The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
… strengthen the management and leadership of the Public Service and to help embed new practices and behaviours into its culture.
I do not actually manage a hundred agencies across the Australian Public Service; I manage my own.
But we are quite keen—and we have—to share good practice and that is what we tend to do. In these circumstances we encourage good practice and we promulgate good practice.
(1) Schedule 1, item 44, page 26 (after line 6), after paragraph (a) of the definition of entrusted person in subsection 65AB(1), insert:
(aa) a delegate of the Merit Protection Commissioner;
(2) Schedule 1, item 46, page 33 (after line 24), after paragraph 70A(2)(a), insert:
(aa) a delegate of the Merit Protection Commissioner;
That these bills be now read a third time.
Although I have not yet had the opportunity to study the documents in detail, I remain hopeful that the Commonwealth has taken a balanced and pragmatic approach to proposed marine reserves which minimises the social and economic impact on stakeholders such as the fishing sector.
We are still yet to receive any information about the points raised and about the process going forward. This leaves the State Government and WA community uncertain and concerned about the future access to our most precious waters and aquatic resources.
The Federal Government is always saying we should pursue evidence-based policy. In this case, it is just drawing lines on a map without any real regard for environmental outcomes or the long-term impacts on the Western Australian and broader Australian communities and businesses.
When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.
It is difficult to understand … why Australians believe they need to implement additional, alternative restrictions on fishing, such as more fishing closures in MPAs!
Australia’s fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable.
… Public perception has been distorted, primarily by numerous NGOs and others who benefit from projecting apprehension in seafood consumers.
Australian[s] have been told by health professionals and authorities to eat more seafood, yet the country has a serious and growing shortage of locally produced product and no obvious policies for food security or increasing domestic supply of fish.
When you're not over fishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas. And the result is that you're going to have less seafood produced in Australia and you will need to import more from places that are typically much less sustainably managed.
It is a real slap in the face to the good work done by our Government Fisheries Managers and Industry. We are very uncomfortable with the fact that the final decision of adopting the bioregional plans rests with the Minister for Environment only. We would prefer to have a far more rigorous and robust process through the parliament that doesn't have the potential to be clouded by extreme green views.
To date no briefing regarding the science being used with Bio Regional Planning has been transparently tabled to stake holders. Thus no comment from stake holders has been achieved. This vacuum of information has not been helpful in any understanding of current process, future process or past process. However we are aware a draft map has been produced. Why in the name of transparency during a planning process that a scientific briefing not be available to Stakeholders, Government? Would it not encourage informed debate?
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 1 OF 2013
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 7.16 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 March 2013 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend:
That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen) Chair
7 February 2013
APPENDIX 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee:
Name of bill:
AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2013
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
Mid to late March 2013
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Whip/Selection of Bills Committee Member
That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:
(a) general business notice of motion no. 1112 standing in the name of Senator Fifield relating to the Gillard Government’s fiscal strategy; and
(b) orders of the day relating to government documents.
That business be interrupted at 12.45 pm today to allow consideration of government business orders of the day till no later than 2 pm today.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 February 2013:
Implementation of the National Health Reform Agreement with regard to recently announced reductions by the Commonwealth of National Health Reform funding for state hospital services, in particular:
(a) the impact on patient care and services of the funding shortfalls;
(b) the timing of the changes as they relate to hospital budgets and planning;
(c) the fairness and appropriateness of the agreed funding model, including parameters set by the Treasury (including population estimates and health inflation); and
(d) other matters pertaining to the reduction by the Commonwealth of National Health Reform funding and the National Health Reform Agreement.
That the resolution of the Senate of 20 September 2012, relating to the terms of reference of the Community Affairs References Committee on the sterilisation of people with disabilities, be amended as follows:
At the end of the motion, add:
(2) Current practices and policies relating to the involuntary or coerced sterilisation of intersex people, including:
(a) sexual health and reproductive issues; and
(b) the impacts on intersex people.
That the Senate—
(a) recognises the worsening conflict in Syria that has resulted in two million displaced citizens and a further 743 000 Syrians who are seeking refuge outside of their home country;
(b) acknowledges the scope of the humanitarian response by the Jordanian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Egyptian and Turkish authorities and the harsh conditions in many refugee camps, particularly during winter;
(c) notes the $10 million in additional aid provided by the Australian Government, announced in the week beginning 27 January 2013, to the international humanitarian effort in support of Syrian refugees; and
(d) urges the Government to continue to do everything within its means to assist the international humanitarian effort and its push for a ceasefire to secure a plural, democratic Syria.
A bill for an act to amend the Social Security act 1991 and for related purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
In a world that is getting harsher, it is government’s role to make things easier for all Australians. Punishing job seekers by condemning them to poverty is not contributing to the caring society that the majority of Australian want for themselves or for their children.
The Australian Greens recognise that single people living on Newstart and Youth Allowance are the ones who are the most disadvantaged by Australia’s current income support system. The maximum single rate for Newstart was $246.30 in September 2012; $140 less per week than the rate of payment for singles (including the fortnightly pension supplement) on the age and disability pensions. The maximum rate of payment for Youth Allowance (living away from home) was $203.75 in September 2012; $42.55 less per week than the single rate of Newstart.
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart and Other Measures) Bill 2013 will give effect to the Australian Greens commitment to increase the base payment rate by $50 per week for single people living on Newstart and Youth Allowance (living away from home). The bill will also index other social security allowance payments and pensions to the higher of CPI, MTAWE or the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index. This will ensure that the gap between pensions and allowance payments does not continue to widen.
Raising the single rate of Newstart by $50 per week, will bring relief to almost a million households on the very lowest rates of income support, including single parent families, by increasing the amount of financial support they receive on a fortnightly basis. The bill will also ensure that the single rate of Newstart is finally increased to two-thirds of the combined couple rate, as recommended by the Henry Tax Review and 2009 Harmer Pension Review.
The focus on singles is based on evidence that these households are the most at risk of poverty. The ACOSS Poverty Report 2012, which drew on 2010 census data, found that single people generally faced a significantly higher risk of poverty than couples (25% to 9%) while 25.3% of single parent families with children are living in poverty compared with 8.4% of couples with children. This reflects in part the economies of scale available to people living with partners.
As well as assisting people out of poverty, the key reasons for increasing the base rate of Newstart and Youth Allowance include:
(a) the extended length of time that many recipients spend on the payment;
(b) the cost of living pressures faced by those in receipt of the single rate of the allowance; and
(c) the growing gap between the pension and allowance payment types due to different methods of indexation.
A recent inquiry by the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee examined cost of living pressures for allowance recipients including housing, food and the costs of searching for work and concluded its section on the adequacy of allowance payments by stating:
"On the weight of evidence, the committee questions whether Newstart Allowance provides recipients with a standard of living that is acceptable in the Australian context for anything but the shortest period of time."
The inquiry was also presented with evidence from Centrelink that 42% of new recipients of Newstart each year do not transition quickly back into the workforce.
Similarly, many Youth Allowance recipients are expected to be in receipt of the payment for an extended period of time while they complete their studies or look for work. Recipients on Youth Allowance have access to better employment income arrangements, which allow Youth Allowance recipients to build up their income bank or gain working credits and earn more per week before their payments are reduced. However, a single person on Youth Allowance is still on a significantly lower payment than any other allowance recipient and highly likely to be in receipt of the payment for an extended period of time.
The call for an increase in the base rate of allowance payments has received widespread support from not only welfare and social service groups but also from business groups, unions, various economists and members of parliament. The Business Council of Australia argued in its submission to the Inquiry into the adequacy of allowances payments that there is a need for an increase in the Newstart Allowance on an ‘adequacy and fairness basis’ and that ‘there is concern that the low rate of Newstart itself now presents a barrier to employment and risks entrenching poverty
The government has acknowledged on a number of occasions that it is not easy for a person to live on the current rate of Newstart allowance. However, the suite of measures that have been introduced by the current Government so far have been inadequate to address the level of need that those on the lowest rates of payment experience while they study or look for work.
For example, the new Income Support Bonus will offer eligible singles the equivalent of around $4 extra a week as a lump sum twice annually. Those who receive it will still be in receipt of payments that are $130 below the poverty line.
Other supplements have been made available to some allowance recipients, but those supplements reflect the higher costs incurred by the recipients, such as illness, high private rental costs, or the costs of raising children and do not resolve the inadequacy of the base payment.
This bill will directly assist single people living on Newstart and Youth Allowance for an extended period of time by providing them with a more stable, adequate base income.
The gap between the allowance and pension payments is increasing. Between March and September of 2012, the gap between Newstart and the pension (including pensioner supplement) rose by $7, because of the use of different indexation methods. Newstart Allowance is indexed to movements in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in March and September each year and Youth Allowance is indexed to the CPI once a year in January. Pensions are indexed twice a year (in March and September) by the greater of the movement in the CPI or the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI)—an index designed to better reflect the price changes affecting pensioners - and the rise is also benchmarked to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings.
The effect of differences in indexation is that pensions have, since 1997, been increasing in line with wage rises or the CPI while allowances have increased only in line with the CPI—and over this period, wages have generally increased at a greater rate than prices.
The Henry Taxation Review examined the long term impact of this difference in indexation methods and found that:
"… some difference in the level of payments can be justified on the basis of differing needs and presenting different incentives to different groups … Harder to justify is the fact that rates of pension and allowances are not merely different, but the gap between them is widening … If the current indexation arrangements remain in place, it is likely that by 2040, a single pensioner would be paid more than twice as much as a single unemployed person. A continuous decline in Newstart Allowance against community standards would have major implications for payment adequacy and the coherence—in terms of horizontal equity—of the income support system."
This bill will address the widening gap, by ensuring that these classes of payment are all indexed by the same methodology and that they are in line with changes to both prices and wages.
