The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Defence Legislation Amendment (Woomera Prohibited Area) Bill 2013
The Coalition has agreed to complete the Senate Inquiry prior to the September 14 election—
and is committed to progressing the legislation so that broader access to the WPA lands will commence before Christmas 2013 .
The Defence Minister should have discretion to suspend all non-Defence access to the WPA—
when there is an urgent national Defence requirement.
In addition to suspension due to the accumulation of demerit points—
it is proposed that the Minister for Defence would have the discretion to suspend all non-Defence access to the WPA—
Woomera prohibited area—
for the defence of Australia.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 3 OF 2014
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 19 March 2014 at 7.22 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014 bereferred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2014 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the provisions of the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 bereferred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2014 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 24 June 2014 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the Flags Amendment Bill 2014 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 June 2014 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Removing Re-approval and Re-registration) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Investigate thoroughly the impact of this legislation on the health and safety of human beings, animals and the environment as a priority of the regulatory system.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
National Farmers' Federation
CropLife
Department of Agriculture
World Wildlife Fund.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
23 June 2014
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To provide a forensic and detailed examination of the legislation and the impacts this and previous reforms will/have had on the financial services sector and the investment decisions.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Key financial service and consumer stakeholders, regulators and Treasury.
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s):
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
Thursday 19 June 2014
(signed)
Senator McEwen
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1.The application of the Competition and Consumer Art 2010, with particular reference to provisions relating to competition and market power;
2.The remedies available to the Courts and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission regarding breaches of the Act;
3.The current levels of competition in Australian markets and the impact on consumers and small businesses; and
4.Any related matters
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Foodland
IGA
Coles
Woolworths
Aldi
COSBOA
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Economics Committee (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
April/May 2014
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Senator Kroger for Senator Xenophon
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
APPENDIX 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of Bill:
Flags Amendment Bill 2014
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1.The current Commonwealth procurement guidelines;
2.Specific laws, regulations or requirements that exist in other jurisdictions relation to the procurement of flags; and
3.Any related matters
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Committee to which the bill is to be referred:
Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee (Legislation)
Possible hearing date(s):
Possible reporting date:
(signed)
Senator Kroger for Senator Xenophon
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That—
(a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.45 pm today:
Farm Household Support Bill 2014
Farm Household Support (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
(b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today.
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 188 standing in the name of Senator Siewert, relating to the Western Australian Senate election; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That the routine of business from not later than 4 pm till not later than 4.30 pm shall be consideration of the first anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions.
That leave of absence be granted to Senators Cash and Madigan for today, for personal reasons.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
Farm Household Support Bill 2014
Farm Household Support (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, no later than noon on Monday, 24 March 2014, copies of the Review of the South Australian Economy and theVictorian Manufacturing and Industry Economic Review , originally announced by the Government on 18 December 2013.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the 2014 Resilient Youth Australia survey's findings, that 34 per cent of girls and 28 per cent of boys in years 7 to 12 feel constantly under strain and unable to overcome difficulties;
(b) affirms that every school student in Australia should be able to access the tools to develop emotional resilience; and
(c) calls on the Commonwealth Government to:
(i) facilitate nationwide monitoring of adolescents' emotional resilience and wellbeing, and
(ii) ensure every school provides an environment conducive to students' wellbeing, including access to qualified mental health support personnel, to support school students during adolescence.
Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2014
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Privacy Act 1988 , and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
The introduction of the Privacy Amendment (Privacy Alerts) Bill 2014 is the next key step in the major reform of Australia's privacy laws.
It is a long overdue measure that was recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2008.
It will introduce a new consumer privacy protection for Australians that will keep their personal information more secure in the digital age. It will also encourage agencies and private sector organisations to improve their data security practices.
In its 2008 privacy report, the Australian Law Reform Commission found that, as government agencies and large companies collected more and more personal information online, there was an increasing risk that this information could become subject to data breaches. There were studies that showed that the frequency of data breaches was increasing and their consequences were becoming more severe.
This trend has continued. For example, in recent years, there have been a number of high-profile data breaches in Australia and in other countries.
Customers of large, well-respected businesses have had their personal information compromised as a result of hacker attacks, poor security or just plain carelessness.
We have seen breaches take place in the first few months of 2014. It has been reported that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection released the personal details of around 10,000 adults and children including details on their names, arrival information, nationalities, and location. It affects every asylum seeker detained in a mainland detention centre, all those detained at the Christmas Island detention centre and several thousand under the community detention program. The Department removed the information from its own web server, but it remained accessible, in full, on a public internet site, for over a week.
This followed other significant breaches in recent years at Telstra, Medvet and Sony Playstation.
Internationally we have recently seen breaches on an unprecedented scale. Target in the United States had secure customer information hacked. As many as 110 million customers had credit card information, names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers and email addresses taken. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, 40 per cent of people who shopped at Target during the period of the data breach had not been notified about the incident. Thirty-one per cent said they had been notified by Target and 28 per cent said they had been notified by their bank or credit card company.
Following this breach Neiman Marcus announced it had also been targeted with information on 1.1 million credit and debit cards stolen.
A data breach can severely affect individuals whose personal information has been compromised.
Individuals can lose money when personal information relating to their finances finds its way into the wrong hands. They can be exposed to the risk of fraud and identity theft. And they can suffer embarrassment and distress when information contained in medical records is publicly revealed.
Labor believes that individuals should know when their privacy has been interfered with. That is why I am introducing this Bill.
Currently, there is no requirement for agencies and organisations to notify affected individuals or the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) when they have suffered a data breach.
The OAIC has voluntary guidelines encouraging notification, but is concerned that many data breaches—perhaps a majority—are going unreported. The Bill stops the gap in Australia's privacy laws.
Australia should be a global leader in privacy protection as we grow our digital economy and more and more personal information goes online.
The Bill provides that when an agency or organisation has suffered a serious data breach, it must notify the affected individuals and the OAIC.
Prompt notifications will allow individuals to take action to protect their personal information. Individuals will be able to reset passwords, cancel credit cards, improve their online security settings, and take other measures as they see fit.
The notification requirement will provide an incentive to businesses to store information securely. No business wants a reputation for not keeping its customers' personal information safe.
Agencies and organisations will only have to provide notification of serious data breaches. A requirement to provide notification of all data breaches would impose an undue regulatory burden on businesses, and it would unnecessarily alarm many customers.
The notification must include information such as a description of the breach, the kinds of information concerned, recommendations about steps that individuals should take, and contact details of the entity.
The Bill provides that the commissioner may direct an agency or organisation to provide affected individuals with notification of a data breach. This is a necessary measure in cases where an agency or organisation is recalcitrant or has simply made the wrong decision.
