The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012
The Minister must obtain, and the Director must report on, scientific advice …
… an independent social and economic impact assessment before Proclamations over areas of sea (or over both land and sea) are made.
Since the dawn of the Space Age, fishermen here have grown to accept the 15-square-mile security zone that keeps boats out of the waters surrounding rocket launching pads.
Indeed, clever fishermen long ago learned how to parlay a forbidden zone into a bonanza: If an area is set off-limits, the fishing on the perimeter can be extraordinary.
Scientists more recently discovered the same thing, carefully recording the remarkable abundance of fish in the protected waters surrounding the Kennedy Space Center and the cluster of trophy fish caught just outside the boundary.
This case study of the "spillover effect" has surfaced as a prime argument for establishing similar no-fishing zones off the California coast. State officials are planning a network of no-take zones around the Channel Islands, in addition to last week's emergency closing of—
Scientific research from around the world is demonstrating that marine parks are a powerful tool to help protect our coastal and marine environments and maintain them in a healthy condition.
… … …
The location of and design of marine parks in South Australia will be based on scientifically informed principles and thorough and ongoing scientific studies which began in the 1990's.
Foley et al. suggest that ecosystem-based marine spatial planning (MSP) is a process that "informs the spatial distribution of activities in the ocean so that existing and emerging uses can be maintained, use conflicts reduced and ecosystem health and services protected and sustained for future generations". They argue the need to move away from MPA design that takes a sector by sector approach, to one such as marine spatial planning that emphasises ecological, economic, governance and social dimensions, thus bringing planning together in an integrated way.
In a survey of 89 scientific papers, UC Santa Barbara researchers found that 90% of marine reserves around the world had more fish, 84% had much larger fish and shellfish and 59% had a far greater variety of marine life than did adjacent waters. So far, the spillover effect hasn't won many converts amongst anglers, who disdain it as "junk science," and fear new limits on where they can fish.
Australia's oceans, like those around the world, are subject to many pressures arising from direct exploitation as well as the indirect impacts of expanding human activities across the planet.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 13 OF 2012
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 7.17 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious Drugs, Identity Crime and Other Measures) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2012 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Freedom of Information Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Office) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2012 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the order of the Senate of 20 September 2012 adopting the committee’s 12th report of 2012 be varied to provide that the provisions of the Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2012 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(d) the Migration and Security Legislation Amendment (Review of Security Assessments) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day in February 2013 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(e) the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012 (see appendix 5 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(f) the provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012 (see appendix 6 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(g) the provisions of the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012 bereferred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 19 November 2012 (see appendix 7 and appendix 8 for statements of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
That:
(a) government business orders of the day nos 3 to 5 be considered from 12.45 pm today under the temporary order relating to non-controversial government business; and
(b) government business orders of the day nos 1 and 2 be called on after the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business order of the day no. 87 (Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2012); and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That leave of absence be granted for Senator Joyce for 11 October 2012 for personal reasons.
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee and the Environment and Communications References Committee be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today from 1 pm.
That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 November 2012:
The pricing and revenue allocation practices of the beverage industry in the container deposit schemes operating in South Australia and the Northern Territory, including:
(a) management of the operation of container deposit schemes in South Australia and the Northern Territory;
(b) the cost structure of the beverage industry's involvement in these container deposit schemes;
(c) the use of unredeemed deposits and unused handling and transport fees;
(d) alternative scheme structures which ensure beverage producers cannot pass on unreasonable costs from these recycling schemes if such schemes are implemented in additional states or nationally;
(e) structures to ensure schemes managed under the Product Stewardship Act 2011 do not result in producers passing on unreasonable costs; and
(f) any other related matters.
That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that 2012 is the 60th anniversary of established diplomatic relations between Thailand and Australia;
(b) acknowledges the close and wide-ranging relationship between Thailand and Australia, which has developed over the past 6 decades;
(c) notes Thailand's contribution to global peacekeeping efforts, particularly during the International Force for East Timor operations in East Timor, where the Royal Thai Armed Forces provided the second largest number of troops after Australia;
(d) recognises the importance of the relationship in forums such as the Cairns Group;
(e) acknowledges that over 800 000 Australians travel to Thailand each year; and
(f) supports efforts to maximise relations and connections between the two nations, particularly through the creation of cultural study centres at key universities.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 11 October 2012, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) approximately 70 000 Australian Defence Force and Australian Federal Police personnel have been deployed on over 60 peacekeeping operations throughout the world,
(ii) 48 Australians have died on peacekeeping missions overseas, and
(iii) Australian peacekeepers have made a significant contribution to international peace and security; and
(b) calls on the Government to ask the Council of the Australian War Memorial, in recognition of the important service and sacrifice of the 48 Australian peacekeepers who have given their lives in the service of their country, to consider including peacekeepers on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Thursday, 11 October is World Sight Day,
(ii) over half a million Australians aged over 40 are living with some form of vision loss and approximately 75 per cent of blindness and vision loss is preventable or treatable, and
(iii) World Sight Day is an important date to encourage Australians to think about eye health and the focus of World Sight Day in 2012 is on prevention; and
(b) calls on the Government to encourage Australians to get regular eye tests to enable early detection and diagnosis.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012.
The Senate divided. [12:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Parramatta Female Factory Precinct Association and the Parramatta Female Factory Friends/Action Group are campaigning to include Australia's oldest existing female convict establishment on the National Heritage List,
(ii) in August 2012, the New South Wales Government announced the development of a master plan for the Parramatta Heritage Precinct and proposed a public/private enterprise to enable the 'adaptive reuse' of the heritage sites for commercial and residential purposes, posing a threat to its heritage values,
(iii) the Community Affairs References Committee report Forgotten Australians (2004) calls for 'the Commonwealth and State Governments, in conjunction with the Churches and agencies, to provide funding for the erection of suitable memorials commemorating care leavers', and
(iv) the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs report Half Way to Equal (1992) recommends the establishment of a 'National Women's Place', recognising women's history and contribution; and
(b) calls on the Government to consider:
(i) including the National Heritage List nomination relating to the Parramatta Female Factory Precinct in the 2013-14 final Priority Assessment List,
(ii) supporting the establishment of a statutory authority with the expertise to conserve and interpret the Parramatta Female Factory Precinct for all Australians, in accordance with the Burra Charter guidelines, and
(iii) contributing funding to act on the recommendations of the Forgotten Australians report, including to create a memorial garden, plaque and a heritage centre at the Precinct using the buildings and grounds of the former Parramatta Girls Home, which forms part of the Precinct.
That the Senate calls on the Gillard Government to rule out a Commonwealth challenge of any state-based marriage equality legislation that is passed into law by any state parliament in Australia.
The Senate divided. [12:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, no later than noon on Monday, 29 October 2012, advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Attorney-General's Department or other government departments on data retention, including, but not limited to:
(a) legal advice regarding data retention in Australia;
(b) legal advice regarding data retention regimes in other jurisdictions;
(c) technical and political advice arising from meetings with experts and industry representatives;
(d) costings and methodology for reaching estimates of costings;
(e) internal departmental correspondence; and
(f) interdepartmental communications – emails and documents pertaining to data retention.
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, no later than noon on Monday, 29 October 2012, the following:
(a) a list of dates, invitees and attendees of meetings held between the Attorney-General's Department and ISPs, consumer and content industry groups regarding a national data retention scheme;
(b) briefing notes and advice generated by the Attorney-General's Department in advance of the meetings;
(c) interdepartmental communications – emails and documents pertaining to the meetings; and
(d) minutes and reports of these meetings.
The Senate divided. [12:20]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Special Minister of State and the Minister representing the Minister for the Public Service and Integrity, by 1 November 2012:
(a) all draft copies of the Government's Public Interest Disclosure Bill; and
(b) correspondence from all government departments and agencies that support or raise concerns about the abovementioned draft bills.
The Senate divided. [12:24]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Ordered that the report be printed.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Economics Legislation Committee
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Higher Education Support Amendment (Maximum Payment Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012
National Health Security Amendment Bill 2012
First Reading
That these bills be now read a second time.
Introduction
I am pleased to introduce legislation to rename the Federal Magistrates Court and change the title of Federal Magistrates to better reflect the Court’s role in Australia’s judicial system, and its extensive regional circuit work.
The Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill will rename the Federal Magistrates Court as the ‘Federal Circuit Court of Australia’. It will also change the title of Chief Federal Magistrate to ‘Chief Judge’ and Federal Magistrates to ‘Judge’.
This bill amends the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and other legislation that directly affects entitlements of Federal Magistrates, to implement the changes to name and titles and to ensure that the existing arrangements for the Court, its judicial officers and personnel can continue to operate as they do currently.
Name to reflect Court role
The current name of the Federal Magistrates Court does not adequately capture the vital work undertaken by that Court.
When the Federal Magistrates Court commenced operation in 2000, its name reflected the objective that it would provide an affordable and quick avenue to resolve less complex matters, as an alternative to litigation in the Federal and Family Courts.
Over time the Court has experienced an increasing caseload, and a greater diversity and complexity in the cases coming before it. In 2010 11 alone, the Court finalised over 83,000 cases across matters as diverse as family law, migration, bankruptcy and consumer protection law.
From its early days, the Court actively pursued ways to provide court services to communities that experienced difficulties in accessing justice—whether that be due to low socio-economic conditions, remoteness, or lack of other services and facilities.
Since then, the Court has remained committed to improving access to court services for people living outside the larger metropolitan areas.
During the last financial year, the Court circuited to 33 rural and regional locations and spent the equivalent of approximately 145 weeks (in judicial hours) hearing matters in these areas.
The Gillard Labor government is determined to ensure that the federal court system delivers accessible, equitable and understandable justice.
In this regard, the Court continues to meet a clear need in the community for people to be able to access a court service near to where they live and work—in places like Broken Hill and Bundaberg, Mount Gambier and Burnie—not just Sydney and Melbourne.
As the only federal court with a program of regular court circuits, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is a name particularly well-suited to highlight this important aspect of the Court’s role.
Federal Magistrates are also clearly not ‘Magistrates’ in the traditional sense of the word. They are Chapter III judicial officers, and their nomenclature is important to ensure the community understands and respects their role in the judicial system.
The new titles of Chief Judge and Judge better reflect Chapter III status and the increasingly complex and difficult work being undertaken by the Court.
Wider court reform package
This retitling of the Court forms one part of this government’s wider federal courts reform package.