A $50 increase to the base rate of eligible payments will ensure a fairer, and more straightforward social security system and immediately reduce the extent to which Australian people are living in poverty. Better indexation will help maintain the value of an increase into the future.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
That the Environment and Communications 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 Thursday, 7 February 2013, from 1 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) Wednesday, 6 February 2013 marks the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation,
(ii) the day has been designated by the United Nations to raise awareness amongst the general public about this practice which violates the human rights of women and girls, and
(iii) the World Health Organization in 2013 will place a special focus on 'the troubling trend of health-care providers increasingly being the ones performing female genital mutilation, thereby contributing to legitimize and maintain the practice';
(b) recognises that female genital mutilation in Australia is prohibited by specific legislation in every jurisdiction; and
(c) supports and encourages steps taken by the international community to eliminate the practice of female genital mutilation.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the devastating bushfires that swept through parts of Portland, Creswick, the Gippsland and Alpine regions of Victoria in January 2013;
(b) acknowledges the determined efforts of Country Fire Authority personnel and firefighters, who sought to save as many properties as possible;
(c) recognises the efforts of Victorian Country Fire Authority personnel, who travelled to Tasmania to assist with the devastating fires surrounding Hobart; and
(d) notes:
(i) the tragic death of Victorian firefighter, Mr Peter Cramer, who lost his life while controlling fires on the Tasman Peninsula, and
(ii) the importance of the Country Fire Authority's social media sites in providing regular updates to citizens at risk.
That the Senate—
(a) recognises and supports the need for fuel reduction burns as an important management strategy aiding in the protection of communities, businesses and natural resources from bushfires; and
(b) recognises the role fire has in the sustainability of the ecology, regeneration and sustainability of a significant proportion of the Australian landscape.
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform for inquiry and report by 16 May 2013:
The advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport, including:
(a) in-ground and broadcast advertising;
(b) the role of sponsorship alongside traditional forms of advertising;
(c) in-game promotion and the integration of gambling into commentary and coverage;
(d) exposure to, and influence on, children;
(e) contribution to the prevalence of problem gambling;
(f) effect on the integrity of, and public attitudes to, sport; and
(g) any related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) with deep concern that throughout the world and in Australia, one in three women will experience violence such as beating, rape or assault in their lifetime,
(ii) that violence against women affects the human rights of over one half of the world's population,
(iii) the World Bank estimates that gender based violence is as serious a cause of death and incapacity among women of reproductive age as cancer and a greater cause of ill health than traffic accidents and malaria combined,
(iv) the Australian government's National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010 – 2022 has delivered a strong focus on primary prevention and attitudinal change in order to prevent violence against women, including investment of over $30 million in programs that target different groups within the community to influence attitudes and behaviours in order to prevent violence against women,
(v) the government has created a 1800RESPECT national telephone and online professional counselling service for victims of domestic, family and sexual violence and for their family, friends and people working with them, and
(vi) that 14 February 2013 is the 15th anniversary of V Day, a peaceful global event by One Billion Rising protesting violence against women;
(b) condemns all forms of violence against women; and
(c) encourages organisations and individuals to mark the 15th anniversary of V Day on 14 February 2013 by calling for an end to violence against women with suitable events such as flashmob dancing, or other peaceful means.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 7 March 2013:
Implementation of the National Health Reform Agreement with regard to recently announced reductions by the Commonwealth of National Health Reform funding for state hospital services, in particular:
(a) the impact on patient care and services of the funding shortfalls;
(b) the timing of the changes as they relate to hospital budgets and planning;
(c) the fairness and appropriateness of the agreed funding model, including parameters set by the Treasury (including population estimates and health inflation); and
(d) other matters pertaining to the reduction by the Commonwealth of National Health Reform funding and the National Health Reform Agreement.
That the following matter be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform for inquiry and report by 16 May 2013:
The advertising and promotion of gambling services in sport, including:
(a) in-ground and broadcast advertising;
(b) the role of sponsorship alongside traditional forms of advertising;
(c) in-game promotion and the integration of gambling into commentary and coverage;
(d) exposure to, and influence on, children;
(e) contribution to the prevalence of problem gambling, and mechanisms to reduce that prevalence;
(f) effect on the integrity of, and public attitudes to, sport;
(g) the importance of spot betting and its potential effect on the integrity of sporting codes;
(h) the effect of inducements to gamble as a form of promotion of gambling services, and their impact on problem gambling; and
(i) any related matters.
That the time for the presentation of reports of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be extended as follows:
(a) an aviation accident investigation—to 27 March 2013; and
(b) Foreign Investment Review Board national interest test—to 15 May 2013.
That the following matters be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 22 April 2013:
(a) the supply of chemotherapy drugs such as Docetaxel, particularly in relation to:
(i) patient access to treatment,
(ii) cost to pharmacists and suppliers, and
(iii) cost to the private and public hospital systems;
(b) any long-term sustainable funding models for the supply of chemotherapy drugs, including Docetaxel; and
(c) any related matters.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, by noon on Monday, 25 February 2013, submissions provided to Infrastructure Australia by the Western Australian Government for light rail and related public transport infrastructure development projects.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by the next day of sitting, the following:
(a) results and findings of the review conducted in 2011 by the Attorney General's Department in relation to 2010 increases in court filing fees; and
(b) a list of stakeholders that were consulted as part of the review by the Attorney General's Department into 2010 increases in court filing fees.
That the Senate calls on the government to:
(a) facilitate media access to the detention camps in Nauru and Manus Island to provide for transparency and public accountability about the conditions inside the camps;
(b) lift the current ban on photographs and footage of the detention facilities; and
(c) allow consenting asylum seekers and refugees within the facilities to speak freely to media agencies and journalists.
The Senate divided [12:18]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate congratulates the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, the Right Honourable Mr David Cameron MP, for his leadership in passing historic marriage equality legislation through the House of Commons.
The Senate divided. [12:22]
The President—Senator Hogg
That the Environment and Communications References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Thursday, 7 February 2013, from 1.10 pm.
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.
CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2012
The Customs Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2012 is an omnibus bill, which makes a number of amendments to the Customs Act as part of the Government's program of regulatory improvement.
Firstly, the Bill will amend the Customs Act to make it an offence to bring into Australia without a permit, certain prescribed prohibited imports to be known as restricted goods. This is different to the current offence, which requires the goods to be imported in order for an offence to be committed. Initially, the new category of restricted goods will be limited to child pornography and child abuse material. In future, this could be extended to give effect to international agreements or to address matters of international concern and could be applied to any purpose related to external affairs.
Reflecting the serious nature of the offence, the Bill proposes that it carries a maximum penalty of 1000 penalty units, which is similar to the penalties for the unlawful importation or exportation of goods.
Customs controlled areas form an important part of Customs and Border Protection's control mechanisms at airports and ports. They give officers the ability to question non-travellers, to restrict access for non-travellers, or to remove them from certain areas when Customs and Border Protection is performing its function. The Bill makes minor changes to ensure Customs and Border Protection is able to set up permanent and temporary Customs controlled areas in the maritime and air environments when dealing with aircraft and ships carrying only crew and when processing cruise ships.
This Bill implements a number of measures that clarify intent, remove redundant regulation and reduce the compliance burden for industry. This includes making it clear that self-powered ships and aircraft that are imported or intended to be imported are subject to the control of Customs and should be entered for home consumption. The Bill will also allow the CEO to request additional information from an applicant for a warehouse licence which will enable issues to be clarified without the need for industry to submit a further application.
The Bill makes minor changes to the valuation provisions, ensuring consistency with the World Trade Organization Customs Valuation Agreement.
Finally, the Bill will repeal expired moratorium periods for electronic cargo reporting and repeal the legislation that refers to the accredited client program. Technology improvements and changes in the policy, procedural and cost environment meant that the program was not implemented operationally.
Customs and Border Protection consulted industry through the release of an exposure draft of the Bill in September 2012.
Key stakeholders such as Shipping Australia, QANTAS, and CAPEC have all responded positively to these changes. Operationally, they make little changes in the way these organisations and their stakeholders do business, but clarify their obligations under the Customs Act.
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 4) 2012
The Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2012 would, if enacted, amend 5 Acts across 3 portfolios.
It is the twelfth Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill since 2004. It forms part of an ongoing program to address financial framework issues as they are identified and assists in ensuring that specific provisions in existing legislation remain clear and up-to-date.
Keeping the existing financial framework legislation up-to-date is also consistent with the reforms foreshadowed in the Government's proposed Commonwealth Financial Accountability Review.
First, the Bill would amend the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to substitute references to "Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines" with "guidelines in relation to procurement", given the recent change in name of the guidelines to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Second, the Bill would amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to provide the Director of National Parks with greater autonomy to enter into contracts with an increased threshold of $1 million from the current $250,000.
Third, the Bill would amend the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 to establish a special appropriation for the purpose of making remissions or refunds of import levies and manufacture levies, including those related to synthetic greenhouse gas management equipment.
Fourth, the Bill would establish a framework for dealing with overpayments, within the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973, and to address instances where payments are made from an annual appropriation to recipients, that are not, in practice, consistent with the requirements or preconditions imposed by this Act and risk breaching section 83 of the Constitution. This amendment flows from the amendments delivered by the Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2012.
Finally, the Bill would amend the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 to update labels of defined terms "the Chairman" and "the Vice-Chairman" with the gender neutral terms "Chair" and "Deputy Chair".
This short Bill is, accordingly, another step to help ensure that specific areas of the Commonwealth's financial framework remain effective and up-to-date.
INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Today I introduce this Bill, which will amend the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 and give the force of law in Australia to new bilateral taxation agreements with India, the Marshall Islands and Mauritius.
The agreement with India is a Protocol that will amend the current Australia–India tax treaty signed in 1991. The Protocol will promote closer economic cooperation between Australia and India by aligning the taxation of business profits and cross border services with international taxation norms and by including rules to prevent tax discrimination.
The Protocol will also improve the integrity of the Australian tax system through enhanced exchange of information provisions and new provisions providing for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts.