The Bill also contains public interest and law enforcement exceptions. These are necessary where there are countervailing interests that outweigh the need to inform individuals about the data breach.
Where there is a failure to comply with a notification requirement, all the commissioner's enforcement powers to investigate and make determinations will be available. This could result in personal and private apologies, compensation payments and enforceable undertakings.
In the case of serious or repeated noncompliance with notification requirements, this could lead to a civil penalty being imposed by a court.
The Bill is part of the Labor Party's ongoing commitment to the right to privacy.
In 2012, the Labor government introduced the most significant reforms to privacy law in Australia since the Privacy Act commenced in 1989. This Bill will complement those new reforms, which have recently commenced operation.
One of 2012's major reforms was the creation of the Australian Privacy Principles, which will apply to both government agencies and many private sector organisations.
Australian Privacy Principle 11 provides that entities regulated by the Privacy Act must have adequate security measures in place to protect personal information that they hold. The data breach notification requirement will complement Australian privacy principle 11 by requiring notification if there has been unauthorised access or disclosure, or loss, of that personal information.
Privacy is an important human right, and its continued protection in the digital era is becoming a major challenge for governments everywhere.
The right of an individual to control what happens with his or her personal information is an important aspect of the right to privacy.
The data breach notification requirement helps return control over their personal information to individuals.
The ALRC believed Australia's privacy laws needed this change in 2008. The evidence since that time has been building and it is now clear that this reform is well overdue.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
That the Senate—
(a) notes proposals by the Abbott Government to repeal the provisions of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 which provide protections against racial vilification;
(b) commends the words of the Member for Hasluck, Mr Ken Wyatt, who said he did not support repeal of these provisions because 'Australia has come a long way in the last 30 or 40 years and what I wouldn't like to see is a regression that allows those who have bigoted viewpoints to vilify any group of people' and 'I support the whole concept of free speech, but I think there are boundaries that you have to draw and this is one of them'; and
(c) reaffirms its strong stance against racial vilification.
That the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 26 March 2014, from 5 pm to 6 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into Australia Post.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the plight of the pastoral industry in Northern Australia, exacerbated by the drought, other natural disasters and the live cattle export ban,
(ii) that the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) met with a representative gathering of pastoralists in Charters Towers last Monday, 10 March 2014;
(b) congratulates the Government on the drought package which will provide some relief to the northern beef cattle industry; and
(c) urges the Government to seriously address the ongoing issues which impact on the future of the northern beef cattle industry.
That the Senate—
(a) acknowledges that:
(i) 20 March is National Close the Gap Day, and
(ii) the gap in life expectancy and health outcomes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people remains unacceptable;
(b) notes that in their 2014 report the Close the Gap Steering Committee called for:
(i) the implementation and monitoring of a comprehensive National Action Plan on health,
(ii) meaningful partnerships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities and health services,
(iii) improvements to Indigenous participation, control and delivery of health services,
(iv) a commitment to provide adequate and long-term financial resources, including strengthening of the Indigenous health workforce, and
(v) the need to address critical social issues that impact on Indigenous health, including poor housing, nutrition, employment and education; and
(c) urges the federal, state and territory governments to continue to work together to achieve these important outcomes.
That, on the first anniversary of the National Apology for Forced Adoptions on 21 March 2014, the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the ongoing pain and suffering of the mothers, children and fathers affected by the unethical, dishonest and sometimes illegal practices of the past;
(b) commends the National Archives of Australia, the Institute of Family Studies, the Department of Social Services and members of the Forced Adoptions Implementation Working Group for their work in the past 12 months to realise the recommendations of the Community Affairs References Committee report; and
(c) resolves to continue to do all in its power to make sure these practices are never repeated.
Budget estimates 2013-14 (Supplementary)—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 13 February and 19 March 2014—
Department of Human Services.
Health portfolio.
Social Services portfolio.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 12 February and 19 March 2014—
Communications portfolio.
Environment portfolio.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 13 February and 20 March 2014—Defence portfolio.
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
QUARANTINE CHARGES (COLLECTION) BILL 2014
The Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014 is the final Bill being introduced as part of the package to provide appropriate cost recovery arrangements for import services. These arrangements are consistent with the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines .
The Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014 will provide authority to collect charges imposed under the Quarantine Charges (Imposition–General) Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition–Customs) Bill 2014 and the Quarantine Charges (Imposition–Excise) Bill 2014.
The Bill provides that the regulations will determine the time the charge is due and payable.
The regulations under this Bill will also outline the liability of a person's agent to pay charges on that person's behalf and establish appropriate late payment fees where charges are not paid in the time allowed.
Specifying such matters in regulations, as opposed to the Act itself, provides the department with sufficient flexibility to ensure that these matters are appropriate in all circumstances.
The Bill also provides the Commonwealth with mechanisms to appropriately deal with non-payment. This includes powers to refuse service in relation to a person who is liable to pay a charge or late payment fee; to suspend and revoke import permits; to deal with goods and vessels to recover unpaid charges and late payment fees (including power to create a statutory charge on a good or vessel and withholding goods that are subject to a charge); to, in exceptional circumstances, sell goods and vessels that are subject to a charge or late payment fee to recover outstanding debts owed to the Commonwealth; to deal with goods or vessels that are abandoned or forfeited, including the ability to take possession, cause goods or vessels to be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of, and; for quarantine officers to issue directions in relation to goods and vessels that are subject to a charge. Penalties, including fines, imprisonment or both, apply to a person who engages in conduct that contravenes a direction.
Unpaid charges and late payment fees will be considered as debts to the Commonwealth and may be recovered by action in a relevant court.
The Bill sets out provisions for the remitting or refunding of charges or late payment fees if there are exceptional circumstances.
The Bill includes a link to provisions of the Quarantine Act 1908 where it is appropriate for consistency of operation between this Bill and the Quarantine Act. It is not appropriate for different provisions and powers to apply between this Bill and the Quarantine Act.
The Bill sets out provisions for the remitting or refunding of charges or late payment fees if there are exceptional circumstances.
Together these four Bills will ensure biosecurity import services are appropriately and validly supported. As mentioned earlier, funding the biosecurity system is critical for protecting Australia's unique animal and plant health status. It is also essential for maintaining farmers' access to overseas markets and strengthening our position as a net exporter of the highest quality agricultural goods.
QUARANTINE CHARGES (IMPOSITION–GENERAL) BILL 2014
This government is working to boost the competitiveness and productivity of the Australian agriculture sector. A strong biosecurity system is critical to that goal. Australia's enviable pest and disease status gives our producers a unique advantage other markets struggle to provide. Australia's strong biosecurity system works to protect human, plant and animal health from the impact of exotic pests and diseases.
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for safeguarding Australia from unwanted pests and diseases. As well as playing an obvious role protecting Australia's environment; safeguarding Australia from unwanted pests and diseases also protects Australia's economy.
