The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today: (a) from 1 pm to 2 pm to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Australian human rights dialogues with China and Vietnam; and (b) from 5:30 pm to 6:30 pm to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the review of the Defence annual report 2010-11.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4 pm.
That the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Australia's Water Resources) Bill 2011.
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.
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX BILL 2011
Every Australian knows the mining boom is delivering tremendous benefits to our nation.
But the mining boom won’t last forever. The resources can only be dug up and sold once.
We know we need to make the most of our opportunities while the sun is shining.
We also realise that not everyone is feeling the benefits of the boom.
Many households are struggling to make ends meet.
And many businesses are struggling with a high Australian dollar, and struggling to get the workers they need.
Some of these businesses can take heart that the expanding middle class in Asia will bring opportunities well beyond mining—in sectors like tourism and other services.
But other businesses recognise that conditions are tough.
So our nation faces a fundamental choice.
We could do nothing and sit on our hands. This is the easy choice.
The government has chosen the other path. We will act to seize the opportunities and respond to the challenges of our patchwork economy.
We will not let the coming boom be squandered like the last.
That is why we’re building a fairer, simpler tax system and a stronger economy that delivers for all Australians.
The reforms that I present today are the cornerstone of that vision. They are an ambitious step in a long term reform agenda.
We recognise that many businesses are struggling with the pressures of a patchwork economy.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax makes it possible to deliver a billion dollar tax break for Australia’s 2.7 million small businesses and cut company tax.
We recognise that many parts of the country, especially our great mining regions, have extra infrastructure needs.
The MRRT will fund billions of dollars of new roads, bridges and other critical infrastructure, such as the Gateway project in Western Australia. Much of this infrastructure will benefit the regions where the resources come from and where the workers and their families live, such as the great coal mining regions of NSW and Queensland.
We recognise that this time around Australia needs to save some of the gains of the boom.
The MRRT makes it possible to increase the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent, boosting super savings of 8.4 million Australian workers by $500 billion by 2035.
The MRRT also makes it possible to deliver fairer super concessions for 3.6 million low-income earners, who currently get little or no concession on their employer superannuation contributions.
Mining Boom Mark II
Australia is experiencing an unprecedented boom in our resources sector which has delivered record profits to mining companies year after year.
Mining profits have jumped 262 per cent in the last decade. Along with the coal and iron ore, a large share of these profits are also shipped off overseas.
The current arrangements fail to provide an appropriate return for these non-renewable resources to the Australian community, who own the resources 100 per cent.
Royalties just don't keep up with the booming profits of our miners.
Royalties often take a flat amount of revenues or production regardless of profitability.
Taxes on profit mean the higher your profit, the more tax you pay.
Taxes on mining profit are better for the nation and the mining industry.
Taxes on profit return more to the nation when times are good, but they also relieve the tax burden on the industry when times are bad. Taxes on profit automatically relieve struggling mines and their communities of tax when times are tough, unlike royalties.
We will see volatility in MRRT revenue, particularly as prices and investment plans change, but that is good for the nation and for the industry.
The need for improved resource charging arrangements is clear. That is why we are introducing these bills today.
The Minerals Resource Rent Tax
These reforms ensure that the Australian community receives a fairer return for its non-renewable iron ore and coal resources.
The Australian people will get a better share in the bounty of this mining boom, and the government will use this share to develop a stronger and broader economy.
We will ensure that the dividends of the boom are directed to where they can make the greatest contribution to jobs, to infrastructure, to national savings and to sustainable economic growth.
The new resource tax arrangements also represent a cooperative approach between industry and government in the process of tax reform.
Indeed, these bills have been developed in partnership with the resource sector through one of the most comprehensive stakeholder consultation processes ever conducted by an Australian government.
Industry was directly involved in the development of these reforms through the Resource Tax Consultation Panel, the Policy Transition Group, the Resource Tax Implementation Group and numerous public submission processes.
So the bills that I present to the House today are the direct result of the strong cooperation of industry in the legislative process.
The bills before the House provide for a robust resource rent tax regime and ensure that the long-term attractiveness of investment in Australian iron ore and coal is maintained.
You only have to look at the massive $430 billion pipeline of investment in our mining sector—and $82 billion in this year alone—to see that the industry has great confidence in the future.
Mining companies are investing in the future in full knowledge of the commencement of the MRRT on July 1 next year.
The MRRT will apply, at a rate of 30 per cent, to all new and existing iron ore and coal projects.
An extraction allowance of 25 per cent will recognise the miner’s use of specialist skill in the extraction of resources.
Because the MRRT only taxes the most highly profitable mines, Australia will remain an attractive destination for resource investment.
At the same time, Australians will receive an appropriate return on their non-renewable resources, which they own 100 per cent.
Supporting Mining Investments
Unlike royalties, the MRRT recognises the massive investments that miners make.
The tax doesn't apply to the value added by miners through processing. It applies only to profits attributable to the resource at the valuation point just after extraction.
Under the MRRT, projects will be able to immediately write-off new investment and immediately deduct expenses.
No MRRT will be payable until the project has made enough profit to pay off its upfront investment.
We expect the big miners to pay the bulk of the MRRT, and to pay it from year one. This is based on extensive consultations with the mining industry.
The big miners are expected to pay the most because they are the most profitable.
Supporting Small Miners
Small miners have been well-served by the design of the MRRT.
Companies with MRRT profits of less than $50 million a year will have a low profit offset that wipes out their MRRT liability.
Small miners who know that their profits will never exceed this threshold will not have to account for the tax or maintain MRRT records—simplifying compliance and administration.
Miners with annual MRRT profits between $50 million and $100 million will benefit from a partial reduction in their MRRT liability.
Small miners investing to grow will also benefit from the immediate deductibility of upstream capital investments.
They will only pay MRRT after the project has made enough profit to pay off these upfront investments.
The government will refer this bill to the House Economics Committee, to report by 21 November, and I hope to see passage through this chamber this year.
The Right Reform, at the Right Time
This is a proud day for every Australian.
Our nation will finally lock in the gains from our nation’s mineral endowment.
We picked this challenge long before it became popular. We picked it and we acted on it.
No reform is easy—this one has been very difficult.
But the most important reforms, those that strengthen, broaden and modernise our economy most markedly, are always the most difficult.
This was the case when far-sighted Labor governments of the past fought tooth and nail to put in place the nation-building reforms that have underpinned our current prosperity.
And it is so today, as the Gillard government gets on with the job of introducing major reforms like the MRRT—to build a stronger economy that delivers for all Australians.
With the consent of other far-sighted members of this parliament, we will pass it.
The package of bills I introduce today mean that for the first time in this nation’s history, we can be sure that every Australian will benefit from our valuable mineral heritage.
Our non-renewable natural resources will finally benefit ordinary Australians.
Our coal often fires overseas furnaces, our iron ore supports towers under different stars and a large part of the profits flow to foreign shareholders.
From now on, our resources will also contribute to better infrastructure, more productive businesses and more secure retirements for ordinary Australians.
Now is the time for our nation to choose to get a fairer return for the resource wealth in the ground.
And now is the time to reinvest that return in a stronger economy, in vital regional infrastructure, and in our national savings for the future.
This landmark legislation is part of a reform package that will build and strengthen our economy.
Legislation which will do so much for our nation and which deserves the full support of the parliament, the business sector and the community.
It is up to us here today, to recognise that now is the time to act in the long-term interest, to seize these opportunities for the sake of all Australians—in this generation and those to follow.
I commend this bill to all Australians today and for the generations to come.
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2011
This bill is the second of five bills related to the imposition of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax that I am introducing to this session of parliament.
The bill provides for amendments to a range of acts that are necessary to facilitate the operation of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
The bill also provides for transitional matters relating to the enactment of the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—GENERAL) BILL 2011
The bill imposes Minerals Resource Rent Tax to the extent that it is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax is payable under the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2011 from 1 July 2012. It is imposed at a rate of 30 per cent, less a 25 per cent extraction allowance to reflect the contribution of miners' expertise in extracting the resources.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) BILL 2011
The bill imposes Minerals Resource Rent Tax to the extent that it is a duty of Customs.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax is payable under the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2011 from 1 July 2012.
It is imposed at a rate of 30 per cent, less a 25 per cent extraction allowance to reflect the contribution of miners’ expertise in extracting the resources.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
MINERALS RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—EXCISE) BILL 2011
The bill imposes Minerals Resource Rent Tax to the extent that it is a duty of excise.
Minerals Resource Rent Tax is payable under the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Act 2011 from 1 July 2012.
It is imposed at a rate of 30 per cent, less a 25 per cent extraction allowance to reflect the contribution of miners' expertise in extracting the resources.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a State.
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 2011
This bill is part of establishing a new way to tax Australia's valuable non-renewable resources.
This bill extends the existing Petroleum Resource Rent Tax regime to all oil and gas production in Australia.
The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 2011 establishes a tax that keeps pace with our booming resource sector.
Last year, the government announced new resource taxation arrangements to build a stronger economy and a fairer tax system.
Extending the PRRT to all Australian oil and gas production is another component of that vision.
It is an ambitious step in a long-term reform agenda that will provide all Australian oil and gas projects with a certain and consistent tax regime that takes account of the varying circumstances and profitability of individual projects.
Australia is experiencing an unprecedented boom in its resources sector.
Australian oil and gas production is expected to continue to grow as new projects come on line.
Over $140 billion of investment has been committed to Australia's booming LNG industry, putting Australia on track to becoming the world's second largest exporter of LNG in 2015.
Just as the application of the PRRT in offshore areas has not prevented investments in offshore oil and gas projects, the extension of this regime to onshore oil and gas projects and the North West Shelf project is not expected to affect investment levels onshore.
Resource charging arrangements have not been keeping pace with resource profits and resource taxes have been declining as a share of resource profits.
For the first time, the Australian community will share in the profits of this resources boom to develop a stronger and broader economy, through investments in jobs, infrastructure and sustainable economic growth.
Like the MRRT, the PRRT extension has been developed in a cooperative manner between industry and government.
These bills underwent the same comprehensive consultation process as the MRRT, with industry involved in the policy, legislative development and design process.
Extensive consultation has occurred through the Resource Tax Consultation Panel, the Policy Transition Group, the Resource Tax Implementation Group and a public submission process.
The PRRT has been operating successfully offshore since 1987.
The bill before the House extends this efficient profit based tax to onshore oil and gas, including the growing onshore coal seam gas industry, while ensuring that the long-term attractiveness of investment in Australian oil and gas extraction is not impaired.
It was true back in 1987 and it is true now.
I quote Hansard back when the PRRT was first introduced:
Petroleum resources are, in their most basic sense, community property and the government believes that the community as a whole should share in the potentially high returns from the exploitation of these scarce, non-renewable resources.
The government believes that a resource rent tax related to achieved profits is a more efficient and equitable secondary taxation regime.
In contrast to production-based secondary tax regimes, the petroleum resource rent tax will be payable only in respect of projects earning a high rate of return on outlays…and
[The PRRT] strikes a reasonable balance between the objectives of satisfying the right of the community as a whole to share in the benefits of profitable offshore petroleum projects, and of providing the participants with adequate returns for the risks they accept in undertaking exploration and development activities.
The PRRT is applied at a rate of 40 per cent on the taxable profit derived from a petroleum project.
Broadly speaking a petroleum project's profit is calculated by deducting expenses from the assessable revenues derived from the project.
Project expenditure is immediately deductible and exploration expenditure may be transferable to other petroleum projects.
Assessable revenue primarily comprises the receipts received from the sale of petroleum or marketable petroleum commodities recovered or produced from a project.
Where deductible expenditure exceeds assessable revenue from a project in a financial year, the excess expenditure is carried forward and uplifted to be deducted against project earnings in future years.
From 1 July 2012, the PRRT will apply to all new and existing oil and gas projects in Australia.
The core design features of the PRRT will remain unchanged, and offshore projects currently operating under the PRRT will be largely unaffected by the PRRT extension.
To accommodate onshore projects and the North West Shelf project into the PRRT the bill makes the following key amendments.
The project combination certificate criteria are expanded to allow onshore projects with integrated downstream operations to be treated as a single project.
Consolidated group companies will have the choice to treat interests held by different group companies within a petroleum project as a single interest for PRRT purposes.
Project expenditure related to the environment is made explicitly deductible.
A new category of assessable incidental production receipts will include revenue generated using petroleum project facilities.
Deductible expenditure is expanded to include resource taxation expenditure to avoid the double taxation of petroleum projects subject to crude oil excise and State based royalty regimes.
And finally, existing petroleum projects that are transitioning to the PRRT are entitled to a starting base to shield historical investment and prevent the retrospective application of the extended PRRT.
The starting base is non-transferable, and unused starting base expenditure will be uplifted, consistent with the treatment of unused general project expenditure, to be deducted in future years.
Like the MRRT, under the extended PRRT the state and territory governments will continue to receive a stream of royalty revenues.
To ensure that taxpayers are not double taxed, the PRRT regime provides a deduction equivalent for state royalties paid by a taxpayer in respect of a petroleum project.
Unused resource tax credits are not transferable between petroleum projects and will be uplifted at the long-term government bond rate plus five per cent, consistent with the treatment of other losses.
The bill includes amendments to ensure that, in circumstances where onshore coal seam gas producers have an integrated gas to liquids project, they will be able to access the pricing methodologies contained in the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Regulations 2005.
It is the government's intention to undertake subsequent consultation on the PRRT regulations to ensure they operate effectively in an onshore context.
The PRRT will ensure a more consistent share for all Australians of the returns generated from our non-renewable resources while maintaining a healthy pipeline of investment and job creation.
Like the MRRT, the PRRT extension is landmark legislation. Legislation that will do much for our great nation and it deserves the full support of the parliament, the business sector and the community.
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—GENERAL) BILL 2011
The bill imposes a tax in respect of the profits of certain petroleum projects, so far as that tax is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise and sets that rate at 40 per cent from 1 July 1986.
The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax is administered under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a state.
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—CUSTOMS) BILL 2011
The bill imposes a tax in respect of the profits of certain petroleum projects, so far as that tax is a duty of customs and sets that rate at 40 per cent from 1 July 1986.
The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax is administered under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a state.
PETROLEUM RESOURCE RENT TAX (IMPOSITION—EXCISE) BILL 2011
The bill imposes a tax in respect of the profits of certain petroleum projects, so far as that tax is a duty of excise and sets that rate at 40 per cent from 1 July 1986.
The Petroleum Resource Rent Tax is administered under the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987.
The bill does not impose tax on property of any kind belonging to a state.
TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (STRONGER, FAIRER, SIMPLER AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2011
This bill contains long-term reforms that will bring benefits to small business and lift the superannuation savings of millions of low income Australians and make our superannuation system fairer.
Schedule 1 removes the entrepreneurs' tax offset in order to deliver more effective assistance for small businesses. This is consistent with recommendation 6 of Australia's Future Tax System (better known as the Henry Review).
The entrepreneurs' tax offset, which according to AFTS 'provides problematic incentives related to business structure' makes way for better targeted small business assistance.
Through schedules 2 and 3 the government is delivering on its commitment to improve cash flow and reduce compliance costs for Australia's 2.7 million small businesses.
Under schedule 2, from the 2012-13 income year, small businesses will benefit from being able to immediately write-off depreciating assets that cost less than $6,500. This increase from a threshold of $1,000 will allow small businesses to claim a deduction for more expensive assets—those costing less than $6,500 instead of less than $1,000—providing a cash flow benefit. Small business will benefit from this initiative when they purchase assets such as a computer, photocopier and printer.
The government will also simplify the depreciation regime for depreciating assets costing $6,500 or more. Instead of having to allocate assets to one of two depreciation pools, each with a different depreciation rate (five per cent and 30 per cent), small business will now be able to allocate assets to a single depreciation pool with a single rate of 30 per cent (and 15 per cent in the first year).
In addition to the benefits that come with simplifying the pooling arrangements, small businesses will also benefit from being able to depreciate some assets more quickly, at an increased rate of 30 per cent instead of five per cent—again, providing a cash-flow benefit.
In addition to these measures, which were announced as part of the government's response to the AFTS Review and the Clean Energy Future package, the government has continued to deliver for small businesses through the 2011-12 Budget.
Schedule 3 will do this by providing an accelerated initial deduction for motor vehicles purchased by small businesses from the 2012-13 income year.
This means that small businesses that purchase a motor vehicle costing $6,500 or more from the 2012-13 income year will be able to immediately write-off up to $5,000 and will be able to depreciate the remainder of the value at 15 per cent in the first year and 30 per cent in following years.
As motor vehicles are primary assets for many small business operators, this increased initial deduction will improve cash flow for a large number of small businesses.
It will mean that a tradesman on a 30 per cent marginal tax rate buying a new ute worth $33,960 will receive a tax benefit of $1,275 in the year they purchase the vehicle. This means more money in the pocket of small business.
These changes improve cash flow for businesses and makes investing in and growing their business more achievable.
Businesses with an annual turnover of less than $2 million will benefit from this small business package. That is 96 per cent of Australia's 2.7 million small businesses.
The government is committed to assisting small business and has already reduced quarterly Pay As You Go (PAYG) income tax instalments for the 2011-12 income year for taxpayers using the GDP adjustment method, providing a $700 million cash flow benefit to small business.
The government is providing extensive assistance to small business through the small business support line, business.gov.au website, the small business advisory service program and enterprise connect. These services are all about helping small businesses with their day-to-day running.
In addition to these measures, the government will reduce the company tax rate for small business companies from 30 to 29 per cent from 2012-13. This will assist up to 720,000 incorporated small businesses, allowing them to reinvest more of the profits to grow their businesses.
This government values small business, it has a plan to assist small business and it is delivering on this plan.
These changes are about making a real difference to the 2.7 million small businesses in Australia.
Superannuation
Australians should not have to work hard and retire poor.
How to enjoy a fulfilling and prosperous retirement is one of the great conversations in Australian life.
I've talked about our significant reform to lift superannuation from nine per cent to 12 per cent, but we need to do more for low-income Australians.
It's of great concern to me, and I know of great concern to the Prime Minister and Treasurer, that whilst women live longer than men, their super balances are in fact on average about 40 per cent lower.
This is a serious challenge to Australian women's financial independence. It is important that we address structural imbalances such as equal pay and today the government is also addressing a structural imbalance in the superannuation system.
Currently, 3.6 million low-income Australians, including around 2.1 million women get no (or minimal) tax benefit from contributing to superannuation, due to the fact that the15 per cent superannuation contribution tax is above or equivalent to their income tax rate.
Let's reflect for a moment on these numbers—3.6 million Australians. That is around three out every 10 workers who do not get a tax benefit from contributing to superannuation; 2.1 million of them are women, that is three in every eight women in the workforce.
Put another way the 3.6 million Australians includes:
The Gillard government is acting on the recommendation of the Henry Review which said that superannuation tax concessions should be distributed more equitably.
From 1 July next year, we will make the system fairer by ensuring no tax is paid on the superannuation contributions for Australians earning up to $37,000 and that the money is instead directed into their superannuation. This tax reduction is limited to $500 per person which covers the tax due on nine per cent SG at $37,000.
Sixty per cent of the beneficiaries of this policy are women.
The superannuation savings of 2.1 million women earning less than $37,000 will be boosted by $550 million in 2012-13 alone.
Importantly, the government has also simplified the application process for low income earners individuals who are not required to submit an income tax return. They will not need to fill out any extra paperwork. Instead the ATO will do the calculations for them using information available to the Commissioner of Taxation such as payment summaries.
This streamlined process reduces the paperwork burden on low-income Australians, while ensuring the integrity of the system.
This will be one of the most significant wealth creation reforms targeted at low income earners in modern Australian history.
Put simply, the government is lowering the tax burden on low-income Australians and directing this forgone tax revenue into their superannuation accounts to help them build for the future.
The revenue from the Minerals Resources Rent Tax will go towards filling the resultant gap in tax revenue. It is the right way to share the benefits of the mining boom and ensure our country is well prepared for the gift of longer life.
SUPERANNUATION GUARANTEE (ADMINISTRATION) AMENDMENT BILL 2011
I am in introducing this bill because the parliament should pass laws which are optimistic and hopeful about Australia's future.
It proposes to increase the Superannuation Guarantee charge from nine per cent to 12 per cent.
And this bill abolishes the Superannuation Guarantee age limit.
This bill passes the test of being positive and constructive.
We are living longer than ever before. So we must change with the new rhythms of life.
Those of us over 65 now are only three million in number, but by 2050 there'll be 8.1 million.
Today there are 50 of us in work for every 10 of us in retirement. By 2050, there will be 27 of us in work for every 10 of us in retirement.
These days we're probably at school and in college until we're 20 or 25.
We then work for 35 years, and after that we have another twenty or even thirty years to think about things, play bowls, go fishing, join reading groups, write family histories, and the rest of it. Thirty years, perhaps. Forty, maybe.
Life itself, our life in the best country on earth, has been redefined by these new unchangeable figures of a long and largely healthy life.
Longer life full of quality and meaning is the great gift of 20th century Australians to 21st century Australians. And we should celebrate it.
Therefore the goal of lifetime income security celebrates a long and quality life.
This bill declares that the Australian people understand change is inevitable.
This bill declares Australians reject the proposition that Australians should stay frozen in the moment.
This bill declares that Australians do not believe change is too hard.
This bill declares that Australians understand that as we are living longer, we need to smooth our prosperity over longer life.
Until 1985, private retirement income under the superannuation provisions applied to the very wealthy and some well-paid employees in the public sector.
Until 1985 the great majority of working Australians had no viable access to the generosity of the superannuation tax provisions.
Until 1985 most Australians had to rely upon had relied on the taxpayer provided age pension as their principal post-employment income system.
The first move towards universal access under the superannuation provisions came as part of the Hawke government's Accord with Australian trade unions.
Government and unions agreed that the profit share in the economy had to be restored to re-ignite private investment. At the time, unemployment and inflation were both hovering around 10 percent.
In return for this restraint the government supported the ACTU's claim that three percentage points of wages should be contributed by employers to a superannuation account in the name of each worker.
This was 1985. Then on 20 August 1991; in the Hawke government's ninth budget laid the groundwork for the superannuation industry as we know it now. Not long after becoming Prime Minister, Paul Keating announced the introduction of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge.
Under this path-breaking legislation, employer contributions to superannuation would rise from three percentage points of ordinary time earnings in 1992-93 to nine percentage points of ordinary time earnings by 2002-03.
Over the period when the Superannuation Guarantee Charge grew from three to nine per cent of employer contributions, unit labour costs fell. This meant that the cost of superannuation was rarely borne by employers. It was absorbed into the overall wage cost.
Had employers not paid nine percentage points of wages as superannuation contributions to employee super accounts: they would have paid it in cash as wages.
As Keating said in 2007: 'when you hear conservatives these days speak of superannuation as a tax on employers they are either ill-informed or they are lying. The fall in unit labour costs and the upward shift in the profit share during the period of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge is simply a matter of statistical record. It is not a matter of argument.'
Today the savings pool is worth more than $1.3 trillion to the nation.
Our retirement savings system is the fourth biggest pool of funds under management on the planet.
The original Superannuation Guarantee legislation has since proven fundamental to the sustainability of our private retirement income.
Superannuation has proved to be a terrific idea; blessing Australia with a national institution that almost every developed economy in the rest of the world would give their eye teeth for.
It is now a mature idea.
Yet in terms of providing an adequate retirement nest egg, the system still has great capacity to grow, to mature and perform even better for individuals who get to retire after a whole working life of superannuation behind them.
Compulsory superannuation's gradual introduction between 1992-93 and 2002-03 has smoothed the transition path and demonstrated how long run reforms can be successfully introduced in our country.
But adequacy remains the challenge, and task of providing for retirement is getting bigger as we live longer and as weak investment markets slow growth of fund balances, necessitating higher contribution levels.
Running the system as efficiently as possible is essential as it grows bigger balances and maximizes the return to the taxpayers of the 15 per cent concessional tax rate.
I think it obligatory to recognise the future's lament if we in the federal parliament don't take this opportunity to pass the law that will deliver 12 per cent compulsory superannuation contribution.
Of all the human emotions, it is perhaps regret we should fear the most.
It is both instant and long lasting.
In politics, the worst regret is always the regret for the path not taken, the timidity of a moment that cost us the skirmish, the skirmish that cost us the battle, the battle that cost us the war.
Too often in politics we deal, or we end up dealing, not with the problem, but the politics of the problem.
The rhetoric of the problem. Dare I even say—the spin.
We try to paper over with bravado the fragility within.
We lose the moment, and in doing so—the future.
No big economic reform is easy.
I understand that no change to our public life, no social contract—indeed no progress—could be taken for granted.
It has to be fought for, with all the guile and persistence of Fred Hollows, and all the brash force of Henry Chauvel, racing his horses for Beersheba water.
Victory is never certain.
And to be fair, probably all of us - whatever our political stripe—who have the privilege to serve fully in this place, sooner or later realize that the big public policy struggles are inevitable, and intricate, and close-fought, and exhausting.
Long-lasting economic change—whether floating the dollar or deregulating the financial markets require all the powers of political persuasion.
We believe nine to 12 per cent is profoundly necessary, and we wish to calm the anxiety and explain the detail of what this reform would do.
This bill is pressing the advantage of doing the right thing by the nation, even if vested interests and loud voices opposite yelling 'no' make the going all the slower, all the tougher.
But this bill has an army of good voices and minds behind it.
Just as an army of commonsense, real world voices raised their game to advocate for and help deliver compulsory superannuation two decades ago.
I am inspired that always and every time, the agents of change in our national story already written—from both sides of the political divide—have had to consistently and persistently argue the merits of the case and keep a firm grip on the detail and sketch out—with daily alacrity—what would happen when the changes were actually implemented.
The superannuation reforms the Gillard government has announced—lifting the Super Guarantee from nine up to 12 per cent and how it's afforded through the mining tax—has been met with a fiercely hostile opposition. And so once again we find the going harder than such good ideas deserve.
Yet as the Minister for Superannuation I am finding that the strongest argument for these retirement savings reforms is not purely through a recitation of the details.
But a simple plea that we must, for dignity of hardworking Australians in retirement and to place less pressure on the age pension, secure the goal of adequate lifetime retirement savings.
A 70 per cent replacement rate in post work life—of average earnings prior to retirement constitutes the winning tape for adequate retirement.
This plea is especially applicable now because of the arithmetic we are in, in this parliament, compared with the years, in the 1980s and 1990s, of large majorities in the lower House, and of civilised reason in the Senate.
When it comes to lifting super to 12 per cent, I know that most of our nation absolutely get it.
Australians get it right in their bones.
We believe that longer life is a gift that should be celebrated.
We believe there's little point in working hard and retiring poor.
We want Australians to live long lives that have quality and meaning.
We want those lives that go up to and last beyond a hundred years to have been well-lived, both at the start and at the end.
Which means, as the numbers of the old go up, we want to deliver a better deal, a new deal, on superannuation.
Our starting point is that nine per cent is simply not enough, especially for women, who have breaks in their career rearing the next generation, when they are not earning, and therefore not putting in their nine per cent away for the nest egg.
It's why we are taking, as Paul Keating planned many years before, the nine per cent up to 12 per cent. And in doing this we are strengthening superannuation.
The Superannuation Guarantee charge percentage will be increased gradually with initial increments of 0.25 percentage points on 1 July 2013 and 1 July 2014. Further increments of 0.5 percentage points will apply annually up to 2019-20, when the SG rate will be set at 12 per cent.
These superannuation measures and others contained in the Stronger, Fairer, Simpler package of reform, along with the increases in the age pension which the government introduced in 2009, and the Stronger Super package of reforms will allow Australians to secure higher standards of living in retirement than ever before.
This bill also makes superannuation fairer for Australians of all ages.
From 1 July 2013, the Superannuation Guarantee will be payable for eligible employees over 18.
Currently, the Superannuation Guarantee only applies to people under 70. The amendments will align the SG age limit with the age limit for voluntary and self-employed contributions.
The increase in the Superannuation Guarantee age limit means that eligible individuals aged 70 and beyond will have superannuation guarantee contributions made on their behalf for the first time.
Making superannuation contributions compulsory for these mature-age workers will improve the adequacy and equity of the retirement income system, and provide an incentive to older Australians to remain in the workforce for longer.
The actuaries tell us the average Australian needs a 70 per cent replacement rate of his or her accustomed income to live in retirement comfortably. For example, the Melbourne-Mercer Global Pension Index recommends this.
Being satisfied with just nine per cent compulsory superannuation means being satisfied with a big percentage of Australians outliving the money set aside to see them through the Third Age.
As we live longer—nine per cent just doesn't build enough.
It's why the Minerals Resource Rent Tax is so important to our nation's future.
The MRRT pays for the tax concessional treatment of the additional three per cent Superannuation Guarantee—with workers retirement contributions taxed at 15 percent instead of their marginal personal income tax rate.
It's of great concern to me, and I know of great concern to the Prime Minister, that whilst women live longer than men, their super balances are in fact on average around 40 per cent lower.
This is a serious challenge to Australian women's financial independence.
Currently, around 2.1 million women get no tax benefit from contributing to superannuation, due to the 15 per cent superannuation contribution tax being at or above their income tax rate.
The Gillard government is therefore acting on the recommendation of the Henry Review which said that superannuation tax concessions be distributed more equitably.
From 1 July next year, we will make the system fairer by ensuring no tax is paid on the nine per cent superannuation contributions for Australians earning up to $37,000 and that the money is instead directed into their superannuation.
Sixty per cent of the beneficiaries of this policy are women.
The superannuation savings of 2.1 million women earning less than $37,000 will be boosted by $550 million in 2012-13 alone.
So a 30-year-old woman on full-time average wages will have an extra $108,000 in retirement savings providing her with an extra $2,900 to spend each year of her retirement.
This is what good law—from a government that is confident in Australia's future—is all about.
In August 2011 looking at the great economic reforms of Hawke and Keating and Kelty—reforms like superannuation—can be a bit like looking at the silverware in our nation's economic trophy cabinet.
But I believe each generation has to make its own history.
To build new achievements.
We can respect our history—as families, as tribes, as nations—while still making our own history as a generation.
Surely we don't want to look back in 20 years time and regret not raising superannuation to 12 per cent.
We want to say, 'Do you remember when we lifted it to 12 per cent—to where it needed to be.'
Do any of us really think we would have saved $1.3 trillion without compulsory super?
I believe there are four pillars which today assure a quality of Australian life for all our fellow citizens:
I might add that I think a National Disability Insurance Scheme has the potential to be the new fifth pillar. So early August was a wonderful time measured by the significance of first big steps.
In mid-2011, two decades after compulsory superannuation was introduced, superannuation stands as one of Australian Labor's most enduring and far sighted reforms.
The mission of adequate retirement savings is not yet completed, but the journey here has been a great national direction.
We will know that we have succeeded when all Australians recognise that superannuation is as vital a pillar for our quality of life as Medicare or the minimum wage.
And let me say when that happens, after 12 per cent is achieved, governments need to step right back and stop the tinkering with the tax treatment of superannuation.
I truly believe we are not quite there yet, but the government's reform agenda together with the good work the industry is doing on building the brand will help us get there.
Our superannuation reforms will deliver a great good to Australians upon their retirement and the Australian economy more generally.
The great good of a more comfortable post work life.
The great good of Australians retiring on a 70 per cent replacement rate.
The great good of concessional tax, compound interest and dividend imputation.
The great good of seeing Australia become even better at financial services.
The great good of reducing the cost of capital.
The great good of more capital becoming available for nation-building infrastructure.
The great good of low inflation, high savings and a future some Europeans now dream of.
The Gillard government understands the forces of change that we have to navigate to secure future waves national prosperity.
That the ageing of our population is one of these forces is undeniable and the need for greater retirement savings is therefore irresistible.
And I submit, is logically inevitable.
We always hear a lot from financial planners and investment strategists about savings and investment but it is politicians who can make the real difference. And it is the politicians who need to grasp the relative immediacy of longer life spans—with it's all too predictable dislocating consequences.
Under Prime Minster Gillard's leadership our national government is acting for the long term and we are strategically placing the nation where the challenges and opportunities of the future can be met with confidence and conquered with commonsense.
Lifting the Superannuation Guarantee change to 12 per cent is profoundly sensible.
Australians need not fear the future—we should be optimistic.
This bill keeps faith that Australians should and can live long lives full of quality and meaning. This bill keeps faith that the goal of lifetime income security for Australians is achievable.
And this parliament, I believe, should not miss the opportunity to do good.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Abetz moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Government's failure to comply with the order of the Senate for the production of documents concerning the Mineral Resource Rent Tax.
… the lack of information on the mining tax was "increasingly unsatisfactory.
"The time is coming when the Senate is going to have to flex its muscle.
The Senate divided. [13:12]
The President—Senator Hogg
People in their teens may take up smoking as part of a social activity that is perceived to be well suited to their youth culture and allows them to better fit in with or rebel against friends or family.
People who started smoking daily at a younger age were less likely than others to have reduced their frequency of smoking or to have kicked the habit altogether at the time of interview.
Of people who had ever smoked daily, 61% first took up the habit on a daily basis when aged 15-19 years. About one in five (18%) of those who had ever smoked daily had first started doing so under the age of 15 years.
Of people aged 25-54, those who first started smoking daily as a child aged under 15 years were more likely to have also been a daily smoker at the time of interview (55%) than those who first started at an older age (46%).
In 2009, two in five children (42%) who used the internet at home reported that they spent two hours or less online at home per week, while 17% spent 3-4 hours online, 21% spent 5-9 hours online and 13% spent 10-19 hours online.
This Agreement
… … …
recognises that:
… the States are the system managers of the public hospital system …
… the most significant—
of Australia's health and hospital system since the introduction of Medicare almost three decades ago—
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans' Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
Previous Parliaments have recognised the importance of economic reform and the role those reforms played in providing a stable platform for economic growth and prosperity.
… continually monitors the activities of issues-motivated groups and individuals who may target establishments through direct action, or action designed to disrupt or interfere with essential services.
There is no advanced economy—or maybe there are one or two—that is as well placed as Australia in order to combat a deeper slow down, were such a slowdown to materialise, and that's because you still have room to cut interest rates if that was necessary and you also have a very strong fiscal position.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Manufacturing (Senator Carr) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Birmingham and Williams today relating to the carbon tax.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) and Senator Milne today relating to Forestry Tasmania and to the surveillance of protestors by the Australian Federal Police.
That the Senate expresses its deep regret at the death, on 8 December 2011, of the Right Honourable Sir Zelman Cowen AK, GCMG, GCVO, QC, former Governor-General of Australia from 1977 to 1982, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
His academic record … is one that has rarely been equalled. It is frequently the case that those who do brilliantly in Arts do not show quite the same aptitude for law, but Mr. Cowen shows the same skill in both fields. His mind is very keen and remarkably mature for one of his age.
… … …
He has a rounded personality, broad interests and cultivated tastes … He has great energy and … intellectual integrity …
… … …
He has the assured courtesy of a much older man, and, while he has no reticence in urging his own opinions, I have found him both respectful and willing to abandon his point of view, if its weakness could be shown …
… … …
In short, I feel he has that quality which would benefit most from a period at Oxford. I have written many of these testimonials for the Selection Committee, but this is the first time that I can write for a candidate who has that intellectual flair of which great things can be predicted.
… individual liberty under law, including the rights to privacy and to free speech in a civil and tolerant society; the rule of reason, with a preference for moderation, collegial leadership and consensus-building, and even-tempered public and private discourse, with disagreement without rancour; uncompromising and scrupulous integrity; and education—in a college, a law school, or the wider university—that both broadens and sharpens the mind.
To understand how—
achieved this, we should remember his authenticity. He was an exemplar of decency, unfailing courtesy, generosity, openness to reason, grace and constancy. He afforded everyone their dignity.
His life’s work, in public and in private, reflected the deepest concern for the dignity of every person.
Dear Senator Parry
Since we lost him, our family has taken great comfort in the many expressions of sympathy we have received. We are moved to learn how many lives he touched and how widely he was loved and appreciated. We will miss him terribly. Thank you for your kind thoughts. Please convey my thanks to all the members of the Senate.
That the following address to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second be agreed to:
YOUR MAJESTY:
We, the President and Members of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, and on behalf of the people of Australia, offer our warm congratulations on the occasion of the Diamond Jubilee of Your Majesty's accession to the Throne. We express our respect and regard for the dedication Your Majesty has displayed in the service of the Commonwealth and Your Majesty's deep and abiding commitment to Australia and her people.
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen
That general business order of the day No. 51, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011, be considered on Thursday 9 February 2012 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to hold a private briefing, followed by a public meeting, during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday 8 February 2012 from 11 am to 1 pm.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators:
(a) Senator Adams from 7 February to 22 March 2012, for personal reasons;
(b) Senators Eggleston, Joyce and Nash from 7 February to 9 February 2012, for personal reasons; and
(c) Senator Back for 9 February 2012, for personal reasons.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 8 February 2012, from 11 am.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 8 February 2012, from 9.30 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Maintaining Address) Bill 2011.
That general business notice of motion no. 610 standing in his name for today, relating to the work of the Standing Committee of Privileges, be postponed till 22 March 2012.
Business of the Senate notice of motion no. 1 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, proposing a reference to the Standing Committee of Privileges, postponed till 22 March 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 27 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for 8 February 2012, proposing the introduction of the Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Laws) Bill 2010, postponed till 28 February 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 602 standing in the name of Senator Ludlam for today, proposing the introduction of the Special Broadcasting Service Amendment (Natural Program Breaks and Disruptive Advertising) Bill 2012, postponed till 27 February 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 606 standing in the name of Senator Madigan for today, proposing the introduction of the Fair Work Amendment (Arbitration) Bill 2012, postponed till 13 March 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 607 standing in the name of Senator Madigan for today, proposing the introduction of the Treaties (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 2012, postponed till 9 May 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 608 standing in the name of Senator Rhiannon for today, relating to the Bsafe program, postponed till 8 February 2012.
General business notice of motion no. 609 standing in the name of the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Bob Brown) for today, relating to the Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement, postponed till 9 February 2012.
