The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012
…the Committee does not underestimate the difficulty of securing the passage of appropriate amendments to the Constitution recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Only eight out of 44 proposals to amend the Constitution have succeeded. It is 36 years since the last successful referendum. Controversial proposals are invariably foredoomed to failure. For that reason, the committee cautions that if the proposal is the victim of over-reach, it will fail. While the Committee does not seek to limit the scope of public discussion, it nevertheless considers that only a relatively modest proposal is capable of engendering the bipartisan consensus which is a pre-requisite to success.
Constitutional recognition is an important step that must be taken in order to redress the discrimination and disempowerment Indigenous Australians have suffered since settlement.
Recognition needs to deal with the fact that the Constitution was drafted on a premise of racism, essentially. It was drafted at a time when, in the words of our Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, we needed a power in the Constitution to enable the federal parliament to pass laws against 'the coloured and inferior persons' within the Commonwealth. Those words in the Constitution and that racist power have now been extended to Aboriginal people. Section 25 still recognises the possibility that states might enact laws that disenfranchise people on the basis of their race. Certainly from my dealings across the community, including with very conservative groups, it is that element of racism that most motivates people to think that they need to fix the Constitution to move beyond the values of the time.
… inclusion of language which recognises the need to remove or reform racially discriminatory elements in the Constitution should be added, confirming parliament's support for changes which go beyond the symbolic—again, a key recommendation of the panel. The inclusion of a reference to the need to continue efforts to close the social and economic gap that Australia's first peoples experience should also be a key feature.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters.
The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges and respects the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Hold referenda during the 43rd Parliament or at the next election on Indigenous constitutional recognition and recognition of local government in the Constitution.
In October we were forecasting just under 300,000 premises passed; we are now forecasting almost exactly the target of 286,000.
The 457 visa program is designed to address genuine labour shortages that cannot be met from the Australian labour market, and we believe we have this balance right.
We have seen too many examples of abuse across the nation.
… the government has evidence that … employers … are using 457 visas to discriminate against locals.
That the Senate take note of the minister's response.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Back today relating to Western Australia and the Prime Minister.
We rang everyone in December and said, 'Please, don't come'—
The mining tax is an outstanding tax, works effectively and has many, many benefits.
… Julia Gillard's school reforms lack detail, use ill-defined terms … and risk burdening principals with more red tape …
… the … funding reforms had scant substance or detail about who would pay for the billions of dollars required.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) today relating to a proposed gas hub in the Kimberley, Western Australia.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 23 February 2013, of the Honorable Joan Child, AO, former Speaker of the House of Representatives and member for Henty, and places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
The point is well made. I apologise deeply and profusely.
I think you need to be very decisive. You must have the ability to say, ‘The buck stops with me’. I am a pretty bossy woman.
I don’t discuss it. If you want to discuss it I’m in my late fifties. I just will not be pinpointed on exactly how old I am.
… when I put my clothes on in the morning, I don't put on my dignity with them. I always have it with me.
… pay more than $1,000 of her own money to meet the expenses incurred last Thursday, when hundreds of people went on a binge through the bars and dining rooms of Parliament House and consumed $10,000 worth of free food and drink. Mrs Child said last night that the joint House department, which is in charge of parliament's catering service, would advise her of the final net loss and she would personally reimburse parliament for the outstanding amount.
Mrs Child said she accepted responsibility for the huge loss incurred because it was she who authorised the cafeteria and bars to remain open in spite of the work ban.
But her plea—
that everyone involved should pay back the money they owed has fallen on many deaf ears. MPs and senators have agreed to pay up. The press gallery, however, has laid low. "Sales from the non-members bar were significantly higher than a normal trading night," she said. This bar, which is frequented by journalists, suffered the biggest loss of all—$2,830, of which only $114 has been returned. Interestingly, Mrs Child sent a letter last night to the president of the press gallery—
asking him to urge his members to reimburse parliament and, of course, taxpayers.
The basis of election to a seat in Parliament is service to people. We are really public servants. The people made our election possible. They made it possible for us to take our seats in this House. That should be remembered, but it is all too often forgotten.
Just because I'm Speaker doesn't mean I'm not a member of the party or interested in its policies. I don't see any conflict of interest.
Who knows, it might make us all spruce ourselves up a bit, behave better. You never know what might happen—cameras have a remarkable effect on politicians.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2013, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2013 AUTUMN SITTINGS
MARINE SAFETY (DOMESTIC COMMERCIAL VESSEL) NATIONAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill amends the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (the Act) to ensure that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), as the National Marine Safety Regulator (the National Regulator), is able to reimburse to the states and Northern Territory jurisdictions revenue collected from infringement notices issued by marine safety inspectors.
Reasons for Urgency
The Act's original policy intention was that AMSA would remit to the states and Northern Territory revenue collected as a result of payment of infringement notices. Section 10 of the Act enables the National Regulator to pay amounts collected from infringement notice payments to the states or Northern Territory. However, sections 138 and 162 of schedule 1 to the Act refer to paying 'a penalty to the Commonwealth' rather than the National Regulator.
The legal and operational effect of sections 138 and 162 is that the Commonwealth, rather than AMSA, will be required to receive the revenue from the infringement notices. The Act does not contain an appropriations power, and the Commonwealth therefore does not have the power to reimburse the amounts to the states or Northern Territory. This will impact on jurisdictional revenues.
The Act implements the Council of Australian Governments' Intergovernmental Agreement on Commercial Vessel Safety Reform (the IGA). The Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI) agreed on 9 November 2012 that the Act will commence in March 2013. SCOTI also agreed, as required under paragraph 20(a) of the IGA, for the Act to be amended to ensure the original policy intention is achieved.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 , and for related purposes.Broadcasting Services Amendment (Material of Local Significance) Bill 2013 .
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the comments by the Tasmanian Premier Ms Lara Giddings at the Press Club in the week beginning 17 February 2013 calling for the Tamar Valley pulp mill project to be revived,
(ii) the comments by the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in late 2012 in support of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley in Tasmania, and
(iii) the Federal Government funding promised to Tasmania under the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Tasmanian Government; and
(b) calls on the Government to guarantee they will not buy the Tamar Valley pulp mill permits and that no more Government resources will go to supporting this pulp mill.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Minister for Environment and Water Resources under the Howard Government approved the construction and operation of the Gunns proposed pulp mill in Tasmania in October 2007,
(ii) under Condition 45 of the Federal Approval for the pulp mill it states ‘If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the Minister notifies Gunns Limited in writing that the Minister is not satisfied that there has been substantial commencement of construction of the pulp mill, then this approval lapses and the action must not thereafter be commenced’,
(iii) it has now been more than 5 years since that approval was granted and no substantial commencement of construction has begun, and
(iv) the passing of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 by the Tasmanian Parliament bypassed the environmental impact assessments usually required for a project of this significance; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to notify the receivers of Gunns Limited that the approval has lapsed.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the then Prime Minister, Mr Howard, signed an agreement on 11 June 2002 with Lockheed Martin with no public consultation or competitive tendering process for the purchase of up to 100 Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs),
(ii) the then Minister for Defence, Senator Faulkner, announced approval for the purchase of the first 14 JSFs on 25 November 2009 at a cost of around $3.2 billion, contractually committing to two,
(iii) the Australian Auditor-General confirmed in its September 2012 report that the cost for each aircraft is US$131.4 million, more than treble the initial price,
(iv) the aircraft cannot yet fly at supersonic speeds or within 25 miles of storms due to potential ignition of oxygen in the fuel tank,
(v) Senator John McCain of the US Senate describes the JSF program as a scandal and a tragedy, and
(vi) the United Kingdom, the biggest investor in the JSF program, in May 2012 reduced and delayed its acquisition, and the Dutch Parliament in July 2012 voted to cancel its involvement altogether; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) cancel the technically and financially infeasible JSF program,
(ii) urgently examine alternatives given the very long lead times for project development, acquisition and entry into service, and
(iii) focus Australia’s Defence procurement priorities on the equipment and training required to address the defence and humanitarian challenges arising from climate change, water stress and resource depletion.
Senator Ludlam to move:
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,
(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and
(iii) respondents objected that the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and
(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode human rights standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 12 March 2013, from 3 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into fresh pineapple imports.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 , and for related purposes.Health Insurance Amendment (Medicare Funding for Certain Types of Abortion) Bill 2013 .
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 June 2013:
The impact of federal court fee increases since 2010 on access to justice in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact of federal court fee increases on low-income and ordinary Australians and operators of small businesses;
(b) whether these fee increases are reasonable, based on evidence and consistent with other justice policy matters;
(c) how increases in court fees, and other reform to the courts and justice system, can act as a barrier to accessing justice;
(d) the extent to which court fee increases may impact on services provided by legal assistance services (i.e. legal aid commissions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, family violence prevention legal services and community legal services);
(e) the application of the revenue that has been raised by federal court fee increases; and
(f) other relevant matters.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, by noon on Thursday 28 February 2013, the economic-based analysis/report on coastal climate change adaptation options for the Peron Naturaliste region of Western Australia conducted by the Peron Naturaliste Partnership at the request and with the funding support of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 , and for related purposes.Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Pharmaceutical Transparency) Bill 2013 .
That the Senate—
(a) notes that South Australia’s iconic Lake Eyre is dependent on water flows from the Cooper, Diamantina and Georgina rivers, which are under threat by the Queensland Government’s proposal to repeal legislation that currently protects them;
(b) opposes the repealing of the Wild Rivers legislation by the Queensland Government; and
(c) urges the South Australian Premier, Mr Weatherill, to act promptly to work with the Federal Government to protect the Lake Eyre Basin from the proposal of the Premier of Queensland, Mr Newman.
That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013:
(a) the possible imminent importation of beef products from countries whose cattle herds have bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and/or foot‑and-mouth disease (FMD);
(b) the processes undertaken by Australian government agencies in determining risk to consumers and industry and the adequacy of such processes;
(c) the lessons to be learnt from the recent contamination of the beef supply chain with horse meat throughout Europe and its implications for Australian consumers and industry;
(d) the likely implications of allowing imports of beef from BSE and FMD countries on Australia’s international reputation and standing as the world’s safest exporter of beef;
(e) the adequacy of Australian food labelling laws to ensure Australian consumers can make a fully informed choice on Australian meat products; and
(f) any related matters.
That the Senate calls on the Australian Government to seek an immediate explanation from the Government of Japan on its non‑compliance with the injunction of the Federal Court of Australia in 2008 against whaling in the International Whale Sanctuary in the Southern Ocean.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 25 February 2013, 38 retired generals and admirals from the United States of America (US), and prominent national security experts, presented a letter calling on US policymakers to recognise the security effects of climate change and the undeniable consequences and costs of inaction in addressing climate change for vulnerable nations,
(ii) the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2007 called on the 2009 Defence White Paper to examine the full implication of climate change for the Australian Defence Force, and
(iii) the brief acknowledgement in the 2009 Defence White Paper that climate change has the potential to be a destabilising global force erroneously concludes that the strategic consequences of climate change will not be felt before 2030; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise the undeniable security implications of climate change, the costs and consequences of inaction, and
(ii) ensure that the Defence White Paper, due to be released in May 2013, addresses the fact that climate change is shaping the contemporary security climate, is a driver of conflict and should guide procurement and deployment in Australia’s national security.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2013, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kroger for 25 February 2013 for personal reasons.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee on teaching and learning – maximising our investment in Australian schools be extended to 14 May 2013.