The Gillard government recently announced that it is putting the courts back on a firmer financial footing, by directing an additional $38 million over four years to the Federal, Family, and soon-to-be Federal Circuit courts. This injection of new funds, derived from a change to fee structures, will ensure our courts can continue to deliver key services, including regional circuit work, which are vital for disadvantaged litigants and small businesses.
These fee changes also provide clear price signals to court users that courts should not always be their first port of call—increases were weighted to major corporations, while reinstating exemptions and waivers for disadvantaged litigants.
The government has made it clear that our courts should cater to the small, one-off litigant as much as the major corporate player who uses the court as a regular part of business. In recognition that litigation can be costly and damaging for small business, businesses of under 20 employees will be treated as individuals, rather than corporations.
As the Commonwealth is one of the most frequent court users, government agencies will now also pay the corporations rate—the Commonwealth should be leading the way on these changes, so agencies will be encouraged to see if quicker and less formal methods of dispute resolution can be used.
Other important aspects of this package of reforms include:
Other features of the bill
To return to the bill in question—in addition to renaming the Court and providing for the new titles of Chief Judge and Judge, this bill will:
This bill does not alter the remuneration or entitlements available to the Court’s judicial officers. Salaries and allowances for judicial officers across all federal courts are determined by the independent Remuneration Tribunal, and are subject to annual review. In making this name and title change, it is not the government’s intent that the usual range of factors considered by the Tribunal in making its determinations would be expanded. The newly titled Judges will also remain on the current generous superannuation arrangements. The employer superannuation contribution increased from 13.1 per cent to 15.4 per cent in July last year.
While a name change might appear straightforward to implement, the Commonwealth statute book reflects the expanded jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court and contains extensive references to the Court and to Federal Magistrates.
Consequential amendments affecting these other pieces of Commonwealth legislation will be included in a separate bill to be introduced into the parliament at a later time.
It is then planned for commencement of the two bills to occur concurrently to ensure the changes are implemented consistently and effectively across all relevant legislation.
Consultation
The government has consulted with the federal courts and key legal organisations in selecting the new name for the Court and titles for Federal Magistrates, and is grateful for the input provided by stakeholders, particularly views and suggestions contributed by Chief Federal Magistrate John Pascoe AO CVO, on behalf of his Court.
Conclusion
Australia is well-served by a Court that continues to provide affordable, accessible and streamlined pathways for people to resolve their disputes.
The unique character and broad reach of the Court means it plays a vital part in the federal justice system, and is integral to assisting people in regional communities to access federal court services.
Through this bill the new name for the Court and titles for its judicial officers will serve to recognise and better reflect the Court’s role in the Australian judicial system.
It also acts as a concrete demonstration of the government’s renewed constructive relationship with the Court, which can only benefit the Australian community.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Maximum Payment Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012 amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to update the maximum payment amounts for Other Grants and Commonwealth scholarships and to authorise wider use and disclosure of personal information collected for the purposes of the act.
The maximum amounts for Other Grants under section 41-45, and Commonwealth scholarships under section 46-40 of the act are being updated to provide for indexation and other variations to funding amounts and to include the next funding year.
The bill will allow the minister to determine, by legislative instrument, the maximum payment amounts for Other Grants and Commonwealth Scholarships from 2013 onwards.
There have been annual administrative amendments to the act since its enactment in 2003 to provide for indexation. The continual cycle of amendments is not the most efficient method of updating these appropriation amounts. Allowing the maximum payment amounts to be determined by legislative instrument will avoid the need for recurrent amendments to the act.
The bill would also allow my department to disclose personal information required for a range of regulatory, quality assurance and planning purposes to a limited number of bodies only.
Currently, the Higher Education Support Act (HESA) does not allow the disclosure of personal information outside of my department. Information that can be used to identify individuals is considered to be personal information as defined by the Privacy Act. However, the government’s higher education reforms have highlighted the legitimate demand from a number of bodies for unit record level data relating to university staff and students.
The government established the Tertiary Education and Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA) to provide assurance about the quality of the higher education system. TEQSA has written to my department requesting access to unit record data to assist it in undertaking risk assessments of higher education providers. This bill will enable TEQSA to fulfil its regulatory functions in 2012 without the need for a separate data collection.
The Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) requires access to unit record data to assess vocational education and training providers whose students are eligible for VET FEE-HELP loans.
Higher education and vocational education and training providers, their representative peak bodies, Tertiary Admission Centres and state and territory governments require access to detailed information for the purposes of planning and quality assurance. The amendments aim to reduce the regulatory burden on providers who would otherwise have to supply the information to the department and national regulators.
In addition, my department proposes to conduct surveys for the purposes of measuring the quality of teaching and learning. This will require my department to give a third party services provider access to personal information to construct accurate and robust sample frames for surveys of staff, student and former students funded by the Australian government.
This approach has been endorsed by the Advancing Quality in Higher Education (AQHE) Reference Group in their report released in June 2012, and follows extensive consultation with the sector. Universities Australia has also advocated this approach to reduce the reporting burden on universities.
The bill includes strong provisions to ensure the personal information of staff and students is not misused or released publicly.
First, personal information will only be disclosed to organisations that have a legitimate need for access.
Second, recipients may only use the personal information for the purposes I have outlined, and they will not be permitted to ‘on disclose’ the information.
Third, recipients of personal information will remain bound by the Information Privacy Principles in the Privacy Act, HESA and by the Higher Education Data Protocols administered by my department.
All higher education and vocational education and training providers will need to ensure their privacy agreements are up to date so that students and staff are informed about potential uses and disclosure of their personal information.
In addition, the bill will include a provision that personal information obtained from a higher education or vocational education and training provider can only be disclosed to other providers and bodies with the consent of that provider. This provision will not apply to TEQSA, ASQA or state and territory governments since they require access to personal information to fulfil their regulatory or legislative functions.
Recipients of personal information will be working to enhance the standard of teaching and learning provided at all higher education providers.
This is part of the government’s commitment to maintaining the quality of our tertiary education system, while at the same time making the benefits of education and training available to an unprecedented number of Australians.
Australian Research Council
The bill also amends the Australian Research Council Act 2001 in order to provide administered funding to allow the ARC continue to support the highest-quality fundamental and applied research and research training through competitive selection processes across all disciplines, with the exception of clinical medicine and dentistry.
The appropriation bill supports the ongoing operations of the ARC to fund the high-quality research we need to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people’s lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy.
The ARC is the major source of funding for the innovative, investigator-driven research that has underpinned inventions ranging from the Synchrotron, and is supporting research into tomorrow’s breakthrough technologies such as the bionic eye.
ARC funded research has and continues to play an important role in improving the lives of Australians and addressing the big issues of our time. This includes, for example, our need to transform our manufacturing industries to create greener, healthier and more resilient processes and products. The government is proud that stronger steel and cleaner, safer cars could soon be manufactured in Australia thanks to research made possible with funding from the ARC.
On-going funding for the ARC is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system and our commitment to strengthen Australia’s research workforce. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia, working in our universities and teaching the next generation.
It is important to note the key role the ARC has been and is playing in attracting more Indigenous Australians to academia and keeping more women in research careers. This includes through the Discovery Indigenous scheme, the addition of two new Australian Laureate Fellowships specifically for women and the introduction of Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence (ROPE) to enable assessors to take into account any career interruptions, including those for childbirth and caring responsibilities.
Through these initiatives and through the whole NCGP, the ARC is helping us to reduce research career barriers and ensure the nation reaps the benefit of all of its research talent.
The ARC is not only supporting quality research and research careers, it is helping the government measure our research investment and assure taxpayers that their money is being invested wisely.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
The bill will introduce a number of measures to strengthen and streamline the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act), resulting in more effective and efficient administration of the Australian government's Higher Education Loan Program or 'HELP' schemes, namely FEE-HELP and VET FEE-HELP. The bill will enable the government to act on recommendations made in the Post Implementation Review of the VET FEE-HELP Assistance Scheme Final Report 2011 and its commitments made under the April 2012 COAG National Partnership Agreement on Skills Reform. It will position the government to deliver timely improvements to the HELP schemes, creating a more accessible, transparent, responsive and robust tertiary sector.
The bill will enhance the quality and accountability framework through new provisions that allow the minister to consider investigation reports from the national and non-referring jurisdiction education regulators when making a decision to approve, revoke or suspend approval under the HELP schemes. The bill will further strengthen the government's ability to manage risk to the administration of public monies and better protect students by strengthening the suspension and revocation provisions for approved providers. This will ensure that decisions under the provisions of the act to revoke or suspend a low quality provider can take effect on the day the notice is registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments, offering increased protections to students.
The amendments will also improve the tertiary sector's ability to deliver education and training in a more responsive and flexible manner by moving the census date requirements into the legislative guidelines. This will allow the sector to offer rolling enrolments and be more responsive to student and industry needs without onerous administrative requirements. The bill will also allow for a managed trial of VET FEE-HELP for specified certificate IV level qualifications by amending the definition of a VET course of study.
Further, the bill will reduce complexity and duplication through consolidating and streamlining three sets of legislative guidelines into a single set. In doing so, provider obligations and responsibilities will be clarified and information further streamlined. Delegation powers will be enhanced to allow for the minister and secretary to delegate powers to an APS employee. This will ensure that programs and funding requirements under the Act can continue uninterrupted regardless of which department holds responsibility for the schemes.
Finally, the bill will enable a streamlined approach to approvals and administrative compliance for low-risk applicants and providers already approved under the schemes. The amendments will allow the minister to determine a category of providers and financial reporting requirements for low-risk VET FEE-HELP applicants and approved providers. This approach will further reduce the administrative and regulatory burden placed on applicants and providers and encourage increased uptake of the scheme by quality providers, and ultimately students.
The National Health Security Amendment Bill 2012 amends the National Health Security Act 2007 to enhance Australia's obligations for securing certain biological agents such as anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease virus. These agents are called security sensitive biological agents (SSBAs).
The SSBA Regulatory Scheme includes stringent requirements relating to the notification of the type and location of SSBAs, along with Standards that must be met by entities handling SSBAs. The Standards relate to matters such as the secure handling, storage and transport of SSBAs along with personnel security requirements and risk management strategies.
Over the three years that the SSBA Regulatory Scheme has been operational, the government has worked closely with entities that handle SSBAs, along with other experts in the field, to ensure smooth administration of the legislation. A number of areas have been highlighted where improvements to the regulatory scheme might be made. The bill I am introducing today enhances the SSBA Regulatory Scheme in two important ways.