For example, a recent review commissioned by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences looked at the economic impact of hypothetical foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Australia. In the event of a large multi-state foot and mouth disease outbreak, the ABARES estimates revenue losses could be more than $50 billion over 10 years. Reflecting international experience, the economic impact of trade restrictions, including the closure of export markets, would be far greater than the cost of controlling the disease.
Historically, the Department of Agriculture's approach to biosecurity has been shaped by mandatory border intervention targets for specific goods at the border. However, this approach did not take into account the varying levels of risk posed by different goods or whether intervention would be most effective overseas, at our border or on-shore.
In recent years, the department's approach has evolved to one based on risk, which helps officers target higher risk goods, passengers and mail. This has helped the department to more effectively manage the biosecurity risks associated with ever increasing volumes of trade and passengers moving across our border.
Risk based interventions reduce the burden on compliant businesses, enabling faster clearance at the border through better targeting and focus on higher risk goods. The risk based business model allows the free movement of goods where risk is low and cuts costs for clients who actively and conscientiously take account of biosecurity risks. It reduces the cost of delivering frontline services and saves time and money for importing businesses with flow-on benefits to the broader economy.
The government's policy is that agencies should set charges to recover the costs of products or services that they provide. Any charges should reflect the costs of providing the service and should generally be imposed on a fee-for-service basis or, where efficient, as a levy. In line with this policy, the department recovers the costs of providing services to importers under the Quarantine Act 1908 directly and indirectly. This includes indirect services such as intelligence gathering and surveillance that enable targeting of high risk goods for intervention.
This legislation package brings into line an appropriate legislative structure for the recovery of costs associated with indirect biosecurity services undertaken by the department for the benefit of importers. The legislation will sit alongside the existing fee-for-service cost recovery mechanism. Having the appropriate cost recovery mechanisms in place will support Australia's capacity to manage biosecurity risks into the future.
This legislation is designed purely as a cost recovery mechanism. The legislation ensures that the Minister for Agriculture must be satisfied that the amount charged will not be more than the likely costs of delivering the activity.
The legislation has been drafted to be consistent with Australia's international trade obligations. This will also be the case in drafting any delegated legislation.
The Quarantine Charges (Imposition-General) Bill 2014 is the first of four Bills that provide the appropriate cost recovery mechanism for the risk-based approach.
Specifically the Bill will enable cost recovery of activities that provide general benefits to importers – particularly the recovery of costs for surveillance, compliance, risk analysis and intelligence capabilities, which are key features of the risk-based approach.
The amount of the cost recovery charges and who is liable to pay them will be set in regulation under the Bill. As mentioned, the Bill also includes a safeguard regarding the amount of the charge. This will provide clients with confidence that the government will not over recover the costs of its biosecurity services.
Setting the charges through delegated legislation will allow the Minister for Agriculture to make appropriate and timely adjustments to the charges avoiding future over or under recoveries.
The Bill also validates the fees currently in the Quarantine Service Fees Determination 2005 .
Three companion Bills are being introduced alongside this Bill, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Customs) Bill 2014, the Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Excise) Bill 2014, and the Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014.
This package of Bills will ensure that appropriate cost recovery mechanisms are in place. Funding the biosecurity system is critical for protecting Australia's unique animal and plant health status. It is also essential for maintaining farmers' access to overseas markets and strengthening our position as a net exporter of the highest quality agricultural goods – a position forecast to be worth $38.0 billion to the Australian economy in the current financial year.
QUARANTINE CHARGES (IMPOSITION-CUSTOMS) BILL 2014
The Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Customs) Bill 2014 is the second of four Bills being introduced to form this legislative package.
The Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Customs) Bill 2014 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of customs. The key provisions of the Bill mirror those in the Quarantine Charges (Imposition-General) Bill 2014 and have the same operative function and effect.
The Bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts on businesses. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in delegated legislation.
QUARANTINE CHARGES (IMPOSITION-EXCISE) BILL 2014
The Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Excise) Bill 2014 is the third of four Bills being introduced to form this legislative package.
The Quarantine Charges (Imposition-Excise) Bill 2014 will impose charges only when they are considered a duty of excise. The key provisions of the Bill mirror those in the Quarantine Charges (Imposition-General) Bill 2014 and have the same operative function and effect.
The Bill does not itself set the amount of the charges and will not impose any financial impacts on businesses. The charges and who is liable and exempt from paying the charges will be set in delegated legislation. At this point in time there are no proposals to introduce any duties of excise in the delegated legislation.
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Australian aviation is an essential part of our economy — it links our regions to our cities — and our cities to the world.
The increased diversity of the Australian aviation industry requires continuous improvement in the aviation safety regulatory system. While Australia has an enviable record in aviation safety, built on a strong regulatory system — any regulator must keep pace with the industry it regulates.
Australia's aviation safety governance structures and processes have continued to evolve since the initial establishment of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 covering the operations of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) — Australia's aviation safety regulator.
CASA was established in July 1995, under an updated Civil Aviation Act 1988, as the independent aviation safety regulator — a Commonwealth statutory authority with responsibility for the safety regulation of civil air operations in Australia and Australian aircraft operating outside Australian territory.
The CASA Board, in its current form, was established in July 2009 to decide the objectives, strategies and policies to be adopted by CASA. The Board is also responsible for ensuring that CASA performs its functions in a proper, efficient and effective manner, complying with directions given by the Minister.
The CASA Board currently consists of the Director of Aviation Safety (who is also the Chief Executive Officer of CASA), as an ex-officio member, and up to four Board members (including the Chair and Deputy Chair).
The Coalition ' s Policy for Aviation , released in August 2013, outlined a number of commitments to enhance and strengthen aviation.
The Government has since established an external aviation safety regulation review, which is being undertaken by a panel of leading aviation experts.
The review is well underway, with the review panel examining the suitability of Australia's aviation safety related regulations and the outcomes and direction of CASA's regulatory reform process.
The panel is also examining the structures, effectiveness and processes of CASA with a view to ensuring that best practice in aviation safety is maintained. The panel has received around 250 submissions from interested parties across the aviation industry. The review panel is expected to report to the Government by the end of May 2014.
The Coalition ' s Policy for Aviation also outlined our commitment to improve CASA's structure and governance arrangements to enhance the organisation's abilities to function as Australia's aviation safety regulator.
To deliver on this commitment the Government intends to appoint two additional members to the CASA Board.
At least two of the Board members will be required to have technical and/or operational aviation experience to strengthen the Board's aviation knowledge, skills and practical experience. The expanded Board will be well-placed to oversee CASA's new strategic direction — which the Government will issue, as allowed for under Section 12A of the Civil Aviation Act, after the Government has considered the review panel's final report.
