The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
Terrorism is a crime that has a unique and dramatic impact on the lives of its victims.
It is a crime directed not at individuals, but at the state.
However, it is individuals who suffer.
Presently in every Australian state and territory victims of crime, including terrorism, are eligible for financial assistance under criminal injuries schemes.
However, there is no comprehensive scheme that covers Australian victims of terrorism that occurs overseas.
In the past decade Australians have been killed and injured in terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, Bali, London, Jakarta and Mumbai.
Terrorism is an unpredictable and stateless phenomenon.
It can strike almost anybody, in any place and at any time.
It is a sad reality that Australians are sometimes targeted in overseas terrorist acts.
Other times, they are merely caught up in attacks launched indiscriminately at 'Westerners'.
In either case, these individuals fall victim to attacks with a political or ideological motive, rather than a personal one.
In this context, it is only fair that the burden of the attack be borne in part by the state, and not the individual victim.
It is important to acknowledge the collective responsibility of the Australian community to help individuals recover from overseas terrorist events.
The Australian government has assisted Australian victims of terrorism in the past, providing them with medical and evacuation support, consular assistance and assisting with funeral costs and other expenses, on an ex gratia basis.
The value of that assistance to date exceeds $12 million.
Accordingly, the government does not propose to apply the scheme to individuals who have already been supported.
There is, however, more that can be done to ease the suffering and provide support to Australian victims in the longer term.
It is in this context that the government today commends the bill to the Senate.
Like the private senator's bill currently before the Senate, the purpose of this bill is to provide financial support of up to $75,000 to Australians affected by terrorism while overseas.
The bill achieves this through the 'Australian Victim of Terrorism Overseas Payment.'
The payment will provide financial assistance of up to $75,000 for individuals injured in an overseas terrorist event and to the close family member or members of an individual killed as a direct result of a terrorism event overseas.
Eligibility under the scheme provided for by the bill requires the Prime Minister to declare an overseas terrorism event in the first instance.
Once an overseas terrorism event has been declared, set eligibility criteria will apply, primarily that an applicant is an Australian resident and did not contribute to the terrorism event.
The bill provides for the determination of principles, which will provide guidance on the factors that may be considered when determining a claim, including:
The scheme will also provide that victims who receive the payment will not have to repay Medicare, and will not adversely affect a person's entitlement to damages or compensation under any Commonwealth law.
This is also consistent with current victims of crime compensation schemes.
Payments under the scheme will also be exempt from income tax.
The bill recognises that the decision maker may require a longer period than the standard statutory period of 13 weeks to determine claims, particularly where there are large numbers of victims.
The ability to provide payments of up to $75,000 to victims of overseas terrorism acknowledges not only that injuries resulting from terrorism events can be very serious, but that they can have a lasting effect, requiring ongoing support and treatment.
On 22 March 2012, the Senate jointly referred the provisions of this bill and a private senator's bill to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee.
The committee tabled its report, containing seven recommendations, on 10 May 2012.
The government supports six of the seven recommendations, and has revised the explanatory memorandum to address recommendations 2, 3 and 5.
The revised explanatory memorandum provides greater guidance about how the Prime Minister will determine whether a specific terrorist act should be covered by the scheme.
It also clarifies that the bill enables extension of the scheme to cover Commonwealth employees working overseas who do not meet the residency test.
Finally, it provides some clarification on how payments under the scheme will interact with other payments.
To implement recommendation 6, the government is exploring options for the establishment of a central contact point for Australians affected by terrorist acts.
The government does not support recommendation 5, which would double the maximum payment for primary victims.
Concluding Remarks
That Australians should be injured or killed in a terrorist act is a horrible thought to contemplate.
But it has happened and—unfortunately—it could happen again.
Terrorism is a crime with many victims.
It devastates not just those directly impacted, but their families as well.
It is a crime designed to strike at the heart of all we hold dear in a free and democratic society.
But we are determined that terrorism will not affect how we go about our lives.