First, the proposed amendments provide a streamlined reporting scheme for entities, such as hospital diagnostic facilities, that are not registered under the SSBA Regulatory Scheme and only need to handle SSBAs for less than seven consecutive days, known as temporary handlings. These facilities do not register because they are unable to meet the SSBA Standards for registered facilities and compliance would impose a large regulatory burden on them for such a short period of handling. The entities may be sent SSBAs to perform specific tests, for example antibiotic sensitivity testing, after which the SSBAs are sent to a registered facility or destroyed.
An entity that only handles SSBAs temporarily will be required to report the receipt of the SSBA and the purpose for handling the SSBA to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing (the Secretary), within two business days of starting to handle. These entities will also need to report the disposal (that is the transfer to a registered facility or destruction of the SSBA) which must occur within seven days of receipt or a longer period approved by the Secretary. Specific SSBA Standards will apply to the entity during the handling period to ensure the security of the agent is maintained during the temporary handling.
Second, the amendments will allow the secretary to better manage potential security risks for entities undertaking emergency facility maintenance. Entities may be required to move the SSBA out of the registered facility and into a storage area or an unregistered facility when the emergency occurs and may have to do so in a very short timeframe to ensure the SSBA remains viable.
Under these measures, entities will be required to inform the secretary of the emergency arrangements including security measures and proposed timeframes for completion. In order to ensure the security of the SSBA is maintained during the emergency maintenance, the secretary will be able to impose conditions such as a direction to the entity not to handle the SSBA for any purpose other than to store the SSBA, or impose a condition that if the repairs are not completed within a certain timeframe, the SSBA must be moved to a registered facility. The secretary will also be able to suspend some or all regulatory requirements including application of the relevant areas of the SSBA Standards, during the time taken to undertake the maintenance and appropriate to each unique emergency maintenance situation.
The amending bill also makes some amendments to improve the operation of the legislation and provide greater clarity for those working with SSBAs.
The first of these changes relates to the imposing of conditions to ensure the security of SSBAs is maintained in facilities required to undertake corrective actions following an inspection.
Under the SSBA Regulatory Scheme, a failure to comply with the standards is dealt with by the issue of notices for compliance which define the required corrective actions and the timeframes within which the entity is to achieve compliance. It is intended that the secretary should be able to impose conditions during the period of non-compliance on the entity's SSBA handlings based on any risks presented by the non-compliance. These conditions will assist in the reduction of risk during the time provided for corrective action to be taken.
The conditions would be guided by the general principle that when imposing conditions, the entity's circumstances are considered and the level of security applied is proportionate to the level of risk presented by the handling of the SSBA. The kinds of conditions that will be imposed will relate to the broad security areas included in the SSBA Standards of physical security, including storage, personnel security and information security.
Other measures in the bill deal with the clarification of reporting requirements by registered entities for biological agents suspected to be an SSBA. These measures will ensure that registered entities undertaking in-house confirmatory testing complete the reporting cycle for suspected SSBAs and report negative confirmatory testing results from the in-house tests. Measures will also ensure that the application of exemptions for certain entities are consistent between known and suspected SSBAs.
These changes have been the subject of consultation with agencies responsible for obtaining and assessing information about the risks and threats posed by biological agents (such as ASIO and other intelligence agencies), public and animal health laboratories, state and territory government agencies and other experts in SSBA.
I am confident that the Bill addresses the issues identified during the operational period of the scheme and from stakeholder liaison and ensures that we continue to deliver on our international commitments and the national imperative to actively improve our capacity to maintain adequate controls on security sensitive biological agents.
That these bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day:
Federal Circuit Court of Australian Legislation Amendment Bill 2012; Higher Education Support Amendment (Maximum Payment Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Higher Education Support Amendment (Streamlining and Other Measures) Bill 2012; National Health Security Amendment Bill 2012
That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 31 October 2012:
Any proposed government amendments in relation to the Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011.
When our politicians line up for pictures with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, during her visit next month few Australians will be aware of the potential cost of that photo opportunity.
With each handshake our research enterprise—Australia's engine of innovation—will be strangled. Our researchers may have lost their ability to freely conduct public-good research and communicate research results—simply because legislation important to the US-Australia defence trade was rushed before Clinton's visit, rather than considered with enough time to find a solution to protect against its unintended consequences.
This legislation could mean a conference speech, publication of a scientific paper or sending an email to colleagues could require a Defence permit or become a serious crime.
What is scary is that because few Australians are engaged with this complex, technical legislation—let's face it, anything called the Defence Trade Control Bill will not make the six o'clock news—
this was able to happen. What is maddening is that in our rush, Australia will potentially not have legislated comparable safeguards to protect public-good research that Americans have.
New controls on intangible transfers mean research activities that could result in the communication of information regarding the development, use or production of a broad range of technologies used in ordinary research would require review by, and permission from, the Department of Defence. The bill could even criminalise publication of data or information relating to these technologies.
This is likely to restrict researchers from communicating critical information to scientists abroad to prevent pandemic flu outbreaks. It would impede top scientists in developing technologies for tomorrow's high-tech manufacturing industries, new vaccines and potential cures for cancer. The Australian government worries about a brain drain in advanced technology, but is poised to pass legislation that could force our best and brightest offshore.
US researchers in accredited higher education institutions enjoy broad exclusions from export control relating to intangible transfers of dual-use technology for basic or applied research.
However, Defence will impose far more restrictive controls on researchers, disadvantaging them compared with their US peers, especially given the relative importance of international collaboration to Australia.
Consider a renowned University of Sydney physicist, whose quantum technology research, with applications for computing and development of green-energy sector materials, is not excluded from proposed regulations. He estimates 20 per cent of the equipment he purchases and uses in experiments will be affected and he might spend a quarter of his research time reviewing, assessing, seeking legal advice, applying for, or waiting for, permits. Stay in Australia? This burden just might force him to return to the US—
Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Amendment Bill 2012
That this bill be now read a third time.
Customs Amendment (Smuggled Tobacco) Bill 2012
To date tobacco smuggling has not represented a major threat in Australia …
Smuggling and illicit trade of tobacco undermines the effectiveness of tax increases and price policies: resulting in cheaper prices and potential increases in tobacco use.
This in turn has the potential to contribute to the high incidence of smoking related morbidity and mortality.
The profits made by these syndicates can also be potentially used to fund other criminal activities.
That this bill be now read a third time.
National Portrait Gallery of Australia Bill 2012
National Portrait Gallery of Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2012
That these bills be now read a third time.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Student Visas) Bill 2012
Recommendation 1
… The committee recommends that the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science, Research and Tertiary Education modify the Provider Registration and International Students Management System—
to allow for the effective and secure upload of data from the databases of registered providers, while maintaining the integrity of the system. The committee recommends that this modification be completed and be made operational as soon as possible.
Recommendation 2
… Until the Provider Registration and International Students Management System has been modified as set out in Recommendation 1, the committee recommends that, in addition to their obligations under Part 3 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, registered providers only be required to notify the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of students' up-to-date contact information at the commencement of each semester, when students reenrol in their approved courses, or upon any variation or change to their enrolled course.
Recommendation 3
… Subject to Recommendations 1-2, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
A registered provider must give the Secretary particulars of any change in the contact details or other prescribed details of an accepted student within 14 days after the provider becomes aware of the change.
The lack of consideration given to university administrative and reporting loads is reflected in the absence of any mention of the regulatory burden on providers in the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the Bill.
… reduce the administrative burden associated with students who attend an office of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship to stop the automatic cancellation process or to apply for revocation of a cancellation. This will allow integrity resources to be more strategically targeted towards risk.
The Department may consider compliance action in circumstances where outside allegations or information has been brought to the Department's attention that the provider is not aware of. For example, where adverse information is received by the Department through external channels such as the Immigration dob-in line or targeted integrity obligations. For this reason, it is important to have access to the most up to date contact details at all times, rather than just when a student course variation is made.
The Committee ... notes evidence presented during the inquiry, suggesting that the proposal to require registered providers to notify DIAC of any changes in students' contact or other prescribed details is unnecessary and is (within 14 days) overly prescriptive and an unnecessary burden on providers.
The Committee acknowledges that, under Part 3 of the Education Act, registered providers are already required to maintain records and/or databases containing students' contact details. Further, if a student breaches a prescribed visa condition, subsection 19(2) of the Education Act requires providers to notify DIAC of that breach, including the student's contact details. The Committee therefore considers that existing provisions of the Education Act provide DIAC with up-to-date contact information for students who are reported for non-compliance with prescribed visa conditions. The Committee notes that there is no restriction on DIAC from approaching registered providers at any time for a student's current contact information.
Automatic cancellation of student visas should be abolished and replaced by a system in which information conveyed by SCVs—
is used as an input into a more targeted and strategic analysis of non-compliance.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ronaldson today relating to the inappropriate use of union members’ money.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Economics Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Milne to replace Senator Xenophon for the committee’s inquiry into the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Amendment (Protecting Revenue) Bill 2012
Participating member: Senator Xenophon
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute members:
Senator Furner to replace Senator Singh for the consideration of the 2012 13 supplementary Budget estimates on 15 October 2012
Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator Waters for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Water Amendment (Long-term Average Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2012.
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Amendment Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Amendment Bill 2012
Excise Tariff Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) 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.
This bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
The bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011.
This bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
The bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Act 2011.
This bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
At present the equivalent carbon price imposed on certain liquid fuels after 1 July 2015 is based on the average auction price of domestic carbon units.
The Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 introduces a ‘per-tonne carbon price equivalent’. This provides an estimate of the effective carbon price faced by liable entities when the carbon pricing mechanism links to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
This bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 so that the per-tonne carbon price equivalent is applied to liquid fuels, instead of the average carbon unit auction price.
This bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
At present the equivalent carbon price imposed on the import of synthetic greenhouse gases after 1 July 2015 is based on the benchmark average auction charge.
The Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012 introduces a ‘per-tonne carbon price equivalent’. This provides an estimate of the effective carbon price faced by liable entities when the carbon pricing mechanism links to the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.
This bill amends the synthetic greenhouse gas legislation so that the per-tonne carbon price equivalent is applied to the import of synthetic greenhouse gas, instead of the benchmark average auction charge.
This Bill is part of a package implementing the carbon pricing mechanism and related reforms.
The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Act 1995 (the Manufacture Levy Act) together with the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 (the Ozone Act) provide the framework to apply levies to the manufacture of ozone depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases.
