The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, 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.
24 March 2011 marked an important day for Australia’s vocational education and training (VET) sector. This was the day the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011 was passed by this Parliament and one of the most significant reforms to the VET sector in years became a reality.
That Act clearly demonstrated this Government’s commitment to improving the quality and consistency of training in the VET sector, both at home and internationally. The Act established the national VET regulator and the Australian Skills Quality Authority, or ASQA, commenced operations on 1 July 2011. I acknowledge that this key reform could not have been achieved without the considerable support and cooperation over a long period between the Commonwealth and most states and territories, as well as stakeholders across the sector.
But I have to say, ASQA does not have an easy job ahead of it and there are many significant challenges in the sector that ASQA needs to work through. Since 1 July, ASQA has had responsibility for all registered training organisations (RTOs) in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. It also assumed responsibility for RTOs in Victoria and Western Australia that also operate in referring states and territories, or offer services to international students. This accounts for around 2000 RTOs and this figure is expected to double over the coming year as Queensland, South Australian and Tasmanian Governments enact their legislation referring powers to the Commonwealth.
On commencement, ASQA took over a high volume of work with some 642 outstanding applications being transferred from state and territory regulators. ASQA has begun its operations with a robust, but risk-based, approach to regulation. With its new suite of regulatory tools to address non-compliance issues, it is steadily working through its significant workload to ensure that training providers either improve, or exit the system.
When the national VET regulator legislation was last before the Senate on 23 March 2011, I acknowledged that while the Government received very strong support from all the major stakeholders, they raised some legitimate concerns. There were also some issues raised in the reports of the Senate Standing Committees on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Inquiry into the Bill and for the Scrutiny of Bills. Some of these concerns I was able to address at the time through amendment of the Explanatory Memorandum. Others I could not address due to the legislative process of states referring their powers. I did, however, ask my Department to hold a consultation process with stakeholders to consider these concerns and to allow me to introduce amending legislation as early as I could to address them, without disrupting the referral process.
My Department has undertaken an extended consultation process with stakeholders, including state and territory government officials. This consultation included two face-to-face meetings; one in Canberra on 20 and 21 April and a second one in Sydney on 9 and 10 August. At the April consultations those sections of the Act which had been identified as needing reworking were discussed in some detail. The second consultations in August involved consideration of an exposure draft of the amending Bill, on a confidential basis, to explain in detail the changes that are being proposed in response to concerns and suggestions of the stakeholders.
These consultation processes also provided an opportunity to reflect on the advice provided by the two Senate Standing Committees: the Scrutiny of Bills and the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. I thank my colleagues on these committees for their work and considerations on this important government reform. I’m happy to say that through this extensive consultative process, stakeholders have generally expressed their agreement to the measure in the amending Bill that I’m introducing today. This is an excellent outcome for all concerned – but most importantly, it is further confirmation of the widespread support for the reforms we are making to the VET sector and the commitment of all to ensuring that Australia has a strong VET sector known for its high quality.
Before moving on to the explain the detail of the measures in the Bill I am introducing today, I would like to again encourage the Victorian and Western Australian governments to join the national regulatory system for the VET sector. Although I know they have some concerns about states’ rights issues, I am also confident that they are keen to see improvements in the quality of the VET sector. The National VET Regulator Act provides ASQA with a more robust set of powers that is currently available to state regulators. Feedback from stakeholders is that they welcome the concept of a truly national and consistently applied regulatory system. I trust that we can continue to work cooperatively toward that end.
I will now address the specific measures in the Bill. With the
Objects
Throughout the consultations, and in submissions to the Senate Standing Committee inquiry, stakeholders expressed the view that an Objects clause would contextualise the Act and give the sector an indication of its purpose. I am pleased to say that following constructive discussions with stakeholders and states and territories, the Government has built a consensus around negotiated objects, and these will be reflected in a new section 2A Objects clause in the National VET Regulator Act . The objects would be as follows:
The objects clause will also include two notes defining the standards-based quality framework and also that the objects are subject to the constitutional basis of the Act.
The Government, and stakeholders, consider these objects focus appropriately on the goals for a national regulatory and quality framework that is essential for retaining Australia’s reputation, that is essential for the protection of students and that is essential for businesses operating across state boarders.
State/Territory Laws
This Bill also amends section 9 of the Act which deals with the registered training organisations being immune from certain state and territory laws. The amendment clarifies that the intent of the main Act is that it applies in the same way in referring and non-referring states in relation to the Act’s interaction with their state laws.
The Bill also introduces a new subsection at 9(3) which provides a new mechanism to allow for laws in non-referring states to be specifically excluded with the agreement of the Ministerial Council. Commonwealth representatives have negotiated tirelessly and constructively with our state counterparts to draft a provision which all governments are comfortable with.
Amending Accredited Courses
The amending Bill clarifies the circumstances when the national VET regulator can amend a VET accredited course without an application being made by the course owner. This amendment to subsection 51(2)(a) narrows the power currently provided in the National VET Regulator Act. Concern that the existing power was too broad was raised by both the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and stakeholders. The proposed amendment restricts the circumstances when the regulator can amend accredited courses to situations where the amendment:
This power is important to ensure that the robustness of the VET quality framework can be maintained and that courses can be updated in response to changing circumstances or requests from industry.
Cancelled Qualification
The National VET Regulator Act provides for a civil penalty where a person purports to hold a VET qualification or statement of attainment that has been cancelled. The Act also requires a person to be notified of a cancellation and given a reasonable opportunity to return the cancelled qualification.
Both Senate Standing Committees raised concern about this process and were concerned to ensure that a person is aware of, or could reasonably be expected to be aware of, the cancellation of the qualification or statement of attainment before being liable for a civil penalty. The amending Bill therefore includes provisions to ensure this is clarified.
Minor changes are also proposed to sections 58, 59 and 60 to clarify details around the period within which a cancelled qualification must be returned, taking into account the method of notification and whether the person affected seeks a review of the decision to cancel the qualification.
The power to cancel a qualification is an important regulatory tool to allow the regulator to ensure the quality of VET in Australia. It helps to ensure that there are not uncertified people purporting to be properly trained and thereby bringing discredit to their industry. The amendments in the Bill ensure that the process in respect of informing a person of a cancelled qualification is as fair and transparent as possible.
Use of force
The Scrutiny of Bills committee, and some stakeholders, raised some concerns about the use of force provisions in the National VET Regulator Act. The Act specifies that an authorised officer may use force against a ‘thing’ - for example, to move or open a filing cabinet – when executing a warrant. The Government is proposing to amend section 70 of the Act to include limits on the use of force. Under the proposed amendments, the person in charge of the ‘thing’ in question must be given a reasonable opportunity to move or open it themselves, prior to any force being used. The Amending Bill also clarifies that the section does not authorise use of force against people.
These amendments are consistent with the recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee in that they reflect the approach taken in other Commonwealth Acts such as subsection 3U(d) of the Crimes Act 1914. In my speech to the Senate on 23 March, I indicated that the relevant provisions in the Act would also be amended to include the recording by video of situations where force is used in executing a warrant. This option was also raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. However, on further investigation by my Department, it was found that the use of video recording in such circumstances is not mandated by any other piece of Commonwealth legislation. Given this, I did not feel it appropriate to place this requirement on the national VET regulator at this time. This, of course, does not prohibit authorised officers under the Act from using video recording equipment if the regulator believes it is appropriate in certain cases.
Authorised Officers
The Scrutiny of Bills Committee also raised concern around the wide discretion that the regulator had to appoint authorised officers and that authorised officers be appropriately qualified and trained. The proposed amendment seeks to amend the Act to enable the Minister to make a determination about required experience, training and qualifications (if any) for authorised officers appointed by the regulator under section 89 of the Act.
Sharing information with the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency
In order to ensure a consistent approach to tertiary education regulation, particularly as greater numbers of providers operate in both the higher education and VET sectors, an amendment is proposed to facilitate information sharing with the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency, the higher education regulator. Not only will this facilitate information sharing, it will also help to reduce the regulatory burden on dual-sector providers.
Headings
Stakeholders also suggested that for ease of reading, some headings should be changed to better reflect what particular sections dealt with. The Government is always happy to work with the sector to ensure the Act is user friendly and clear for RTOs, trainers and students. We are therefore seeking minor amendments to the headings of sections 107, 108, 109 and 110.
This Amending Bill reflects the Government’s continued commitment to working with governments and stakeholders to continually improve the quality and consistency of training across the VET sector. A strong, nationally consistent regulatory framework is a key step in achieving this.
We would be extremely concerned about any changes to the childcare rebate that would make it harder for families to access affordable Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services.
Rather than using cuts to childcare services as a potential budget savings measure, what the Government should be doing is a root and branch review of how ECEC services are funded at a federal level.
That the amendments (Senator Jacinta Collins's ) be agreed to.
That the bill as amended, be agreed to.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Demand uncertainty remains in relation to issues such as the price payable by end-users for broadband services over time ...
The installation of FTTP is taking place in a competitive context, with developers typically contracting out the provision of infrastructure and services in developments.
Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments—for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.
Whatever brings around greater certainty for purchasers of those properties that all the utilities are actually there and are available and can be handed over to them and the greater that certainty is, the better it will be.
… there would be some advantages in what you are saying to what is currently proposed. That allows diversity in the greenfield.
Since April 2009, the Government's fibre in greenfields policy has been the subject of extensive consultation, including a discussion paper, input from a Stakeholder Reference Group, one-on-one consultations and release of an exposure draft ...
The position paper released today builds on consultations with the Stakeholder Reference Group to assist with the implementation of the policy.
It has been a consistent feature of the government's policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case ... Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments—for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.
... Fujitsu will manage the design, construction and associated works for the development of fibre to new developments.
Firstly, can I applaud you sir on your manipulative, sneaky, underhanded attack on our Shire. With one letter you have reinforced in my mind that the Gillard Government is unfit to govern this great country of ours.
is a blatant untruth.
You told us that analogue services will be switched off come 2013 and that you will not be funding Councils to provide the upgrade to our retransmission towers to provide FREE TO AIR television to our residents.
And basically that is all you have told us.
