whilst ensuring the safety and comfort of visitors. An announcement on the outcome of those discussions, and about public consultation on a process to fairly and transparently manage attendance, will be made shortly.
(1) Will the Government work with French and other European authorities to accredit travel providers offering travel packages to the ‘Western Front’ for significant commemorations between July 2016 and November 2018; if so, how?
(2) What advice does the Government currently provide to Australians wishing to travel to Europe between 2016 and 2018, particularly the ‘Western Front’, in regard to travel planning?
(3) What constraints on attendance have been considered in relation to significant commemoration sites across northern France in advance of World War One centenary commemorations, in particular, will the Government be required to limit attendance at significant commemoration sites such as Villers-Brettoneux (sic) or the Menin Gate?
(1) There is a broader issue to be discussed between the governments of Australia, Belgium and France about the numbers of visitors wishing to attend Great War centenary commemorations on the Western Front between July 2016 and November 2018. Resolution of this issue will not revolve around accreditation of tour operators, many of whom are based in the United Kingdom.
The Government will assess all options in consultation with our French and Belgian counterparts and provide advice as required to tour operators and the public on the final outcome of these deliberations.
(2) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) provides information to assist visitors with their planning and preparation to attend annual Anzac Day services at Villers-Bretonneux and Bullecourt, France. Information is provided to visitors on the DVA website at:
http://www.dva.gov.au/commems_oawg/commemorations/commemorative_events/anzac_day/Pages/france.aspx
DVA will enlarge this advice to include details of arrangements for the period between 2016 and 2018, including the centenary of the Battle of Villers-Bretonneux on Anzac Day 2018, once decisions have been made about managing the anticipated demand to attend services.
(3) The Government conducts two services on Anzac Day in northern France – the Dawn Service at the Australian National Memorial, Villers-Bretonneux and the Anzac Day Wreath Laying Service at the Digger Memorial, Bullecourt. The Government also assists with the locally organised Anzac Day services in the villages of Villers-Bretonneux and Bullecourt. In Belgium, the Government organises a number of Australian services on Anzac Day at commemorative sites around Ypres, and participates in the locally organised evening service at the Menin Gate.
The Government is currently considering the anticipated demand to attend services at the Australian National Memorial for the Anzac Centenary in 2015 and the centenary of the Battle of Villers-Bretonneux in 2018. The 2012-13 Budget provided $14.4 million to safely and effectively manage the increased demand to attend overseas commemorative services during the Anzac Centenary.
(1) What action has the Government taken and what is the Government currently doing to address its commitment to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, especially regarding women with disabilities.
(2) Is data from the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline currently disaggregated by gender; if not, why not.
(3) Will the Government consider disaggregating data by gender to enable a better understanding and analysis of the figures on violence against disabled women; if so, when will this occur; if not, why not.
(4) What progress has been made on the high-priority action of developing a national response to auditing crisis accommodation services for accessibility for women with disabilities, one of the 20 high-priority actions identified by the National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children in the report Time for Action: The National Council’s Plan for Australia to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, 2009–2021.
(5) What progress has been made in regard to the initiatives listed in the fact sheet ‘Women with disability and the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children’, found at http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/pubs/violence/np_time_for_action/info_sheets/Documents/info_sheet_disability.pdf.
(1) On 17 July 2008, Australia became one of the first western nations to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (the Convention). The Australian Government is committed to fulfilling Australia’s obligations under the Convention including through initiatives which ensure that all people with disability, including women and girls, enjoy the same human rights enjoyed by other Australians.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) makes it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of disability in a number of areas of public life including employment, education, the provision of goods, services and facilities, access to premises and the implementation of Australian Government laws and programs. There is also additional legislation in each state and territory which makes discrimination on the basis of disability unlawful.