This Bill provides that the manufacture of Kyoto Protocol synthetic greenhouse gases, namely hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride, will be subject to the carbon price by way of the existing levy structure. The carbon charge will be calculated based on the carbon dioxide equivalence of the gas, multiplied by the applicable charge. The carbon price will be in addition to the existing levy imposed by the Manufacture Levy Act.
This Bill also enables the Minister to determine that a licensee is exempt from paying the levy where the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances prescribed in the Manufacture Levy Act, or circumstances prescribed in regulations made for the Manufacture Levy Act, have been met. These circumstances include the manufacture of medical equipment, or if it is impracticable to impose the levy.
This bill is part of a package of bills that amend the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts.
The bill facilitates the removal of the price floor by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve charge from the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Act 2011.
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) 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.
This bill will establish a Special Account under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, underpinning the Commonwealth’s contribution of around $3 billion to Australia’s social and community services sector workers following Fair Work Australia’s historic equal pay ruling earlier this year.
The Gillard Government welcomes Fair Work Australia’s first ever equal remuneration order, handed down on 22 June 2012. The order follows Fair Work Australia’s landmark decision on 1 February 2012 to award equal pay to social and community services sector workers in recognition of their tireless work for our community, and details how those pay rises are to be delivered.
Under the order, around 150,000 of Australia’s lowest paid workers will benefit from substantial pay rises of between 23 and 45 per cent, phased in from 1 December 2012.
Of around 150,000 workers in this sector, approximately 120,000 – the vast majority – are women. Fair Work Australia found that their work has long been undervalued because of gender considerations.
And yet these workers make a real difference every day to the lives of many vulnerable members of the community – taking on some of the most challenging jobs, including counselling families in crisis, running homeless shelters, and working with people with disability and victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.
This Fair Work Australia decision is an important step on the road to closing the long-standing gap between men and women and delivering fairness in the workplace. It is unacceptable that women earn on average one-fifth less than men full-time – the equivalent of working nearly seven weeks a year for free.
This historic equal remuneration order was made possible only because this Government removed the barriers to pay equity claims in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Previously, the legal test to prove discrimination allowed consideration only of ‘equal work’, rather than the new, broader test of ‘equal or comparable’ work. As a result, it is only with this case that an equal remuneration claim has succeeded under Commonwealth workplace relations law.
And around $3 billion in funding is being provided to meet the Commonwealth share of the costs of these pay rises for social and community sector workers in Commonwealth-funded programs, including programs funded under agreements with and payments to States and Territories, such as National Partnership Payments and National Specific Purpose Payments.
This bill will establish a Special Account under section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to allow delivery of this funding.
The Commonwealth supplementation will be delivered through funding drawn from the Special Account by eight Commonwealth agencies and allocated to assist employers, who are directly and indirectly funded by the Commonwealth for the purposes of a program prescribed under the new legislation, and who are required to make payments to their employees under the pay equity arrangements.
This includes Commonwealth-funded service providers who are subject to the transitional pay equity order made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 12 June 2009. These Queensland social and community sector services workers will be transitioned over time to the Fair Work Australia equal remuneration order.
The pay increases are to be phased in over eight years, in nine equal instalments from 1 December 2012 to 1 December 2020.
The phased introduction recognises the complex funding arrangements in the sector, which involve local, State and Territory governments, not-for-profit organisations, commercial providers, and the Commonwealth. This approach will allow community sector organisations delivering Commonwealth-funded programs to pay the new rates without reducing services to the community.
A significant amount of Commonwealth funding will be provided to the sector through State and Territory governments for agreements with and payments to States and Territories, such as National Partnership Payments and National Specific Purpose Payments. This bill will enable funding to be paid to the COAG Reform Fund established under the COAG Reform Act 2008 for this purpose. The Gillard Government expects State and Territory governments to pass on the full amount of funding and to meet their obligations by also committing their share of funds.
Every day, the social and community services sector delivers vital services to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians. We want to make sure the sector is strong and productive into the future.
In coming years, we will need to attract and retain more workers in this sector of the economy, and especially in ‘caring’ work, which has historically been performed mainly by women.
Not only are these workers deserving of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but properly valuing caring work and providing decent wages in industries dominated by women is an important part of keeping our economy strong and resilient.
This is a companion bill to the Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012.
That bill will establish a Special Account under section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to fund the Commonwealth’s contribution to the historic pay rise awarded by Fair Work Australia earlier this year to our social and community services sector workers.
The Commonwealth supplementation will be delivered through funding drawn from the Special Account by eight Commonwealth agencies and allocated to assist employers, who are directly or indirectly funded by the Commonwealth for the purposes of a program prescribed under the new legislation, and who are required to make payments to their employees under the pay equity arrangements.
This includes Commonwealth-funded service providers who are subject to the transitional pay equity order made by the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission on 12 June 2009. These Queensland social and community services workers will be transitioned over time to the Fair Work Australia equal remuneration order.
A significant amount of Commonwealth funding will also be provided to the sector through State and Territory governments for agreements with and payments to States and Territories, such as National Partnership Payments and National Specific Purpose Payments. The Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012 will enable funding to be paid to the COAG Reform Fund established under the COAG Reform Act 2008.
This consequential amendments bill makes one minor amendment to existing Commonwealth legislation to complete the new arrangements.
This amendment will insert into the COAG Reform Act 2008 a note pointing out that an amount may be credited to the COAG Reform Fund under the new Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Act 2012.
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) 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.
Since 1998 I’ve been talking in this place about the importance of doing something better for the dental care of Australians. We know that many low income Australians miss out and a number of those missing out are children.
For many decades the dental health of children was improving, but since the 1990s we’ve seen a reversal of that improvement.
Since the late 1990s, the prevalence of child caries and the mean number of teeth affected by dental disease in children has increased. A recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report showed that 45 per cent of 12 year olds had decay in their permanent teeth and almost 25 per cent of 12 year olds had untreated decay. If a decline in oral health of children becomes established, children will require increased services in the future.
Investment in our children’s teeth is an investment in the future. We know that poor childhood oral health leads to poor adult oral health, and has wide-ranging impacts on general health and wellbeing, including increasing the demand on our health and hospital system.
So today, I’m very proud to begin the legislative process that will make more than three million children eligible for government-subsidised dental care. The Child Dental Benefits Schedule is one part of the Dental Health Reform package: an unprecedented package of initiatives to address increasingly poor oral health amongst Australians including children, low income adults and those living in outer metropolitan, rural and remote areas.
The six-year package I announced on 29 August includes:
$2.7 billion for around 3.4 million Australian children who will be eligible for subsidised dental care;
$1.3 billion for around 1.4 million additional services for adults on low incomes who will have better access to dental care in the public system; and
$225 million for dental capital and workforce will be provided to support expanded services for people living in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote areas.
While Medicare and free hospital care have been a basic right for Australians for decades, millions of people in this country still go without adequate dental care.
I believe we have a responsibility to ensure Australians who are least able to afford to go to the dentist, and particularly children, should be given access to taxpayer supported oral health care.
As I’ve travelled around Australia to discuss the Dental Reform Package with parents, young people, and the dental profession, I’ve listened to stories of children in need of dental care, and the great work that dentists, public and private, are doing to repair young mouths, prevent further harm, and keep them healthy. This bill will see the Commonwealth Government taking its share of this important work.
This bill will establish a Child Dental Benefits Schedule for children from the age of 2 until they turn 18. Access to the schedule will commence on 1 January 2014 and will effectively see the Commonwealth assume primary responsibility of funding basic dental services for children in families receiving Family Tax Benefit Part A. Funding will be targeted in line with current Medicare Teen Dental Plan eligibility. This will target expenditure to children in low and middle income families
This means that benefits will be available for children who receive (or in households that receive) payments under:
Currently a family of 2 parents and 2 kids can be earning $112 000 and be eligible for this scheme- obviously eligibility varies depending on the number of kids and is indexed.
The Child Dental Benefits Schedule will provide a benefit for basic dental services including prevention and treatment. Subsidised services will include, for example, checkup, fillings and extractions. However, items such as orthodontics will not be included.
This proposal would provide a Commonwealth funded capped benefit entitlement of $1,000 over two years for basic dental services for children that could be used for services in the private sector, where most dentists practice. The states and territories would also be able to provide services as they currently do under the Medicare Teen Dental Plan, as long as they bulk bill services.
This means that parents and independent teens will be able to continue to visit their usual dentist, provided that dentist participates. Including the public system will leverage existing state resources, provide a guaranteed no-cost pathway for those who really need it, and allow states to continue to provide services to children if they choose to do so.
Benefits would be available for services provided by dentists and para-dental professionals such as oral health therapists and dental hygienists, as currently provided for by the Medicare Teen Dental Plan. The level of this $1,000 cap is designed to allow coverage for a higher needs child, but the average amount spent per child is expected to be lower.
This bill is a first step in implementing the Government’s reforms. Further detail on the scheme, including the schedule of services and fees, will be contained in subordinate legislation. In designing the fee schedule under the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, I will consult with the oral health professions to ensure that it contains an appropriate mix of basic dental services. I will also seek to ensure that the access to the schedule by professions and the fee structure will encourage appropriate levels of servicing and the matching of workforce capability with oral health need.
Although states and territories currently provide services to children through the public sector, eligibility and service availability is not consistent across all territories. The introduction of a Commonwealth funded Child Dental Benefits Schedule would build a unified national system for patient eligibility and service delivery, replacing disparate state and territory public dental schemes for children.
Focusing Commonwealth funding on children through the Child Dental Benefits Schedule will address declining child oral health and will be a cost-effective longer-term strategy to deliver improved population-wide oral health into the future.
As part of the Dental Reform Package, the Gillard Government is providing $1.3 billion to states and territories under a National Partnership Agreement to expand public dental services for low income adults including pensioners and concession card holders, and those with special needs. This funding will depend on the states and territories at least maintaining their current level of dental care services.
In addition, $225 million in funding for dental infrastructure in outer metropolitan, rural and regional areas will assist more Australians, regardless of their location, in gaining access to high quality dental care.
As part of implementing the Dental Health Reform package the Howard Government’s Chronic Disease Dental Scheme will be closed. Unlike the initiatives in the Dental Reform Package, the Chronic Disease Dental Scheme is poorly targeted and fails to address the problems in the existing dental system.
This Dental Reform package is in addition to the $515 million announced in the 2012-13 Budget, which includes a blitz on public dental waiting lists and additional dental training and support for people in rural and remote areas. Together with these measures the Dental Reform Package will deliver a better and fairer system of dental health care for Australians that is accessible, affordable and focuses on prevention to deliver future improvements to Australia’s oral health.