Why have you not provided us with the answers to our questions, such as:
I would have preferred you to have spent your energy in sending a letter to all householders answering some of the questions above rather than shoving the blame on the Carpentaria Shire Council on your unfair decision to make towns in the bush pay for "FREE TO AIR TELEVISION".
While the construction of the NBN involves considerable expenditure, an additional requirement to move all cabling underground would add substantially to its cost.
Legislatively there is no basis for the Minister to intervene due to an appeal to MRT not being lodged in time.
On the 13th of August at approximately 3.50pm, I witnessed Craig Thomson and then (Labor Shortland MP) Jill Hall stand from the speaker's table and walk to a person who I later learned was Louise Duff.
Mr Thomson stood over Ms Duff who had just returned to her seat, and made the following comments 'You are a disgrace. Your career is finished. I am going to publicly name you in parliament'.
Ms Hall, (who) was standing behind him, also witnessed the words and added: 'Yeah, do that'.
I approached Ms Duff to ascertain her wellbeing. She was upset, wiping tears and said to me 'Craig Thomson just spat in my face'.
"I was with Mr Craig Thomson the whole time that he spoke with Ms Louise Duff," Ms Hall wrote.
"At no stage did Mr Thomson behave inappropriately. At no time did I see (him) threaten Ms Duff, nor did I see Ms Duff in tears."
I think the right thing to do is move on and not discuss the matter further, but the fact that he apologised to me meant he knew he was in the wrong.
This state-of-the-art facility is about tackling youth unemployment …
… will be established and operated by Central Coast Group Training and owned by Wyong Shire Council.
We are committed to moving the local economy forward by creating jobs and training opportunities for young people.
The Centre is the coast's most progressive employment initiative, a pilot program that will be keenly reviewed with a view to establishing further Skills Centres.
Hi Alison, here is Christa's resume as discussed. I will get her to give you a call on—
Regards, Craig Thomson
bye bye job incubator
… Federal Labor MP Craig Thomson threatened to pull funding for a job incubator project in Wyong Shire as "payback" against Councillor Greg Best who has been speaking out about the GP super clinic and delays surrounding it.
There is a shame attached to it.
It makes me feel more diminished. So small.
It was just enforced over everybody and I don't see why it should happen to people who are doing the right thing. I would have been embarrassed to go to Woolworths with a BasicsCard. I have no history of mismanagement or social problems.
So 2007 was a huge thing.
It was an assault. It traumatised all of us, so we looked around to see what made sense. What made sense was at all costs to hang on to the land. On that day, when they said, 'We want your land', there was an outcry all over Australia, I believe, from Aboriginal peoples. By 2008 it became so unbearable that I remember absolutely reeling in shock. It appears to me like we were made enemies of the state of our country. We had not been in an aggressive relationship with anyone throughout the world, let alone Australia, let alone in the Northern Territory. We see that there are certain Aboriginal communities earmarked as growth towns. Let me assure anybody who cares for Aboriginal people of Australia that once we are moved from our place of origin we will not only lose our identity we will die a traumatised tragic end.
Well let me tell you, we wouldn't be spending $14 billion on school halls. I mean that is a phenomenal amount of money. $14 billion … That is just ridiculous.
Systemic failure or financial distress among major retailers would increase volatility and risks in the energy market, reduce competition and potentially undermine system reliability and security of supply.
We remain committed to the WTO rules-based framework to Australia honouring its international obligations. I am going to ensure that we don't deviate from that.
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today by Senator Mason in relation to carbon pricing.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by Senator Ludwig, on behalf of the Attorney-General, in response to my question.
That consideration of government business continue from 6.50 pm to 7.20 pm.
That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to provide Australian landholders the right to refuse the undertaking of coal seam gas mining activities on their land without prior written authorisation, 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.
Landholders' Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011
The Landholders’ Right to Refuse (Coal Seam Gas) Bill 2011 will provide Australian landholders with the right to refuse the undertaking of coal seam gas mining activities on food producing land without prior written authorisation.
The intent of this bill is to allow farmers to say no to coal seam gas mining on their land. When Australia has so little good quality agricultural land, only about 1-2%, we must protect it from all other inconsistent land uses.
While ever we have uncertainties about the long term impacts of this new industry on our underground water resources, there will be concern within the community about impacts on food security. Queensland farmers in the Darling Downs, for example, rely on the aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin for their water source. Without detailed understanding of the connections between underground aquifers in the Great Artesian Basin, coal seam gas activities risk a drop in the groundwater table from dewatering of coal seams to allow gas extraction, or contamination of aquifers with hydraulic fracturing fluid. Farmers should have the legal right to decide that they would prefer to be able to keep farming on their land, and for their children to have that option, rather than take the risk of possible long term groundwater depletion or contamination.
The Greens believe that we need a moratorium on new coal seam gas approvals until there is full scientific understanding of the impacts on groundwater, food security, rural communities, threatened species, the climate and the Great Barrier Reef. However, even if that information is gained and the evidence finds that coal seam gas is safe, farmers should still have the right to say no. The surface and amenity impacts may be too great an interference with their farming operations. This bill facilitates their right to make that decision, by requiring coal seam gas corporations to gain their written authorisation to enter their land to conduct coal seam gas activities. That written authorisation must contain an independent assessment of the current and future risks associated with the proposed coal seam gas mining activity on, or affecting, the land and any associated ground water systems. The farmer must also be informed that they should seek independent advice and that they may refuse to give written authorisation.
If the corporation unlawfully enters the land, they commit an offence for which a significant penalty accrues daily, and the commonwealth may prosecute them. The farmer may also seek an injunction from the Federal Court to restrain the entry, and the corporation must pay the costs of that application irrespective of the outcome.
This bill applies to all land that has produced food at any time in the 10 years prior to the first proposed coal seam gas activity on the land, from commercial primary production through to urban vegetable gardens. The bill applies to all persons with an ownership interest in the land, which is broadly defined to include all persons with a legal or equitable interest in or right to occupy the land. This would include native title holders or those with native title rights and interests. A corporation must obtain prior written authorisation from all persons with an ownership interest in the land before they may commence coal seam gas activities.
Importantly, this bill does not alter the ownership of the minerals and gas, which remain vested in the States. If the federal or state government decide that those resources are so needed, they may seek to compulsorily acquire the land, paying compensation on just terms or in accordance with state acquisition of land statutes. Those existing laws are a sufficient safeguard against a landholder ‘unreasonably’ refusing access authorisation, so this bill does not seek to address that issue.
The bill would only apply to coal seam gas activities which begin after the bill’s commencement.
I commend this bill to the Senate.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Environment and Communications References Committee on the status, health and sustainability of the koala population be extended to 20 September 2011.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That the Senate take note of the statement.
That Senator Wright replace Senator Rhiannon on the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011, and Senator Rhiannon be appointed as a participating member.
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
This Bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to address uncertainties that have arisen regarding the application of Crude Oil Excise to condensate production. Condensate is a light crude oil extracted from natural gas.
In the 2008-09 Budget, the Government announced its decision to remove the longstanding Crude Oil Excise exemption that had applied to condensate production, with effect from midnight (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory), 13 May 2008. The intention of that measure was to increase the return to the Australian community for allowing private interests to extract non-renewable energy resources located in the North West Shelf project and onshore Australia and was estimated to raise $2.5 billion in revenue over the three years to 2011-12.
The measures included in this Bill, together with those in the Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill 2011, clarify uncertainties that have arisen following the removal of the exemption. These uncertainties relate to two elements integral to the operation of the Crude Oil Excise regime, namely, the prescription of 'condensate production areas'—which define the areas over which excise is applied—and the determination of the Volume Weighted Average of Realised prices or the 'VOLWARE' price—which are the prices used to calculate excise liability.
In November 2008, the Tax Commissioner prescribed the 'Rankin Trend', as a condensate production area through by-law, with effect from 13 May 2008. The Rankin Trend is located within the North West Shelf project area and encompasses a number of spatially related reservoirs. It was prescribed as a single condensate production area on the basis that the Rankin Trend reservoirs form a single field.
Doubts have subsequently been raised regarding the validity of the Rankin Trend by-law. These doubts relate to the area the Rankin Trend encompasses, with claims that it is of uncertain size and could be interpreted as being significantly larger than the area intended when it was prescribed.
The Excise Tariff Amendment (Condensate) Bill amends the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to address any uncertainty regarding the area encompassed by the Rankin Trend. It does this by introducing a statutory definition of the Rankin Trend within the Act as being the area including those reservoirs previously identified as forming a single field. The amendments also allow for additional reservoirs which commence production to be added to the Rankin Trend condensate production area by regulation in circumstances where the Resource Minister is satisfied they form part of the Rankin Trend field, and after considering what effect, if any, this may have on the efficient exploitation of the resource.
These amendments serve only to clarify and confirm the current application of Crude Oil Excise to condensate production, consistent with the original policy intent, and have no revenue impact.
The measure will take effect from midnight (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory), 13 May 2008, consistent with the original 2008-09 Budget measure.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.
This Bill amends the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 to address uncertainties that have arisen regarding the determination of Volume Weighted Average Realised prices or 'VOLWARE' prices—which are the prices used to calculate excise liability.
Under the Crude Oil Excise regime, a VOLWARE price is required to be determined for each month by the Minister, or a person authorised by the Minister within a specific time. A written notice setting out the terms of these price determinations must also be provided to the relevant producer or producers, although no time period for so doing is specified. It has been suggested that, if a written notice setting out the terms of a price determination is not provided to producers, then the determination itself is invalid.
The Excise Legislation Amendment (Condensate) Bill amends the Petroleum Excise (Prices) Act 1987 to clarify that a failure to provide written notice of a VOLWARE price determination does not affect the validity of the determination.
The amendments also extend the ability of producers to seek a review of VOLWARE price determinations by allowing them to seek a review within 28 days of receiving a written notice.
These amendments serve only to clarify the existing operation of the law and have no revenue impact.
The measures will take effect from midnight (by legal time in the Australian Capital Territory), 13 May 2008, consistent with the original 2008-09 Budget measure.
Full details of the measures in this Bill are contained in the combined explanatory memorandum.