That the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 8 February 2012, from 4 pm to 6 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) congratulates the Parliament of Papua New Guinea for passing, by an overwhelming majority, the constitutional amendment to create 22 reserved seats for women in its national parliament;
(b) recognises the leadership and hard work of the women of Papua New Guinea, who have been advocating for this reform for many years;
(c) acknowledges that the next step is enabling legislation that will create the 22 new reserved seats for each province; and
(d) looks forward to seeing the reforms finalised in time to allow women candidates to stand for these seats in the 2012 national election.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the recent admission of Palestine as the 195th member of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]; and
(b) calls on the Government to help facilitate, as best it can, the nomination from Palestine for a number of cultural sites, including the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, to be classified as a World Heritage site.
The Senate divided. [16:29]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes the growing support for a sovereign wealth fund (SWF); and
(b) calls on the Government to reconsider a SWF for Australia to be funded with the proceeds of an expanded mining tax.
[The Senate divided. [16:34]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Gillard Government's inability to focus on the core function of governing Australia
She has a bit of a credibility issue with some of the decisions that she's made.
Unfairly or not, Kevin killed the Labor brand.
Rudd destroyed our brand and boosted Colin Barnett all at the same time.
Our big mistake when he was rolled was to not show the public what a truly odd person Kevin is. The guy is a bully. He has some skills but leading the team is not one of them.
There are people that would rather chew their right arm off than go back to [Mr Rudd].
… there has been quite a shift over summer … she's in trouble.
'She needs a flawless three months,' the factional boss said of Ms Gillard.
'She needs a flawless three months,' the factional boss said of Ms Gillard. 'Her danger zone is between Queensland and the budget.'
There are two possible explanations for how an opposition presenting itself as an alternative government could end up with an $11 billion hole in the cost of its election commitments.
One is that they are liars, the other is that they are clunkheads. Actually, there is a third explanation: they are liars and clunkheads.
But whatever the combination, they are not fit to govern.
You know what if the fifth biggest accounting firm in Australia signs off on our numbers it is a brave person to start saying they're accounting tricks. I tell you it is an audit, this is an audited statement.
… if they make a mistake with the auditing of accounts for companies or prospectuses or mislead they're …
… … …
… at risk of being punished and going to jail.
… a statement that the procedures performed do not constitute either an audit or a review …
… they are not fit to govern.
He—
has now dug himself in this trench of negativity from which he doesn't seem to be able to emerge. So, it's always about what's wrong with the Government, the negative line, oppose, oppose, oppose.
Also, I think there's the problem of a kind of opportunism about Tony Abbott which is going to be hard for him to address; a lot of people have judged him as a man who sounds strong, tough—the classic conviction politician—but the convictions seem to change.
The first object of any government is to do no harm.
(a) Document certified by the President
President's report to the Senate on government responses outstanding to parliamentary committee reports as at 23 November 2011 (received 25 November 2011)
(b) Committee reports
1. Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee––Interim report––The impact of mining coal seam gas on the management of the Murray Darling Basin (received 30 November 2011)
2. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee––Interim and preliminary reports––Procurement procedures for Defence capital projects (received 30 November and 15 December 2011, respectively)
3. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services–– Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 (received 2 December 2011)
4. Economics Legislation Committee––Report, together with submissions received by the committee––Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 7 December 2011)
5. Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Interactive and online gambling; Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011 (received 8 December 2011)
6. Committee of Senators' Interests—Report––Register of senators' interests, incorporating statements of registrable interests and notifications of alterations of interests of senators lodged between 6 August and 30 November 2011 (received 8 December 2011)
7. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Report––Funding of political parties and election campaigns (received 9 December 2011)
8. Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee––Interim report––Biosecurity and quarantine arrangements: the management of the removal of the fee rebate for AQIS export certification functions (received 12 December 2011)
9. Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing––Annual report for 2010-11 (received 23 December 2011)
(c) Government responses to parliamentary committee reports
1. Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee––Report––Exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 (received 25 November 2011)
2. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee––Report––Review of government compensation payments (received 29 November 2011) 3. Community Affairs References Committee––Report––Gene patents (received 6 December 2011)
4. Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee––Report–– Forestry and mining operations on the Tiwi Islands (received 19 December 2011)
5. Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety––Interim report––High-wire act – cyber safety and the young (received 20 December 2011)
6. Finance and Public Administration References Committee––Report––Native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures (received 16 January 2012)
7. Finance and Public Administration References Committee––Report––Administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (received 19 January 2012)
8. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––Report––Annual report referred to legislation committee––No. 2 of 2009 (received 24 January 2012)
9. Economics References Committee––Reports––
(d) Ministerial statement
Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy)––Australia network (received 23 November 2011)
(e) Government documents
1. Aged Care Act 1997––Report for 2010-11 on the operation of the Act (received 25 November 2011)
2. Royal Australian Air Force Veterans' Residences Trust Fund––Report for 2010-11 (received 29 November 2011)
3. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA)––Report for 2010-11 (received 29 November 2011)
4. Executive Director of Township Leasing––Report for 2010-11 (received 29 November 2011)
5. Native Title Act 1993––Native title representative bodies––Central Land Council– –Report for 2010-11 (received 29 November 2011)
6. Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook––2011-12––Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan) and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) (received 30 November 2011)
7. Australian Human Rights Commission––Report No. 47––Mr Heyward v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (received 1 December 2011)
8. Cotton Research and Development Corporation––Report for 2010-11 (received 2 December 2011)
9. Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation––Report for 2010-11 (received 2 December 2011)
10. Freedom of Information Act 1982––Report for 2010-11 on the operation of the Act (received 2 December 2011)
11. Social Security Appeals Tribunal––Report for 2010-11 (received 7 December 2011)
12. National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority––Report 2011: Second triennial review of the operational effectiveness of the Authority (received 8 December 2011)
13. Productivity Commission—Report No. 56—Economic structure and performance of the Australian retail industry—
14. Australian Communications and Media Authority—Report for 2010-11 (received 12 December 2011)
15. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999––Australia State of the Environment Committee––Report 2011 (received 12 December 2011)
16. Indigenous Business Australia––Report for 2010-11 (received 13 December 2011)
17. Sugar Research and Development Corporation––Report for 2010-11 (received 13 December 2011)
18. Department of Finance and Deregulation––Consolidated financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2011 (received 13 December 2011)
19. Australia Business Arts Foundation Ltd––Financial statements for 2010-11 (received 14 December 2011)
20. Murray-Darling Basin Authority––Report for 2010-11 (received 15 December 2011)
21. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)––NHMRC Licensing Committee––Report on the operation of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 for the period 1 March to 31 August 2011 (received 15 December 2011)
22. Australian Statistical Advisory Council––Report for 2011-12 (received 19 December 2011)
23. Australian Livestock Export Corporation Limited (LiveCorp)––Report for 2010-11 (received 19 December 2011)
24. Dairy Australia Limited––Report for 2010-11 (received 19 December 2011)
25. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation––Report for 2010-11 (received 19 December 2011)
26. Gene Technology Regulator––Quarterly report for the period 1 July to 30 September 2011 (received 20 December 2011)
27. Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)––Report for 2010-11 (received 20 December 2011)
28. Australian Information Commissioner––Report for the period 1 November 2010
to 30 June 2011––Corrigendum (received 20 December 2011)
29. Board of the Australian Crime Commission––Report for 2010-11 (received 20 December 2011)
30. Snowy Hydro Limited––Financial report for the period 4 July 2010 to 2 July 2011 (received 16 January 2012)
31. Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority––Report for 2010-11––Correction (received 16 January 2012)
32. Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000––Report for 2009 (received 16 January 2012)
33. Private Health Insurance Administration Council––Report for 2010-11 on the operations of private health insurers (received 18 January 2012)
34. Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Board––Report for 2010-11 (received 19 January 2012)
35. Department of Finance and Deregulation––Certificate of compliance––Report for 2010-11 (received 25 January 2012)
36. National Capital Authority––Report for 2010-11 (received 25 January 2012)
37. Tax expenditures statement 2011 (received 31 January 2012)
(f) Reports of the Auditor-General
1. Audit report no. 15 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Risk management in the processing of sea and air cargo imports: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (received 30 November 2011)
2. Audit report no. 16 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Management of compliance in the small to medium enterprises market: Australian Taxation Office (received 8 December 2011)
3. Audit report no. 17 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Audits of the financial
statements of Australian Government entities for the period ended 30 June 2011 and correction (received 15 December 2011)
4. Audit report no. 18 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Information and communications technology security: Management of portable storage devices (received 20 December 2011)
5. Audit report no. 19 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Oversight and management of Defence's information and communication technology: Department of Defence (received 20 December 2011)
6. Audit report no. 20 of 2011-12––Assurance report––2010-11 major projects report: Defence Materiel Organisation (received 20 December 2011)
7. Audit report no. 21 of 2011-12––Performance audit––Administration of grant reporting obligations: Department of Finance and Deregulation (received 24 January 2012)
(g) Returns to order
1. Workplace Relations––Fair Work Amendment (State Referrals and Other Measures) Bill 2009––Bilateral intergovernmental agreements (motion of Senator Fisher agreed to 18 November 2009) (received 30 November 2011)
2. Environment––Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement––Harvesting requirements––Statement and documents (motion of Senator Colbeck agreed to 3 November 2011) (received 6 February 2012)
(h) Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
3. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio (received 1 February 2012)
Defence portfolio (received 3 February 2012)
4. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio (received 1 February 2012)
Defence portfolio (received 3 February 2012)
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee
Government Response to the Senate Committee Report on the Exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011
Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee
November 2011
BACKGROUND
The 2007Australian Labor Party made election commitments to restrict illegally logged timber imports. In particular, commitments were made to require disclosure at point of sale of species, country of origin and any certification; and identify illegally logged timber and restrict its import into Australia.
Following the 2007 election, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (the department) commissioned a number of integrated projects to inform the development of the policy. These projects are available at http://www.daff.gov.aufforestry/intemational. From the commissioned projects, the department developed a final Regulation Impact Statement (RIS), which assessed the costs and benefits for domestic business, individuals and the Australian economy of three regulatory options designed to restrict the importation of illegally logged timber into Australia. The RIS recommended a co-regulatory approach as the most effective means of fulfilling the government's election commitment.
On 3 June 2010 the government approved a co-regulatory due diligence approach for implementing the government's illegal logging policy.
During the 2010 election the government announced it would implement a policy that:
On 9 December 2010, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Joe Ludwig announced, in a media release, the government's intention to introduce legislation into Parliament in 2011. On 23 March 2011, Minister Ludwig referred the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill to the Senate Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport for public inquiry.
The Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport released a report on 23 June 2011 that included seven key recommendations.
The Australian Government welcomes community interest in this complex issue. In this regard, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, and the department have consulted with domestic timber producers, timber importers and retailers, Social Justice organisations, worker representatives and interested environmental Non-Government Organisations and the Construction, Forestry, Mining, and Energy Union in preparing its response to these recommendations.
Government Response to the Committee ' s Recommendations
Recommendation 1
5.19 The committee recommends the Government consider alternatives to provisions for timber industry certifiers and the certifier requirements in relation to them from those listed in the bill.
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
The revised Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill (2011) (the Bill) removes these provisions
Recommendation 2
5.38 The committee recommends that importers provide a mandatory and explicit declaration of legality of product at the border and that such a requirement be incorporated into the bill.
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
The revised Bill addresses this recommendation through implementing a requirement for a declaration confirming due diligence for the importation of a 'regulated timber product'. This would ensure that importers of 'regulated timber products' affirm that they have completed due diligence processes in line with the requirements outlined in the proposed Act and confirm this at the border.
Recommendation 3
5.39 The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ensure that the declaration requirements are consistent, to the fullest extent possible, with those in the United States (US) Lacey Act and the European Union (EU) regulation and others that meet a similar standard.
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
The requirements in the revised Bill are consistent, to the extent possible, with measures being implemented by the US and EU.
Recommendation 4
5.40 The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in consultation with the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service adapt the current Customs declaration to incorporate the bill's declaration requirements.
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
The revised Bill makes it an offence yea regulated timber product is imported without making a declaration of compliance with the due diligence requirements of the Act through a Customs import declaration form.
Recommendation 5
5.41 The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry give consideration to providing visibility to the declaration process and that transparency is assured by way of:
The Government agrees inprinciple with the recommendation.
The government will implement this recommendation in consultation with industry and other interested parties. The Government acknowledges the importance of transparency but will have regard to commercial-in-confidence issues when implementing this recommendation.
The Government also proposes to publish an overview of the outcomes of audits undertaken to monitor compliance with the requirements of the Bill on the department's website.
Recommendation 6
5.52 The committee recommends that regulations prescribe that importers and processors should demonstrate due diligence under one of the following:
a) an internationally recognised third-party certification scheme, or
b) an individual country initiative, or
c) have in place a management system to ensure legal compliance.
The Government agrees in principle with the recommendation.
The Bill includes a requirement for importers and processors of raw logs to demonstrate due diligence. Similar to the EU due diligence model the department proposes a due diligence process under the Act will require three steps:
In the due diligence process the Government advises that a) an internationally recognised third-party certification scheme, b) an individual country initiative, or c) a management system to ensure legal compliance, could be used in steps of the risk assessment and to mitigate any identified risks.
Recommendation 4 [sic] (should be 7)
6.21 The committee recommends that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry conduct a review of the bill's provisions five years after enactment.
6.22 The committee recommends that consideration be given in the five-year review to further periodic reviews.
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
The revised Bill includes a five year review provision and consideration will be given during this review to further periodic reviews of the legislation.
Government Response to the Australian Greens Dissenting Report
Recommendation 1
1.1 Illegal logging not only impacts on local communities through loss of resources and environmental damage, it also damages Australian businesses' ability to compete on a fair playing field.
The Government notes this recommendation.
No comment required
Recommendation 2
1.2 The Greens support strong action on illegal logging but it is difficult to see how
this bill will lead to a substantial improvement in the policing of illegal timber imports entering Australia.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government's illegal logging policy aims to restrict the importation of illegally logged timber and wood products. The revised Bill introduces a prohibition, and requires importers of regulated timber products to fulfil due diligence requirements that will be prescribed in regulations.
Recommendation 3
1.3 Placing the onus on industry to self-regulate and self-monitor is a small step at
a time when big steps are needed. The Greens do not support the exposure draft in its current form. Amendments to the bill should ensure:
The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.
The Government believes the penalty provided in the revised Bill of up to five years imprisonment and/or equivalent penalty units is sufficient and consistent with other relevant Commonwealth legislation. To import 'regulated timber products' a i) declaration and ii) due diligence system is required, which is consistent with the U.S. Lacey Act and EU regulations, respectively.
The Government considers the definition of illegal logging 'timber harvested in contravention of laws in force in the place (whether or not in Australia) where the timber was harvested' provides an adequate basis for establishing the legality of timber and wood products imported into Australia.
a) a requirement on the governments of exporting nations to avoid corruption or lose the market;
The Government does not agree to this recommendation.
The Australian Government is not able to legislate actions to be undertaken by a sovereign country.
b) the prohibition is immediate and regulations are enacted within three months of the legislation; this legislation has been on the cards for years so industry has had plenty of time to adjust and prepare for change;
The Government agrees in part with this recommendation.
The department agrees with the recommended timeframe for the prohibition. The prohibition element of the Bill will be enacted on commencement of the legislation. The Government believes that a period of three months to commence the regulations is an unrealistic time frame for industry to develop and implement any change to meet any new requirements.
The original timeframe for the introduction of the regulations of two years after the commencement of the legislation will enable timber importers and processes of raw logs to establish systems and processes for due diligence.
c) the prohibition is broadened beyond just the importation of timber to include all steps of the supply chain, similar to the US and EU regulations, so that all participants in the trade take responsibility;
The Government does not agree to this recommendation.
The intention of the legislation is to regulate the placement of legally logged timber and wood products onto the Australian market at two key points of entry, being the Australian border (for imported products) and domestic processing mills (for raw logs). Effective regulation at these two points will remove the need for further regulation down the supply chain.
d) penalties for breaching the prohibition are broadened to include fines or forfeiture within the act rather than it being left to the courts;
The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.
In the revised Bill, forfeiture provisions will apply when a conviction of an offence is found under the Act. The Bill will also include maximum penalties units for the prohibition offences to give further clarity to the community.
0 approval of certifiers is a rigorous process, clearly outlined in the act and that any process needs to include government oversight;
The Government notes this recommendation.
As the revised Bill removes this process, no comment is required.
f) the declaration information to be as broad as the US and EU legislation. The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation.
When establishing the requirements of the 'due diligence declaration' the department has considered the US and EU measures for consistency and the revised Bill provides for broad declaration requirements.
Recommendation 4
1.4 One of the difficulties in scrutinising this legislation was the absence of
regulations; there is no timeline for when the regulations may be prepared or come into effect. It is inappropriate to refer key components of the process framework to delegated instruments as this limits the parliament's ability to review and amend legislation.
The Government does not agree to this recommendation.
It is the government's intention that the prohibition will come into effect on commencement of the Act. The remaining elements of the Bill will come into effect in line with the regulations, which will be two years after the commencement of the Act.
The regulations will be developed through consultation with key industry and environmental and social justice organisations. It is anticipated that an existing stakeholder working group will be the main vehicle for consultation on the overarching elements. It is also expected there will be sector based working groups of industry players.
Recommendation 5
1.5 A chain of custody certification seems to be the most robust way to combat
illegal logging. Ensuring that an independent body is responsible for certifying wood origin, type and licence to log the identified coupe then provides the foundation for certification to carry on to furniture makers, sawmillers and importers.
The Government does not agree to this recommendation.
The Government is of the view that effective regulation of illegally logged timber and wood products can be achieved at the border and processing mills (as proposed in recommendation 3(c)), and removes the need for further regulation down the supply chain. Additional requirements, such as chain of custody certification, will place an unnecessary cost burden on industry without achieving significant benefits in relation to the objectives of the legislation.
Recommendation 6
1.6 Setting up such a process also opens the possibility of addressing the
sustainability of logging. The current exposure draft is only assessing illegal timber. It does not cover logged products emanating from native forests containing rare or endangered species or where traditional owners have not given or do not maintain assent to the logging.
The Government does not agree to this recommendation.
As stated in the government's 2010 election commitment the policy intention is to restrict the sale of illegally logged wood in Australia, by introducing legislation that makes it an offence to import timber products into Australia that have been illegally harvested.
Recommendation 7
1.7 Greenpeace in its submission identified 35 recommendations in 15 areas to
improve the legislation; the Australian Greens support its call.
The Government notes this recommendation.
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee Report
Review of Govern ment Compensation Payments, December MO
INTRODUCTION
The Government welcomes the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee's Review of Government Compensation Payments. It thanks the committee members for their work and their focus on redress schemes for people who were in care as children during the 20th century and other government discretionary payment schemes.
On 16 November 2009, the then Prime Minister, on behalf of the nation delivered an Apology to the Forgotten Australians and former child migrants, as part of initiating the healing process. As part of the Apology, the Australian Government announced a range of initiatives to provide support to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants, collectively known as care leavers, including a new Find and Connect service.
The Australian Government has committed $26.5 million over four years to deliver the new national Find and Connect Service. This new service will provide:
The Government is designing this service in consultation with care leavers. It believes that, together with existing services, the Find and Connect service will contribute to an effective network of support that helps care leavers deal with the impacts of their past experiences in the care system.
All children deserve to be cared for in a safe, loving environment, enabling them to achieve happiness and success throughout their lives. It is unacceptable and incomprehensible that they are given anything less. The Australian Government, together with State and Territory Governments and the non-government sector, has developed and begun implementing the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children.
RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
The committee made seven recommendations. The Government's response to the recommendations is provided below.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Queensland, South Australian, Tasmanian and Western Australian Governments review their redress schemes relating to children in institutional care to ensure:
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Queensland and Western Australian Governments consider applications for redress from care leavers who were unaware of the redress schemes which operated in those states prior to the closing dates for applications.
Response to Recommendations 1 & 2
The Australian Government notes these recommendations.
The Australian Government considers that these are matters for the Queensland, South Australian, Tasmanian and Western Australian Governments.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the New South Wales and Victorian Governments establish administrative schemes to provide redress to people who experienced abuse or neglect while in institutional or foster care in those states.
Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
Redress in New South Wales and Victoria is a matter for those State Governments. Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Australian Government pursue all available policy and political options, including through the Council of Australian Governments and other appropriate national forums, to ensure that:
Response
The Australian Government notes these recommendations.
Redress is a matter for each State Government to consider.
Within the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) framework, the Australian Government raised these issues at a meeting of the Community and Disability Services Ministers' Conference on 11 September 2009.
The Australian Government is continuing to work closely with State and Territory Governments to ensure that Forgotten Australians and former child migrants are able to access specialist support services and to improve access to mainstream health and welfare programs.
The Australian Government will again raise these matters in appropriate COAG forums to ensure continued progress is made.
Recommendation 5
The committee recommends that the Australian Government examine whether people who were placed in institutional or foster care in the Northern Territory or the Australian Capital Territory, during the periods that the Commonwealth directly administered those territories, suffered similar abuse and neglect to children placed in care in other jurisdictions.
Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government notes that there has been no evidence presented to any of the relevant Senate Inquiries, including this current Inquiry, about time in institutional care in either territory by Forgotten Australians or former child migrants.
The Australian Government announced a range of initiatives in the National Apology to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants on 16 November 2009 to assist care leavers wherever resident in Australia in ways other than providing monetary compensation.
The Australian Government's national Find and Connect Service will be available to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants no matter where they were in care or where they now reside. The national Find and Connect Service will provide an Australia-wide, coordinated, family tracing and support service for Forgotten Australians and former child migrants to locate their personal records and to reunite with their families, where this is desired and possible.
Find and Connect will also bring together historical resources relating to institutional care throughout Australia, including in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. This information will be available through the Find and Connect website.
The Australia Government has also developed and funds assistance provided to the Stolen Generations, such as through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation and Link Up family reunion services.
Recommendation 6
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review 'waiver of debt' provisions contained in social security legislation and consider amendments to that legislation where current provisions could cause unfair and unjust outcomes for welfare recipients.
Response
The Australian Government is reviewing current debt waiver provisions under social security law to ensure they provide an appropriate balance between recovering amounts that exceed a person's entitlement and avoiding onerous and inequitable outcomes for customers. The Australian Government is actively engaging, and will continue to engage, the National Welfare Rights Network in ongoing discussions to make the system fairer.
Recommendation 7
The committee recommends that the Department of Finance and Deregulation investigate the extension, in appropriate circumstances, of the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration scheme to Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act 1997 agencies and to third party providers performing functions or providing services on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Department of Finance and Deregulation is investigating the extension of the Scheme of Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration to Commonwealth Authorities and Corporations Act 1997 (CAC Act) agencies and to third party providers performing functions or providing services on behalf of the Commonwealth.
Additional Recommendations provided by the Australian Greens
Recommendation 1
That the Australian Government develop a national standard for redress schemes.
Response
Redress is a matter for each State Government to consider.
Recommendation 2
That the Australian Government develop and support a national service to provide information and support to all those affected by past government policies and practices (irrespective of whether Commonwealth, State or Territory) to access or pursue compensation, restitution or redress.
Response
The Australian Government announced a range of initiatives in the National Apology to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants on 16 November 2009 to assist care leavers wherever resident in Australia in ways other than providing monetary compensation.
The Australian Government's national Find and Connect Service will be available to Forgotten Australians and former child migrants no matter where they were in care or where they now reside. The national Find and Connect Service will provide an Australia-wide, coordinated, family tracing and support service for Forgotten Australians and former child migrants to locate their personal records and to reunite with their families, where this is desired and possible.
The Australian Government is continuing to work closely with State and Territory Governments to ensure that Forgotten Australians and former child migrants are able to access specialist support services and to improve access to mainstream health and welfare programs.
The Australia Government also funds assistance for the Stolen Generations, through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation and Link Up family reunion services.
Recommendation 3
That the Australian Government ensure that citizens affected by the past policies and practices of the Northern Territory or the ACT have access to appropriate compensation, restitution and redress in a timely fashion.
Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Government notes that there has been no evidence presented to any of the relevant Senate Inquiries, including this current Inquiry, about time in institutional care in either territory by Forgotten Australians or former child migrants.
Further, evidence provided by the Northern Territory Government in a submission to the Senate Community Affairs Committee into the implementation of the Recommendations in the 'Lost Innocents: Righting the Record' and 'Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who Experienced Institutional or Out-of-Home Care as Children' is that no British child migrants were placed in the Northern Territory.
The Australian Government's national Find and Connect Service will be available in all states and territories for Forgotten Australians and former child migrants, no matter where they were in care. The Find and Connect Service will provide an Australia-wide, coordinated, family tracing and support service for Forgotten Australians and former child migrants to locate their personal records and to reunite with their families, where possible and desired.
Find and Connect will also bring together historical resources relating to institutional care throughout Australia, including in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. This information will be available through the Find and Connect website.
The Australia Government also funds assistance provided to the Stolen Generations through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation and Link Up family reunion services.
Recommendation 4
That the Australian Government establish a national reparations scheme for the Stolen Generations as outlined by The Australian Greens Stolen Generations Reparations Bill 2010.
Response
On 13 February 2008, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd offered the National Apology in a spirit of respect, and in recognition of the profound grief, suffering and loss inflicted on Stolen Generations.
At the time it was acknowledged that words alone were not enough. While the Government does not support the establishment of a national reparations scheme for the Stolen Generations, we are working practically to assist members of the Stolen Generations to deal with the daily experience of various types of trauma, loss and grief and to help families and future generations to stop the cycle of trauma from continuing.
After the Motion of Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples on 13 February 2008 the Government committed an additional $15.7 million to important initiatives such as Link Up family reunion services and Bringing Them Home counsellors for Stolen Generations' survivors.
On 13 February 2009, the first anniversary of the Motion of Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples, the Government announced a further $13.8 million for the Link Up program to enable an extra 351 family reunions and around 100 'Return to Country' reunions.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Healing Foundation was established on 30 October 2009. The 2009-10 Budget provided $26 million in funding over four years for the Foundation to address trauma and aid healing in Aboriginal and Tones Strait Islander communities, mindful of the unique needs of members of the Stolen Generations.
Recommendation 5
That the Australian Government develop and implement a comprehensive debt collection strategy to reduce the incidence of social security debts, provide fairer debt recovery methods and ensure that debts are not unfairly raised.
Recommendation 6
That the Australian Government amend the Social Security Act to remove anomalies and unfair aspects of its debt waiver provisions along the lines recommended in the evidence presented by the National Welfare Rights Network.
Response to recommendations 5 and 6
The Australian Government is reviewing current debt waiver provisions under social security law to ensure they provide an appropriate balance between recovering amounts that exceed a person's entitlement and avoiding onerous and inequitable outcomes for customers. The Australian Government is actively engaging, and will continue to engage, the National Welfare Rights Network in ongoing discussions to make the system fairer.
Australian Government Response to Senate Community Affairs References Committee
Gene Patents Report
November 2011
Introduction
On 11 November 2008 the Senate referred matters relating to the patenting of human genes and genetic materials to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee (the Senate Committee) for inquiry and report. The Senate Committee tabled its report (the Senate Gene Patents Report) on 24 November 2010.
The terms of reference for the inquiry directed the Senate Committee to inquire into:
The impact of the granting of patents in Australia over human and microbial genes and non-coding sequences, proteins, and their derivatives, including those materials in an isolated form, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact which the granting of patent monopolies over such materials has had, is having, and may have had on:
(i) the provision and costs of healthcare;
(ii) the provision of training and accreditation for healthcare professionals;
(iii) the progress in medical research; and
(iv) the health and wellbeing of the Australian people;
(b) identifying measures that would ameliorate any adverse impacts arising from the granting of patents over such materials, including whether the Patents Act 1990 should be amended, in light of any matters identified by the inquiry; and
(c) whether the Patents Act 1990 should be amended so as to expressly prohibit the grant of patent monopolies over such materials.
The Senate Gene Patents Report contains 16 recommendations directed, in part, to:
Recommendation 4 of the Senate Gene Patents Report also recommended that the Government provide a combined response to:
The Government accepts this recommendation. This Government response addresses the recommendations of the above three reports. The review of Australia's patent system by IP Australia does not involve any public recommendations for Government response. However, the relevant outcomes of this review are outlined in the responses to the recommendations of the three reports.
ALRC 99 Report
On 17 December 2002 the then Australian Government Attorney-General, the Hon Daryl Williams MP, asked the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) to inquire into and report on the laws and practices governing intellectual property rights over genetic materials and related technologies, with a particular focus on human health issues. The ALRC's report, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health, (ALRC 99, 2004) was tabled on 31 August 2004.
The terms of reference for the inquiry directed the ALRC to consider – with a particular focus on human health issues – the impact of current patenting laws and practices related to genes and genetic and related technologies on:
The terms of reference also requested the ALRC to consider what changes, if any, may be required to address any problems identified in current laws and practices with the aim of encouraging the creation and use of intellectual property to further the health and economic benefits of genetic research and genetic and related technologies.
The ALRC 99 report contains 50 recommendations directed to:
ACIP PSM Report
In 2008 the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, Senator the Hon Kim Carr, requested that the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) conduct a review of patentable subject matter, including the appropriateness and adequacy of the 'manner of manufacture' test as the threshold requirement for patentable subject matter under Australian law, and the historical requirement that an invention must not be 'generally inconvenient'. Instigation of the review was informed by recommendation 6-2 of the ALRC 99 Report. ACIP released its report on patentable subject matter (ACIP PSM Report) on 16 February 2011.
The ACIP PSM Report contains 11 recommendations directed to various changes to the Patents Act 1990 including:
The Government thanks the Senate Committee, the ALRC and ACIP for their reports. The Government's response to the recommendations of these reports is set out below.
Government Response to Recommendations 1
Legend:
SGP Report
Recommendation 1
3.156 The Committee recommends that the Government support and expand on the collection of data, research and analysis concerning genetic testing and treatment in Australia, in line with recommendation 19-1 of the 2004 Australia Law Reform Commission report Genes and ingenuity.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 19–1
The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) should establish processes for:
(a) economic evaluation of medical genetic testing and other new genetic medical technologies; and
(b) examination of the financial impact of gene patents on the delivery of healthcare services in Australia.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations in principle.
The report and the Government response to the Review of Health Technology Assessment in Australia (HTA Review), which had been conducted as a Better Regulation Ministerial Partnership, were released by the Minister for Health and Ageing and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation in February 2010. In implementing the recommendations of the HTA Review that were accepted by Government, the Department of Health and Ageing has established the Health Technology Assessment Access Point to coordinate the provision of comprehensive advice to Government regarding co-dependent technologies, such as where the cost-effective use of a drug may be dependent on the result of a genetic test, and to determine the appropriate methodology for assessing such technologies.
The Government considers that the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is the appropriate body to undertake evaluations of medical genetic tests (including their cost-effectiveness) based on available evidence. MSAC undertakes evaluations on eligible medical services on application from non-government bodies, on referral from Government, and as requested by the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Committee (AHMAC). The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) can also provide advice on technical or ethical aspects of genetic testing if requested by MSAC to assist in its deliberations.
The Government considers that there is insufficient need at this time to establish a specific process for examination of the financial impact of gene patents in the delivery of healthcare. The economic value and impact of patents continues to be an area of research interest both in Australia and internationally. A number of intellectual property organisations, including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), have recently included on their staff economists for this purpose. In Australia such research is undertaken by a number of universities and institutes including the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia (IPRIA). IP Australia also maintains a watching brief on developments in this regard.
SGP Report
Recommendation 2
3.157 The Committee recommends that the Government conduct a public consultation and feasibility study regarding establishing a transparency register for patent applications and other measures to track the use of patents dealing with genes and genetic materials.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 9–1
IP Australia should develop and regularly update a searchable online database comprising patents and published patent applications. The database should:
(a) be accessible to the public through IP Australia's website;
(b) provide user-friendly access and search capabilities on a wide variety of bases; and
(c) as soon as practicable, provide full-text searching of all complete specifications of published Australian patent applications and granted patents.
Response
The Government accepts Recommendation 9-1 of the ALRC 99 Report and notes that IP Australia has developed and implemented the AusPat search system to provide ready access to Australian patent information including full-text searching of complete specifications back to 1904 (commencement of the first Commonwealth Patents Act2). AusPat is a world standard database of patent applications enabling searches to be conducted across 28 different data fields including applicant/inventor name, technology, etc.. The functionality of the system caters for the novice to the advanced searcher including on-line support through a feedback mechanism.
In addition the system includes an 'eDossier' facility which means that the public will be able to readily see any objections raised by the patent examiner and the responses, amendments, etc. submitted by the patent applicant to overcome those and result in grant of a patent. This facility provides access to patent application files open to public inspection (which occurs 18 months from filing) from 2006.
The Government will continue to explore web-based technology to make patent data more readily accessible and understood by the Australian community as part of continuous improvement of existing capabilities.
The Government accepts Recommendation 2 of the SGP Report as it relates to patent applications rather than how it relates to the 'use' of patents. The Government notes that the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia (IPRIA), which is partly funded by Government, has in the past and continues to conduct research on the use of patents. This includes research on patent enforcement and assignment.
SGP Report
Recommendation 3
4.137 The Committee recommends that the Senate refer the Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010 to the relevant Senate committee for inquiry and report.
Response
This recommendation is a matter for the Senate.
SGP Report
Recommendation 4
5.161 The Committee recommends that the Government provide a combined response addressing the Committee's inquiry into gene patents; the 2004 report on gene patents by the Australian Law Reform Commission; the review of patentable subject matter by the Australian Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP); and the review of Australia's patent system by IP Australia. The Committee recommends that the response be provided not later than mid-2011 or three months after the release of the findings of all reviews.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
SGP Report
Recommendation 5
5.162 The Committee recommends that, at an appropriate time following the release of the ACIP review of patentable subject matter and the IP Australia review of the patent system, the Community Affairs References Committee be tasked with inquiring into the Government's response to, and implementation of, the recommendations of those reviews, as well as the recommendations of the Committee's report on gene patents.
Response
This recommendation is a matter for the Senate.
SGP Report
Recommendation 6
5.172 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended so that the test for obviousness in determining inventive step is that a claimed invention is obvious if it was 'obvious for the skilled person to try a suggested approach, alternative or method with a reasonable expectation of success'.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government acknowledges the need to raise Australia's patent standard for inventive step (which is used to determine whether or not the claimed invention is obvious). The Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 which has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination strengthen the inventive step requirements and increase the quality of patents that are granted. The test “obvious for the skilled person to try a suggested approach, alternative or method with a reasonable expectation of success” is but one of a number of legal tests which can be used by examiners and the courts to determine obviousness.
SGP Report
Recommendation 7
5.173 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to remove the limitation that 'common general knowledge' be confined to that existing in Australia at the time a patent application is lodged (that is, that 'common general knowledge' anywhere in the world be considered).
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Amendments to implement this recommendation are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted.
SGP Report
Recommendation 8
5.174 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to remove the requirement that 'prior art information' for the purposes of determining inventive step must be that which could reasonably have been expected to be 'ascertained' (that is, that the 'prior art base' against which inventive step is assessed not be restricted to information that a skilled person in the relevant field would have actually looked for and found (ascertained)).
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Amendments to implement this recommendation are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The proposed amendments would also remove the requirement that prior art for the purposes of assessing the inventive step of an invention is restricted to only that information that would be 'understood and regarded as relevant' by a skilled person in the art. The requirements that prior art be 'understood' and 'regarded as relevant' are implicit in the pre-existing tests for inventive step. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted.
SGP Report
Recommendation 9
5.175 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to introduce descriptive support requirements, including that the whole scope of the claimed invention be enabled and that the description provide sufficient information to allow the skilled addressee to perform the invention without undue experimentation.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
Amendments to implement this recommendation are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted.
SGP Report
Recommendation 10
5.179 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to provide that an invention will satisfy the requirement of 'usefulness' in section 18(1) only in such cases as a patent application discloses a 'specific, substantial and credible' use; the Committee recommends that such amendments incorporate the full set of recommendations on this issue from the Australian Law Reform Commission's 2004 report, Genes and ingenuity (Recommendations 6-3 to 6-4).
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 5
Amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) so that the requirement of usefulness in paragraphs 18(1)(c) and 18(1A)(c) encompasses the requirement for utility that is currently an aspect of the manner of manufacture requirement, and is a ground for examination of a standard patent and an innovation patent.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 6–3
The Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) to:
(a) include 'usefulness' as a requirement in the examination of an application for a standard patent and in the certification of an innovation patent;
(b) provide that an invention will satisfy the requirement of 'usefulness' only if the patent application discloses a specific, substantial and credible use;
(c) require the Commissioner of Patents to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the requirement of 'usefulness' is made out in order to accept an application for a standard patent or to certify an innovation patent; and
(d) include 'lack of usefulness' as a basis upon which an accepted application for a standard patent may be opposed, in addition to its current role as a ground for revocation. (See also Recommendation 8–3.)
Recommendation 6–4
IP Australia should develop guidelines, consistent with the Patents Act, the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and existing case law, to assist patent examiners in applying the 'usefulness' requirement. The guidelines should outline factors relevant to determining whether a use disclosed in a patent application is specific, substantial and credible to a person skilled in the relevant art.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations.
With regard to Recommendation 6-3(d) of the ALRC 99 Report, the Patents Act 1990 was amended in 2004 to include paragraphs 18(1)(c) and 18(1)(d) as grounds of opposition under section 59. The introduced grounds of opposition are that the claimed invention:
With regard to Recommendation 6-4 of the ALRC 99 Report, IP Australia has commenced work in developing such guidelines. The date for completion of the guidelines to implement this recommendation will depend on the timing of the legislative changes required to implement all other elements of these recommendations.
Amendments to implement all other elements of these recommendations are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted.
SGP Report
Recommendation 11
5.185 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to clarify the circumstances in which the Crown use provisions may be employed; and that the Government develop clear policies for the use of the Crown use provisions. The Committee recommends that the Government adopt the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations on this issue from its 2004 report, Genes and ingenuity (Recommendations 26-1 to 26-3)
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 26–1
The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council should develop a policy regarding the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Commonwealth or a State to exploit a patented invention under the Crown use provisions of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) for the purposes of promoting human health. Similarly, the Department of Health and Ageing should develop a policy regarding the circumstances in which it may be appropriate for the Commonwealth to acquire a patent for the purposes of promoting human health. Decisions about Crown use in specific cases must be made on their individual merits.
Recommendation 26–2
The Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act to clarify that, for the purposes of the Crown use provisions, an invention is exploited 'for the services of the Commonwealth or of a State' if the exploitation of the invention by a Commonwealth or State authority (or by an authorised person) is for the provision of healthcare services or products to members of the public.