The government supports the rights of Australians to continue to explore the world, continue to discover new places and represent us abroad, secure in the knowledge that the Australian community, and its parliament, will continue to support them, their families and the Australian way of life.
I commend this bill.
Weakening the influence of the West would advance their political goals by helping undermine those Muslims they view as corrupt and open to Western influence. We are seen as standing in the way of their goal to transform the Muslim world into a Taliban-style society. According to their simplistic worldview, we are part of the Christian West which, to them, is un-Islamic and therefore illegitimate.
The core values we hold and which are intrinsic to our success as a liberal democratic culture are anathema to these extremists.
Officers have sought to obtain personal benefit, or benefit on behalf of others, at the expense of members of their union. Reported instances include not only misapplying funds and resources of the union but also using the privileges of their office to attract and obtain services and benefits from third parties.
Aside from issues of profiteering, secret commissions and tax avoidance, these undeclared benefits can compromise officials. Rather than diligently representing the interests of their members without fear or favour, they effectively 'run dead' as a result of these side deals. This is no less than graft and corruption in its most reprehensible form, and it occurs at the expense of vulnerable members whose interests they have been charged with representing.
… these issues also arose in those matters that I was involved with in the mid-1990s, which were filed in both the then Industrial Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. There are a number of matters, generally under the name of Ludwig v Harrison and others, but probably most relevantly matter No. 1032 of 1996.
… I know the Prime Minister is quite familiar with this area of the law; as lawyers in the mid-1990s, we were involved in a matter representing opposing clients.
"There is currently an investigation under way by the National Crime Authority who have also referred the matter to the Victoria Police, who are also investigating this particular matter," he said. Last night, Ms Gillard strenuously denied all of Mr Gude's allegations.
She said she was still a partner with Slater & Gordon and had "no intention of leaving". Ms Gillard also denied she had ever paid money to the AWU or borrowed money from the union to work on her house.
"I am aware it is an allegation of Mr Gude's that I acted on behalf of Mr Wilson. Whether or not Mr Wilson was a client of mine is irrelevant," she said.
I remember in 1995 Phil Gude … raised a series of allegations against me they had the status of rumours going around the ALP the rumours where that I had been involved in a relationship with a man who was an official at the AWU and the nature of the rumours where that he in some ways had misappropriated created money to spend on my house renovations, I had been renovating a house at that stage and you know clothing for me.
… repeatedly referred to allegations made against Mr Wilson that have been made several times in the Victorian Parliament, most recently in 2001 when he was accused of misappropriating about $500,000 of union funds, including $102,000 spent on a house in Kerr Street, Fitzroy.
The Prime Minister had no comment yesterday and has repeatedly denied allegations she was linked to union corruption. Mr McClelland made pointed references to the Prime Minister's involvement.
Serious allegations of fraud and impropriety have been brought to my attention.
It is alleged that the former secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Bruce Wilson, who left the union's employ in August of this year, has apparently misappropriated union funds and used his position as secretary in the most improper manner.
I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union's solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.
I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.
Between 1992 and 1995, about $370,000 flowed through two Perth-based accounts - operated in the name of the "AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc" - which, until last month, had never been heard of in the AWU's national offices in Sydney.
All the money came from the big construction group Thiess Contractors, which says the payments were legitimate, arising from a tripartite agreement between it, the AWU and the West Australian Government.
Indeed, says Thiess, the Government paid it money for an employee training program at a $58 million Thiess construction project and it then paid the AWU. But once in union hands, it seems, the funds went walkabout when the AWU branch in WA was crying poor and running up a debt with head office approaching $1 million.
It is now known that nearly $220,000 was withdrawn using about 40 cash cheques—
ranging from $4,000 to $50,000.
Exactly where all the money ended up is far from clear. The man who should know, a former top official, Mr Bruce Wilson, says it is all "old hat stuff" and he has "nothing to say".
However, two of the so-called "WA Inc" accounts were finally emptied in April last year, when about $46,000 was paid into an even more mysterious Perth-based account called the Construction Industry Fund. It, too, is understood to have been closed this year and may have no legal connection to the union.