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.
The Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 makes amendments to facilitate Australia's accession to the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime.
The Convention is the only binding international treaty on cybercrime.
The Government announced its intention to accede to the Convention in April 2010. To date, over 40 nations have either signed or become a party to the Convention, including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan and South Africa.
Cybercrime poses a significant challenge for our law enforcement and criminal justice system.
The global and interconnected nature of the internet makes it easy for malicious actors to operate from abroad, especially from those countries where regulations and enforcement arrangements are weak. For this reason, it is critical that laws designed to combat cyber threats are harmonised, or at least compatible to allow for international cooperation.
The Convention serves as a guide for nations developing comprehensive national legislation on cybercrime and also establishes procedures to make investigations more efficient and provides systems to facilitate international co-operation, including:
The Convention requires Parties to criminalise certain types of conduct committed via the internet and other computer networks and ensure domestic agencies can access and share information to facilitate international investigations.
As such, the Convention will help Australian agencies to better prevent, detect and prosecute cyber intrusions and criminal activity conducted over the internet.
Australian law already complies with a majority of the obligations of the Convention. In particular, jurisdictions in Australia have created relevant offences and have provided agencies with many of the powers and procedures required by the Convention.
However, accession to the Convention will require amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 to enhance Australia's ability to effectively combat cyber crime.
Overview
Preservation of Stored Communications
Schedule 1 implements requirements of the Convention to establish powers for agencies to obtain the preservation of stored communications for up to 90 days, particularly where there are grounds to believe that the data is vulnerable to loss or modification.
The purpose of the preservation period is to maintain the integrity of the data for a period of time to enable agencies to seek its disclosure through a relevant warrant.
These amendments are necessary as carriers' business practices include the deletion of communications often before agencies have the opportunity to exercise a warrant for their access, in the case of one carrier within 24 hours of a message's creation. It
also formalises voluntary arrangements that already exist with some carriers who will hold communication records pending receipt of a warrant.
Accordingly, the Bill amends the TIA Act so that an agency can formally require a carrier to preserve stored communications by reference to an individual or telecommunications service. This approach enables the preservation of computer data, but also SMS messages, emails and other communications stored by the carrier while ensuring the TIA Act remains technologically neutral.
The Bill will also enable designated interception agencies to require carriers to preserve ongoing communications in respect to an individual or service for up to 30 days. Again, these communications can only be accessed by a designated interception agency upon the grant of a valid warrant.
The Bill will enable the Australian Federal Police to require the preservation of communications on behalf of a foreign law enforcement agency. Once again, however, the content of those preserved communications can only be accessed following authorisation of a stored communications warrant under a formal mutual assistance request for a serious foreign contravention. This is an offence carrying a penalty of either 3 years' imprisonment or a fine of approximately $99,000.
There are a number of important protections in the Bill, including:
Agencies can only access preserved communications from a carrier with a relevant warrant.
Preservation is only available to investigate a 'serious contravention' (defined as an offence carrying 3 years' imprisonment, a $19 800 fine for individuals, and a $99 000 for non-individuals) or for obtaining intelligence relating to security defined under the ASIO Act as relating to espionage, terrorism, foreign interference and border integrity.
In each case a number of tests must be satisfied, such as balancing privacy considerations and determining that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the carrier holds the relevant communications and that information obtained would likely assist in its investigation.
Domestic notices are revoked automatically after 90 days. They must also be revoked by the agency if before that point the agency is no longer satisfied the grounds for issuing the notice exist.
Notices with respect to the preservation of ongoing communications are only available for up to 30 days.
Agencies will be required to report on the number of preservation notices issued and keep copies of those notices.
Use of preservation powers by agencies will be subject to oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsmen and the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS).
International Cooperation
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 to allow the AFP to assist foreign partners by accessing communications data on a police-to-police basis. Communications data relates to information about a communication, rather than the content of the communication itself. This is often important information which can reveal a target has Australian accounts, has been involved with known Australian suspects or has connections or associations with known criminal groups.
The Bill will also enable Australia to provide non-content data on an ongoing basis to a foreign country following a formal mutual assistance request. Particular safeguards with respect to providing information pursuant to a mutual assistance request will also apply. These tools will further assist in the investigation of international cyber crime.
In order to ensure full compliance with Article 15 of the Convention, which deals with the protection of civil liberties, the Bill also introduces a new requirement in the TIA Act to protect privacy. This will require agencies to specifically consider the privacy of affected parties before authorising the disclosure of telecommunications data.
The requirement to consider privacy will apply to any authorisation for any domestic or foreign purpose. Privacy in this context, is interpreted more broadly than in the Privacy Act 1988, and will include consideration of the amount of information that the authorisation will make available to the agency, the relevance of the accessed information to the investigation in question, as well as how a third party's privacy may be impacted by the information.
The reforms contained in Schedule 2 were released for public comment by the Government in January 2011 in respect to the Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation Amendment Bill.
Amendments to the Criminal Code
Computer crimes in Australia are set out in Commonwealth as well as State and Territory law.
Commonwealth offences are currently limited to circumstances in which a carriage service has been used or Commonwealth computers or data are involved in the commission of an offence. For situations not covered by Commonwealth laws, State and Territory offences are used.
In order to ensure full compliance with Convention requirements, the Criminal Code will be amended to remove the current limitations on Commonwealth computer offences. The amended offences will be supported by the external affairs power.
In the event of any inconsistency between Commonwealth and State or Territory laws, the savings provisions contained in the Criminal Code will ensure the validity of the State or Territory law.
Consultation
In April 2010, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General jointly announced Australia's intention to accede to the Convention. On 17 February 2011, the Attorney-General's Department released a public discussion paper in relation to Australia's proposed accession.
Submissions were received from representatives of the telecommunications industry, State Governments, the Office of the Information Commissioner as well as privacy and civil liberties groups.
The majority of submissions supported accession.
After the tabling of the National Interest Analysis by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 1 March 2011, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties considered Australia's proposed accession. JSCOT tabled its report supporting Australia's accession to the Convention on 11 May 2011. The Committee agreed that cybercrime is a growing threat at a time when computer-based networks are the most vital means of communicating and doing business.
Conclusion
The increasing cyber crime threat means that no nation alone can effectively overcome this problem and international cooperation is essential.
Australia must have appropriate arrangements domestically and internationally to be in the best possible position to fight cyber crime.
This Bill will facilitate Australia's accession to the Cybercrime convention and improve our ability to cooperate internationally in combating cyber crime.
The Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011 makes amendments to the Schools Assistance Act 2008 (‘the Act’).
In December 2010, the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs (MCEECDYA) endorsed the Foundation to Year 10 Australian Curriculum in the initial four learning areas of English, mathematics, science and history. Ministers agreed that from 2011, states and territories will commence staged implementation of the agreed Australian Curriculum with substantial implementation to be completed by the end of 2013. The implementation date defined in the Act needs to be replaced to reflect this decision.
The single implementation date currently prescribed by the Act does not accommodate the different implementation timeframes that will accompany each new phase of the Australian Curriculum endorsed by education ministers.
Nor does it provide a means of dealing efficiently with future additions or revisions to the national curriculum, which are an accepted part of curriculum development processes.
The proposed amendment to the Act will overcome these deficiencies by introducing a standing regulation that prescribes both the national curriculum and associated implementation timeframes as those authorised by education ministers via the Council of Australian Governments’ Standing Council for School Education and Early Childhood (‘the Standing Council’), formerly known as MCEECDYA.
The new standing regulation will provide a mechanism to efficiently accommodate phased implementation of the Australian Curriculum, as well as any future additions or revisions to the curriculum endorsed by the Standing Council.
That this bill be now read a third time.
SENATE
Statement in Support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010 and Income Tax Rates Amendment (Research and Development) Bill 2010
In continuation of defining Supporting R&D Activities:
All other supporting activities need to be directly related to core R&D activities.
The dominant purpose test applies only to production activities and activities on the exclusions list. The test safeguards the integrity of the program so that firms do not claim business-as-usual type activities.
These provisions remedy the concern that the R&D Tax Concession allowed claims to be made for activities — particularly supporting activities — where there was little rationale for public support. Without Government action, these claims were likely to continue and to increase. Ensuring taxpayers get better value for their investment is essential for the program's long term sustainability.
We have deliberately applied the Tax Credit to all research and development performed in Australia, because the majority of knowledge dissemination comes from where research and development is performed, not intellectual property ownership.
Intellectual property ownership is no longer a factor limiting businesses' ability to claim support for eligible research and development activities. The Bill removes outdated foreign ownership restrictions on intellectual property under the R&D Tax Concession, recognising today's global business and investment environment.
Software is now subject to the same eligibility tests as other forms of research and development, with the exception of certain in-house software. For example, where software is used for day-to-day business administration of the business, such as management information systems and enterprise resource planning, software
The general rule is that to be eligible, research and development activity must be conducted in Australia. However, the Government is acknowledges that Australia is not home to all necessary infrastructure or expertise, and that circumstances may arise where some research and development can only be conducted overseas. Consequently, R&D conducted overseas will be eligible under the R&D Tax Credit in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions.
The new R&D Tax Credit provides flexible support for companies no matter whether they undertake research and development - in-house (including on the production line or the factory floor) or if a third party undertakes it externally.
The Tax Credit retains the rule that a company can claim eligible research and development activities conducted only by the company or on its behalf. The rule is applied by weighing up three key criteria to determine the majority beneficiary, namely:
Who 'effectively owns' the 'know—how' or intellectual property to arising from the research and development activities;
Who has appropriate control over the conduct of the research and development activities; and
Who bears the financial burden of carrying out the research and development activities.
This enables identification of the appropriate claimant and prevents the duplication of claims where research and development is contracted out.
Companies can be assured of the eligibility of their research and development prior to their undertaking or registering that activity, by requesting an advance finding from Innovation Australia. The finding is assessed on the information the company provides on application. Should it materially change then the basis for the finding may also change.
Advance findings are binding on the Commissioner of Taxation to recognise associated research and development expenditures. They apply in the application income year and the following two income years.
And last but certainly not least, firms will be able to receive greater administrative support including clear and comprehensive guidance materials from both Auslndustry and the Australian Taxation Office.