Recommendation 26–3
The Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act to provide that, when a patent is exploited under the Crown use provisions, the remuneration that is to be paid by the relevant authority must be paid promptly and must be just and reasonable having regard to the economic value of the use. Similarly, the Act should be amended to provide that, when a patent is acquired under the Crown acquisition provisions, compensation must be paid promptly and must be just and reasonable having regard to the economic value of the patent.
Response
The Government notes these recommendations.
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) investigated and reported on the Crown use provisions (see 2005 ACIP Report, Review of Crown Use Provisions for Patents and Designs).
The Government decided that there was insufficient evidence to support any legislative changes to the current provisions. As a result of the ACIP Review, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research wrote to relevant Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers in March 2009 to raise awareness of government rights and obligations under the provisions. IP Australia also developed a public information sheet highlighting the Crown's rights and obligations and the rights of intellectual property owners under the provisions.
The Government does not see a need at present to develop a health-specific policy on the circumstances in which Crown use provisions should be exploited as the provisions are available for all Commonwealth, State and Territory services. The Government agrees that the circumstances in which a patented invention should be exploited pursuant to the Crown use provisions should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
SGP Report
Recommendation 12
5.190 The Committee recommends that the Government amend the Patents Act 1990 to clarify the scope of the 'reasonable requirements of the public' test, taking into account the recommendation of the Australian Law Reform Commission on this issue in its 2004 report, Genes and ingenuity (Recommendation 27-1); the Committee recommends that the Government review the operation of the competition based test for the grant of a compulsory licence, with particular reference to its interaction with the Trade Practices Act 1974.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 27–1
The Commonwealth should amend the provisions of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) relating to compulsory licences by:
(a) inserting the competition-based test recommended by the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee as an additional ground for the grant of a compulsory licence; and
(b) clarifying the scope of the 'reasonable requirements of the public test'.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations.
As the SGP Report notes, the Government introduced a competition-based test as an additional ground for the grant of a compulsory licence in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2006. Specifically, the provision provides for a compulsory licence to be available as a remedy if a person has contravened any anti-competitive conduct provision under Part IV of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The Government will review the operation of the compulsory licence provisions of the Patents Act 1990 including measures to raise awareness of these provisions.
SGP Report
Recommendation 13
5.195 The Committee recommends that the Patents Act 1990 be amended to include a broad research exemption.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 13–1
The Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) to establish an exemption from patent infringement for acts done to study or experiment on the subject matter of a patented invention; for example, to investigate its properties or improve upon it. The amendment should also make it clear that:
(a) the exemption is available only if study or experimentation is the sole or dominant purpose of the act;
(b) the existence of a commercial purpose or objective does not preclude the application of the exemption; and
(c) the exemption does not derogate from any study or experimentation that may otherwise be permitted under the Patents Act.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations.
Amendments to introduce an exemption from infringement for acts done for experimental purposes are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The proposed amendments include a broad research exemption as well as an exemption for acts connected with obtaining regulatory approval (such as the conduct of trials to provide data necessary for obtaining regulatory approval). The exemption is technology neutral applying to research in any technology field and regulatory approval of any technology. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted and provide the sought after certainty for researchers.
SGP Report
Recommendation 14
5.197 The Committee recommends that, to assist courts and patent examiners with the interpretation and application of the Patents Act 1990, the Government consider amending the Act to include anti-avoidance provisions.
Response
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
The Government has considered the submissions and examples put forward to the Senate inquiry and in the SGP Report relating to this recommendation.
The Government is of the view that existing measures including: the ability for third parties to make submissions during examination of a patent application (section 27 of the Patents Act 1990), pre-grant opposition (Chapter 5 and 9A Part 3 of the Patents Act 1990), re-examination (Chapter 9 and 9A Part 2 of the Patents Act 1990), internal quality audits, and external administrative and judicial processes, provide for compliance and quality.
These measures will be enhanced further with improved access to patent information through the new eDossier system. The eDossier provides on-line, free of charge, public access to relevant documents and correspondence on the patent application prosecution file. The improved access to this information will increase the transparency of the patent system and enable members of the public to address any concerns they may have about perceived misuse of the system through these existing measures.
Furthermore, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 which has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. Specifically, the Bill seeks to change the burden of proof to 'balance of probabilities' for all patentability criteria which with the addition of a statement of objectives to the Patents Act 1990 (in accordance with Recommendation 15 of the SGP Report and Recommendation 1 of the ACIP PSM Report) will further assist the courts and patent examiners with the interpretation and application of the Patents Act 1990. The various changes proposed under the Bill will in combination increase the quality of patents that are granted.
SGP Report
Recommendation 15
5.198 The Committee recommends that, to assist courts and patent examiners with the interpretation and application of the Patents Act 1990, the Government consider amending the Act to include objects provisions.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 1
Include a statement of objectives in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) describing the purposes of the legislation.
Recommendation 2
The statement of objectives to be included in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) should describe the purposes of the legislation as being to provide an environment that promotes Australia's national interest and enhances the well-being of Australians by balancing the competing interests of patent rights holders, the users of technological knowledge, and Australian society as a whole.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations.
The Government recognises that a statement of objectives in the Patents Act 1990 would provide a clear statement of legislative intent. The Government will develop legislation to give effect to these recommendations and its intention that patents should not lead to patients being denied reasonable access to healthcare. The legislation will be the subject of the same considered and comprehensive public consultation process as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 including public exposure of the legislation drafting instructions and the draft legislative provisions.
SGP Report
Recommendation 16
5.202 The Committee recommends that the Government establish a patent audit committee.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government notes that the objective of the patent audit committee is to provide assurance to Government that the patent system is working as intended. The Government notes that the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) which is comprised of expert members appointed by the Minister for Innovation, Industry Science and Research already has the powers to undertake quality reviews where directed by the Minister and to co-opt temporary members with expertise in the relevant subject area of a review. The Government will consider varying ACIP's membership to ensure industry, research and community/consumer interests are sufficiently represented. ACIP can be tasked with providing advice to the Minister on matters such as:
The Government also notes that any such reviews would be in addition to existing avenues to assure the quality of individual patents in Australia including substantive patent examination, re-examination, pre-grant opposition procedures, third party notification under section 27 of the Patents Act 1990, the administrative and judicial review system, and IP Australia's internal quality audits and transparency in the prosecution of patent applications through the eDossier facility (which provides on-line, free of charge, public access to relevant documents and correspondence on the patent application prosecution file). The Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia (IPRIA) also has an active and varied research program looking at various topical patent issues, including issues of quality.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 3
Define patentable subject matter in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), for the purposes of both a standard patent and an innovation patent, using clear and contemporary language that embodies the principles of inherent patentability as developed by the High Court in the NRDC case and in subsequent Australian court decisions.
Recommendation 4
Amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to enhance the clarity of the patentability requirements, and to remove overlap of the patentable subject matter provision with the provisions on novelty, inventive step and usefulness.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 6–2
The responsible Minister should initiate an independent review of the appropriateness and adequacy of the 'manner of manufacture' test as the threshold requirement for patentable subject matter under Australian law, with a particular focus on the requirement that an invention must not be 'generally inconvenient'.
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations in principle, and will develop legislation to define patentable subject matter using clear and contemporary language. The Government recognises the important role of patents in commercialising health research and the need to provide industry with certainty within the patent system. The development of this legislation will be subject to considered and comprehensive public consultation. This will enable an opportunity to consider benefits and impacts on the health sector. The legislation drafting instructions and the draft legislative provisions will be subject to the same considered and comprehensive public consultation process as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011.
The Government has already acted on Recommendation 6-2 of the ALRC 99 Report which has resulted in the ACIP PSM Report. The 'manner of manufacture' test has served the Australian intellectual property system well to date, but the Government recognised that as part of continuous improvement and international harmonisation it would be appropriate to review the test. However, due to the high degree of overlap between 'manner of manufacture' and other criteria for patentability, in order to be effective the scope of the review was broadened to encompass 'patentable subject matter'. The terms of reference for the review were to conduct a review of patentable subject matter, including the appropriateness and adequacy of the 'manner of manufacture' test as the threshold requirement for patentable subject matter under Australian law, and the historical requirement that an invention must not be 'generally inconvenient'.
The ACIP PSM Report is the result of extensive public consultation over a two and a half year period including written submissions and public forums. The Government recognises the complexities of providing incentives for creating innovations, enabling further innovation and cost effective access to innovations. Any changes must therefore have full regard to all these. This is particularly important with respect to health-related innovations where understandably there is strong public concern about affordable access to healthcare.
It is also important to note that the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 which has also been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The higher standards for demonstrating novelty, inventive step and usefulness will provide for patenting of inventions that demonstrate a more substantial level of inventiveness and thereby raise the overall quality of patents granted in Australia. In that regard the changes proposed under the Bill will deal directly with broad and speculative patents which are understandably of public concern. The Bill also has provisions to provide researchers and innovators with the freedom to undertake research and regulatory approval activities without fear of infringing patents. All these proposed changes to the Patents Act 1990, in combination with existing safeguards of Crown use and compulsory licences, increase clarity over patentability requirements, provide incentives for creating innovations and making them available and establish mechanisms for responding to anti-competitive behaviour.
The Government will also continue to monitor international developments through its membership of various fora including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and World Health Organization (WHO), and international and domestic patent-related jurisprudence to ensure that the balance of interests continues to be maintained.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 6
Retain the specific exclusions set out in sub-sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 7
Repeal section 50 of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), and the corresponding grounds for revocation of an innovation patent contained in section 101B of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation having regard to the response in relation to Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 of the ACIP PSM Report.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 8
Include in the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) a patentability exclusion as permitted by Article 27(2) of the TRIPS Agreement.
Recommendation 9
Amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) so as to exclude from patentability an invention the commercial exploitation of which would be wholly offensive to the ordinary reasonable and fully informed member of the Australian public.
Recommendation 10
Amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to provide the Commissioner of Patents with an explicit power to seek advice, from any person the Commissioner considers appropriate, to assist the Commissioner in applying the general patentability exclusion proposed in ACIP Recommendation 8 and in ACIP Recommendation 9.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 7–1
The Patents Act 1990 (Cth) should not be amended:
(a) to exclude genetic materials and technologies from patentable subject matter;
(b) to exclude methods of diagnostic, therapeutic or surgical treatment from patentable subject matter; or
(c) to expand the existing circumstances in which social and ethical considerations may be taken into account in decisions about granting patents.
Rather, social and ethical concerns should be addressed primarily through direct regulation of the use or exploitation of a patented invention.
Response
The Government accepts Recommendation 7-1 (a) in principle and (b) in full but not (c) of the ALRC 99 Report in recognition of the more recent proposals in the ACIP PSM Report.
The Government recognises the need for the patent system to reflect contemporary community expectations and therefore accepts Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 of the ACIP PSM Report but notes that the specific amendments to the Patents Act 1990 will need to be consistent with Australia's international obligations. The Government will develop legislation to give effect to these recommendations. The legislation will be subject of the same considered and comprehensive public consultation process as the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 including public exposure of the legislation drafting instructions and the draft legislative provisions.
ACIP PSM Report
Recommendation 11
Amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) to require the Commissioner of Patents to be satisfied that an invention is a patentable invention before accepting an application for a standard patent or certifying an innovation patent.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 8–3
The Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act to require patent examiners to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities when assessing all statutory requirements for patentability that are relevant at the stage of examination. (See also Recommendation 6–3.)
Response
The Government accepts these recommendations.
The amendments to give effect to these recommendations are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period and provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes in combination will increase the quality of patents granted in Australia.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 5–1
IP Australia should:
(a) assess the impact of patent fees on the actual term of Australian patents; and
(b) periodically review the structure and quantum of patent fees to ensure that fees are set at levels appropriate to discourage patent holders from maintaining patents that lack real commercial value.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
IP Australia sets fees consistent with:
Increased innovation, investment and trade in Australia, and by Australians overseas, through the administration of the registrable intellectual property rights system, promoting public awareness and industry engagement, and advising Government;
IP Australia employs a fee schedule structure where the renewal fees increase with the age of the patent and thereby discourage renewal of patents with no or little remaining commercial value. In developing the fee schedules, IP Australia takes into consideration a range of issues including the mean age of Australian patents, consistency in cost of like services across other intellectual property rights, international benchmarking and equality of access for patent holders of different economic means. IP Australia completed a review of its fee structure in July 2010, having last reviewed its fees in 2006. It will continue to conduct regular reviews of its fee structure and will take all the relevant issues into account including assessing the impact of fees over the period of Australian patents as well as the need to consider disincentives for behaviour that could reduce innovation.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 6–1
Patent applications relating to genetic materials and technologies should be assessed according to the same legislative criteria for patentability that apply to patent applications relating to any other type of technology.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation noting Australia's obligation under the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to maintain technology-neutral patentability criteria.
The Government is pursuing a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. These changes are contained in the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011 which has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period. The various changes proposed under the Bill will require more evidence that the invention can do what it claims to do and increase quality of the patents granted in Australia.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 8–1
To ensure the ongoing competence of Australian patent examiners in examining patent applications, IP Australia should enhance its efforts to provide examiners with education and training in areas of technology relevant to their particular specialty. IP Australia should review and update its education and training programs regularly so that new developments can be incorporated as required.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government recognises the importance of the skills of patent examiners in ensuring quality of decision making in the grant of Australian patents. To that end IP Australia has an active program of continuing professional training and development. Opportunities are available for examiners in the form of internal and external training courses, part-time university study and attendance at seminars, conferences (including international conferences), industrial visits and placements. The programs are subject to periodic reviews and improvements. In the 2009-10 financial year, IP Australia spent 3.4% of its expense budget on staff training and development. On average, $5,900 was spent per patent examiner on training and development.
IP Australia also continues to recruit new staff with knowledge and experience in developing technologies. IP Australia requires all patent examiners to have tertiary qualifications. As at early 2010, 53% of patent examiners employed by IP Australia had postgraduate tertiary qualifications with 80% of these being science-based.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 8–2
IP Australia should develop examination guidelines, consistent with the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act), the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and existing case law, to explain how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions involving genetic materials and technologies.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government agrees that there should be clear examination guidelines for how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions for all technologies, including genetic materials. IP Australia has examination guidelines to give effect to this recommendation and these are contained in the publicly available Australian Patent Office Manual of Practice and Procedure which is a controlled document under its externally certified ISO 9001 quality management system. The Government believes the current examination guidelines provide appropriate guidance on how these criteria apply to inventions involving genetic materials and technologies. IP Australia will continue to provide appropriate guidance as the law develops, and will update the examination guidelines as appropriate in consultation with stakeholders.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 9–2
Information about patent litigation should be readily accessible to the public.
To this end:
(a) the Commonwealth should amend the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) to require courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act to give written notice to the
Commissioner of Patents when a legal proceeding to challenge or enforce a patent is commenced, and when a decision or judgment is given in any such proceeding;
(b) the Commissioner of Patents should include information about any such notice in the file of a patent and make the information readily available, for example in the Official Journal of Patents and in the patents database on IP Australia's website; and
(c) courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act should amend their Rules of Court, as necessary, to give effect to this Recommendation.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation noting however that a change to the Patents Act 1990 is not necessary.
Section 139 of the Patents Act 1990 and provisions contained in Rule 34.42 of the Federal Court Rules already require parties to provide information to the Commissioner of Patents. The Commissioner places this information on the file for the patent in question and this information is accessible using the e-Dossier facility in AusPat which allows online, public access to patent files.
Also, the Federal Court has implemented an internet inquiry system called 'Federal Law Search' which provides this information for patent-related proceedings. IP Australia will continue to work with the Federal Court to improve the existing notification process and visibility of proceedings via AusPat and the Federal Court's Federal Law Search system.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 10–1
Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) should continue to develop their practices and procedures for dealing with patent matters in order to promote the just, efficient and cost effective resolution of patent disputes.
Response
This recommendation is a matter for courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act 1990.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 10–2
Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act should continue to develop procedures and arrangements to allow judges to benefit from the advice of assessors or scientific advisors in litigation involving patents over genetic materials and technologies.
Response
This recommendation is a matter for courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents Act 1990.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 11–1
The Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) should review the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research (National Principles) to ensure that publicly funded research, where commercialised, results in appropriate public benefit. (See also Recommendations 12–1 and 17–2.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), in collaboration with the Australian Research Council (ARC) are convening a review of the Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research. The review will include consultation with interested stakeholders.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 11–2
The ARC and NHMRC should develop guidelines to assist organisations receiving public funding for research in complying with the National Principles. The guidelines should, among other things:
(a) provide guidance on what is meant by 'public benefit';
(b) assist organisations in determining whether it is appropriate for particular research results to be commercialised; and
(c) identify a range of approaches to the exploitation of intellectual property and the circumstances in which they might be used.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
The Government supports the development of guidelines to assist organisations receiving public funding for research in complying with the Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research (National Principles), and supports such guidelines including the elements in the recommendation. The guidelines will be developed in consultation with interested stakeholders.
The Government notes that both the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) require compliance with the National Principles as an integral part of receiving ARC and NHMRC funding. Until December 2010 for the ARC this was facilitated though the Funding Agreement signed between the ARC and the Administering Organisation, and was required as part of any Multi-Institutional or Collaborative Agreement signed by the Administering Organisation with other parties involved with ARC funded research. From January 2011 compliance continues to be required and will be included in both the Funding Rules and the Funding Agreement. Currently for NHMRC, compliance is facilitated through the Deeds of Agreement signed between NHMRC and the Administering Institution. It is the responsibility of the Administering Organisation or Institution to provide further guidance and facilitate the mechanics of protecting intellectual property and/or commercialising research where appropriate.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 11–3
In exceptional circumstances, where the public benefit would clearly be served by broad dissemination of the results of publicly funded research, the ARC and the NHMRC should consider attaching conditions to the grant of funding. These conditions might include a requirement that research results be placed in the public domain, or that a patented invention be widely licensed.
Response
The Government accepts the recommendation in principle.
The Government notes that the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research and the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research include guidance on the dissemination of research findings and management of intellectual property. Compliance is a condition under which ARC and NHMRC funding is awarded. Where suitable, strategies for achieving impact from publicly funded research should be assessed on a case by case basis and publication should be consistent with appropriate IP management. Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) are also required to comply with this code.
NHMRC believes that the results of government-supported health and medical research should be made widely available so that both the research community and the public are able to derive maximum benefit from these outputs. The ARC has always been supportive of the broad dissemination of research and in 2011 has introduced a new component to Funding Rules which will allow up to two per cent of awarded ARC funding (total or non-salary) to be used for publication and dissemination of Project outputs and outreach activity costs.
NHMRC has introduced a policy that requires all published outputs arising from NHMRC-supported research projects to be deposited in an open access institutional repository within 12 months of the date of publication. Similarly, the ARC strongly encourages publication in publicly accessible outlets and the depositing of data and any publications arising from a Project in an appropriate subject and/or institutional repository.
In addition, the ARC has introduced from 2011 new guidelines against which Final Reports will be evaluated including the need to justify why any publications from a Project have not been deposited in appropriate repositories within 12 months of publication, and the need to outline how data arising from the Project has been made publicly accessible where appropriate.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 11–4
Research organisations should ensure that their policies on intellectual property ownership cover research undertaken by visiting researchers, students and staff—whether undertaken solely within the organisation or jointly with other bodies. (See also Recommendation 17–4.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle noting that its implementation is a matter for research organisations.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 12–1
The Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council, in implementing Recommendations 11–1 to 11–3, should recognise the public benefit in ensuring the wide dissemination of research tools.
Response
The Government accepts the recommendation in principle.
The Government notes that the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, jointly published by the ARC, the NHMRC and Universities Australia, includes guidance on the dissemination of research findings including manage research data and materials, how to publish and disseminate research findings, including proper attribution of authorship, how to conduct effective peer review and how to manage conflicts of interest to promote integrity in research, and manage intellectual property. Compliance with the Code is a condition under which the ARC and the NHMRC funding is awarded. As noted, the ARC has a number of guidelines, requirements and funding opportunities available to support wide dissemination of research outputs.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 14–1
Research organisations should continue to take steps to raise the awareness of researchers in health sciences and biotechnology about intellectual property issues and the commercialisation of research, and should provide relevant advice to researchers as required.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle noting that its implementation is a matter for research organisations.
The Government notes that the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, jointly published by the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Universities Australia, includes guidance on the responsibilities of institutions. This includes the promotion of responsible conduct of research, the establishment of good governance and management practices, provision of training for researchers, promotion of mentoring and ensuring researchers have a safe working environment, and management of intellectual property. Compliance with the Code is a condition under which the ARC and the NHMRC funding are awarded.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 14–2
Universities should ensure that students undertaking degrees in health sciences or biotechnology are made familiar with intellectual property issues and the commercialisation of research.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle noting that its implementation is a matter for individual universities.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 14–3
The responsible Minister should initiate a review of the grace period provisions in the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) (Patents Regulations) to examine:
(a) whether they are well understood by the research community; and
(b) how they have affected the commercialisation of Australian research in Australia or overseas.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
IP Australia completed a review of the grace period provisions and the final report was published (Review of Patent Grace Period, August 2005). This review was in response to a Government commitment to review the grace period provisions two years after they were introduced (on 1 April 2002). The report recommended that no changes to the grace period provisions were required.
Since this review, the Government has identified some aspects of the drafting of the current grace period provisions that create uncertainty as to the requirements for use and scope of these provisions. Relevant amendments to remove this uncertainty are being pursued through the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011. The Bill which has been the subject of extensive public consultations over a two year period provides for a number of changes to raise the standards for grant of a patent thereby realigning Australia's patent law with global trends regarding standards for patentability. The various changes proposed under the Bill will require more evidence that the invention can do what it claims to do and increase quality of the patents granted in Australia. The Government continues to engage in international fora in relation to a harmonised approach to grace periods. The Government will continue to monitor national and international developments and jurisprudence to ensure the grace period provision continues to serve the needs of the public and innovators.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 14–4
Research organisations should ensure that their researchers are fully informed about the operation of the grace period provisions in the Patents Regulations, particularly in relation to:
(a) the effect of publication before filing a patent application; and
(b) the effect of publication on the patentability of their inventions in countries that do not have equivalent provisions.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle noting that its implementation is a matter for research organisations.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 15–1
IP Australia should develop examination guidelines, consistent with the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth) and existing case law, to explain how the criteria for patentability apply to inventions involving stem cells and related technologies.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation.
IP Australia has developed examination guidelines to give effect to this recommendation and these are contained in the publicly available Australian Patent Office Manual of Practice and Procedure (available at:
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patentsmanual/WebHelp/Patent_Examiners_Manual.htm) which is a controlled document under its externally certified ISO 9001 quality management system. These guidelines will need to take account of any outcomes from the 2010 review of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 15–2
As part of the independent reviews to be conducted under the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 (Cth), the responsible Minister and the National Health and Medical Research Council should require an examination of the exploitation of intellectual property rights over stem cells when considering the establishment of a National Stem Cell Bank.
Response
This recommendation is no longer relevant.
The 2005 Legislation Review of the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (and the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002) recommended the establishment of a National Stem Cell Bank. The Government subsequently rejected this recommendation after commissioning a Report on Options for the Establishment of a National Stem Cell Bank (2007) and deciding that such a bank could not be justified for a number of reasons, including because the science is at an early stage and it would duplicate resources available overseas e.g. UK Stem Cell Bank. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) will maintain a watching brief on developments in this area.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 17–1
Biotechnology Australia, in conjunction with its member departments, should collaborate with the peak national bodies with an interest in technology transfer from the public sector:
(a) to further develop and implement programs to assist technology transfer offices in research organisations in commercialising inventions involving genetic materials and technologies; and
(b) to develop strategies to ensure widespread participation of technology transfer offices in these programs.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, noting that Biotechnology Australia no longer exists.
The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) is currently conducting a review, titled Collaborations between the Public and Private Sectors: The Role of Intellectual Property, into how intellectual property acts as an enabler or disabler in collaborations between the public and private sectors. The Government will respond to the recommendations of this review in due course. The Australian Government has facilitated a number of collaborations between public and private entities such as through Commercialisation Australia, the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) and will monitor this issue.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 17–2
The Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), in implementing Recommendation 11–1, should recognise the importance of clear ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation and recognises the importance of clear ownership of intellectual property resulting from jointly funded research.
The Government notes that: the Australian Research Council (ARC) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) funding agreements currently require that institutions have policies and procedures in place for the management of intellectual property; and, where there is a requirement for matching funding by partner organisations, ARC funding agreements require that institutions not allow a research project to commence, nor funding to be expended, until the institutions and their collaborating partner organisations have entered into a written agreement that, among other things, includes arrangements for managing intellectual property. Within the relevant ARC Funding Rules and Funding Agreement documentation, the ARC is explicit that the ARC does not claim ownership of any intellectual property in a Proposal or a funded Project.
The Government agrees that the ARC, the NHMRC and Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) should review those requirements in the light of the outcomes of the review of the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research which is currently being scoped. The review will include consultation with stakeholders.
The Government notes that the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, jointly published by the ARC, the NHMRC and Universities Australia, includes guidance on establishing agreements for collaborations, managing conflicts of interest, access to research materials and intellectual property.
In implementing Recommendation 11-1 of the ALRC 99 Report, review of the National Principles, the Principles currently state that, 'The ARC and the NHMRC do not wish to hold a stake in direct ownership of IP nor do they intend to benefit directly from commercial outcomes of the research funded through their financial support' and 'Recognising the Common Law rights of research institutions as employers, the ownership and the associated rights of all IP generated by the NHMRC and the ARC supported research will initially be vested in the research institutions administering the grants'.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 17–3
The ARC and NHMRC, in implementing Recommendation 11–2, should:
(a) provide guidance on ensuring clear ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research; and
(b) identify a range of approaches to ensuring clarity of ownership.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, noting that while it is not appropriate for the Government to provide legal advice to third parties, it is common for issues of intellectual property ownership to be negotiated as part of contractual processes.
However, the Government notes that the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, jointly published by the Australian Research Council (ARC), the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and Universities Australia, recommends that organisations involved in joint research projects ensure that an agreement is reached with the partners on the management of the research including issues relating to intellectual property.
The Government also notes that with regard to Recommendation 11-2 of the ALRC 99 Report, the ARC continues to require compliance with the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research (National Principles) as an integral part of receiving ARC funding through Funding Rules and Funding Agreements. As noted above, this includes the requirement that compliance with the National Principles must be part of any Multi-Institutional or Collaborative Agreement signed by the Administering Organisation with other parties involved with ARC funded research.
The Government also notes that the Australian Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) is currently conducting a review entitled Collaborations between the Public and Private Sectors: The Role of Intellectual Property.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 17–4
Research organisations should ensure that their policies and practices address the problems of ownership of intellectual property resulting from collaborative or jointly funded research. (See also Recommendation 11–4.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle noting that its implementation is a matter for individual research organisations.
The Government further notes that the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research would apply to research organisations where their research is government funded.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 17–5
Biotechnology Australia, in conjunction with its member departments, should collaborate with the peak national bodies with an interest in technology transfer from the public sector to develop model materials transfer agreements for use by research organisations, along the lines of the models developed by the United States Association of University Technology Managers. (See also Recommendation 22–2.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, noting that Biotechnology Australia no longer exists.
The Government will investigate options for developing model materials transfer agreements for use by research organisations. A proposed process for developing model agreements will involve stakeholder consultation.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 18–1
Biotechnology Australia, in conjunction with its member departments, and in consultation with state and territory governments and other stakeholders, should:
(a) develop further programs to assist biotechnology companies in commercialising inventions involving genetic materials and technologies; and
(b) develop strategies to ensure widespread participation of biotechnology companies in these programs.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
Although not specifically directed at biotechnology, these initiatives are available to biotechnology companies:
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 19–2
AHMAC should examine options for using government funding and purchasing power to control the cost of goods and services that are subject to gene patents and used in the provision of healthcare.
Response
The Government does not accept this recommendation
The Government does not see a need at present for additional mechanisms to address the cost of medical goods and services. The Government has existing funding mechanisms, the Medicare Benefits and Pharmaceutical Benefits Schemes, which are aimed at providing Australians with access to appropriate and affordable and cost-effective medical services and medicines.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 19–3
Where particular gene patent applications, granted patents or patent licensing practices are considered to have an adverse impact on medical research or the cost-effective provision of healthcare, Commonwealth, state and territory health departments should consider whether to exercise any existing legal options to facilitate access to the inventions. These options should be exercised only with appropriate legal or patent attorney advice, and include:
(a) challenging a patent application or granted patent by initiating proceedings to oppose a patent application; requesting re-examination of a patent; or applying for revocation of a patent under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) (Patents Act) (see Chapter 9);
(b) making a complaint to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission where evidence arises of a potential breach of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (see Chapter 24);
(c) exploiting or acquiring a patent under the Crown use and acquisition provisions of the Patents Act (see Chapter 26); or
(d) applying for the grant of a compulsory licence under the Patents Act (see Chapter 27).
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle and notes that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has the capability to provide technical advice on the expected impact of patents and patent practices on medical research and the provision of healthcare. In line with the responses to Recommendations 19-1 of the ALRC 99 Report, the Government considers that the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) is the appropriate body to undertake economic evaluation of new health-related technologies.
With regard to Recommendation 19-3(c), the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) undertook a review of the use of Crown use provisions (see ACIP Report Review of Crown Use Provisions for Patents and Designs), following which the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research wrote to relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers in March 2009 to raise awareness of government rights and obligations under the provisions. IP Australia also developed a public information sheet highlighting the Crown's rights and obligations and the intellectual property owners' rights under the provision.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 19–4
The proposed Human Genetics Commission of Australia (HGCA) should monitor the application of intellectual property laws to genetic materials and technologies, where these may have implications for medical research or human health, both generally and in specific cases. The HGCA should liaise with and provide advice to AHMAC, health departments, and other stakeholders about ways to facilitate access to inventions, in accordance with Recommendation 19–3. Pending the establishment of the HGCA, AHMAC should establish a mechanism to perform these functions.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
In response to the Human Genetics Commission of Australia (HGCA) recommendation in the Australian Law Reform Commission/Australian Health Ethics Committee Report, Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information, the Human Genetics Advisory Committee (HGAC) has been established as a principal committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). HGAC advises the CEO of the NHMRC on high-level technical and strategic issues in human genetics, and on the broad social, ethical and legal implications of human genetics and related technologies. The Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council (AHMAC) and other government stakeholders can request advice from HGAC via the NHMRC CEO. However, detailed monitoring of the application of intellectual property laws to genetic materials and technologies is outside HGAC's Terms of Reference and the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992.
The Crown use provisions were reviewed by the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) and their report issued in 2005 (see 2005 ACIP Report, Review of Crown Use Provisions for Patents and Designs), following which the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research wrote to relevant Commonwealth and State Ministers in March 2009 to raise awareness of government rights and obligations under the provisions. IP Australia also developed a public information sheet highlighting the Crown's rights and obligations and the intellectual property owners' rights under the provisions.
The Government also supports a review of the operation of the compulsory licensing provisions of the Patents Act 1990 (see response to Recommendation 12 of the SGP Report and Recommendation 27-1 of the ALRC 99 Report) to ensure that the provisions are achieving their intended purpose as a safeguard to facilitate access to innovations where the reasonable requirements of the public are not being met. The review will also include measures to raise awareness of these provisions.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 22–1
Biotechnology Australia, in conjunction with its member departments, should develop and implement programs to assist research organisations and biotechnology companies in licensing and commercialising inventions involving genetic materials and technologies. The programs should be developed in collaboration with state and territory governments, peak national bodies with an interest in licensing and commercialisation of intellectual property, and other relevant stakeholders. (See also Recommendations 17–1 and 18–1.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, noting that Biotechnology Australia no longer exists.
The Government notes that there are existing government and private sector initiatives that encourage the commercialisation of innovations from public sector research and biotechnology companies, as set out in the responses to Recommendations 17-1, 17-2 and 18-1 of the ALRC 99 Report.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 22–2
AusBiotech Ltd, as the peak industry body in the biotechnology sector, should develop model agreements and interpretative guidelines for patent licences involving genetic materials and technologies. The model agreements should be developed in collaboration with Biotechnology Australia, state and territory governments, and other relevant stakeholders as a non-binding model of desirable licensing practices. (See also Recommendation 17–5.)
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, noting that Biotechnology Australia no longer exists.
The Government will investigate options for developing model agreements and interpretative guidelines for patent licences. A proposed process for undertaking these investigations will involve stakeholder consultation.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 22–3
AusBiotech Ltd should consider whether additional industry initiatives are necessary or desirable to facilitate the licensing of patent rights over genetic materials and technologies.
Response
This recommendation is a matter for AusBiotech Ltd.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 24–1
The Commonwealth should amend s 51(3) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (Trade Practices Act) to clarify the relationship between Part IV of the Act and intellectual property rights.
Recommendation 24–2
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) should develop guidelines to clarify the relationship between Part IV of the Trade Practices Act and intellectual property rights. The guidelines should address:
(a) when the licensing or assignment of intellectual property might be exempted under s 51(3) or might breach Part IV; and
(b) when conduct that would otherwise breach Part IV might be authorised under Part VII of the Trade Practices Act.
The guidelines should extend to the exploitation of intellectual property rights in genetic materials and technologies, including patent pools and cross-licensing.
Response
The Government notes the recommendations to amend section 51(3) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) and for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to subsequently produce guidance material.
As the agency responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the CCA, the ACCC produces a wide range of publications that deal with its functions and the legislation for which it is responsible.
If subsection 51(3) of the CCA is amended to change the application of the competition laws to intellectual property in the future, the Government will ask the ACCC to consider issuing relevant guidance.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 24–3
As the need arises, the ACCC should review the conduct of firms dealing with genetic materials and technologies protected by intellectual property rights, to determine whether their conduct is anti-competitive within the meaning of Part IV of the Trade Practices Act.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent statutory authority charged with the responsibility for enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA). Relevantly, subsection 29(1A) of the CCA prohibits the Minister giving directions to the ACCC about its performance of functions or exercise of powers under Part IV (prohibition of anti- competitive conduct) of the CCA.
The ACCC publishes guidelines on its enforcement and compliance policies, which are available on its website – www.accc.gov.au. The Government expects that if any concerns arise, the ACCC will consider these issues in the same way as it would all suspected breaches of the CCA.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 24–4
Commonwealth, state and territory health departments, and other stakeholders, should make use of existing complaint procedures under the Trade Practices Act where evidence arises of conduct that may breach Part IV and have an adverse impact on medical research or the cost-effective provision of healthcare.
Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government notes that concerned parties should use the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC's) existing complaints mechanisms to raise any concerns that conduct is occurring which may breach the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 25–1
If evidence arises that the prices of patented genetic materials and technologies have adversely affected access to healthcare services in Australia, the responsible Minister should consider whether to:
(a) refer the matter to the Productivity Commission for a study or inquiry pursuant to the Productivity Commission Act 1998 (Cth); or
(b) direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, or another body, to conduct an inquiry pursuant to Part VIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
Part VIIA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 provides for price inquiries where, in the view of the Minister, competitive pressures are not sufficient to achieve efficient prices and protect consumers. The Government will consider the need for such an inquiry if this evidence arises.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 28–1
The Commonwealth should amend the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Copyright Act) to provide that research with a commercial purpose or objective is 'research' in the context of fair dealing for the purpose of research or study.
Response
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
The issue of whether the term 'research' in sections 40 and 103C of the Copyright Act 1968 can include a commercial purpose has not been specifically considered by the courts. The wording in the provisions does not currently exclude research with a commercial purpose from the scope of the fair dealing exception. The reasoning of cases examining these provisions confirms that the terms 'research' and 'study' should be interpreted with their ordinary meanings. The ordinary meaning of 'research' connotes a broad meaning that does not distinguish whether the purpose is of a commercial or private nature.
The current wording of the Copyright Act 1968 does not exclude research with a commercial purpose from falling under the fair dealing exception. Until a contrary finding is made under case law the Government sees no need for legislative amendments to be made to the Copyright Act 1968.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 28–2
The Commonwealth should amend the Copyright Act to provide that, in relation to databases protected by copyright, the operation of the provisions relating to fair dealing for the purpose of research or study cannot be excluded or modified by contract.
Response
The Government does not accept this recommendation.
The operation of the provisions relating to fair dealing for the purpose of research or study in relation to databases protected by copyright is a subset of the broader issue of the exclusion or modification by contract of the fair dealing exceptions. The views of the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) are noted and provide valuable assistance to the Government. However, the Government does not propose to examine this broader issue at this time.
ALRC 99 Report
Recommendation 28–3
Prior to the implementation of art 17.4.7 of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement—which includes a prohibition on the circumvention of access control measures—the Australian Government should assess the need for an exception for researchers engaging in fair dealing for the purpose of research or study in relation to databases protected by copyright. Once the prohibition has been implemented, the Australian Government should periodically review the impact of the anti-circumvention provisions on the practical exercise of fair dealing for the purpose of research or study in copyright works.
Response
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Government notes the views expressed by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) that the Government should assess the need for an exception to circumvention for researchers engaging in fair dealing for the purpose of research and study in relation to databases. However, the ALRC indicated that there did not appear to be any significant problems being experienced by Australian researchers in this regard.
The then Australian Government Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, gave a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs to inquire into, and report on, possible additional exceptions to the technological protection measures liability scheme. The Committee concluded its inquiry in March 2006. The Committee did not recommend an exception to allow circumvention by researchers engaging in fair dealing for the purpose of research and study in relation to databases.
In accordance with the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement, amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 set out the criteria for determining additional exceptions. Amongst other matters, proponents of an exception must credibly demonstrate that there is an actual or likely adverse impact on their non-infringing activities. Future reviews to determine the need for any additional exceptions will provide the opportunity for those affected by the liability scheme to demonstrate that the need exists for an exception to allow circumvention of technological protection measures for research and study in relation to databases.
————————
1 Given the overlap and similar areas covered by many of the recommendations, the Government has provided a single response to multiple recommendations of the reports where appropriate.
2 Patents Act 1903 (Cth).
Australian Government Response to the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee Report: Forestry and mining operations on the Tiwi Islands
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that, as a matter of urgency, relevant Federal and Northern Territory agencies work with the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Islanders to:
Response
In 2009, Indigenous Business Australia (IBA) and the Indigenous Land Corporation (ILC) commissioned P5yry Forest Industry Pty Ltd to conduct a viability assessment for the Tiwi Forestry Project. The Poyry Report findings were released in January 2010 and found that the project is viable.