The bilateral agreements with the Marshall Islands and Mauritius eliminate double taxation on certain income derived by individuals, in particular government workers, students and business apprentices, and pensioners and retirees.
The Marshall Islands and Mauritius are required to provide reciprocal taxation treatment in relation to Australian government employees, students and business apprentices, retirees and pensioners.
These two agreements will also provide a mutual agreement procedure for the resolution of taxpayer disputes involving transfer pricing adjustments.
These agreements follow Australia concluding tax information exchange agreements with the Marshall Islands and Mauritius, which establish a legal basis for the exchange of taxpayer information between two countries and are an important tool in Australia's efforts to combat tax avoidance and evasion.
The agreements with India, the Marshall Islands and Mauritius will enter into force after Australia exchanges diplomatic notes with each of the other countries advising of the completion of their respective domestic law requirements.
The recent tragic accident on the Stena Clyde rig in the Otway Basin, located in the Bass Strait, which resulted in the deaths of two employees during drilling operations, represents an unfortunate example of the serious and inherent risks associated with the offshore industry.
This incident follows the uncontrolled release of hydrocarbons from the Montara Wellhead platform in August 2009, off the northern coast of Western Australia, and the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico.
Collectively, these events demonstrate and emphasise the need for a strong, effective and properly resourced offshore petroleum regulatory regime, to safeguard both human health and safety as well as the Australian marine environment.
The amendments contained in this bill largely continue the work of the Australian government to implement the lessons learnt and agreed in response to the report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry. I have more amendments I intend to introduce in the parliament in 2013 to further implement agreed recommendations coming out of the Montara report.
This bill amends the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to strengthen the offshore petroleum regulatory regime with respect to compliance, safety integrity and environmental management objectives.
The amendments seek to clarify and strength the compliance monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the National Offshore Petroleum Regulator and ensure that enforcement measures for contraventions of the act are appropriate in application and severity in the context of a high-hazard industry.
The bill also makes important amendments to provide parties responsible for administration of the act and associated regulations the ability to share information with each other and with other relevant Commonwealth and state and territory bodies. Information will be shared in circumstances where it is appropriate in order to enable those bodies to adequately discharge their legislative functions and powers.
To provide some further context to the amendments, the June 2010 report of the Montara Commission of Inquiry made several recommendations proposing amendments to the offshore petroleum regulatory regime. To give effect to these recommendations the Australian government undertook a comprehensive review of legislation applicable to offshore petroleum activities and the marine environment.
The legislative review
The bill amends the act to implement a number of the findings of the legislative review which aim to strengthen the operating practices of the offshore petroleum industry and provide additional enforcement powers to regulators.
The legislative review proposed, and the Australian government agreed, that due consideration be given to effecting several changes to the act including: the introduction of a civil penalty regime; increases to the current criminal penalty levels under the act to achieve consistency with compliance offences in other major hazard industry legislation; ensuring that penalties, including custodial penalties, for occupational health and safety offences under the act be harmonised with the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, or made greater as appropriate to reflect the serious consequences potentially resulting from regulatory breaches in a major hazard industry; and redrafting the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) inspectorate powers to provide greater clarity and consistency between the various powers of each category of inspector and remove unnecessary procedural requirements that are likely to impede NOPSEMA's ability to effectively perform its enforcement functions.
The introduction of civil penalties represents a significant first step in providing alternative enforcement tools, which will enable the regulator to select and apply an appropriate and proportionate regulatory response, depending upon the nature and relative seriousness of the breach that has occurred, and the regulatory response or action which is considered appropriate given the overall set of circumstances.
In addition, the application of civil penalties in the form of financial sanctions as a supplement or alternative to the existing criminal penalties and set at an appropriate level to reflect the nature of the offshore petroleum industry as a high-hazard industry is intended to encourage improved compliance with the act.
This will further enhance the existing objective based regime by supporting continuous improvement by industry, which is responsible under the regime to demonstrate to the regulator that the risk of operations are reduced as low as reasonably practicable.
Another critical measure contained in this bill is that which enables the parties responsible for the administration of the act to share regulatory information in appropriate circumstances. Currently, the act does not include the express provision to enable information obtained during the exercise of powers and functions under the act and regulations to be appropriately shared with other parties.
This legal issue in the offshore regulatory regime was highlighted during federal court proceedings initiated by a company against investigators in 2009 where an injunction was successfully obtained to prevent the sharing of regulatory information during an investigation into the death of a worker.
In the absence of an express provision, it has become evident that there is such potential detrimental legal impediments to regulators being able to share information—where it may be appropriate to do so—for such purposes of a joint investigation to comprehensively investigate an incident and pursue a successful prosecution of companies at fault or to educate other regulators about potential operational risks that have been discovered during the course of compliance monitoring or investigations.
In addition to this proposed amendment to the act, the Commonwealth is working together with the states and the Northern Territory to ensure that similar provisions are incorporated into relevant state and territory legislation to facilitate mutual information sharing, which will ensure that a comprehensive and effective approach to multijurisdictional compliance activities and investigations is possible.
Finally, the bill also implements a decision to remove the responsible state minister for Tasmania, as is his state's preference, from the joint authority arrangements in the offshore regulatory regime.
The current set of amendments will go some way towards addressing issues identified as arising from the Montara incident in August 2009.
However, I also remain committed to the continuing improvement of the offshore regulatory regime and, in line with this commitment, I have a number of further measures currently under consideration developed for progression in 2013, including consideration of a range of further alternative compliance and enforcement tools recommended in the legislative review to strengthen the ability of the regulator to enforce critical safety and environmental management requirements to help protect the Australian offshore workforce and marine environment.
In summary, through a range of measures, including: the introduction of a civil penalty regime; increases to criminal penalty levels contained in the act for offshore health and safety and environmental management; offences to achieve consistency with penalties for comparable offences in Australian legislation, including other major hazard industry legislation; redrafting the inspectorate powers to provide greater clarity and consistency between the various powers of each category of inspector; and remove unnecessary procedural requirements that are likely to impede the regulator's ability to effectively enforce the functions.
This bill underscores the government's commitment to the maintenance and continuing improvement of a strong effective framework for the regulation of offshore petroleum activities.
I commend the bill to the Senate.
PROTECTION OF CULTURAL OBJECTS ON LOAN BILL 2012
The introduction of the Protection of Cultural Objects on Loan Bill 2012 comes at an exciting time for arts and culture in Australia.
In line with the Government's Australia in the Asian Century White Paper, we are deepening our arts and cultural ties with Asia.
And the Government is finalising the first National Cultural Policy in 20 years, which will bring the vast array of stakeholders, art forms, opportunities and investment needs together in a comprehensive policy.
This bill will further develop our cultural wealth by encouraging loans of significant cultural objects from overseas for temporary public exhibition in Australia.
Every year millions of Australians visit our major national, state and territory cultural institutions. These audiences expect to see the best Australia and the world can offer.
This year alone has seen works of old Spanish masters at the Queensland Art Gallery, ten centuries of manuscripts at the National Library of Australia and the genius of Picasso at the Art Gallery of New South Wales. Soon we will see Toulouse-Lautrec's view of Parisian life at the National Gallery of Australia and ancient treasures from Afghanistan at four museums around the country, including Museum Victoria and the Western Australian Museum.
The ability to borrow these objects enriches the cultural experience for Australian audiences, draws visitors from far and wide, and delivers significant economic benefits.
The resounding success of the Renaissance exhibition, held at the National Gallery of Australia last summer, shows the scale of this economic dividend. It attracted almost 213,000 visitors and brought an estimated $75 million to the local economy.
But despite the popularity of these exhibitions, in the past ten years it has become increasingly difficult for Australia's major galleries, libraries and museums to secure overseas loans.
Australia, unlike numerous other countries, does not have comprehensive legislation providing protection for cultural objects on loan from overseas.
Under existing Commonwealth legislation, protection for cultural objects on loan only applies in specific and limited circumstances under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986.
Although the risk of legal claims being made on cultural objects while they are on loan in Australia is low, foreign lenders are increasingly reluctant to loan to Australia's major cultural institutions in the absence of national legislation. As a result, loan negotiations between Australian cultural institutions and foreign lenders have become protracted and in some cases loans have been denied.
This legislation will address those concerns.
It will protect cultural objects on loan by limiting the circumstances in which ownership or physical possession, custody or control of the objects can be affected while they are in Australia.
Objects will be protected if they are imported into Australia for temporary public exhibition under arrangements involving an institution approved by the Minister.
This scheme does not abrogate cultural institutions from the need to undertake rigorous due diligence and provenance research.
On the contrary, in order to be approved, institutions will be required to demonstrate that they have the necessary expertise, rigour, capacity and resources to meet the demands established by the scheme, including exercising appropriate due diligence.
The inclusion of these requirements supports Australia's continued ability to meet its international obligations under the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
The Bill only limits the legal action that can be taken while objects are in Australia on loan. It does not affect the ability of a potential claimant to take legal action in the jurisdiction where the object is usually held.
To encourage the loan of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander objects to Australia, the Bill will apply to most of those objects held in foreign collections.
This will provide opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to re-connect with their culture and facilitate further engagement and relationships between overseas institutions and Indigenous communities. It will also enable all Australians to engage with and be invigorated by our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.
However, in recognition that some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material is particularly sensitive and culturally important, the Bill will not apply to significant Australian heritage objects that are identified as Class A objects under the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act 1986. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material in that category includes human remains, bark and log coffins, secret sacred ritual material, rock art and dendroglyphs (carved trees).
This legislation is also consistent with the Australian Government's commitment to facilitating the unconditional repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains and secret sacred objects to their communities of origin.
Consultation is an important element of the scheme and requirements will be included in the regulations. There will be specific consultation requirements for proposed loans of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material to enable Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and groups to be actively involved in discussions about proposed loans before objects come to Australia.
Further transparency will be built into the scheme through regulations requiring the publication of information on objects proposed for loan prior to their importation. This is an important mechanism to assist persons who may be seeking to locate objects they believe were unlawfully taken.