That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 13 March 2013, from 4.15 pm to 6 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into cyber safety for senior Australians.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on extreme weather events be extended to 26 June 2013.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 26 February 2013, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012.
That the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 27 February 2013, from 12.30 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Migration and Security Legislation Amendment (Review of Security Assessments) Bill 2012 be extended to 30 April 2013.
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, 28 February 2013, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into an aviation accident investigation.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 13 March 2013, from 12.15 pm, for a private briefing.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 14 March 2013, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the gathering and use of criminal intelligence.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold public meetings during the sittings of the Senate, as follows:
(a) on Tuesday, 12 March and 19 March 2013, from 1 pm to 2 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into slavery, slavery like conditions and people trafficking; and
(b) on Tuesday, 12 March and 19 March 2013, from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the care of Australian Defence Force personnel wounded and injured on operations.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the sterilisation of people with disabilities be extended to 19 June 2013.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the Biosecurity Bill 2012 [2013] and the Inspector-General of Biosecurity Bill 2012 [2013] be extended to 24 June 2013.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Monday, 18 March 2013, from 10 am to 1 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on justice reinvestment be extended to 20 June 2013.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 19 March 2013, from 4 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that the whaling presence in the Australian Antarctic Territory now includes a Japanese self-defence vessel with a capacity for 250 personnel as well as a Korean flagged refuelling tanker; and
(b) calls on the Government to take urgent action to address the escalating situation, including sending a monitoring vessel to observe the whale hunt.
That the Senate—
(a) calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to take appropriate action under relevant Commonwealth legislation to address the health risks posed by flying foxes, including a program to educate the public about these risks; and
(b) extends its condolences to the family of the young boy in Queensland who recently died of lyssavirus.
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 May 2013:
The development and operation of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) in regard to the recently released revenue figures showing a massive shortfall in the revenue compared to government projections, in particular:
(a) the design of the MRRT and the extent to which the design of the tax as opposed to other factors such as commodity prices are responsible for the mismatch between actual revenue and revenue projections;
(b) the process by which the MRRT was designed, including the extent of the involvement of the Department of the Treasury and mining corporations who would be paying the tax;
(c) the extent to which, if at all, the Government took into account the views of communities affected or potentially affected by iron ore and coal mining when designing the tax;
(d) implications for the budget;
(e) any other related matter.
Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to protect minors by introducing offences about misrepresentation of age to minors online. Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I wish there wasn't a reason for this bill to exist.
But, tragically, there is. Her name is Carly.
When Carly was fourteen, she started chatting online to a 20 year old man named Brandon Kane. He was her ideal boyfriend, and she fell in love with him as their online relationship grew closer.
But what Carly didn't know, what she couldn't have known, was that 'Brandon' was actually a 47 year old predator, Gary Francis Newman, who had over 200 fake identities.
When Carly turned 15, she invited Brandon to her birthday party. He told her he would be overseas and that he couldn't make it, so his adopted father Shane would go in his place. Carly had already been chatting to Shane online, and she convinced her mother that it would be okay for him to come along to her party.
Newman, in his role as Shane, turned up. Carly's mother, horrified that her daughter had become close to a stranger so much older than she was, warned him to stay away from her daughter.
But Newman convinced Carly she would get to meet her beloved Brandon in person. He eventually lured her into a meeting, on 19 February 2007 at Horseshoe Bay in South Australia. There, he brutally assaulted her and left her to die.
It took police eleven days to track Newman down. When they found him, he was logged on to his computer as Brandon Kane, chatting to a fourteen year old girl in Western Australia. Police also found a stash of child pornography on his computer, and discovered he had already pursued many other young girls overseas.
Newman was found guilty of Carly's murder, and is now serving a life sentence, with 29 years non-parole.
The aim of this bill is to make it an offence for a person over 18 years of age to lie about their age in online communications to a person under 18 for the purposes of facilitating a physical meeting.
This bill also makes it an offence for an adult to misrepresent their age in online communications with a minor with the intent of committing another offence.
These two items close an important loophole in the law. There is no reason for an adult to knowingly misrepresent their age to someone they believe is under eighteen, particularly if they believe doing so will make it easier to meet or commit another offence.
The bill also contains specific provisions to clarify how this offence can be prosecuted and defended.
I previously attempted to address this serious issue in 2010 with the earlier version of this bill. I acknowledge the concerns raised in relation to that bill, and I have modified this version to ensure there are no unintended consequences of enforcing this law. Instead, this bill creates offences specifically aimed at the circumstances—an adult lying to a minor about their age to facilitate a meeting or to make themselves seem 'more approachable'—that need to be addressed.
The internet is impossible to pin down, constantly evolving and growing. The pace of technological growth means children are almost always much more comfortable with online communication than their parents: what we still see as new and different is as essential to them as breathing.
New forms of communication mean we need new laws to protect our children. In cyberspace, we can't stand by their side as they explore the world. We can't always set rules and curfews, because our kids can be sitting safe in their rooms even while they're in danger.
This bill is an attempt to address some of the techniques used by online predators, so that we can put an additional safeguard in place for our children.
Sonya Ryan, Carly's mother, has been pushing for these changes in the law since her daughter's death. Sonya, who was nominated as South Australia's Australian of the Year this year, has dedicated her life to raising awareness of online dangers among young people.
If her actions stop just one young person from becoming a victim, then it's worth it.
And that is something we should take to heart when considering this bill.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Gillard Government's relentless negativity and failure to develop real solutions for all Australians.
… abattoirs would have to pay $575,000 for a single beast. So it is costing you vastly more than a $100 roast, that one.
Abattoirs emit methane, one of the most harmful of the greenhouse gases, from biological waste. Where they emit more than 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gases a year they will be liable for the carbon price.
'Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;
'You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack.'
'Not so! not so!' kettle said to the pot;
'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean—without blemish or blot—
That your blackness is mirrored in me.'
… one mustn't criticise other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012
(1) The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, recognises that the continent and the islands now known as Australia were first occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
(2) The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges the continuing relationship of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with their traditional lands and waters.
(3) The Parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, acknowledges and respects the continuing cultures, languages and heritage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
I believe that we are equal to this task of completing our Constitution rather than changing it.
… our challenge is to do now in these times what should have been done 200 or 100 years ago to acknowledge Aboriginal people in our country's foundation document. In short, we need to atone for the omissions and for the hardness of heart of our forebears to enable us all to embrace the future as a united people.
It will … be a challenge to find a form of recognition which satisfies reasonable people as being fair to all. It will not necessarily be straightforward to acknowledge the First Australians without creating new categories of discrimination, which we must avoid because no Australians should feel like strangers in their own country.
The next parliament will, I trust, finish the work that this one has begun.
Because a time has come, well and truly come, for all peoples of our great country, for all citizens of our great Commonwealth, for all Australians—those who are Indigenous and those who are not—to come together to reconcile and together build a new future for our nation.
That’s why I’ve tried to spend serious time in Aboriginal communities rather than rely on flying visits.
It’s why I’ve tried to be useful in remote communities as a teacher’s aide and builder’s assistant rather than just a glorified tourist from Canberra.
This won't stop should the Coalition win the election.
The Parliament is committed to building the national consensus needed for the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution.
I was blessed to be raised in a family that is a model for the kind of nation I want Australia to be. A family where race isn't a divide, but an enricher ... that is proud of the many strands of its heritage, and particularly of our Indigenous heritage ... that integrates the best of all of our traditions and cultures, and which has nurtured me to play a part in bringing about this big moment in the life of our nation.
In the Cootamundra Town Hall, where once my great grandmother was barred from being able to vote, a stained glass window now hangs. It's a picture story. In it, she is telling bedtime stories to her grandchildren in the language of their ancestors. The town that once excluded this amazing Aboriginal woman has now immortalised her remarkable story. At long last, it has recognised her, and regards her story as a source of pride. It's time our Constitution did too.
That the Senate take note of the document.
After … 20 years' experience working in unions and as an industrial relations consultant, I feel well placed to make observations about the union movement.
Being employed in the union movement isn’t like working in a company. It can be a bit like working for a cult. All unions are different, but union officials … see themselves as soldiers in the war of labour versus capital, and to fight a war you need resources. In this environment, the group think is this: anything improper can be justified as proper when it is for "the good". Union troops know that breaking the law is sometimes required because when a law is "unjust" you have a "duty" to ignore it. Civil disobedience is okay if the end justifies the means.
In the 1990s, the aura around Bruce Wilson of the Australian Workers Union was such that he was touted as a future prime minister.
Our Prime Minister made a decision to begin a relationship with him. Partners of law firms don't recommend having relationships with people who work in their clients' businesses. It is not considered appropriate to put yourself in a potentially compromising position. The worst can happen, and for our Prime Minister it did. Now we find ourselves in the position we are in today.
Over the past 11 years, I have been called upon to investigate many people for workplace misconduct. The hardest people to investigate are high-achieving, high-profile women executives. Their starting position is always a haughty refusal to answer questions or participate in investigations they consider beneath them.
Next they attempt to retain control by trying to impose their conditions and time frames on the investigation. (Time expired)
That the Senate take note of the document.
As the two month trip progressed my waist line expanded and I did not fancy any fancy food. I started to realise something was seriously wrong and felt trapped on the other side of the world. In desperation we finally found a doctor to see me in York Hospital casualty. He said I was not sick and to go back to the pharmacy. By this stage I was carrying over 9 litres of fluid …
On flying into Melbourne, our daughter drove us straight to the Austin Hospital where after getting past the triage nurse—who also thought I was not sick—I was diagnosed by 5am after scans. The staff were sensitive to our world falling apart. The next two days involved breaking the terrible news to our children and family. Devastating.
By Monday, we met with my gynaecological oncologist at the Mercy hospital for women. I just kept saying ‘I want to live’.
I thought that the pain was caused by some injury I had sustained when attending to patients at work and it would soon pass. I thought that the tiredness was from shift work and that the other symptoms were related to diet, not drinking enough fluids, and that the bloating was caused by the yeast in bread.
The symptoms persisted and eventually I saw a GP. She ordered an upper abdominal ultrasound, which was normal. She gave me some literature to explain her diagnosis - irritable bowel syndrome.
I knew that I did not have irritable bowel syndrome and consulted another GP for a second opinion. He did arrange for the simple blood test for the ovarian cancer tumour marker, CA 125.