Administrators will always refer to the legislation, Explanatory Memorandum and, legislative instruments in administering the Tax Credit. This will safeguard the policy intent of the program.
Following further stakeholder consultation the Government has adopted recommendations of the Senate Committee relating to ongoing monitoring of the operation of the legislation, the review of the legislation after two years of operation, and the establishment of an advisory group to inform me and my Department of any unforseen consequences of this important initiative.
The advisory group, broadly representative of industry, will monitor Is the implementation and operation of the incentive. It will consult industry and advise whether the Tax Credit achieves its objectives and if it secures additional investment in research and development.
The advisory group will be appointed as soon as practicable after the Bills receive Royal Assent.
Today the Government is moving an amendment relating to the commencement date for the R&D Tax Credit, and a request for a consequential amendment. In addition, the Government is moving a request relating to Quarterly Credits.
I will now speak to each of these in turn. In moving the first of these amendments, I share the disappointment of many businesses over the delay in starting the program - especially those small businesses who might have hoped that the program would start from 1 July 2010.
Businesses will now be able to plan their research and development activities with confidence, knowing their entitlement to access the increased benefits available from 1 July 2011.
In moving the second amendment, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the cross-bench in advancing industry views on Quarterly Credits. This amendment affirms the Government's commitment to listen to industry and act on constructive advice.
In recognition of the unique position of cash-starved firms, the Government will introduce a new element to the R&D Tax Credit: quarterly credits for businesses with a turnover under $20 million, from 1 January 2014.
Quarterly credits will allow small and medium enterprises to choose the option best suited to their business requirements. They can either continue to simply claim the research and development tax incentive at the end of the income year in which the research and development is undertaken, or apply for quarterly credits that will deliver the benefit in the income year the company undertakes activities.
The precise rules governing whether and how a particular firm will be able to receive quarterly credits, and the most efficient and effective means of providing quarterly credits in general, will be determined in the light of experience with the operation of the new R&D tax incentive.
Consequently, it is not feasible to include those details in these amendments, which instead provide for the regime to be implemented through regulations. However, the amendments demonstrate the Government's clear commitment that a quarterly credits regime is to be a part of the new R&D tax incentive.
While it costs more to install fibre than copper in a new development, the incremental cost is much less than the cost of installing fibre in brownfields sites. The Government’s stated policy is that in developments of 100 homes or less Telstra will install copper. The Coalition members believe this approach risks wasteful duplication with copper presumably being overbuilt within a few years if it is within the fibre footprint. On any view connecting greenfields developments to fibre must be a key priority given the cost advantage over brownbuild fibre overbuilds referred to above.
It has been a consistent feature of the government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.
Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments—for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.
… unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic for property developers.
… the legislation needs to make it very clear who is responsible for the delivery and that there are certain obligations on the provider to do that in a very timely way, otherwise it will delay development. I appreciate that there are negotiations in the feasibility and planning arrangements, but there needs to be that level of certainty for developers so they know who is going to do it, who is going to pay for it and when it can be done. It should not take more than a couple of phone calls and a meeting to sort out it being put into the critical path of the development, otherwise those projects will be delayed whilst certain things are waiting for a provider to provide that infrastructure.
… produce a more efficient outcome if it meant that infrastructure in new developments were built at lower cost than if it were done by NBN Co under a monopoly.
The regime established by the Bill is damaging to competition in the market for the provision of new fibre infrastructure. Today, as is clear from evidence provided by GFOA there is a nascent but increasingly active market in which CGOs compete to secure contracts from developers to build out fibre networks in their developments. In some cases, the CGO builds the network and then also operates as a retail service provider, providing services over the network to residents in the development.
The regime established by the Bill damages competition for several reasons. First, by exposing CGOs to competition from a government funded operator which is prepared to install fibre at zero cost to a developer (once the developer has incurred the expense of building trenches and other ‘fibre ready facilities’), the regime will effectively make it impossible for such CGOs to compete.
CGOs will be at a fundamental cost disadvantage because NBN Co is prepared to install fibre at zero cost, incurring a loss on the installation which it presumably hopes to recoup over time from service revenues.
It is estimated that 150 000 new dwellings and approximately 60 000 other types of premises (commercial, industrial and government) are constructed annually. NBN Co has calculated that 94 per cent of these new premises (or around 197 000) will be within the fibre footprint.
The cost of installing fibre-ready infrastructure has been estimated at about $800 per lot or building unit. The cost of retrofit of fibre where no passive infrastructure has been supplied is estimated to be approximately $1300 a lot or unit.
This process has the potential to create a ‘digital divide’ between developments with less than 100 premises and those with more than 100 premises, both during and after the roll out of the NBN. It also creates an anti-competitive and unlevel playing field for other infrastructure and service providers. It seems that Telstra could determine unilaterally that it will service a development with a fibre-to-the-node (FTTN) or fibre-to-the-building (FTTB) solution, or even a mobile voice and broadband solution, which would prevent other service providers from accessing those networks given they are not regulated. This would further entrench Telstra as the monopoly provider in these markets, while also giving it first mover advantage to acquire the end-users as Telstra Retail customers, pending migration to NBN Co’s fibre network.
… include provisions that ensure these developments are serviced by copper from the local telephone exchange wherever reasonably possible. This would ensure the ULLS26—
… is available to other service providers during the transitional period, prior to the NBN Co fibre deployment.
Based on the numbers provided to HIA, the average cost to the developer per block for FTTP is in the range of $2500 ‐ $3500.
It was revolution—small in size, but great politically; it was a strike for liberty, a struggle for principle, a stand against injustice and oppression.
… all new telecommunications and satellite Internet connections to ensure all Australians are charged the same basic price for maintenance and new connections.
(2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (after line 23), after the second dot point, insert:
If a compliant optical fibre network is installed in such a fibre-ready facility, NBN Co will pay the cost of installation.
(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 18), omit "the conditions (if any)", substitute "any technical standards and other conditions".
(4) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 25), after "specify", insert "technical standards and other".
(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (after line 26), after subsection 372B(4), insert:
(4A) The Minister must consult the ACMA and relevant industry bodies before making an instrument under subsection (4).
(6) Schedule 1, item 10, page 6 (line 28), after "paragraph (1)(b)", insert "or subsection (4)".
(7) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 10), omit "the conditions (if any)", substitute "any technical standards and other conditions".
(8) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 17), after "specify", insert "technical standards and other".
(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (after line 18), after subsection 372C(4), insert:
(4A) The Minister must consult the ACMA and relevant industry bodies before making an instrument under subsection (4).
(10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 8 (line 20), after "paragraph (1)(b)", insert "or subsection (4)".
(11) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 4), after section 372C, insert:
372CA Purchase by NBN Co of installed optical networks
Scope
(1) This section applies in relation to the project area, or any of the project areas, for a real estate development project:
(a) that is compliant with Division 3; and
(b) in which a compliant optical network is installed by a person other than NBN Co.
NBN Co to purchase network if requested
(2) The person or persons responsible for the real estate development project may apply to NBN Co for NBN Co to purchase the network in accordance with this section.
(3) An application for the purchase of a network must be made within 3 months after the completion of the network.
(4) The person or persons responsible for the real estate development project must provide NBN Co with such information and access as NBN CO requires to satisfy itself that the network is a compliant optical network.
(5) NBN Co must purchase the network within 30 days after receiving the application.
Amount of payment
(6) The amount of the purchase payment must be in accordance with a scale of payments determined by the Minister for this subsection and published in the Gazette .
(7) The Minister must determine a scale of payments for the purposes of subsection (6) as soon as practicable.
(8) In determining a scale of payments, the Minister must take into account:
(a) the typical costs of providing such networks or elements of such networks, including significant regional variations in costs; and
(b) the costs that NBN Co would have incurred had it undertaken to provide such networks itself.
Interpretation
(9) For this section, a project area of a real estate development project is compliant with Division 3 if:
(a) section 372E or 372F applied to installation of a fixed-line facility in the project area; and
(b) any fixed-line facilities installed in the project area that were subject to subsection 372E(2) or 372F(2) complied with those subsections.
Note: These subsections require that the facilities be fibre-ready and that the installation comply with an instrument under subsection 372E(4) or 372F(4), subject to exemptions under section 372K.
(10) For this section, a compliant optical network of a project area of a real estate development project is a collection of optical fibre lines in the project area, each of which:
(a) is wholly or primarily used, or wholly or primarily for use, to supply one or more carriage services to either or both of the following:
(i) one or more end-users (whether or not identifiable) in one or more building units;
(ii) one or more prospective end-users (whether or not identifiable) in one or more building units; and
(b) is not on the customer side of the boundary of a telecommunications network; and
(c) is used, or for use, to supply a carriage service to the public; and
(d) for a line being deployed to a building lot—was installed in compliance with the conditions for such lines in an instrument under subsection 372B(4); and
(e) for a line being deployed to a building unit—was installed in compliance with the conditions for such lines in an instrument under subsection 372C(4).
... that is a pragmatic suggestion. In relation to the certainty question you asked me before, that is what is confronted by developers—how and when are things actually going to be done? Whatever brings around greater certainty for purchasers of those properties that all the utilities are actually there and are available and can be handed over to them and the greater that certainty is, the better it will be.
... there would be some advantages in what you are saying to what is currently proposed. That allows diversity in the greenfield. As I have said, we have been successful. Not only do we offer broadband and voice but we offer a number of other services that some developers find attractive. It would still allow them to do that and allow them to keep that network operating through companies like ourselves or allows them the offer to transfer that ownership to NBN Co. I think that is what you are suggesting. We would never love to build a network and see it go to someone else, but I think the concept is better than where we stand today.
I trust that the union executive will have the resolve to stare down those associated within the Labor Party who say, 'No, keep it in house. Give it to our mate, Tim Lee, who is the general manager of Fair Work Australia and a known associate of Julia Gillard, who deals with investigations into Fair Work Australia.'
It has been a consistent feature of the Government’s policy in new developments that there should be room for competing providers. This continues to be the case.