In March 2011, the IBA Board approved, subject to satisfactory completion of due diligence, an equity investment of $5 million in the Tiwi Forestry Project via IBA subscribing for cumulative preference shares in Tiwi Plantations Corporation Pty Ltd.
In addition, support from the Aboriginals Benefit Account totalling $6 million was provided in early 2010 through the ILC to administer a grant for land and environmental management activities relating to the maintenance of the plantation. This program delivers the following environmental management activities:
The construction of the port was initially grant funded through the Aboriginals Benefit Account. The Government considers that ongoing investment into the Tiwi forestry operation should be sourced from commercial investors. The Tiwi Land Council has advised that it has received an insurance payment resulting from damage sustained from Cyclone Carlos in early 2011 which, together with private investment already sourced, will be used towards repairing the island's port infrastructure. The Tiwi Land Council has advised that harvesting is scheduled for the 2012/13 financial year.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that, consistent with the view of Oakton and the Land Council, that the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs should work with the Tiwi Land Council and other major stakeholders to develop guidelines for the distribution of money to traditional owners.
Response
Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , Land Councils are generally responsible for the distribution of money to traditional owners. The Tiwi Land Council has advised that it undertakes the following actions in relation to the distribution of money to Tiwi landowners:
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Tiwi Land Council and the business entities of the Tiwi people work to ensure that those business entities operate in the most e icient and transparent manner possible.
Response
Under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 , the functions of a Land Council include, 'assisting Aboriginals to carry out commercial activities in any manner that will not cause the Land Council to incur financial liability or enable it to receive financial benefit'.
The Tiwi Land Council has advised that it undertakes the following actions:
The Tiwi Land Council has advised that it has documented the links between the operations of the Land Council and external commercial entities operating within its region. The relevant documents disclose:
Recommendation 4
The committee recommends that the Tiwi Land Council and the business entities of the Tiwi people initiate new communication strategies to ensure that their structures, roles and activities are more widely understood by the Tiwi people.
Response
The Tiwi Land Council has advised that it has responded to the Senate Inquiry's recommendation to initiate new communication strategies to ensure that the Land Council's structures, roles and activities are more widely understood by the Tiwi people through the following initiatives:
Government Response to the Minority Report Recommendations
Recommendation 1
That, as a matter of priority, relevant Federal and Northern Territory agencies work with the Tiwi Land Council and Tiwi Islanders to:
a) Undertake an adequately resourced research project to determine the most appropriate process for rehabilitating the plantation area; and
b) Consider the provision of financial and technical support to ensure the full range of employment and rehabilitation opportunities is explored and that ongoing management of the area is undertaken.
Response
Support from the Aboriginals Benefit Account totalling $6 million has been provided through the ILC to administer a grant for land and environmental management activities relating to the maintenance of the plantation with a particular focus on training and employment. The Tiwi forestry operation is managed by a skilled workforce of seventeen Tiwi employees including twelve forestry graduates or Tiwi apprentices in training.
These activities include weed and feral animal control, nursery propagation of plants for the revegetation of old mineral sand and mining sites, propagation of plants and food, control of coastal erosion, monitoring of water quality and biodiversity, fencing and site protection for threatened species including the Red Goshawk. The work will also include any remediation works required on the Tiwi forestry lease should the commercial operations cease.
The ILC program delivers the following benefits to Aboriginal people living on the Tiwi Islands:
Recommendation 2
That the Federal Environment Minister ensures that all existing environmental requirements are met.
Response
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities is working with the Tiwi Land Council to ensure that existing environmental obligations under the EPBC Act are met. This will continue to be achieved through close monitoring of the project conditions.
The Tiwi Land Council has provided a draft Rehabilitation Management Plan to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for consideration. Subject to approval, Tiwi Land Council will seek access to the $1 million bond posted by Sylvatech Ltd (the original proponent) to carry out the necessary survey and research to implement rehabilitation requirements.
Four hundred and fifty thousand dollars was required to be paid by Sylvatech Ltd in the three calendar years 2009 to 2011 to the Tiwi Land Council for offset projects which included control of feral animals, control of priority weeds, development and implementation of ecologically sensitive burning regimes, and monitoring of threatened flora species. This work has recommenced with environmental funding provided through the Aboriginals Benefit Account.
Plantation Management Partners (the operations staff employed by Tiwi Plantations Corporation Pty Ltd to manage the plantation) maintains AS/NZS ISO 14001 accreditation. The AS/NZS ISO 14001 standard establishes a structured approach to planning and implementing environment protection measures and provides for monitoring of environmental performance. The Tiwi forestry operation is audited against this ISO standard twice a year—once by an independent auditor and once by internal audit. The independent findings of the December 2010 audit record that the Environmental Management System operated by Plantation Management Partners complies with the requirements of ISO standard. The independent auditor records that the management and staff of Plantation Management Partners, Tiwi Plantation Corporation, Tiwi Land Council and interested parties on the Tiwi Islands all expressed understanding and commitment to environmental protection in balance with socio-economic needs. The internal audit completed on 25 August 2011 found that the Tiwi forestry operation remains compliant with the requirements of the ISO standard.
Recommendation 3
That there should be no further clearing of native vegetation for additional plantations on the Tiwi Islands.
Response
The Tiwi Land Council has advised that there are no plans for additional plantations to be established on the Tiwi Islands. The Australian Government notes that establishing any additional plantations on the Tiwi Islands is a business decision for the relevant Tiwi landowners. The Tiwi islands are Aboriginal land held by the Tiwi Land Trust under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . Decisions over the use of Aboriginal land must be consented to by, the relevant Tiwi landowners as a group and ratified by the Tiwi Land Council. Any future plantation development may require consideration under the EPBC Act before it can proceed.
Recommendation 4
That the remediation plan to address environmental damage in breach of the EPBC conditions for the project should be made available for public comment before its implementation.
Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation.
Recommendation 5
That the actual and potential hydrological impacts of the plantation operations be assessed, with specific attention to the management of erosion and other associated land management issues.
Response
On 12 August 2001, the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage approved the Tiwi Forestry Project pursuant to section 133 of the EPBC Act The impacts of the plantation were considered in the environmental impact assessment of the project conducted as part of the statutory approval process. Mitigation measures, including erosion and sediment controls, were also taken into account when the original approval was granted.
Condition 4 of the EPBC Act approval required the proponent to submit a plan for the responsible Minister's approval dealing with, amongst other things, erosion and sediment control. This plan has already been approved. An annual report on compliance against all EPBC Conditions, including Condition 4 continues to be provided regularly to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. In addition, an annual erosion survey is carried out. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will continue to monitor closely the effectiveness of the erosion and sediment controls.
Recommendation 6
That the Commonwealth establish a full forensic financial inquiry into logging and plantation operations on the Tiwi Islands to uncover the details of
a) The extent of taxpayer money that has been spent on infrastructure and support for this project,
b) The reasonable market value for the 40,000 tonnes of Red Tiwi logs,
c) The circumstances surrounding the export of native hardwood logs, where they were exported, to whom, at what rate of return,
d) What profit (if any) was received by Pirntubula on behalf of the Tiwi Traditional Owners from the export of native hardwood logs, and
e) Which other companies or interests received profits from these exports.
Response
The Tiwi Land Council has provided the following advice in relation to this recommendation.
a) The Aboriginals Benefit Account provided a grant of $4 million dollars in 2004 for the original wharf facility. The Aboriginals Benefit Account provided a grant of $6 million in early 2010 through the ILC to administer a grant for land and environmental management activities relating to the maintenance of the plantation.
b) Forty thousand tonnes of Red Tiwi remain stored at Port Melville. The current market value of these logs is minimal as the age of most of these logs is in excess of five years.
c) Logs were exported from 2004 to 2007 into Asian markets including Indonesia, Malaysia and China. A number of markets were trialled such as plywood veneer, sawlog for flooring and furniture. Characteristics of a hard, high density Australian eucalypt made it a difficult product for Asian manufacturers to process.
The hardwood logs yielded a negative return in the order of $600,000. It should be noted the logs were sold under 'CRP arrangements (meaning the seller was responsible for the freight to market).
In 2006-07, shipping rates out of Australia were pushed to record levels as a result of the mining boom. It should also be noted that the logs were sold in $US which meant the return in $AUD was severely affected by the strengthening SAUD.
d) No profits were made or received. The sale of hardwood logs yielded a negative return.
e) Entities known to be involved with the sale of these logs were Pentarch Forest Products for Marketing and Shipping and Pensyl Pty Ltd (owned by Great Southern) for operational costs.
Recommendation 7
That the Commonwealth provide training and support in governance to develop capacity and decision-making processes on the Tiwi Islands, with particular attention to the inclusion of women and fiduciary issues.
Response
The Northern Territory Land Councils are independent statutory authorities and are responsible for meeting their legislative responsibilities under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . Land Council administration costs are met through payments made from the Aboriginals Benefit Account.
The Tiwi Land Council 2009-10 Annual Report records (at pages 21 - 22) that the Strategic Economic Planning Group was established in 2009 at the request of the Tiwi Land Council Managers to provide guidance and advice to the Tiwi leaders in relation to corporate enterprises on the Tiwi Islands. Membership includes Mr. Ray Allwright, CEO of Tiwi Enterprises, Mr. Roger Smith, CEO of Tiwi Plantations Corporation, Mr. Craig Phillips, Director of Plantation Management partners, Mr. Mike Baxter, owner operator of Melville Lodge Fishing Resort, Mr. Guy Reynolds, Executive Director, Macquarie Bank and Mr. Brian Clancy, Secretariat. The group met three times during the 2009-10 financial year.
The Tiwi Land Council 2009-10 Annual Report records (at page 22) that one role1 of the Strategic Economic Planning Group is to ensure Tiwi participation by:
In the Senate Inquiry report, the Committee reserved its position in relation to the inclusion of women in the decision-making process. The Committee did not make a recommendation as it had not (at 4.77):
… had an opportunity to address all of the cultural matters [to which] this relates, nor seek wider input on these mailers, evidence from anthropological experts or others.'
The Tiwi Land Council has advised that the Tiwi landowners continue to draw women into decision-making about land whilst maintaining male line ownership inheritance. This approach is reflected in landowner consultative forums and landowner meetings which are both well attended by local women. These fora provide a platform for feedback, advice and recommendations to be made to the Tiwi Land Council. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has written to the Tiwi Land Council requesting that the level of involvement by women in the Land Council be given further consideration.
Recommendation 8
That the Commonwealth facilitate a comprehensive planning process to direct future economic and community development on the Tiwi Islands.
Response
The Northern Territory Land Councils are independent statutory authorities and are responsible for meeting their legislative responsibilities under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 . Land Council administration costs are met through payments made from the Aboriginals Benefit Account. The Tiwi Land Council 2009-10 Annual Report (at pages 21—22) sets out the objectives, strategy and role of the Strategic Economic Planning Group. These are detailed below.
The Objectives of the Strategic Economic Planning Group are to:
The strategy of the Strategic Economic Planning Group is to:
One role of the Strategic Economic Planning Group is to develop new business opportunities by:
—————
1The Tiwi Land Council 2009-10 Annual Report records (at pages 21-22) that the Strategic Economic Planning Group has two roles. These include, developing 'new business opportunities' and facilitating 'Tiwi participation'. Refer to the Government's response to Recommendation 8 below for discussion on the 'new business opportunities' role.
Government Statement of Response
This statement is the Government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety's interim report High-Wire Act: Cybersafety and the Young .
Introduction
The Australian Parliament established the Joint Select Committee on Cyber-Safety (JSCC) in early 2010 as a part of the Government's commitment to investigate and improve cybersafety measures.
The Committee's inquiry is based on the Terms of Reference finalised in November 2010. In summary, these require that the JSCC inquire and report on:
The JSCC undertook a range of consultation activities in order to investigate these Terms of Reference, including roundtable discussions, public hearings, school forums and online surveys. The committee tabled an interim report High-Wire Act: Cybersafety and the Young on 20 June 2011 containing thirty two recommendations.
Key messages of the report
The High-Wire Act report provides an overview of current cybersafety concerns, such as defming the 'online environment' and the concept of cybersafety. It outlines the roles of current stakeholders in the cybersafety field. The report also describes the Committee's concerns with educational strategies, law enforcement issues and cybersafety approaches undertaken by Australian and international governments, industry and non-government organisations.
The report's recommendations relate to options for improving the safety of the online environment. In particular, they reflect the key messages that were received through the consultation process: that better education, knowledge and skills would assist young people in participating online with confidence and a sense of control; that privacy in an online environment needs to be improved through tighter provisions; that research into emerging technologies and the interactions of young people online is required; and that parents, carers, teachers and all those who engage with young people need to gain an understanding of the online environment and its benefits and risks.
Addressing the issues raised in the report requires a multifaceted approach. Australian governments, schools, families and communities all have a responsibility to provide safe online environments and teach children how to use technology in positive and productive ways that will support 21st century learning and living, both in and out of school.
The Government understands there is a need for strengthening an understanding of cybersafety issues and promoting the safety of children online, and is actively pursuing measures to address these issues.
Government Cybersafety Initiatives
The Australian Government is committed to improving the cybersafety of Australian children and young people. The Government's Cybersafety Plan was established in May 2008 with funding of $125.8 million committed over four years to combat online risks and help parents and educators protect children from inappropriate material. Measures include increased funding towards cybersafety education and awareness raising activities, content filtering and law enforcement.
The Australian Government has also established a Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety (CWG) to bring together representatives from industry, the community and the government with a close involvement in cybersafety issues faced by children. The CWG's role is to provide advice to government to ensure properly-developed and targeted programs and policy initiatives are undertaken.
Examples of Australian Government cybersafety initiatives include:
The Government is also looking at building upon its current cybersafety initiatives to address serious issues which arise when engaging online. This includes mechanisms to strengthen the existing co-operative arrangements with social networking sites.
The responses to the recommendations take into account existing government activities on cybersafety and cybersecurity issues and are provided in the context of the inquiries on related issues such as the House of Representatives' Standing Committee on Communications report Hackers, Fraudsters and Botnets: Tackling the Problem of Cyber Crime .
The responses also reflect the Governments announcement that it will develop a Cyber White Paper. In developing the White Paper the government will examine the full spectrum of cyber issues such as better coordination of awareness raising activities, development of skills, more centralised reporting of cyber incidents and a more coherent approach to cyber education. Public consultation for the Paper commenced mid-September 2011, and many of the topics that will be explored in this consultation are relevant to the Committee's recommendations.
Government Response on Individual Recommendations of the Report
Recommendation 1
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth consider the feasibility of assisting preschools and kindergartens to provide cyber-safety educational programs for children as part of their development activities.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process which will conclude in mid-2012.
The Australian Government through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), will write to the Directors General and Chief Executive Officers of the education authorities to refresh awareness and encourage take-up of all Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) programs, including Cybersmart for Young Kids.
The Government supports the ACMA's Cybersmart for Young Kids program. This is an ideal program for the Australian Government and education authorities to support and expand access to preschools and kindergartens.
In addition, the Government has provided $3 million to the Alannah and Madeline Foundation for a national pilot of its eSmart cybersafety initiative which addresses cyberbullying in schools. The Victorian Government has announced the eSmart program will be rolled out in Victorian schools and the Queensland Government has also announced that the eSmart program will be rolled out to all its state government schools.
Recommendation 2
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy invite the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety, in consultation with the Youth Advisory Group, to develop an agreed definition of cyber-bullying to be used by all Australian Government departments and agencies, and encourage its use nationally.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation.
The Safe and Supportive School Communities (SSSC) is a Working Group of the Australian Education, Early Childhood Development & Youth Senior Officials Committee (AEEYSOC). The Working Group includes nominated representatives of all Australian education jurisdictions - all state, territory and federal education departments as well as national Catholic and independent schooling representatives.
The SSSC working group has developed the following definition of cyberbullying:
"Bullying is repeated verbal, physical, social or psychological behaviour that is harmful and involves the misuse of power by an individual or group towards one or more persons. Cyberbullying refers to bullying through information and communication technologies."
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) has invited the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety (CWG), the Youth Advisory Group (YAG) and the Teachers and Parents Advisory Group (TAP) on cybersafety to provide comment on this definition. CWG comments will be forwarded to the SSSC for further consideration.
The definition will be discussed and agreed by state and territory governments through AEEYSOC.
The definition of cyberbullying agreed through these consultation processes will be promoted nationally via government programs and resources such as the Cybersafety Help Button the Easy Guide to Socialising Online and the Cybersmart website.
Recommendation 3
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and the Minster for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth work with the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth and the Australian Communications and Media Authority to investigate the feasibility of developing and introducing a cyber-safety student mentoring program in Australian schools.
Government Response for Recommendations 3 and 28
The Australian Government accepts these recommendations in principle pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process which will conclude in mid-2012.
The ACMA piloted a Cybersmart student mentoring program in March this year. Students were trained and then guided to develop and deliver their own presentations and workshops building on content from the Outreach program's interne safety awareness presentations. The pilot program was well received.
DEEWR will seek AEEYSOC agreement that education authorities work with the ACMA to investigate the feasibility of expanding the ACMA student mentoring pilot.
The Government notes that ultimately the implementation of any student mentoring programs is a matter for state and territory, independent and non-government education authorities.
Recommendation 4
That the Australian Government consider amending small business exemptions of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to ensure that small businesses which hold substantial quantities of personal information, or which transfer personal information offshore, are subject to the requirements of that Act.
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Law Reform Commission Report (ALRC) 108, For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (R39-1 at page 1358 — Volume 2) recommended that the Act be amended to remove the small business exemption.
The Government will take the Committee's recommendation into account when it is considering the ALRC's recommendation to remove the small business exemption.
Recommendation 5
That the Australian Privacy Commissioner undertake a review of those categories of small business with significant personal data holdings, and make recommendations to Government about expanding the categories of small business operators prescribed in regulations as subject to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government will consider this recommendation in conjunction with its deliberations on recommendation 4 above.
Recommendation 6
That the Office of the Privacy Commissioner examine the issue of consent in the online context and develop guidelines on the appropriate use of privacy consent forms for online services and the Australian Government seek their adoption by industry.
Government Response
The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle. The Government agrees that guidelines would be useful and notes that it has previously supported the ALRC recommendation 19 — 1 (i.e. develop and publish further guidance about what is required of agencies and organisation to obtain an individual's consent under the Privacy Act 1988 ) as part of its stage one response.
Recommendation 7
That the Australian Government amend the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to provide that all Australian organisations which transfer personal information overseas, including small businesses, ensure that the information will be protected in a manner at least equivalent to the protections provided under Australia's privacy framework.
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation and will consider this recommendation in conjunction with its deliberations on recommendations 4 and 5 above.
Further, the draft Australian Privacy Principle (APP) 8 will provide a framework for the regulation of cross-border disclosures of personal information. Before a cross-border disclosure can occur, the draft APP 8 imposes minimum obligations on an organisation to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances (for example, by imposing contractual obligations) to ensure that the overseas recipient does not breach the draft APPs.
In addition, an organisation will remain accountable for the acts and practices of the overseas recipient, unless an exemption applies.
Recommendation 8
That the Office of Privacy Commissioner, in consultation with web browser developers, Internet service providers and the advertising industry, and in accordance with proposed amendments to the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), develop and impose a code which includes a 'Do Not Track' model following consultation with stakeholders.
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. As part of its stage one response to the ALRC recommendations, the Government has announced that it supports the development of binding and mandatory codes. It will be a matter for the Commissioner to consider whether a code is necessary.
Recommendation 9
That the Australian Government amend the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to provide that an organisation has an Australian link if it collects information from Australia, thereby ensuring that information collected from Australia in the online context is protected by thePrivacy Act 1988 (Cth).
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government will consider this aspect as part of the stage one response to the ALRC recommendations currently being undertaken.
Recommendation 10
That the Australian Government amend the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) to require all Australian organisations that transfer personal information offshore are fully accountable for protecting the privacy of that information.
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government will consider this aspect as part of the stage one response to the ALRC recommendations currently being undertaken.
Recommendation 11
That the Australian Government consider the enforceability of provisions relating to the transfer of personal information offshore and, if necessary, strengthen the powers of the Australian Privacy Commissioner to enforce adequate protection of offshore data transfers.
Government Response
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government will consider this as part of the stage one response to the ALRC recommendations currently being undertaken.
Recommendation 12
That the Australian Government continue to work internationally, and particularly within our region, to develop strong privacy protections for Australians in the online context.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation. The Government has been and will be continuing to work with appropriate international bodies including in particular regional bodies to further privacy protections.
The Government actively participates in the work of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Asian Pacific Economic Council (APEC) on international privacy issues. Australia has played a leading role in the development of the APEC Cross-Border Enforcement Arrangement (CPEA), which allows participating privacy regulators to share information and provide assistance in relation to privacy matters that have a cross-border aspect. The APEC CPEA commenced in July 2010 and the privacy regulators of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong China, and the United States are currently participants.
The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) continues to foster strong ties with other privacy authorities in the region via the Asia Pacific Privacy Authorities group.
Recommendation 13
That the Attorney-General, as a matter of priority, work with State and Territory counterparts to develop a nationally consistent legislative approach to add certainty to the authority of schools to deal with incidents of inappropriate student behaviour to other students out of school hours.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government notes that state and territory government and non-government education authorities currently bear legal responsibility for the duty of care of their students. This includes ensuring that appropriate measures are in place so that students can learn in a safe and supportive school environment, and in some instances this responsibility may extend beyond school hours.
DEEWR will investigate the feasibility of this recommendation further with state and territory education authorities.
Recommendation 14
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth propose to the Ministerial Council of Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs:
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process which will conclude in mid-2012.
The Government, through DEEWR, will consult with the AEEYSOC to seek agreement to address these issues, by building on work underway through the National Safe Schools Framework and agreeing to promulgate key cybersafety messaging through existing and expanded ACMA and Australian Federal Police (AFP) activities.
The SSSC working group promotes key messaging through activities of the annual National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence and is working directly with the ACMA to include cybersafety as a key element of these activities.
The Government notes that in regards to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) policies the state and territory education authorities have primary responsibility for decisions about design, purchase, distribution and the use of educational hardware and software to meet the specific needs of their schools.
In regard to Acceptable Use Agreements, the National Safe Schools Framework articulates the importance of safety and wellbeing policies and procedures and states that "a responsible technology usage agreement should be in place" in all schools.
The Government will continue to promote cybersafety resources and assistance through the Cybersafety Help Button. The Help Button provides internet users with a 'one-stop shop' for access to cybersafety information and advice. It offers counselling, reporting and educational resources to assist children deal with online risks including cyberbullying, unwanted contact, scams and fraud, and offensive or inappropriate material.
Since the Cybersmart portal's launch in June 2009 the School Gateway area of the site has received more than 600,000 views. Since May 2011 there have been 7,000 downloads of Cybersmart teaching resources. The portal links to other cybersafety resources such as ThinkUKnow, the Help Button, Stay Smart Online and relevant state and territory policies.
The Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs funded Bullying. No Way! Website is being refreshed to provide key messaging, current information and best practice resources. The rebuilt Bullying. No Way! website will be officially launched on the National Day of Action Against Bullying and Violence on 16 March 2012.
Recommendation 15
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy consider extending the Australian Communications and Media Authority's Connect-ED program and other training programs to non-administration staff in Australian schools including school librarians, chaplains and counsellors.
Government Response
The Australian Government supports this proposal in principle, but it will need to be considered against competing priorities in the budget context.
The ACMA's online professional development program, Connect. ed , was designed in consultation with cybersafety experts, teachers and students to specifically meet the needs of practising teachers. Connect.ed currently consists of four modules that guide teachers in how to integrate an effective cybersafety process and policy into their school.
Recommendation 16
That the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy work together to ensure that sufficient funding is available to ensure the Australian Communications and Media Authority can provide the necessary training for professional development of Australian teachers.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The Government supports the recommendation that Ministers continue to work together to ensure professional development training for teachers is made widely available in the face of growing demand and interest. The Government notes significant funding was provided in the 2008-09 Budget and in December 2009 for expanded outreach activities.
Under the Government's Outreach program, the ACMA offers a range of programs to meet the professional development needs of Australian teachers including the Professional Development for Educators face-to-face workshops, online professional development program Connect. ed and internet safety presentations. The programs are available for all teachers across Australia and count towards professional development accreditation.
Since the Outreach program's inception in January 2009, over 45,000 teachers have already attended a professional development workshop or presentation with a further 2,800 teachers having registered to do Connect. ed .
Recommendation 17
That the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy encourage all Australian universities providing teacher training courses to ensure that cyber-safety material is incorporated in the core units in their curriculums.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
While the Australian Government funds Australian universities, they are autonomous institutions and are able to make decisions on pre-service teacher training course content to suit their own individual needs and industry requirements.
Guidance on course content and graduate outcomes will be articulated through the National Professional Standards for Teachers, a key facilitation reform under the Smarter Schools - Improving Teacher Quality National Partnership. It will include the expectation that graduate teachers will be able to "use ICT safely, responsibly and ethically" (Standards 4.5) in both learning and teaching.
The ACMA is currently delivering a teacher training course across Australian universities on Cybersafety. Thirty-three of the 45 universities with a dedicated faculty or school of education have registered or completed the ACMA's program since it was launched in June last year.
The ACMA has worked closely with universities to raise awareness of the importance of incorporating cybersafety in their teacher training courses. The ACMA's Pre Service Teacher program which consists of a lecture and tutorial for final year student teachers has been well received by universities across Australia. Consideration could be given to expanding this program to include first, second and third year students as well as the Vocational Education and Training and Technical and Further Education sectors.
Recommendation 18
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth establish a position similar to Queensland's 'reputation management' position to provide nationally consistent advice to teachers who are being cyber-bullied by students about the role and processes of the Australian Communications and Media Authority, law enforcement agencies and Internet service providers in facilitating the removal of inappropriate material.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The ACMA provides advice to teachers on this issue through its Cybersmart program. With the increase of teachers reporting to Outreach trainers that they have been cyberbullied by students, the ACMA in 2010 incorporated a component on this issue in its Outreach presentations and the Cybersmart portal. The Cybersmart program focuses on equipping teachers with the skills and knowledge to help students stay safe online.
The Government is working with states and territories through the Safe and Supportive Schools Community to improve accessibility to resources for teachers that will be provided via the Bullying. No Way! website rebuild.
The Government notes that school principals are responsible for the wellbeing of the whole school community and for ensuring that all members of that community, including teaching staff, are safe, supported and respected.
The implementation of policies such as the 'reputation management' model is a matter for state and territory governments..
Recommendation 19
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy investigate funding a national, online training program for teachers and students that addresses bullying and cyber-bullying, and is validated by national accreditation.
Government Response
The Australian Government supports this proposal in principle, but it will need to be considered against competing priorities in the budget context and the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The Government currently funds several multi-platform training programs for teachers and students that addresses bullying and cyberbullying.
As articulated in the response to Recommendation 17, the National Professional Standards for Teachers includes the expectation that teachers will develop and employ practical strategies to promote the safe, responsible and ethical use of ICT in learning and teaching.
Teachers will be able to use the range of support materials currently being developed by the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership alongside resources from agencies such as the ACMA to develop student awareness and understanding of appropriate ICT practice.
In addition, the ACMA's current Connect. ed program provides teachers with information and guidance on a broad range of cybersafety issues, such as cyberbullying, sexting, privacy and digital reputation, and offers effective strategies and resources to assist in keeping students safe when they go online. Connect.ed is accredited or endorsed by State and Territory Education Departments and counts towards continuing professional development for teachers.
Recommendation 20
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth invite the Ministerial Council of Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs to formulate a cooperative national approach to the development of a whole-of-school community approach to cyber-safety, and to provide all schools with the necessary information and strategies to measure the effectiveness of their cyber-safety policies.
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
Australian communities have a responsibility to provide safe online environments and teach children how to use technology in positive and productive ways.
The Government is currently working collaboratively with education authorities through the SSSC Working Group to ensure schools are learning environments where every student and school community member is safe, supported, respected and valued.
The National Safe Schools Framework is the nationally endorsed key safe school policy document that all schools are encouraged to adopt with a "whole of school" approach and commitment. The Frameworks resource manual includes a school audit tool which helps schools to objectively assess the effectiveness of existing safe school policies and to identify and address any gaps.
In the Australian Curriculum students will develop understandings about cybersafety through the ICT competence general capability which will have students learn to apply appropriate social and ethical protocols and practices to operate and manage ICT when investigating, creating and communicating ideas and information at school, at home, at work and in their communities.
This will be reinforced through the teaching of ICT as a key aspect of the Australian Curriculum: Technologies learning area.
Recommendation 21
That the Attorney-General work with State and Territory counterparts to invite all Australian Police Forces to develop a range of online courses to provide training in cyber-safety issues for all ranks, from basic training for recruits and in-service and refresher courses for more senior members.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle. pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The Government agrees that it is essential for Australian Police Forces to receive appropriate training to effectively investigate online crimes and deal with cyber-safety issues. A range of work is currently underway to address the need for appropriate training, including through the National Cyber Crime Working Group (NCWG), which was established by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in May 2010. The NCWG is comprised of representatives from police and justice agencies in each jurisdiction, the Australia New Zealand Policing Advisory Agency (ANZPAA), the Australian Crime Commission and CrimTrac.
The NCWG noted the work of ANZPAA in developing the following products:
The NCWG is also working with ANZPAA to undertake a scoping study to assess law enforcement capabilities across jurisdictions in relation to cyber crime for consideration by Police Ministers.
In addition, the AFP conducts Technology Enabled Crime Awareness Training, which is mandatory for all AFP staff. The training program aims to give staff a greater awareness of the concept of technology enabled crime, the impact it has on law enforcement, and how members can more efficiently and effectively investigate such crimes. The AFP also runs a more advanced training program for e-crime investigators that provides participants with the ability to extract sound forensic digital evidence.
Recommendation 22
That the Attorney-General work with State and Territory counterparts to initiate a mandatory training program for judicial officers and all relevant court staff addressing cyber-safety issues, to ensure they are aware of these issues, and of emerging technologies.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, but notes that it is not possible for the executive Government to specify mandatory training for judicial officers.
The AFP runs an education and awareness program for the legal fraternity. Workshops have been run with Victorian judges and barristers of the NSW Bar. A workshop for NSW Supreme Court judges is scheduled for late September. The AFP's High Tech Crime Operations works closely with the Judicial Colleges in each jurisdiction when designing and delivering these workshops.
The AFP has also commissioned the building of an eCourt facility at the AFP's Canberra Headquarters. The eCourt is designed to place the AFP at the forefront of electronic evidence presentation and provide the legal fraternity with the tools and education they need to address the challenges of complex electronic evidence. It is due to become operational in September 2011.
The NCWG is also considering existing arrangements for judicial and legal practitioner training throughout Australia, to determine whether a national or State-based approach is preferred and consider the need for guidelines in this area.
Recommendation 23
That the Attorney-General in conjunction with the National Working Group on Cybercrime undertake a review of legislation in Australian jurisdictions relating to cyber-safety crimes.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government recognises the importance of effective and comprehensive offences relating to online criminal activity, including conduct directed at children.
The Government will refer this recommendation to the NCWG for its consideration of whether any review of relevant legislation in Australian jurisdictions is necessary.
The Commonwealth has enacted comprehensive legislation to protect children from online sexual exploitation. The Criminal Code sets out a range of offences directed at use of a carriage service, such as the internet, for child pornography material, using a carriage service to procure a child for sexual purposes or using a carriage service to 'groom' a child for sexual activity.
In 2010, the Commonwealth Parliament passed the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences Against Children) Act , which extended the coverage of child pornography offences, improved the operation of the grooming and procuring offences, introduced new offences for using a carriage service for indecent communications with a child or for sexual activity with a child. The Act also introduced a new aggravated offence directed at a child pornography network. These amendments ensure that Commonwealth offences reflect contemporary offending and that internet-related child sexual exploitation is comprehensively covered in light of rapidly changing technologies and the anonymity that the Internet provides. These reforms followed a comprehensive review of Commonwealth child sexual exploitation legislation.
The Criminal Code also criminalises the use of a carriage service to make threats, or to menace, harass or cause offence. These offences target the kind of behaviour that underlies serious cases of cyber bullying and cyber stalking. In 2010, the NCWG considered whether new nationally consistent offences were necessary to combat this kind of conduct. It was agreed that that existing offences are adequate and no further work is currently required on a national basis.
Recommendation 24
That the Australian Communications and Media Authority facilitate the development of and promote online self assessment tools to enable young people, parents/carers and teachers to assess their level of awareness and understanding of cyber-safety issues.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The Government notes that it currently provides a number of targeted self assessment tools on the ACMA's Cybersmart portal.
At present the Cybersmart program has a number of self-assessment tools developed for parents, teachers and students. For example:
The ACMA will continue to monitor the take-up and responses to these tools and update these as appropriate.
Recommendation 25
That the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety investigate possible improvements to the information provided to parents at the point of sale of computers and mobile phones.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The CWG is working closely with the Government to consider options for providing information to parents at the point of sale of computers and mobile phones.
The Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association (AMTA), a member of the CWG, is working with DBCDE to investigate the provision of information about cybersafety resources, e.g. the Cybersafety Help Button, at the point of sale for mobile devices. AMTA will also investigate the possibility of pre-loading cybersafety material on mobile devices.
Recommendation 26
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy negotiate with mobile phone companies to increase affordable access to crisis help lines, with a view to ensuring greater accessibility by young people seeking assistance.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government has provided financial assistance over three years to Lifeline to increase the capacity of the organisation to respond to more calls and to support free calls from mobiles. As of 1 July 2011, mobile phone calls to Lifeline from anywhere in Australia are also available free of charge under an agreement with Telstra, Optus and Vodafone Hutchison Australia.
Kids Helpline provides a free online counselling service for young people aged between five and twenty five. The Helpline is promoted through a number of channels, including the ACMA's Cybersmart initiative, and it is a prominent feature in the Cybersafety Help Button. Kids Helpline is a service provided by Boystown.
The Government will continue to work with AMTA and the Communications Alliance on the issue of accessibility to crisis help lines.
The Government also notes that during 2010 and 2011 the ACMA has been examining a wide range of issues related to the regulatory framework for telephone numbers including the cost of calls from mobile phones to freephone (180) and local rate (13/1300) numbers which many organisations use to provide crisis help and to provide other key community services.
The ACMA is currently considering responses to the numbering work program and is expected to release a directions paper in late 2011 that examines changes needed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the numbering arrangements, including the issue of how calls from mobile phones to freephone and local rate numbers are charged.
Recommendation 27
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy invite the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety, in conjunction with the Youth Advisory Group, continue to advise Government on enhancing the effectiveness of cyber-safety awareness campaigns including targeted media campaigns and educational programs.
Government Response
The Government supports this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The CWG and the YAG were established in 2009 as part of the Government's Cybersafety Plan. The CWG and the YAG have provided advice to Government on a range of cybersafety issues and informed key initiatives including the Cybersafety Help Button, the TAP and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online.
DBCDE will continue to facilitate consultation with these groups to enhance the effectiveness of cybersafety campaigns and programs.
Recommendation 28
That the Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth consult with the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to develop measures to introduce:
Government Response
The Australian Government accepts this recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process. Please see response to Recommendation 3.
Recommendation 29
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy facilitate a cooperative approach to ensure all material provided on cyber-safety programs is accessible through a central portal, and that a national education campaign be designed and implemented to publicise this portal, especially to young people.
Government Response
The Government accepts this Recommendation in principle, pending the outcomes of the Cyber White Paper process.
The Cybersafety Help Button provides internet users, particularly children and young people, with a 'one-stop shop' for access to counselling, reporting and educational resources to assist children deal with online risks including cyberbullying, unwanted contact, scams and fraud, and offensive or inappropriate material. The Cybersafety Help Button is available from the DBCDE website ( www.dbcde.gov.au/helpbutton ), and promoted through the ACMA's Cybersmart website and many other sites.
The Cybersafety Help Button is expanding to include a new section called Cybersafety Resources which contains a comprehensive range of cybersafety information, educational programs, research and events. The expanded Cybersafety Help Button will be promoted widely through organisations represented on the CWG member organisations, and education networks.
The ACMA's Cybersmart website is a key source of cybersafety advice and information for teachers, parents, librarians and students of all ages, from kindergarten through to university.
As well as its own substantial body of resources, this web portal links to other cybersafety program providers such as ThinkUKnow, Stay Smart Online, the Cybersafety Help Button, and state school cybersafety websites and resources. It also links to the Kids Helpline for online counselling advice. The portal has seen large volumes of traffic with more than 1,138,050 visits to date.
Promotion of the portal is a primary consideration for the ACMA and it will continue to explore mechanisms for expanding its reach to difficult-to-reach audiences, such as young people and people with disabilities.
Recommendation 30
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy encourages industry including the Internet Industry Association, to enhance the accessibility to assistance or complaints mechanisms on social networking sites; and develop a process that will allow people who have made complaints to receive prompt advice about actions that have been taken to resolve the matter, including the reasons why no action was taken.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
DBCDE is working with the CWG and a number of social networking sites to assist in developing mechanisms to streamline complaints processes and their resolution.
The Cybersafety Help Button and the Easy Guide to Socialising Online are two government projects that have been developed specifically to improve accessibility to reporting abuse and complaints assistance mechanisms for social networking sites. A significant number of social networking sites (and online game sites) participate in the Cybersafety Help Button initiative and Easy Guide to Socialising Online initiative.
The Internet Industry Association (IIA) has been consulted on this Recommendation. The IIA and its members indicated that they are committed to ensuring that users of social networking sites should have an understanding of acceptable behaviour, as well as access to visible and effective complaints handling mechanisms. They have also offered to work with industry, in particular social networking sites, to develop recommendations and best practice guidelines for the lodgement and resolution of user complaints.
Recommendation 31
That the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy invite the Consultative Working Group on Cybersafety to negotiate protocols with overseas social networking sites to ensure that offensive material is taken down as soon as possible.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The issue of establishing a protocol with overseas social networking sites is currently being pursued through the CWG, of which leading social network sites are members.
Recommendation 32
That the relevant Ministers in consultation with service providers consider how costs may be reduced for law enforcement agencies collecting evidence against online offenders.