I never thought for one minute that I would be one of the 1200 Australian women that would present with advanced ovarian cancer (stage 3C) each year. I want to tell my story to other women. I want them to listen to what their body is telling them and to report to their doctor if they notice any of the symptoms associated with ovarian cancer. I want them to seek a second opinion if they instinctively feel that something isn't quite right.
… the Liberal Party rated eight out of ten, compared with the Nationals six out of ten, while the ALP had three ticks compared with the Greens four on the WA Farmers' 10-point wish list.
Every migrant's experience is different and every migrant brings with them their own different experience and culture. Our culture plus other cultures can only make an even better culture and this is important and this should never be forgotten.
Be moderate in order to taste the joys of life in abundance.
The truth is business regulation is now right out of control. The quantity and complexity of business regulation today is eating away at the entrepreneurial spirit of Australian business.
… "white bread politicians" who not only speak in sound bites but think in them too.
I'm even stunned having been in it for 27 years and a member of the party, the extent to which a group of people simply played the game according to their own rules for their own purposes without regard for the wider party.
… I think it had more to do with not whether you could be saved, but who was to be looked after.
That's why I joined the AWU. That's why I joined the Labor Party, it's also why I proudly serve in the Gillard Government.
… thank you for your selfless efforts in searching for and recovering the bodies of the five German victims of the tragic air crash of 23 Oct 2000 … Your task as a diver, which required special experience, was particularly dangerous and you even risked your life in this operation. You have our heartfelt gratitude and appreciation.
… care and concern for others is the highest of human qualities. It distinguishes us from the animals and deserves to be paid more attention and to be more exercised.
Before that, I had assumed that life outside the church, away from the comforts and discipline of religion, was the slippery path to perdition … I thought the only real joy in life was in the church but I found out differently at the hospital. Those men were good and religion had nothing to do with it.
I am a humanist. I don't believe in any higher power than the best expressions of the human spirit, and those are to be found in personal and social relationships. Evaluating my own life in those terms, I've had some mixed results. I've hurt some people and disappointed others but I hope that, on balance, I've given more than I've taken. I believe that my view of what 'a redeemed social condition' is has been consistent—equity between people—and I've tried always to work to that end.
The total costs imposed by the Israeli occupation on the Palestinian economy which we have been able to measure was USD 6.897 billion in 2010, a staggering 84.9% of the total estimated Palestinian GDP. In other words, had the Palestinians not been subject to the Israeli occupation, their economy would have been almost double in size than it is today.
61per cent of same sex attracted young people reported verbal abuse because of homophobia/transphobia;
Twice the number of young people who suffered verbal abuse, had attempted suicide, compared to those who reported no abuse;
4.5 times the number of young people who had been physically assaulted, had attempted suicide, compared to those who reported no abuse …
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so: (a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information; (b) how many of these forms are: (i) paper-based, (ii) electronic based; and (iii) both; (c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and (d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010: (a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and (b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
Given the very broad nature of the question and the diverse range of information collected by Australian Government agencies, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
In regard to each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so: (a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information; (b) how many of these forms are: (i) paper-based, (ii) electronic-based; and (iii) both; (c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and (d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010: (a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and (b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
Please refer to the answer provided to Senate Question on Notice 2234.
In regard to each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Ministers portfolio:
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so: (a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information; (b) how many of these forms are: (i) paper-based, (ii) electronic-based; and (iii) both; (c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and (d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010: (a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and (b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
Please refer to the answer provided to Senate Question on Notice 2234.
In regard to each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under theCommonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so:
(a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information;
(b) how many of these forms are:
(i) paper-based,
(ii) electronic‑based; and
(iii) both;
(c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and
(d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010:
(a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and
(b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
(1) The Annual Reports of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, the Repatriation Commission and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission set out the extensive consultation arrangements that are in place in relation to those to whom the Department provides benefits and the service providers who provide services to the Department's clients.
It is not possible to give a detailed answer given the very broad nature of the question and the diverse range of information collected by the Department. Attempting to answer this question in detail would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) Not Applicable. Neither the Department of Veterans' Affairs nor the Australian War Memorial is a regulatory agency.
In regard to each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under theCommonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so: (a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information; (b) how many of these forms are: (i) paper-based, (ii) electronic based; and (iii) both; (c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and (d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010: (a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and (b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
Please refer to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation's response to Question No. 2247.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio: For each of the following items: (a) licences; (b) registrations; (c) fee for services; and (d) permits (and all other permission structures):
(1) How many are administered to the non-government sector?
(2) What are the associated fees with each item, and which sectors of the community are required to hold each?
(3) How often does each item require renewal?
(4) What fees have been paid for each item for the following financial years (or since the item was introduced since 2007-08): (a) 2007-08; (b) 2008-09; (c) 2009-10; (d) 2010-11; (e) 2011-12; and (f) 2012-13?
(5) How much total revenue is collected annually from each of the listed items?
(1) to (5) The Department holds various licences, such as, software licences, licences to run bars in messes and licences to operate a cafeteria on a base. Registrations and permits are generally issued by State or Territory bodies.
Due to the broad nature of the question, Defence is unable to provide a response in relation to this question. To develop a response would require an unreasonable amount of departmental resources.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under theCommonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio:
For each of the following items: (a) licences; (b) registrations; (c) fee for services; and (d) permits (and all other permission structures):
(1) How many are administered to the non-government sector.
(2) What are the associated fees with each item, and which sectors of the community are required to hold each.
(3) How often does each item require renewal.
(4) What fees have been paid for each item for the following financial years (or since the item was introduced since 2007-08): (a) 2007-08; (b) 2008-09; (c) 2009-10; (d) 2010-11; (e) 2011-12; and (f) 2012-13.
(5) How much total revenue is collected annually from each of the listed items.
(1)
(2) and (3) The associated fees and renewal details for these items can be found in the relevant legislative instrument.
(4) and (5) This information is contained in the respective Annual Reports.
With reference to the major project Joint Command Support Environment JP 2030 Phase 8, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project High Frequency Modernisation JP 2043, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Amphibious Watercraft Replacement JP 2048 Phase 3, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment JP 2048 Phase 4 A/B, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Bulk Liquid Distribution JP 2059, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Geospatial Information Infrastructure and Services JP 2064 Phase 2, can the following details be provided:
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Lightweight Torpedo Replacement Phase 3 JP 2070, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Lightweight Torpedo Replacement Phase 2 JP 2070, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Battlespace Communications Systems (LAND) JP 2072, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Logistics for the Warfighter JP 2077, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project ADF Deployable Logistics Systems JP 2077 Phase 2B.2, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Mulwala Redevelopment Project JP 2086, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Air Defence Target System JP 66 Phase 1, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Establishment of Tactical Assault Group (East) JP 2088 Phase 1, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan: (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to Collins Class submarine sustainment costs, which have doubled over the past few years, can copies of the following files be provided:
(a) RMS12/04985-01 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Sustainment of Collins Class Submarines;
(b) RMS12/04985-02 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Sustainment of Collins Class Submarines;
(c) RMS12/04985-03 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Sustainment of Collins Class Submarines;
(d) RMS12/00370-01 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Submarine Maintenance;
(e) RMS12/00370-02 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Submarine Maintenance;
(f) RMS12/00370-03 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Advice - ASC Pty Ltd - Submarine Maintenance;
(g) RMS12/00441 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Reporting - ASC Pty Ltd - Deep Blue Tech Pty Ltd; and 100 No. 126—27 November 2012
(h) RMS12/01173 OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESSES - Liaison - Government - Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) Steering Committee.
Questions regarding the cost of Collins sustainment should be referred to the Department of Defence.
It is not appropriate to provide copies of the listed files as to do so would require significant resources to examine all the documents and to make an assessment as to whether the release of the documents would be in the public interest.
What is the current book value of the Australian Submarine Corporation Government Business Enterprise.
ASC's net asset value as per the ASC Pty Ltd 2011-12 Annual Report was $230m.
With reference to the statements made by Ms Stacie Hall during the 2012-13 Budget Supplementary estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (Committee Hansard, 16 October 2012, proof p. 107) relating to General Business Enterprise dividend policy, and the answer provided to question no. 69, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the committee, in which the department failed to provide dividend targets for each financial year:
(1) Can the agreed dividend values for the 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11 financial years be provided.
(2) Can the dividend value targets and actual dividend values for the 2011-12 financial year be provided.
(3) Can the agreed dividend value targets for the 2012-13 be provided.
The ASC Board recommends dividend payments having regard to its optimal capital structure. The Government takes into account the Board's recommendation in considering whether to accept dividend payments and Government does not release the Board's advice to the public. The actual cash dividends paid by ASC can be found in the table below.
Annual ordinary dividend targets are generally a percentage of profit after tax, consistent with the Commonwealth Government Business Enterprise Governance and Oversight Guidelines 2011 , and will vary in absolute terms depending on actual versus forecast results. Dividend targets for 2012-13 have not yet been agreed.
With reference to the statement made by Mr Stephen Ludlam during the 2012-13 Budget Supplementary estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, (Committee Hansard, 16 October 2012, proof p. 106), that 'The aim would be to target a two-year full cycle docking and we are progressively generating ideas to work to that target': What impact would a two-year cycle have in respect to the: (a) resources used to complete full cycle docking; and (b) cost of full cycle docking.
The aim of reducing the full cycle docking (FCD) schedule duration to a two year period is a target ASC has started to work towards. It is anticipated that moving to a single stream FCD cycle will drive efficiencies, however given that ASC is in the early stages of the replanning process, it is not possible at this time to quantify the effects on either the resources used or the associated costs.
On what date was HMAS Collins delivered to the Australian Submarine Corporation's Osborne site for full scale docking.
HMAS Collins was transferred to the ASC Osborne facility on 3 August 2012.
For the period 2007 to 2012, what work orders or approvals have been given to the Australian Submarine Corporation by the Defence Materiel Organisation with respect to work on HMAS Collins , including approximate dates, work scope and value.
ASC advises that from 2007 to 2012, approximately 7,500 work orders were tasked to complete by DMO with an estimated value in the order of $81.9 million.
Providing details of each specific work order would place an excessive resource burden on ASC.
With reference to media coverage of union-related issues at the Australian Submarine Corporation, how much: (a) submarine sustainment time; and (b) air warfare destroyer build time, was lost due to union-related strikes or go-slows in the 2011-12 financial year.
No protected action occurred in the 2011-12 financial year.
Can copies be provided of any policies or contractual terms the Australian Submarine Corporation (ASC) has with respect to ensuring that consultants engaged by the ASC Group of Companies, who make representations to government officials regarding submarines or warship procurement/sustainment, incidental or otherwise, are registered on the Commonwealth Register of Lobbyists.
Pursuant to the Lobbying Code of Conduct (LCC), it is the responsibility of the individual or company providing the service to ensure they meet the requirements to register and comply.
ASC advises that is has no policies or contractual terms over and above the LCC requirements.
What plans does the Australian Submarine Corporation have in place to ensure it has the capacity to continue to sustain Collins Class submarines while, at the same time, potentially building Australia's future submarine.