Developers will be able to source fibre from competing fibre providers if they wish. Providers can compete to provide infrastructure in new developments, for example, by offering more tailored solutions to developers or more expeditious delivery.
NBN Co Agreements with Developers, who have already applied for 133,000 new lot connections in Greenfield developments since 1 January 2011, evidences that the cost of each connection is currently averaging over $3000 per lot (excluding any back haul construction costs).
Current prices for GFOA networks that equal or exceed the current functional performance of NBN Co networks are up to $1500 per lot (excluding any back haul construction costs). FTA TV and Pay TV may add $300 per lot.
… the approximate cost depending on choice of provider and specification used, of installation of a fibre network per premise is up to $3500. TransACT stated:
The ballpark type numbers indicate that pit and pipe is somewhere in the order of $500 to $1,000 a premise and a turnkey solution is anywhere up to $3,500 a premise depending on who deploys it and what the specification is.
The amount of the purchase payment must be in accordance with a scale of payments determined by the Minister for this subsection and published in the Gazette .
All of us in the RTBU and the wider labour movement have been enriched by his lifelong contribution. His life work is both testament to the foundations of collectivity and solidarity upon which unions are built and it why we can proclaim: we are proud to be union.
Under WTO rules Australia had an obligation to implement the outcomes of the apples dispute either immediately or within a reasonable period of time. The Australian government decided to implement the outcomes by a scientific review of the existing 2006 import risk analysis. The reasonable period of time can either be set by agreement between the parties or by an independent arbiter. The New Zealand and Australian authorities negotiated a period of eight months to complete this review, putting Australia in a position to issue import permits by 17 August 2011.
If it had been left to an arbiter it is likely that Australia would have been given less time to implement the findings.
If it had been left to an arbiter it is likely that Australia would have been given less time to implement the findings.
Does a bank require confirmation from every customer signing a guarantee that they have had the guarantee and its implications explained to them.
The Australian Bankers Association has released the Code of Banking Practice. The Code sets out in detail what the member banks of the ABA will do before they take a guarantee. The Code of Banking Practice requires that before a guarantee is taken, the bank must provide a prominent notice indicating: that the person should seek independent legal and financial advice on the effect of the guarantee; that the person can refuse to enter into the guarantee; and that there are financial risks involved.
Banks have a duty to disclose relevant issues to a third party guarantor. In addition, guarantees may be overturned because of unconscionable conduct; instances of duress; undue influence; and inequality of bargaining power due to a specific disadvantage or disability.
Given that most people faced with a problem under a guarantee have little recourse other than the legal process, and that most cannot afford to pay for this: what assistance or help is provided for persons affected by recovery procedures by banks.
A decision by a person to become a guarantor is a private commercial decision. The Australian Bankers Association’s Code of Banking Practice (Code) sets out the obligations of the banks regarding guarantees. A guarantee must include a statement that the Code applies to the guarantee. The Code requires banks to inform individuals that they can refuse to enter into a guarantee, there are financial risks involved and that a person has the ability to limit their liability.
If a bank seeks to enforce a guarantee, a person may seek free legal advice from community legal centres and no win no fee solicitors. A person may also be able to make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The Commonwealth also provides funding to organisations which assist people affected by recovery procedures. The Commonwealth funds legal aid and community legal centres in each state including, in most jurisdictions, a consumer credit legal centre. These legal centres were provided with increased funding as part of the 2011-12 Budget process. The Government will provide $194.8 million in funding to the states for legal aid commissions under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services. This amount is an increase of $4 million from last year, and forward estimates show this funding increasing by a total of $11 million over the next three years. A further $10.4 million will be provided to legal aid commissions under the Attorney-General's Department Program 1.3: Justice Services. This represents a significant increase from the $3.3 million originally allocated in the 2010–11 Budget. In addition, under the Attorney-General's Department Program 1.3: Justice Services, $34 325 million ($31 483 million in 2010–11) in payments will be made for the provision of community legal services across Australia.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
The answers to these questions were included in the response provided to questions 228, 240, 253, 255 and 256 that appeared in Hansard on 22 June 2011 at page 3632.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
The answers to these questions were included in the response provided to questions 228, 240, 253, 255 and 256 that appeared in Hansard on 22 June 2011 at page 3632.
(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010:
(a) what was the hospitality spend for each agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary; and
(b) for each hospitality event, can the following details be provided:
(i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the purpose, (iv) the cost, and (v) the number of attendees.
(2) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2010, can details be provided of the total hospitality spend for the office of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary.
*491 Minister representing the Minister for Defence
*492 Minister representing the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel
*493 Minister representing the Minister for Defence Materiel
(1)(a) The Department of Defence's total expenditure on Hospitality (excluding the Minister's Office) with separate analysis of representational allowances, for the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2010, is shown in Table 1. This information has been provided in response to Senate Question on Notice 117-119 which was tabled 22 March 2011.
Official Hospitality is the provision of hospitality to persons other than Defence personnel who are able to assist Defence in achieving its corporate objectives through advice, vocational or business interests or attendance at official ceremonies or functions.
Representational allowances assist Australian Defence Organisation (ADO) members posted on long-term duty overseas to meet the costs of officially entertaining host-country nationals. The sole purpose of providing such hospitality is to enable ADO members to conduct Australian and Defence business more efficiently and effectively.
(1)(b) Details of each event are provided at Table 2. The number of attendees at hospitality events has been included. Attendee details for events paid from representational allowances are not currently available, but enhanced data collection processes implemented from 1 January 2011 collects the number of attendees at representational events and this will be available for reporting purposes after this date.
(2) Details of hospitality spend for the offices of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary are provided at Table 3. This Table correctly reports the costs recorded up to 31 December 2010 for the "34th Squadron thank you function" at $2,795.
Attachments:
Table 1: Summary of Hospitality and Representational Allowance Expenditure For the Period 1 Jul 2010 to 31 Dec 2010.
Table 2: Event Level Detail for Defence, DMO and DHA.
Table 3: Event Level Detail for the Offices of Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
With reference to the proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax and following the recent Federal Court of Australia decision in Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCA 360, has the department conducted any assessment or modelling to determine the impact of this decision on revenue implications for the Government’s proposed Minerals Resource Rent Tax; if not, why has the department not done so; if so, can details be provided of: (a) this assessment or modelling; and (b) the projected revenue implications.
The decision in Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd v The Commissioner of Taxation [2011] specifically relates to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT). Since this decision was handed down the Government announced a measure as part of the 2011-12 Budget which seeks to provide greater certainty around the taxing point for PRRT. There are significant differences between the taxing point under the Minerals Resource Rent Tax (MRRT) and the PRRT. On 10 June the Government released the draft MRRT legislation for public comment. The bill provides detail on the how the taxing point is expected to operate under the MRRT.
(1) Has the department undertaken any research or analysis of international experiences, both government and non-government led, with justice reinvestment: if so, can the findings of any such research or analysis be provided.
(2) Has the department been in further contact with the Aboriginal Legal Service on the issue of justice reinvestment.
(3) Has the department analysed the successful pilot study in Newcastle that reduced re-offending to a minimum.
(4) Has the department any plans for further pilot studies in areas with high incarceration rates.
The Department has undertaken some research and analysis of international experiences with justice reinvestment. The Attached Background Paper summarises that work.
The Department received a request from the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (ALSWA) in July 2010 to sponsor a documentary on justice reinvestment. The Department did not have resources available to commit to the project, and has not been in further contact with ALSWA or any other Aboriginal Legal Services on the issue of justice reinvestment.
The Department is aware of a multi-systemic therapy program in NSW (the Intensive Supervision Program) which has been piloted in Western Sydney and Newcastle. While some initial positive results have been reported in the media, the Department understands that program has not been subject to an outcomes evaluation to establish overall impacts on re-offending. The Department intends to monitor the program closely.
The Department has commissioned evaluations of twenty Indigenous justice programs which are consistent with justice reinvestment approaches. The evaluations are reviewing a range of programs designed to reduce Indigenous rates of offending, incarceration and recidivism, particularly amongst youth and perpetrators of violent crime. An additional project to evaluate the effectiveness of six drug and alcohol programs aimed at Indigenous offenders or those at risk of offending will commence over the next few months. The evaluations are occurring under the National Indigenous Law and Justice Framework, and the findings will form a vital base which can inform the development of initiatives across Australia that draw on the justice reinvestment approach. Further information about the evaluations is available on the Department ' s website: www.ag.gov.au
The Department is also currently chairing a cross-jurisdictional working group to further investigate justice reinvestment / causes of crime in the Australian context. The group is scheduled to provide a report including options to National Justice Chief Executive Officers in November 2011.
In regard to an explosive event conducted by Holcim Australia at their quarry on the Burrup Peninsula on the afternoon of 1 April 2011:
(1) Were there any commitments or guidelines for Holcim Australia similar to those used by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and Woodside Energy for the vibration effect of explosions on the surrounding rock art and terraces on the Burrup Peninsula or National Heritage listed area; if not, why not.
(2) Is the Minister aware that explosions such as the one that occurred at the Holcim quarry dislodge boulders on the Burrup; if not, will the Minister avail himself of this information.
(3) If the answer to paragraph (1) above is no and the answer to paragraph (2) above is yes, what will the Minister do about these activities.
(4) Will the Minister impose explosive impact guidelines similar to those used by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and Woodside Energy on Holcim Australia; if not, why not.
(1) The guidelines developed by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and Woodside Energy for the vibration effect of explosions on Dampier Archipelago (including Burrup Peninsular) national heritage listed place were self-imposed and not a requirement of government. The Australian Government is not aware of Holcim Australia having any commitments or guidelines similar to those used by Rio Tinto Iron Ore and Woodside Energy.
However, it is an offence under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 for a person to take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the Indigenous heritage values of a National Heritage Place. If the company’s explosions are having, will have or are likely to have a significant impact on the values of the National Heritage Place they would be required to refer their activities for assessment under the Act.
(2) The department did receive a report of a scree slope that collapsed some two kilometres from the quarry but the department has no evidence of a connection between that slope collapse and explosions at the Holcim quarry. However, departmental officials will be meeting with Holcim Australia in coming weeks to discuss managing quarry activities to ensure the conservation of adjacent national heritage values.