Government Response
The Government accepts this recommendation in principle.
The Government will work with service providers and the States and Territories to reduce costs for law enforcement agencies in collecting evidence against online offenders.
Under the Telecommunications Act 1997 (Cth), agencies must compensate service providers on a no profit/no loss basis for help given by service providers.
List of Abbreviations
Australian Government Response to the Senate Committee on Finance and Public Administration — Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures
January 2012
Australian Government Response to the Senate Committee on Finance and Public Administration —Native Vegetation Laws, Greenhouse Gas Abatement and Climate Change Measures
The Australian Government is committed to promoting sustainable land management. The Australian Government is supporting this outcome through the implementation of legislation and a mix of policies, programs and consultative natural resource forums.
The Australian Government will continue to take an active role to support resilient, protected and productive landscapes with respect to Commonwealth matters. The Australian Government notes that management of native vegetation is primarily a state and territory responsibility.
The Australian Government acknowledges the important role that land managers play in managing private land and bringing about environmental outcomes. Much of our nation's wealth comes from our environment through agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and tourism underpinned by healthy and resilient landscapes.
This response addresses the three recommendations made by the Senate Committee as well as additional recommendations made by Government Senators. The Australian Government notes the dissenting report by the Australian Greens Senator.
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that COAG re-examine the native vegetation legislation and its 2006 recommendations with a view to establishing a balance between maximising agricultural production and best practice conservation.
The Australian Government disagrees with the recommendation as it has recently undertaken a review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). The Australian Government agrees with the policy intent of establishing a balance between maximising agricultural production and best practice conservation.
On 24 August 2011 the Australian Government announced significant reforms to Australia's national environmental law, including its response to an independent review of the EPBC Act by Allan Hawke AC, and a consultation draft Australian Government Biodiversity Policy. The reforms outline better environmental protection focusing on whole regions and ecosystems and faster environmental assessments. The reforms set out a new national approach to the protection of Australia's environment and biodiversity which will be better for the environment, better for business and mean better cooperation between government, industry and communities. Further information on the reforms including the Australian Government's response to the independent review is available at: www.environment.gov/epbc/refomi.
The EPBC Act is the Australian Government's primary legislation establishing a national approach to a wide range of environmental protection and biodiversity conservation matters. The Australian Government notes that the EPBC Act does not directly regulate most native vegetation or contain greenhouse gas abatement measures. It does on occasion affect native vegetation clearing resulting from agricultural production, but only where that clearing is the result of a change or intensification of land use and is likely to have a significant impact on matters protected under the EPBC Act.
The EPBC Act was drafted to be the primary vehicle for implementing the principles of ecologically sustainable development at the Australian Government level, giving effect to the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment.
The objects of the Act include:
"To provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance;
To promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; and To promote the conservation of biodiversity."
Consideration of the principles of ecologically sustainable development in decision making under the EPBC Act does not require equal weighting to be given to environmental, social and economic factors, but it does require that they all be taken into account.
The Australian Government will also continue to work to ensure biodiversity conservation and sustainable agriculture production are considered in the relevant regulatory arrangements. The Australian Government is working with state and territory governments on the National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation review. Australia's Native Vegetation Framework recognises the importance of agricultural production and integrates the improvement of productive capacity as well as ecosystem resilience into its goals.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Commonwealth initiate, through the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, a national review to assess the impact of various native vegetation legislative and regulatory regimes, particularly those at the state level. In undertaking such a review, the following issues should be specifically addressed:
The Australian Government agrees with the general policy intent of recommendation 2 and recognises that sustainable land management requires work across all jurisdictions. The Australian Government notes that management of native vegetation is primarily a state and territory responsibility.
The former Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council requested all jurisdictions review the National Framework for the Management and Monitoring of Australia's Native Vegetation and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (1996). Australia's Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 was released in 2010.
The consultation draft of Australia's Native Vegetation Framework (2010) aims to ensure native vegetation across the Australian landscape is managed in an ecologically sustainable way in recognition of its enduring environmental, economic, social, cultural and spiritual values in a changing climate and will serve to inform policy across all jurisdictions. This framework will be finalised under new Ministerial arrangements.
As noted in relation to recommendation 1, the Australian Government has recently released a consultation draft of the Australian Government's Biodiversity Policy which is available at: www.environment.gov/epbc/refonn.
The Australian Government notes that the Senate Inquiry found that the regulatory burden imposed through native vegetation regulation impacts on the cost and ability of doing business for land managers. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry through the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences is undertaking a survey of land managers and conducting case studies to increase the understanding of the drivers and barriers to native vegetation management on private land. This analysis will help clarify the extent to which potential barriers (such as the regulatory impact on the cost of doing business) and the possible drivers (such as stewardship and other programs designed to support practice change) are impacting on native vegetation management decisions. The outcomes from the survey and case studies will enhance our understanding of the variation in vegetation management across regions and fanning enterprises, including possible correlations with the economic and social conditions experienced by land managers.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends a review of best practice in relation to stewardship initiatives across the country with a view to re-orienting future regulatory activities.
The Australian Government agrees with the policy intent of the recommendation.
The Australian Government views best practice conservation, supporting resilient ecosystems and sustainable agriculture as priorities. The Australian Government acknowledges that Commonwealth, state and territory legislation provides critical, long-term protection for our natural assets. The role of government is to strike a balance between regulation, market-based instruments and the other mechanisms based on their effectiveness, the level of public benefit and the capacity of stakeholders.
Regulatory approaches can in some circumstances be complemented by appropriate non-regulatory measures. The Australian Government supports the use of incentives schemes as tools to complement regulatory approaches to conservation; however, these schemes do not replace legislative requirements and regulatory measures. The Australian Government also recognises that effective biodiversity conservation under a changing climate will require integration of on-reserve and off-reserve conservation and cooperation with private land managers to ensure a landscape scale approach to maximise ecological resilience.
Caring for our Country is a key Australian Government initiative that supports land managers to protect Australia's natural environment and sustainably produce food and fibre through incentive payments, market-based instruments and extension activities. The goal of Caring for our Country is to achieve an environment that is healthier, better protected, well managed, resilient, and provides essential ecosystem services in a changing climate.
Caring for our Country supports land managers to undertake stewardship activities through the National Priority Area: biodiversity and natural icons. This includes the programs: Environmental Stewardship Program (aiming to conserve nationally threatened species and ecological communities), and Sustainable Farm Practices which includes activities to support landscape scale conservation. The types of activities funded under this priority area include stewardship payments, payments for on ground works where there is a high public benefit, capacity building and information dissemination.
From 2011-12, the Australian Government will invest an additional $84.2 million over four years in a new round of the Environmental Stewardship Program. The Environmental Stewardship Program is a voluntary, market-based initiative that engages land managers to actively manage areas of native habitat on private land to reduce critical threats to biodiversity. The program targets specific matters of National Environmental Significance listed under the EPBC Act for which an improvement in their condition and extent can be effectively achieved through the actions of private land managers.
Commonwealth initiatives also include capacity building and information dissemination to enable landholders to make decisions as stewards of Australia's natural capital. Information dissemination falls into two categories: measuring our landscape and information for land managers to enable improved decision making.
Information is vital for determining trends in the natural environment, as well as the implications of change and the effectiveness of policy interventions. The Australian Government is addressing the need for improved environmental information through the new National Plan for Environmental Information. The Australian Government also works with state and territory governments on a range of collaborative processes to improve the national environmental information base including the National Vegetation Information System and work towards an integrated Environmental Information System.
Additional Comments and recommendations from Government Senators
Government Senators therefore support the essence of the recommendations. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) should review state native vegetation laws with a view to:
Senator Helen Polley, Senator for Tasmania
Senator Doug Cameron, Senator for New South Wales
The Australian Government agrees with the policy intent of this recommendation and will pursue action in conjunction with recommendations 2 and 3.
Australian Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration References
Inquiry into Inquiry into The administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
1. Introduction
The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee on the administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA).
The National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health professions commenced on 1 July 2010 and is the result of a consensus agreement between the state, territory and Commonwealth governments, through the Council of Australian Governments, to align the previously disparate state and territory registration schemes for health practitioners.
The Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Old) (known as the National Law), as applied in each state or territory, provides for the full operation of the NRAS. Oversight of the operation of the scheme is provided jointly by state, territory and Commonwealth Health Ministers through the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council (the Ministerial Council).
Under the NRAS there is a national registration board for each participating health profession. Members of a national board are appointed by the Ministerial Council and are independent in the implementation of their responsibilities. The national boards are led by the health professions and are responsible for determining the practice standards for the professions and assessing all applications for registration.
The national boards are supported in their role by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), an independent statutory agency which administers the receipt and processing of applications for registration and maintains a public register of registered health practitioners.
2. Committee recommendations
The committee made ten recommendations. Five of these recommendations were directed to AHPRA and five to the Commonwealth.
This response addresses the recommendations that were addressed to the Commonwealth, being recommendations 3, 6, 8, 9 and 10.
As AHPRA is a statutory agency constituted under state and territory legislation, and operates independently of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth is unable to respond on behalf of AHPRA.
3. Government Senators' minority report recommendations
The Government senators disagreed with the findings of the majority report, recognised the enormity of the task and noted that it was unsurprising that some problems arose. The Government senators' minority report noted the overwhelming support from all sectors for this reform and focussed on the action taken to address the issues that have arisen during the transition process.
In their minority report Government senators made a further four recommendations directed to AHPRA. This response does not address the minority report recommendations as the Commonwealth is unable to respond on behalf of AHPRA.
4. Australian Government Response
The Australian Government Minister for Health and Ageing is a member of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council (AHWMC)/Standing Council on Health (SCoH), which sets the general policy direction for the national scheme. The Australian Government cannot provide an undertaking that the AHWMC/SCoH will act on recommendations. Decisions of the AHWMC/SCoH are made by consensus.
Response to Committee recommendations directed to the Commonwealth
Recommendation 3
6.17 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek the support of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council to undertake a regular review of the registration of overseas trained health practitioners.
Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government will raise this matter within the AHWMC/SCoH for discussion in the context of all health practitioners. The Commonwealth will seek to have an update from AHPRA on this issue included in the regular updates to AHWMC/SCoH.
With regard to overseas trained doctors, registration of overseas trained practitioners is a matter for the Medical Board of Australia (MBA) and is regulated under state and territory legislation. Three reviews of the registration of overseas trained doctors are currently in progress.
On 8 November 2010 the MBA announced its intention to work with the Australian Medical Council (AMC) to determine the terms of a review of the implementation of assessment pathways for overseas trained doctors, including overseas trained specialists.
On 12 November 2010 the Ministerial Council gave a direction to the Australian Health Workforce Advisory Council (AHWAC) to obtain independent advice regarding the assessment requirements for fellowship of each of the medical specialist colleges, in relation to the recognition of qualifications and management of assessment processes for overseas trained doctors, particularly those from countries with health care systems similar to Australia. Further advice on this investigation will be available once it is complete.
In addition, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing is conducting an inquiry into and report on Registration Processes and Support for Overseas Trained Doctors. More information on this inquiry can be found on the Australian Parliament House website at www.aph.gov.au /house/committee/haa/overseasdoctors/index.htm
The need for further consideration on this issue will be determined once these reviews have been conducted.
Recommendation 6
6.22 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek the support of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council to identify and establish mechanisms to improve the accountability of AHPRA to the Parliaments of all jurisdictions and the Australian public.
Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
As the committee has noted, AHWMC has already established mechanisms to improve the accountability of AHPRA. At its meeting on 17 February 2011, AHWMC agreed the following.
Additional monitoring of AHPRA will be introduced. AHPRA will be required to report to future meetings of Health Ministers. Ministers also agreed that
AHPRA will provide regular reports to AHWMC and the AHMC Chair, WA Health Minister, Dr Kim Flames, will commence immediate frequent discussions with AHPRA management to ensure registration processes are on track.
In addition, the Ministerial Council is required under the National Law to table the AHPRA Annual Report in each parliament of Australia.
Recommendation 8
6.26 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek the support of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council to amend the National Law to provide AHPRA.with a discretion to grant a grace period where a health practitioner faces deregistration as a result of administrative error by AHPRA.
Response: The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The National Law (Division 9 S107 and S108) already provides for a grace period of one month. The current grace period on registration renewals is not intended to allow for administrative errors, rather it is for practitioners who do not apply to renew before their registration expires. The National Law also provides for extensions to a practitioner's period of registration where the practitioner has applied for registration but the application has not been dealt with.
In cases where a health practitioner was deregistered as a result of administrative error by AHPRA, AHPRA has resolved this issue by introducing a special administrative procedure which allows continuity of registration to be established for health practitioners who faced administrative difficulties in renewing their registration.
AHPRA has implemented improvements in the management of phone, web and counter enquires through the additional allocation of resources in the state and territory offices, and this has led to marked improvements. In addition to this the AHPRA website has been improved making it easier to use, streamlining and simplifying the renewal process.
Recommendation 9
6.28 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek the support of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council to amend the National Law to provide further practising classifications for practitioners in academic institutions and for those who practise in a limited manner.
Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation.
The National Law specifies categories of registration including Limited Registration for practitioners who may be teaching or undertaking research, completing postgraduate training or supervised practice or working in an area of need and Provisional Registration for practitioners who wish to complete a period of supervised training. The specific requirements for Limited and Provisional Registration are articulated in registration standards, which are developed by the National Boards and approved by the Ministerial Council. It is possible for the standard requirements applying to the registration of practitioners under the various categories of Limited and Provisional registration to be modified by Boards (with the approval of the Ministerial Council) under the existing provisions of the National Law.
In addition, under the scheme, all registration standards are to be reviewed every three years or earlier if necessary.
Recommendation 10
6.30 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government seek the support of the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council to implement a review of the mandatory notifications requirements and in particular take into account the Western Australia model of mandatory reporting.
Response: The Australian Governments notes this recommendation.
During the development of the National Law, an extensive consultation process was undertaken to allow organisations and individuals the opportunity to comment on all provisions, including mandatory reporting requirements. In addition to this extended consultation the National Law was debated in states and territories in parliamentary processes. In August 2009, Health Ministers confirmed their commitment to a high level of public interest protection.
On 27 August 2009, the AHWMC released a communiqué (http://www.ahmac.cov.au/site/media releases.asox) confirming its commitment to a high level of public interest protection within the new scheme. Health Ministers noted that the new national provisions relating to mandatory reporting, student registration, criminal history and identity checks, strong community member representation on national boards, the ombudsman arrangements and easier public access to make complaints all supported this commitment. Health Ministers did not accept the recommendation that mandatory reporting requirements be removed from the legislation.
The Scheme has been in operation for only a year and as such limited data is available to enable assessment of the impact of the mandatory reporting provisions of the National Law. However the Government notes the concerns expressed during the inquiry. The need to review the mandatory reporting regulations is best determined once adequate data becomes available.
Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Annual reports (No. 2 of 2009) September 2011
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Australian Industry Development Corporation ensure that its next annual report fulfils the requirements of section 8 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982.
Response
The subsequent Annual Reports (Reports) of the Australian Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) comply with the Committee's recommendation. The Reports provide information on procedures for Freedom of Information requests to AIDC and on the relevant categories of documents. The Reports also note that because the Corporation is in the wind down phase there are no decision-making powers that affect the public. The wind down was completed by a Proclamation repealing the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 on 22 April 2011.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that where a Commonwealth authority or company pays for the services of a 'related entity' company, the annual report should include an explanation of the decision-making process to engage that company.
Response
The Committee's recommendation is agreed. The Commonwealth Authorities (Annual Reporting) Orders 2011 and the Commonwealth Companies (Annual Reporting) Orders 2011 respectively provide for the annual reports of Commonwealth authorities and wholly-owned Commonwealth companies to disclose the decision making processes undertaken for approval of individual or aggregate transactions of at least $10,000 (GST inclusive), where a director of the Commonwealth entity is also a director of the other entity that provides the good or service or receives the grant. For the purposes of the annual reports these provisions are to apply from the 2012-13
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE'S 2010 REPORT MILKING IT FOR ALL IT'S WORTH — COMPETITION AND PRICING IN THE AUSTRALIAN DAIRY INDUSTRY.
The Senate Economics References Committee's (the Committee) 2010 inquiry, Milking it for all it's worth — competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry, was the first of two
inquiries in relation to Australia's dairy industry completed by the Committee since 2010. In November 2011, the Committee released its report into The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry. The Government would like to thank the Committee for the time and effort it has put into both inquiries.
This Government response deals explicitly with the recommendations outlined in the Committee's 2010 final report from the Milking it for all it's worth — competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry inquiry. The issues raised in the 2010 inquiry have largely been re-examined in the 2011 inquiry. The Government has tabled a separate response to the
Committee's 2011 inquiry: The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry.
Response to recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the Government requests that the National Competition Tribunal reviews the effectiveness of section 46 of the Trade Practices Act in preventing price discrimination and consider reinstating anti-price discrimination provisions, particularly to protect those parties participating in industries dominated by multinational corporations.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government's response to Recommendation Five made by the Senate Economics References Committee in its 2011 inquiry into The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry (2011 Dairy Inquiry) provides a detailed response to this recommendation.
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
The Government's response to Recommendation Two made in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry provides a detailed response to this recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee recommends that contracts with farmers should offer a clear, consistent formula for milk pricing with unambiguous conditions.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the Government requests the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to use its information-gathering powers, and draw on its work for its recent report on grocery pricing, to provide more accurate estimates of the proportions of the retail price of milk that reflect (i) the costs and (ii) the profits, of farmers, processors and retailers and requests that the results of that review be published by 30 September 2010.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government notes that during the 2011 Dairy Inquiry, a significant amount of information relating to the dairy supply chain was presented to the Committee for its consideration. As outlined in the response to Additional Recommendation Four in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry, the Government is of the view that at this point in time, another Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) inquiry into the supermarkets would not necessarily be beneficial.
However, the Government will work with the dairy industry to provide clear information on industry cost structures including input costs and farm-gate prices in each of the dairy regions across Australia.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends that the Government requests the ACCC to undertake monitoring of the pricing practices within the dairy chain with a view to establishing whether predatory pricing or misuse of market power is occurring.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government notes its response to Recommendation Five and Additional Recommendation Four in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry.
The Government considers it unacceptable for businesses to engage in any conduct in breach of our competition or consumer laws. The ACCC, as the independent regulator responsible for the investigation and enforcement of these laws, is actively monitoring issues in the supermarket sector and is equipped to take action should evidence arise of a breach in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act).
The Government notes the ACCC's media release of 22 July 2011, in which it states that it considers there is no evidence that Coles has acted in breach of the Act (formerly the Trade Practices Act 1974) in relation to milk discounting and that it will continue to monitor conduct within the dairy industry and grocery sector for signs of anti-competitive behaviour_
The Government is confident that the ACCC will take appropriate action in relation to these issues should evidence emerge in future.
Recommendation 5:
The Committee recommends that the Productivity Commission reviews and evaluates the effectiveness of the national competition policy and requests that it publish its report by 30 April 2011.
The Government notes the recommendation
In 2005, the Productivity Commission (Commission) concluded a major inquiry into the impact of the National Competition Policy (NCP) and related reforms, with the release of its inquiry report Review of National Competition Policy Reforms. The inquiry covered both the broad economic effects of the NCP and changes to specific industries.
The Commission found that implementation of NCP has delivered substantial benefits to the Australian community, which overall have outweighed the costs. In terms of deregulation and competition, the Commission concluded that the deregulation of the dairy industry, while entailing some transitional costs, has significantly benefited consumers in the form of lower drinking milk prices on average and an expansion in the range of dairy products available. It also noted that while some dairy fanners chose to exit the industry, deregulation has encouraged farmers to adopt innovative practices and technologies to increase production and profitability.
Recommendation 6:
The Committee recommends a moratorium on further takeovers and mergers in the milk processing industry until the Productivity Commission has published its report on the effectiveness of the national competition policy.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government is committed to providing a robust and effective competition and consumer law, backed by appropriate and proportionate sanctions that can be effectively enforced by the ACCC as the independent regulator.
In relation to mergers and acquisitions, the Government's Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, which has recently passed the Parliament, clarifies the operation of the merger and acquisition laws in relation to 'creeping acquisitions'.
The Government considers that the existing framework provided by section 50 of the Act, which prohibits mergers or acquisitions that would substantially lessen competition, works well and is consistent with international practice.
The existing framework for mergers and acquisitions will continue to apply to this sector. To impose a moratorium on mergers or acquisitions not otherwise prohibited by the Act would not have a meaningful effect on competition, may prohibit mergers or acquisitions which might be beneficial to competition and may be unnecessary and counterproductive for the industry.
As indicated in the Government's response to Recommendation Five in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry, the Government believes that the competition provisions of the Act should not be reviewed until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the law in the courts.
Recommendation 7:
The Committee recommends that the Trade Practices Act be amended to reinstate specific anti-price discrimination provisions and inhibit firms achieving market power through takeovers or abusing market power and that 'market power' be expressly defined so that it is less than market dominance and does not require a firm to have unfettered power to set prices. A specific market share, such as, for example, one third (based on international practice), could be presumed to confer market power unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government is committed to providing a robust and effective competition and consumer law, backed by appropriate and proportionate sanctions that can be effectively enforced by the ACCC as the independent regulator.
In particular, since coming into office, the Government has legislated to clarify the misuse of market power prohibitions. The Government notes the CEO of the ACCC, Mr Brian Cassidy's recent comments that 'some judicial interpretation and rulings on the substantially changed section 46 is needed before it is possible to say whether the changes have been effective or something else needs to be done'1.
The Government believes that a review of this provision of the Act should not be considered until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the amended law in the courts.
The Government notes its response to Additional Recommendation One made in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry which relates specifically to anti-competitive price discrimination.
In addition, as indicated in the Government's response to Recommendation Five in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry, the Government believes that the competition provisions of the Act should not be reviewed until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the law in the courts.
1 Cassidy, B. Senate Hansard, Economics References Committee - Impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry - Thursday 6 October 2011.
Recommendation 8:
The Committee recommends that the ACCC conducts further study into the implications of increasing shares of the grocery market being taken by the generic products of the major supermarket chains. The Committee recommends that the terms of reference of any such inquiry include not just the current and future impact on prices paid by consumers but also the needs of Australia in terms of food security and economic and environmental sustainability, as well as the economic viability of farmers and processors. The Committee requests that the findings of these reviews be reported by 30 April 2011.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government notes its response to Additional Recommendation Four made in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry.
The Government supports the issue of working towards food security and the future sustainability of the dairy industry. It notes that the development of the National Food Plan will provide a strategic and integrated approach to food policy development and implementation and will be developed through a green and white paper process. This will help ensure a long-term and whole-of-government focus, and a considered and consultative approach to food policy. In developing the National Food Plan, the Government is working closely with the Standing Council on Primary Industries to help ensure the strong commitment to the national strategy by all states and territories.
The Government also notes recent comments by the ACCC Chairman, Mr Rod Sims, in relation to the sale of private label products by supermarkets, and in particular that 'This vertical integration in the supply chain needs close scrutiny to ensure the supermarkets do not misuse their market power under Section 46.'2 Given that the ACCC has indicated it is actively monitoring these matters, the Government does not consider it is necessary at this time to direct the ACCC, under the prices surveillance provisions of the Act (Part VITA), to inquire into the implications of increasing shares of the grocery market being held by generic products.
—————
2 Sims, R. Some perspectives on competition and regulation Melbourne Press Club (10 October 2011).
Recommendation 9:
The Committee recommends the Productivity Commission considers, in its review of national competition policy, the appropriateness of separating the functions and powers of the ACCC with the effect that separate agencies are responsible for the approval of mergers and the assessment of whether concentration is subsequently excessive.
The Government notes the recommendation
Noting the Government's response to Recommendation Five, the Government considers that the ACCC, as the expert, independent competition regulator, is the agency best placed to consider all aspects of the competitive effects particular of mergers and acquisitions.
Recommendation 10:
The Committee recommends that the topic of competition and pricing in the dairy industry be again referred to the Senate Economics References Committee in May 2012 to assess whether progress has been made or whether tougher and more interventionist measures need to be adopted.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government notes that since the release of this report, the Committee has further investigated the issues of competition and pricing in the dairy industry in its inquiry into The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry, with the final report released in November 2011.
The Committee made a range of recommendations in its final report to this inquiry and the Government has tabled a separate response addressing each of those recommendations.
Recommendation 11:
The Committee recommends that the Federal Government commissions an independent report into the main impediments to the establishment of new processors owned by farmer cooperatives and how these impediments could best be overcome and requests that the report be tabled by 30 April 2011.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government believes that the establishment of new processors and their corporate structure is a matter for industry and outside the scope of Government intervention. The Government believes that the establishment (or otherwise) of cooperatives is a business decision best left to industry members. The Government notes previous decisions of cooperative shareholders (such as Australian Co-operative Foods Limited in 2008) to sell the enterprise to corporate entities.
Recommendation 12:
The Committee recommends that the Government reviews the collective bargaining provisions of the Trade Practices Act with a view to strengthening that framework to create a more equitable balance of power between the negotiating parties and requests that it report by 30 April 2011. •
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government's response to Recommendation Six made in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry provides a detailed response to this recommendation.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government's response to Recommendation Six made in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry provides a detailed response to this recommendation.
Recommendation 13:
In reviewing the collective bargaining provisions the Committee requests that the Government considers the effectiveness of any existing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and investigates:
Recommendation 14:
The Committee recommends that the Government addresses the issues of food security and the future sustainability of the dairy industry at a federal level. The Committee suggests to the Government that this review be facilitated through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council to ensure it receives the commitment and attention required. The Committee recommends that any review include the role of the ACCC and federal, state and territory agricultural departments in ensuring Australia's food security.
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
The Government supports initiatives to maintain and improve food security and the sustainability of Australian food production, including of the dairy industry.
As a demonstration of this support, the Government is developing a National Food Plan. The National Food Plan will be a strategic and integrated approach to food policy development and implementation and will be developed through a green and white paper process. This will help ensure a long-term and whole-of-government focus, and a considered and consultative approach to food policy. In developing the National Food Plan, the Government is working closely with the Standing Council on Primary Industries to help ensure the strong commitment to the national strategy by all states and territories.
The Food Processing Industry Strategy Group, established by the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research early in 2011 to develop a strategic plan for the processed food manufacturing sector, is also analysing the strengths and weaknesses of the industry, as well as long term opportunities to enhance its long-term competitiveness and sustainability.
As indicated in the Government's response to Recommendation Three in the 2011 Dairy Inquiry, the future sustainability of the dairy industry across Australia depends to a large extent on its ability to remain competitive in a global dairy market. Research and development also contributes to its competiveness and sustainability. The Government works with the dairy industry through the provision of matched funding to undertake research, development and extension activities.
Recommendation 15:
In the light of the Tasmanian experience the Committee recommends that where industry bodies are encouraging increased production, all agencies involved in those bodies have regard to issues of long term sustainability in the context of long term trends. They should identify the source of increased demand, adopt cautious language and indicate the degree of uncertainty around any projections.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government encourages all organisations preparing information for the use of rural industries to be mindful of the need to adopt cautious language and to indicate the degree of uncertainty around any projections.
For example, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ABARES outlines its key assumptions and, where appropriate, identifies risk factors when presenting its forecasts. ABARES is particularly mindful of presenting its forecasts and explaining key factors underlying these forecasts in a cautious manner.
Recommendation 16:
The Committee recommends that the Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council acts to ensure that labelling on dairy products adequately and accurately informs consumers about the provenance, manufacturer and contents of the product.
The Government notes the recommendation
Most packaged dairy products for retail sale are required to be labelled under the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code with information which includes, in general: the name and address of the supplier; any applicable advisory and warning statements; a mandatory declaration of certain substances (such as allergens); an ingredients list; date marking; directions for use and storage where required for health or safety reasons; a nutrition information panel; and a statement concerning the country of origin.
The Government also notes that the Australian Consumer Law, applicable in all Australian jurisdictions, prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations throughout the economy — including in relation to dairy product labelling.
The Government will refer this recommendation to the Legislative and Governance Forum on Food Regulation for consideration.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE ECONOMICS REFERENCES COMMITTEE'S 2011 FINAL REPORT ON THE IMPACTS OF SUPERMARKET PRICING DECISIONS ON THE DAIRY INDUSTRY
The Senate Economics References Committee's (the Committee) 2011 inquiry into The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry is the second inquiry into Australia's dairy industry completed by the Committee since 2010. In 2010, the Committee released its report: Milking it for all it's worth — competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry. The Government would like to thank the Committee for the time and effort it has put into both inquiries.
This Government response deals explicitly with the recommendations outlined in the Committee's 2011 final report on The impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry. The 2011 inquiry has re-examined many of the issues raised in the 2010 inquiry and provides a new set of recommendations. However, as indicated in the Government's response to the Committee's first interim report, the Government has also tabled a separate response to the Committee's 2010 inquiry: Milking it for all it's worth — competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry.
Responses to recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The committee urges processors to make their pricing structures for sourcing drinking milk:
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
This is a commercial matter for industry and the Government encourages all participants in the dairy industry to be transparent in their transactions along the supply chain. The Government acknowledges that in some instances, if processors are encouraged to provide more stable prices to farmers, they could set a fixed price which minimises their risk but which may be less profitable for fanners.
Recommendation 2:
The committee recommends that contracts with dairy fanners should offer a clear, consistent formula for milk pricing with unambiguous conditions.
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
While the Government recognises that this is a commercial matter for industry, it encourages the development of contracts with a consistent formula for milk pricing and unambiguous conditions.
Recommendation 3:
The committee recommends that the Government commission a study of the dairy industries in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia. The study should focus on the future sustainability of the dairy industry in each of these states and their capacity to meet future local consumer demand. The report of the study should also examine possible policy options and be tabled in the Senate.
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
The future sustainability of the dairy industry across Australia depends to a large extent on its ability to remain competitive in a global dairy market. Research and development also contributes to its competiveness and sustainability. The Government works with the daily industry through the provision of matched funding to undertake research, development and extension activities.
The Government provides around $18 million annually to Dairy Australia to undertake these activities, which include survey work to better understand the nature of all regional markets and the factors influencing the productivity of individual dairy farmers. Dairy Australia produces a comprehensive study of the Australian dairy industry in its annual Situation and Outlook report. This report includes regional outlooks for all dairying regions and is updated quarterly.
The Government will work with the dairy industry to provide clear public information on industry cost structures including input costs and farm-gate prices in each of the dairy regions across Australia.
Recommendation 4:
The committee recommends that the ACCC review its approach to publicly releasing information about its investigations with a view to providing greater general information about its current enforcement activities and relevant issues of particular public concern.
The recommendation is subject to the proviso that such action would not deny procedural fairness to the parties involved or threaten the integrity of the ACCC's investigations.
The Government agrees in principle to the recommendation
The ACCC is an independent statutory authority responsible for enforcing the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (the Act) and other relevant legislation.
As observed by the Committee, the degree to which the ACCC can be transparent depends on many factors. It is important that the ACCC balance the provision of public information about its enforcement activities with the need to observe procedural fairness and to ensure that adequate protection for the commercial affairs and the reputations of individuals and corporations is provided.
The Government notes the comments of the Chairman of the ACCC, Mr Rod Sims, on 27 August 2011 when he stated that in its 'enforcement and compliance work, the
communication effort is central — the ACCC needs to explain what it is and is not doing, and whyl.'
The Government supports transparency where possible and appropriate; however, ultimately, the degree to which the ACCC discloses information relating to its investigations is a matter for the ACCC.
——————
1 Sims, R. ACCC: Future Directions The Law Council Competition and Consumer Workshop 2011 (27 August 2011).
Recommendation 5:
The committee recommends that the Government initiate an independent review of the competition provisions of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government believes it is important that Australia's competition laws provide a strong, robust framework that guards against anti-competitive conduct, but otherwise leaves businesses free to act as they see fit. The Government considers it unacceptable for businesses to engage in any conduct in breach of our competition or consumer laws.
The Government is committed to ensuring the ongoing effectiveness of these laws. Since coming into office, the Government has legislated to clarify the misuse of market power prohibitions and has criminalised hard-core cartel conduct under the Act. The Parliament has also recently passed the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 to clarify the operation of the merger and acquisition laws in relation to 'creeping acquisitions' and the Competition and Consumer Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011 to target anti-competitive price signalling and information disclosures — initially in the banking sector.
Additionally, the Government welcomes recent comments by Mr Sims, where he expressed an intention for the ACCC to take action 'even where the law is not completely clear'2 and notes the CEO of the ACCC, Mr Brian Cassidy's comments that 'some judicial interpretation and rulings on the substantially changed section 46 is needed before it is possible to say whether the changes have been effective or something else needs to be done'3.
The Government recognises the concerns raised by some participants in the dairy industry, but is mindful of the ACCC's media release of 22 July 2011, in which it states that it considers there is no evidence that Coles has acted in breach of the Act in relation to milk discounting and that it will continue to monitor conduct within the dairy industry and grocery sector for signs of anti-competitive behaviour.
The ACCC, as the independent regulator responsible for the investigation and enforcement of our competition and consumer laws, will continue to actively monitor issues in the supermarket sector and is equipped to take action should evidence arise of a breach in the Act.
The Government believes that the competition provisions of the Act should not be reviewed until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the law in the courts. It is only after the laws have been suitably tested that any weaknesses in the law can be appropriately identified.
Recommendation 6:
The committee recommends that the Government review the effectiveness of collective bargaining laws and arrangements for agricultural industries, with a view to strengthening that framework to create a more equitable balance of power between the negotiating parties and to otherwise improve their operation.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government notes that the collective bargaining framework in the Act is being actively used by agricultural industries, with approximately a quarter of all collective bargaining authorisations involving collective bargaining by primary producers. The Government considers that the collective bargaining arrangements in place under the Act are generally operating effectively for dairy farmers and recognises that collective bargaining can enhance the welfare of Australians where it increases productivity and efficiencies for the businesses involved in the arrangement, resulting in benefits to Australian businesses, consumers and the economy more generally.
In light of this, the Government considers that it would be premature to conduct a review of the collective bargaining arrangements at this time.
—————
2 Sims, R. Senate Hansard, Economics Legislation Committee Estimates, Wednesday 19 October 2011.
3 Cassidy, B. Senate Hansard, Economics References Committee - Impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry - Thursday 6 October 2011.
Government Senators Recommendation 1:
Government Senators recommend that the Government takes steps to promote awareness of options for agricultural industries to develop more effective collective bargaining arrangements.
The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation
The Government supports the provision of information that promotes awareness of options for more effective collective bargaining arrangements. When new collective bargaining provisions were introduced in 2007, the Government undertook a significant information and awareness campaign targeted at industry sectors that could benefit from the new arrangements.
The ACCC plays a key role in educating businesses on their rights and obligations under the Act, including the collective bargaining arrangements through its education and outreach activities. Specifically, the Government notes the ACCC, through its Education and Engagement Managers, works closely with small businesses and their representatives, including those in rural and regional areas, to disseminate information and assist them understand the Act and the role of the ACCC. To assist outreach with the small business sector the ACCC has also established a Small Business Consultative Committee which meets biannually and includes representation from the agriculture sector.
The ACCC has also produced a number of publications specifically for small businesses and provides articles for inclusion in industry journals, magazines, association publications/newsletters and mainstream media. The ACCC has direct engagement through participation in conferences and events organised by industry associations and community organisations. The ACCC is available for broader liaison activities, including meetings with local industry groups to explain the ACCC's role and function.
The ACCC publishes a Guide to Collective Bargaining Notifications and Streamlined Collective Bargaining for Small Business publication as sources of advice on collective bargaining for a number of industries, including the dairy industry. The ACCC's Infocentre also offers further information on collective bargaining arrangements and is available on 1300 302 502 or via www.accc.gov.au.
The Government notes that, for the dairy industry, another avenue for promoting awareness and developing capacity may be through Dairy Australia's regional development programs. These programs, which are well supported by local dairy farmers, are located in the eight dairy regions throughout Australia (Gippsland, Western Victoria, Murray Region, Tasmania, Subtropical, New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia) and focus on issues relevant to each of these regions.
The Government encourages the ACCC, and other relevant bodies, to continue to promote awareness amongst dairy farmers of the collective bargaining arrangements in public forums and through working with industry groups.
Recommendation 7:
The committee recommends that the Government initiate the following:
The Government notes the recommendation
The Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct (the Code) is a voluntary industry code of conduct administered by the Produce and Grocery Industry Code Administration Committee (the Code Committee). The Government, through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry provides secretariat support to the Committee.
The Code covers vertical transactions within the produce and grocery industry supply chain and guides the conduct of businesses within the industry. The objects of the Code are to:
The Code is intended to cover all participants (except consumers) in the Australian produce and grocery industry, including growers, processors, wholesalers, distributors and retailers. The Government subsidises a mediation service for dispute resolution.
The Code is an industry owned code and therefore it is appropriate that industry review the effectiveness of the Code. The Government is willing to continue to engage with industry about the operation and effectiveness of the Code and would consider facilitating an industry-Government partnership to review the Code.
The Government has recently conducted an extensive consultation process with a wide range of stakeholders as part of the development of the National Food Plan. In this process elements of industry proposed the need for a new statutory office. The Government has listened carefully to those views and will respond accordingly through the drafting and release of a Green Paper as part of the development of the National Food Plan.
The work underway through the Food Processing Industry Strategy Group and the Senate's Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector may also provide further input for consideration by the Government into these issues.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS: SENATOR XENOPHON, SENATOR WILLIAMS, SENATOR HEFFERNAN, SENATOR MADIGAN, SENATOR MILNE
Going 'Down Down': The long-term viability of the Australian dairy industry
Additional Recommendation 1:
Amend section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to effectively prohibit anti-competitive price discrimination. Consideration should be given to relevant legislation in place in the United States and United Kingdom, and the reintroduction of an 'effects test' as per section 49 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government is committed to providing a robust and effective competition and consumer law, backed by appropriate and proportionate sanctions that can be effectively enforced by the ACCC as the independent regulator.
The then Trade Practices Act 1974 contained an explicit prohibition from 1974 to 1995 on specific types of price discrimination which had the effect of substantially lessening competition.