Noting that a Government decision on the extent and timing of future submarines has not yet been finalised, some preparatory activities related to possible future submarine work have been undertaken. For example, Deep Blue Tech (DBT) - a wholly owned subsidiary of ASC - was established in 2007 to conduct research and develop concepts for Australia's SEA 1000 Future Submarine project.
With reference to the statement made by Mr Stephen Ludlam during the 2012-13 Budget Supplementary estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (Committee Hansard, 16 October 2012, proof p. 109), that 'Generally speaking, before we enter into a contract we will forecast that through to the end':
(1) What was the forecast air warfare destroyer profit at contract signature.
(2) What is the current forecast air warfare destroyer profit.
ASC advises that it is not in a position to disclose this information in relation to forecast and to actual profits as it could prejudice ASC's and the Commonwealth's commercial interests with respect to its participation in the AWD Alliance.
With reference to the statement made by Mr Stephen Ludlam during the 2012-13 Budget Supplementary estimates hearing of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (Committee Hansard, 16 October 2012, proof p. 112), in relation to announced air warfare destroyer delays, that 'We have been able to provide a zero sum cost in that schedule extension': How has the cost of employment been offset, noting that the core of the air warfare destroyer would likely need to be retained for the period of the delay.
The costs of the workforce that is required to be retained for longer will be offset by a reduction in risk and liquidated damages provisions already included in the AWD Project profit.
(1) Is the Attorney-General aware of allegations made in October 2012 media coverage relating to an undeclared conflict of interest by the former Western Australian State Manager for the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT), which would be a contravention of state NNTT policy.
(2) Can copies be provided of the NNTT policy provisions relating to conflict of interest declarations by staff in place prior to October 2012.
(3) If the former State Manager was responsible for oversight of any NNTT issues relating to Yindjibarndi matters while in her position, does the Attorney-General consider the former State Manager in breach of any conflict of interest provisions, given that she is reported to have been serving as an MGA Consulting director, her husband was engaged by the Wirlu-murra Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation and her daughter was employed by Fortescue Metals Group (FMG); if so, can the Attorney-General detail the nature of this oversight; if not, why not.
(4) Has the Attorney-General or NNTT conducted any investigations into claims by solicitor Mr Kerry Savas that the former State Manager's partner, former FMG anthropologist Mr Michael Gallagher, was in regular consultation with the former State Manager in relation to current Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation and FMG related native title issues; if so, what are the results of these investigations; if not, why not.
(5) Is the Attorney-General aware of any other NNTT employees who may have similar conflicts of interest in the exercise of their duties as a result of similar connections to mining companies operating in Western Australia.
(6) Is any of this information currently available to the public; if not, why not and will the Attorney-General take steps to ensure that such information is made available to the public; if not, why not.
(7) To the Attorney-General's knowledge, have all such conflicts of interest been properly declared by relevant persons in accordance with current NNTT policy.
(8) Has the Attorney-General or NNTT conducted any investigations, sent any directives to NNTT staff or taken any other measures since October 2012 to ensure that all NNTT employees comply with the relevant NNTT provisions on conflict of interest; if so, can copies of the results of such investigations or staff directives be provided; if not, why not.
(9) With reference to comments made by the former State Manager in April 2012 when The Australian reportedly asked if she had declared her relationship with Mr Gallagher, to which she stated that the NNTT President, Mr Graeme Neate, had knowledge of the relationship, has the Attorney General sought clarification on this matter from the NNTT President; if not, why not.
(10) Has the Attorney-General received any communications from the NNTT President on this matter; if so, can copies or a description of the substance of any such communications be provided; if not, why not.
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes. Five relevant policies are attached ( available from the Senate Table Office ), which were in place before October 2012:
(3) The former State Manager did not directly oversee any NNTT issues relating to Yindjibarndi matters in her role as WA State Manager. The former State Manager was responsible for managing the human, financial, information and administrative resources of the NNTT's WA registry. She had certain delegated functions and powers under the Native Title Act 1993 including to notify parties, States and Territories and Native Title Representative Bodies of native title applications (ss 66 and 66A) and to give assistance to applicants, respondents and others (s 78). In practice, these functions were usually exercised by other WA delegates, in particular regional and case managers. The former State Manager also exercised certain statutorily delegated functions under thePublic Service Act 1999 and theFinancial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and related regulations. The WA State Manager role (which has not existed since June 2012 following an organisational restructure) did not involve having direct responsibility for the management or administration of any native title matter or matters. Particular future act matters, including those relating to Yindjibarndi Aboriginal Corporation, are managed and heard by independent members of the NNTT appointed under s 111 of theNative Title Act 1993 . Native title claims were mediated by independent members of the NNTT assisted by NNTT case managers.
(4) The Attorney-General has not conducted an investigation into the allegations.
The position of WA State Manager was declared redundant in June 2012, and Ms Lillian Maher left in the NNTT in August 2012. During her employment, Ms Maher was bound by the Australian Public Service (APS) Code of Conduct in 13(7) of the Public Service Act 1999. As Ms Maher has now left the employment of the APS, a code of conduct investigation cannot lawfully be pursued by the NNTT agency head under s 15 of thePublic Service Act 1999 . The NNTT has engaged a consultant (pursuant to the NNTT Registrar's powers to engage consultants under s 132 of theNative Title Act 1993 ) to review the allegations and the NNTT's procedures and processes for identifying, declaring and managing conflicts of interest. It is anticipated that this review will be completed in February 2013.
(5) No. The NNTT Registrar published an intranet direction on 13 December 2012 (attached) to all employees requesting they complete a Declaration of Interests template. The Attorney-General wrote to the NNTT President in January 2013 (attached) requesting confirmation of full compliance with this request before March 2013.
(6) No. Conflict of interest declaration forms are completed by each employee and kept on file by the NNTT Registrar. They are not publically available as they contain personal information as defined by s 6 of the Privacy Act 1988 . Personal information may only be disclosed in the specific circumstances listed in in Regulation 9.2 of thePublic Service Regulations 1999 or s 14 of thePrivacy Act 1988 (Information Privacy Principle 11). This includes situations in which the individuals are aware that their information is usually passed on or have consented to its disclosure, or disclosure is necessary to avoid threats to life or health, required or authorised under law or reasonably necessary for the enforcement of the criminal law.
(7) See answer to (5) above.
(8) Yes. In addition to the review outlined in (4), and the intranet direction outlined in (5), the NNTT to date has taken the following measures to ensure compliance with relevant conflict of interest policies:
(9) Yes. The Attorney-General's Department sought clarification from the NNTT President who stated that he was aware of Ms Maher's relationship with Mr Gallagher but was not aware of her role in MGA Consulting.
(10) No. While the Attorney-General's Department sought clarification from the NNTT President as outlined at (9), the Attorney-General has not received any formal correspondence from the NNTT President. The Attorney-General wrote to the NNTT President in January 2013 (attached), and will publish this letter on the Attorney-General's Department website at www.ag.gov.au.
(1) What fees were provided by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to Mr Peter McFarlane of McFarlane Strategic Services to consult with industry on the establishment of a herb and spice levy.
(2) Can the Minister confirm that the total number of votes received in favour of a herb and spice levy was sixteen.
(3) Why did the departmental Chief Plant Protection Officer make statements to Fairfax newspapers on 5 September 2012 stating that no tomato/potato psyllid had been detected in Australia given that, according to the department's Operational Science Program Bulletin published in May 2012, a live psyllid had been detected in New South Wales in a consignment of tomatoes from New Zealand.
(4) What proportion of total departmental biosecurity resources at Australian airports are allocated to flights arriving from New Zealand.
(5) Given that on 12 July 2012, a live psyllid was found in a consignment of tomatoes from New Zealand at the Crewe Place Australian Quarantine and Inspective Service (AQIS) facility in New South Wales, can AQIS advise when the Chief Plant Protection Officer became aware of this incursion.
(6) What is AQIS' involvement in working with customs, Treasury, health, transport and other portfolios in rolling out the Government's new duty-free tobacco restrictions, including how many inter-departmental meetings have been attended, and how many work hours have been spent enforcing this new regulation.
(7) Given that, since 2006 AQIS has required tobacco companies to treat tobacco and non-tobacco materials under quarantine rules, thereby restricting industry's recycling of packaging waste in Australia while, at Australian international airports, bins have been installed to collect excess contraband and airports take excess product 'to the tip' on a daily basis, can the Minister advise how seized tobacco is managed after it is 'taken to the tip', including how it is rendered 'un-smokable' to ensure the product does not find its way into Australia's black market, equivalent to 12 per cent of the legal market.
(8) How many full-time equivalent staffing positions will be reduced within border compliance-connected departments that deliver policy support related to customs, policing, passenger facilitation and quarantine services due to the efficiency dividend implemented during the 2012-13 financial year, including how many of these positions will be at Australian air and sea ports, and can a breakdown per international entry point and agency that will be providing fewer frontline officers be provided.
(9) What proportion of the total amount of confiscated material seized or voluntarily declared at Australian airports originates from passengers on flights arriving from New Zealand.
(1) Mr Peter McFarlane of McFarlane Strategic Services was the Principal Investigator for the National Culinary Herb and Spice Industry Levy Consultation project.
During the consultation process some 1000 copies of the levy proposal booklet were printed and distributed to industry participants, including direct mail plus email copies to over 500 stakeholders, with supplementary distribution through regional industry associations, wholesale markets, state agriculture departments, and other industry networks.
A total of 21 regional meetings were convened during October and November 2010. Some 95 stakeholders made direct input on the levy proposal, including 75 verbal depositions at seminars and farm visits, plus 20 email / post submissions were received.
Mr McFarlane received $24 700 in payment for his role as Principal Investigator and
$11 200 in travel and accommodation expenses during the project.
(2) The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry received advice on 10 May 2011 from the Australian Herb and Spice Industry Association of a Declaration of Result for the herb and spice levy ballot issued on 5 May 2011 by the Australian Electoral Commission. The result was that, from the 34 ballot papers returned for scrutiny, there were:
(3) The statement attributed to the Chief Plant Protection Officer that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on 5 September 2012 was a partial extract. The full statement was that " Since 2010, 13 000 tonnes of New Zealand tomatoes and capsicums, also susceptible to the disease, have been imported under strict biosecurity rules with no detection of the psyllid or the bacteria in the Australian environment. "
This was also stated in DAFF's media release of 17 August 2012 (http://www.daff.gov.au/about/media-centre/dept-releases/2012/zebra-chip).
The detection of a psyllid in a consignment under quarantine supervision does not constitute an "incursion in the Australian environment".
(4) The allocation of biosecurity resources is not allocated against flight origin.
(5) The Senator's question implies that there has been a psyllid incursion in the Australian environment. There has not been a detection or an incursion of the tomato potato psyllid in the Australian environment.
(6) DAFF was not involved in discussions relating to the recent changes in the duty-free tobacco concession. DAFF officers do not enforce this new regulation. DAFF officers will refer tobacco products to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service if such products are detected during the course of a biosecurity inspection.