(3) Please refer to the answer to question (2).
(4) My powers are predicated on actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance.
In regard to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC):
(1) How does the ABC propose to address the potential impact of the convergence of television, radio, phone and iPad platforms and the nationally legislated local content quota.
(2) Has the ABC reversed its decision to halve its bureau in the Middle East.
(3) What relationship does the ABC have with Associated Press Television News in terms of the sharing of technicians and producers.
(4) Why has Late Night Live been removed from Radio Australia's schedule altogether rather than being aired at another time.
(5) Has the Department of Foreign Affairs or Trade or any minister in the present government or their senior staff expressed an opinion (formally or informally) to the ABC about any aspect of Late Night Live in the past 6 months.
(6) What criteria is used to determine which guest commentators are paid, under what circumstances and the amount.
(7) Is there a financial relationship between the ABC and TuneIn.
(8) When did TuneIn begin to carry ABC content.
(9) Has the ABC supplied any content to TuneIn, or given permission for TuneIn to use ABC content.
(10) Is the ABC concerned that TuneIn carries ABC content along with advertising.
(11) Does the ABC pay for the Australia Traffic Network's reports on the ABC.
(1) The ABC continually assesses the media environment in which it operates and believes that it produces quality content with the funding it receives from the government. As technology has changed, the ABC has endeavoured to ensure that its content is available and accessible across a range of platforms to Australian audiences, including through its television and radio broadcasts, web content and iPhone and iPad apps.
The ABC continues to consider the issues of convergence in its daily operations and its
long-term strategic thinking. In examining the impact of convergence on the sector more broadly, the Corporation is providing input to the government's Convergence Review.
The Australian Content Standard sets minimum levels of Australian programming to be broadcast by commercial television broadcast licensees. The standard does not apply to the ABC.
(2) ABC News considered reducing the number of permanent correspondents it had in the Middle East. However, given recent events in the region and following consultation with staff, the proposal to reduce the number of permanent correspondents in the region has been deferred.
(3) The ABC has no on-going arrangements with APTN in relation to the sharing of technicians and producers.
(4) On 11 April 2011, Radio Australia (RA) moved from predominantly pre-recorded content from other networks, which was produced to reflect domestic Australian audience interests, to predominantly live content that is produced to reflect the interests of our target audiences in Asia and the Pacific. This change in programming was made to allow RA to respond to high interest issues of the day and events as they occur, including emergencies and major breaking news.
The decision to remove Late Night Live from RA's schedule was made in this light and in order to allow RA to produce additional content tailored specifically for audiences in Asian and Pacific markets, including content with a focus on Australian attitudes to world affairs.
RA uses interviews and segments from Late Night Live as inserted items in the new live flow programming. International audiences can still receive Late Night Live in full, and other ABC domestic radio content, via the internet.
(5) The ABC is not aware of the Department of Foreign Affairs or Trade, any minister in the present government or any senior government staff member expressing an opinion (formally or informally) to the ABC about any aspect of Late Night Live in the past 6 months.
(6) As a general rule, ABC Radio pays few guest commentators, the exceptions being sports commentators and some regular commentators on various stations, such as weekly or fortnightly experts on gardening, technology and other topics, and film and television reviewers.
From time to time, ABC Radio may cover associated costs for guest commentators such as parking or taxi expenses for guests visiting to our studios.
The criteria used to select commentators and whether to pay a fee include:
Sporting commentators are usually paid fees for shifts of between five and nine hours. The fee varies depending on their profile as a commentator, the market within which they are based, and their 'length of service' commentating on ABC Radio. For example, the Melbourne AFL market is extremely competitive with up to six stations broadcasting AFL at any one time. This makes finding and retaining talent difficult. In Sydney where NRL is the dominant code, there are fewer analysts to support our AFL coverage.
The ABC aims to offer sports commentators as close as possible to market rates, especially for our longer serving commentators. ABC Radio prides itself on developing talent but once they develop their profile and ability in commentary, we tend to lose commentators to commercial channels which offer fees above those which the ABC can afford to pay.
ABC News does not pay for interviews as part of its news coverage. However, on programs which rely on regular contributions from invited guests (such as Insiders and Offsiders), payments and travel costs are paid to contributors. There is no precise formula in relation to the amount of these payments, which depend on the skills and experience of the contributors and the prevailing market conditions.
(7) There is no financial association between the ABC and TuneIn.
(8) The ABC has no formal relationship with TuneIn and is unaware when TuneIn began to carry information about ABC services.
(9) ABC Radio has not supplied content to TuneIn or provided TuneIn with permission to use ABC content.
Tunein.com is an 'aggregator' site which provides its viewers with names, brief descriptors and links to thousands of radio streams around the world. Any person clicking on an ABC link on the tunein.com site is directed back to the relevant ABC site, provided through the ABC's servers.
(10) The ABC regards these aggregator sites as an unavoidable phenomenon of the internet age and, because of the proliferation of such sites, the ABC does not consider it practicable to pursue the operators of these sites and seek that they desist from including the ABC on their station directories.
The ABC is concerned that tunein.com and other like sites carry commercial content near links to ABC Radio sites. However, the Corporation considers that as interested audiences are quickly linked through to a self-selected ABC Radio site, it is unlikely that the tunein.com advertising would be associated with the ABC.
(11) No.
(1) What number of Navy uniformed personnel were employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 1 June 2011
(2) What are the estimated numbers for each of the following financial years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015 16.
(1) The number of Navy uniformed personnel employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 01 June 2011 was 303, the approved limit is 370.
(2) The approved limit for each of the following financial years:
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are:
(a) 2012-13 figure is 370;
(b) 2013-14 figure is 375;
(c) 2014-15 figure is 379; and
(d) 2015-16 figure is 383.
(1) What number of Army uniformed personnel were employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 1 June 2011
(2) What are the estimated numbers for each of the following financial years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015 16.
(1) The number of Army uniformed personnel employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 01 June 2011 was 389, the approved limit was 468.
(2) The approved limit for each of the following financial years:
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are:
(a) 2012-13 figure is 485;
(b) 2013-14 figure is 497;
(c) 2014-15 figure is 507; and
(d) 2015-16 figure is 512.
(1) What number of Air Force uniformed personnel were employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 1 June 2011
(2) What are the estimated numbers for each of the following financial years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015 16.
(1) The number of Air Force uniformed personnel employed in the Defence Materiel Organisation as at 01 June 2011 was 729, the approved limit was 929.
(2) The approved limit for each of the following financial years:
2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 are:
(a) 2012-13 figure is 939;
(b) 2013-14 figure is 957;
(c) 2014-15 figure is 970; and
(d) 2015-16 figure is 983.
In regard to the Horizontal Waterfalls of the Kimberley, Western Australia:
(1) Are the environmental and/or cultural values of the Horizontal Waterfalls and surrounds currently being assessed for heritage listing by the Minister.
(2) Would any proposed exploration, clearing or mining in the Horizontal Waterfalls area require federal environmental assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Act).
(3) Are there any reasons why environmentally sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity of the Horizontal Waterfalls, including near-coastal habitats of Poulton Creek and Cyclone Creek, would be exempt from requiring a clearing permit.
(4) Can the department confirm that the proposed exploration area by Pegasus Metals Limited is adjacent to environmentally sensitive near-coastal areas around the Horizontal Waterfalls, which include Poulton Creek and Cyclone Creek.
(5) Has Pegasus Metals referred to the Minister any of the following in relation to their Horizontal Falls tenements:
(a) exploratory/preparatory work plans;
(b) any mining plans, including the clearing of native vegetation; or
(c) details of possible impacts on listed species/communities;
if so, can details be provided; if not, will the Minister call in the proposal (under the Act) given the significance of the Horizontal Waterfalls and surrounds.
(6) Can the department confirm whether Pegasus Metals flew fuel and heavy equipment into the Horizontal Waterfalls area during May 2011.
(1) Yes. They form part of the West Kimberley national heritage place currently under assessment.
(2) Any actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance must be referred to the Minister for the Environment for assessment and approval. If the proposed exploration, clearing or mining activities were likely to have a significant impact, they would require referral and assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
(3) Clearing permits are a requirement under state legislation administered by the Western Australia Department of Environment and Conservation. I am therefore unable to comment on this question.
(4) The Western Australian State Government approved an exploratory drilling program in an area to the southeast of Talbot Bay, where the Horizontal Waterfalls are located. Poulton Creek and Cyclone Creek are adjacent to this area.
(5)
a. No.
b. No.
c. No.
While the above matters have not been formally referred under the EPBC Act, I am advised that Pegasus Metals Limited has had pre-referral discussions with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities about the mining proposal. I have also been advised that Pegasus Metals Limited has been informed of its obligation under the EPBC Act and has indicated that it is aware of these requirements.
(6) No, the department is not able to confirm whether or not Pegasus Metals transported fuel and heavy equipment during May 2011. Any regulatory requirements in relation to such activity would be a matter for the State, not the Commonwealth government.
With reference to the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS):
(1) In regard to NRAS Round 3 which called for applications with 1 000 plus incentives, and reports during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings of the Environment and Communication Legislation Committee (the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings) that it ‘took an average of eight weeks to complete assessment for those applications’:
(a) how many applications were received;
(b) what was the average time taken to complete the assessment of those applications;
(c) what was the longest period of time taken for the applications; and
(d) can a table be provided listing the successful applications by name of applicant, description of project (number of studio, 1, 2, 3, and 4+ beds) and the location (suburb and state/territory).
(2) In regard to the NRAS Round 4 which closed in December 2010, and reports during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearings that most applications were received on 14 December 2010, with offers made on 1 800 incentives but the assessment of 15 000 applications for 52 000 incentives still outstanding:
(a) how many applications were received for Round 4;
(b) how many offers have been made to date;
(c) given that NRAS regulations stipulate incentives will be assessed and offers made within 6 months, how many applicants will receive notification outside this time limit; and
(d) of the successful applications made, can a table be provided listing the name and description of project (number of studio, 1, 2, 3, and 4+ beds) and location (suburb and state/territory).