The repeal of the former section 49 of the Act, which prohibited anti-competitive price discrimination, was recommended by the Swanson Committee4, the Blunt Cornrnittee5 and the Hilmer Committee6. The inquiries raised various concerns, including that the former prohibition: caused price inflexibility; reduced price competition; was contrary to economic efficiency; and had not been of assistance to small business. The Hilmer Committee noted that price discrimination generally enhances economic efficiency, except where such conduct would contravene sections 45 (anti-competitive agreements) or 46 (misuse of market power).'7
The prohibition was subsequently repealed in 1995. Its repeal was subsequently endorsed by the Dawson Committees.8
As indicated in the Government's response to Recommendation Five, the Government believes that the competition provisions of the Act should not be reviewed until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the law in the courts.
—————
4 Trade Practices Act Review Committee (1976).
5 Trade Practices Consultative Committee, Small business and the Trade Practices Act (1979).
6 National Competition Policy Review (1993).
7 Ibid, p79.
8 Review Of the Competition Provisions of the Trade Practices Act (2003).
Additional Recommendation 2:
Amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to provide for a general divestiture power whereby the ACCC could, in appropriate cases, apply to the Courts for the breakup of monopolies or dominant companies that engage in conduct that undermines competition.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government is committed to providing a robust and effective competition and consumer law, backed by appropriate and proportionate sanctions that can be effectively enforced by the ACCC as the independent regulator.
Currently, section 81 of the Act provides that divestiture can only be ordered by a court, upon application by the ACCC or any other person, if a merger or acquisition within three years has resulted in a substantial lessening of competition within a market.
The Government notes that the two most recent comprehensive reviews of Australian competition law — the Hilmer and Dawson Committees, recommended against extending the application of the divestiture power within the Act. The reviews noted that a general divestiture power would create considerable uncertainty for business. A divestiture power would also place a significant obstacle in the way of foreign investment and domestic company growth to achieve international standards of efficiency and competitiveness. Both reviews concluded that the many disadvantages of providing a general divestiture power outweighed the possible advantages of such a power.
As indicated in the Government's response to Recommendation Five, the Government believes that the competition provisions of the Act should not be reviewed until the ACCC has had the opportunity to further test the law in the courts.
Additional Recommendation 3:
That the ACCC undertake a full investigation into whether Coles has engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct as a result of an advertising campaign that may have created the impression that prices are coming down across the supermarket when only a percentage of products have in fact been reduced.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government considers it unacceptable for businesses to engage in any conduct in breach of our competition or consumer laws. The ACCC, as the independent regulator responsible for the investigation and enforcement of these laws, is actively monitoring issues in the supermarket sector and is equipped to take action should evidence arise of a breach in the Act.
The Government notes the statements by Mr Cassidy, during Senate Estimates on
19 October 2011, that the ACCC is monitoring the situation and that if it finds that there is misleading behaviour it will take action9. The Government is confident in the capability of the ACCC to enforce the law.
—————
9 Senate Hansard, Economics Legislation Committee Estimates, Wednesday 19 October 2011.
Additional Recommendation 4:
That the Federal Government give a direction to the ACCC under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to formally monitor pricing behaviour by the supermarket chains and along the supermarket supply chain.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government understands that there are concerns about the behaviour of some of the major market players towards suppliers in the grocery sector.
The Government notes that in 2008, the ACCC examined pricing practices at the grocery retail level and the factors influencing the pricing of inputs along the grocery supply chain in its inquiry, Report of the ACCC inquiry into the competitiveness of retail prices for standard groceries. In this report, the ACCC concluded that the grocery retailing market is
`workably competitive'. The report also noted the positive impact that ALDI has had on grocery prices competition. Since the release of the report, Costco has also entered the Australian market and the expansion of ALDI has led to further price competition.
Additionally, the Government also notes that the Senate's Select Committee on Australia's Food Processing Sector is conducting an inquiry into aspects of the supermarket supply chain. As part of its terms of reference, the Committee will examine the competitiveness and future viability of Australia's food processing sector in global markets and the impact of Australia's competition regime and the food retail sector, on the food processing sector.
The Government also notes that the ACCC, as the independent regulator responsible for the investigation and enforcement of these laws, is already actively monitoring issues in the supermarket sector and is equipped to take action should evidence arise of a breach in the Act. The ACCC has also indicated it will continue to monitor the supermarkets for signs of anti-competitive behaviour as part of its normal operating activities.
Additional Recommendation 5:
That the Federal Government establish an Office of the Australian Small Business and Farming Commissioner.
The Government notes the recommendation
On 20 May 2011, the Minister for Small Business released a paper to generate comments on options for providing small businesses with a low cost, speedy dispute resolution mechanism that does not duplicate existing services.
Option Four of this paper considered the introduction of a Small Business Advocate or Commissioner to offer independent representation of small business interests and concerns within the Australian Government.
There were 49 submissions received from a range of stakeholders which included leading industry and small business associations. No submissions were received from the farming or produce and grocery industries.
In light of the submissions received, the Government is carefully considering its role in small business dispute resolution.
The Government also notes its response to Recommendation 7 in relation to the consideration of the need for a statutory office through other existing consultation processes.
Additional Recommendation 6
That the Federal Government develop a mandatory industry code of conduct under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 dealing with relationships between industry participants along the supermarket supply chain. Such a code should also include the major supermarket chains.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government refers to its response to Recommendation 7. The Government is willing to continue to engage with industry about the operation and effectiveness of the existing voluntary Produce and Grocery Industry Code of Conduct and would consider facilitating an industry-Government partnership to review the Code.
Additional Recommendation 7
That the Federal Government extend the Australian Consumer Law framework dealing with unfair contract terms to business to business agreements involving small businesses and farmers.
The Government notes the recommendation
The Government introduced laws dealing with unfair contract terms which took effect at the Commonwealth level on 1 July 2010 and have been in place in the laws of all jurisdictions from 1 January 2011, as part of the Australian Consumer Law.
The Government notes that these provisions have only been in place for a short period of time and that, should extension of the provisions be considered in the future, careful consideration would need to be given to the costs and benefits of doing so.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on the management of the Murray-Darling Basin be extended to 29 June 2012.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the procurement procedures for defence capital projects be extended to 28 June 2012.
That consideration of the committee reports and government responses tabled earlier today be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE REPORTS
RESPONSE TO THE SCHEDULE TABLED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE ON 7 JULY 2011
Circulated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
23 November 2011
A Certain Maritime Incident (Senate Select)
Report on a Certain Maritime Incident
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED INDUSTRIES (Senate Select)
Pricing and supply arrangements in the Australian and global fertiliser market—Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Christmas Island Tragedy (Joint, Select)
Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island tragedy of 15 December 2010
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on the 12 October 2011 and in the Senate on the 13 October 2011.
Community Affairs Legislation
National registration and accreditation scheme for doctors and other health workers
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 7 November 2011.
National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 [Provisions]
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2010
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 [Provisions]
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Community Affairs References
Consumer access to pharmaceutical benefits
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Gene patents
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 23 November 2011.
The social and economic impact of rural wind farms
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Disability and ageing: Lifelong planning for a better future
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Community Affairs Standing
Towards recovery: Mental health services in Australia
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 25 August 2011.
Corporations and Financial Services (Joint Statutory)
Review of the Managed Investments Act 1998
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The structure and operation of the superannuation industry
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes
The Government will provide a response on the finalisation of two separate committee inquiries that overlap with issues raised in this report.
Statutory oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Access for small and medium business to finance
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Cyber-Safety (Joint, Select)
High-wire act: Cyber-safety and the young – Interim report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Economics Legislation
Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling Laws) Bill 2009
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Corporations Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2010 [Provisions].
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Annual reports (No. 2 of 2010)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Notice of payments of recompense for personal injuries: Provisions of Schedule 4 of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping) Bill 2011
The Government has already published a comprehensive policy document: Streamlining Australia's anti-dumping system. The Government's further response in relation to the Bill is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Economics References
Consenting adults deficits and household debt – links between Australia ' s current account deficit, the demand for imported goods and household debt
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course. GROCERYchoice website
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 22 September 2011.
Milking it for all it ' s worth—competition and pricing in the Australian dairy industry
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Access of small business to finance
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework
The government presented an interim response out of sitting in the Senate on 9 June 2011 and tabled on 14 June 2011. A further response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Augmented tax assessments
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 15 September 2011.
Competition within the Australian banking sector
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation
Social Security Amendment (Income Support for Regional Students) Bill 2010
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Bill 2010 [2011]; National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2010 [2011] and the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Bill 2011 and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2011
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References
Provision of childcare
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Welfare of international students
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 18 November 2011 and tabled on 21 November 2011.
Administration and reporting of NAPLAN testing
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 13 October 2011.
Industry skills councils—Final report
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 25 July 2011 and tabled on 16 August 2011.
Primary schools for the Twenty First Century Program—Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Electoral Matters (Joint Standing)
Civics and electoral education
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 29 August 2011 and tabled in the Senate on 12 September 2011.
Implications of the Parliamentary Electorates and Elections Amendment (Automatic Enrolment) Act 2009 (NSW) for the conduct of Commonwealth elections
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION
Product Stewardship Bill 2011
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 [Provisions], Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011 [Provisions] and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011 [Provisions]
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 16 August 2011.
ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS REFERENCES
Sustainable management by the Commonwealth of water resources
The government considers that its response to this report has been provided by government initiatives developed since the report was tabled.
The adequacy of protections for the privacy of Australians online
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS LEGISLATION
Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The Minister has written to the committee chair on 3 November 2011 advising that a response is no longer required as it was dealt with during debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Fibre Deployment) Bill 2011.
ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNICATIONS AND THE ARTS REFERENCES
Forestry and mining operations on the Tiwi Islands
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The impacts of mining in the Murray-Darling Basin
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Environment, Communications and the Arts Standing
The operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – First report
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 22 September 2011.
The operation of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 – Second and final report
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 22 September 2011.
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References
Living with a salinity – a report on progress: the extent and economic impact of salinity in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
About time! Women in sport and recreation in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Standing
Conserving Australia–Australia ' s national parks, conservation reserves and marine protected areas
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation
Plebiscite for an Australian Republic Bill 2008
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Annual reports (No.2 of 2009)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Exposure drafts of Australian privacy amendment legislation: Part 1—Australian privacy principles
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Finance and Public Administration References
Staff employed under Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Government advertising and accountability
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 8 September 2011 and tabled on 12 September 2011.
Native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Superannuation claims of former and current Commonwealth Public Service employees
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 13 October 2011.
Finance and Public Administration Standing
Annual reports (No. 1 of 2008)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Annual reports (No. 2 of 2008)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE (Joint Standing)
Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: Challenges and opportunities
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into Australia ' s relationship with the countries of Africa
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE LEGISLATION
Defence Legislation Amendment (Security of Defence Premises) Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES
The Torres Strait: Bridge and border
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Fuel and Energy (Senate Select)
The mining tax: Still bad for the economy—Still bad for jobs—Second interim report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Gambling Reform (Joint, Select)
First Report: The design and implementation of a mandatory pre-commitment system for electronic gaming machines
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY (Joint)
Review of administration and expenditure: No. 8—Australian intelligence agencies
The government response was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 22 September 2011.
Law Enforcement (Joint)
Inquiry into the adequacy of aviation and maritime security measures to combat serious and organised crime
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 3 November 2011 in the Senate on 7 November 2011.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation
Telecommunications Interception and Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Provisions of Schedule 4 of the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011 [Provisions]
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Bill 2011 and related bills [Provisions]
The government response was given during the debate on the bill.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References
The road to a republic
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Review of government compensation payments
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Donor conception practices in Australia
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Inquiry into the Australian Law Reform Commission
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 8 July 2011 and tabled on 16 August 2011.
A balancing Act: provisions of the Water Act 2007
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Review of the National Classification Scheme: achieving the right balance
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Men ' s Health (Senate Select)
Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Migration (Joint Standing)
Immigration detention in Australia – A new beginning – Criteria for release from detention – First report of the inquiry into immigration detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Immigration detention in Australia – Community-based alternatives to detention – Second report of the inquiry into immigration detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Immigration detention in Australia – Facilities, services and transparency – Third report of the inquiry into immigration detention
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Enabling Australia—Inquiry into the migration treatment of disability
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
National Broadband Network (Senate Select)
Another fork in the road to national broadband – Second interim report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Third report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Fourth interim report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
National Capital and External Territories (Joint Standing)
Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories
The government response was tabled in the House of Representatives on 3 November 2011 and in the Senate on 7 November 2011.
Parliamentary Budget Office (Joint, Select)
Inquiry into the proposed Parliamentary Budget Office
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 1 August 2011 and tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 16 August 2011.
Public Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)
Report 412—Audit reports reviewed during the 41st Parliament
The government responded with issuing an executive minute.
Report 414 – Review of the Auditor-General ' s reports tabled between August 2007 and August 2008
The government responded with issuing an executive minute.
Report 415 – Review of Auditor-General ' s report tabled between September 2008 and January 2009
The government responded with issuing an executive minute.
Report 417— Review of Auditor-General ' s reports tabled between February 2009 and September 2009
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 418: Review of Auditor-General ' s Reports Nos. 04 to 38 (2009/10)
The government responded with issuing an executive minute.
Report 419: Inquiry into the Auditor-General Act 1997
The government response was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 13 September 2011.
Report 421: The role of the Auditor-General in scrutinising government advertising
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 9 September 2011 and tabled on 12 September 2011.
Report 422: Review of the 2009-10 Defence Materiel Organisation Major Projects Report
The committee will receive the government response on 23 November 2011.
Report 423: Review of Auditor-General ' s reports Nos 39 (2009-10) to 15 (2010-11)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 424: Eighth biannual hearing with the Commissioner of Taxation
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLIC WORKS (Joint Standing)
Report 3/2011—Referrals made February to March 2011—Proposed development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Muirhead, Darwin, NT—Proposed Robertson Barracks electrical reticulation system upgrade, Darwin, NT—Proposed redevelopment of the Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory—Larrakeyah housing project budget update
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
PUBLICATIONS (Joint Standing)
Inquiry into the development of a digital repository and electronic distribution of the Parliamentary Paper Series
The government response was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 15 September 2011.
Reform of the Australian Federation (Senate Select)
Australia ' s Federation: an agenda for reform
The government response was presented out of sitting in the Senate on 18 November 2011 and tabled on 21 November 2011.
Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities (Senate Select)
Fourth report 2010
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 25 August 2011.
Final report 2010
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
RURAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT LEGISLATION
Airports Amendment Bill 2010 [Provisions]
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Rural Affairs and Transport References
Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee—Interim report
The government response was presented out of sitting on the 15 November 2011 and tabled in the Senate on the 21 November 2011.
Science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee—Final report
The government response was presented out of sitting on the 15 November 2011 and tabled in the Senate on the 21 November 2011.
Pilot training and airline safety; and consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 22 November 2011.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References
Iraqi wheat debt – repayments for wheat growers
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Implications for the long-term sustainable management of the Murray-Darling Basin system—Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Investment of Commonwealth and State funds in public passenger transport infrastructure and services
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Rural and regional access to secondary and tertiary education opportunities
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The possible impacts and consequences for public health, trade and agriculture of the Government ' s decision to relax import restrictions on beef —First report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
The possible impacts and consequences for public health, trade and agriculture of the Government ' s decision to relax import restrictions on beef —Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Standing
Australia ' s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels – Final report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Climate change and the Australian agricultural sector – Final report
The government response was presented out of sitting on the 15 November 2011 and tabled in the Senate on the 21 November 2011.
Scrutiny of New Taxes (Senate Select)
The student amenities fee—Another tax by another name
The government response was tabled in the Senate on 15 September 2011.
The mining tax: A bad tax out of a flawed process
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
State Government Financial Management (Senate Select)
Report
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Treaties (Joint Standing)
Report 100 – Treaties tabled on 25 June 2008 (2)
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 110—Treaties tabled on 18, 25 (2) and 26 November 2009 and 2 (2) February 2010
The government response is being considered and will be tabled in due course.
Report 116—Treaties tabled on 24 and 25 November 2010, 9 February and 1 March 2011; and Treaties referred on 16 November 2010 (Part 3)
The government response was tabled in the Senate and in the House of Representatives on 22 September 2011.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That the Senate take note of the reports.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber.
Community Affair s Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member:
Senator Boyce to replace Senator Adams from 7 February to 30 March 2012
Participating members: Senators Adams and Sherry
Communit y Affairs References Committee—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Corporations and Financial Services — Joint Statutory Committee —
Discharged—Senator Stephens
Appointed—Senator Sherry
Economics Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Economics References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Environment and Communications References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Finance and Public Administration References Committee —
Appointed—
Substitute member:
Senator Rhiannon to replace Senator Di Natale for the committee's inquiry into the operation of the Lobbying Code of Conduct and the Lobbyist Register
Participating members: Senators Di Natale and Sherry
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Privileges — Standing Committee —
Discharged—Senator Sterle
Appointed—Senator Sherry
Procedure — Standing Committee —
Discharged—Senator Ludwig
Appointed—Senator Arbib
Public Accounts and Audit — Joint Statutory Committee —
Discharged—Senator Sterle
Appointed—Senator Sherry
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry
Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee —
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Sherry.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (the OPGGS Act) to specifically enable the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) to issue a direction to a petroleum titleholder in the event of a significant offshore petroleum incident occurring within the title area that has caused, or might cause, an escape of petroleum. A direction would require the titleholder to take action, either within or outside the title area, in relation to the escape or possible escape of petroleum and its effects.
The matters covered by a direction could include action to prevent or eliminate the escape of petroleum, and/or to mitigate, manage or remediate the effects of an escape of petroleum. This would include, for example, clean up of petroleum that has escaped as a result of the incident and has extended beyond the boundaries of the title area.
This Bill helps to ensure that the regulator has the full ability to provide for remediation of the effects of an escape of petroleum in the event of an offshore uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons.
Currently under the OPGGS Act there are powers, including the authority in Part 6.4 of the OPGGS Act, which allows the regulator to give remedial directions to titleholders in relation to the restoration of the environment.
These powers enable the regulator to give remedial directions to petroleum titleholders about the removal or property, the plugging or closing off of wells, the conservation and protection of natural resources, or the making good of damage to the seabed or subsoil.
However, these provisions are primarily for the purposes of decommissioning, and as such this direction giving power is limited to requiring action to be taken within the titleholder's title area.
In addition, NOPSEMA will have a general power to give directions to petroleum titleholders under the OPGGSA in relation to a number of matters. However, it is desirable that NOPSEMA have a specific power to issue directions in the event of a significant offshore petroleum incident, to provide a clear legal basis on which to issue directions that extend to requiring action outside the title area.
The Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry found that the regulatory framework should provide powers to regulators to enable directions to a petroleum titleholder requiring remediation of environmental damage both within and outside the title area.
In the unlikely event of a future significant petroleum incident, such as the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons into the marine environment, remedial action would be required to be taken as quickly as practicable.
These amendments will ensure that regulators have a clear and unambiguous power to direct petroleum titleholders to take remedial action as quickly as practicable to mitigate and manage the impacts from an escape of petroleum.
Failure of the petroleum titleholder to comply with the direction will be an offence of strict liability under the OPGSS Act to enable effective enforcement of the offshore petroleum legislation, particularly given the remote and complex nature of offshore operations.
The protection and management of the marine environment is critical to the Australian community's confidence in the ability of the offshore petroleum industry to undertake operations in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
This Bill is one of a number of amendments being introduced to improve the regulation of the offshore petroleum industry following the Montara incident. This includes legislation to establish a national regulator for the offshore petroleum industry, and additional work currently being undertaken to implement the Australian Government's Response to the Report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry. The Australian Government is committed to providing a world's best practice regulatory framework for the offshore petroleum industry that will encourage investment in exploration and development of Australia's offshore oil and gas resources, while also providing safeguards for human health and safety and the marine environment.
That the following rules shall apply when a Member of either of the Houses—
wishes to raise a matter of privilege or other contempt:
(a) The Member complaining shall, as soon as reasonably practicable after the matter in question comes to his notice, give notice thereof to the Presiding Officer of his House ...
… and let me make this very clear—that we now have a ruling from the chair, directed at me …
… we now have a ruling from the chair, directed at me …
… is it not a matter of privilege that senators should be left in the situation where the President does not inform them that they are victims of a proposal to go to the privileges committee …
I ask you to facilitate this serious matter—
being referred to the Committee of Privileges for due assessment.
I have not received any donation from Metcash. The campaign donation referred to went directly from Metcash to the then Queensland branch of the National Party of Australia. I am informed by the party that it banked the donation in its central campaign account in July 2007.
That the Senate take note of the document.
The Australian Curriculum needs to be relevant to the lives of students and to address the contemporary issues they face. With these considerations and the Melbourne Declaration in mind, the curriculum gives special attention to three priorities:
These cross-curriculum priorities have a strong but varying presence depending on their relevance to the learning areas.
It's a terrific ground, a special place. I love the atmosphere inside. It's wonderful.
To do all that is necessary to acquire an restore a B-24 Liberator and associated aircraft and artefacts, as a memorial to all those who served with Liberators during WW2, for display in an accredited museum as part of the national collection.
Unemployment analysed by age group shows clearly young people are the hardest hit — with 18.5% of the 18-24yr old workforce unemployed (more than twice the national average); and 33.7% of the 18-24yr old workforce either unemployed or underemployed.
“I got involved in Project 21 to be more prepared for the Research Project, as I’m interested in a career with a focus on biology.
“I’m researching the management of Port River dolphins, using thermal imagery to detect the surface temperature of the water to determine whether the dolphin’s habitat changes from winter to summer.”
Politicians on slim electoral margins, along with extreme minority groups, are not the only voice in the argument and we want to present the real stories of our communities that the authority and the Federal Government must hear before any further decisions can be made.
We recognise the importance of getting the plan right due to its far-reaching consequences on many sectors of our community.
I would give up casual for full-time, no questions asked. Tried to get credit as a casual; need to be working three times as long. Tried to get a mortgage; need more deposit. Get sick and don't get paid!'
Companies expect casuals to work just as hard and some companies expect them to work harder for that little bit extra even though there are no benefits. It's hard on people individually and it's difficult to get anywhere in life ... when you can't even have a day off sick without worrying about how that will affect your next pay cheque.
Once a client has moved into the community, it is my role to assist with the transition by working with them to establish their homes, reconnect with their community and learn to live independently.
Every three months I develop a new support plan with the client. These support plans set out steps or goals for each client in establishing a more independent life. These might include things such as making the bed each day, learning to catch the bus, matters of personal hygiene, contacting family or starting a training course.
I do find my job stressful and emotionally draining. After I finish work at 6:00pm, I go home, have dinner and go to bed.
I have to undertake physical care work, assisting clients with personal hygiene, toileting, changing incontinence pads and pushing a wheelchair. I have to plan, organise, deliver and supervise activities every day. My job involves a lot of multitasking. Three or four activities may be happening at any one time and I, along with my co-workers, have to make sure that everyone is supervised and safe. I have to be aware of what is happening at all times.
Brunei-born University of WA Professor Farida Fozdar, who moved to Australia when she was seven, said she was shocked by the national reaction to her study … 'Some e-mails have been quite polite and I've been able to reply … I've also had a couple of e-mails from people implying that I am the Grinch that killed Christmas and that now nobody is going to fly a flag because they think it shows that they're racist.'
… entrenched structural impediments to efficient and effective leadership within Defence could be at the source of Defence's procurement problems requiring reallocation and redefinition of roles, functions and responsibilities. Indeed, the current management matrix model may need overhauling or even dismantling.
This artificial ‘market structure’ is not a contestable environment and the purchaser has little power to penalise and replace the provider. We therefore concluded that purchaser provider arrangements were unlikely to be particularly effective in these circumstances.
For each overseas trip since the 2010 election, how many departmental officials accompanied the Minister, including: (a) the staff member's position; and (b) the total cost to the Government of their travel.
Note: Costs are as at 31 March 2011. Some costs have not yet have been finalised.
A. Mr Rudd travelled to Pakistan and the United States from 15 to 27 September 2010.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by four Canberra-based DFAT staff (two in Washington and two in New York). The positions of the staff members who accompanied Mr Rudd were:
First Assistant Secretary, Americas and Africa Division
Head, UNSC Taskforce
Assistant Secretary, International Organisations Branch
Acting Departmental Liaison Officer
The total cost of the staff members' travel was $57,028.89
B. Mr Rudd travelled to Japan, Belgium, Italy and the Holy See from 12 to 20 October 2010.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by one Canberra-based DFAT staff member (for the travel to Belgium, Italy and the Holy See). The staff member who accompanied Mr Rudd was Assistant Secretary, Pakistan and Afghanistan Branch.
The total cost of the staff member's travel was $12,517.34
C. Mr Rudd travelled to China and the Republic of Korea from 31 October to 6 November 2010.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by one Canberra-based DFAT staff member (to all destinations). The staff member who accompanied Mr Rudd was First Assistant Secretary, North Asia Division.
The total cost of the staff member's travel was $13,078.54
D. Mr Rudd travelled to the United Arab Emirates, Kazakhstan and Bahrain from 29 November to 6 December 2010.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by two Canberra-based DFAT staff (to all destinations). The positions of the staff members who accompanied Mr Rudd were:
(Acting) First Assistant Secretary, Europe Division
Assistant Secretary, Middle East Branch
The total cost of the staff members' travel was $27,698.36
E. Mr Rudd travelled to Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, the Palestinian Territories, Brazil and Chile from 8 to 20 December 2010.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by four Canberra-based DFAT staff (two in Indonesia, one in the Middle East, and one in Brazil and Chile). The positions of the staff members who accompanied Mr Rudd were:
First Assistant Secretary, South-East Asia Division
First Assistant Secretary, South and West Asia and Middle East Division
Ambassador for People Smuggling Issues
Assistant Secretary, Canada and Latin America Branch
The total cost of the staff members' travel was $39,665.66
F. Mr Rudd travelled to Ethiopia, Switzerland, Turkey, Greece, Liechtenstein and Germany from 24 January to 7 February 2011.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by five Canberra-based DFAT staff in total (two in Ethiopia, one in Switzerland, one in Turkey and Greece and two in Germany). The positions of the staff members who accompanied Mr Rudd were:
(Acting) First Assistant Secretary, Europe Division
Assistant Secretary, Africa Branch
Assistant Secretary, Arms Control and Counter-Proliferation Branch
Director, UNSC Taskforce
Executive Officer, Climate Change and Environment Section
The total cost of the staff members' travel was $73,168.18
G. Mr Rudd travelled to South Africa, Egypt, Afghanistan, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia from 24 February to 12 March 2011.
Mr Rudd was accompanied by three Canberra-based DFAT staff in total (two in South Africa, Egypt, Switzerland, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Tunisia; and three in the Palestinian Territories, Israel and Saudi Arabia). The positions of the staff members who accompanied Mr Rudd were:
Assistant Secretary, Middle East Branch
Executive Officer, Middle East and Northern Africa Section
Diplomatic Courier
The total cost of the staff members' travel was $76,739.29
With reference to the John McCarthy review of the Australian Government's handling of the Nigel Brennan case:
(1) Were any members of the Brennan family consulted or interviewed for the review; if so, who; if not, why not.
(2) Have any members of the Brennan family received a copy of the review report; if so, who; if not, why not.
(3) Were members of the Canadian Government and/or negotiating team consulted or interviewed for the report.
(4) Has the Canadian Government reviewed its handling of the case; if so, has it shared its findings with the Australian Government.
(5) Of the 21 recommendations in the report, do any cover the use of private kidnap and ransom specialists by families of hostages and/or governments.
(6) Do any of the recommendations cover agreements with other western countries regarding the payment of ransoms.
(7) Does the department have a timeline for the implementation of the McCarthy recommendations.
(8) Which other government departments or agencies will be involved in deciding on and implementing recommendations from the review.
(1) Yes: Nigel Brennan; Nicky Bonney (sister); Geoff Brennan (father); Heather Brennan (mother); Kelli Brennan (sister-in-law).
(2) No. The report provides a number of recommendations with regard to Government handling of future kidnap cases, including procedures for intelligence agencies. The report is classified Secret AUSTEO and has therefore not been shared with the Brennan family.
(3) Yes.
(4) Yes. No: the Canadian Government has indicated that it would share a copy of its report with us and we are following up with officials.
(5) Yes.
(6) No.
(7) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has already implemented a number of recommendations contained in the report that apply to its operating procedures. Some recommendations can only be implemented when the next kidnapping occurs.
With regard to recommendations that involve other Government agencies, the Department is discussing these suggestions and procedures with a view to bringing any new policies into effect.
(8) AFP, ASIS, ASIO, PM&C, ONA, Department of Defence, Defence Signals Directorate, Defence Intelligence Organisation.
In regard to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights (the Principles).
(1) Is the Government aware that the Principles are widely recognised as a leading voluntary, multi-stakeholder initiative designed to provide guidance to extractives companies on maintaining the security of their operations in a manner that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms.
(2) Is the Government aware that the Governments of Canada, Norway, the Netherlands, Colombia, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America actively participate in and promote the Principles.
(3) Why has the Government to date refused to join the Principles.
(4) What is the Government doing to ensure that Australian companies operating as ‘high risk’ companies comply with the Principles and do not, through their security arrangements, cause harm to local communities.
(5) Will the Government consider supporting the Principles.
(6) Does the department currently promote the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD] Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and responsible mining by Australian companies overseas; if so, how.
(1) Yes, the Government is aware of the Principles as well as the many other corporate social responsibility frameworks that cover human rights, including the UN’s recently endorsed Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (also known as the ‘Protect, Respect and Remedy’ framework or the Ruggie report), the Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative and others.
(2) Yes.
(3) and (5) The Government is currently considering the issue of joining the Voluntary Principles in the context of the many other international corporate social responsibility initiatives open to governments and business.
(4) The Government by definition can only encourage, rather than ensure, compliance with a voluntary framework. However, the Government actively encourages Australian companies to develop sound and robust policies, including for their security arrangements, for operations overseas. This includes promoting sector specific programs such as the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism’s Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry and broader initiatives such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (the OECD Guidelines). The Government also expects Australian companies to abide by the rules of the jurisdiction in which they operate.
(6) The Treasury hosts Australia’s National Contact Point for the OECD Guidelines and has primary responsibility within the Government for its promotion to Australian companies. The Australian National Contact Point liaises with Australian businesses and peak business organisations in addition to other stakeholders (a wide range of NGOs) on a regular basis and also hosts a website www.ausncp.gov.au The Treasury, including the Australian National Contact Point, also conducts regular briefing to Australian government representatives overseas on corporate social responsibility issues. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade also conducts industry outreach activities on “trading with integrity” on a regular basis to highlight Australian laws applying to Australian companies trading internationally. As part of this outreach, the Department actively promotes both the OECD Guidelines as well as the OECD Risk Awareness Tool for Multinational Enterprises in Weak Governance Zones.
With reference to the proposed changes to the way the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) will conduct the homelessness count in the 2011 Census:
(1) Why did the ABS undertake a methodological review of Counting the Homeless 2006 .
(2) How did the ABS consult with the sector before announcing these changes.
(3) What kind of resourcing has been devoted to the homelessness count over the past two census in 2001 and 2006, and does this differ from the resources for the 2011 Census.
(4) Are the proposed changes due to a budget cut or any kind of resourcing issue.
(5) Why was there such a long delay in releasing the discussion paper the ABS promised would be released in December 2009 but was only released in March 2011 about the proposed changes to the methodology.
(6) Why does the ABS still believe the Chamberlain and McKenzie methodology, used for the 2001 and 2006 census, led to an over estimation of homelessness figures, even though this view was and continues to be strongly refuted by homelessness services, peak bodies and homelessness researchers.
(7) What is the ABS response to our understanding that peak bodies, researchers and service providers still maintain in fact the homeless are being undercounted.
(8) Can the ABS confirm it will be doing all the analysis itself using its new methodology and that this will not include:
(a) Chamberlain and McKenzie's analysis of people staying in supported accommodation data;
(b) extensive field work usually carried out by Chamberlain and McKenzie; and
(c) an analysis of the Secondary School Student Survey.
(9) Will the ABS form their homelessness estimate predominately on raw census data.
(10) How does this overcome the problem that homelessness is 'hidden' and therefore difficult to measure without expert analysis, a sound background in research and an understanding of the complexity of homelessness.
Consultation with sector
(11) In regard to the forum that took place on 24 May 2011 with the ABS and key homelessness stakeholders:
(a) did the ABS call this forum;
(b) apart from this forum, how has the ABS tried to engage with the sector since announcing these dramatic changes;
(c) how many submissions did the ABS receive on its discussion paper and how were they incorporated; and
(d) will the ABS be establishing a sector reference group.
(12) Does the ABS appreciate that up until now Australia has been in the fortunate and unique position (compared to other countries around the world) of having a consensus on homelessness figures.
(13) Will the ABS guarantee that it works to a consensus on publishing revised figures and introducing a new methodology.
New assumptions reflected in the methodology
(14) Can the Minister confirm some of the more controversial assumptions in the discussion paper including:
(a) all people over 55 years old living in caravan parks will be classed as 'grey nomads' and will not be counted as homeless;
(b) people living in attractive holiday destinations cannot be classed as homeless;
(c) there are only 1 253 people experiencing primary homelessness in the Northern Territory, but this is based on the assumption that 1 million square miles of territory can be covered in one night; and
(d) people staying in improvised dwellings should not be considered homeless if they have an income from employment or are landowners.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and homelessness
(15) Given that the revised count of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who were homeless and staying with friends and relatives across Australia on census night has been revised to 872 (discussion paper, p. 73) which is significantly down from the figure of 5 438 in recently released Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) figures of Indigenous people currently experiencing secondary homelessness, how can the significantly revised down figures be reconciled.
(16) How was the AIHW consulted regarding the proposed changes to the methodology.
(17) How will the new ABS methodology incorporate overcrowding experienced in Indigenous households.
(18) What strategies are being considered or employed to improve the accuracy of counting Indigenous people in the census.
(19) Given that the census in the territories is only conducted over one night, yet the Northern Territory spans more than 1 000 000 square km and has the highest number of remote communities in Australia and it is stated that between 2001 and 2006 the number of rough sleepers is said to have declined by 26 per cent—yet no additional services or accommodation were provided in this time and it is unlikely that this number found accommodation; it is therefore likely that significant numbers of undercounting of homeless people occurred in the last census, and will occur again, therefore:
(a) what measures will the ABS have in place to prevent undercounting of homeless people in the Northern Territory in the 2011 and subsequent census; and
(b) has the ABS considered extending the census period to more than one day; if not, will it.
School students, young people and homelessness
In regard to the number of young people experiencing homelessness in 2006 which has been revised by the ABS from approximately 21 000 down to 5 000 nationally:
(20) Given that 35 per cent of Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) funding is currently allocated to services providing responses to young people, how will a significant drop for the 2011 figures impact on funding for youth services in the future.
(21) Is the ABS aware that in the north and west Melbourne metropolitan regions alone, current demand data shows that there are 861 young person headed households awaiting assistance.
(22) Does the ABS have confidence in the accuracy of the new figure.
(23) What is the estimated margin of error and how was it calculated.
(24) Given that a strong concern with the revised methodology is the proposal to only gather data from six schools, over 1 day, on youth homelessness, compared with thousands previously:
(a) what was the rationale for this; and
(b) how will the ABS work with the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) regarding any changes to the scope or process for collecting data on youth homelessness through schools.
(25) Can the ABS confirm why the National Census of Homeless School Students is not going ahead.
(26) Does FaHCSIA sit on the Steering Group for the ABS review.
(27) Has the ABS been provided with any advice in making the case that the National Census on Homeless School Students is not required.
Secondary homelessness
(28) In regard to the significant revision down by 58 per cent (or 27 277 people) from the secondary homelessness figures in the 2006 census, can an outline and account be provided for all of the assumptions underlying the removal of these 27 277 people in the secondary homelessness category.
Undercounting of specific and marginalised groups
(29) For each of the following groups, can the ABS provide an explanation on how it intends to better include them and count them more accurately in the next census:
(a) women escaping domestic violence who seek assistance from a homelessness service but are turned away and either sleep in a car in a concealed location or are accommodated by a friend or relative for the night;
(b) Indigenous people in overcrowded households;
(c) rough sleepers in the 'long grass' in the Kimberley and Pilbara in Western Australia and Darwin-Daly district in the Northern Territory;
(d) families in private motels paid for by temporary state housing vouchers; and
(e) single people staying with friends in public housing not named on the lease (due to rules prohibiting sub-letting they often will not identify as residing with the tenant even if this is the case).
New ABS concept of ' rooflessness ' rather than homelessness
(30) Does the discussion paper suggest that the ABS is moving towards a view of homelessness that focuses on a person's 'rooflessness', that is, homelessness defined only as rough sleeping or primary homelessness.
(31) How is this definition helpful to the current conceptualization of homelessness, particularly in terms of devising responses to prevent and intervene early before primary ('roofless') and chronic homelessness occurs.
This is a revised version of the response tabled in the Senate on 25 November 2011. Revisions have been made to the response to question (27).
(1) Please refer to the ABS' Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006.
The discussion paper is available on the ABS website: www.abs.gov.au.
(2) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology. This paper responds to submissions made and feedback received during the ABS' consultation with the sector regarding the review. The ABS has also established a sector reference group to continue its consultation with stakeholders.
(3) While exact numbers are not available for the 2001 Census, the resources were increased in the 2006 Census to over 250 staff. For the 2011 Census, these resources were increased to over 550 specialist field staff.
(4) There are no budget cuts, or any kind of resourcing issue, which are relevant to resourcing the homeless count.
(5) The ABS is an independent statutory authority and questions relating to timing of its reports are a matter for the ABS.
(6) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology. . These papers set out the ABS' analysis of previous methodologies.
(7) Please refer to the ABS' Discussion Paper and Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology. The Position paper responds to submissions made and feedback received during the ABS' consultation with the sector regarding the review.
(8) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(9) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(10) Please refer to the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006, which noted the existence of 'hidden' homelessness in the context of homeless people reporting a usual address on Census night while visiting other private homes.
The ABS has advised that some of the improvements applied for the 2011 Census and planned for future Censuses will address, at least in part, the 'hidden' homelessness when Indigenous people have a usual residence reported for them. The ABS will seek advice, through its new Homelessness Statistics Reference Group, on approaches for addressing the 'hidden' nature of homelessness, and will use its planned focus group work to provide new insights on measurement.