This Bill introduces several measures from the 2012 Budget, along with some non Budget amendments that clarify current Government policies and improve the operation of existing legislation.
Extending Cape York Welfare Reform Trial
In the 2012 Budget, the Gillard Government provided $11.8 million to extend the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial for 12 months to 31 December 2013.
The trial is a partnership between the communities of Aurukun, Coen, Hope Vale and Mossman Gorge, the Australian Government, the Queensland Government and the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership. It aims to restore local Indigenous authority, encourage positive behaviours, and improve economic and living conditions.
To date, the trial has made a real and lasting difference in the lives of Indigenous people in the Cape. Since it began in July 2008, the Cape York Welfare Reform communities have seen improvements in school attendance, care and protection of children, and community safety.
The Family Responsibilities Commission, which is established under Queensland Government legislation, is a key plank of Cape York Welfare Reform. Local Family Responsibility Commissioners hold conferences with community members, refer people to support services and, when necessary, arrange income management.
Currently, a person can be subject to income management under the trial only after a decision by the Family Responsibilities Commission made before 1 January 2013.
This Bill extends that date to 1 January 2014. The extension provides an opportunity to build upon the success of the initiatives already underway.
I am pleased that the Queensland Government has agreed to continue funding for the Family Responsibilities Commission, and will extend the Queensland legislation governing the operation of the Commission.
An evaluation of the trial is currently underway, and will help inform future efforts in Cape York.
Indigenous education payments
In a significant boost to Indigenous education, the Bill also amends the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to increase the Act’s legislative appropriation – by around $16 million combined for the 2012 and 2013 calendar years.
The increase to the 2012 and 2013 appropriations reflects the continuation of existing initiatives and new initiatives announced in the 2012-13 Budget.
The increase in the appropriations for 2012 and 2013 will continue existing initiatives and provide funding for several new initiatives, including expansion of the Sporting Chance program, Teach Remote Stage Two, Student Education Trusts delivered as part of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial, and initiatives that support teachers, professional development and front-line services to improve Aboriginal children’s access to quality education.
The existing Sporting Chance program uses sport and recreation to increase the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in their schooling. Students are rewarded for good school attendance or engagement through participation in sporting teams or access to certain intensive, high quality, sports focused learning and development. New school-based sports academies will now be established and operated to deliver the program for secondary school boys, and there will be additional programs for secondary school girls.
Additional funding under the Teach Remote Two initiative will expand Commonwealth-funded assistance with building a high status, high quality, committed and competent teacher workforce in remote Indigenous communities that are under the National Alliance of Remote Indigenous Schools.
Additional funding will also extend for 12 months the Student Education Trusts measure that forms part of the Cape York Welfare Reform Trial. The Student Education Trusts are a financial management service whereby parents and care givers from the remote Indigenous communities in the Cape York area are supported and encouraged to save for their children’s education costs from their early years through to tertiary education.
Non-Budget amendments
The Bill also introduces some non-Budget amendments to clarify current Government policies and improve the operation of existing legislation.
These include a package of minor amendments to improve the operation of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal in the social security, child support, family assistance and paid parental leave jurisdictions. For example, some amendments will enable Social Security Appeals Tribunal members to release protected information to relevant authorities in certain circumstances where there is a risk to the life, health or welfare of a person.
Amendments also improve privacy protections for information and documents. The Social Security Appeals Tribunal Principal Member will be able to issue a non disclosure order that applies to any information or documents obtained by a person at any time during the review process. Amendments also extend confidentiality obligations to all people providing services at the hearing of the review.
The objective of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is to provide a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Amendments clarify that this objective is to be pursued by the Principal Member in performing his or her functions and powers under the legislation.
Amendments are made by this Bill to the child support legislation to confirm the longstanding policy and administration where the amount payable under a parent’s child support assessment is reduced because a court decides that the payer is not a parent of one of the children in their assessment, but the payer remains liable for another child in the assessment.
The policy is that the total amount previously paid for the period (including amounts paid for the child that was found to be not theirs) would be applied to their child support liability for any remaining children in the case, and any child support debt for those children. Any excess child support they paid may be recovered from the payee by applying for a court order under the existing child support legislation.
Lastly, minor clarifications are made to portfolio legislation, including the Schoolkids Bonus legislation and the family assistance clean energy legislation – consistent with existing policy.
… The Committee undertake a further inquiry into the government's amendments to the bill, to ensure that serious concerns raised throughout the inquiry have been addressed, and that until this has occurred, the bill should not be debated.
The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2012
The sheep—
have been discharged into a state of the art, modern, Australian-designed supply chain, which is ESCAS compliant and meets World Animal Health Organisation standards.
The certificate of health, bearing No 612-000891, signed by the authorised Australian veterinary officer on September 1 at Perth—about 27 days after the ship had left Australia—seems to be fake and bogus …
… a thorough examination and verification of documents, such as the health certificate and the commercial invoice, had not been carried out on the vessel.
… the premises where the sheep were stationed were not approved by the competent authority.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… we will see impacts from some of the issues that are coming out of the current draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan—
In terms of the basin plan … you can't even get across the technical information that they are putting out, and it is all hidden anyway—it is like a treasure hunt trying to work out what it means for you.
We believe there quite clearly needs to be some balancing … we are all vitally interested in the health of the basin…
Our lifeblood depends on it. We are absolutely dependent here.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
In terms of electoral distribution, applications for projects located in an electorate held by the ALP were more successful. That is, projects located in ALP-held electorates had an approval rate of 22 per cent, compared with the approval rate of 14 per cent for projects located in an electorate held by the Coalition parties …
With reference to Budget estimates hearings of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in May 2012:
(1) In regard to the answer to question no. EW0042 13 taken on notice during the hearings, and given that Senator Abetz is aware that the department is unable to comment on the Minister’s views on the policies of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) or the Australian Greens, does the Minister agree that the ACTU has adopted a number of Australian Greens’ policies.
(2) In regard to the answer to question no. EW0005 13 taken on notice during the hearings, what amount was paid to Mr Phillip Adams AO for his duties during the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme Conference 2011.
(3) In regard to the answer to question no. EW0045 13 taken on notice during the hearings, and specifically in relation to paragraph 3, did the Minister discuss the amendments with any stakeholders prior to the amendments being passed; if so, which stakeholders.
(1) The Minister has not conducted an analysis of the policies of the ACTU compared with the policies of the Australian Greens.
(2) The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations entered into an agreement with Celebrity Speakers for the Master of Ceremonies for the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme Conference 2011, Mr Phillip Adams AO. The amount paid to Mr Adams by Celebrity Speakers is not known, however, the total cost to the Department was $17,531.00 (GST inclusive) which included Mr Adams’ fee, meals and airfares.
(3) The Government consulted with a number of stakeholders prior to the amendments being circulated. Details of those consultations remain a matter between the Government and the stakeholders.
With reference to the $300,000 research grant provided to Smart Viticulture under the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement $20 million Economic Diversification Package:
(1) Was the Tasmanian wine industry, including its peak body Wine Industry Tasmania, consulted directly in relation to:
(a) Tasmanian wine industry research, or other priorities and funding opportunities under the Economic Diversification Package; and
(b) their views on the Smart Viticulture research project, study of vineyard sites and climate.
(2) What was the exact process that led to the granting of $300,000 funding to Smart Viticulture under the Economic Diversification Package.
(3) Was this specific study to be undertaken by Smart Viticulture as a part of the Economic Diversification Package put out to tender; if not, why not.
(1) The Tasmanian wine industry, including its peak body Wine Tasmania was consulted with directly by both the Tasmanian and Australian Governments in relation to the proposed Wine Industry Research and Industry Development Project. The feedback provided by the industry on the initial project proposal enabled governments to refine the project to meet industry needs.
(2) In accordance with Clause 41 of the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement (TFIGA), the Australian and Tasmanian Governments worked collaboratively and came to agreement on the design, criteria, joint assessment procedures, and monitoring and evaluation of the $16 million package.
The Australian Government contracted the Australian Innovation Research Centre (AIRC) at the University of Tasmania to conduct socio economic research and provide initial investment options to shape the $16 million package
In accordance with this requirement, research from the Australian Innovation Research Centre outlined a set of five criteria to ensure that projects contribute to economic diversification, are sustainable, utilise a place-based approach, build capability in regions, and promote collaboration.
Project proposals were identified through extensive consultation in Tasmania including with Regional Development Australia, Regional Reference Groups, Ministerial Forums, Community Consultation and the work of the AIRC. The recommendations of the AIRC included a project to identify optimal seasonally frost-free sites for cool-climate wine production.
Each of the economic diversification projects identified for 2011-12 was evaluated for consistency and alignment with the objectives of the TFIGA economic diversification funding and was provided in accordance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act (Cwlth) 1997.
Major regional development projects under the TFIGA were agreed by a joint Ministerial council, comprising the Tasmanian minister responsible for economic development and the Commonwealth Minister for Regional Australia.
(3) The project was not put out to tender as consultation with industry and research experts determined that Smart Viticulture was the leading expert to conduct the research.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0290_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee: If it was not necessary to refer the document to the Australian Taxation Office, why did the Minister promise to do so.
The Minister did not promise to refer the document to the Australian Taxation Office. Rather, the Minister said during question time on 19 March 2012, in relation to the report of the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Victoria No 1 Branch of the Health Services Union, that ‘we are going through it and we are certainly drawing it to the attention of the regulatory authorities to which we can’. The Minister further said that he ‘would draw it to the attention of the ATO’.
How many:
(a) iPad 2 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to Defence related personnel in ministerial offices since 1 July 2011?
(b) iPad 3 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to personnel in Ministerial offices since 1 April 2012?
(c) iPhones have been supplied to personnel in Ministerial offices since 1 November 2010?
(a) Since 1 July 2011, a total of five iPad 2 devices have been provided to Departmental staff and Advisers employed in the ministerial offices.
(b) As at 23 August 2011, no iPad 3 or equivalent tablet devices had been provided to any Departmental staff or Advisers in the Ministerial offices.
(c) Since 1 November 2010, the Department has provided one iPhone to the Minister for Defence. This iPhone was to replace an earlier iPhone model.
(1) Given that there are 356 senior officers within the department, why was it necessary to spend $61 million on consultants in the 2011-12 financial year?
(2) Who determines, on a case by case basis, the specific need to engage consultants, and who signs off on the engagements?