Establishing a firm strategic direction for the organisation will enhance CASA's capability to respond as Australia's aviation safety regulator. Through the introduction of a new strategic direction, the Government plans to reinforce safety as CASA's primary responsibility, but will also set out the leadership role of the Board in implementing the strategic direction of CASA.
Today I introduce a Bill that implements this commitment to take decisive action to strengthen the nation's aviation safety agency and their oversight of the aviation industry. The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill – "the Bill" – will allow the Government to fulfil undertakings, made in the Coalition ' s Policy for Aviation , to have important enhancements to safety governance in place from 1 July 2014.
The Bill will maintain the CASA Board structure, but will expand the size of the Board by two members. The appointment of two additional members will increase the breadth of aviation knowledge and experience on the CASA Board, which will better equip it to set and implement the strategic direction of the organisation.
The Bill improves the capacity and effectiveness of CASA to meet the challenges of an increasingly complex and diverse aviation industry. CASA must have the right structure, resources and legal framework to regulate the civil aviation industry to enhance the safety of the travelling public, industry participants and the wider community.
The provisions of the Bill will provide for the CASA Board to be comprised of six members appointed by the Minister, plus the Director of Aviation Safety as an ex-officio member, that is, seven members in total.
The Board will play an important role monitoring CASA's effectiveness and accountability across the Authority's range of functions and will facilitate stronger links between CASA and other government agencies, allowing for meaningful and constructive input from industry and other relevant stakeholders.
Importantly, the enhanced Board will be in place to implement CASA's new strategic direction.
Enhancing the CASA Board is one important step in ensuring we continue to foster an aviation industry that is dynamic and sustainable, with a regulatory system that is proportionate to risks and delivers the highest level of safety — a level of regulation that does not unreasonably restrict innovation and growth in the industry.
It is vital that Government and industry share the responsibility for addressing these challenges.
The Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill demonstrates this Government's ongoing commitment to aviation safety — we are taking decisive action now to strengthen the nation's safety regulator and its oversight of the aviation industry.
The Senate divided. [12:20]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013
That these bills be now read a third time.
The Senate divided. [12:43]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Farm Household Support Bill 2014
Farm Household Support (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014
… this government intends to stand by people in need. We intend to stand by people in good times and in bad.
At the end of the motion, add:
"and, given the scientific evidence of changing precipitation patterns and extreme weather events, like heatwaves and droughts, becoming more intense in Australia because of climate change, the Senate calls on the Government to expand the existing National Disaster Resilience Program to include a provision for drought assistance."
That these bills be now read a third time.
Quarantine Charges (Collection) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2014
That these bills be now read a third time.
Civil Aviation Amendment (CASA Board) Bill 2014
That this bill be now read a third time.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013
For regulators, that means holding financial players to better standards of probity and prudence than prevailed in the past.
If you show me a country where the politicians listen to bankers more than they listen to regulators, I will show you a country which is guaranteed to have a banking crisis.
… current MIS structures do not promote sound investment decisions in rural and regional areas, and as such have created a distortion of land values and/or commodity markets.
The agency is like a plane that took off before it had been fully built and is being completed while it is in the air.
The bringing forward of the commencement date, together with the results of compromises to the proposed design of the Scheme … has caused a large number of significant problems:
… … …
… the outlawing of a corrupt practice that has cost consumers billions of dollars and lowered trust in the entire financial advice industry.
… the balance needs to be in favour of protecting consumers and their retirement income, rather than protecting the income of financial advisers.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wong today relating to Senator Sinodinos.
It is presently difficult to offer observations on the conduct of Mr Sinodinos. He has other involvements which will come under scrutiny in Operation Spicer.
Based upon the PricewaterhouseCoopers valuation … Mr Sinodinos would have …$10 to $20 million …
He has other involvements which will come under scrutiny …
It is quite transparent that Mr Sinodinos’ true role … was …communication with the Liberal Party.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the regulation of financial services.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement report: Examination of the Annual Report of the Australian Crime Commission 2011-12
Government Response
The Government welcomes the Committee's report. The Committee makes two recommendations about Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to assess the Australian Crime Commission's (ACC) performance against the targets set out in its annual Portfolio Budget Statements. The Government is pleased to accept both recommendations.
Recommendation 1
3.18: The Committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission review and re-examine its KPI concerning the Australian Criminal Intelligence Database [ACID] and the Australian Law Enforcement Intelligence Network [ALEIN].
The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation.
The relevant KPI assessed the performance of ACID and ALEIN on the basis of their availability to users, with a target availability rate of 98 per cent. While the availability rate for 2011-12 exceeded this target, the overall number of searches made using ACID dropped significantly over the same period. This continued a three-year trend of decreasing use of the system.
The Government recognises the Committee's concern that the KPI may no longer provide an accurate measure of the value of ACID and ALEIN.
The ACC is currently undertaking a scoping study to determine business requirements for an information technology system to replace ACID and improve ALEIN. The ACID/ALEIN scoping study will assess opportunities to harness technological advances to support the ACC's management of its criminal intelligence holdings.
The ACC has amended its KPI for ACID and ALEIN for the 2013–14 Portfolio Budget Statement. The performance of ACID and ALEIN will now be measured against the following:
provision of a national criminal intelligence database and analytical tools, which facilitate the sharing and analysis of criminal intelligence across jurisdictions.
This new KPI more accurately reflects the ACC's role in maintaining a national database of criminal intelligence, and its efforts to investigate options to further enhance the ACC's criminal intelligence holdings and systems.
Recommendation 2:
3.37 The committee recommends that the Australian Crime Commission work towards establishing a balance of qualitative and quantitative Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which can be measured over time.
3.38 The committee recommends that the 2012–13 Annual Report of the Australian Crime Commission provide information on progress made towards establishing a balance of qualitative and quantitative KPIs.
The Government accepts the Committee's recommendations.
The ACC has recently developed a revised performance management framework to support the ACC's new Strategic Plan 2013-18. The revised framework informed the development of the ACC's Portfolio Budget Statement for 2013-14 and corresponding KPIs.
The new KPIs aim to convey the full scope of the ACC's role in combating serious and organised crime in Australia by including both quantitative and qualitative performance measures.
The new performance management framework is designed to show traditional law enforcement outcomes through measures such as arrests, charges and seizures of illicit commodities. However, it will also provide a basis for qualitative assessment of the value of the ACC's contribution to broader law enforcement outcomes through activities such as those aimed at developing criminal intelligence holdings, informing policy and legislative approaches to key serious and organised crime issues and enhancing partnerships with a range of law enforcement, government and industry partners.
The revised performance management framework will require the ACC to develop new systems for collecting performance data, which will be implemented over the five year operation of the Strategic Plan. The ACC reported on its progress in establishing the new KPIs in the Annual Report of the Australian Crime Commission 2012-13.