The introduction of this legislation will align Australia with an emerging international standard of providing protection for cultural objects on loan from overseas.
It will reassure foreign lenders that Australia is a secure destination for loans and enable our great cultural institutions to successfully compete for world class exhibitions.
Broad consultation, including many submissions in response to a 2011 discussion paper, demonstrate strong support for Commonwealth legislation on this issue.
This support extends from the collections sector to state and territory cultural ministers and to the tourism and hospitality sectors. It reflects an acknowledgment of the direct benefits that major international exhibitions deliver to the Australian economy.
I would like to acknowledge the role of former Director of the Art Gallery of New South Wales Ed Capon in bringing the issue to the attention of state, territory and Federal governments at the August meeting of Cultural Ministers last year. I also acknowledge the effective collaboration of museums and galleries and state governments with Federal agencies which has led to a solution.
Many of Australia's leading museums and galleries are planning ambitious future exhibition programs. This bill will provide vital support to those activities.
Governments must invest in the arts. A vibrant arts sector delivers a social dividend of creativity, communication, respect, inclusion and teamwork – values this nation cherishes.
There is also an economic dividend. The evidence shows that creative nations are productive and resilient nations.
This bill directly supports the future of international cultural exhibitions. It will benefit our cultural institutions, our economy and ensure Australians continue to have access to the world's riches of art and culture.
(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 36), after section 86AE, insert:
86AEA Limit on purchase of water access rights
The total amount of water access rights purchased by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth since 2009, whether with amounts debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account or otherwise for the purposes of the Basin Plan, must not exceed 1500 gigalitres.
The Committee divided. [12:38]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 35), after paragraph 86AI(2)(c), insert:
(ca) for all water recovery for which an amount was debited from the Water for the Environment Special Account during the report year for the purposes of paragraph 86AD(2)(b)—how that recovery achieved a neutral or beneficial socio‑economic outcome;
(1) Within 12 months after the commencement of the Basin Plan, the Authority must prepare a constraints management strategy that:
(a) identifies and describes the physical, operational and management constraints that are affecting, or have the potential to affect, environmental water delivery; and
(b) assists all jurisdictions to participate in constraint measures in order to allow environmental water to be used to maximum effect and to maximise the benefits of any increase in held environmental water; and
(c) evaluates options, opportunities and risks to water users, communities and the environment, associated with addressing key constraints, including through constraint measures that are relevant to measures that might be notified under section 7.12; and
(d) assesses the impacts of modifications of constraints on environmental water delivery and third parties, as well as downstream impacts, and assesses options to address those impacts; and
(e) identifies mechanisms by which impacts on third parties can be addressed.
(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (after line 5), after subsection 86AD(2), insert:
(2A) In debiting amounts for the purposes of making payments in relation to projects mentioned in paragraph (2)(a) or (c), priority is to be given to:
(a) projects that will produce the maximum guaranteed increase in the volume of Basin water resources that are available for environmental use within the shortest time; and
(b) projects that demonstrably take into account the most recent scientific knowledge in relation to ground water and climate change; and
(c) projects that demonstrably enhance the environmental outcomes referred to in the objects to this Part.
(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (after line 9), at the end of section 86AF, add:
(3) The terms and conditions must include a requirement that the financial assistance granted will be used for a purpose that:
(a) is consistent with achieving, by 31 December 2019, an increase of at least 450 gigalitres in the volume of the Basin water resources available for environmental use; and
(b) will enhance the environmental outcomes referred to in the objects to this Part.
(25) Schedule 1, item 6, page 13 (line 4), omit "subsection 86AF(2)", substitute "subsections 86AF(2) and (3)".
(v) entering agreements to acquire an interest in, or in relation to, land (including easements) to facilitate environmental watering—
… entering agreements to acquire an interest in, or in relation to, land (including easements)—
(17) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 27), after subsection 86AI(2)(b), add:
; (iv) whether it is anticipated that that increase will meet the target of at least 450 gigalitres by 31 December 2019;
(18) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 27), after subparagraph 86AI(2)(c)(iii), insert:
; (iv) whether the project achieved the optimum water recovery volume against the expenditure of funds under the Water for the Environment Special Account as under subsection 86AD(2);
(19) Schedule 1, item 2, page 11 (line 19), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "31 December 2019".
(20) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 5), omit "30 September 2019", substitute "30 September 2015".
(21) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 7), omit "30 September 2021", substitute "30 September 2017".
(22) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 14), omit "2020‑2021 financial year", substitute "2016‑2017 financial year".
(23) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (line 16), omit "2022‑2023 financial year", substitute "2018‑2019 financial year".
(24) Schedule 1, item 2, page 12 (after line 16), after section 86AJ, add:
86AK Audit of Water Special Account
(1) Pursuant to the powers under Part 3, the National Water Commission must audit the Water for the Environment Special Account as soon as practicable after 30 June in each financial year from the date of establishment of the account.
(2) The audit must report on:
(a) the quantity of environmental water that was delivered to each project that receives payments under this Act; and
(b) the value to the community of any payments made under paragraph 86AD(2)(c)(ii).
The committee divided. [13:38]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Bernardi)
That this bill be now read a third time.
RESPONSE: TRANSITIONS FROM PARENTING PAYMENT
I undertook to follow up some matters in response to a question from Senator Siewert on Tuesday in regard to parents moving from the parenting payment to Newstart and other payments.
Advice given to parents
Last year the Department created a team of 300 staff across the country to make contact with parents coming off Parenting Payment. This team has been provided with comprehensive training.
The Department has informed me that officers have not been advised to tell parents that their Schoolkids bonus could be used to compensate for a loss in income support payment.
Staff talked to each individual parent about their circumstances and entitlements. In doing this, parents would have been advised of all upcoming payments they were eligible for, such as the School Kids Bonus, and how this could assist parents with essential education expenditure.
The Department is still giving priority to engaging and supporting these parents progressively transitioning to Newstart under the new arrangements. This includes giving priority to setting the appointments for people to discuss their circumstances.
Use of Centrepay
500,000 customers use Centrepay every week across Australia.
When talking with parents coming off Parenting Payment, departmental staff discussed their Centrepay arrangements and made sure all existing Centrepay deductions continued or were amended as they transferred onto Newstart.
This included advice to parents that, if necessary, they should engage with those organisations receiving their deductions.
The Department also engaged directly with the third party organisations, such as housing authorities and utility providers, to ensure they were aware of the changes for this group.
If for any reason individuals have not had Centrepay settings continued, they should contact Centrelink immediately.
If the Senator has any specific cases that she would like my Department to follow up, I will arrange for them to do so.
Eligibility for Concession Cards
There are various rules relating to customer eligibility for concession cards.
There is no transition period for retaining concession card entitlements when a recipient moves from one payment to another.
Retention of card eligibility is primarily linked to people moving into employment from income support.
However, for Parenting Payment recipients, the Department has a new process that ensures that parents transitioning has been a significant increase to Newstart can continue to use their card pending confirmation of their commencement on a new payment.
That the Senate take note of the minister's explanation.
That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today.
Our crisis—
is more than just a crisis of trust brought on by the corrupt behaviour of property scammers and lobbyists. It's a crisis of belief brought on by a lack of moral and political purpose.
… with almost two-thirds of firms reporting lack of sales and orders as their biggest constraint.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Milne) today relating to environmental laws.
That the Senate take note of the ministerial statement on Closing the Gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
The report shows that there is no measureable and clear evidence of any positive impact of income management. Those who do support the scheme tend to do so because of benefits such as fee-free banking, similar benefits they receive through voluntary income management or Centrepay arrangements.
While in absolute terms the overall trend is to increasing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander longevity, the capacity of these gains to close the gap remains an issue.
If current trends continue, under-five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mortality rates may fall within the range of the COAG Target to halve the gap in under-five mortality by 2018. However the relative lack of progress in recent years and the widening differential on the critical factor of low birth weight cause concern.
When the significantly greater need for health services resulting from poorer health status is factored in (the Campaign Steering Committee estimates this is at least double as a general rule) the relative lack of total funding available for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health is evident.
Australia is strategically positioned and has the ability to effect substantive change for the role of women at national, regional and international levels.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report:
Statutory Oversight of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission—August 2011
February 2013
Recommendation 1
Government response
– A licence given by ASIC that allows people or companies to legally carry on a financial services business, including selling, advising or dealing in financial products. You should only deal with licensed businesses as you are better protected if things go wrong and you will have access to free dispute resolution services. ASIC grants a licence if a business shows it can meet basic standards such as training, compliance, insurance and dispute resolution. The business is responsible for maintaining these standards. A licence does not mean that ASIC endorses the company, financial product or advice or that you cannot incur a loss from the investment.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam (AAI), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e Jangvi (LeJ) as terrorist organisations — tabled 28 May 2012
February 2013
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Ansar al-Islam (AAI), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ) as terrorist organisations
Tabled 28 May 2012
Government ' s Response to Committee ' s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Ansar al-Islam as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ) as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Hizballah ' s External Security Organisation - tabled 28 June 2012
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Hizballah ' s External Security Organisation
Tabled 28 June 2012
Government ' s Response to Committee ' s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Hizballah's External Security Organisation as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Five Terrorist Organisations (Al Shabaab, Hamas ' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — tabled 10 October 2012
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Review of the re-listing of Five Terrorist Organisations (Al Shabaab, Hamas ' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Palestinian Islamic Jihad)
Tabled 10 October 2012
Government ' s Response to Committee ' s Recommendations
Recommendation 1:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 2:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassasm Brigades as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 3:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the Kurdistan Workers Party as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 4:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation Lashkar-e-Tayyiba as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
Recommendation 5:
The Committee recommends that the regulation, made under the Criminal Code section 102.1, to list the organisation Palestinian Islamic Jihad as a terrorist organisation not be disallowed.