Several other cheques totalling about $35,000 were made out in 1993 to a now ex-AWU official, Mr Ralph Blewitt, and, once, about $67,000 went to the trust account of the high-profile Melbourne law firm Slater and Gordon. The timing of this payment has caught the eye of AWU bosses. It coincides with the purchase of a house in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy in Mr Blewitt's name.
A cheque made out to the "Slater and Gordon Trust Account" was dated five days before the firm arranged settlement on the $230,000 property.
… … …
In a major new development, the Herald has learned that on July 14 last year, a cheque bearing what appears to be Mr Wilson's signature was written in an apparent bid to transfer about $160,000 from the "Members Welfare" account in Victoria, into the still-unexplained "Construction Industry Fund" in Western Australia.
But the cheque was caught at the last minute by a "freeze" on the account placed by lawyers acting for the present AWU State secretary in Victoria, Mr Bob Smith, who was a bitter enemy of Mr Wilson, and remains a close ally of Mr Steve Harrison, one of the two rival joint … secretaries.
A month later, in strange circumstances, the $160,000 was "unfrozen" in a peace deal done by Mr Smith and his lawyers …
... in government or opposition Labor supports the Senate as a strong house of review, scrutiny and accountability.
"It is a case of a Howard-Crean guillotine on parliament and chainsaw attack on Australia's forests", a despairing Greens Senator Bob Brown said today.
Senator Brown also noted that before the winter break the Senate had sat for only 34 of a potential 112 sitting days; that the Senate committee ... is being clobbered; and that debate is regularly guillotined in both Houses of Parliament.
… for most RTOs, the proposed ASQA fees and charges will be an increase on what they have paid in the past. This is because most state and territory governments have subsidised the cost of regulation.
… if the audit is conducted outside Australia in whole or in part—any reasonable expenses incurred by the Regulator relating to the audit or part of the audit.
… the higher fee may discourage the accreditation of some vocational courses that are currently delivered in the community education sector such as those offered by Neighbourhood Houses or welfare agencies.
1.1 The Coalition holds grave concerns about the increased economic and regulatory burden this Bill will place on providers. The Australian Skills Quality Authority’s submission even states that: 'for most RTOs, the proposed ASQA fees and charges will be an increase on what they have paid in the past. This is because most state and territory governments have subsidised the cost of regulation'.
1.2 We acknowledge that the Intergovernmental Agreement makes provision for states to continue to assist in meeting these costs. However, if the states are not required to help reduce the end cost to the providers, in all likelihood they will not.
1.3 The submissions received by the Committee reiterate the concerns held by the sector and the Coalition, that there will be a lack of transparency with potential fees and charges and the impact this could have on smaller rural and regional providers in particular.
The Senate divided. [13:04]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [13:08]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
It is tedious work, but it is important work.
Kath is the recipient of a $100 recoverable advance in the 2012-13 year as a result of an identified error in an interest on overpayment calculation. She lodges her income tax return in July 2013—
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 is the principal bill in a package of two bills which will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. The visa evidence charge is the first of a series of new visa related charges to be implemented under the Visa Pricing Transformation program. The Visa Pricing Transformation program restructures the way in which visas are priced.
The visa evidence charge will reduce the administrative burden on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship associated with processing hard copy visa evidence. The visa evidence charge will also allow for greater cost-recovery for these services and will generate additional revenue.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012 imposes a charge in relation to requests for visa evidence and establishes a charge limit of $250 for a request made in the financial year ending on 30 June 2013. The Bill also provides a mechanism for this amount to be indexed in later financial years.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 is the second bill in this package and will make amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to implement the visa evidence charge.
Currently, Australia does not require visa holders to have hard copy evidence of their visa, however, clients are still provided with the option of being given evidence if it is necessary for them to have evidence to transit or exit another country, or if they make a personal decision to obtain such evidence. Visa holders will continue to have the option to request evidence of their visa, however, once the amendments in this package of bills commence, visa holders will be charged for this visa evidence, unless an exemption or waiver applies, or there are circumstances where the visa evidence charge is nil.