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report: Aviation accident investigations
Government Response
Introduction
On 13 September 2012, the Senate agreed that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012:
a) the findings of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau into the ditching of VH-NGA Westwind II, operated by Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd, in the ocean near Norfolk Island Airport on 18 November 2009;
b) the nature of, and protocols involved in, communications between agencies and directly interested parties in an aviation accident investigation and the reporting process;
c) the mechanisms in place to ensure recommendations from aviation accident investigations are implemented in a timely manner; and
d) any related matters.
The Committee delivered its report on 23 May 2013.
The Australian Government thanks the Committee for its examination of these important matters and the recommendations it has presented for consideration.
Australia ' s Aviation Safety System
Aviation plays a key economic and social role in Australia facilitating economic and productivity growth.
With strong international and domestic aviation passenger growth forecast to continue over the next decade, and with the Asia-Pacific being the fastest growing aviation market in the world, the Government has emphasised in its aviation policy the need to create a regulatory environment in Australia which facilitates this growth.
However in the context of this forecast growth, the Australian Government's highest aviation priority is to maintain and further improve our high aviation safety standards.
The strength of Australia's aviation safety framework depends upon our governance arrangements and clearly setting out the roles and responsibilities, processes and procedures to be consistently followed by our Government aviation agencies and industry.
The Government welcomes the Committee's report as an important contribution to further improve these arrangements.
Since the report was released there have been a number of important initiatives announced which address many of the Committee's recommendations.
In August 2013 an independent peer review was established by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) to examine the ATSB's methodologies and processes, concerns over which were raised in the Committee's report. The peer review report is scheduled to be completed by May 2014.
Also in August 2013 the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for public and industry comment proposing better safety standards for air ambulance flights. At the request of industry, the comment period for the NPRM was extended until October 2013.
Finally, consistent with this Government's Aviation Policy we have announced the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulation Review to investigate the structures and processes of all aviation agencies involved in aviation safety.
The review is being conducted by a panel of international aviation experts.
Having regard to these significant developments, the Government's responses to the Committee's 26 recommendations, and the supplementary recommendation of a participating member of the Committee, are attached.
This is the Government's initial response to the Committee pending the completion of the above significant reviews.
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the ATSB retrieve VH-NGA flight data recorders without further delay.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
However advice from our independent aviation safety agencies, the ATSB and CASA, does not support retrieval of the recorders.
The ATSB has given detailed consideration to the Committee's recommendation. The ATSB has reached its position on the basis that:
Therefore with respect to the ditching of aircraft VH-NGA, the ATSB advises that data to be obtained from the CVR and FDR would offer little information directly relevant to the key safety issues in the investigation not already available from other sources.
The ATSB has also advised that any information obtained would not likely lead to any commensurately significant safety learning or improvement to transport safety. Retrieval of the recorders would also not represent a proper use of limited public resources, consistent with the provisions of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and thePublic Service Act 1999, with which the Chief Commissioner is obliged to comply. It is considered unlikely to lead to a better understanding of any significant lessons learned for the aviation industry.
The current international position, which is what applies to the Committee's recommendation, is that the relevant International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Annexe 13 provides that effective use shall be made of flight recorders in accident or incident investigations.
Determining effective use involves weighing up the likely safety benefits to be derived from the information obtained, alongside the cost of the recovery action and having regard to where a crash site is difficult to access.
The Government is however cognisant of the Committee's concerns over the carrying out of the investigation and therefore supports the current Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes having regard to Australia's obligations under ICAO Annex 13. The peer review report is scheduled to be completed by May 2014.
Recommendation 2
That the Minister, in issuing a new Statement of Expectations to the ATSB, valid from 1 July 2013, make it clear that safety in aviation operations involving passengers (fare paying or those with no control over the flight they are on, e.g. air ambulance) is to be accorded equal priority irrespective of flight classification.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government notes that the updated Statement of Expectations (SOE) provided to the ATSB in April 2013 continued to give priority to transport safety investigations that have the potential to deliver the best safety outcomes for the travelling public.
The ATSB has also committed, acknowledging a finite level of resources, to investigate all fatal accidents involving powered aircraft with a civil registration (VH), regardless of the nature of the operation, including aeromedical flights.
The Government will consider any further changes to the ATSB SOE arising out of the recommendations of the independent Aviation Safety Regulation Review.
Recommendation 3
That the ATSB move away from its current approach of forecasting the probability of future events and focus on the analysis of factors which allowed the accident under investigation to occur. This would enable the industry to identify, assess and implement lessons relevant to their own operations.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
However it is important to note that the current ATSB investigation approach is not just focussed on future events but involves establishing the facts pertaining to an occurrence, conducting the associated analysis of those facts to identify safety factors and issues contributing to, or arising from, the occurrence, and then considering the risk to future safety associated with those factors and issues.
The ATSB's investigation policies and procedures are currently being reviewed with a view to considering how the visibility of safety factors, identified as part of the investigation, can be enhanced and other improvements to its risk analysis processes.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB's methodologies and processes will consider investigation management and governance; reporting processes; external communication strategies; and will have regard to obligations under ICAO Annex 13 and issues raised in the Committee's report.
Recommendation 4
That the ATSB be required to document investigative avenues that were explored and then discarded, providing detailed explanations as to why.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The ATSB's investigation policies and procedures currently require investigators to document investigative avenues that were explored and discarded. However ATSB policies and procedures are being reviewed with the objective of ensuring that information is published more explicitly in investigation reports.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes will also examine this issue.
Recommendation 5
That the training offered by the ATSB across all investigator skills sets be
benchmarked against other agencies by an independent body by, for example, inviting the NTSB or commissioning an industry body to conduct such a benchmarking exercise.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
It is proposed that benchmarking be undertaken as part of an ongoing ATSB training process not a "one-off" exercise.
The ATSB has previously benchmarked its training arrangements and also consults and collaborates with its international counterparts, through a range of forums, on issues of shared interest.
The ATSB will consult with members of the International Transport Safety Association to pursue further benchmarking of member agency training.
The ATSB is a Registered Training Organisation that is subject to regular external audit. Its training programs are also regularly used by safety professionals and industry participants, including staff from regulators and other investigative agencies.
Recommendation 6
That, as far as available resources allow, ATSB investigators be given access to training provided by the agency's international counterparts. Where this does not occur, resultant gaps in training/competence must be advised to the Minister and the Parliament.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
However training of ATSB investigators should include a range of on-the-job experience and professional development and not just revolve around access to international counterparts.
The ATSB has established processes for professional development, including through engagement with overseas counterparts and attendance at international investigator and transport safety forums. The ATSB also engages with industry to ensure familiarity with technological advancements.