The National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (the Strategy) was formally endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments on 13 February 2011 and launched by the Australian Government on 18 March 2011. The Strategy outlines a 10-year national policy framework to improve the lives of people with disability, promote participation, and create a more inclusive Australian society that enables people with disability to fulfil their potential as equal citizens. The Strategy represents an important element of the Australian Government’s commitment to promoting social inclusion for all Australians, including women with disability.
The Australian Government and State and Territory Governments are working to fundamentally reform disability care and support through the implementation of a National Disability Insurance Scheme (the Scheme). The Scheme will provide eligible individuals with the care and support they need when they need it, give individuals decision making power including being able to choose their service provider, provide high quality evidence-based services which manage life-time costs of care, be simple to navigate and link to mainstream and community services, recognise the essential care and support of families and carers and support them in that role, facilitate each individual’s community participation, access to education and employment opportunities, and be managed on an insurance basis.
The Australian Government provides funds to Women with Disabilities Australia (WWDA), which is the peak non-government organisation for women with all types of disabilities in Australia. WWDA is run by women with disability, for women with disability, and represents more than two million disabled women in Australia. WWDA’s work is grounded in a rights based framework which links gender and disability issues to a full range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Promoting the rights of women with disability to freedom from violence, exploitation and abuse and to freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are key policy priorities of WWDA. The Australian Government also funds six National Women’s Alliances, which work collaboratively to provide informed and representative advice to government on policy development and implementation relevant to the diverse views and circumstances of women.
The Australian Government recognises the very important role played by carers and that over two-thirds of Australia’s primary carers are women. The Australian Government is working hard to ensure that carers have the same opportunities as other Australians to participate fully in work, family and community life. Australia’s first National Carer Strategy (NCS) was launched on 3 August 2011 and is the Australian Government’s long term commitment to carers. The NCS will ensure that carers are valued and respected by society and that they have rights, choices, opportunities and capabilities to participate in economic, social and community life. It will achieve this by responding to the diverse and changing needs of carers with services and supports that are coordinated, flexible, appropriate, affordable, inclusive and sustainable. The NCS will guide future reforms, and it builds on reforms the Australian Government is already delivering to better support carers.
(2) The data from the National Disability Abuse and Neglect Hotline is disaggregated by gender.
(3) Based on the answer to question (2) above, this question is not applicable.
(4) As part of the National Disability Strategy, the Disability (Access to Premises –Building) Standards 2010 commenced on 1 May 2011.
The Premises Standards clarify the general non-discrimination provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to the design, construction and management of buildings. The Premises Standards set performance requirements and technical specifications for non-discriminatory access, and provide a practical and ongoing means to improve building access. This is achieved by requiring that all new buildings, together with modifications of existing buildings that require a building approval, meet the Premises Standards.
(5) Improving Service Delivery for Women with Disabilities reform project has commenced, Lifeline DV-Alert training is being provided to health and allied health workers, 1800RESPECT has been implemented with accessibility to services and information, opportunities have been taken to raise community awareness, The Line has been implemented and Community Action Grants have been announced and commenced.
For each of the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 (estimated) financial years, detailed separately, what was the total amount spent by the department on: (a) advertising; (b) travel; (c) consultants; and (d) fuel and lubricants.
(a) Defence and DMO spent $36.6 million on advertising for financial year 2010-11. This figure is slightly higher than published on page 345, table A7.13, Total Advertising and marketing Expenditure by Group of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11 of $36.2 million. The variation reflects the fact that particulars of payments less than $10,900 (including GST) are excluded in the Defence Annual Report.
Defence and DMO spent $45.0 million on advertising in financial year 2011-12.
Defence and DMO’s budget estimate is $33.7 million for advertising in financial year 2012-13
(b) Defence spent $211.2 million on business related travel in financial year 2010-11, as published in Defence’s 2010-11 Annual Report (page 391).
During financial year 2011-12, Defence spent $227.0 million on business related travel, which is based on actual spend identified in Defence’s financial management system.