Response:
The Government agrees with the recommendation.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report:
The performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services
February 2013
Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Report on the performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services
Introduction
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) welcomes the Committee's Report and its recommendations. We acknowledge and thank the Committee members for their work. This response is framed in accordance with the specific recommendations of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee and also seeks to address the additional areas of broad concern and other matters of continuing interest to the Committee.
Many of the recommendations reflect the priority directions to refocus and strengthen DPS as a Department that delivers customer-focused and efficient services. In many areas, DPS has already commenced action in line with, or extending further, the recommendations of the Committee.
DPS commits to periodically informing the Committee of the progress against these priorities, the implementation of the recommendations and other actions that have been committed to in this response.
Accountability and transparency
Recommendation 1 — The committee recommends that the funding and administration of the Department of Parliamentary Services be overseen by the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee and the House Appropriations and Administration Committee meeting jointly for that purpose, and that standing orders be amended as necessary.
Response
The Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) supports an appropriate level of scrutiny and advocacy for its role within the parliamentary system. There are currently four main layers of Parliamentary accountability for DPS.
Most significantly the Presiding Officers have a direct line of accountability to them from the Secretary of DPS. This relationship is articulated in the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and they have utilised this authority in instructing the incoming Secretary in 2012 about their expectations and have met regularly with her to ensure the operational improvements and the program of reform are on track.
The Presiding Officers have a number of committees which operate to advise them on key aspects of DPS' role. These include the Security Management Board (usually meets ten times a year) and the Joint Library Committee (meets 4 times a year). Over the past 12 months the Presiding Officers have also overseen the establishment of the Heritage Advisory Board (meeting ten times a year) and the Parliamentary ICT Advisory Board (expected to meet six times a year). The Presiding Officers are actively involved in this layer of accountability and have taken action when required.
The second layer, the Joint House Committee, is made up of the members of the separate House Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives and usually meets four times a year. The primary focus of these separate Committees is their own Houses. The Joint House Committee is currently Chaired by the President of the Senate.
The third layer is oversight by the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee through its Estimates hearings three times a year and its questions on notice process. The Committee has raised concerns that the identification of many issues raised in the Inquiry came to its attention through the Estimates process. In many ways this might be seen to represent the valuable role Estimates plays in accountability.
The fourth layer is the Parliament itself. Under statute and resolutions, the Parliament is required to involve itself in Parliamentary administration and the activities of DPS. The Department was established by resolutions of the Houses in accordance with the Parliamentary Services Act 1999 . Certain proposals for work (including major work proposals) in the Parliamentary zone and precincts are to be approved by the Parliament in accordance with theParliament Act 1974 . A Senate resolution of 3 June 1987 provides, inter alia, that no changes in the structure or responsibilities of the Parliamentary Departments should be made until the Senate has approved of the changes.
DPS is also accountable through its Annual Report, Australian National Audit Office audit processes and general legislative compliance requirements for such matters as budget, fraud control and WHS. While there may be merit in a further element of scrutiny over DPS to assist the Presiding Officers in their role, its form would need to be balanced against current arrangements to maximise its effectiveness.
As also noted in the Report there is no single entity with a role to advocate for the needs of DPS. In this way it differs from the Chamber Departments which each have a specific Parliamentary Committee dedicated to both oversight and advocacy.
In this context the Presiding Officers will consider whether alternative mechanisms for both accountability and advocacy should be established either along the lines recommended by the Committee or as a stand-alone arrangement. In the interim, the Presiding Officers will continue to affect accountability on the Department Secretary as specified in the Act and will closely monitor the performance of the Secretary in the delivery of her duties.
Employment issues
General comment
The Committee's findings on bullying and harassment within DPS, the lack of confidence in senior management and lack of leadership in this area is beyond dispute. Regrettably, historically there has not been sufficient active focus on bullying and harassment and several individual cases were not appropriately dealt with. It is acknowledged that further and on-going action is required by the Department.
DPS supports the recommendations to build and re-establish the confidence of staff to raise concerns regarding inappropriate behaviour in the workplace. In late 2012, the Department developed and is now implementing a Fostering Inclusion and Respect Strategy designed to ensure that DPS is a fair and ethical workplace for all staff through a stronger focus on prevention, early intervention when such matters are raised, timely investigation and follow up. Supporting this will be a broader strategy to promote appropriate workplace behaviour which is currently in development and will be implemented from early 2013. Key elements underpinning both strategies include embedding senior management commitment, prevention initiatives, a learning and development program, strengthened policies and procedures and monitoring and regular reporting.
Further work is also required to improve confidence in DPS recruitment practices and the health and welfare of staff. The responses below aim to strengthen recruitment practices by improving transparency and merit based processes. Improving the health and welfare of staff will be addressed through a more equitable allocation of work and review of specific work practices in priority areas such as Hansard.
Recommendation 2 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services implements appropriate training programs for managers in relation to bullying and harassment and ensures that adequate processes are in place so that all employees are confident in reporting bullying and harassment.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
In 2012 DPS focused on a corporate compliance training program to educate managers and staff on appropriate workplace behaviour through the following courses:
All staff are now required to attend these courses every two years. During 2011-12, there were 339 attendances recorded for these courses.
In November 2012, DPS also conducted a pilot course on the management of workplace behaviour which was compulsory for all Parliamentary Executive Level 2 Directors. This course covered what is, and what is not, appropriate workplace behaviour and, strategies to remedy inappropriate behaviour; leadership techniques, roles and responsibilities; and the DPS complaint management process.
By July 2013, DPS will also create a suite of information and support tools for staff and managers that articulate the roles and responsibilities of all staff. This will include:
Recommendation 3 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services develop a bullying register to record information about bullying such as details of the incident, where it happened and what action that has been taken so that any trends can be quickly and easily identified.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
In July 2011, DPS established a Human Resource Register (Register) in which HR staff record workplace issues. Matters recorded include complaints of bullying and harassment, workplace disputes, Code of Conduct investigations and requests for review of management action.
DPS currently uses the Register as both a reporting mechanism and as a preliminary stage of its case management process to help ensure that all workplace matters are recorded and actioned through to an appropriate conclusion for the complainant and respondent.
From March 2013 the DPS Executive will review regular reports on bullying and harassment complaints, disputes and pending workplace investigations. The intent of this process is that workplace behavioural issues are swiftly and professionally addressed. This action will establish more streamlined and effective processes that will avoid the mistakes of the past and enable issues to be better managed through proper oversight and regular reporting.
Recommendation 4 — The committee recommends that if areas with systemic bullying issues are identified, that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake a pre-emptive investigation of the area rather than wait until formal complaints are received.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS recognises that it is vital to address inappropriate behaviour as soon as it is identified, rather than waiting for a specific complaint to occur. In accordance with the 2011 Comcare Bullying Prevention Audit, all DPS section managers have conducted formal Bullying Risk Assessments to identify whether trends or hotspots exist. The responses have been analysed and advice provided back to each branch head regarding contributory factors, such as the level and intensity of workload; staff shortages; and organisational change. In September 2012 Branch heads were provided advice on the various options which exist within DPS to mitigate the risk of inappropriate behaviour.
To further support pre-emptive action against bullying and harassment, in late 2012 DPS commenced a program to revamp and re-energise its Harassment Contact Officer (HCO) Network. Through an active promotion of the role, staff representation on the HCO Network increased from nine HCOs in October 2012 to 27 in December 2012. The role of the HCO is to assist staff by being the first point of contact for issues of bullying, harassment, discrimination and other forms of unacceptable behaviour.
The HCO network is a significant mechanism which provides individual staff opportunities for direct and discreet contact, whilst ensuring that issues of inappropriate workplace behaviour are promptly addressed and privacy assured. HCOs are tasked with distributing information about their services throughout DPS through team and branch meetings and other representational forums. The HCOs are scheduled to undertake a two-day HCO training course in February 2013 and all staff will be actively encouraged to use the HCO Network to assist them in matters where they believe they are experiencing or witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
All HCOs are required to report to HR Services any contact with staff regarding inappropriate behaviour. It is intended that, as DPS establishes and further strengthens the HCO Network, the volunteer HCOs will become workplace 'champions' in educating colleagues in the early identification and resolution of inappropriate behaviour.
Recommendation 5 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services approach Comcare to undertake a further audit, including a survey of all staff, before the end of 2013 to measure improvements, if any, in the management of bullying and inappropriate workplace behaviour in the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS has commenced preliminary discussions with Comcare to conduct a supplementary audit (including survey) similar to the bullying and harassment audit undertaken in late 2011.
DPS anticipates that Comcare will conduct this audit and survey in late 2013. The survey will provide valuable feedback on the impact of strategies rolled out in 2012-13 by:
DPS will also assist Comcare in the development and promotion of a National Work Health and Safety (WHS) Management System Audit Tool. DPS's Work Health and Safety Management System is audited against the SafetyMAP audit tool, and is accredited against the Joint Accreditation System Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) standards.
DPS aims to model best-practice for other Commonwealth agencies. DPS is the only Commonwealth premium paying agency that has accreditation to JAS-ANZ standards. As a result, Comcare will use the DPS WHS Management System as a case study for distribution to the wider Commonwealth.
Recommendation 6 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services ensure that all recruitment processes are open, transparent and based on merit.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
The Parliamentary Service Act 1999 and theParliamentary Service Determination 2003/2 provide the legislative framework for staff selection and engagement in the Parliamentary Service. This legislative framework is intended to ensure that all selection processes are based on merit, free of patronage, favouritism and discrimination and that the principles of procedural fairness apply.
DPS acknowledges that it needs to strengthen procedures to provide greater confidence that:
To ensure that all recruitment processes are open, transparent and based on merit DPS will review its policies and guidelines in the first half of 2013 so that all participants, including selection committee members, understand their roles and responsibilities. From early 2013, DPS will also introduce a formal process for all members of selection committees to declare perceived and actual conflicts of interest prior to short-listing applications, to ensure the concerns and perceptions of nepotism are addressed.