The key elements of the visa pricing transformation include a move to a 'user pays' model. The Visa Evidence Charge component of the Visa Pricing Transformation program will discourage reliance on visa labels by immigration clients and foreign officials and encourage the use of electronic systems for validating a non-citizens right to enter Australia.
Although most non-citizens are not required under Australian law to have a visa label as evidence of their visa status, many visa applicants apply to have a visa label issued at the time of grant or post-grant. Eliminating the perceived need for visa labels is a priority for the government as currently one third of visas granted each year are evidenced. In 2011, 455,000 Visa labels were issued onshore and 910,000 offshore totalling 1.365 million visa labels issued over calendar year 2011. Issuing visa labels is the highest volume service undertaken at immigration client service counters both in Australia and overseas. Imposing a service delivery charge as a pre-requisite to having a visa label, or other non-electronic evidence issued, is intended to compensate for the costs associated with delivering that service and encourage Immigration clients to travel without a visa label.
Changing client and stakeholder behavior to recognise the validity of electronic confirmation of a person's visa is the primary driving force behind the introduction of the Visa Evidence Charge. Visa Entitlements Verification Online (VEVO) or Advance Passenger Processing systems in the case of airlines and border agencies will reduce overheads for the department and reduce the risk of fraud. A number of business process based initiatives have been tried to reduce the use of hard copy visa labels in recent years, but in the absence of a price disincentive these have had limited success. As part of the Visa Pricing Transformation program, work will be undertaken to improve the online entitlements verification service and educate clients about the ease of travelling without a visa label.
The Department of Immigration and Citizenship conducted detailed modelling which has confirmed that the new visa charges including a charge for visa evidence will have a minimal impact on the education, tourism and employment sectors and Immigration clients as visa demand has been shown to be unrelated to the cost of the visa or the cost of visa evidence.
To complement the modelling conducted by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought views from Australia's overseas missions, as well as conducting assessments of how the proposed changes would be received by host governments. Feedback received from posts revealed that the price restructure would not compromise Australia's international competitiveness and rightly emphasised that foreign government reactions to the changes will need to be managed and pre-empted through high-level engagement in advance of introduction of the new pricing schedule. This engagement is currently underway.
In summary, this package of bills will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. The Visa Evidence Charge will encourage clients to reconsider their need to have a visa label. The department's modelling has confirmed that the visa evidence charge will have a minimal impact on the education, tourism and employment sectors and Immigration clients as visa demand has been shown to not be affected by these changes. These changes are a component of a larger strategy that will ultimately reduce the administrative burden non-electronic visa evidencing imposes on the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and will eliminate the current financial burden visa labels impose on the Australian taxpayer.
The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 is the second bill in a package of two bills which will enable the government to impose a charge for the production of visa evidence. This new Visa Evidence Charge is the first of a series of new visa related charges to be implemented under the Visa Pricing Transformation program. The Visa Pricing Transformation program restructures the way in which visas are priced.
The visa evidence charge will be imposed by the principal bill, the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012, which enables a charge to be payable for the production of prescribed evidence of a visa. The Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012 completes the package of amendments needed to implement the visa evidence charge.
This Bill amends the Migration Act to enable a visa holder to request to be given a prescribed form of evidence, and requires a person who makes a request for visa evidence to pay the visa evidence charge. If a visa holder makes a request to be given visa evidence and pays the visa evidence charge, the officer must give the visa holder this evidence.
The amount of the visa evidence charge will be prescribed in the Migration Regulations and will be subject to the maximum charge limit set out in the Migration (Visa Evidence) Charge Bill 2012. In appropriate circumstances, the visa evidence charge may be nil.
The Bill will also insert regulation making powers to allow regulations to be made to specify different amounts of visa evidence charge for different forms of visa evidence, different classes of visas, different methods of payment, where the person elects to have the request dealt with expeditiously and for requests made in different circumstances.
The regulations will also prescribe the circumstances in which the visa evidence charge may be waived, refunded or remitted, as well as specifying those persons who will be exempt from the charge.