While the ATSB's auditing and benchmarking exercises have not identified any gaps in its training program, the ATSB will continue to identify enhancements where possible.
The Minister and the Parliament will be advised on the ATSB's training strategies and outcomes through the ATSB Annual Report.
Recommendation 7
That the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) be amended to require that the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB be able to demonstrate extensive aviation safety expertise and experience as a prerequisite for the selection.
Response
The Government does not support this recommendation.
The ATSB is a multi-modal safety investigation agency and the current provisions in the TSI Act regarding appointment of commissioners ensure an appropriate balance of expertise across transport modes.
The Chief Commissioner is supported by staff with a diverse range of transport expertise, including expertise in aviation as well as maritime and rail transport.
The ATSB's workforce planning aims to ensure it has access to the skills and competencies necessary to function as a modern transport safety agency. To assist in achieving this key objective, the ATSB will develop, and update annually, a strategic workforce plan setting out its approach to meeting and maintaining future workforce and skills requirements.
Recommendation 8
That an expert aviation safety panel be established to ensure quality control of ATSB investigation and reporting processes along the lines set out by the committee.
Response
The Government does not support this recommendation.
Australia's internationally recognised aviation safety governance arrangements do not require another layer of oversight as proposed by the Committee.
The ATSB is an independent statutory authority with that independence being specifically provided for under the TSI Act.
Independence for accident investigation authorities is important for avoiding conflicts of interest and external interference, and is consistent with international
standards. In this regard, standard 5.4 of Annex 13 to the International Convention on Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention) provides that "the accident investigation authority shall have independence in the conduct of the investigation and have unrestricted authority over its conduct."
Establishing a separate body to quality control the work of the ATSB would undermine these arrangements.
The Government considers that the ATSB should use its established quality control processes to ensure the veracity of its findings and is prioritising enhancements to its Safety Information Management Systems and Safety Investigation Quality System to further enhance the quality and timeliness of its investigations.
The ATSB investigation procedures also require that investigation reports are subjected to a range of internal management and peer reviews, and consultation with involved parties, before reports are submitted to the Commission for approval.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB will also assess the adequacy of quality control procedures and make recommendations as appropriate as to how the ATSB can further improve these procedures.
Recommendation 9
That the Government develop a process by which the ATSB can request access to supplementary funding via the Minister.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Government is committed to ensuring that suitable mechanisms continue to allow the Chief Commissioner of the ATSB to request additional funding on an as required basis to ensure the high standard of investigations is maintained.
Accordingly the Chief Commissioner and the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will be providing joint advice to the Government on the most effective means of giving effect to the Government's commitment.
Recommendation 10
That the investigation [of the Pel-Air Incident] be re-opened by the ATSB with a focus on organisation, oversight and broader systemic issues.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
Consistent with undertakings given to the Committee, the ATSB will be amending the Pel-Air investigation report to correct administrative errors which have been brought to its attention, including at the inquiry hearings.
However the re-opening of investigations is ultimately a matter for our independent aviation safety investigatory body, the ATSB.
In this regard, in accordance with ICAO Annex 13, the reopening of an investigation should be considered by the investigating agency where significant new evidence comes to light.
The ATSB's Commission has closely monitored the proceedings of, and submissions to, the inquiry and has advised the Government that it does not consider that any significant new evidence has arisen on issues that have already been considered which are likely to have contributed to the accident.
The ATSB investigation report included the identification of two safety issues which are focussed on organisation, oversight and broad systemic considerations:
Further organisation, oversight and systemic issues have been assessed and addressed by the operator, CASA, and other parties, which is acknowledged in the ATSB report.
Therefore the ATSB does not consider that re-opening its investigation will add further safety benefits, but would unnecessarily divert investigative resources currently involved in other ongoing investigations.
The Government also notes the Committee's concerns regarding aspects of the investigation and these will be examined as part of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes having regard to Australia's obligations under ICAO Annex 13.
Recommendation 11
That CASA processes in relation to matters highlighted by this [Air Accident] investigation be reviewed. This could be an evaluation benchmarked against a credible peer (such as FAA or CAA) of regulation and audits with respect to: non-RPT passenger carrying operations; approach to audits; and training and standardisation of FOI across regional offices.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
Since 2009 CASA has advised that it has been acting consistently to improve its performance in each of the areas highlighted by the Committee including:
The Government will also consider further improvements to CASA processes arising out of the recommendations of the independent Aviation Safety Regulation Review once completed.
Recommendation 12
That CASA in consultation with an Emergency Medical Services industry representative group (e.g. Royal Flying Doctor Service, air ambulance operators, rotary wing rescue providers) consider the merit, form and standards of a new category of operations for Emergency Medical Services. The Minister should require CASA to approve the industry plan unless there is a clear safety case not to. Scope for industry to assist as part of an audit team should also be investigated where standardisation is an issue. This should be completed within 12 months and the outcome reported publicly.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
On 5 August 2013, CASA released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) which provides for better safety standards for air ambulance flights.
The benefits of the classification of air ambulance flights as passenger transport include:
The NPRM was published last year seeking comments from the public with an extended timeframe for consultation until October 2013. CASA is currently considering comments.
CASA, as part of its legislated responsibilities, is Australia's aviation safety regulator charged with both the development and implementation of the aviation safety regulations.
Therefore the Government does not support industry effectively drafting its own regulations through an "industry plan" as suggested by the Committee. Industry however should be closely consulted in the development of aviation safety regulatory proposals and CASA will continue to draw on industry expertise as part of regulatory development and review processes.
Similarly, it would not be appropriate for passenger transport industry members to participate in safety audit activities given the clear potential for conflicts of interest.
Recommendation 13
That a short inquiry be conducted by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport into the current status of aviation regulatory reform to assess the direction, progress and resources expended to date to ensure greater visibility of the processes.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
The Government has announced the establishment of an Aviation Safety Regulation Review to investigate the structures and processes of all aviation agencies involved in aviation safety.
The review will consider, amongst other issues, the current status of aviation safety regulatory reform and the outcomes and directions of the regulatory review process being undertaken by CASA.
The Government would welcome the input of the Committee members as part of the consultation process for the review.
Recommendation 14
That the ATSB-CASA Memorandum of Understanding be re-drafted to remove any ambiguity in relation to information that should be shared between the agencies in relation to aviation accident investigations, to require CASA to:
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
A revised Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the ATSB and CASA will be put in place following the completion of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review.
Recommendation 15
That all meetings between the ATSB and CASA, whether formal or informal, where particulars of a given investigation are being discussed be appropriately minuted.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The two agencies have confirmed that procedures are in place to ensure outcomes of meetings and discussions are recorded and filed. These procedures will be reviewed by the two agencies, as appropriate, to ensure their ongoing adequacy and effectiveness.