As at 11 July 2012, the estimated spend for Defence during financial year 2012-13 is $210.5 million, which is based on the current budget for business related travel identified in Defence’s financial management system.
(c) Defence spent $59.5 million on consultants in financial year 2010-11, as published in Defence’s 2010-11 Annual Report (page 341).
During financial year 2011-12, Defence spent $61.3 million on consultants, which is based on actual spend identified in Defence’s financial management system.
Figures for financial year 2012-13 are not available at this stage. Defence does not budget specifically for consultants as they are engaged on a case by case basis as the requirement arises.
(d) Defence spent $411.5 million on fuel and lubricants in financial year 2010-11.
During financial year 2011-12, the amount of money spent by Defence on fuel and lubricants was $493.2 million
The forecast requirement is an estimated $444 million spend for Defence during financial year 2012-13.
For the 2012-13 and 2013-14 financial years, detailed separately, what is the estimated amount that will be paid by the department in relation to the Carbon Tax.
From a financial perspective and using the Department of Treasury Modelling a Carbon Price, Defence has forecast the impact on its cost base by using the following method:
Total Defence Operating Funding of $24.8b (PBS 2012-13, Page 99, Table 60)
Less Employees of $9.8b (PBS 2013, Page 99, Table 60)
Less Budget spent overseas of $3.5b (FOREX volume in AUD used for PBS 2012-13)
Times 0.7% (As per Treasury Model)
Equals Carbon Price effect of $80.4m
Using the above methodology, the estimated effect of a carbon price on the cash budget in 2012-13 is in the order of $80.4m. This represents 0.32% of the Defence total budget.
Using the above methodology, the estimated effect of a carbon price on the forward estimate cash budget in 2013-14 is in the order of $77.7m or 0.31% of the Defence forward estimate.
With reference to the Middle East Area of Operation aviation contract with Adagold Aviation Pty Ltd, requiring the company to provide the Commonwealth Government with a monthly report detailing the: (a) number of services provided; (b) number of personnel moved on each service; (c) weight of equipment and baggage moved on each service; and (d) total flight time for each service, can copies of this information be provided, detailed separately, for each month from November 2010 to date.
Summary tables for the period 23 November 2010 to 22 November 2011 and year to date 23 November 2011 to 31 May 2012 are detailed below at Tables 1 and 2. As at 31 May 2012 a total of 105 services have been undertaken. Total mission flight time varies between 33 and 34 hours. Further details, by month and flight are at Attachment 1 which can be obtained from the Senate Table Office.
Table 1: MEAO Air Sustainment movement summary
23 November 2010 to 22 November 2011
Table 2: MEAO Air Sustainment movement summary year to date
23 November 2011 to 31 May 2012
With reference to the Middle East Area of Operation (MEAO) aviation contract with Adagold Aviation Pty Ltd:
(1) In comparison to the previous contract, how much has been saved, detailed per corresponding month, since November 2010.
(2) What are the total savings realised on the contract since 22 October 2010.
(3) How much has been paid to the contractor since November 2010 to conduct and operate the service, detailed per month.
(4) How much has the department spent on fuel, lubricant and other costs since November 2010 to conduct the service, detailed per month.
(5) What is the status of the Australian Federal Police investigations that were initiated in relation to this contract and the previous MEAO contract.
(6) Will the MEAO contract be advertised with a proper and transparent process when the current contract expires on 21 October 2012, and what action has been taken to date in relation to this matter.
(1) Contract Savings since 2010 are;
(a) For the period 23 November 2010 to 22 November 2011, estimated savings were $13,174,695 or 22% in comparison to the second preferred tender response.
(b) For the period 23 November 2011 to 30 June 2012, the estimated savings were $9,617,358 in comparison to the second preferred tender response.
(2) The total estimated savings in the 19 months since contract commencement and 30 June 2012 is $22,792,053.