25-30 Israeli soldiers, young men and women, broke into their small two bedroom unit at 3 am in the Camp No.1 refugee camp in Nablus, Palestine. They smashed down the door and took Ridha away for no reason and we don't know why he was taken from us. After they took him away they asked Weam to get out of the unit with her two small children and then these young people in Israeli army uniforms proceeded to destroy everything in their small home—furniture, electrical appliances, including the children's computer and all the kids' school books.
The 40-year-old, blind activist said that his lengthy detention—
demonstrates that lawlessness is still the norm in China.
… … …
"Is there any justice? Is there any rationale in any of this?"
… the Government has recently approved access to a huge foreign industrial-size commercial fishing vessel the likes of which this country has never seen before, yet Mum, Dad and the kids will be "banned" from trying to catch a fish!
"Recreational anglers face being locked out of … a number of inshore iconic fishing spots such as Osprey Reef in the Coral Sea, Geographe Bay, Perth Trench and Dampier.
We must make plain packaging a big success so that it becomes the success of the world.
Indonesia faces a public health tragedy from smoking that's probably as great or greater as any nation in the world. With so many children starting, they're facing a true epidemic.
Quite clearly, there is a major disconnect between what the Government and its health bureaucrats are portraying as a classification system that is working well, and what the procession of witnesses at this inquiry reported.
(1) Have all Australian Government sanctions against Iran entered into force.
(2) Is the sanctions regime adopted by Australia fully consistent with the sanctions by the:
(a) United States of America (US)
(b) United Kingdom (UK); and
(c) European Union (EU); if not, what are the differences
(3) Has the Australian Government implemented sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran; if so are these sanctions as comprehensive as those enacted by the:
(a) US
(b) UK; and
(c) EU
(1) The Australian Government has given effect under Australian law to all sanctions obligations imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in relation to Iran.
In relation to Australian autonomous sanctions measures (that is, measures applied autonomously of a UNSC obligation), the measures announced by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs on 6 December 2011 and 24 January 2012 are currently subject to public consultation and it is expected they will commence on 1 July 2012. These measures, once in force, would prohibit, without prior authorisation from the Minister for Foreign Affairs:
(a) the import, purchase or transport of specified Iranian crude oil, petroleum or petrochemical products;
(b) the provision of financial assistance or a financial service related to the import, purchase or transport of such products;
(c) the acquisition or extension of an interest in, or the establishment of or participation in a joint venture with, or the granting of a financial loan or credit to – an entity in Iran that is engaged in the petrochemical, oil or gas industry in Iran, or – an Iranian or Iranian owned entity involved in such industries outside Iran;
(d) the sale or otherwise making available of an interest in a commercial activity in Australia that is related to the oil and gas industry to the Iranian Government or an Iranian company or citizen;
(e) the direct or indirect sale, purchase, transportation or brokerage of gold, diamonds or precious metals to, from or for the Iranian Government, its public bodies, corporations or agencies, or the Central Bank of Iran;
(f) the opening in Australia of a branch, subsidiary or representative office of, or the establishment of a joint venture with, or the acquisition of ownership of an Australian financial institution by, or the establishment or maintenance of a correspondent relationship with – a financial institution that is operated by or on behalf of the Iranian Government, an Iranian company or citizen;
(g) the establishment of a representative office or subsidiary in Iran, or the opening of a bank account in Iran, by a financial institution; and
(h) the delivery of newly printed or unissued Iranian denominated bank notes or newly minted or unissued Iranian denominated coinage to or for the Central Bank of Iran.
(2) Australia's autonomous sanctions regime in relation to Iran is broadly consistent with that of the European Union and the United Kingdom. The principal differences between the regimes are:
(a) the measures listed in paragraphs (a) to (h) in the response to question (1), which the European Union and United Kingdom currently impose and which Australia is in the process of bringing into force;
(b) an additional "human rights" criterion applied by the European Union and United Kingdom to designate persons as being subject to targeted financial and travel sanctions;
(c) in relation to the United Kingdom only, a requirement for all financial transactions with Iran to be subject to prior authorisation (Australian law requires authorisation for any transaction with Iran valued at $20,000 or more).