Recommendation 16
That, where relevant, the ATSB include thorough human factors analysis and discussion in future investigation reports. Where human factors are not considered relevant, the ATSB should include a statement explaining why.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The ATSB confirms that human factors are an essential part of its investigation process, and its policies and procedures governing the investigation of human factors are consistent with ICAO guidance on human factors.
ICAO guidance states that human factors information should be integrated into the appropriate areas of the factual part of the report, rather than under a separate heading, to ensure that human factors issues are appropriately addressed in investigations and reports.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review of the ATSB investigation methodologies and processes will examine the consideration of human factors issues and make any recommendations for further improvements as appropriate.
Recommendation 17
That the ATSB prepare and release publicly a list of all its identified safety issues and the actions which are being taken or have been taken to address them. The ATSB should indicate its progress in monitoring the actions every 6 months and report every 12 months to Parliament.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The ATSB publishes on its website a list of all safety issues and actions highlighted in its investigation reports, including recommendations. The status of these issues and actions is updated quarterly.
The ATSB Annual Report to Parliament also provides details of safety issues and advices published in the ATSB investigation reports and advice on the status of recommendations.
Recommendation 18
That where a safety action has not been completed before a report being issued that a recommendation should be made. If it has been completed the report should include details of the action, who was involved and how it was resolved.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
ATSB policies and procedures require that the details of actions taken in response to safety issues identified as part of an investigation are included in the investigation report. The ATSB website provides an ongoing status report on the action undertaken in response. The ATSB reviews and updates this information quarterly.
The ATSB will review its policy on the use of recommendations, including in relation to international best practice and having regard to the final report of the Canadian Transportation Safety Board peer review.
Recommendation 19
That the ATSB review its process to track the implementation of recommendations or safety actions to ensure it is an effective closed loop system. This should be made public, and provided to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee prior to each Budget Estimates.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The ATSB has processes in place to track and report action in response to safety issues identified through its investigations. The safety issue and action information gathered by the ATSB is publicly available on the ATSB website.
Consistent with Recommendation 18, the ATSB will review its processes to ensure transparency and timely closure in relation to safety actions and recommendations.
As appropriate, the ATSB will also assist the Secretariat to the Senate Regional and Rural Affairs and Transport Committee to access the safety issue and action information published on the ATSB website prior to each Budget Estimates.
Recommendation 20
That where the consideration and implementation of an ATSB recommendation may be protracted, the requirement for regular updates (for example 6 monthly) should be included in the TSI Act.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The ATSB advises that there are already existing arrangements for regular public reporting on the status of safety recommendations and safety actions. For example, the ATSB already publishes on its website a list of all safety issues and actions highlighted in its investigation reports, including recommendations. The status of the issues and actions is updated quarterly.
Therefore, based on this advice, amendment to the ATSB's governing legislation, for an administrative reporting matter, is not necessary.
Recommendation 21
That the Government consider setting a time limit for agencies to implement or reject recommendations, beyond which ministerial oversight is required where the agencies concerned must report to the Minister why the recommendation has not been implemented or that, with ministerial approval, it has been formally rejected.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
All recipients of recommendations are required to respond with details of intended action (if any) within 90 days and this response is published by the ATSB. This arrangement provides for oversight of implementation and the identification of related factors or processes impacting the timeframe for implementation of specific recommendations.
The implementation of safety actions, including the time needed and the resources involved, may vary on a case by case basis. Further, the implementation of some safety actions may be tied to the implementation of others, or other regulatory initiatives, meaning that implementation needs to be accommodated within broader aviation safety regulatory processes.
Ministerial intervention in safety actions by its independent safety agencies is not necessary and could undermine the proper independence of our statutory agencies in acting in accordance with their legislative mandates.
Recommendation 22
That Airservices Australia discuss the safety case for providing a hazard alert service with Fijian and New Zealand ATC (and any other relevant jurisdictions) and encourage them to adopt this practice.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
Airservices Australia (Airservices) has confirmed that Australia, Fiji and New Zealand all follow internationally agreed protocols which define the nature and obligations for the provision of information to flight crews by air traffic control. This includes the provision of a Flight Information Service (FIS), as defined by ICAO, which includes relevant weather information and other information likely to affect safety.
Airservices notes that it uses the term "hazard alert" to describe information provided under the FIS which is new and not yet captured in a meteorological report or formal Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). While Fiji and New Zealand do not use the term "hazard alert", the service provided in all cases is effectively the same internationally agreed FIS.
Airservices has drawn Fijian and New Zealand air traffic authority's attention to the safety lessons learnt from the Pel-Air accident, both in writing and at the South West Pacific Safety Forum in May 2013.
Airservices made a presentation at the Forum which reviewed the lessons learnt from this event and the importance of accurate and timely communication and information between air traffic service providers and air crew which can include the provision of advice of deteriorating and hazardous conditions.
Recommendation 23
That the relevant agencies review whether any equipment or other changes can be made to improve the weather forecasting at Norfolk Island. The review would include whether the Unicom operator should be an approved meteorological observer.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) upgraded its equipment at Norfolk Island subsequent to a relevant ATSB report in 2000. This included the provision of instruments that measure cloud height and visibility automatically. A radar unit was also installed in 2003 for upper air measurements and weather watch.
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) will be undertaking the review relating to Norfolk Island in consultation with other agencies and industry and expects to complete the review by 30 June 2014.
BoM reports that new international higher resolution satellite imagery is scheduled to be available in 2015. This additional information may lead to improvements in monitoring and forecasting of weather services at Norfolk Island.
BoM also advises that it currently runs approved training courses for authorised weather observers which can be accessed by any airport staff.
Recommendation 24
That the relevant agencies investigate appropriate methods to ensure that information about the incidence of, and variable weather conditions at, Norfolk Island is available to assist flight crews and operators managing risk that may result from unforseen weather events.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation.
BoM currently provides information on various meteorological hazards to aviation through a number of publications, including the Manual of Aviation Meteorology. BoM staff also provide presentations at safety forums for pilots which include weather issues related to destinations such as Norfolk Island.
Through the BoM's aviation web site, specific information on climatological conditions at Norfolk Island can be found in Aerodrome Climatologies, which provides information about the frequency of low cloud and reduced visibility at Norfolk Island.
To supplement this information, the BoM has worked with Airservices and CASA to produce a brochure on aviation weather hazards at Norfolk Island. This brochure was developed and made available on the BoM web site in December 2013. It will also be made available at meetings with industry.
Recommendation 25
That the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA) is updated to reflect the need for caution with regard to Norfolk Island forecasts where the actual conditions can change rapidly and vary from forecasts.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
Variability of weather conditions from forecast is something for which flight crews should always anticipate and plan irrespective of which airport they operate to, including island destinations.