(1) The Department of Defence engages consultants where it lacks specialist expertise or when independent research, review or assessment is required. Consultants are typically engaged to:
(2) Prior to engaging consultants, the Department takes into account the skills and resources required for the task, the skills available internally, and the cost-effectiveness of engaging external expertise. The decision to engage a consultant is made by Defence delegates on a case by case basis in accordance with the Financial Management Accountability Act 1997 and related regulations including the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.
Can the Minister provide a relevant response as to why the Middle East Area of Operations contract has been extended by a further 12 months, thereby requiring personnel to use a sub standard aircraft, and what provision is there to cancel this contract at short notice.
The Middle East Area of Operations (MEAO) Air Sustainment Contract is for an initial two-year term which expires 21 November 2012. There are two single year options to extend the contract and Defence has recently determined to exercise the first of these options. The decision to extend the contract took into account the continuing need for the service, contractor performance and the considerable cost savings to Defence.
The aircraft has not been deemed to be substandard and the safety of our ADF personnel travelling by air remains the paramount consideration. Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is the appropriate regulatory authority responsible for ensuring that foreign aircraft operators holding Foreign Aircraft Operator’s Certificates conform to Australian civil aviation operating standards, including safety. The aircraft operator, HIFLY, is required to meet European Aviation Safety Authority operating standards and CASA has approved HIFLY to operate specified aircraft utilised under the contract. The contractor, Adagold Aviation, and the aircraft operator, HIFLY, continue to safely and successfully operate the MEAO Air Sustainment Aircraft service. Regular and continuing customer surveys across a range of key criteria demonstrate consistently high Customer Service Satisfaction levels approaching 99%.
Defence has contracted for the provision of a minimum number of flights up to November 2013. If Defence determines a need to cancel the contract unilaterally, at short notice, there will be financial implications. Based on the continued requirement, satisfactory service delivery and value for money, there is no intention to cancel the contract.
(1) Can specific figures be provided on the reduction in the number of people experiencing homelessness, and the number of people at risk of homelessness, as a result of the Government’s claim to have increased homelessness funding by $5 billion since 2008.
(2) With reference to the method used to determine the $5 billion figure, as stated in the answer to question no. 42, taken on notice during the Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings, can a breakdown be provided indicating how many people are no longer homeless, or at risk of homelessness, as a result of the funding allocated under each nominated spending commitment.
(1) The reduction in the number of people experiencing homelessness will be able to be assessed after the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes its 2011 Census estimates of the homeless population in November 2012. The ABS will not be the only data the Government uses to determine levels of homelessness. The Government will also use the more dynamic and timely information collected from the specialist homelessness services by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, as well as Journeys Home, the first national longitudinal study of homelessness in Australia. Combined, these facts and figures will provide the most accurate picture of homelessness we have ever had.
(2) Homelessness is a complex and dynamic issue. A homeless person may have a number of issues that contribute to homelessness. The homeless person may be helped under one or more homelessness programs. The reduction in the number of people experiencing homelessness will be able to be assessed after the Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes its 2011 Census estimates of the homeless population in November 2012.
(1) Can a full breakdown be provided of the expected allocation of administered and departmental expenses in relation to Program 2.1: Housing Assistance and Homelessness Prevention, including the: (a) number; (b) level; and (c) location, of all departmental staff employed under the program, up to the most recent date for which this data is available.
(2) Can a full breakdown be provided of administered and departmental expenses for the 2011 12 financial year.
(3) Can the full departmental structure for Program 2.1 and Program 2.2 be provided, including the number and level of staff in each relevant section.
(1) and (2) The administered budget for Outcome 2.1 in 2012-13 is $33.58 million; comprising $24.16 million for Youth Homelessness (Reconnect) and $9.42 million for HOME Advice, National Homelessness Strategy, National Housing Priorities and Homelessness Research Strategy.
Total departmental staffing resources devoted to Outcomes 2.1 and 2.2 are provided in the Department’s 2011 12 Annual Report. These resources include an attribution of corporate, network and other departmental support. Total staffing in the Housing, Homelessness and Money Management Group allocated to programs 2.1 and 2.2 are provided in response to Question 3 below. The Department and Group use resources flexibly across the programs and do not separately allocate resources to each program. In addition to managing the administered appropriations, the Group undertakes a range of activities in support of the broader objectives under Outcomes 2.1 and 2.2. A summary of these activities can be found in the Department’s Annual Reports.
Departmental staff under Outcome 2.1 are located in Canberra.
(3) Outcome 2.1 and Outcome 2.2 are managed by the Housing, Homelessness and Money Management Group. The structure of the Group, numbers and levels of staff for the relevant housing and homelessness elements is in the table below.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. BET 601 608, taken on notice during the 2012 13 Budget estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee, for each event that incurred costs over $1 500 can the following information be provided:
(a) a complete list of attendees, including their associated departments or occupations;
(b) the basis on which attendees were selected;
(c) what fees were charged to attend, including the:
(i) amount charged, and
(ii) budget area or objective to which the received amounts were allocated; and
(d) the total amount spent on: (i) food, and (ii) alcohol.
(a) and (d)
Many official hospitality events involve packages for beverages which may be alcoholic or non-alcoholic. The beverage package items are not split by these categories.
(b) Attendance at these functions was directly related to their roles.
(c) Treasury does not charge participants for attending official hospitality events.
(1) Since being appointed as Chief Scientist, in a public forum has Professor Ian Chubb ever directly criticised:
(a) the Prime Minister; if so, when and on what grounds; and
(b) former Senator Bob Brown or Senator Milne; if so, when and on what grounds.
(2) With reference to the Health of Australian Science report, which shows that the level of Australia's international science collaboration has essentially plateaued:
(a) what information has been formally provided to Professor Chubb by the Government regarding the process of responding to, and acting upon, the report, and on what dates was this advice provided; and
(b) what specific recommendations has Professor Chubb made to the Government, either in the report or in other forums, regarding measures to help address the issues raised.
(3) What will Professor Chubb's role as an ex-officio member of the Climate Change Authority (CCA) board entail, and will any remuneration be provided for this role; if so, what will the remuneration be.
(4) Will the department have any other association with CCA, either through its membership or by contributing, in any way, to its work; if so, what work will it specifically undertake.
(5) With reference to the answer provided to question no. AI 16, taken on notice during the 2011 12 Additional estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee, is there any scientific validity to the statement that one particular area of New South Wales faces a higher risk of inundation from sea-level rise than other parts of the state; if so, which area.
(6) What was Professor Chubb's rationale for excluding significant organisations, such as the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Science and Technology Australia, from membership of the Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council.
(7) With reference to media reports relating to alleged death threats made to Australian climate scientists, and statements made by Professor Chubb at the 2012 13 Budget estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee held on 28 May 2012, can Professor Chubb confirm that he had not seen, or had not been alerted to, any articles of this nature.
(8) Can Professor Chubb confirm whether death threats were received by Australian National University (ANU) climate scientists during his time as Vice Chancellor, either in late 2010 or early 2011; and if such threats were not received, does this mean that the continued assertions by the ANU are false.
(9) If Professor Chubb maintains that 'there were no alleged death threats except when journalists picked up the story', does Professor Chubb accept that reporting of the alleged death threats was based, in each case, on comments made by Professor Ian Young and/or other university representatives or staff.
(10) Can Professor Chubb specifically name any journalist and/or media outlets that invented, misreported or overinflated allegations of death threats against ANU climate scientists in any report in June 2011 or at any time subsequently; if so, what precisely was reported inaccurately.
(11) Does Professor Chubb consider that any of his own comments or views about this issue, either at the time of the original public reporting in June 2011 or at any time subsequently, were relayed or presented in an inaccurate or misleading way; if so, which specific comments or views.
(12) Has Professor Chubb contacted any media outlets at any time to seek to correct or clarify factual inaccuracies in any reports regarding this issue, including in relation to any comments or views that may have been falsely attributed either to him or the ANU, or were presented in a potentially misleading way; if so, for each case, which outlets and on what dates.
(13) With reference to statements made by Professor Chubb at the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee held on 28 May 2012, relating to:
(a) emails received by ANU staff members, can details be provided of: (i) the date of the event to which he was referring, (ii) in which area of the ANU that person was based at the time, (iii) whether that person has also been interviewed by any of the reporters who have filed stories on the 'death threats' issue from June 2011 onwards, and (iv) whether that person has been named in any of the reports; and
(b) the relocation of ANU climate scientists to a different physical location on the campus in 2010, can details be provided of: (i) the date of the move, (ii) whether the move was made solely in response to a threat of physical violence, or for another reason, (iii) whether the same group of people had ever previously asked to be moved to a new location for any reason other than in relation to death threats.
(14) Does Professor Chubb agree that the 'death threat' issue has had a political element in relation to climate change and matters such as the carbon tax.
(15) Does Professor Chubb now regret his involvement in the story, and using words such as 'appalling' and 'outrageous' to refer to threats and e-mails which he now admits he had not seen.
(1) (a) and (b) No.
(2) This is not an accurate representation of the issue. Australian international collaboration has been growing over the past decade, as measured by the number of Australian publications with international co-authors (see Health of Australian Science report, Chapter 6).
(a) No advice was received
(b) None as yet.
(3) In general, the same as a role on any other Board. The Climate Change Authority Act 2011 stipulates that:
the Chief Scientist will be one of nine members of the CCA;
the Chief Scientist holds office on a part-time basis; and
the Chief Scientist will not be paid a remuneration or allowances.
(4) As the Australian Government's provider of measurement science expertise and infrastructure, the National Measurement Institute (NMI) within DIISRTE will provide policy and services and/or technical advice to the CCA. NMI is working with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) to ensure that there is a sound measurement basis to the emissions reporting that is required for Australian carbon pricing mechanisms to work locally and as part of international systems.
(5) Two reports from the DCCEE were released in 2009 and 2011 respectively, providing comprehensive assessments of the risks of sea-level rise and other climate change impacts to Australia's coasts and coastal infrastructure. These reports are the definitive references for climate change impacts in Australia and by inference in NSW.
The reports do not single out any one area as facing the highest risk from projected sea-level rise and flooding. Rather, in the framework used by DCCEE to assess coastal vulnerability, each coastal state and territory has a range of vulnerabilities depending on observed and projected sea-level rise, coastal landforms and ecosystems, tides, storm surge risk, infrastructure and population.