(7) This question is best put to the Minister for Home Affairs who manages the disposal of tobacco products seized at the border.
(8) There are no Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry staff who deliver policy support functions at airports and mail centres. With respect to operational staff, there has been no reduction in the number of operational staff as a result of the 2012-13 efficiency dividends.
Questions about the impact of the efficiency dividend on the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; the Australian Federal Police and the Department and Immigration and Citizenship should be put to either the Minister for Home Affairs or the minister for Immigration and Citizenship.
(9) For the period 1 December 2011 to 30 November 2012, 6.5 per cent of seizure lines within the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry's Mail and Passenger System (MAPS) were recorded as being seized from or surrendered by passengers arriving on flights from New Zealand.
With reference to the announcement made by the Treasurer prior to the 2012‑13 Budget, that relief would be granted to businesses struggling in the 'two‑speed economy' by implementing a Tax Loss Carry Back initiative, how many tourism‑connected businesses have benefited from this measure.
Company loss carry-back will first apply to losses incurred in the 2012-13 income year.
Data is not yet available in respect of those that have benefited as the tax returns have not been lodged. The returns will be lodged progressively from 1 July 2013.
However, Treasury estimates that 110,000 businesses are expected to benefit from the loss carry-back measure in the first 4 years of its operation.
Treasury also estimates that around one in nine accommodation, cafe and restaurant businesses and one in eight cultural and recreation service businesses will benefit from the loss carry-back measure in the first 4 years of its operation.
(1) Given that the Department of Resources, Energy an d Tourism asserts there is a 36, 000 employee shortfall in the tourism sector and that labour force vacancies will rise: (a) what work has been undertaken to address this by the Minister and the Minister ' s department, and has it been successful; and (b) how many individuals are involved in the Seasonal Worker Program, what paperwork is an operator required to complete in order to participate in the scheme, and can copies of this paperwork be provided.
(2) With reference to the funding secured to expedite research on tourism employment ' hotspots ' over the next 12 months: (a) how much has been allocated for this project; (b) what work does this involve; and (c) what key performance indicators have been set for this project. (3) Given that matched funding has been promised for consequent training in the National Workforce Development Fund (NWDF), how much has been allocated and what timeframe is set for the roll out of the NWDF.
(4) Can a report be provided on the development of the careers promotion campaign, building on the Discover Tourism and Discover Hospitality websites.
(5) Does the Seasonal Worker Program underway apply to all types of tourism connected businesses, such as restaurants, or does it only apply to accommodation providers, and how many businesses are currently participating.
(6) Can an update be provided on the labour agreement for temporary skilled migrants for tourism and hospitality.
(7) (a) Has the trial of an $18 million over 4 years Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme for workers from the Pacific and East Timor in select industries been a success; (b) against what key performance indicators was this trial assessed; (c) how many participants are included in the trial and in any subsequent roll out; and (d) what obligations are placed on employers wishing to participate, including paperwork and administrative obligations.
(1) (a) The employee shortfall in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry is driven by a complex mix of factors, including fluctuating demand (due to seasonal change and economic conditions), high job turnover, low retention and casualisation of the workforce.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) provides assistance to employers to meet their labour needs via Job Services Australia and the Seasonal Worker Program. On top of this, DEEWR has a range of labour market strategies focused on better connecting job seekers with jobs in specific industries and/or regions. One example of this related to the tourism industry is DEEWR funding the Australian Hotels Association and Restaurant and Catering Australia to act as Employer Brokers, working in association with Job Services Australia and large employers in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry to address labour shortfalls through recruitment of jobseekers.
While the Employer Broker program has now ended, success is evident in improved engagement between large hotel chains and Job Services Australia providers in facilitating recuitment for entry level jobs. Facilitating recruitment for highly-skilled and challenging occupations such as chefs is more difficult. The Department is currently working with the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism and industry representatives to support more effective workforce strategies for cooks and chefs. The Department's focus is on facilitating effective recruitment and career development strategies for both employers and jobseekers.
(b) Under the Seasonal Worker Program, up to 12,000 places are available to Australian employers. There are 10,450 places available for the Australian horticulture sector over a four year period and 1,550 places for a trial of seasonal labour mobility arrangements in certain regions with Australia's accommodation, aquaculture, cane and cotton sectors over a three year period.
In order to participate in the Seasonal Worker Program, an interested business must complete:
In addition, approved businesses must complete a recruitment plan and submit to DEEWR for assessment prior to recruiting seasonal workers.
(2) (a) The total budget for the 'hot spot' Tourism Employment Plans is $1.1 million.
(b) The Tourism Employment Plans involve a four stage process of regional consultation, mapping and gapping of existing programs, development of immediate and medium term labour and skills solutions tailored to the needs of the area and development of a sustainable model to carry the Plan forward.
(c) Individual key performance indicators and metrics are developed in consultation with each region as part of the final Tourism Employment Plan.
(3) Through the National Workforce Development Fund the government is providing over $8.3 million and industry is providing $3.7 million for the Workforce Futures project that will support workforce development and training in the sector. This includes $2.4 million in government funding and $2.2 in industry funding for targeted skills development. The project has commenced, and is due to be completed by 30 June 2015.
(4) The key deliverable of the Career Promotional Campaign project is the development of a toolkit that comprises a package of materials that promotes tourism and hospitality career pathways for careers in high demand occupations and regions. The campaign is complementary to existing resources including Discover Tourism and Discover Hospitality. The package of materials is being developed by the National Tourism Alliance and are scheduled to be publicly available in February 2013.
(5) The Seasonal Worker Program is not open to all types of tourism businesses. The three year trial of seasonal labour mobility arrangements is limited to accommodation providers in selected locations (corresponding to the Tourism Employment Plan 'hot spots'), including Broome in Western Australia, Kangaroo Island in South Australia, Tropical North Queensland and the Whitsundays in Queensland, and the Northern Territory. Seasonal workers can be employed as bar attendants, baristas, food and beverage attendants/waiters, café workers, garden labourers, housekeepers, kitchen hands and public area cleaners. Accommodation providers in the selected regions are anticipated to participate in the program from April 2013, when they may experience a seasonal peak in demand for labour.
(6) The Government is considering options for the development of a template Labour Agreement for a range of occupations sought by the tourism and hospitality industry such as highly experienced front-of-house workers, including waiters, concierges and reception staff.The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is the decision maker on all Labour Agreements.
(7) (a) The objective of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme was to test whether a low skilled seasonal labour mobility program could contribute to economic development in participating pacific island countries. The Pilot was demand driven, and available to employers in the Australian horticulture industry unable to find enough local labour to meet seasonal demand. A small scale trial was also conducted in the accommodation sector in Broome with workers from Timor Leste during the final year of the Pilot.
The objectives of the Pilot were successfully tested and the Australian Government announced the introduction of the Seasonal Worker Program from 1 July 2012.
(b) An evaluation report on the development impacts of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme has been completed. The report is available at:
http://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/11-09.html
(c) Of the 2500 visas available under the Pilot, a total of 1633 visas were granted, predominantly in the final year due to alleviation of climatic conditions such as drought, and improvement in the economy after the global financial crisis.
Under the Seasonal Worker Program, up to 12,000 places are available to Australian employers. There are 10,450 places available for the Australian horticulture sector over a four year period and 1,550 places for a trial of seasonal labour mobility arrangements in certain regions with Australia's accommodation, aquaculture, cane and cotton sectors over a three year period. The number of places available each year is scheduled to grow, providing a total of up to: 2, 000 places in 2012/13; 2,500 places in 2013/14; 3,250 places in 2014/15; and 4, 250 places in 2015/16.
(1) With reference to the Office of Transport Security: (a) will the Enhanced Cargo Examination Program continue following the cancellation of Government funding; and (b) from where will the program now receive funding.
(2) With reference to the 2012 report of the Steering Committee overseeing the Joint Study on aviation capacity for the Sydney Region: (a) will the department adopt Recommendation 6 of the report; if so, how will the review be undertaken and what is the timeframe; (b) are there any operational or technical reasons why Recommendation 7 could be rejected in favour of moving regional services outside of the slot management system at Sydney Airport; and (c) will the department adopt Recommendation 8; if so, how will the this review be undertaken and what is the timeframe.
(3) With reference to the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC): (a) what are the comparative maintenance costs attributed to passenger and freight operations on the interstate rail network; and (b) why does the current ARTC access pricing regime fail to reflect this difference.
(1) (a) Yes.
(b) Industry participants will have to plan for and purchase equipment where appropriate to meet enhanced air cargo examination requirements as they are introduced.
(2) Please refer to the response to written Question on Notice No. 60, provided to the Committee as part of the Budget Estimates in May 2012, which addresses these questions.
(3) (a) Maintenance costs on the mixed-use interstate network are generally not related to whether the traffic is freight or passenger. Average axle loads and speeds do not vary substantially between interstate freight and passenger traffic on the interstate network. ARTC is therefore not able to allocate costs with any level of accuracy to the various freight and passenger uses across the different regions of the interstate network.
(b) See answer to part (a). Maintenance costs are an element but there are a range of additional factors that impact pricing and ultimately the ACCC is able to arbitrate on ARTC pricing decisions if agreement with customers is not able to be achieved.
With reference to the illegal trade in wildlife, in and out of Australia:
(1) What is the process for dealing with an introduced wildlife disease that is not officially recognised as infectious in Australia.
(2) Is proventricular dilatation disease officially recognised as infectious; if so, when was it officially recognised as infectious.
(3) Is Customs aware of other potentially infectious diseases that may be introduced to Australia via the illegal trade in wildlife that are not currently officially recognised as infectious; if so: (a) what are the diseases and how are they spread; (b) what threat do they pose to native species; and (c) what is being done to prevent the introduction of these diseases.
(4) What is the process for officially recognising a disease as infectious.
(5) How are quarantine requests on wildlife enforced.
(6) If a disease is not officially recognised as infectious, how are quarantine requests handled.
(7) What is the process when a disease is diagnosed in Australia which is not officially recognised as infectious, but is in other countries.
(8) Does the department track international developments in wildlife diseases, what domestic risk analysis is conducted and what budget is allocated to this work.
(9) How does Customs proactively monitor and investigate wildlife smuggling activities.
(10) What assessment has been undertaken in recent years to estimate the volume of the illegal trade in wildlife.
(11) What has been the budget for wildlife smuggling investigations and activities for each year in the past 10 years, including 2012.
(12) How are the risks of official diseases and potential new diseases factored into the allocation of resources for wildlife smuggling activities and investigations.
(13) What measures are being taken to prevent wildlife smuggling and the introduction of diseases by wildlife smugglers.
(14) In the past 10 years: (a) how many instances of wildlife smuggling has Customs dealt with; (b) how many of these have led to seizures; (c) how many wildlife smugglers have been prosecuted and can the details of these prosecutions be provided; and (d) how many convictions have been made and what were the penalties imposed.