There are however, some concerns with the Committee's recommendation.
The specific identification of weather variability for a single location within the AIP could introduce its own risks. There is potential for a lack of such a statement at other locations to imply that weather is not variable, or forecasts are more accurate, at those other locations.
Commentary or classification about the reliability of weather forecasts of susceptibility to weather changes should not be done in isolation at a single location unless the safety implications have been assessed by the relevant agencies. Accordingly, Airservices is consulting with the BoM and CASA to determine whether the current ERSA provisions should be updated for Norfolk Island. If agreed, changes will be incorporated into the next scheduled issue of ERSA.
Recommendation 26
That in relation to mandatory and confidential reporting, the default position should be that no identifying details should be provided or disclosed. However, if there is a clear risk to safety then the ATSB, CASA and industry representatives should develop a process that contains appropriate checks and balances.
Response
The Government supports this recommendation in-principle.
The updated Statements of Expectations applying to ATSB and CASA, issued in April 2013, require that both agencies work closely together to ensure that arrangements are in place for the appropriate sharing and use of safety information by the ATSB and CASA. The Statements also require that these arrangements are transparent to the aviation industry and consistent with a strong reporting culture.
In response, the ATSB and CASA publicly released a joint Safety Policy Information Statement in June 2013 clarifying the use of information by both agencies and as a guide to further consultations with industry on the implementation of this policy in the operations of both agencies. Any legislative changes that may be developed to give effect to the Statement would be subject to public and industry consultation.
The information sharing approach outlined in the joint Safety Policy Information Statement is entirely consistent with international best practice and is reflected in the recommendations of the ICAO multi-disciplinary taskforce formed to specifically consider information sharing issues.
Additional Comment (Recommendation) by Participating Member
That the Government establish, as a matter of urgency, the role of Inspector-General of Aviation Safety, with the necessary powers, resources and expertise to oversee and independently review the activities of CASA, the ATSB and other relevant organisations to an appropriate level.
Response
The Government does not support this recommendation.
Australia's internationally recognised aviation safety governance arrangements do not require another layer of administration or oversight.
CASA and the ATSB are independent statutory authorities, with that independence being specifically provided for in their relevant enabling legislation and both are accountable to Parliament.
The Government sets out Statements of Expectations for both agencies consistent with their respective enabling legislative provisions. These will be updated for CASA and ATSB in the first half of next year once the independent safety review is completed and its recommendations considered by the Government.
Independence for regulatory and accident investigation authorities is vital for avoiding conflicts of interest and external interference, and is consistent with international best practice and ICAO standards.
Therefore establishing a separate body to oversee and review the work of the CASA and the ATSB would undermine well established, governance and oversight arrangements, which enjoy bipartisan support and strike an appropriate balance between independence and accountability.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Notwithstanding the independence of the judiciary authority and foremost all the rights guaranteed by the law, I would like to assure you in my capacity as president of Egypt that I will spare no effort to work towards the speedy resolution of the case in a fashion consistent with the law and that guarantees the resumption of the family in the near future.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The committee does not accept this argument—
At the time the decision against retrieving the FDR was made the imperative existed for the ATSB to do so. To ignore this imperative by arguing that the benefit did not justify the cost appears disingenuous. To imply that the revised wording in the current version of Annex 13 was the basis for the ATSB's decision in 2009/2010, before this version was in force, is even more disingenuous.
We were discussing the potential to reflect the intent of our new MoU that describes the 2 agencies as 'independent but complementary'. We discussed the hole CASA might have got itself into by its interventions since the ditching, and how you might have identified an optimum path that will maximise the safety outcome without either agency planting egg on the other agency's face. Right now, I suspect that CASA is entrenching itself into a position that would be hard to support. If we were to contemplate an exit strategy, or an 'out', then CASA would need to recognise that it is 'in' something in the first place.
That the Senate take note of the document.
1. Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.
2. We acknowledge the profound effects of these policies and practices on fathers.
3. And we recognise the hurt these actions caused to brothers and sisters, grandparents, partners and extended family members.
18. We resolve, as a nation, to do all in our power to make sure these practices are never repeated. In facing future challenges, we will remember the lessons of family separation. Our focus will be on protecting the fundamental rights of children and on the importance of the child’s right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
19. With profound sadness and remorse, we offer you all our unreserved apology.
17. To redress the shameful mistakes of the past, we are committed to ensuring that all those affected get the help they need, including access to specialist counselling services and support, the ability to find the truth in freely available records and assistance in reconnecting with lost family.
… resolves to continue to do all in its power to make sure these practices are never repeated—
… I am going to be a fighter and a warrior here today and am concerned to talk about what I think now needs to happen to restore our dignity to us.
We offer this apology in the hope that it will assist your healing and in order to shine a light on a dark period of our nation's history.
… I want people to know that I loved my baby, that she was wanted and that I am her mother.
With profound sadness and remorse, we offer you all our unreserved apology.
To those who have fought for the truth to be heard, we hear you now. We acknowledge that many of you have suffered in silence for far too long.
…we will remember the lessons of family separation. Our focus will be on protecting the fundamental rights of children and on the importance of the child's right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
…I was stripped of my innate identity, my intrinsic heritage and formally given a new name and family.
That the Senate notes the upcoming Western Australian by-election will have significant implications for the people and the environment of Australia in the face of the Abbott Government.
PRIME Minister Julia Gillard faces backbench unrest about the carbon tax, with sceptics quietly planning to push for changes to the tax - or the leadership.
I just hate the carbon tax. Never wanted it …
We might have a few like-minded sceptics coming out. If I had my way we wouldn't be having a carbon tax …
Australian Workers Union president Bill Ludwig said there was little prospect of change to the carbon tax.
"Nothing will happen. It's set in stone. It will all be alright, don't worry about it," he said.
I think it would be fair to say that the mining tax hasn't done the job that it was designed to do … I do think it's time for us to really go back to the drawing board.
No government should ever take a backward step in pursuit of the national interest.
That the order of the Senate agreed to earlier today adopting report no. 3 of 2014 of the Selection of Bills Committee be varied to provide that the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining of Future of Financial Advice) Bill 2014 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee instead of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, for inquiry and report by 16 June 2014.
The Coalition has announced that, should we win the upcoming election, we will be including Managed Investment Schemes … in a complete ‘root and branch’ review of the taxation system …
This is something I have been fighting for since becoming the Member for Wannon. In my first speech to Parliament I stated that ‘with MIS companies now insolvent, banks having no confidence to lend to the scheme, leading CEOs calling for it to be axed and timbered land in prime food and fibre production areas lying unproductively dormant, now is the time for us to act’ …
… the MIS system either needs to be abolished or radically overhauled in order to protect farmers, as well as investors, and the communities in which these schemes operate.