(3) In regard to NRAS Round 5 which is yet to be announced:
(a) is there an indicative timeframe for when Round 5 will be announced, and for how many incentives; and
(b) are any particular themes or strands (such as student housing, large developments) being considered for Round 5.
(4) How is the strand for each NRAS round decided.
(1) (a) 35.
(b) An application can only be assessed once all supporting information is provided by the applicant. Under Round Three of the Scheme it took on average 8 to 10 weeks to assess a fully compliant application.
(c) The longest time taken to complete the assessment of a Round Three application deemed fully compliant was 34 weeks.
Factors contributing to delays in the assessment of this application included that:
For this application, the applicant received a partial offer of Incentives on 22 December 2010 (at 25 weeks) prior to the final offer being made on 28 February 2011.
(d) Table of successful applicants under Round Three can be found at Attachment A.
(2) (a) 297.
(b) 3,726 Incentives have been offered as at 12 July 2011.
(c) 201 applicants have been notified as to the status of their application where a decision has not been made within six months of the date the application was received.
(d) Table of successful applicants under Round Four can be found at Attachment B. Note: While all offers made to successful applicants are included in this table, not all successful applicants have accepted the offer made to them as at 13 July 2011.
(3) There has been no decision on any further call for applications.
(4) The Minister determines the parameters for each call for applications based on advice from the Department, and in consultation with states and territories and other stakeholders. Assessment criteria must be prescribed by Schedule One of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008.
Attachment A
Attachment B
* Data current as at 13 July 2011. Data is subject to change
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 670, relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Durban South Africa, in December 2011 (COP 17):
(1) (a) On what assumptions was the estimate of $245 104.60 based, in relation to the:
(i) numbers of officers,
(ii) numbers of nights,
(iii) costs of accommodation, and
(iv) possible type and grade of hotels or other accommodation; and
(b) can copies of the detailed quotes, provided by the COP 17 accommodation service provider in January 2011 be supplied.
(2) Have any preliminary estimates, inquiries or responses pertaining to the number of possible attendees been made; if so:
(a) what numbers of attendees have been mooted; and
(b) what departments and agencies would they represent.
(3) Has the size and composition of the delegation which attended the Copenhagen climate change conference been at any stage used as a benchmark for determining the size of the delegation to the Durban convention.
(4) What travel allowance rates will be applicable for this travel.
(5) What class of air travel will attendees be entitled to receive.
(6) Does the Government endeavour to reduce the cost of air travel when large numbers of Australian delegates attend such conferences; if so:
(a) by what means; and
(b) what are the expected savings.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 670, relating to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP) to be held in Durban South Africa, in December 2011 (COP 17):
(1) (a) The estimate of $245,104.60 for accommodation was based on:
(i) An estimated delegation size similar to the previous COPs in 2008 and 2010 (an approximate average of 40 delegates).
(ii) Accommodation for:
The preliminary booking made in January 2011 was for 50 single rooms plus an Executive Room. This booking has since been was revised with a reduction in rooms required down to 36 single rooms and two Executive room (based on advice from other agencies on their anticipated requirements).
(iii) A nightly rate (inclusive of breakfast and 1 per cent Tourism Levy but exclusive of 14 per cent VAT) of:
(iv) The hotel contracted by the Australian Government to accommodate the Australian delegation in Durban during COP 17 is the Coastlands Hotel and Convention Centre (Coastlands Umhlanga) in Durban. The Coastlands Umhlanga is a 4 star rated hotel that was considered to be:
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) was advised by the Australian High Commission in Pretoria, that there was a limited supply of suitable hotel within an appropriate distance that were considered to be suitable (taking into account amenities and security considerations). The South African Government has offered a range of accommodation options for the COP 17 but many of these were either already fully booked, too far from the COP 17 venue, too expensive, or not suitable (‘bed and breakfast’ or university accommodation).
(b) A copy of the detailed quote, provided by the COP 17 accommodation service provider in January 2011 is at Attachment A.
(2) Preliminary estimates in relation to the number of officers on the Australian Delegation were made based on:
(a) an estimated delegation size similar to the previous COPs in 2008 and 2010; and
(b) a delegation based around previous Departmental representation at COPs, including representatives from other agencies such as the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Resources , Energy and Tourism (DRET), Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF), AusAID and the Bureau of Meteorology.
(3) The estimated size and composition of the delegation to Durban has been based on delegations to Poznan (COP14) and Cancun (COP16), not Copenhagen (COP15). The estimate does not reflect any requirements for a Head of State involvement in the COP.
(4) Travel allowance rates have not yet been calculated for this travel, but will be estimated based on the Employment Conditions Abroad (ECA), as advised by the DFAT.
(5) When travelling internationally, all DCCEE officials travel business class where available, consistent with the current DCCEE Travel Policy (July 2011).
(6) (a) The Government will aim to reduce the cost of air travel by making early
bookings where possible for likely delegates from DCCEE.
(b) The estimates for any savings cannot be calculated this far in advance of the COP17 meeting.
—————
Attachment A
Scatterlings
Conference & Events
31st January 2011
Thank you for your enquiry for accommodation for the COP 17 Conference.
We have the pleasure in presenting the following proposal. We are have provisionally made the reservation for your delegation.
Confirmation
In order to secure this reservation, please return to us a signed copy of this contract by 3rd February 2011, this will indicate irrevocable confirmation of the above details. The 50% deposit payment will be required within 30 days from invoice. Invoice to follow the signed proposal.
Client Details:
Company Name : Australia: Department of Climate Change and Energy efficiency
Name of Authorized Signatory :
Designation of Signatory :
Email Address :
Postal Address: GPO Box 854, Canberra ACT 2600
Physical Address:
Details of Booking:
Hotel: Coastlands Hotel and Convention Center
Address: 329 Umhlanga Rocks Drive, Umhlanga Durban
Scatterlings
Conference & Events
Accommodation
Arrival date: 23rd November 2011
Departure date: 10th December 2011
Accommodation
Arrival date: 24th November 2011
Departure date: 10th December 2011
Accommodation
Arrival date: 26th November 2011
Departure date: 10th December 2011
Accommodation
Arrival date: 2nd December 2011
Departure date: 10th December 2011
Includes:
Rate is per person per night, Bed and breakfast
Please note check in is from 14h00 and check out before 10h00. Please advise us should you require an early arrival or late departure. However this will be subject to availability, but we will endeavour to meet such requirements.
Rate includes a 1% Tourism Levy which is payable on departure
Payment schedule:
50% deposit 30 days from invoice: R856 929-45
50% balance by 25 July 2011: R856 929-45
Scatterlings
Conference & Events
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Accommodation will only be confirmed once payment and signed proposal has been received. Purchase orders, letter of intent or similar are not considered payment.
2. Confirmation of the booking is required in writing to rowan@soafrica.com. Once the signed booking confirmation is received, an invoice will be issued for the deposit amount.
3. A 50% deposit will be due within 30 days from date of invoice.
4. Once the deposit has been received, a reservation number will be issued and the booking will be confirmed.
5. The deposit amount will be 50% of the Total amount due for the entire booking.
6. The deposit amount is non-refundable
7. For bookings made and confirmed within 90 days of the arrival date, the full accommodation amount due for the entire booking will be paid in order to confirm the booking.
8. Reductions & Penalties:
a. Any reductions made between the booking date (Contract signature date) and 25 July 2011 will not attract a cancellation penalty. Any reductions made between 26 July 2011 and 90 days prior to arrival will attract penalty equal to 30% of the cancellation value
b. Any reductions made within 90 days of the arrival date will attract a 100% cancellation penalty
9. All payments will be paid into a South African Bank account. Details on invoice
10. Invoiced amount is for bank transfer only; Credit Cards attract a 6% levy.
11. Check-in time is 14:00 and check-out time is 10:00 for all hotels
12. The Terms & Conditions are binding under South African Law
Should you require any further information on the above please do not hesitate to contact us. We will however follow up with you in the next two days.
Yours sincerely
Rowan Moss
Managing Director
Proposal acceptance:
Name Designation Date
For the period 1 January to 30 June 2011, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Provisional Savings and Costs – SRP Stream Net Savings' for:
(a) information and communications technology;
(b) inventory;
(c) smart maintenance;
(d) logistic;
(e) non-equipment procurement;
(f) preparedness and personnel and operating costs;
(g) Reserves;
(h) shared services; and
(i) workforce.
The Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings achieved per reform stream in the 2010-11 financial year are still being finalised. The Department will publish the stream cost reductions achieved under SRP in the Defence Annual Report which is expected to be released in late 2011.
(1) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2011: (a) which submarines in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) fleet were non-operational; and (b) for each submarine that was non-operational, what was the reason for its non-operational status.
(2) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2011, which submarines in the RAN fleet were: (a) fully operational and ready to respond to ‘war like’ situations; and (b) for what periods.
(3) What was the cost of maintaining the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011; and (b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
(4) What was the total cost of operating the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011; and (b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
(5) What was the total cost of upgrading the six submarines for the periods:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011; and (b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
(6) What were the crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the periods: (a) 1 January to 30 June 2011; and (b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011.
(1) (a) and (b) From 1 January to 30 June 2011, the following submarines were not in their operating cycles during the periods and for the reasons indicated:
(i) HMAS Collins was undergoing Certification Extension Docking maintenance throughout.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb was undergoing an Intermediate Docking and unscheduled maintenance until late June.
(iii) HMAS Sheean was in Full Cycle Docking throughout.
(iv) HMAS Rankin was also in Full Cycle Docking throughout.
(2) Details of the readiness of the submarine fleet are not disclosed in public for reasons of operational and national security.
(3) Total expenditure in maintaining the six submarines for the period:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011 was $262.8m, and
(b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 was $415.8m.
Notes:
1. Financial Reporting Directorate, DMO has not finalised their assurance review of accruals reported by Branches.
2. Some invoices for work performed in June 2010 remain outstanding.
3. DMO Financial System hard close has not yet occurred.
(4) The cost of operating the six Collins Class Submarines for the period:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011 was $76.8m, and
(b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 was $153.3m.
(5) The cost of upgrading the six Collins Class Submarines for the period:
(a) 1 January to 30 June 2011 was $24m, and
(b) 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 was $57.6m.