(11) (a) The ABS has advised that it wrote, in advance of the publication of the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006, to offer an ABS funded workshop for Homelessness Australia members after they had had a chance to review the Discussion Paper. This Homelessness Australia workshop was in addition to the discussion forums planned, advertised and held in each capital city. Homelessness Australia accepted the offer and the meeting occurred on 24 May 2011.
(b) The Discussion Paper announced public discussion forums in each capital city and sought submissions. Additional forums were held, on request, with stakeholders across Australia,. The ABS has also answered questions received during forums, or in writing or over the telephone.
(c) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology. This paper responds to submissions made and feedback received during the ABS' consultation with the sector regarding the review.
(d) (The ABS has advised that it has convened a Homelessness Statistics Reference Group with invitees from the sector, from academia, and from government.
(12) The ABS is an independent statutory authority and has released its Discussion Paper and Position Paper outlining the ABS' assessment of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(13) The ABS has advised that it is continuing to consult with stakeholders, including through the new Homelessness Statistics Reference Group, to inform its view of whether, and if so how, official estimates of the prevalence of homelessness can be made.
(14) (a) The ABS has advised that the statement in the question is not an assumption made in the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006.
(b) The ABS has advised that the statement in the question is not an assumption made in the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006.
(c) The ABS has advised that the statement in the question is not an assumption made in the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006.
(d) The ABS has advised that the statement in the question is not an assumption made in the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006.
(15) The ABS has advised the following:
The number of 5,438 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the question is quoted from Table 1.3 in a May 2011 publication issued by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) titled Housing and Homeless Services, Access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People (Cat. No. HOU 237). The data are reported from the Counting the Homeless 2006 state and territory reports and do not represent just Indigenous people who were homeless and staying with friends and relatives across Australia. The 5,438 number from Counting the Homeless 2006 represents homeless Indigenous people staying with friends and relatives (872 in the reviewed ABS estimates) and people staying in SAAP on Census night (2,692 in the reviewed ABS estimates). The 1,874 people difference between the Counting the Homeless 2006 and the reviewed ABS total estimates derives mainly from the Counting the Homeless 2006 use of a SAAP support period estimate, rather than the estimate of the number of people accommodated on Census night.
(16) The ABS has advised that the AIHW was a member of the Steering Committee for the methodological review and participated in all three review workshops.
(17) The ABS has advised that this issue has not been addressed in any former estimates of homelessness and will be the subject of ongoing research by the ABS, including through focus group work following the Census, and in the design and development of culturally appropriate homelessness modules in the ABS's national surveys of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.
(18) The ABS has advised that, in consultation with a range of organisations and government departments at all levels, it implemented a range of changes to its Indigenous Enumeration Strategy (IES) for the 2011 Census. The IES drew on the extensive evaluation undertaken of the 2006 Census data and field processes. It incorporated improvements to the enumeration procedures for Indigenous people living in urban areas, as well as remote communities.
The ABS has advised that, at a broad level, the range of improvements in the 2011 IES have provided for:
(19) (a) The ABS developed an overall national strategy and implemented detailed operational plans at regional levels. These regional plans were developed after close consultation and ongoing engagement with stakeholders and service providers within those regions.
The ABS has advised that these plans included working closely with service and accommodation providers to identify locations of people experiencing homelessness and employing staff from these organisations to assist with the homeless count. The ABS will also employed people who have been homeless to assist with the homeless count. Homeless Enumeration Coordinators were also employed in urban areas such as in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs.
(b) The ABS has advised that, if possible, the enumeration period for the rough sleeper count in the Northern Territory should be conducted on the one day. A count on the one day provides for a snapshot at a particular point of time and minimises the risks of both under and over counting. However, where circumstances preclude this, the period can be extended to ensure maximum possible coverage.
(20) The Census is not the only data relied on by Governments to ascertain the extent of homelessness or indeed the demand for homelessness services. The Government has committed to strong targets to reduce homelessness across Australia and our record has been to increase funding for services by more than 55 per cent over four years.
It should also be noted that states and territories are responsible for the allocation of supported accommodation funding that is provided by the Commonwealth.
(21) The ABS has advised that it has received a submission in response to the ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006, which states that "…there are 861 young person headed households in crisis and awaiting assistance."
In regard to the revised estimate for the number of people aged 12 to 24 experiencing homelessness on census night which decreased from 32 444 to 13 316 (discussion paper, p. 73):
(22) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(23) Please refer to the ABS Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology. This paper responds to submissions made and feedback received during the ABS' consultation with the sector regarding the review.
(24) (a) Please refer to the ABS' Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(b) The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) is on the steering committee for the methodological review and they will also be on the Homelessness Statistics Reference Group.
In regard to the decision not to use the National Census of Homeless School Students, which in 2006 identified approximately 7 000 young people who were homeless but still at school:
(25) The ABS has advised that it has not had any role in the funding, design, development or conduct of the NCHSS.
(26) Yes.
(27) No, the ABS has not received any advice about the National Census on Homeless School Students. The ABS is conducting a quality study of homeless school students. If successful, the ABS would propose, subject to funding, to conduct a national survey of secondary school students.
(28) Please refer to the Position Paper on the Review of the Counting the Homeless methodology.
(29) (a) The ABS has advised that, as well as targeted enumeration of those sleeping rough, such as inner city areas of capital cities and other identified major urban centres, all Census field staff are tasked with identifying rough sleepers in their workloads so that they can be included in the Census.
(b) The ABS has advised that extensive engagement was undertaken with community groups, Non-Government Organisations (NGOs), service providers and Indigenous communities to raise awareness of the Census and the importance of an accurate count.
(c) The ABS has advised that these areas were identified early in fieldwork planning, and local plans were developed to ensure that the rough sleepers in the ' long grass ' were counted.
(d) The ABS has advised that these individuals and families were asked, like other residents of private motels, to participate in the census.
(e) The ABS has advised that the Census communications campaign included tailored messages encouraging people who may be staying with friends, but who have no usual address, to report " none " in the usual address question on the Census form.
(30) The ABS advises that this is incorrect. The published ABS Discussion Paper, Methodological Review of Counting the Homeless, 2006, provides details for the various categories of homelessness.
(31) See the answer to Question 30.
In regard to the $16 million in funding that Australia has pledged to South Sudan, will any of the money be allocated for:
(1) Better governance of the country's natural resources, including resource management institutions at a state and local level.
(2) Helping communities manage mining interests on their land.
(3) Helping Australia's South Sudanese diaspora to return to South Sudan to contribute to building the new country.
(4) Can an indication be given of how much funding will be allocated to each of the above matters given consideration.
(1) No, although South Sudan could access assistance for natural resource management through the Mining for Development Initiative
(2) See Answer to question 1.
(3) As part of $11.36 million (over two years) provided to Australian non-government organisations for early recovery assistance in South Sudan, $2,566,851 has been provided to Oxfam to support improved food security and livelihood opportunities for vulnerable households in Lakes and Western Bahr El Ghazal States. A small component of Oxfam's funding under this activity will also support a pilot program of engagement with Australia's South Sudanese diaspora. Oxfam will support organisational capacity building (for example, financial management and governance) of targeted Australian South Sudanese community groups to better equip them to support rebuilding in South Sudan. As part of this, Oxfam may facilitate return visits of selected community members to South Sudan to engage in 'mentoring'-type training in program implementation.
(4) Approximately $75,000 of Oxfam's funded activity will support Australian South Sudanese diaspora engagement. A small component of this funding may help support some members of Australia's South Sudanese community to return to South Sudan to contribute to building the new country.
Given that the provision of family planning services is fundamental to the achievement of a number of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly Goal 5.
(1) Can an outline be provided of the amount and percentage of AusAID funding that was spent specifically on family planning activities (DAC Code 13030), and the amount allocated to the United Nations Population Fund in each of the following financial years:
(a) 2009-10; and
(b) 2010-11.
(2) How does current expenditure on family planning activities compare, in real percentage terms, to expenditure on family planning prior to the release of the revised AusAID Family Planning Guidelines in August 2009 (2008-09 financial year).
(1) The total estimated amount and percentage of AusAID funding spent on family planning activities were:
(a) In 2008-09 $8 million or .25 per cent of total AusAID ODA expenditure
(b) In 2009-10 $10 million or .29 per cent of total AusAID ODA expenditure
(c) In 2010-11 $40 million or 1.02 per cent of total AusAID ODA expenditure
The majority of family planning activities funded by AusAID are not recorded under the DAC code 13030. Most family planning activities are recorded under either 13020 (reproductive health) or more general health codes such as 12220 (basic health care). AusAID's reporting on family planning expenditure is calculated by activity and sub-component which provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of family planning expenditure than using DAC codes.
The amount of AusAID funding recorded against DAC code 13030 is $6,094,680 in 2009-10 and $1,310,473 (estimate) in 2010-11. This equates to .18 per cent and .03 per cent respectively of total annual AusAID ODA expenditure. As outlined above, these figures represent a fraction of actual AusAID expenditure on family planning.
AusAID provided approximately $20 million in 2009-10 and $34 million in 2010-11 to UNFPA. This funding was provided for UNFPA to undertake a range of activities including improving access to family planning and reproductive health services, maternal and child health activities, reducing gender based violence, training of health workers and assisting population surveys.
(2) See response to question (1).
Does the department have an estimate of the number of uninsured Australian travellers.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade does not keep a record of the number of Australians who travel overseas without travel insurance. The Insurance Council of Australia estimates that around 15 to 20 percent of Australians who travel internationally do not have insurance.
Does the department keep data on what proportion of those who seek consular assistance are uninsured; if not, why not.
No. Although the benefits to travellers of appropriate insurance coverage are clear, the department provides consular assistance whether travellers have insurance or not. Consular staff are not always made aware of travel insurance coverage at the time that consular assistance is provided and cannot compel Australian citizens to provide details of travel insurance. Insurance policies are private contracts between travellers and the insurers.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 80 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates hearing of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee in May 2011 regarding the answer to question no. 400 taken on notice during the 2010-11 additional estimates hearings advising that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) provided its responses to the department on 13 December 2010:
(1) When did the department provide the ABC's responses to the Minister's office.
(2) Were any changes required to be made to the answers after they were provided to the Minister's office.
The responses were provided to the Minister's office as soon as practical after the department had checked the responses for consistency with the questions asked and for factual accuracy.
(1) Has the department contracted Wizard Projects Pty Ltd to provide alarm systems; if so:
(2) Where are the systems deployed;
(3) What is the cost of the alarms; and
(4) What is included in the contract.
(1) No.
(2) to (4) Not applicable.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
DFAT and portfolio agencies
(1) (a) Fifteen. (b) Nil.
(2) (a) Three. (b) Twelve.
(3)Of the fifteen investigations, the alleged breaches comprised:
(4) Case 1 - It was determined that a breach had occurred resulting in the employee being cautioned.
Case 2 - It was determined that a breach had occurred resulting in the employee receiving a reduction in classification, a reassignment of duties, a reduction in salary and was reprimanded. This employee was also required to attend an internal fraud training program.
Case 3 - It was determined that a breach had occurred resulting in the employee receiving a formal letter of reprimand to be retained on personnel file and salary reduction.
(5) Five investigations are ongoing.
Given that, in May 2010, Australia's children's commissioners and guardians resolved that all children should be protected from physical punishment and all governments should work to ensure the law is consistent with international human rights standards:
(1) What is the Commonwealth Government doing to ensure that no child is subject to corporal punishment in Australian non-state schools.
(2) Why is corporal punishment not mentioned as an example of a punitive approach in the 'Common Terms and Definitions' section of the National safe schools framework resource manual.
(1) The Australian Government does not endorse corporal punishment as an approach to disciplining young people in schools. The Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, South Australia, Queensland, Tasmania and Victoria have either explicitly banned the use of corporal punishment in schools or have removed the relevant provisions in their respective education Acts.
The Australian Government continues to work closely with education authorities to develop a clear and agreed national approach to safe schools. As part of this national approach, the Australian Government worked with all state and territory Governments to revise the National Safe Schools Framework.
(2) Corporal punishment was not explicitly referred to in the revised National Safe School Framework resource manual common terms and definitions as it is already expressly banned in jurisdictions covering the majority of Australian school children and is therefore not a discipline mechanism that most schools would consider using or condoning. The term "punitive approaches" was therefore used to describe a range of approaches, including but not limited to corporal punishment.
Positive behaviour management is promoted in the Framework and is one of the nine key elements central to its objectives and guiding principles. School communities are guided to make decisions about their selection of behaviour support programs and resources and ensure they are evidence based. Schools may consider adopting such approaches as positive behaviour support, restorative practices, and programs that focus on recognition of pro-social behaviour and clear non-punitive consequences for anti-social behaviour.
In regard to all non-government schools that have Indigenous students enrolled:
(1) Can a breakdown be provided of all specific Indigenous funding payments under all relevant legislation, excluding general recurrent payments, segmented by individual program on a per capita basis for the 2008 to 2011 funding years inclusive, including:
(a) the percentage of Indigenous enrolments at each school; (b) the location of the school; and (c) a detailed breakdown of the calculation methodology of these payments.
(2) Can a breakdown of all payments made on behalf of Indigenous boarding students be provided, on a per capita basis (for eligible students), under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 or any other relevant legislation for all eligible non-government boarding schools for the 2008 to 2011 funding years inclusive, including:
(a) the percentage of Indigenous enrolments at each school; (b) the location of the school; and (c) a detailed breakdown of the calculation methodology of these payments.
In response to your first question, per capita payments for Indigenous students in the 2008 to 2011 funding years were transacted under two Acts. Payments in 2008 were made under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, 2000. Payments in 2009, 2010 and 2011 were made under the Schools Assistance Act, 2008. A detailed response is therefore provided in two parts – one for each of these periods – as shown at Attachments A and B and summarised below:
(1) (a) 2008 Per capita payments to non-government schools for Indigenous Students (Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) ACT, 2000).
The table at Attachment A outlines Indigenous funding paid to non-government schools on a per capita basis for 2008 under the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, 2000. The per capita elements are segmented by three programs:
- ITAS – In Class Tuition;
- ITAS – Years 9-12; and
- ITAS – Remote Indigenous Students.
Attachment A also includes detailed calculation methodology, as contained in the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act, 2000 (2005-2008) Provider Guidelines.
The funding provided to non-government schools is also publicly available through the National Report to Parliament, which is available at:
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Indigenous/Resources/Documents/2008NRPIndigenousEdTraining.pdf
NOTE: in most cases, payments to non-government schools were either made to clusters of schools through a single school, or direct to education systems which then disbursed the funding to individual schools. Payments which were made this way are not reportable at the school level.
(b) 2009 to 2011 per capita payments to non-government schools for Indigenous Students (Schools Assistance Act, 2008).
Attachment B outlines Indigenous funding paid to non-government schools on a per capita basis over the period 2009 to 2011. The per capita elements are segmented by two programs:
The enrolments included in Attachment B are those reported at Schools Census Day and may vary from other published data as they do not include enrolment variations made after the end of a calendar year. The data includes the percentage of Indigenous enrolments at each school and the location of the school.
Funding amounts for systemic schools listed in Attachment B are the amounts that the schools are entitled to under the existing Commonwealth funding arrangements and may be different from the amounts allocated to the schools by the system authority. A detailed breakdown of the calculation methodology for Indigenous Supplementary Assistance and Indigenous Funding Guarantee funding is provided below.
Indigenous Supplementary Assistance.
Indigenous Supplementary Assistance is provided at a per capita rate, based on the level of schooling (primary or secondary) and whether the school is located in a remote/very remote area or a non remote area. The relevant per capita rates are then multiplied by the number of primary or secondary Indigenous enrolments at the school.
The initial 2009 rates were determined by legislation and are set out in the Schools Assistance Act, 2008 (p. 57-62). The final 2009 rates were determined by indexing these initial rates by 2009 Average Government School Recurrent Costs. Similarly, the rates for subsequent years were determined by indexing the final rate of the preceding year by the Average Government School Recurrent Costs for the current year.
Indigenous Funding Guarantee
The Indigenous Funding Guarantee was introduced to ensure that non-government schools and school systems received total recurrent funding from 2009 at least comparable to that received in 2008. The Indigenous Funding Guarantee is a transition measure and is not intended to insulate schools from funding impacts associated with enrolment changes.
Only schools or systems that received Indigenous Funding Guarantee in 2009 are eligible to receive Indigenous Funding Guarantee in a subsequent program year. Once a school or system becomes ineligible for Indigenous Funding Guarantee funding, it ceases to be eligible for the remainder of the funding period.
The methods used to calculate the Indigenous Funding Guarantee are:
'Total School' Approach:
(for non-systemic schools) Compares 2008 total recurrent funding levels with total recurrent funding levels in a subsequent program year, adjusting for enrolment changes if these fall below 2008 levels.
'Per Capita' Approach:
(for non-systemic schools) Compares 2008 per capita recurrent funding levels with per capita recurrent funding levels in a subsequent program year.
School System Approach:
(for school systems) Compares a system's 2008 total recurrent funding levels with total recurrent funding levels in a subsequent program year. Calculations are based on the aggregate entitlements of a system's member schools.
For non-systemic schools, the Indigenous Funding Guarantee is calculated on either a total school or per capita basis, depending on which arrangement delivers the greatest funding to an eligible school.
Attachment B does not include the School System Approach as it has no per capita component.
(2) Note: per capita payments for Indigenous boarding students in the 2008 to 2011 funding years were transacted under two Acts. Payments in 2011 for Increased Indigenous Supplementary Assistance were made under the Schools Assistance Act, 2008. Payments for the per capita component of ABSTUDY in 2008 to 2011 inclusive were made under the Student Assistance Act, 1973. The response is therefore provided in two parts.
(a) 2011 Increased Indigenous Supplementary Assistance for non-remote boarding schools (Schools Assistance Act, 2008).
In the lead-up to the 2010 election, the Australian Government made a commitment to provide increased funding to eligible non government boarding schools with enrolments of more than 50 Indigenous boarding students. This commitment provides non-remote boarding schools with the higher (remote) rates of Indigenous Supplementary Assistance where more than 50 Indigenous students are boarding from remote Indigenous communities. Eligible schools will receive $2713 (primary) and $2552 (secondary) for each Indigenous boarding student from a remote Indigenous community. This payment is in addition to the per capita Indigenous Supplementary Assistance.
Five schools have been identified as eligible for Increased Indigenous Supplementary Assistance in 2011. These schools received funding at the secondary rate of $2552: Djarragun College, Gordonvale Qld; Mount St Bernard College, Herberton Qld; Kormilda College, Berrimah NT; St John's College, Stuart Park NT; and Marrara Christian School, Marrara NT.
Attachment B provides the funding details for each of these schools in the last column.
(b) 2008 to 2011 Indigenous per capita funding provided to non-government Schools (Student Assistance Act, 1973).
The only component of ABSTUDY paid on a per capita basis is the Under 16 Boarding Supplement. This supplement assists boarding schools with a significant number of Indigenous enrolments to cover the shortfall in boarding and tuition fees paid for students under 16 years of age. These students receive a lower rate of ABSTUDY Living Allowance than those students aged between 16 and 20 years.
The Under 16 Boarding Supplement provides the school with the difference between the two rates of ABSTUDY Living Allowance. These boarding schools then receive the same rate of ABSTUDY assistance for all their eligible secondary boarding students regardless of age.
For a school to qualify for this payment, at least 10 per cent of the total numbers of students enrolled at the school must be Indigenous Australians, or a minimum of 20 Indigenous students must be enrolled.
The Supplement is paid directly to qualifying schools twice a year by the Department of Human Services (formerly Centrelink). In 2011, qualifying boarding schools will receive $2294 per semester for each eligible student.
It is not practicable to collect and manually interrogate Department of Human Services data to provide a per capita breakdown of payments made. Attachment C lists the schools that were eligible to receive the Under 16 Boarding Supplement for their ABSTUDY eligible boarding students but does not include details of funding provided.
Attachments A, B and C are available from the Senate Table Office.
(1) (a) How much money has AusAID spent on Agent Orange responses in Vietnam in the past 10 years, including land rehabilitation, education and services for Agent Orange affected people; and (b) Can a breakdown be provided of that amount showing partner, amount, sector and province.
(2) Has Agent Orange including land rehabilitation, education and services for Agent Orange affected people, ever featured in the AusAID health strategy, Asia regional strategy or Vietnam strategy over the past 10 years.
(1) (a) Through the Direct Aid Program (DAP) the Australian Government has supported two projects relating to Agent Orange. These were both funded in 2005-06, one for USD7,000 (approximately AUD9,050) and the second for VND75,000,000 (approximately AUD6,250). (b) Thanh Xuan Peace Village in Hanoi
(2) No.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Minister's portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Minister's portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
For the purpose of answering the question, staffing is measured by Average Staffing Levels (ASL). As a Government Business Enterprise, the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS) operates on a commercial and competitive basis and does not receive any parliamentary appropriations and is not subject to the efficiency dividend.
(1) The following agencies have not had their budgeted ASL reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget changes: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, CrimTrac, Federal Court of Australia, Copyright Tribunal of Australia, Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
As identified in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements the Attorney-General's Department and the following agencies have had reductions in budgeted ASL as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget changes: Australian Crime Commission, Australian Federal Police, Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Family Court of Australia, High Court of Australia, and the National Native Title Tribunal.
The budgeted reductions are anticipated to be across a broad range of the portfolio's functions, areas and classifications in response to Government priorities over the forward estimates.
(2) The following agencies do not have planned staff reductions: Administrative Appeals Tribunal, Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Institute of Criminology, Australian Law Reform Commission, Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, CrimTrac, Federal Magistrates Court of Australia, High Court of Australia, Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.
Attorney-General's Department
The Department operates within budget and deploys employees between programs in response to Government priorities. In the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, the Department has forecast a reduction of 25 ASL, of which 21 ASL are directly related to changes in funding received for New Policy Proposals and four relate to a general reduction in staff numbers.
Australian Crime Commission
As outlined in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, the ACC is planning to reduce its staffing levels by an approximate 25 ASL. The ACC will manage this reduction through voluntary redundancies, natural attrition and the expiry of non-ongoing contracts. Measures are in place to ensure that priority areas of the ACC are allocated the resources required to perform their functions.
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
As outlined in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statement the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is planning a reduction in the average staffing level (ASL) of 90. The majority of staffing reductions will occur in the Passengers Division with average ASL levels being reduced by 87 over four years. There will also be a small number of other staff reductions across the agency. This reduction will be managed through natural attrition and adjustments to recruitment programs.
Australian Federal Police
As stated in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statement the AFP is anticipating a reduction of 72 ASL. The organisation has reduced its Full Time Equivalent (FTE) during the 2011-12 financial year due to natural attrition, retirements and voluntary redundancies. The voluntary redundancy program is part of a normal workforce management program for the organisation. The AFP will continue to exercise financial restraint.
As part of the Government's commitment to increase the number of sworn investigators by an additional 500, the AFP forecast an increase of 62 sworn investigators in the current financial year would bring the total increase under this initiative to 340.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
Yes. AUSTRAC is planning to reduce its staffing numbers. The number will be determined in light of the outcomes of other savings measures. This reduction will primarily be achieved through natural attrition and workforce planning strategies. Progress will be monitored throughout the year and other measures will be considered should the required reduction target not be met.
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
There are plans for further reductions. Staffing number reductions will be achieved across the broad range of office functions rather than in relation to specific areas, classifications, services or programs. As stated in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements the staffing levels expected for the out years are
(a) 2011-12 anticipated ASL 513;
(b) 2012-13 anticipated ASL 508;
(c) 2013-14 anticipated ASL 496;
(d) 2014-15 anticipated ASL 494.
Family Court of Australia
As outlined in the 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, the Family Court of Australia is planning to reduce its staffing levels by an approximate 25 ASL. Staffing reductions in the Court will be managed in accordance with the Commonwealth's redeployment principles which give a high priority to redeploying excess employees across the APS and stress that compulsory retrenchment should be avoided.
Federal Court of Australia, Copyright Tribunal of Australia and Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal
There will be a need for further staff reductions but there are no plans at this stage on how these will be achieved.
National Native Title Tribunal
There are plans for further reductions. The staffing levels expected for the out years are
(a) 2011-12 anticipated ASL 154;
(b) 2012-13 anticipated ASL 150;
(c) 2013-14 anticipated ASL 145.
(d) 2014-15 anticipated ASL is expected to plateau at 145.
The reduction in staffing will be achieved through implementing the Tribunal's Workforce Plan 2011-14, produced in August 2011. Measures to date include the following decisions:
(3) There are no planned changes across the portfolio to graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs with the following exceptions:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
The Graduate Development Program is anticipated to increase by 19 participants for the calendar year 2012.
A small increase in numbers for the National Trainee Training Program is anticipated for the calendar year 2012.
The Indigenous Graduate Program is anticipated to decrease by one participant for the calendar year 2012.
National Native Title Tribunal
As part of its Indigenous Employment Strategy, the Tribunal hopes to be able to offer a cadetship, traineeship or internship to an Indigenous employee each year.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
DFAT
Nil.
AusAID
Nil.
Austrade
Nil.
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC)
Nil.
Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR)
Nil.
What activities or functions of the Commonwealth have been, or will be, funded relying on a spending power under section 81 of the Constitution with respect to the year ended:
(a) 30 June 2010;
(b) 30 June 2011; and
(c) 30 June 2012.
No activities or functions of the Commonwealth have relied on a spending power under section 81 of the Constitution for the years ending:
(a) 30 June 2010;
(b) 30 June 2011; and
(c) 30 June 2012.
(1) What is the department spend on milk supplies for the following financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-12.
(2) Are these costs recovered by the department.
(3) Who utilises the milk that is supplied.
(1) (a) 2010-11: $16,928.01. (b) 2011-12: $4,437.16 (as at 20/09/2011).
(2) No.
(3) Departmental staff and visitors.
In regard to renewable energy:
(1) With reference to section 103 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 (the bill) which defines a carbon unit as personal property, has the department received legal advice on the consequence of defining a carbon unit as 'personal property'; if so, when was this advice received and when was the advice sought.
(2) What is the legal need to define a carbon unit as personal property, and what would be the consequence of not having this definition in the bill.
(3) Has the department received legal advice on any liability that a government might be exposed to if the clean energy legislation is rescinded and carbon units subsequently become worthless or lose value; if so, can a summary of this advice be provided.
(4) Has the department estimated the size of any liability that a government may be exposed to if it rescinds the clean energy legislation; if so, can estimates be provided over the next 10 years, or as many years as possible, as the value of carbon units presumably grows.
(5) In regard to any liability that a government may be exposed to from rescinding the clean energy legislation, does the liability depend on whether the carbon unit is issued in a fixed charge year, in a flexible charge year, freely issued or is an international emissions unit or an eligible Australian carbon credit.
(6) Can estimates be provided of the number and value of carbon units that will be on issue over the first 10 years, or as many years as possible, of the clean energy program, and can these estimates be disaggregated into units issued in a fixed charge year, units issued in a flexible charge year, units freely issued, international emissions units, eligible Australian carbon credit units and units otherwise issued or acquired.
(7) When will the department issue carbon units in a given flexible charge year and will they be issued ahead of flexible charge years; if so, when.
(8) Has the department received any legal advice on whether any rescinding of the clean energy legislation would equate to an 'acquisition' of carbon units for the purposes of section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution; if so, can a copy of that advice be provided.
(9) Can an explanation be provided as to the meaning of section 100(7)(a) of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 and does the surrendering of a carbon unit immediately after issue mean that the unit is not 'owned' by an individual at any particular time.
(10) Given that Mr Leeper told a hearing of the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee on 28 May 2010, that the modelling the department had at that time indicated that there would be some '16.2 million excess RECs in the market' after the surrender period of 14 February 2011, how many excess Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) there were in the market at the end of that surrender period.
(11) Given that the department also had modelling at that time suggesting that the number of small scale RECs would peak at around 11 million in 2010 which Mr Leeper suggested would fall away over time to approximately 6 million a year, can information be provided as to how many small scale RECs were created in 2010, and how many have been created so far in 2011.
(12) Can an explanation be provided as to why and how this difference occurred.
(13) What are the estimates for both small and large scale certificate creation for the next 3 years.
(14) Is the department confident the small scale RECs will all be out of the system by 2014.
(15) Given that in October 2010, Ms Rankin told the committee that, all up, under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan from 2007-08 to that date that expenditure was $959 million, what was the final cost of those programs, given that the subsidies have gone off-budget since the beginning of the calendar year.
(16) Can the following information be provided on an annual basis for as many years as there are records:
(a) the greenhouse gas savings attributable to solar hot water systems;
(b) the greenhouse gas savings attributable to domestic solar photovoltaic (PV) systems;
(c) figures on the current installed capacity of wind turbines; and
(d) estimates of how many megawatts of wind capacity is estimated will be needed in the renewable mix to reach the 2020 target.
(17) Given there have been numerous press reports in recent months concerning complaints over installation, especially over photovoltaic installations, has the department set in place tougher oversight standards; if so, have these been implemented.
(18) (a) How many complaints have been made by solar panel installers that have on sold their credits to brokers and have lost money;
(b) how much has been lost in dollar terms, and
(c) how many companies have defaulted.
(1) Yes, the Department received legal advice on this issue on 21 September 2011. The advice was requested on 16 September 2011. Legal advice is subject to legal professional privilege.
(2) The purpose of clause 103 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 (the Bill), together with a range of other provisions in the legislation, is to ensure that the legal status of carbon units which have not been surrendered is clear. Transparent and certain property rights are fundamental for any efficient and well functioning market.
Carbon units will be created by statute and would have no existence apart from statute. The statute determines the legal nature of the units. Without express provision in the statute, there would be uncertainty about the nature of units. There has been uncertainty in the past about the treatment of emissions units in the European Union and Kyoto trading schemes. The legislation avoids uncertainty about these issues.
Clause 103 would clarify that carbon units are a form of property. They would therefore have the characteristics of property in Australian law, subject to contrary statutory provision. They could, for instance, be traded, offered as security, trust property, taxed as property, the subject of family law proceedings or vested in a trustee in bankruptcy. If clause 103 was omitted from the Bill, there would be uncertainty about these matters.
The purpose of clause 103 is not to bind a future parliament by attracting s51(xxxi) of the Constitution (relating to acquisition of property on just terms) to the repeal of the legislation. Whether or not carbon units are property for the purposes of s51(xxxi) is not conclusively determined by declaring in the legislation that the units are personal property. The courts have found that permits created under other regulatory schemes can be property for this purpose, even if the underpinning legislation did not state this explicitly. If clause 103 was omitted from the Bill, this would not ensure that repeal of the legislation did not acquire property contrary to s51(xxxi).
(3) Yes, see answer to part (1) above.
(4) The Department has not carried out any quantification of liabilities that might arise as a result of repeal of the legislation.
(5) Whether any liability exists would depend on the nature of the particular unit and the precise circumstances in which any repeal took place.
(6) The actual number of units issued in the first 10 years of the mechanism will depend on reported emissions in the fixed price years and the pollution cap in the flexible price years. Accurate estimates of the number of units will therefore depend on future decisions by liable parties and also by the Government when it sets the pollution caps.
(7) The Clean Energy Regulator (the Regulator) will issue carbon units in a given flexible charge year under four different circumstances:
(a) As a result of an auction conducted by the Regulator.
The timing of auctions will be determined by legislative instrument (Part 4; Section 113 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011). The Government has announced that there will be advance auctions of flexible price permits in the fixed price period.
(b) In accordance with the Price Ceiling.
In the first three years of the flexible price period, if the carbon price increases above a fixed price ceiling set in regulations, participants will be able to buy carbon units from the Regulator at that fixed price.
(c) In accordance with the Jobs and Competitiveness Program.
Free carbon units under the Jobs and Competitiveness Program will likely be issued early in the financial year. Applications for free carbon units can be made from 1 July to 31 October of the relevant flexible charge year with an extension to 31 December in extenuating circumstances. The Regulator will assess and process applications as soon as possible with maximum assessment times specified (exposure draft of the Clean Energy Regulations 2011).
(d) In accordance with Part 8 of the Clean Energy Bill 2011 (coal-fired electricity generation)
The Regulator will issue free carbon units on 1 September 2015 and 1 September 2016 (Part 8; Section 161 of the Bill).
(8) Yes, see answer to part (1) above.
(9) Under clause 100(7)(a), a fixed charge carbon unit is taken to be surrendered as soon as it is issued. The purpose of the automatic cancellation is to prevent trading and banking of purchased units, which is unnecessary in the fixed charge years.
Carbon units that are surrendered automatically are cancelled and the entry for the unit is removed from the Registry account in which it is entered, under clause 122(10). Removal from the Registry account upon surrender applies to all carbon units, regardless of whether they are fixed charge units, free units issued in a fixed or flexible charge year, or auctioned units.
A person who surrenders a unit ceases to be the legal owner of the unit when the entry for the unit is removed from the person's Registry account.
(10) There were approximately 34.4 million excess Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) after the surrender period of 14 February 2011. The Government has made clear that declining system costs, the high Australian dollar and state and territory feed-in tariffs accelerated solar photovoltaic (PV) deployment since the modelling released in May 2010 has lead the Government to bring forward the phase-out of the solar credits multiplier.
(11) In 2010, the concept of small-scale technology certificates did not exist but 25.29 million RECs were validly created in relation to the installation of small generation units and solar water heaters. As at 4 December 2011, 48.99 million
Small-scale Technology Certificates (STCs) have been validly created from the installation of small generation units and solar water heaters.
(12) In December 2010, to ensure that households continue to contribute to the cost of installing solar systems and to ease pressure on electricity prices, the Government announced changes to the Solar Credits multiplier to bring the scheduled phase-out forward by one year to 30 June 2014.
Since that time, strong demand for solar panels has continued, fuelled by declining system costs, the strong Australian dollar and economy, as well as incentives such as Solar Credits and state and territory feed-in tariff schemes. In response to this demand, and to help place the industry on a more sustainable development path, the Government announced on 5 May 2011 that it would bring forward the phase-out of the Solar Credits multiplier by a further year from 1 July 2011.
The most recent adjustment to the Solar Credits multiplier will help reduce the oversupply of STCs, which has suppressed the spot price for STCs. Any excess STCs created this year will be added to the 2012 Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES) liability, consistent with the requirements of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) legislation.
The changes to Solar Credits will continue support to households, businesses and communities for the upfront cost of installing solar panels, while helping to moderate market demand and the impact on electricity prices, and placing the industry on a more sustainable development path.
(13) The Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (ORER) does not provide estimates for large scale certificate creation.
Due to recent legislative changes and after having received independent data, the ORER has revised the 2012–13 non-binding Small-scale Technology Percentages (STP).
The non-binding STP published on 29 July 2011 under section 40B of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 for:
* Includes an estimate of 20.1 million excess STCs to be created in 2011, over the 28 million estimate used in setting the legislated 2011 STP in December 2010. Also includes an updated estimated total of 18.4 million STCs to be created in 2012.
(14) For the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme component of the RET, any over or under estimation in the 2011 STP is included in the 2012 STP, as shown in the 2012 non-binding target in part (13).
(15) From December 2007 to June 2011, a total of $997 million has been provided for solar power installations under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan.
(16) (a) Indicative annual greenhouse gas savings attributable to solar and heat pump water heater systems are listed in table 1 below.
Table 1
Installation year Annual savings from installations since 2001 in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e)
These estimates are derived from the number of certificates issued under the RET scheme for solar and heat pump water heaters installed each year since 2001 as reported by the ORER.
One RET scheme certificate is taken to be equivalent to 1 megawatt-hour (MWh) of avoided fossil based electricity. For each year, a national average emission factor, in tonnes of CO2-e per MWh of electricity displaced (based on Australia's emissions projections 2010, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Feb 2011) has been used (see Table 2 below).
Table 2
(b) The indicative annual greenhouse gas savings attributable to rooftop solar PV systems are set out in Table 3 below.
Table 3
Installation Year Annual savings from installations since 2001 in Tonnes of CO2-e
These estimates are derived from the number of rooftop solar (PV) installations creating certificates under the RET scheme or receiving rebates under the Solar Homes and Communities Plan each year since 2001.
The conversion from system capacity to annual zero emissions energy generated utilised the RET zone ratings as shown in Schedule 5 of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001. It was assumed that all solar panels were in Zone 3 as this is where the majority are likely to have been installed.
The emission factors used are the same as those listed in part 16(a) above. These factors may be higher than actual, as the higher proportion of gas-fired generation during the day means that emissions intensity of electricity tends to be lower at these times, when electricity from solar PV is produced.
As of September 2011, the total installed capacity of wind farms around Australia that are accredited under the RET scheme since 2001 is around 2,550 MW.
The Government estimates that the RET, in combination with a carbon price, is anticipated to drive in the order of 6,500 MW of additional wind power capacity by 2020.
(17) Regulations to strengthen compliance in relation to Small Generation Units (SGUs) were enacted in November 2010. Before certificates can be created for solar PV systems these amendments require systems to be installed to meet:
The solar PV system must also be installed by a licensed electrician in that state or territory jurisdiction.
The ORER began inspecting SGUs in May 2011.
(18) The ORER does not collect data on these issues. Consumer matters such as
non-payment for certificates would typically be directed to state and territory Fair Trading Offices.
In regard to carbon tax on fuel:
(1) With reference to page 123 of the Department of Finance and Administration's Australia's plan for a clean energy future: Regulation impact statement, which states 'The Government does not know of any small businesses who would be directly liable under the carbon price', and given that the Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment (Clean Energy) Bill will 'provide an effective carbon price on business through the fuel tax system; is it correct that if the regulation impact statement is correct then no small business will pay the effective carbon price on fuel.
(2) Is it true that under the fuel tax changes thousands of small businesses will face a direct carbon price.
(3) How many businesses around the country will be subject to the carbon price on fuel from 1 July 2011.
(4) Is it correct that, based on Australian Taxation Office data, 60 000 businesses, including small businesses, will pay the carbon price, not just 500 big polluters as claimed by the Government.
(1) The Small Business Impact Statement of the Regulation Impact Statement is correct in stating that, "the Government does not know of any small businesses who would be directly liable under the carbon price". About 500 of the biggest polluters in Australia will be required to pay the carbon price under the carbon pricing mechanism. An effective carbon price will apply to certain fuel-related emissions as elaborated in the answer to Part 2.