(1) For illegally imported wildlife, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) biosecurity import policy is to euthanize the detained species in quarantine regardless of its disease status.
(2) 'Proventricular Dilatation (Macaw Wasting Disease)' is officially recognized as infectious through listing in Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth) as a quarantinable animal disease. Proventricular Dilatation has been listed since before 2008.
(3) Biosecurity matters are the responsibility of DAFF.
(a) Significant potentially infectious diseases that may be introduced through imported wildlife are listed in Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth).
(b) The threats that exotic infectious diseases pose to Australian wildlife species can only be inferred from the scientific literature and can only be verified in the face of an introduction.
(c) A range of quarantine measures prohibiting the importation of wild animals and their products are enforced at the border.
(4) Schedule 3 of the Quarantine Proclamation 1998 (Cth), which lists quarantinable animal diseases, is regularly reviewed by the responsible policy areas within DAFF.
Diseases become officially recognized through being made 'notifiable' under individual state and territory legislation. A national list of notifiable diseases, agreed to by Animal Health Committee, informs the state and territory listing. Notifiable disease listing considers diseases notifiable to the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) and diseases of concern or potential concern to Australia. State and territory authorities additionally proclaim diseases as notifiable under their legislation that are of specific concern to that state or territory. Infectivity is only one consideration taken into account when assessing whether to make a disease 'notifiable'.
(5) The principal Commonwealth legislation regulating quarantine is the Quarantine Act 1908 .
The Quarantine Act provides measures for, but not limited to:
(i) the examination, exclusion, detention, observation, segregation, isolation, protection, treatment and regulation of vessels, installations, human beings, animals, plants, or other goods or things; or
(ii) the seizure and destruction of animals, plants, or other goods or things; or
(iii) the destruction of premises comprising buildings or other structures when treatment of these premises is not practicable; and
(iv) having as their object the prevention or control of the introduction, establishment or spread of diseases or pests that will or could cause significant damage to human beings, animals, plants, other aspects of environment or economic activities.
States and territories also have their own legislative arrangements and the Commonwealth works with the states where incidences of biosecurity concern are detected beyond the border.
(6) See answer to question 1.
(7) See answers to questions 1 and 3 and 4.
(8) The Australian Wildlife Health Network (AWHN), an initiative of DAFF, provides on-going scanning for international developments in wildlife diseases. Scanning activities result in a weekly report on current hot topics provided to DAFF, and a weekly digest circulated to a subscription mailing list. Selected reports are also shared with the Australian Government Department of Health and Aging (DoHA), and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). These reports can inform domestic and import risk analysis. Scanning is one of a number of core responsibilities of the AWHN. Funding to cover all core activities is provided by the Wildlife and Exotic Disease Preparedness Program (WEDPP), a national partnership program managed by DAFF. In 20011-12 total funding from WEDPP for all AWHN core activities was $201 000 (GST exclusive).
DAFF funds Australia's OIE Wildlife Focal Point, who maintains contact with counterpart Wildlife Focal points in the region through regular workshops and meetings to track developments in wildlife diseases and be alert to potential risk to Australia. The budget for the OIE Wildlife Focal Point is part of the DAFF Wildlife Health sub program budget.
DAFF also provides funds to support FAO regional wildlife programmes and activities under the Partnership on Global Animal Health and Biosecurity initiatives 2011-2013. These wildlife projects seek to improve regional wildlife health capacity and to improve Australia's understanding of the role of wildlife, in emerging infectious diseases and specific disease that pose a risk to trade and public health in Australia and the region. The budget for 2011-13 for the wildlife component of the Partnership is $517 132.
DAFF provides a delegate to the FAO Scientific Task Force on Wildlife and Ecosystem Health which meets annually in the region to discuss international developments in wildlife disease. The budget for the participation in the Task Force is part of the DAFF's Wildlife Health sub program budget.
DAFF conducts biosecurity risk assessments before a particular species is approved for importation. International disease intelligence informing biosecurity risk assessments is gathered from a variety of sources, not limited to scientific publications, government documents and in-country missions. The budget for biosecurity risk assessments covers all species and not just wildlife. Announcements to conduct a biosecurity risk assessment are made on an irregular basis and consequently the resources dedicated to particular species vary.
(9) The Customs and Border Protection Service (CBP) advised that they utilise a number of strategies to address illegal imports and exports of wildlife. These include:
(10) SEWPaC has advised me that while some estimates of the extent of the global illegal trade in wildlife exist, due to its very nature, estimating the volume/value of illegal trade in wildlife is difficult and the veracity of any estimates is difficult to determine. The same would apply to any attempt to estimate the volume of illegal trade of wildlife to/from Australia
(11) SEWPaC has advised me that there is no specific budget for Wildlife Investigations. SEWPaC employs dedicated compliance and enforcement officers and environmental investigators, whose duties include investigations of wildlife smuggling when required.
(12) SEWPaC has advised me to refer to the response to question 11 above.
(13) SEWPaC has advised me that they liaise closely with a number of national and international agencies to share intelligence on wildlife smuggling. Australia is currently the Chair of the Coalition Against Wildlife Trafficking (CAWT), which consists of government and non-government representatives from around the world. CAWT partners seek to address the growing threats to wildlife from poaching and illegal trade, working individually and jointly toward achieving the Coalition's goals. CAWT aims to focus public and political attention and resources on ending the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products.
Also see answers to previous questions.
(14) CBP advises that:
(a) Between January 2002 and October 2012, CBP detected 7378 wildlife specimens.
(b) All of these wildlife detections resulted in seizure.
(c) CBP prosecuted 79 people in the last ten years. These typically resulted from detections of specimens imported or exported through international airports. These included reptiles and birds and their eggs in addition to a number of offences relating to the possession of illegally imported specimens.
(d) Prosecution was successful in 64 cases, resulting in $275 872.70 in penalties, 16 imprisonment sentences ranging from 2 months to 3.5 years and 15 good behaviour bonds and suspended sentences ranging from 2 months to 4 years.
(1) For each year in the past 5 years, can details be provided of how many greyhounds have been exported from Australia and to which countries, including how many to each country and what animal welfare frameworks each country has in place with specific regard to greyhounds.
(2) If the Government does not know these details, why not.
(3) How many greyhounds are exported specifically to mainland China and Macau, detailed separately, and how many of those dogs are being exported for the gambling industry.
(4) Is the Minister aware that: (a) greyhounds exported to Macau are treated in conditions described by Macau's Civic and Municipal Affairs Bureau animal control department as 'terrible', and that every dog imported from Australia was dead within 3 years; (b) these imported animals are kept in cages so small they can barely turn around; (c) from 21 October to 31 December 2009, 302 of the 655 imported racing dogs at the Macau racetrack suffered injuries; (d) more than one healthy greyhound a day is killed at the Macau Canidrome greyhound racetrack; and (e) in 2010, 383 imported dogs, almost exclusively from Australia, were culled at the Macau racetrack.
(5) Is the Minister aware of the international campaign to ban greyhound exports to Macau because of the cruelty and suffering meted out to greyhounds.
(6) Given that new export rules for the live export industry require an independently audited supply chain in the importing country to meet animal welfare standards: (a) what welfare standards are in place for the export of Australian greyhounds, particularly given widely recognised animal welfare issues in the industry; and (b) if there are no welfare standards along the supply chain, why is Australia allowing the export of dogs to destinations known for cruelty.
(7) Given that Greyhounds Australasia is holding a formal review of regulatory backing to ensure greyhounds cannot be exported to countries that do not meet animal welfare standards: (a) how is the Government supporting this review; (b) how is the Government working with Greyhounds Australasia to facilitate regulations to disallow export of greyhounds to countries and industries where cruelty has been recorded or raised; (c) is the Minister aware when the review will be completed; and (d) has the Minister or any Government representative been asked to provide input and/or support for the review, given that it involves Government support for export; if not, has the Government sought to provide input and if not, why not.
(8) Is the Minister aware of the petition sent by an alliance of Chinese animal welfare groups to the Prime Minister (Ms Julia Gillard), calling for a ban on greyhound exports to Macau; if so, has the Minister or Prime Minister provided a response.
(9) Does the Australian Government subsidise or support in any way the greyhound export industry; if so, how.
(1) The department, through the Live Animal Export Program, provides the certification required for a dog to be exported. This activity is regulated under Part 3 of the Export Control (Animals) Order 2004 .
* The department does not have information available prior to 2010 regarding the number of greyhounds exported due to data being collated by species to a country not by breed.
(2) Please refer to the answer to question 1.
(3) Please refer to the answer to question 1.
The department can not specify how many greyhounds are exported for the gambling industry as there is no legislative requirement for information to be provided on the purpose or end use of the export of companion and other animals. (
(4) The Australian Government is aware of allegations by animal welfare groups about mistreatment of greyhounds in Macau. The Australian Government has not been provided with substantiated evidence to support claims of adverse animal welfare outcomes.
(5) The Australian Government is aware of the campaigns.
(6) (a) The Export Supply Chain Assurance System is for the export of feeder and slaughter livestock only and does not apply to the export of companion and other animals.
All dogs exported from Australia are required under the Export Control (Animals) Order 2004 to be inspected by a veterinarian. Each dog must be found to be in good health and fit for travel by the veterinarian before the department will issue an export permit and health certificate.
(b) The Australian Government has not been provided with substantiated evidence to support claims of adverse animal welfare outcomes.
Australia supports the efforts of governments in other countries to improve animal welfare in many ways, including through providing information on animal welfare standards and systems used in Australia.
(7) (a) The Australian Government has provided advice to Greyhounds Australasia when sought.
(b) The Australian Government is aware of the Greyhounds Australasia review.
(c) Yes
(d) The Australian Government has been consulted and will in due course consider the recommendations from Greyhounds Australasia's review.
(8) The Australian Government is aware of a petition that was sent to the Prime Minister in November last year. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was provided a copy and has not yet responded.
(9) No
In the development of the Fair Work Act 2009 , or since, has the Government shared any legal advice that it obtained with any interested parties; if so, for each occasion on which legal advice in relation to the Fair Work legislation has been shared, can details be provided that indicate: (a) who the parties were; (b) the date or dates on which the legal advice was so shared; (c) the reason for sharing such legal advice; and (d) whether the legal advice was shared with any other party, and if not, why not.
To the extent that the Government has shared any of its legal advice, it has done so in confidence and in a manner consistent with the Commonwealth's right to maintain legal professional privilege over such advice.
Identifying those instances where the Government may have shared any of its legal advice , the form or nature of any information shared and the reasons for doing so are unable to be provided as doing so would involve an unreasonable diversion of departmental resources to attempt to answer it.
(1) Did any representatives from AusAID or the Minister's office attend the Global Microcredit Summit in Spain, in November 2011; if so, who attended; if not, why not.
(2) What plans are currently, or have previously been, in place for the Minister or AusAID to engage with the outcomes and learning of the Summit.
(1) AusAID was unable to attend the Global Microcredit Summit as there were a number of competing priorities at that time.