Note:
1. DMO Financial System hard close has not yet occurred.
(6) (a) Crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the period 1 January to 30 June 2011 were as follows:
(i) HMAS Collins – not crewed throughout.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb – full complement throughout.
(iii) HMAS Waller – full complement throughout.
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux – full complement throughout.
(v) HMAS Sheean – not crewed throughout.
(vi) HMAS Rankin – not crewed throughout.
(b) Crewing complements for each of the six submarines for each month in the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 were as follows:
(i) HMAS Collins – full complement from July to December 2010 and then not crewed for the remainder of the period.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb – not crewed from July to December 2010 and then full complement for the remainder of the period.
(iii) HMAS Waller – full complement throughout.
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux – full complement throughout.
(v) HMAS Sheean – not crewed throughout.
(vi) HMAS Rankin – not crewed throughout.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Human Resources area, in achieving the Gap to Average Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Non-Equipment Procurement area, if the Gap to Average Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings could have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Non-Equipment Procurement area, in achieving the Gap to Average Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Non-Equipment Procurement area, if the Gap to Top Quartile Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings could have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Non-Equipment Procurement area, in achieving the Gap to Top Quartile Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
In regard to the Non-Equipment Procurement area, if the Gap to Average Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings could have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Non-Equipment Procurement area, in achieving the Gap to Average Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Non-Equipment Procurement area, if the Gap to Top Quartile Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings could have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Non-Equipment Procurement area, in achieving the Gap to Top Quartile Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
The levels of employment in the Information and Communication Technologies area, if the Gap to Average Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings could have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Information and Communication Technologies area, in achieving the Gap to Average Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
"direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics…"
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
"detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort…"
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Information and Communication Technologies area, if the Gap to Top Quartile Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings could have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the levels of employment in the Information and Communication Technologies area, in achieving the Gap to Top Quartile Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what yearly savings have been made since 2008-09 at each of the following levels: (a) below E-1; (b) at E-1 and E-2; (c) at SES 1; (d) at SES 2; and (e) at SES 3.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Information and Communication Technologies area, if the Gap to Average Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings could have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Information and Communication Technologies area, in achieving the Gap to Average Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Information and Communication Technologies area, if the Gap to Top Quartile Performance could be achieved, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings could have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the Information and Communication Technologies area, in achieving the Gap to Top Quartile Performance, as identified in the Budget Audit Review, what total savings have been made since 2008-09.
These questions have already been answered in the Budget Estimates response on the Budget Audit Review asked in writing by Senator Johnston. The Minister's answer stated that,
The "performance gaps" described in sections 7.3 and 7.4 of the 2008 Defence Budget Audit (DBA) Report are based on a comparison of the delivery of Defence enterprise support functions against a database compiled by McKinsey and Company (which is based on employee data for more than 500 international organisations across a range of industries and locations). The authors of the Report note that the methodology is subject to significant limitations to the
" direct applicability of broad benchmarks to the Defence environment (given its specific characteristics… "
The Report recommends that the "performance gaps" identified by the benchmarking exercise be regarded only as a guide to potential opportunities for savings costs across the functions examined, and not as firm targets to be implemented immediately. The DBA Report advised Defence to perform
" detailed work on translating…potential opportunity [identified by the benchmarking exercise] to specific targets, as part of an implementation planning effort… "
Defence undertook the diagnostic work recommended in the Report. This exhaustive process led to the ten-year cost reduction targets under the various SRP streams (including those that capture HR, Non-equipment Procurement and ICT support functions) that were agreed by Government and have previously been published by Defence. Defence therefore reports against these more robust targets, rather than against the gaps (or potential opportunities) initially identified.
Defence is reporting bi-annually to government on progress towards agreed SRP outcomes, including the achievement of annual cost reductions. The achievement during first year of SRP implementation is detailed in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report. Defence is due to report to Government on its SRP performance during 2010-11 in the second half of this year, following finalisation of its financial statements. Details on the achievement of 2010-11 cost reduction targets will be included in the 2010-11 Annual Report.
Defence notes that the Government has committed to a five-year rolling program of White Papers. As part of this process a new DBA will be commissioned to inform the development of the next paper. It is likely that this audit would re-consider the performance of support functions against appropriate benchmarks, and thus provide an update on improvements in Defence efficiency.
In regard to the attendance of departmental personnel at the Berri Barmera Council meeting held in Berri, South Australia, on 19 April 2011:
(1) Were the representatives from the department invited by the council or did the department offer or request a place on the council meeting agenda.
(2) Have any other councils in any state or territory been given similar deputations; if so, when and where did these occur.
(3) Are there plans or has there been discussion regarding similar presentations to be given to other councils; if so, when and where.
(4) Since the 19 April 2011 meeting in Berri, has there been any further correspondence between the department and the Berri Barmera Council; if so, can a copy of this correspondence be provided.
(5) Can a copy of the notes or presentations used by the departmental representatives to address the Berri Barmera Council be provided.
(6) Can a copy of the report given to the Minister following the deputation be provided.
(1) The Council invited Commonwealth officers to attend a Council meeting in response to my offer of an authoritative briefing on transport of radioactive materials.
(2) Yes. Palmerston (NT) Council was briefed on transport of radioactive materials on 5 July 2011.
(3) No.
(4) No.
(5) Yes. Copy attached
(6) Yes. Copy attached
(1) Has the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister’s office offered any direction or advice to Ministers on how to structure their media staff:
(a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and
(b) what advice was given.
(2) Is the Prime Minister or anyone in the Prime Minister’s office aware of any direction or advice being given to Ministers on how to structure their media staff:
(a) if so, who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and
(b) what advice was given.
The assignment of particular duties to individual staff members is a matter for ministers and their chiefs of staff.
(1) How many contracts were issued for variations or additional work on departmental reports in the 2010-11 Financial Year, and:
(a) what was the title of each report;
(b) what was the total cost for each variation; and
(c) what was the reason for each variation.
(2) With reference to Contract Notice CN263388 which identifies additional work being done on a report at a cost of $10 183, what was the title of this report, and:
(a) what was the total cost of producing the report;
(b) what was the reason for varying this report;
(c) how many variations were there; and
(d) what was the reason for each variation.
(1) (a) (b) and (c) The Department publishes details of all its contract arrangements including variations on the Austender website. The Department does not keep a central register on the number of variations or additional works undertaken on existing departmental reports and obtaining this information would consume a high level of resources. The Department is able to provide information that relates to any specific contract such as the response to question 2 below.
(2) The title of the report was Closing the Gap: Prime Minister’s Report 2010.
(a) Printing by Canprint, under contract number CN263388, totalled $10,186.00 inclusive of GST.
(b) Increase page numbers from original 36pp and cover to 72pp and cover.
(c) One variation.
(d) Increase page numbers from original 36 pp and cover to 72pp and cover.
(1) How many staff in each office have duties relating to working with the media; and can a breakdown be provided of the media duties each staff member performs; and at what level is each staff member with media duties paid.
(2) What is the rationale for having more than 1 staff member with media duties.
I am advised of the following:
(1) Documents detailing the number and classifications of personal staff positions allocated to each Minister and Parliamentary Secretary, including Senior Media Adviser and Media Adviser positions, were tabled by the Department of Finance and Deregulation at its Budget Estimates hearing on 26 May 2011. The documents are available at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/fapa_ctte/estimates/bud_1112/finance/tableddoc02.pdf.
This information is regularly tabled at each Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration hearing, and is publicly available on the Parliament of Australia Senate website at www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/estimates/index.htm.
(a) The allocation of ministerial staff positions is based on the requirements of individual portfolios. The assignment of particular duties to individual staff members is a matter for Ministers and their chiefs of staff.
(b) The salary range for Senior Media Adviser and Media Adviser positions is set out in the Commonwealth Members of Parliament Staff Enterprise Agreement 2010-2012. This document is available at:
http://www.finance.gov.au/parliamentary-services/docs/Final_EA_2010_2012-With_Signatures.pdf.
(2) The allocation of ministerial staff positions is based on the requirements of individual portfolios. The assignment of particular duties to individual staff members is a matter for ministers and their chiefs of staff.
With reference to award penalty rates, is it correct that a baker employed by a wholesale bakery can commence work two hours earlier than the normal award hour, namely 5.00 am without being required to be paid penalties for the whole shift, whereas if a baker doing exactly the same work but for a retailer is so engaged, penalties have to be paid for the whole shift for the baker in the retail bakery.
From 1 January 2010, the General Retail Industry Award 2010 [MA000004] provides coverage for a baker employed by a retail bakery. The Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 [MA000073] provides coverage for a baker employed by a wholesale bakery.
An employee engaged by an employer who is covered by the General Retail Industry Award 2010, cannot be covered by the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010.
The General Retail Industry Award 2010 provides an entitlement to two hours at overtime rates (150%) for a baker working from 5:00 am to 7:00 am (work from 7:00 am onwards would be paid at the ordinary rate) Monday to Friday. Alternatively, if the baker is classified as a shiftworker, there is an entitlement to a 12.5% shift allowance, for a shift starting at 5:00 am. This is paid for the entire shift. Different penalties apply for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays.
The Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 provides an entitlement to one hour at overtime penalty rates (150%) for a baker working from 5:00 am to 6:00 am (work from 6:00 am onwards would be paid at the ordinary rate) Monday to Friday. Alternatively, if the baker is classified as a shiftworker, there is an entitlement to a 12.5% early morning shift loading. The loading is payable for the entire shift. Different penalties apply for work performed on Saturdays and Sundays.
However, clause 30.2 (c) of the Food, Beverage and Tobacco Manufacturing Award 2010 also provides that the ordinary spread of hours (6.00am to 6.00pm) can be altered by up to one hour at either end of the spread, by agreement between an employer and the majority of employees concerned or, in appropriate circumstances, between the employer and an individual employee. Where agreement is sought between the employer and an individual employee, the employer cannot have asked the group of employees as a whole to agree to the variation and the agreement can only be formed with less than half the employees in the affected area. Where an agreement is reached, the employer is required to keep a time and wage record of the agreement.