The sanctions regimes of Australia, the European Union or the United Kingdom are not directly comparable to US sanctions against Iran in terms of reach and restrictiveness, including provision under US law for imposing sanctions on third country persons who engage in specific kinds of trade and investment with Iran. Detailed information about US sanctions can be found at www.treasury.gov.
(3) A number of existing Australian measures are of general application and apply to all financial institutions, including the Central Bank of Iran. This includes the requirement under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Regulations 2008 for authorisation for any transaction with Iran valued at $20,000 or more. Of the measures expected to commence on 1 July 2012, those referred to in paragraphs (e) and (h) in the response to question (1) above will apply directly to the Central Bank of Iran, and that referred to in paragraph (f) in the response to question (1) above will apply to the Central Bank of Iran in the same way it would apply to any Iranian financial institution. These measures are broadly consistent with measures imposed by the European Union and the United Kingdom.
(1) Can a list be provided of non-government organisations (NGOs) that have received AusAID funding to 'engage with the Australian people…about the effectiveness of the aid program' or conduct any other domestic campaign, including details of the total amount given to each NGO for this purpose in the 2011-12 financial year.
(2) What is the total amount provided to NGOs to 'engage with the Australian people…about the effectiveness of the aid program' or conduct any other domestic campaign in the:
a. 2008-09;
b. 2009-10;
c. 2010-11; and
d. 2011-12, financial years.
(3) What evaluation criteria are used by AusAID to measure the performance of NGOs that receive funding to 'engage with the Australian people…about the effectiveness of the aid program' or for any other domestic campaign.
(1) Under the AusAID NGO Cooperation Program (ANCP) (which in 2011-12 provides funding of $98.1 million to 43 accredited Australian NGOs to undertake over 600 international development activities across approximately 50 countries), NGOs may use up to ten per cent of their funding to raise awareness of development issues within Australia. AusAID's guidelines (available at http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ngos/pdfs/ancp-awareness-raising-guidelines.pdf) restrict activities to those which meet at least one of three objectives, these are: promoting transparency in the use of public funds; enhancing development effectiveness; and increasing public understanding of development issues.
Development awareness raising activities will not be supported if they include any form of fundraising, promote a particular religious adherence, build public support for increases in aid funding or lobbying for changes in aid policy, or mobilise members of the public to undertake advocacy in relation to the aid program.
Of 43 eligible NGOs, there are 22 who have opted to use ANCP funding to engage in development awareness raising activities in 2011-12. The approximate portion of ANCP funding used for these activities is provided in the table below. AusAID has also provided separate funding of $317,200 to World Vision Australia in 2011-12 to conduct 'One Just World' public discussion forums.
(2) AusAID funding to NGOs to undertake development awareness raising activities between 2008 and 2012 is as follows:
(3) NGOs which receive grants under the ANCP are required to provide AusAID with annual financial and project plans and reports. Annual plans are required to outline objectives, outputs and targets for all activities, including development awareness activities in Australia. These are assessed against the objectives in AusAID's guidelines and are subject to approval before funding is granted.
With reference to the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme and the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme:
(1) What measures does the Government have in place to ensure that the TT Line does not use any support payments under either the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme or the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme to assist it in undercutting other competitors in relation to freight costs.
(2) Is the amount paid in relation to the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme a set payment, irrespective of the quantity of vehicles carried.
(3) What monitoring is undertaken to ensure that motor vehicle traffic across Bass Strait is not displaced on any particular trip in favour of freight carried by the TT Line.
(1) Under the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme (the scheme) the rebate is provided to the driver of an eligible passenger vehicle in the form of a reduced fare charged by a service operator such as TT-Line and they are reimbursed on the actual claims.
(2) No.
(3) The scheme is a rebate scheme rather than a freight management scheme. Compliance reviews of claims and annual audits of all service operators under the scheme are undertaken to ensure rebates have been claimed for eligible passenger vehicles; and the correct rebate has been claimed for each vehicle type.