The Antarctic Climate & Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, with support from the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, provides a set of tools for assessing the risk of marine inundation at any given area of the Australian coastline. These tools would allow the assessment of the risk of coastal flooding due to sea-level change along different areas of the New South Wales coast.
(6) Professor Chubb was consulted on proposed membership and operations as part of a review of PMSEIC arrangements undertaken by the then Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, following which recommendations were made to the Minister and the Prime Minister.
The membership is not one based on organisations but individuals. Members are appointed for their expertise and the complementarity of that expertise overall.
The membership number should be small enough to allow substantial exchanges of view.
There is provision to invite those with particular expertise to any meeting – including Ministers. And that also includes, for example, the head of DSTO, when a defence-specific matter is before the Council. The same applies to other organisations.
(7) Professor Chubb has seen 'articles' relating to death threats to Australian Climate scientists.
(8) Professor Chubb cannot confirm that ANU scientists received death threats. He has no recollection of ever having been told that they did, nor having said that they did.
(9) Professor Chubb would not know.
(10) No.
(11) No.
(12) No.
(13) (a) (i) No.
(ii) Coombs Building.
(iii) Not known.
(iv) Professor Chubb cannot recall.
(b) (i) Not by Professor Chubb.
(ii) The staff were in a part of a building accessible by the public. They were unsettled by emails and visits 'off the street.' Professor Chubb agreed to their move at that time. He does say that moving staff is not a novel concept, and is done whenever and for whatever purpose thought necessary. Professor Chubb always took his responsibilities as an employer seriously.
(iii) Not that Professor Chubb is aware.
(14) Not as far as his involvement is concerned.
(15) No.
With reference to the advice provided on 22 May 2012, that Government responses to the 5 yearly review of Regional Forest Agreements (RFAs) in Victoria and New South Wales were being finalised and that discussions were continuing about whether changes to state laws met the required standards:
(1) Are the responses now complete; if not, why not and when will they be complete.
(2) When will the responses be made public.
(3) Given that a function of RFAs is to deliver equivalent protection to that provided under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, what process is used to assess changes to state forest management systems accredited under RFAs.
(4) What specific standards are applied when assessing changes to state forest management systems accredited under RFAs, including the: (a) information required; and (b) methodology used.
(5) Since 2007, what changes to state forest management systems accredited under RFAs have been assessed and, for each case, can details be provided of the: (a) change; (b) date on which it was proposed or made; and (c) date on which the Commonwealth agreed to the change.
(6) For each state and each RFA, what is the process for deciding whether the agreement should be extended.
(7) Has any consultation been undertaken with each state about extending RFAs; if so, for each state and each RFA, on what dates did consultation take place and what issues were discussed.
(8) What steps are required to extend an RFA, at what point does the process begin and what is the timeline.
(1) The Joint Government Responses for Victoria and New South Wales are not yet complete.
The Commonwealth and New South Wales Governments have made significant progress on the Joint Government Response and have scheduled a meeting to discuss final comments on the draft.
The Commonwealth and Victorian Governments have made significant progress on the Joint Government Response and expect to meet to discuss final comments on the draft.
It is expected that the Joint Government Responses for both States will be finalised by the end of 2012.
(2) The Joint Government Responses will be made publicly available once the ministerial approval process has been finalised.
(3) The RFAs aim to implement ecologically sustainable forest management; establish a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system; and provide certainty of investment in forest businesses.
As part of the five-yearly review of RFAs, each state outlines its improvements and enhancements to the RFA accredited forest management system over the intervening period since the RFAs were signed or an earlier five-yearly review was completed. The Independent Reviewer evaluates the information provided by the State, and aided by public comments, makes appropriate findings and recommendations on the implementation of the forest management system as well as suggested improvements for the forest management system.
(4) As part of the five-yearly review of RFAs, each State outlines its improvements and enhancements to the RFA accredited forest management system over the intervening period since the RFAs were signed or an earlier five-yearly review was completed. The Independent Reviewer evaluates the information provided by the State.
(5) The information on changes to a State’s forest management system is presented holistically in the Report on Progress with Implementation of each State’s RFAs. These documents are available for each specific agreement at http://www.daff.gov.au/rfa/regions.
(6 – 8) All RFAs contain a clause to allow the Parties to each RFA (the Commonwealth and each RFA State) to jointly determine a process to extend an RFA for a further period.
High level discussions with Tasmania and Victoria have commenced on the timing for the 3rd five-yearly reviews. The third five yearly review provides for discussion on the process of RFA renewal.
(1) Does the department or any of its agencies have an option or arrangement to purchase all or part of the Eden wood chip mill owned by South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd, most of which is situated within the purple, yellow or green safety zones that are required around an explosives facility?
(2) Can details be provided of any payments made by the department or any of its agencies since 2000 to South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd, in compensation for loss of value of the land on which the Eden wood chip mill is situated, or for a diminution in its resale value as a result of having an explosives facility constructed at the adjacent Eden multi purpose wharf?
(3) What contracts or other arrangements does the department have with South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd to share activities, such as security surveillance, in the vicinity of the Eden wood chip mill and the Eden multi-purpose wharf?
(4) Has the department purchased any paper products manufactured by Nippon Paper Industries, or awarded any contracts to printers that use paper manufactured by Nippon Paper Industries in 2008, 2009, 2010 or 2011; if so, can details be provided?
(1) Neither Defence nor its agencies have an option or arrangement to purchase all or part of the Eden wood chip mill owned by South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd.
(2) In 2005, Defence paid compensation, in accordance with the Lands Acquisition Act 1989, to South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd for restrictions Defence placed on the use of their land. The amount of compensation paid by Defence to South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd is commercial in confidence.
(3) There is no formal contractual relationship between Defence and South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd for security. Surveillance cameras are owned, installed and monitored by South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd to primarily monitor the woodchip mill's wharf. The cameras have a 'pan function' and can also monitor the Explosive Ordnance wharf. There is a camera isolation switch within the Explosive Ordnance wharf office and the cameras covering the wharf are turned off whenever the wharf is in use by Defence. When the Explosive Ordnance wharf is not in use by Defence, it is open to the public and is managed and monitored by the Eden Port authority. South East Fibre Exports Pty Ltd is able to use the cameras to view any public fishing (or other public activities) from the wharf.
(4) There are two paper suppliers on Defence's Standing Offer Panel for provision of Office Supplies; Corporate Express and OfficeMax.
Corporate Express provides 80% of general office copy paper to Defence, and has so for the last six years. Corporate Express purchase paper from Australian Paper (Australian Paper brands include: Reflex, Australian Copy 10% Recycled, Optix). Whilst the paper purchased is not manufactured by Nippon Paper Industries directly, it is noted that in June 2009 Nippon Paper Group acquired Australian Paper. Corporate Express advise that the Australian Paper predominately purchased by Defence is manufactured at the Maryvale Mill in the Latrobe Valley, Victoria.
OfficeMax provides the other 20% of general office copy paper to Defence. OfficeMax’s paper is predominately the OfficeMax brand which is manufactured in Germany.
Under what circumstances and in accordance with which legal instrument would compensation be payable in the event of a suspension, amendment or cancellation of the Regional Forest Agreements for Eden and Southern Regions, and how would the amount payable be calculated.
I refer the Honourable Senator to Part 3 of the Regional Forest Agreements (RFA) for an answer to her question.
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/51021/nsw_rfa_eden.pdf
http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/49735/nsw_sthn_rfa.pdf
With reference to the answer provided to question no. SR11, taken on notice during the 2011-12 Supplementary Budget estimates hearing of the Economics Legislation Committee, in which the department confirmed that a component of the Commonwealth funding provided to the Victorian Government under the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program, for the pre feasibility stage of the CarbonNet project, was granted by the state government to HRL Dual Gas Pty Ltd:
1. What was the total amount provided to HRL Dual Gas Pty Ltd by the state government.
2. Was the Commonwealth aware of this on payment to HRL Dual Gas Pty Ltd prior to it occurring.
3. Will the Commonwealth attempt to reclaim this money if the HRL Dual Gas Project does not proceed.
Funding of a pre-feasibility study into the application of carbon capture technology to HRL’s integrated drying gasification combined cycle project (IDGCC) under the CarbonNet project was made through an agreement with Syngas Plus Pty Ltd. This is a separate company to HRL Dual Gas Pty Ltd which was progressing the Dual Gas Project chosen for funding under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF).
1. The Australian government contributed approximately $612,500 (GST inclusive) through the CarbonNet project to Syngas Plus Pty Ltd for a pre-feasibility study on carbon capture. This amount was matched by the Victorian State Government and the HRL Group.
2. Yes, the Australian Government was aware of the components and costs of the work program under the CarbonNet Project.
3. No, the Australian Government will not reclaim the expenditure because the payment was not for the Dual Gas project which is no longer receiving funding under the LETDF. The carbon capture pre-feasibility study was delivered by Syngas Plus Pty Ltd as commissioned and in accordance with the Australian Government’s deed of agreement with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries.
With reference to the proposed Browse liquefied natural gas (LNG) precinct at James Price Point and the recent comments made by the Premier of Western Australia that the Woodside led joint venture ''may lose their gas rights'' if they do not develop an LNG plant at James Price Point:
(1) Does the Western Australian Government have the power to remove retention leases from the joint venture partners; if so, (a) is such a decision required to be jointly made with the Federal Government; and (b) what other conditions must be satisfied before the removal of retention leases can take place.
(2) Which ministers or entities have the power to make a decision to remove retention leases from the Browse joint venture partners and under what conditions.
(3) Has a unitisation agreement been determined regarding the amount of royalties Western Australia would receive from the proposed Browse LNG joint venture gas fields.
(1) The Browse Joint Venture holds seven offshore petroleum retention leases, five of which are located in Commonwealth waters offshore of Western Australia and two of which are located in Western Australian state waters.
The Western Australian Government has responsibility for decisions in relation to the two offshore petroleum retention leases that are located within Western Australian state waters.
In respect of the five offshore petroleum retention leases in Commonwealth waters, the Commonwealth-Western Australia Offshore Petroleum Joint Authority, comprising the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum, the Hon Norman Moore MLC, and the Commonwealth Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon Martin Ferguson AM MP, is the decision-maker in relation to the management (grant, renewal, suspension, variation or cancellation) of offshore petroleum titles. Decisions in relation to these titles are made jointly between the two Ministers. Where disagreement occurs between the members of the Joint Authority, the Commonwealth Minister may decide the matter and the Commonwealth Minister's decision has effect as the decision of the Joint Authority.