(2) In summary, the fuel tax changes are:
Treasury has advised that it is not possible to give a precise estimate of the number of businesses which will be subject to these changed arrangements. This is due to overlaps in the activities undertaken by businesses, the nature of the liabilities for excise and customs duties and eligibility for fuel tax credits. It should also be noted that, even with the changed arrangements, a number of construction, manufacturing, wholesale/retail, property management and landscaping activities, as well as a wide range of other activities, will receive a larger fuel tax credit from 1 July 2012 than they do in 2011-12, due to the phasing up of fuel tax credits. The Government has also announced that from 1 July 2013, large users of specified fuels will be able to voluntarily opt to use the permit-based carbon pricing mechanism instead of the arrangements outlined above.
(3) Please refer to Part 2.
(4) Please refer to Part 2.
With reference to the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS):
(1) For Round 1, 2 and 3 can a table be provided listing the total number and percentage of NRAS incentives that were awarded but could not be accepted, disaggregating cash and tax deduction grants.
(2) Were these incentives simply returned to the NRAS funding pool and allocated in subsequent rounds.
(3) Can the key reasons be provided for applicants having to return incentives in (1) above, distinguishing between profit and not-for-profit organisations.
(1) For rounds one, two and three of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, information on offers of incentives that were not accepted was not collected or aggregated in the Scheme's program management system. Collecting this information from individual applications would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental staff resources. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) is seeking to capture this information as applicants respond to offers made under Round Four.
(2) Yes.
(3) For rounds one, two and three of the National Rental Affordability Scheme, information on offers of incentives that were not accepted was not collected or aggregated in the Scheme's program management system. Collecting this information from individual applications would require an unreasonable diversion of departmental staff resources. The department is seeking to capture this information as applicants respond to offers made under Round Four.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. E414-07 taken on notice during the 2006-07 Budget estimates of the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, can an update of that answer be provided.
An update to advice provided to answer E414-07 is attached ( available from the Senate Table Office ). This document has been prepared based on the current portfolio program structure as reported in the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS).
Forward estimates are based on program estimates included in the 2011-12 (PBS) and the actual expenditure information is based on the 2010-11 financial statements information as reported in the 2010-11 Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Annual Report as tabled 13 October 2011.
For each program in the department and agencies that fall under the Minister's portfolio:
(1) Is the program ongoing, lapsing or terminating.
(2) Can a breakdown of the expenditure be provided by administered and departmental costs.
(3) What are the program staffing numbers and the location of those staff.
(4) How many regulations are associated with the program.
(5) Can a list of those regulations be provided.
In relation to each component of your request the following information is provided:
(1) The response provided to Parliamentary Questions 1234 and 1235 contains information for each administered program, as reported in the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements.
(2) The breakdown of administered budget and forward estimates, by program, is reported in the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements, and is also contained in the response (detailed above) provided to Parliamentary Questions 1234 and 1235.
(3) As previously provided in response to Parliamentary Questions 900 and 901, resourcing for the management of programs, including ASL, administered on behalf of the Australian Government is not allocated, or recorded within financial management and human resource systems, on an administered program basis.
(4) A full listing of all regulations that have been made under each Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (EEWR) portfolio Act, and as published in the current Administrative Arrangement Orders (of 14 October 2010) was provided in the response to Parliamentary Questions 900 and 901.
What was the department's total expenditure on advertising in the 2010-11 financial year, and what was the program breakdown for this expenditure.
The Department's 2010-11 Annual Report includes information on advertising expenditure during 2010-11. This information is summarised below:
In regard to curable blindness in the Asia-Pacific region:
(a) since 24 November 2007, what sum of money has the Australian Government spent on addressing this condition; and
(b) what countries are receiving Australian Government assistance to address this condition.
(a) Australia has spent about $55 million on addressing preventable blindness in the Asia-Pacific region since 24 November 2007.
(b) The countries that are receiving Australian Government assistance to address curable blindness in the Asia-Pacific region are: Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, China, East Timor, Fiji, India, Indonesia, Laos, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Vietnam.
In regard to training eye health professionals, including ophthalmologists and ophthalmic nurses, since 24 November 2007, what sum has been spent to support local surgical capacity in the Asia-Pacific region.
Since 24 November 2007, over $6 million has been spent on training eye health professionals, including ophthalmologists and ophthalmic nurses, to support local surgical capacity in the Asia-Pacific region.
(1) Are there any prohibitions on Australian companies selling seal products.
(2) Is the department aware of the sale of seal products in Australia, or of Australian businesses selling seal products elsewhere; if so, have any efforts been made to restrict the sale of such products in Australia or for businesses to be based here.
(3) Has Australia been involved in international discussions or expressed concern to Namibia about the operation of its seal culling.
(1) Commercial trade of seals taken in Commonwealth waters is prohibited (under Part 13 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).
Commercial trade in species (including their parts or derivatives) listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is only allowed in very limited circumstances (under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999). The seal species Arctocephalus townsendi is listed on Appendix I of CITES.
Commercial trade in species listed on Appendix II of CITES is strictly regulated. All other seals of the genus Arctocephalus (including their parts or derivatives) are listed on Appendix II of CITES and therefore require the issuing of permits prior to their importation into, and export out of, Australia (under Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999).
Commercial trade in seal species not taken in Commonwealth waters and not listed on the appendices to CITES is not regulated by the Australian Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
(2) The Australian Government department responsible for regulating international wildlife trade, the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has advised that it is not aware of any commercial import or export of seal products of seal species listed on the appendices to CITES. No permits for the import or export of products containing the genus Arctocephalus have been issued under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
(3) No.
In regard to the Australians who were arrested in Thailand on charges of lese-majeste:
(1) Do Australian authorities advise a guilty plea; if so can the reasoning for this be provided.
(2) Have Australian authorities discussed concerns with their Thai counterparts about the court processes and bail applications for foreigners charged with this offence.
(3) Have Australian authorities discussed their opposition to the freedom of speech restrictions this law places on Thailand's citizens and visitors.
(1) No
(2) No
(3) The Australian Embassy in Bangkok discusses human rights issues, including in relation to freedom of speech, with a range of interlocutors in Thailand, including senior government figures and officials.
Australia also delivered a statement to the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) on 5 October 2011 as part of the HRC's review of the human rights situation in Thailand.
The Australian statement, in relevant part, suggested 'that the committee established to provide advice on the conduct of lèse majesté cases under Article 112 of Thailand's Criminal Code, as part of its deliberations, take account of Thailand's international treaty obligations to protect freedom of expression'.
With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0580 taken on notice during the 2010-11 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, how much notice was given to the Premier, the two mayors, the service providers, Commonwealth Government agencies and the external stakeholders prior to the announcement.
On 05 April 2011 the Government announced a new immigration detention centre would be commissioned at the Defence facility at Pontville, 30 kilometres north of Hobart, Tasmania.
The Minister contacted the Premier several days prior to the announcement and contacted the Mayor of Brighton the day before the announcement. The following key stakeholders were initially contacted by officers of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on the same morning. Not all stakeholders were able to be reached at the first contact and follow up calls were required.
Mr Rhys Edwards, Secretary, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tasmania)
Mayor Anthony Bisdee, Southern Midlands Local Government Area
Paul Mahony, Managing Director, and Tony Hassall, Director Serco – Detention Services Provider
Michael Gardiner, Managing Director of International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) – Health Services Provider
Robert Tickner, CEO of Australian Red Cross
Claire Robbs, Deputy CEO of Life Without Barriers
Dr Gillian Long Manager of Phoenix Support Service for Survivors of Torture and Trauma
Simon Lewis, Deputy Secretary of Department of Defence
Ramzi Jabbour, Assistant Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police
Jonelle Lancashire, AFP Regional Manager for Tasmania
Deputy Commissioner of the Tasmanian Police
Paris Aristotle, Ray Funnell AC and Kerrin Benson, members of the Councill for Immigration Services and Status Resolution (CISSR)
Allan Asher, Commonwealth Ombudsman
Hon. Catherine Branson QC, President of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC)
Richard Towle, UNHCR Regional Representative for Australia
Dr Graham Thom, Australia's Refugee Coordinator, Amnesty International
Prof Louise Newman Detention Health Advisory Group (DHAG)
Paul Power CEO of Refugee Council of Australia
The following Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) providers were sent an email approximately one hour before the announcement:
Julian van Leer - Craddock Murray Neumann
Petra Playfair - Playfair Visa & Migration Services
Florin Burhala - Florin Burhala & Associates
John Vrachnas - Vrachnas Lawyers
Roz Smidt - Vrachnas Lawyers
David Manne - RILC
Libby Hogarth - Australian Migration Options
Christopher Boundy - Legal Services Commission SA
Nigel Calver - Centrecare
Justin Stevenson - Legal Aid Commission WA
Meena Sripathy - RACS
In regard to the deterioration of water quality in the Gladstone Harbour, Queensland, and testing that has been undertaken to determine the cause of diseased fish and the harmful effect on local fishermen due to handling diseased fish and contaminated nets:
(1) Is the Queensland Government testing for bacteria; if so:
(a) what are the plate levels of the bacteria;
(b) where in the harbor is this testing being undertaken;
(c) have samples been taken in the marina where reports of fishermen suffering from infection are prevalent; and
(d) are the levels of bacteria identified in the harbour the same type of bacteria identified as causing the lesions recently found on the local fisherman.
(2) Have the established processes for the investigation of water quality and fish kills been followed according to Government departmental protocols/manuals of the Department of Environment and Resource Management and Fisheries Queensland.
(3) What are the levels of acceptable turbidity set at and how was this
determined.
(4) Is the Minister aware of any exceedances of turbidity levels in the harbour; if so, when.
(5) How many testing points are there and where are they located.
(6) Were any missing data points interpreted as zero; if so, how many and what impact would this have in significantly underestimating the levels of turbidity in the harbour.
(7) Is the Minister confident that the current water testing regime and results have been comprehensive enough to exclude all possible causes of the diseases in the marine life in the harbour.
(8) Have tests been conducted or are they being conducted to measure the levels of polychlorinated biphenyl, hydrocarbons, pesticides, hydrogen sulphides and cadmium.
(9) As a matter of public record, will the names of the organisations conducting the tests in the harbour be made available and will the veracity of the data from these test results be independently audited.
(10) What other water sampling has been done in the harbour by the Gladstone Water Board and can a copy of these results be made available as a priority.
(11) Is the department closely monitoring the progress of the water tests in the harbour and the likely impact of dredging and dumping of spoil near the Great Barrier Reef on water quality.
(12) Does the Minister consider there is any risk to the World Heritage listing of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park given the ongoing environmental damage in the Gladstone region.
(1) The Australian Government has a role in regulating dredging activities in Gladstone harbour to the extent they are conducted under relevant approvals under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The testing and regulation of water quality in Gladstone harbour is managed by Queensland state agencies. Specific questions relating to these tests should be directed to the relevant state agencies. The most recent reports received by the Department of Sustainability, Water, Environment, Population and Communities (the department) are:
http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Fisheries_CommercialFisheries/BQ-Gladstone-Fish-Report-November-2011.pdf
(2) The investigation of water quality in relation to fish deaths is a matter for Queensland state agencies, including the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management and Fisheries Queensland.
(3) The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities approved the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal project on 22 October 2010 under the EPBC Act (EPBC 2009/4904). Under plans required by the conditions for that approval, threshold levels of turbidity are set. If those levels are exceeded, then the proponent must report exceedences, undertake an investigation and implement measures to reduce turbidity. Threshold turbidity levels are set at Nephelometric Turbidity Units (a standard measure of turbidity) and were determined from data taken over the last 15 years of background water quality in the Gladstone area, and on advice from the Dredge Technical Reference Panel established under the conditions.
(4) The Gladstone Port Corporation Ltd has reported three exceedances of turbidity to the department on 29 September 2011, 10 October 2011 and 25 October 2011. The required response measures were consequently implemented, including a suspension of dredging.
(5) There are over 175 water quality monitoring sites in the Gladstone area as part of the Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program, from the Narrows in the north to Seal Rocks in the south. The monitoring program is publically available at www.pcimp.com.au/
(6) Based on the data provided to the department by the Gladstone Ports Corporation for the purpose of EPBC conditions of approval, no missing data points have been interpreted as being zero.
(7) Under the conditions of approval imposed on the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal program, the proponent must implement a water quality monitoring program to protect sensitive marine ecosystems. The department is satisfied that the ongoing monitoring program to date (7 November 2011) has complied with the requirements of that program. The investigation of causes of diseases in marine life more generally is a matter for state regulatory agencies.
(8) Assessment of sediments was undertaken under an Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 permit application and the EPBC Act assessment process. In the course of that assessment, the department received expert advice that the material to be dredged met the standards in the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009. The tests included tests for polychlorinated biphenyl and heavy metals such as cadmium.
(9) Water quality reports with respect to primary water quality monitoring sites are available publically on Gladstone Ports Corporation's website at http://www.gpcl.com.au/Environment/EnvironmentalMonitoring.aspx. Under the EPBC Act conditions of approval for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal project (EPBC 2009/4904), compliance reports must be provided every 12 months. Under those conditions, the department may also require the proponent to undertaken an independent audit. To date (7 November 2011), the department has not required such an audit to be undertaken.
(10) The department has not received a water sampling report from the Gladstone Water Board.
(11) Yes.
(12) The department has invited a joint World Heritage Centre and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reactive monitoring mission to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property. The Minister is confident that following their visit, the World Heritage Committee will be reassured that the Great Barrier Reef is managed to world best-practice standard.
In regard to the draft memorandum of understanding negotiated by the Government with Paladin Energy Ltd to access the Oobagooma uranium deposit in Western Australia:
(1) When will that memorandum of understanding be finalised.
(2) What were the timelines and dates of meetings in the process of its negotiation.
(3) How does the development of a uranium mine in the middle of the Kimberley National Heritage Listed area not compromise the integrity of that listing.
(4) Has the Minister advised the Minister for Resources and Energy that allowing access to the area would undermine the integrity of the Kimberley National Heritage Listed area.
(1) and (2) The memorandum of understanding is being negotiated by the Department of Finance and Deregulation on behalf of the Special Minister of State. These questions should be addressed to that portfolio.
(3) Any proposal to mine uranium would need to be referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Any such proposal would be carefully assessed for its likely impacts, including on national heritage values.
(4) Paladin Energy Ltd has not referred a mining proposal under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 at this stage. Accordingly, the Minister has not provided advice to the Minister for Resources and Energy relating to such a proposal.
In regard to the Japanese Government's recent announcement that it will send whaling ships to the Southern Ocean again in 2011 with a 'patrol boat' from the Fisheries Agency to strengthen protection:
(1) Can a copy be provided of the Australian Embassy's translation of the comments from the Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries about Japan's intention to send whaling ships and a patrol boat to the Southern Ocean in 2011.
(2) Does the Australian Government know what sort of military capabilities the Japanese patrol boat has.
(3) If it is a Hayabusa class patrol boat, is it true that such a vessel has three gun housings and surface-to-surface missiles.
(4) If it is a long-range Shikishima class patrol boat: (a) is it true that it has a helicopter pad; and (b) does this sort of vessel have military capabilities; if so, can details be provide ovided.
(5) Has the Australian Government sought clarification on what Japan's Minister meant when he said the patrol boat was being sent to 'strengthen the protection given to the research whaling ships'.
(6) Has the Australian Government taken legal advice on its duty of care to activists protecting whales in Australia's territorial waters and the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary; if so, did the legal advice detail any duty on Australia's behalf to send its own patrol boat to ensure the Japanese vessel does not endanger peaceful protests in its territorial waters.
(7) Has the Australian Government had discussions with the New Zealand Government following Japan's announcement that it will strengthen the protection of its fleet and the public comments made by the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs about the danger this could pose; if so, who was involved and when did they occur.
(1) Yes. A copy is attached of the Australian Embassy in Tokyo's translation of the press statement given by Japanese Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Michihiko Kano on 4 October 2011.
(2) The Japanese Government has advised that it will send an additional Japan Fisheries Agency vessel to the Southern Ocean. Japan has advised that the vessel will not be a military or Coastguard vessel, nor will it have military capabilities.
(3) Japan has advised that the vessel will not be a military or Coastguard vessel, nor will it have military capabilities.
(4) Japan has advised that the vessel will not be a military or Coastguard vessel, nor will it have military capabilities.
(5) Yes. The Australian Embassy in Tokyo has sought clarification of Minister Kano's statement from Japanese officials. The Japanese Government has advised that the additional Japan Fisheries Agency vessel will be sent to the Southern Ocean for the purpose of supervising the activities of the whaling fleet on behalf of the Japan Fisheries Agency. Japan has indicated that it will not provide any further public information on the vessel's role.
(6) The Government has not obtained specific legal advice on this question. Under international law it is the duty of the master of a vessel to operate the vessel in accordance with international law and to ensure the safety of human life at sea. Australia has repeatedly called upon all parties involved to exercise restraint and ensure safety. Australia has fulfilled and will continue to fulfil all its international legal obligations arising from events in the Southern Ocean.
(7) Yes. DFAT consulted with counterparts in the New Zealand Government (MFAT) shortly after Japan's announcement. The discussions covered the contents of the Japanese announcement, sharing of views about possible implications for whaling policy and safety at sea, and sharing of information about the responses that the Australian and New Zealand governments had respectively released.
ATTACHMENT
Australian Embassy (Tokyo) Translation
Press Conference by Michihiko Kano, Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
9.50-10.07AM, Tuesday 4 October 2011, MAFF
Minister:
(…) Regarding scientific whaling, we will conduct scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean this year. We will strengthen countermeasures against obstruction activities, such as dispatching a Fisheries Agency's surveillance vessel.
(…)
Reporter:
Minister, regarding scientific whaling, would you explain the reasons that Japan decided to continue whaling in the Southern Ocean?
Minister:
We came to conclusion that Japan should continue scientific whaling. The Review Committee studied various issues [on scientific whaling], and there were various opinions. Considering these opinions as a reference, including safety issues, we made a decision to continue scientific whaling.
Reporter:
To do this [continue scientific whaling in the Southern Ocean], ensuring safety measures was an absolute must. Grateful your explanation about this.
Minister:
So, we will dispatch a JFA surveillance vessel. And, the Cabinet Secretariat is coordinating for the final details of countermeasures against obstruction activities. We are not at the stage of announcing details at the moment. We are still working on the final details.
Reporter:
I understand that you requested the Japan Coast Guard to send a vessel. Why will the JFA's surveillance vessel go instead?
Minister:
I cannot share any further details on this. I have consulted with Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transportation, previous Transport Minister, Director-General of the Fisheries Agency and Commandant of the Japan Coast Guard. We are communicating with the Cabinet Secretariat and relevant Ministries and Agencies to work out final details, including ensuring safety measures.
Reporter:
Excuse me. I would like to ask you a related question. You said the Japanese government took a position to continue scientific whaling. I understand sales of by-products [from whales caught] did not cover the cost of the scientific whaling expedition, as the withdrawal from the Southern Ocean in the middle of the scientific program in the last season meant that the catch was significantly under the quota last season. Could you explain the reasons you decided to continue scientific whaling despite the financial costs?
Minister:
Basically, Japan's aim is to resume commercial whaling and this our precondition. To achieve the goal, we have to continue scientific whaling. At the International Whaling Commission annual meeting this year, member countries unanimously voted for safety on the sea. I would like to assert Japan's position on this.
( … )
Reporter:
I would like to ask you a question about the decision on scientific whaling. Could you tell us whether you made a decision because you were sure about ensuring safety of crew members for a certain degree, or did you decide to continue scientific whaling first and are working out the details to provide safety measures afterwards?
Minister:
As I said specifically in this press conference, dispatching JFA's surveillance vessel is a safety measure, and the Japanese government is working on details of countermeasures against obstruction activities through the Cabinet Secretariat. As it is obvious, I recognise the necessity of new measures for safety to enable the continuation of scientific whaling.
Reporter:
So, you made the decision because you were confident with your safety measures to a certain degree.
Minister:
Well, even dispatching JFA's surveillance vessel is one of our safety measures. The Japanese government is working on details of the other measures. MAFF has already proposed its own views on this within the process.
In regard to the Australian Health survey currently being conducted:
(1) How many previous Australian Health surveys have been conducted and in which years were they conducted.
(2) Can a copy of the form used for the Australian Health survey be provided.
(3) Are the questions posed in the current Australian Health survey more extensive than those in previous surveys; if so, what were the extra questions.
(4) In general terms and in relation to Australian Bureau of Statistics surveys, be it the census, small business etc, how often is a penalty for failure to answer questions imposed.
(1) Health surveys have previously been conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in 1977-78, 1983, 1989-90, 1995, 2001, 2004-05 and 2007-08.
(2) No form is available as the Australian Health Survey is being conducted using a Computer Assisted Interview approach to ensure efficient data collection and reduce respondent load by only asking questions that are relevant to them. Instead, a list of data items available from the results of the survey can be provided on request.
(3) Overall, the questions posed in the Australian Health Survey are very similar to previous cycles, with the addition of more detailed questions in relation to physical activity and dietary intake. In addition, for the first time this survey asks for the voluntary provision of blood and/or urine samples for further analysis of key measures such as cholesterol, diabetes, kidney function and salt, amongst others.
(4) The ability to issue fines does not rest with the ABS. Under the Census and Statistics Act 1905 , the ABS can make a recommendation to the Commonwealth Directory of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) to prosecute a respondent for failure to supply information requested by the ABS. The application of a penalty is at the discretion of the Court. The ABS Annual Report 2010-11 (Table 8.8, page 114) notes that a total of 30 cases were referred to the CDPP in the four financial years to 2010-11.
In regard to the July 2011 SKM-MMA report to treasury on the carbon price Carbon Pricing and Australia's Electricity Markets which included analysis of capital and operating costs for Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (IGCC) power stations like HRL and which also modelled what generation capacity in the Latrobe Valley might look like over the next 4 decades with a carbon price and which concluded that will be no generation from IGCC power stations like the HRL project: if State and Federal Government grants made it economic for the HRL project to be built ahead of combined cycle gas turbine or renewable energy technologies, could those grants have the effect of crowding out less polluting generation.
Government grants for a range of clean energy technologies typically support the development of technology options which would not otherwise be commercially available to the market.
The HRL Dual Gas project was selected for grant funding under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund (LETDF) which also supports other technology demonstration projects including renewable projects.
Developing clean energy technologies is challenging and bringing these technologies to market so they are competitive in their own right takes time. As the HRL project has yet to meet its condition precedent and no Commonwealth LETDF grant funding has been received by the HRL project it is difficult to see how this could influence or 'crowd out' investment in other forms of low emitting or renewable technology that are commercially available.
(1) When is it anticipated that the foreshadowed changes to the low interference potential devices (LIPD) class licence for wireless audio equipment users will be made.
(2) What will the notice period be between deciding on the final changes to the LIPD class licence and the promulgation of these changes.
(3) When and how will importers, wholesalers and retailers be advised that they are no longer authorised to sell wireless audio equipment operating in the 694 820 MHz band.
(4) Prior to 31 December 2014, how would an ordinary user of wireless audio equipment ascertain whether the equipment that they own is compliant with any changes to the LIPD class licence.
(5) As more than 80 per cent of existing wireless audio users currently have equipment which utilises the 694 820 MHz band, would it be accurate to say that 'most' or 'the majority' of users will have to replace their equipment.
(6) For small businesses, bands, churches or community groups, what is the typical value of the wireless devices that they will have to replace.
(7) For a large business such as convention centres or musical theatre companies, what is the typical value of the wireless devices that they will have to replace.
(8) Has the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) or the department had any communications with eBay or other online marketplaces which currently facilitate the parallel import of wireless audio devices tuned for other markets into Australia; if so, what is the plan to ensure that these marketplaces only allow the importation of equipment compliant with the amended LIPD class licence.
(9) Has the ACMA or the Minister examined the migration mechanisms of wireless audio devices out of digital dividend spectrum in other countries; if so, were they successful and what factors determined this success.
(10) What testing has been conducted to determine the likelihood for interference to various kinds of potential purchasers of the digital dividend spectrum and the potential of this to impact auction revenues.
(1) The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has advised that it may make two variations to the Low Interference Potential Devices (LIPD) Class Licence.
The first, in mid-2012, would make spectrum available prior to completion of the restack of broadcasting services in the event that spectrum becomes available in other bands, for example the 800 MHz band.
The second, in mid-2013, would amend the LIPD Class Licence to make spectrum available within the 700 MHz band and the remaining broadcast bands once the extent of that availability is known.
A public consultation will be undertaken in relation to each variation.
(2) The ACMA has advised that, after assessing submissions to the public consultation process, approximately two months would typically be required to make the necessary variation to the LIPD Class Licence.
(3) The ACMA is working with the wireless audio device community, including with the industry representative body, the Australian Wireless Audio Group, to provide them with sufficient time and information to make the necessary adjustments.
The operation of a LIPD is subject to specific conditions detailed in the LIPD Class Licence in addition to the provisions of the Radiocommunications Act 1992. Devices manufactured, imported, or modified after 26 September 2001, and operating under the LIPD Class Licence must comply with all radiocommunications standards applicable to them.
The ACMA does not licence importers, wholesalers and retailers of electronic equipment. Entities trading in electronic equipment that are covered by the LIPD Class Licence are required to comply with the C-Tick compliance regime published on the ACMA website.
(4) It is standard practice for the ACMA to communicate upcoming changes to licensing arrangements well in advance of the changes coming into effect, and to provide information to users, vendors and industry bodies to enable them to educate their customers and members about the changes. The ACMA publishes changes to its website and has published notices in Australian newspapers. The Australian Wireless Audio Group has advised it is working to identify affected users and how they may best be communicated with.
(5) (6) and (7) The number of affected devices that will need to be replaced as a direct consequence of variations to the LIPD Class Licence is not currently known. This is because the extent of the impact will be heavily dependent on individual user circumstances such as their geographic location, existing frequency use and the ability of existing equipment to be re-tuned. The impact on users cannot be properly calculated until a number of technical and planning processes are completed by the ACMA.
While some users of wireless audio devices will have to relocate out of the digital dividend spectrum (694-820 MHz), it is likely that others will be able to continue to operate in this spectrum after it has been reconfigured. This is most likely to be within the guard bands and mid-band gap: those parts of the digital dividend band that will not be used for mobile wireless communications due to the need to manage interference. Once the ACMA completes its work on the technical framework for the digital dividend spectrum licences it will be able to confirm the feasibility of this proposal. This work is due to be completed by the end of 2011.
It is expected that users of wireless audio devices will be able to continue using the spaces between digital broadcasting services in the broadcasting spectrum below the digital dividend band (that is, below 694 MHz) going forward. The exact frequencies below 694 MHz in which wireless audio devices will be permitted to operate will be able to be determined once planning for the reorganization (restack) of digital broadcasting services is completed nationwide.
Once users of wireless audio equipment are advised where in the spectrum they will be permitted to operate post-digital dividend, they can then assess whether their existing equipment is able to operate in the new frequencies.
(8) Neither the Department nor the ACMA have had communications with online retailers for this purpose.
Electronic equipment imported into Australia from another country or supplied to the market by an Australian manufacturer must comply with the C-tick regime. The ACMA has advised that it plans to introduce a new compliance mark called the Regulatory Compliance Mark (RCM) in 2012. This RCM is planned as an alternative to the C-tick and may be used in its place.
The ACMA publishes information on what importers, suppliers and Australian manufacturers of wireless electronic equipment must do prior to selling the device within Australia on its website.
(9) The ACMA has advised it has been monitoring a similar process of wireless audio device migration being undertaken by the UK regulator, Ofcom.
(10) Preliminary studies performed by the ACMA suggest that unauthorised use of wireless audio devices in the digital dividend spectrum has the potential to cause some interference. However the wireless devices are likely be low power devices so their impact would be small. The potential for some limited unauthorised use is unlikely to impact auction revenues. Any unauthorised use of wireless audio devices would be open to compliance action by the ACMA.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1090:
(1) What arrangements have been made to extend the lease agreements and will there be an extra cost.
(2) Will the rental be at a higher rate than that negotiated for the 6 month contract; if so, what is the extra rate or if a lower rate has been negotiated, what is the discounted rate.
(3) Have all rental agreements been finalised; if not, can details be provided setting out the reasons for the delay.
(4) Can an explanation be provided in relation to the rental payments to Park Homes and Tasbulk.
(5) Given that Park Homes has been paid $3 355 575.00 for 41 days (paragraph 2) whereas the monthly lease figure is $1 118 525.00 (paragraph 8) why is there a discrepancy in the calculations.
(6) Has Tasbulk been paid a full month's lease payment for the 19 days rental.
(7) If Park Homes and Tasbulk have been paid rental in advance, can the explanation be provided as to why and on what basis.
(8) It is apparent that Park Homes have been paid 50 per cent of their lease payment up front; if so, why and when will the second half of the lease payments be made.
(9) Is it correct that the rental agreements still to be finalised in answer to paragraph 5 are assumed to be with Fairbrother; if not, can details be provided for each building with which company the agreement needs to be finalised.
(1) As part of prudent contingency planning all the hire agreements include a provision to extend for a further 2 periods (if required) after the initial hire term expires. No additional cost is required for undertaking the option.
(2) No. The rental amount would remain the same.
(3) Yes.
(4) Park Homes and Tasbulk receive monthly payments for the hire of transportable buildings. This payment is made on the first day of every month. All agreements expire 6 months after the date of execution.
(5) The response provided to question 8 of Senate Question Number 1090, stated that the amount for total payments to Park Homes, up to an including 31 August 2011, was $3,355,575.00. This amount included the third instalment which was due on 1 September 2011. The amended figure, up to and including the 31 August 2011, is $2,237,050.00.
(6) No. Tasbulk received an advance payment on the signing of the contract on 12 August 2011. The remaining 12 days will be made up at the end of the agreement term.
(7) Hire fees are paid in advance on a monthly basis as is common in rental agreements
(8) Park Homes have received 3 separate payments for 3 months hire. As outlined in the hire agreement the first payment was to be made in advance on the signing of the agreement. The second and third payments were made on 1 August 2011 and 1 September 2011 respectively. The payment of the remaining 3 months hire will be made on the first day of every month with final payment on 1 December 2011.
(9) Yes.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1088:
(1) How many mattresses have been supplied to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre?
(2) Is the mattress contract for a fixed period of time; if so, what is the duration.
(3) Have all mattresses been obtained on a rental basis; if so, can details be provided as to:
(a) how payment is made e.g. weekly, monthly etc.,
(b) when the payments are/were made.
(1) As at 8 November 2011, 408 mattresses have been supplied to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre.
(2) Yes. The mattress contract is for a period of 6 months.
(3) Yes.
(a) Payments are made monthly.
(b) Payments are made on presentation of an invoice.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1106:
(1) Which company was contracted to undertake the site preparation and can details be provided as to what the site preparation entailed.
(2) When did building work commence as distinct from site preparation.
(1) Spectran Pty Ltd based at Moonah in Hobart was contracted to undertake the site preparation. The site preparation involved clearing the site of long grass (except protected areas), establishment of a site shed and construction of a contractor area.
(2) Building construction commenced on 24 June 2011.
Since the announcement on 4 March 2010 that the Australian Government would be contributing $12.5 million in funding to the Three Capes Track proposal in the Tasman National Park:
(1) How much money has been spent and is being projected for expenditure in each of the following financial years: 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13.
(2) Can details be provided as to what the money in each year has been spent on and what is planned for expenditure?
(3) When did the Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service and/or the Tasmanian Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage (Mr Wightman) inform the Minister that they: (a) were considering other options to the original proposal of large private accommodation huts within the park; and (b) had rejected the alternatives to the private accommodation within the park.
(1) Payments are made against milestones as set out in the Implementation Plan, which includes a project budget, and is available at:
.
(2) See answer to question 1.
(3) The Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, in managing the Infrastructure Employment Projects program has been in regular contact with the Parks and Wildlife Service Tasmania in respect of the Project. Parks and Wildlife have provided ongoing updates on their planning process for the Project, including its consideration of options regarding the accommodation huts.
(1) Will the Minister abide by the Tasmanian Forests Agreement and give an assurance that: (a) there will be no increase in wood supply agreements to existing or new contracts; and (b) any wood supply quotas retired as part of the sawmillers' voluntary exit package will be retired and not reallocated to existing or new sawmill operators.
(2) Will the Minister guarantee that the purchasers of the Gunns Limited sawmills in Somerset and the Huon Valley will not have their wood supply agreements increased or extended.
(3) Will the Minister guarantee that the purchasers of the Gunns Limited sawmills in Deloraine and Western Junction have not and will not have new native forest wood supply agreements negotiated.
(1) (a) The Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement commits to honouring native forest wood supply contracts in existence at the time of signing the agreement, and to retiring sufficient volume of native forest sawlog supply to achieve the conservation and wood supply objectives of the Agreement. While there will be no increase in total contracted wood supply from public native forests, it is possible that individual contracts may be renewed or varied within the overall total.
(b) The details of the voluntary sawlog contract buy-back program for sawmiller exits have yet to be finalised but it is the Commonwealth's expectation that at least some of the retired native forest wood supply contracts could be replaced by 'plantation priority' contracts at some time in the future, subject to availability of suitable plantation-sourced timber.
(2) See answer to 1(a), above.
(3) See answer to 1(a), above.
(1) Will the Minister abide by the Tasmanian Forests Agreement and give an assurance that: (a) there will be no increase in wood supply agreements to existing or new contracts; and (b) any wood supply quotas retired as part of the sawmillers' voluntary exit package will be retired and not reallocated to existing or new sawmill operators.
(2) Will the Minister guarantee that the purchasers of the Gunns Limited sawmills in Somerset and the Huon Valley will not have their wood supply agreements increased or extended.
(4) Will the Minister guarantee that the purchasers of the Gunns Limited sawmills in Deloraine and Western Junction have not and will not have new native forest wood supply agreements negotiated.
(1) (a) The Tasmanian Forests Intergovernmental Agreement commits to honouring native forest wood supply contracts in existence at the time of signing the agreement, and to retiring sufficient volume of native forest sawlog supply to achieve the conservation and wood supply objectives of the Agreement. While there will be no increase in total contracted wood supply from public native forests, it is possible that individual contracts may be renewed or varied within the overall total. (b) The details of the voluntary sawlog contract buy-back program for sawmiller exits have yet to be finalised but it is the Commonwealth's expectation that at least some of the retired native forest wood supply contracts could be replaced by 'plantation priority' contracts at some time in the future, subject to availability of suitable plantation-sourced timber.
(2) See answer to (1) (a), above.
(4) See answer to (1) (a), above.
With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0576 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee:
(1) Who prepared the concept plans?
(2) Which firm of architects, engineers or other professionals were engaged in developing the concept plan?
(3) When was the concept plan finalised and can a copy of the plan be provided.
(4) When were the final plans submitted to the local council and local stakeholders?
(5) Who prepared the final plans and at what cost.
(6) How many iterations of the plans were there from and including the concept plan to the final plan?
(1) The concept plans were prepared by architectural firm - Bush Parkes Shugg Moon (BPSM).
(2) The following firms were involved in the development of the concept plan:
(3) The concept plan was finalised on 15 April 2011. A copy of the plan is attached (see Attachment A – available from the Senate Table Office ).
(4) The plans approved for construction were presented to the Mayor of Brighton and his general manager on 27 June 2011. On 26 July 2011 the plans were presented to local stakeholders in the Brighton Community Centre.
(5) Architects BPSM prepared the final plan at a total cost of $75,000.
This included:
(6) A series of hand drawn sketch plans was developed in the early design stage. From these hand drawn sketch plans, 3 concept option plans were developed. Option 2 was the preferred option. This option underwent 10 variations before construction began. Some minor changes to the plans were made during the construction period but these did not result in a revised plan being issued. Construction is complete and the Department will shortly receive the 'as built' construction plans from the head contractor. Between now and the decommissioning of the site there may be further iterations of the final 'as built' plans.
In regards to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre:
With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0578 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, on what date was the head contractor selected.
17 June 2011.
With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0579 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, can the information as originally requested now be provided as to when the decision was actually made and finalised that Pontville would be used as a detention centre
The Minister announced the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre on 5 April 2011 which was as soon as practicable after the government decision.
In regard to special purpose aircraft:
(1) Did the Prime Minister fly to the Northern Territory (Gove) on 8 June 2011; if so, for what purpose.
(2) How many and what type of aircraft were used.
(3) How long was each of the aircraft on the tarmac.
(4) How long did the aircraft have their engines running and for what purpose.
(1) On the 8 June 2011 the Prime Minister flew from Darwin to Gove and returned to Darwin on a Special Purpose Aircraft. The Prime Minister was in Gove on Government business.
(2) Two Challenger aircraft were used on the Darwin to Gove leg and one Challenger was used to return to Darwin. Normally a task with more than nine passengers would be conducted on a Boeing Business Jet but one was away on an overseas task and the other was not available due to periodic maintenance requirements.
(3) The first aircraft was on the tarmac at Gove for approximately six (6) hours and 57 minutes the second aircraft was on the tarmac at Gove for approximately five (5) hours and 11 minutes.
(4) Normally on arrival, the engines are shut down within 30 seconds of reaching the parking position. On departure, the engines are running from between five to ten minutes before take-off. The aircrew involved in the Darwin/Gove task on 8 June 2011 have advised that engine operating times followed normal procedures.
(1) Can details be provided of the cost of producing letterhead for the Prime Minister.
(2) Has letterhead been produced for the Office of the Prime Minister; if so, at what cost and in what circumstances.
(3) Has letterhead been produced for the Chief of Staff or any other staff member in the Prime Minister's office; if so:
(a) what is the cost of producing this letterhead;
(b) how many pieces of this letterhead have been produced and at what cost; and
(c) who authorised the production of this letterhead.
I am advised that letters for the Prime Minister, the Office of the Prime Minister and the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister are usually printed on plain paper with the 'letterhead' being part of the electronic document.
For the Prime Minister, the department uses 'Stephen Swiss White' 115gsm A4 paper and matching DL envelopes. The cost of the Stephen Swiss White paper and envelopes are:
For the Office of the Prime Minister (including Chief of Staff) standard white paper (A4 80gsm) and standard white envelopes are used. The cost of standard white paper and envelopes are:
Occasionally additional letterhead may be purchased for the Prime Minister and her Office. This occurred in 2010 at a cost of $8,189 (GST exclusive).
The total cost, however, of producing letterhead for the Prime Minister and her office in any given period cannot be identified as stationery used for electronic letterhead is ordered in bulk, sometimes for several portfolio ministers, and then used over an extended period. These costs have therefore been presented as an amount per ream or batch of stationary.