(2) A number of AusAID's microfinance partners, including the Consultative Group to Assist the Poor and Women's World Banking, participated in the Summit as panel members. AusAID engages regularly with these partners to share information and lessons learned on microfinance programs.
In Feb 2012 AusAID hosted a panel discussion to discuss the outcomes of the Summit. Participants included representatives from CARE Australia, Credit Union Foundation of Australia, Opportunity International Australia, RESULTS International Australia and World Education Australia.
(1) With reference to the official development assistance administered to Burma, can the Minister confirm that the total AusAID budget for Burma is $63.8 million, as specified on the agency's website; if not, what is the correct amount.
(2) Given that, according to the AusAID website, the Government provides $52.8 million through the country program and $11 million through regional and global programs, on which projects is this money spent, and what amount goes to each project.
The AusAID budget for Myanmar for 2012-13 was $63.8 million as indicated on the AusAID website, with $52.8 million allocated for the Myanmar country program, and a further $11 million allocated under regional and global programs.
On 17 December 2012 I announced that the Australian Aid budget for 2012-13 would be adjusted to meet other pressing government priorities. The precise impact of that decision on Australian aid funding to Myanmar is currently being discussed with affected partners. The revised country program budget will be publicly available in early 2013.
(1) How much money has AusAID spent on Agent Orange responses in Vietnam in the past 10 years, including land rehabilitation, education and services for Agent Orange affected people?
(2) Can a simple breakdown be provided detailing the partner, amount, sector and province in which this money has been spent?
(3) In the past 10 years, has Agent Orange ever featured in the AusAID health strategy, Asia regional strategy or Vietnam strategy, including related land rehabilitation, education and services for Agent Orange affected people?
(1) The Australian Government has supported two projects relating to Agent Orange in Vietnam. These were both funded during 2005-06. One project received USD7,000 (approximately AUD9,050) and the other project received VND75,000,000 (approximately AUD6,250).*
(2) Details of how this funding was spent are as follows:
Thanh Xuan Peace Village in Hanoi
The Thanh Xuan Peace Village, established in 1991 with support from the International Peace Village Oberhauzen and the German Government, provides rehabilitation for children disabled due to Agent Orange, and has special education and vocational training for the disabled. AusAID provided USD7,000 (approximately AUD9,050) for the purchase of a surgical laser.
Phong Dien Blind Association in Hue
Phong Dien, a rural district of the Hue province, is affected by Agent Orange and unexploded ordnance. Australia provided VND75,000,000 (approximately AUD6,250) for the construction of a new five room building used as accommodation for the blind during their vocational training, and as a storeroom.
(3) No.
*Figures estimated using 2005-06 conversion rates.
With reference to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the Governments of Australia and Papua New Guinea regarding the establishment of an offshore processing centre on Manus Island (available at http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/media-releases/_pdf/20110819-aust-png-mou.pdf):
(1) Can the Minister confirm that none of the costs incurred under the MOU will be considered official development assistance (ODA); if not, which components will be considered ODA‑eligible.
(2) Which, if any, of the costs incurred under the MOU will be considered ODA.
The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) provides guidelines on the appropriate use of aid funds to assist asylum seekers. Australia complies with these guidelines transparently.
The OECD DAC has advised AusAID that some costs relating to the establishment of an offshore processing centre on Manus may be eligible. For example upgrades to public infrastructure on Manus Island, to the extent that they meet the ODA test of having the economic development and welfare of developing countries (in this case PNG) as the main objective. As a result, only those costs which confer a benefit to the population of Manus can be counted as ODA.
Items such as the construction, maintenance and security costs of the offshore processing centres, costs of assessing and processing the status of asylum seekers (including legal costs) and costs for deportation or other involuntary measures to repatriate individuals assessed as not being a refugee are not considered ODA eligible under the OECD DAC definition.
(1) With reference to the independent inquiry conducted by the Pakistan Ministry of National Food Security and Research on 11 October 2012, which questioned the authenticity of the Certificate of Health No. 612‑000891, issued by the Australian veterinary authorities and signed by the authorised Australian veterinary officer 27 days after the ship had left Australia:
(a) how could an Australian veterinarian in Perth sign documents on 1 September 2012, given that the ship and sheep in question left Perth on 4 August 2012;
(b) how did Pakistan obtain overnight Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) approval, given that it takes months for other countries to follow the same process; and
(c) was this documentation rushed in order to obtain the ESCAS approval to land the sheep in Pakistan.
(2) Given that these sheep were then taken to the PK Livestock and Meat Company, jointly owned and operated by Australian exporter the Wellard Group, which is a slaughter house and not a quarantine station, that Pakistan Animal Quarantine Rules (1980) did not authorise the director of the Animal Quarantine Department (AQD) to act as quarantine officer, and that rules established under the Pakistan Animal Quarantine Act (1979) were violated, why has Wellard's export licence not been revoked.
(3) Can the Minister advise exactly how the Memorandum of Understanding or ESCAS are working to protect animals rather than commercial interests and institutionalised corporate cruelty.
(4) With reference to public claims made by Wellard (http://www.pkmeat.com/pdf/PK%20Meat%20Company%20Profile%20(English).pdf), including that '[o]nly animals that pass the health screening test are brought for slaughtering, under strict veterinary supervision' and that 'PK Livestock has become one of the largest exporters of chilled [and frozen] mutton and beef, supplying ... meat across the Gulf region':
(a) what sanctions will be brought against Wellard; and
(b) why would Wellard deny work to its own abattoirs in Australia to have the animals slaughtered overseas after they have been forced to endure suffering.
(5) Can the Minister confirm reports that the sheep that were buried alive were subsequently dug‑up and sold.
(6) Why does the Minister not accept the findings of the independent report by economic consultants ACIL Tasman, including that 1 300 full‑time jobs would be created if livestock were slaughtered in Australia rather than enduring the inhumane treatment they receive offshore.
(7) What further evidence does the Minister require to acknowledge that acceptable standards of animal welfare cannot be enforced after animals are exported from Australia.
(8) With reference to the announcement by the Australian Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), that he will conduct a review into whether the Mark IV restraint box meets World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) guidelines and ESCAS requirements:
(a) can the Minister advise when this review will be completed and whether it involves a direct assessment of cattle being slaughtered using this restraint box; and
(b) given that the CVO has stated that 'proper use of the Mark IV restraint box is consistent with the requirements of the OIE Code', what steps has the Minister taken to ensure that the CVO's statement cannot be exploited as an endorsement of this product.
(1) (a) The Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) issued a Certificate of Health to Accompany Animals or Animal Reproductive Material (Certificate number 612-000891) on 1 September 2012 for 22 000 slaughter sheep consigned to Pakistan.
The Australian health certificate was only issued by DAFF after Australian officials confirmed requirements with the relevant Pakistan authority. On 24 August 2012 the Pakistan Ministry of National Food Security & Research provided a copy of formal animal health import requirements (Pakistan Import Permit F. No. 12-1/76).
On 31 August 2012 DAFF sought confirmation from Pakistan that the Australian health certificate and assurances were acceptable to Pakistan. The Pakistan Ministry of National Food Security & Research replied on 31 August 2012 and confirmed their requirements for the Australian animal health certificate.
The Australian health certificate confirmed the health status of the sheep based on the original inspection of the consignment by Australian veterinarians which was certified on 4 August 2012. This health certificate was issued in accordance with Pakistan requirements.
The shipment was inspected by Pakistan veterinary health officials on arrival in Karachi and was confirmed as meeting Pakistan import requirements.
(b) The exporter's ESCAS application for Pakistan met all regulatory requirements. The exporter had been working with the importer since June 2012 to establish ESCAS compliant processes in the facility with the view to commencing exports to Pakistan.
(c) DAFF fully assessed the ESCAS application submitted by the exporter. Following careful consideration, DAFF made a decision to approve the ESCAS on the basis it was satisfied the ESCAS would ensure the livestock would be transported, handled, slaughtered and subjected to any other related operations in accordance with the relevant OIE recommendations. The exporter's ESCAS application for Pakistan met all regulatory requirements.
(2) It is not appropriate for the Australian Government to comment on the enforcement of Pakistani law.
In regards to potential regulatory actions, DAFF is currently undertaking an investigation of the alleged ESCAS non-compliance. Any regulatory action which may be applied to the exporter, is subject to the outcomes of the investigation. The results of this investigation outlining any regulatory action, proportionate to the confirmed non-compliance, will be published on the DAFF website.
(3) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) of trade in live animals have been negotiated with ten of Australia's trading partners in the Middle East and north Africa since 2004. The MoUs provide for government-to-government assurances on animal welfare and safety for Australian livestock shipments to these countries. While not legally enforceable as these MoUs are less-than-treaty status, they nevertheless encourage importer countries to treat Australian livestock exports to international standards and guidelines. The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) also requires that exports of Australian livestock meet international animal welfare standards and guidelines to the point of slaughter. However, ESCAS is implemented by Australian exporters rather than on a government-to-government basis.
(4) (a) Please see response to question 2 above about potential regulatory actions.
(b) It is not government practice to comment on the commercial matters of licensed livestock exporters.
(5) DAFF has no information to confirm (or otherwise) that culled sheep were subsequently removed from slaughter pits and sold.
(6) The department cannot comment on the Minister's views of the findings of the ACIL Tasman report.
However, in its report An economic analysis of the live exportation of cattle from northern Australia , ACIL Tasman acknowledges that there are significant issues that need to be managed in order to be able to process more cattle from northern Australia. These issues include:
(7) The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System (ESCAS) regulatory reforms which were phased in over the course of 2012 aim to ensure that the treatment of exported livestock meets, or exceeds, international animal welfare standards, and provides a mechanism for DAFF to investigate allegations of animal welfare breaches and to take appropriate regulatory action against exporters.
(8) (a) The review is currently being finalised. It did not involve direct assessment of cattle being slaughtered used the Mark IV restraint box.
(b) The manufacturer of these restraint boxes was asked and has modified his advertisements to remove implied endorsement of this product.
Regardless of the type of restraint box used, exporters must provide evidence that the livestock will be handled in accordance with internationally accepted World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) standards up to and including the point of slaughter. The supply chain must be assessed by an independent and suitably qualified auditor to demonstrate compliance with the animal welfare standards along the supply before animals can enter the supply chain.
For the 2009‑10 and 2010‑11 financial years, detailed separately, what was the total Medicare Benefits amount paid at in‑hospital and out‑of‑hospital rates, and the amount paid in total, for pathology and diagnostic imaging services to: (a) the ten private providers who receive the most revenue for each of the broad types of service, including totals for each provider; (b) public hospital providers, as a total figure; and (c) all other providers, as a total figure.
Medicare Diagnostic Imaging Services
The information on the Medicare benefits paid at in-hospital rates and out‑of‑hospital rates for diagnostic imaging services for 2009-10 and 2010-11 has been provided on the following basis:
The table below provides information on:
(a) the ten private providers who received the most revenue for each of the broad types of service, including totals for each provider for 2009-10;
(b) information on public hospital diagnostic imaging providers as a total figure reflecting diagnostic imaging service provided to private patients in public hospitals; and
(c) information on all other providers as a total figure.