The Joint Authority may consider cancelling an offshore petroleum title under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (the Act) where the titleholder has not complied with:
The Joint Authority must take into account any action taken by the titleholder to remove the ground(s) of cancellation or to prevent the recurrence of similar grounds. The titleholder must be consulted in the course of the Joint Authority's decision-making process.
(2) See response to Question 1 above.
(3) No.
With reference to the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (FWBII) Contract Notices CN717252, CN758001, CN758041, CN760931, CN760961 and CN762541:
(1) Can a breakdown be provided of the total amount spent by FWBII on advertising, promotion and information materials, including the: (a) cost; (b) date ordered and date received; (c) authorising officer; (d) type of material and its contents; and (e) quantity.
(2) Can copies of all advertising, promotion and information materials be provided, including those relating to the listed Contract Notices.
(1)
(2) See attachments ( available from the Senate Table Office ).
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0015_13, taken on notice during the 2012–13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee: was the submission approved as drafted by the department.
There is not a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to your question, as the Australian Government’s 2012 Annual Wage Review submission was a government submission.
Although the submission was jointly drafted by DEEWR and the Treasury in consultation with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, my office in consultation with the Office of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister’s office had the responsibility to ensure the submission fully reflected a whole of Government view.
With reference to an article in the Australian Financial Review dated 15 August 2012, in which the Minister is quoted as stating ‘the challenges to small business are real but not from industrial relations’:
(1) What are the challenges to small business if not the result of pressures from industrial relations.
(2) Do the challenges include: (a) the 18 000 additional regulations imposed by the Government; if not, why not; and (b) the Carbon Tax; if not, why not.
(1) The Government understands that Australian firms, especially small to medium size businesses, face a range of challenges in a competitive and continually changing economic environment. The Australian economy is undergoing structural change resulting from the ongoing demand for Australia’s key commodities exports, the sustained high dollar, cautious consumer behaviour since the global financial crisis, and changing patterns of domestic spending, including the shift towards services and a clean energy future. While representing opportunities for many businesses, these changes represent challenges for others. Some particular pressures that businesses are facing include gaining access to global supply chains and major investment projects, obtaining sufficient access to business finance and building the capabilities to adapt and drive change.
(2) The OECD’s review of Australian regulatory practices describes Australia as ‘one of the front-running countries in the OECD in terms of its regulatory reform practices’ and observes that ‘in general the Australian States demonstrate regulatory management practices that are among OECD best practice’. 1In further improving regulatory settings and reducing red-tape, the Government is continuing to implement an ambitious and comprehensive deregulation agenda.
Through COAG, the Commonwealth Government is pursuing a comprehensive deregulation and harmonisation agenda under the National Partnership to Deliver a Seamless National Economy (SNE). Forty-five separate reforms are being progressed under this National Partnership, comprising of 27 deregulation priorities in driving competition, boosting productivity, improving labour mobility, and reducing business compliance costs by removing unnecessary or inconsistent regulation. The Productivity Commission estimates that this comprehensive reform agenda could reduce costs to business of around $4 billion per year.
The Government’s Clean Energy Future Plan will cut pollution and drive investment, helping to ensure Australian businesses can compete and remain prosperous in the future. It will create new opportunities for a range of small entrepreneurs and business owners, across various industries. For example, opportunities will open up for businesses to develop services and products in new clean industries such as renewable energy generation, carbon farming and sustainable design.
No small businesses will have to pay a price on carbon pollution directly or deal with new red tape. Only the biggest polluters, around 300 businesses nation wide, have to directly pay for their carbon pollution. The Household Assistance Package is giving extra assistance to eligible households to help with increased costs. The Government is committed to supporting small business in making the transition to Australia’s low-pollution economy in the future.
1OECD (2010a), Towards a Seamless National Economy, OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Australia 2010, OECD, Paris.
In regard to each department and agency within the Minister’s responsibility:
(1) Has there been a reduction in the number of plants in departmental and agency offices; if so:
(a) by what percentage;
(b) on what date did it come into effect;
(c) what was the reason for the reduction; and
(d) how much will each department and agency save as a result?
(2) What is the budget for the facilities management branch (or equivalent) in the:
(a) 2011-12; and
(b) 2012-13 financial years?
(3) What is the name of the organisation contracted to supply plants to departmental and agency offices?
(4) If a reduction in the number of office plants has taken place, when was the contracted organisation first made aware of the decision?
(5) Were staff consulted regarding a possible reduction in plants prior to it taking place?
(6) Have any complaints been registered from staff in relation to reductions in office plants?
(1) (a), (b), (c) and (d)
The information sought is not readily available, and an unreasonable amount of departmental resources would be required to develop a response.
(2) (a) and (b)
Defence has 72 major bases, and the budget to run and maintain them was approximately
$1.3 billion in 2011-12 (this does not include provision of office plants which are provided under local arrangement in some locations). In 2012-13, the budget allocated to running and maintaining Defence bases is around $1.0 billion.
The budget to run and maintain Defence facilities includes utilities (power, water etc), estate maintenance (repairs and minor upgrades but not major capital facilities projects), and garrison support such as cleaning, grounds maintenance, waste management, and pest and vermin inspection/advisory services.
(3) There is not one single organisation contracted to supply plants to Departmental and agency offices.
(4,5,6) The information sought is not readily available, and an unreasonable amount of Departmental resources would be required to develop a response.
In regard to each department and agency within the Minister's responsibility:
(1) Has there been a reduction in the number of plants in departmental and agency offices; if so: (a) by what percentage; (b) on what date did it come into effect; (c) what was the reason for the reduction; and (d) how much will each department and agency save as a result.
(2) What is the budget for the facilities management branch (or equivalent) in the: (a) 2011-12; and (b) 2012-13 financial years.
(3) What is the name of the organisation contracted to supply plants to departmental and agency offices.
(4) If a reduction in the number of office plants has taken place, when was the contracted organisation first made aware of the decision.
(5) Were staff consulted regarding a possible reduction in plants prior to it taking place.
(6) Have any complaints been registered from staff in relation to reductions in office plants.
Responses relate to the Department only for the 2012-13 financial year unless otherwise specified. To collate and compile the requested information for the whole portfolio would involve a significant resource effort that the Department is not currently in a position to undertake.
(1) No.
(2) Within the Department the repairs and maintenance budget is considered the equitable measure for reporting the facilities budget:
(a) 2011-12 financial year - $1,286,753.
(b) 2012-13 financial year - $1,172,153.
(3) 'Instyle Indoor Plant Hire'.
(4) Not applicable.
(5) Not applicable.
(6) Not applicable.
In regard to each department and agency within the Minister’s responsibility:
(1) Has there been a reduction in the number of plants in departmental and agency offices; if so: (a) by what percentage; (b) on what date did it come into effect; (c) what was the reason for the reduction; and (d) how much will each department and agency save as a result.
(2) What is the budget for the facilities management branch (or equivalent) in the: (a) 2011-12; and (b) 2012-13 financial years.
(3) What is the name of the organisation contracted to supply plants to departmental and agency offices.
(4) If a reduction in the number of office plants has taken place, when was the contracted organisation first made aware of the decision.
(5) Were staff consulted regarding a possible reduction in plants prior to it taking place.
(6) Have any complaints been registered from staff in relation to reductions in office plants.
(1) There has been a small reduction in the number of plants in departmental offices as sites have been refurbished and existing contracts have ended and not been renewed. Site refurbishments do not include plants in areas other than large common or public areas.
(a) Due to the size of the department’s property portfolio, it is not possible to calculate the percentage reduction in actual numbers of plants.
(b) End dates for various pre-existing arrangements occurred across the 2011-12 financial year and will continue to occur across 2012-13.
(c) The Department’s current accommodation guidelines do not provide for plants to be included in general work areas of existing sites or refurbishments. To bring existing sites into line with the guidelines, the Department is gradually reducing the overall number of indoor plants in general work spaces by allowing existing arrangements to lapse at the end of their current terms. Some larger sites will continue to have indoor plants provided in large common or public areas.
(d) The quantum of the forecast reduction in plant costs is still being determined. Any reduction in costs will be expected to be realised in 2013-14.
(2) The Department does not have a facilities management branch. Due to the size and complexity of the property portfolio, management of the Department’s property and facilities functions spans two branches. The total combined budgets of the branches were $23,266,744 for 2011-12 and $22,391,742 for 2012-13, however, it should be noted that a number of other, non-property, corporate support functions are also delivered from within the allocated budget.
(3) The Department has an outsourced property management services provider - Jones Lang La Salle (JLL). JLL contracts with individual service providers for the provision of plants and has contracts with six providers – Oasis Plant Hire, Ambius Indoor Plants, Instyle Plants, Botanic Plant Hire, Jindalee Indoor Plant Service and Red Cedar Plant Hire. Head Office sites in the ACT are supported via direct contractual arrangements with Living Simply and Instyle Indoor Plant Hire.
(4) The relevant service providers are provided notice in accordance with the respective contract conditions.
(5) Wherever possible, staff are provided with an opportunity to view and comment on the proposed floorplan at the planning stage of a refurbishment. Informal consultation is undertaken with staff in network offices when changes are proposed.
(6) The Property areas of the Department are not aware of any recorded complaints associated with reductions in office plants.
Given that, under the Commercial Horse Assistance Payment Scheme introduced in 2007, horses were required to be in training and ready to race, or at least fit and healthy and in their stables, in order to qualify for compensation:
(1) Was an inspection ever undertaken at any racecourse or stable to verify that the returns provided by trainers matched the numbers claimed?
(2) Were racing clubs contacted in order to verify that the claimed number of horses were in fact being trained on that track; ifnot, how were the numbers verified?
(3) Was the scheme ever audited by a body such as the Australian National Audit Office?
(1) Yes. The Commercial Horse Assistance Payments (CHAPs) program was delivered by six organisations under guidelines that allowed for on-site inspections to verify claims being made, or to verify claims being made by a third party. I am advised that site visits were made by all six delivery organisations.
(2) CHAPs delivery organisations included racing clubs in New South Wales and Queensland. Each delivery organisation was required under their funding deed to implement appropriate governance practices and maintain records to enable an independent review at the completion of the program. To ensure racehorse trainers did not claim payments for more horses than they had, applicants were required to:
(3) The Australian National Audit Office has not audited CHAPs. However, each delivery organisation was subject to an independent third-party financial and performance audit at the completion of the program. The reports on individual delivery organisations were provided to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and informed the findings of a final report. The final report is available on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's website.