The DPS Executive will review regular reports on all recruitment actions. This reporting will include all recruitment statistics and components such as number of applicants for each position, number short listed, panel members, decisions, merit lists, outcomes and any additional information to ensure transparency and accountability for recruitment decisions.
Recommendation 7 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services ensures that all employees involved in the conduct of selection processes receive adequate training and that a review of recruitment processes and tools be undertaken to ensure that they are relevant and appropriate.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
A key component of the DPS corporate training agenda is Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) training. This training covers the application of the merit selection and the rigour required when making employment decisions. As stated in response to Recommendation 6, all policies, processes and guidelines relating to selection and employment decisions will be reviewed and communicated to all staff.
DPS will also ensure that only trained staff can participate in a Selection Advisory Committee.
Recommendation 8 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services investigate the use of systems, including electronic recruitment, to better manage recruitment and ensure efficient processes.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS notes the benefits of an electronic recruitment system and has commenced work on a comprehensive e-HR project to encompass electronic systems that will not only benefit recruitment processes but also performance management, learning and development and analytic and reporting systems. It is expected this project will automate several HR manual processes to realise working efficiencies and assist staff in workflow processes and decision making.
DPS will complete this action by the end of 2013.
Recommendation 9 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services approaches the Merit Protection Commissioner to establish independent selection advisory committees for forthcoming recruitment processes.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS has commenced discussions with the Merit Protection Commissioner (MPC) on possible assistance with forthcoming recruitment processes, and developing strategies to be used across the Department to promote merit-based principles. The MPC provides a service called Independent Selection Advisory Committees (ISAC), which can make recommendations to agencies about the suitability of candidates in recruitment exercises. The ISAC may be used to fill vacancies at the job classification levels of APS 2-6.
The MPC may charge agencies a fee for services provided by the ISAC. DPS will consider using this service, noting that, despite its cost, the Department may realise savings as the ISAC provides an efficient, professional and transparent process at the outset, without the costs of delayed placement decisions resulting from promotion reviews.
The Department will continue to work with the MPC over the coming months with the aim of implementing this recommendation by 30 June 2013.
Recommendation 10 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services review rates of personal leave in order to identify any underlying causes of the high levels of personal leave taken in the department.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
Personal leave is an important entitlement for staff. Unplanned personal leave is often needed, not only due to illness, but for caring and other responsibilities. Data does show however, that rates of unplanned leave are above average in DPS.
Absence management is therefore an important issue for DPS to address and the Department acknowledges that high absence levels can often indicate an underlying workplace issue such as motivation, job satisfaction or commitment to organisational goals. DPS recognises that failure to manage and address unplanned absence places other employees under unnecessary pressure. In this context an early focus approach will be undertaken to determine where the 'hot spots' and assist frontline managers with a better practice approach, using clear, fair and well-communicated management methods. These methods may include training for line managers in addressing absenteeism; providing them with tools to record, monitor and analyse their workplace; and assisting them with a consistent prevention and return to work strategy for staff who demonstrate consistent unplanned absenteeism.
For a longer-term management approach, DPS will establish an Absenteeism Review Group comprising staff, managers and union representatives to assess the nature of unplanned staff absences, identify underlying causes and develop measures to bring rates of personal leave to an acceptable level. The DPS Executive will also review regular reports on the management of personal leave, using statistical analysis, benchmarking and trend data. Absenteeism will also continue to be discussed at the Department's quarterly Consultative Forum meetings. DPS will implement measures to address this recommendation by 30 June 2013.
Recommendation 11 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake a work health and safety audit within Hansard services to identify any factors contributing to overuse injuries.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS has a number of staff in Hansard who have had workplace restrictions for many years. In 2011, there were eight (8) long-term cases in Hansard. As a result, DPS undertook a much more coordinated and proactive approach to assisting staff with workplace injuries, primarily through engagement of an Occupational Physician with expertise in musculoskeletal injuries. The Occupational Physician was invited to visit Hansard to obtain a thorough understanding of Hansard operations, enabling them to make fully informed recommendations regarding treatment and work restrictions of affected staff. This intervention approach has enabled six long term affected staff to successfully return to full time duties, noting that other two staff members are making sound progress to recovery.
As part of the Department's enhanced focus on proactively supporting staff, in September 2012, it engaged SRC Solutions to undertake a risk assessment of the Hansard work environment. SRC Solutions reported in late 2012 and found that:
The Report also made several recommendations in relation to work practices and workload; use of technology; physical working environment; occupational overuse syndrome and pre-employment screening for staff. Implementation of the Report's recommendations began in January 2013.
Notwithstanding this recent work, given the SRC Solutions report, ongoing concerns about WHS raised by Hansard staff and broader workplace development opportunities, DPS will conduct a full review of Hansard in 2013. While the terms of reference for the review are yet to be finalised, it will include examining how improvements in the use of technology, staffing roles and structures, managing variations in workload and training could contribute to a more healthy, effective and efficient workplace.
Heritage management of Parliament House
General comment
The Committee has highlighted serious issues with DPS processes for the management of assets at Parliament House. These include the maintenance of design intent, the adequacy of engagement with the original architects, the governance framework through which changes to the building are made, the transparency of decisions and the involvement of the Parliament in certain decisions. DPS accepts that major changes are required to address these issues.
DPS is committed to developing a clear vision for the preservation of the building that will remain relevant for decades to come. The way forward will include new arrangements for genuine consultation with the moral rights holders, the development of a Conservation Management Plan with the assistance of an expert advisory committee, improved project management, strengthen governance and the creation of specialist senior positions to drive revised processes for the management of heritage.
Recommendation 12 — The committee recommends that the Presiding Officers arrange for the installation of a plaque within the Parliamentary Precincts, during the building ' s 25 th anniversary, commemorating the contribution made by Mr Romaldo Giurgola, as well as all those who worked on the planning, design and construction of Parliament House.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
Arrangements are currently underway for a plaque to commemorate the contribution of the original architects and those who worked on the planning, design and construction of Parliament House. It is anticipated that the plaque will be placed in a prominent position within the Parliamentary Precincts during a special ceremony in mid-2013, the year of the 25th anniversary of the opening of Parliament House.
Recommendation 13 — The committee recommends that the Presiding Officers table in both Houses, on a biennial basis, a report devoted specifically to the building and its contents including information on the condition of the building and its contents, costs of upkeep of the building, heritage concerns and any other related matter so as to fully inform the Parliament and the public about the building.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS acknowledges the concerns of the Committee about the completeness, accuracy and transparency of information it provides, in addition to its overall capacity to effectively manage the building. It is important that the Parliament and the Australian public are provided with full and frank information about the condition of Parliament House as one of the most iconic working and public buildings in the country. Current planning and reporting practices do not provide an adequate basis from which to assess the ongoing needs of the building and its contents.
DPS recognises the important custodial role it plays in maintaining this complex national building and its contents and commits to better performing this role into the future through improved organisational capabilities, benchmarking, medium and long term planning and reporting.
In its evidence to the Inquiry in October 2012, DPS committed to reviewing the current methodology through which the condition of the building is assessed—the Building Condition Index (BCI) and the Engineering Services Condition Index (ESCI). This will be undertaken in 2013 and will assist DPS to develop an appropriately detailed Strategic Asset Management Plan through which accurate and costed strategies for maintaining the building and its contents can be developed and published.
As recommended, DPS will report to the Parliament through the Presiding Officers on matters relating to the building and its contents, including the costs of upkeep and operations and associated heritage issues. It is envisaged that this will require a staged development, commencing with the review of BCI and ESCI methodology prior to a full condition audit in 2013-14. The Department will simultaneously improve its business case, costing and project management capabilities to ensure that the findings of the condition audit can be accurately costed for budget purposes.
Maintenance and project management
General comment
The Committee has raised concerns about the adequacy of project planning, the availability of in-house technical expertise, and the implementation of projects by DPS. Of particular concern is the lack of specialist departmental staff to provide advice in technical areas and undertake appropriate maintenance work within the building. Currently, DPS has panel arrangements for the supply of some technical specialist services such as engineering expertise. Other skill sets are supplied by in-house staff. It is timely to review the existing skill set and to determine the appropriate range of expertise needed to maintain and upgrade the building.
Related to this, in late 2012 DPS commissioned a high-level review of the Asset and Capital Management Framework in order to streamline and provide a higher level of reporting and management of the Capital Management process within DPS. Implementation of some of the recommendations will directly impact on project management and will improve the project request approval process, transparency of projects and accuracy of reports. Internal changes to organisation structures within DPS are underway to improve project governance, consistency of approach and project controls.
Recommendation 14 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake capability reviews in relation to design integrity, project management and technical areas including fire safety and engineering services.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
The Department will commission focused capability reviews in the areas of design integrity, project management and technical services, including fire safety and engineering, in the first half of 2013.
These reviews will identify the skills and qualifications of current staff and match those against identified corporate needs. This will be followed by a training and recruitment strategy to fill any internal gaps as well as inform DPS' approach to contracted services in specialist asset management areas.
Recommendation 15 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake an audit of fire safety in Parliament House and consider reviewing the standard of building documentation.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
Since July 2010, DPS has commissioned three investigations by specialist engineers into different aspects of fire safety systems including replacement of the fire indicator panels, fire sensors replacement, and fire penetrations audit and rectification. This has resulted in a program of works to upgrade and replace old and ageing infrastructure and systems, and expected changes to operational procedures. It is anticipated that all priority work will be completed by September 2014, with the remainder of the current program to be completed by June 2015.
Over time, the fire code and the Building Code of Australia change and the obligations of building owners can also vary. While accepting this recommendation, in light of the recent investigations and the program of works, DPS proposes that the recommended fire safety audit be carried out at the conclusion of the current program of works. In the intervening period, DPS will conduct its skills audit and related work to ensure it has the appropriate expertise in this important area.
Building documentation is a vital element of DPS responsibilities. Document management protocols are maintained in accordance with the National Archives of Australia (NAA) guidelines and the NAA DPS disposal authority.