(1) Location Specific Provider Number is a Diagnostic Imaging practice and may comprise individual or multiple practitioners
(2) Benefits paid for Medicare 'fee-for-service' claims (excluding Bulk Bill Incentive payments)
Note: Public hospital LSPN's may provide services to private patients
The table below provides information on;
(a) the ten private providers who received the most revenue for each of the broad types of service, including totals for each provider for 2010-11;
(b) information on public hospital diagnostic imaging providers as a total figure reflecting diagnostic imaging services provided to private patients in public hospitals; and
(c) information on all other providers as a total figure.
(1) Location Specific Provider Number is a Diagnostic Imaging practice and may comprise individual or multiple practitioners
(2) Benefits paid for Medicare 'fee-for-service' claims (excluding Bulk Bill Incentive payments)
Note: Public hospital LSPN's may provide services to private patients
Medicare Pathology Services
The information on the Medicare benefits paid at in-hospital rates and out‑of‑hospital rates for pathology services for 2009-10 and 2010-11 has been provided on the following basis:
The table below provides information on;
(a) the ten private providers who received the most revenue for each of the broad types of service, including totals for each provider for 2009-10;
(b) information on public hospital pathology providers as a total figure; and
(c) information on all other private providers as a total figure.
(1) Approved Pathology Authority is an entity that may comprise multiple practitioners
(2) Benefits paid for Medicare 'fee-for-service' claims (excluding Bulk Bill Incentive payments)
Note: Public hospital APA's may provide services to private patients
The table below provides information on;
(a) the ten private providers who received the most revenue for each of the broad types of service, including totals for each provider for 2010-11;
(b) information on public pathology providers as a total figure; and
(c) information on all other providers as a total figure.
With reference to the funding allocated under the Better Regions Program for the redevelopment of the North Bruny Community Centre:
(1) In the original application put forward by the Kingborough Council for the redevelopment of the centre, what was cited as requiring redevelopment and what were the proposed new additions.
(2) Was the funding provided for the redevelopment of the centre subject to any conditions; if so, what were those conditions.
(3) Were the additions of medical rooms and postal facilities contractual obligations under the original Better Regions Program grant, or was it expected that they would be built using that grant.
(4) Under what conditions can the plans outlined in the original contract be changed, and what approvals are or would be required for changes to these plans.
(5) To what extent could the plans be changed without approval from the department.
(6) What checks and balances are in place to ensure that entities have complied with their contractual obligations under this funding.
(7) Can a detailed breakdown be provided of the costs and expenditures for the redevelopment of the centre.
(1) The application submitted by Kingborough Council requested funding to refurbish current facilities and to extend the Dennes Point Hall to become the North Bruny Community Centre, in order to provide a shop, community dining area, community art gallery, hall and medical health and consulting rooms.
(2) The Better Regions funding provided for this project was not subject to any conditions.
(3) Better Regions funding was allocated toward construction and fitout of both the extension and refurbished sections of the Community Centre.
(4) A request to vary the terms of the Funding Agreement can be made to the Department. The request would need to be be assessed and considered by the appropariate delegate. If approved, a revised Schedule to the Agreement would need to be agreed in writing and signed by both parties.
(5) Under Clause 27.2 of the Funding Agreement between the Commonwealth and Kingborough Council, no variation to the Agreement is binding unless agreed in writing and signed by both parties.
(6) Better Regions Projects were monitored throughout their lifecycle with mandatory progress reporting against agreed milestones. Progress payments were based on the provision of sufficient evidence of completion of construction and/or activity stages.
On 15 June 2009, a compliance visit to the project was conducted by an officer of the former Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government.
(7) Project budget during construction:
This budget identified that in kind contributions were to be provided by Michael Way, Isle Drafting; North Bruny Community and Cultural Centre Committee; Kingston Mitre 10; and Kingborough Council.
The final cost of the project after completion totalled $480,692. The increased cost of the Project was met by Kingborough Council.
With reference to the removal of the word 'surplus' from the online version of the Budget 2012‑13, in particular, the sentences 'The budget is returning to surplus as promised, with surpluses growing over the forward estimates. A surplus is appropriate given our strong economic fundamentals and an economy returning to growth':
(1) When was the decision made by the Treasurer to retrospectively change the online version of the Budget 2012‑13 to remove certain references to 'surplus'.
(2) If the decision to remove the word 'surplus' was not made by the Treasurer, who made this decision.
(3) When was the removal of the word 'surplus' from the Budget 2012‑13 website first discussed with the department.
(4) On what date did the Treasurer decide to replace the above sentences with 'Our strong fiscal position sends a strong message to international investors on the Government's commitment to fiscal discipline and provides a buffer in uncertain economic times'.
(5) Was the new text for the website drafted by the Treasurer's office or the department.
There has been no change to the 2012-13 Budget documents. Government websites are regularly updated to ensure members of the public have access to up to date and relevant information.
What was the total cost of the engaging in Biosecurity project.
The cost of the Engaging in Biosecurity project was $1 172 000 (excl. GST) occurring over a period of four years from 2008 to 2011.
Can copies be provided of any reviews or assessments conducted by the department, or on the department's behalf, on the myrtle rust incursion, including any that cover the following topics:
(a) the adequacy of surveillance measures;
(b) the basis on which decisions by the National Management Group on eradication were made; and
(c) import decisions or import conditions for products that are at risk of being contaminated with myrtle rust or guava rust spores.
The interim myrtle rust eradication program was conducted under the Emergency Plant Pest Response Deed which provides for financial and efficiency reviews. National Management Group did not seek an efficiency review of the interim myrtle rust response.
The department has not separately reviewed or assessed surveillance measures or decisions of National Management Group relating to the interim myrtle rust response.
The department is currently reviewing the import conditions for myrtaceous timber in consultation with the Australian Forest Products Association. The review will be finalised in the first half of 2013.
(1) On how many occasions in the past 5 years have yellow crazy ants been intercepted at the Australian border.
(2) Does the department have an annual summary document detailing interceptions of exotic organisms, including numbers, species, locations and countries of transport origin; if so, can copies be provided for the past 3 years, from 2009 to 2012.
(3) Does AQIS have a list of exotic species that are regarded as high priority threats to the environment to target for interception; if so, can a copy be provided.
(4) Over the past 3 years, how many interceptions have there been of species regarded as high priority threats to the environment, including the name and number of each species.
(5) What particular, if any, surveillance operations does AQIS have in place for exotic species that are regarded as high priority threats to the environment.
(1) The yellow crazy ant ( Anoplolepis gracilipes ) has been intercepted at the Australian border on 40 occasions in the past 5 years. Interceptions by region are: Queensland, 23 occasions; Western Australia, 9 occasions; Victoria, 4 occasions; New South Wales, 3 occasions; Northern Territory, 1 occasion.
(2) No.
(3) The department has the list, Australia's most unwanted, which targets ten species that are considered high priority threats to Australia's biosecurity: the Asian gypsy moth, Asian longhorned beetle, Asian tiger mosquito, black spined toad, burnt pine longicorn beetle, formosan termite, giant African snail, giant honeybee, khapra beetle and the lesser auger beetle. With the exception of the Asian tiger mosquito and khapra beetle, the rest could be considered threats to Australia's environment.
(4) Interception details of the ten species listed on the DAFF list of Australia's most unwanted are as follows:
Asian gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar, intercepted 23 times in the past three years.
Asian longhorn beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, intercepted once in the past three years.
Asian tiger mosquito, Aedes albopictus, intercepted 11 times in the past three years.
Black spined toad, Bufo melanostictus, intercepted 25 times in the past three years.
Burnt pine longicorn beetle, Arhopalus ferus, intercepted 58 times in the past three years.
Formosan termite, Coptotermes formosanus, intercepted eight times in the past three years.
Giant African snail, Achatina fulica, intercepted 94 times in the past three years.
Giant honey bee, Apis dorsata, intercepted 12 times in the past three years.
Khapra beetle, Trogoderma granarium, intercepted two times in the past three years.
Lesser Auger Beetle, Heterobostrychus aequalis, intercepted 152 times in the past three years.
(5) The department conducts seasonal and ongoing surveillance of targeted exotic pest species that pose a high priority threat to Australia's biosecurity.
Seasonal surveillance operations conducted by the department include:
Asian gypsy moth targeted flight season; which targets vessels arriving from ports in the far east of Asia. During the annual flight season from 1 July to 30 September, the exotic Asian gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar) is attracted to the bright lights in these ports and settles on vessels at the loading docks. Vessels leaving these ports are a known risk pathway for the potential introduction of this pest into Australia. DAFF risk assesses these vessels prior to arrival and if required an inspection is performed of the vessel for the presence and eradication of the Asian gypsy moth.
Burnt pine longicorn beetle targeted flight season; which targets vessels arriving from ports in New Zealand. Each year the Ministry of Primary Industries New Zealand (MPI NZ) advises DAFF of the flight season of the burnt pine longicorn beetle (Arhopalus ferus) which lasts from November until April. This exotic forestry pest is known to take shelter amongst sawn and manufactured timber products during the flight season. While no immediate damage is caused to imported timber commodities, the association of burnt pine longicorn beetles with these commodities creates a possible pathway entry into Australia. Vessels entering Australia from New Zealand during this flight season are actively targeted for the presence of burnt pine longicorn beetles.
Ongoing surveillance operations conducted by the department include:
Northern Australian Quarantine Strategy (NAQS) program; DAFF runs the NAQS program which monitors the northern region of Australia from Broome to Cairns for targeted pests, weeds and disease through surveillance and quarantine operations.
DAFF Country Action List (CAL) and Risk Vessels; DAFF targets a range of high risk pests and other contaminants (such as soil) on imported sea containers and non-containerised (breakbulk) cargo. High risk pests include the giant African snail, black spined toads, exotic bees and ants. Containers from countries listed on the CAL are inspected prior to release from the terminal.
Khapra beetle country and commodity specific list; DAFF targets countries and commodities where the exotic khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium) is known to occur. If established this beetle would have serious consequences for Australia's grain storage industry and jeopardise our export grain markets. Commodities that are host material for the khapra beetle are inspected to ensure that the threat from any potentially insect infestations is eliminated.
Mosquito vector monitoring program; DAFF monitors for exotic disease-carrying mosquito species at the perimeters of all Australia's ports of entry for international vessels and at Australia's international airports. Monitoring involves trapping of larvae and adults, and identifying them to detect exotic disease-carrying species.
National Sentinel Hive program; DAFF works closely with State and Territory agriculture authorities and representatives from Australia's honey bee industries to monitor air and sea ports around Australia for feral and exotic bee species that could arrive on vessels or airplanes. The National Sentinel Hive Program maintains hives at seaports around Australia that are inspected regularly for feral and exotic bee species, as well as several species of mites, including varroa and tracheal mites.