(3) Amounts paid to the contractor since 2010 are listed below. These figures exclude the cost of fuel, which is billed and paid separately:
(a) For the period 23 November 2010 to 22 November 2011), 68 routine weekly flight missions were undertaken, with approximately $28,288,432 paid to the contractor.
(b) For the period 23 November 2011 to 30 June 2012, 46 routine weekly flight missions have been undertaken with approximately $19,371,704 paid to the contractor.
(4) The total amount paid to the contractor in the 19 months since contract commencement and 30 June 2012 is approximately $47,660,136.
Amounts paid for fuel since 2010 are listed below.
(a) For the period 23 November 2010 to 22 November 2011, the cost of fuel for the 68 routine weekly flight missions is estimated at $19,422,568.
(b) For the period 23 November 2011 to 30 June 2012, the cost of fuel for the 46 routine weekly flight missions is estimated at $13,138,796.
The total cost of fuel in the 19 months since contract commencement up to 30 June 2012 is estimated at $32,561,364.
(5) The Australian Federal Police (AFP) did not undertake an investigation in relation to the 2010 contract process.
Defence referred allegations of criminal conduct to the AFP in September 2010 in connection with the 2005 contract. In August 2011, the AFP wrote to Defence and advised that it had completed its investigation into the 2005 contract and did not identify sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution against any person. Consequently the case has been finalised.
(6) Defence recently determined to exercise the first extension option which will see a continuation of the service under the current contract until 21 November 2013. The decision making process took into account contractor performance and the considerable cost savings to Defence. There was no requirement to re-tender (advertise) the service as the existing contract makes provision for up to two extension options of one year each at the discretion of Defence.
Has the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board been granted deductible gift recipient status; if so, on what date.
The Government is currently considering whether to provide Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) status to public donations made in support of the Anzac Centenary.
However, DGR status, if granted, would not be linked to the Anzac Centenary Advisory Board but to a specified Anzac Centenary fund in which the donations will be received.
Can a list be provided detailing, per year and per program since 2006, how much the department has spent on advertising for mental health services for veterans and their families:
(a) internally, within the department and among its clients;
(b) within the Department of Defence; and
(c) external to the Department of Defence.
The Department, including the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS), can report the following expenditure on advertising for mental health services paid in the respective financial years.
This expenditure includes paid media placement in metropolitan and regional media, Australian Defence Force (ADF) newspapers, and medical and allied mental health association journals. VVCS advertising is for promotion of the range of VVCS programs including counselling and group programs, Operation Life suicide awareness workshops, Stepping Out and Heart Health programs.
With reference to the letter dated 8 June 2012 from the Repatriation Commission to the Vietnam veterans who participated in the Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study:
(1) How much will the study cost to complete.
(2) How much has been spent on the study to date.
(3) Prior to 30 June 2012, how many departmental staff have been involved in preparing the study’s findings.
(4) How many staff will be working in this area after 1 July 2012.
(5) What ‘resource constraints’ are in place to prevent the completion of the study by the end of 2012, as promised in December 2011.
Suggested Response:
(1) The study is expected to cost approximately $7,608,636 to complete.
(2) To date, approximately $5,720,356 has been spent on the study.
(3) Prior to 30 June 2012, the number of departmental staff varied in line with the different phases of the study:
(4) After 1 July 2012, one departmental staff member will be coordinating the research for the Family Study Program.
(5) The suite of final reports of the Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study was planned to be delivered to Government in the second half of 2012, three years ahead of the originally scheduled release of 2015-16. Due to the implementation of a ‘whole of government’ efficiency dividend strategy in the financial year 2012-13, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs has been asked to reduce its total operating budget by approximately $12 million.
In a measure to realise the efficiency dividend request, the official publication of the suite of Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study reports has been re-phased for release in the 2013-14 financial year. Despite this delay, the study is still on track to be delivered two years ahead of its original schedule.
The decision to re-phase the study will not affect the research outcomes in anyway. The full suite of Vietnam Veterans’ Family Study reports will still be delivered; only the timeframe for publication has changed.