In 2012, the current documentation/drawing management system, which was specifically developed for the Joint House Department, was reviewed for its ability to continue to provide an efficient service. The review identified a number of deficiencies, primarily due to interoperability with legacy systems and productivity improvements which are now available with newer software packages.
A scope for the technical documentation management system upgrade will be developed by June 2013, with the aim to commence the upgrade in the 2013-14 financial year.
Documentation relating to the building and infrastructure services must be maintained for the 200 year building life. DPS has a procedure for processing updates to the technical drawings and the technical documentation library, whenever there are changes made to the building. In summary, drawings and other technical documentation are reviewed to ensure that the information accurately reflects work completed and all changes are tracked through the documentation management system to update the master plans for the building. The process is required to ensure that the history of changes to the building are recorded, and maintained in accordance with the National Archives of Australian (NAA) guidelines and the NAA DPS disposal authority.
Recommendation 16 — The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services provide more accurate, meaningful and transparent information, including information about costs and construction projects undertaken in Parliament House, in its annual report.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
A comprehensive review of the form and content of the Annual Report will be undertaken, including specific consideration of issues raised by the Committee including:
A full review of the DPS Key Performance Indicators has also commenced. It is acknowledged that the number of performance measures reported in the Portfolio Budget Statements and Annual Report is too great and many existing indicators do not facilitate useful analysis. The anticipated outcomes of the review are:
Both reviews are related and will be conducted during the first quarter of 2013.
Asset management
General comment
While the Committee has noted some improvement in DPS's disposal procedures since the commencement of its Inquiry, it has also expressed concern that improvements will not be realised unless there is a continued focus on what constitutes possible heritage or cultural value. The Committee also highlights that DPS is a steward of assets on behalf of the Parliament and the Australian people.
In line with these concerns, DPS commits to developing a plan, in consultation with the other Parliamentary Departments, for coordinated procedures and ongoing training and awareness raising in relation to the management of items with possible heritage or cultural value.
Recommendation 17 - The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services undertake a full audit of the Parliament House status A and B furniture with particular regard to condition, conservation measures, use of furniture, and past disposal practices.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS owns and is responsible for all status A furniture. However, existing arrangements for category B furniture are complex. DPS does not own or control a significant portion of the status B furniture. Broadly, DPS owns and looks after all status B furniture in general circulation areas and in the Ministerial Wing. The Chamber Departments own and are responsible for the status B furniture in their respective locations/departments. While all status A and B furniture is maintained by DPS, the Chamber Departments are responsible for refurbishment and disposal of their respective status B furniture. Over the course of a year DPS carries out inspections of all status A and B furniture and provides advice to the Chamber Departments in relation to the refurbishment of their respective status B furniture.
DPS will work with the other Parliamentary Departments to undertake a full audit of the Parliament House status A and B furniture with particular regard to condition, conservation measures, use of furniture and past disposal practices. This audit will be completed by the end of 2013. DPS will also seek the agreement of the Chamber Departments to consolidate this information into one system to end duplication and minimise any risk that effective management controls are compromised.
Contract management
General comment
The Committee raised numerous concerns regarding DPS' contract negotiation and implementation practices. The Department agrees that this is a priority area for action. DPS is dedicated to improving the delivery of its services to clients. An important part of the service delivery framework is the use of contractors. Robust procurement and contract management processes are therefore vital to ensuring DPS meets its obligations to clients, and to ensure that it delivers value for money services within the Commonwealth procurement environment. DPS agrees that there are steps that can be taken to enhance its contract management capability to better manage current contractual arrangements and ensure that all future contracts entered into are sound and managed effectively.
Recommendation 18 - The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services ensures that all staff involved in contract development and management have relevant skills and receive appropriate training where necessary.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
As stated in response to Recommendation 14, DPS will conduct a skills audit in the first half of 2013 to identify the capability of officers currently in contract management roles. Where gaps are identified, staff will be provided with appropriate training to improve their contract management skills, including training by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, and nationally recognised training at the Certificate IV, Diploma or Advanced Diploma level as applicable. DPS will also ensure that in its recruitment process for positions relating to contract development and management that applicants demonstrate their experience and qualifications in this area.
Recommendation 19 - The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services review the way in which it develops and manages contracts.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS will undertake a review of its procurement and contract framework in 2013 to ensure it is contemporary, robust and meets Commonwealth requirements and identified best practice. This will include a comprehensive review of all relevant documentation, including templates, procedures, processes and other resources to ensure that DPS is aligned with the most recent developments in procurement and contract management.
As part of the review, the Department will consider where its internal resources need to be complemented by external assistance, including legal assistance, contract negotiation expertise, and other subject matter experts. Where appropriate, DPS will consult the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the Auditor-General and engage external providers to assist in the review, to be completed by the end of 2013.
Recommendation 20 - The committee recommends that the Department of Parliamentary Services consider approaching the Auditor-General to undertake an audit by arrangement of DPS contract development and management.
Response
DPS will undertake the steps identified by the Committee and its response to Recommendations 19 and 20 to immediately improve its contract development and management capability. While this work is underway, DPS will approach the Auditor-General to seek his views on the best way to undertake an evaluation of DPS contract development and management, including a potential timetable for the evaluation.
Security arrangements
General comment
The Committee expressed concerns around aspects of DPS management of physical security enhancements, as well as security staffing and rosters. DPS is committed to providing professional security services to the Parliament that appropriately balance the design integrity requirements of the building and recognise the importance of facilitating legitimate public and business access. As noted by the Committee, further attention is required on the planning and implementation of physical security projects. This will be achieved through measures outlined in the response to the recommendations on project management, contract management and staff capability. In January 2013 DPS advertised the new position of Assistant Secretary, Security. This will enable the important function of security to be overseen by a senior manager dedicated to the area.
Recommendation 21 - The committee recommends that the Security Management Board review the criteria for the issue of photographic security passes for Parliament House.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
This issue was also canvassed in the independent review of the 23 August 2012 security breach, along with a recommended review of the criteria for issuing 'unaccompanied' paper passes. As Chair of the Security Management Board, the Secretary, DPS will seek its support in early 2013 for a broad-ranging review including examining all categories of passholders and passholder privileges, based on an assessment of the risk of unrestricted access, to ensure that the number and type of active passes reflects business requirements for access to private areas.
A short term response will include a revision of Operating Policy and Procedure No. 10.10 Parliament House Passes with particular reference to categories of passholders, vetting requirements, access privileges and duration of passes. Longer term implementation may include options for restricting access within the private areas of Parliament House using electronic access.
The initial policy revision is expected to be completed by mid-2013, with implementation at the commencement of the 44th Parliament.
ICT issues
General comment
The Committee canvassed ICT issues broadly while recognising that implementation of the recommendations arising from the Roche Review will result in significant change to the way in which ICT services are planned, and provided to, all users of the Parliamentary Computing Network and occupants of Parliament House.
The ICT governance arrangements recommended by Mr Roche have been adopted as follows:
Work has also commenced on establishing a One-Stop-Shop, to be fully operational for the commencement of the 44th Parliament following the 2013 general election. Development of the parliament-wide strategic plan has commenced. At its first meeting PICTAB agreed in principle to a set of strategic themes around which the plan will be finalised in 2013.
The relationship between the Security Management Board (SMB) and PICTAB has been agreed such that SMB will oversee the detail of ICT Security policy implementation and PICTAB will take more of a strategic view looking at overall trends in ICT security. Recruitment of an ICT security advisor will commence in early 2013 to remove DPS' current dependence on contractor support.
Recommendation 22 - The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, arrangements should be completed for the transfer of responsibility for mobile and multifunction devices to the Department of Parliamentary Services.
Response
DPS supports this recommendation.
DPS and Department of Finance and Deregulation (Finance) are currently working on transferring the responsibility for multifunction and mobile devices such as Blackberries. The Special Minister of State has asked Finance to (legislatively) change the entitlement to agnostic technology prior to the transfer to DPS. Once this is done and the Presiding Officers have accountability for the determination to approve purchases, the costs of those items and usage will become DPS' accountability.
Budget considerations
General comment
While noting poor management of resources by DPS in the past, the Committee expressed concern at the continued imposition of the efficiency dividend on the Department at a time when the Parliamentary workload has increased. At particular risk is the ability to fund adequate maintenance for the building and maintain service levels to the Parliament in the face of rising demand and increasing salaries and fixed costs.
DPS is committed to managing within its budget and working within Government Budget rules in seeking to meet rising costs. Following a funding decrease as a consequence of amalgamation, the operational appropriation for DPS for 2012-13 (of $101 million) has returned to about the same level as that of the combined appropriations of its three predecessor departments in 2003-04. DPS has suffered a decline in its purchasing power as CPI has continued to grow over the same period. For 2012–13, DPS has to find $4.6 million in savings as follows:
Key sources of cost pressure for 2012-13 are increases to staff salaries based on the Enterprise Agreement, rising energy costs, increased Comcare premium, conduct and implementation of external reviews (such as the Roche ICT review) and various HR costs including redundancies not budgeted for.
DPS is reviewing all elements of its budget from both an expenditure and revenue perspective to ensure it is operating as efficiently as possible. This analysis will be overlaid with robust cost projections in order to accurately determine the ongoing capital and recurrent funding needs of DPS so that it can fulfil its obligation to support the operation of Parliament and its management of an iconic public building.
Recommendation 23 - The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth exempt the Department of Parliamentary Services from any future one-off, additional efficiency dividends.
Response
While this recommendation is for the Government to respond, DPS supports in-principle, the examination of alternative funding models such as those canvassed in the Report. Furthermore, given the important visitor role undertaken by DPS on behalf of the Parliament that is comparable to that of Cultural Institutions exempt from the efficiency dividend, DPS also supports its exemption of from the efficiency dividend. It is noted that DPS does not have the flexibility that exists within large government agencies to absorb efficiency dividends. Finally, given its core role to support Parliament, DPS should be treated in the same way to the Chamber Departments which have been made exempt from the additional efficiency dividend.
That:
(a) the documents I have just tabled, together with the final budget outcome 2011-12 and the Issues from the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts for 2011-12, be referred to committees for examination and report; and
(b) consideration of the Issues from the advances provided under the annual Appropriation Acts in committee of the whole be made an order of the day for the day on which committees report on their examination of the additional estimates.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Economics Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Kroger to replace Senator Eggleston for the consideration of the 2012-13 additional estimates on 13 February and 14 February 2013
Participating member: Senator Evans
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed—Participating member: Senator Evans
Regulations and Ordinances—Standing Committee—
Discharged—Senator Cash
Appointed—Senator Sinodinos
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees—
Appointed–—Participating member: Senator Evans.
That the Senate notes the failure of the Gillard Government to live within its means or to develop a coherent fiscal strategy.
With 21 years of uninterrupted growth Australia stands out amongst OECD countries.
We saved jobs, we stayed out of recession and got back to surplus.
Well, we're getting back to surplus in three years. Come hell or high water.
Been saying for years that this should happen to diversify our work force and increase our productivity as mooted by Lang Hancock and Joe Bjelke-P. Logical development in the top end could see Australia becoming the food bowl to the world, with plenty of Asians only too happy to migrate and develop market gardens and farms. With an adequate water supply, anything will grow and having worked on the mine developments in the 60s, the weather is not too oppressive. Just when I was doubtfully wondering if you have the cojones to do something radically productive rather than drift along playing politics, you show you may have a spine after all Tony. Try raising the voting and drinking ages back to 21, re-establishing National Service and see the votes roll in.
That the Senate take note of the NBN Co. Ltd Report for 2011-12 .
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
Political operatives are secretly campaigning for the federal seat of Corangamite online, posting political messages under fake names.
An internet user or users from Parliament House Canberra’s computer network has pretended to be at least nine different people while making pro-Labor comments online.
The comments, posted online under Colac Herald stories about Colac … Health cuts, all come from the same internet protocol address, a specific computer server’s code.
The comments all praise Labor Party policies or belittle the Liberal Party but fail to identify the writer’s political links.
The false names included a fake Colac Area Health employee and a fake Barwon Health employee.
Community lobbyist Laura Cook said she would prefer to see political staff working to fix Colac’s hospital crisis rather than “spamming” people.
“I’m [utterly] gobsmacked,” she said.
“What a complete … waste of time and resources.
“They’re best fixing it rather than spamming people—
Monash University politics lecturer Dr Zareh Ghazarian questioned the ethics of the “cynical” tactic to influence voters before the 2013 federal election.
“This is clearly concerned with trying to change grassroots voting intention,” Dr Ghazarian said.
“It’s often very difficult to discern who is a partisan actor and who is a non-partisan observer,” he said.
“It’s very easy to write what you like online, the checks are quite limited.
… underhand tactics are unwelcome. Political operatives are posing as regular voters to stir up public opinion in the hope of gaining votes, but they should have been open and honest with their campaigning. Voters have a right to know when politicians are campaigning. They must identify themselves in the media and in advertisements. This should extend to online comments.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the exposure draft and explanatory notes of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012 be extended to 21 February 2013.
… we need news in our papers but we're getting opinion far too much.
Like most lefties, they … see themselves as visionaries but couldn't run a chook raffle. Imagine if they were in control of the country? Oh wait…
Seriously is anyone surprised? The answer is always content. Poor content, low readership.
… it sounds like TGM is run like a student newspaper where a bunch of kids waste a great deal of someone else's money pretending to produce serious journalism.
A batch of German prisoners has marched in, and they're now quartered about 100 yards from our hut. They are objects of great fascination to all the soldiers. They're pretty harmless though. Not much of any interest to describe about them. Some speak English pretty well. Grey uniforms, and lots of regiments represented, including the Prussian Guards.
We have been to the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's, and saw all the old historical things in these places. The Tower was the most gruesome, and I saw where the two princes were murdered, Sir Walter Raleigh's cell, Henry VIII's suit of armour, and the Crown Jewels which are no doubt a wonderful collection. In St Paul's the most interesting items were the tombs of Nelson and the Duke of Wellington.
We missed a beauty by only two nights, but on the Tuesday there was something in the air as the anti aircraft guns started at 1:30am. Frightened the life out of me. Hopped out of bed, but of course, I couldn't see anything, and the guns didn't last long.
I've got a nice little room all to myself—a corner on the second floor with three French windows opening out to a stone balcony. They've got shutters on them and it's such a nuisance as you can strike a light in the night without noticing that the shutters are up—Zeppelin precautions.
Terrible isn't the word for it. The scene is about 10 or 12 miles from here but it shook us pretty considerably and even broke windows further away than we are. Whole streets have been blown to pieces. The papers first gave the deaths at 30 to 40 and then another 20 bodies were recovered—but if that total was multiplied by 10 it would be getting somewhere near the mark. The flames could be seen for 30 miles.
Your nice parcel has arrived and I loved the socks and tobacco!
Last week I got a little Christmas parcel consisting of some chocolates and lollies, a pipe, tobacco, soap and toothbrush powder—plus one or two other little things. A note accompanying it wished me well, and asked me—as the 'recipient'—to write back to a woman in Brisbane called Vera.
It has been bitterly cold and blowing like anything all day. One night there was a very heavy snowstorm that kept up till dinnertime on Friday, by which time there was over a foot of snow on the ground and some places much deeper. It was dangerous, too, as drains two and three feet deep were covered right over. Of course muggins here had to walk into one.
I said goodbye to Piccadilly and farewelled Leicester Square as I made for Waterloo Station. I was sorry in some ways to leave London as I had made a few happy acquaintances while there, but the whole thing became intolerable and only for the cold weather I would not have stayed as long as I did.
The King rode a fine charger and as he neared us over 30,000 troops came to 'the present arms' position, making what must have been an historic picture. After His Majesty had ridden along the lines—and it took sometime—we all performed a march past, two platoons at a time. Just as I passed him he turned to speak to Prince Arthur of Connaught and I'm not sure whether he saw me or not. After that we had dinner—a little bread and less cheese and presently the King went past slowly in his motorcar, accompanied by loud cheering by all the troops.
About 5:30 in the morning they bunged several thousand of us on aboard the HMS Viper and at 7:30 several of these big transports pushed off accompanied by destroyers and submarines.
If we weren't packed like sardines I could have said it was beautiful gliding down past Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight. Didn't go very far though before they started all sorts of tick tacking and doubling—dodging mine chains and one thing and another.
We came alongside the pier at Le Havre about 2 am. At 3 am we were issued with rations for the day, and between 7 and 8 am we disembarked. Our lot, however, had to do the cleaning up of the boat and it was 10 o'clock before we set off on the 7 mile or so march to camp—uphill and in full gear.
I wasn't very much taken with Havre. It's a pretty big town and port, though, and I suppose we went through the worst part of it out past Greville towards Montevilliers.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under theCommonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio: For each of the following items: (a) licences; (b) registrations; (c) fee for services; and (d) permits (and all other permission structures):
(1) How many are administered to the non-government sector.
(2) What are the associated fees with each item, and which sectors of the community are required to hold each.
(3) How often does each item require renewal.
(4) What fees have been paid for each item for the following financial years (or since the item was introduced since 2007-08): (a) 2007-08; (b) 2008-09; (c) 2009-10; (d) 2010-11; (e) 2011-12; and (f) 2012-13.
(5) How much total revenue is collected annually from each of the listed items.
Due to the various permissions structures operating across the portfolio, a separate response is provided from each relevant area of the portfolio.
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)
BoM has a number of cost recovery arrangements under s31 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 . BoM produces and distributes a variety of data, information and services and derives revenue from:
For the purposes of these questions the above services have been included as item c) "fee for services".
(1) Data is not available on how many fee for service items are administered to the non-government sector.
(2) In addition to appropriation funded public information services, the Bureau provides enhanced weather and climate information to meet residual public needs. The current fees for services are as set out below:
Notes:
Category 1 (Cat 1) relates to requests where the details are fully specified by the requestor.
Category 2 (Cat 2) relates to requests where additional assistance is required to specify the details required.
These charging rates are current as of 21 November 2012.
For annual subscriptions, services range from Level 1 for the delivery of public products on a managed delivery platform to Level 5 for the provision of complex and custom products. The fee at each level has been standardised to reflect the per product production effort required.
Otherwise the Bureau's cost recovered services (non-commercial) are enhanced information services pursuant to the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. Fees for commercial services are competitively neutral and set in accordance with the Australian Government Competitive Neutrality Guidelines for Managers.
The Bureau's cost recovered services are demand driven and optional for all users. A significant proportion of the total is services to the aviation industry.
(3) N/A.
(4) Fees for services paid since 2007-08:
(5) A total of $278,781,000 has been paid since 2007-08.
Environment Assessment Compliance Division and Heritage and Wildlife Division
Permits are issued by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for the import and export of wildlife specimens (live and dead) in accordance with Part 13A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . In addition to an import or export permit, a facility assessment is required for live animals for animal welfare purposes.
The department administers the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 , which involves the issuing of registrations and permits.
The department charges a fee for services for the assessment of Sea Dumping Permit applications under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981.
(1) Wildlife trade import and export permits and fees: exact data are not available. In 2011-12, 1855 permits and approximately 15,900 personal baggage permits were issued for the export and import of wildlife specimens. The majority of these were for non-government bodies, companies and individuals. In 2011-12 the department completed 48 facility assessments but the majority of these were for government institutions.
Approximately 60 permits and 30 registrations are issued annually under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 .
All fees for services are administered to either the non-government sector or state government based corporate entities.
(2) Wildlife trade import and export permits:
Personal baggage permit $1.00
Single use permit $30.00
Multiple use permit $75.00 per 6 months (max 3 years)
Testing permits $150.00
Exceptional circumstances permit $150.00
Household pets permits $150.00
Facility assessment $150.00
Any individual or organisation wishing to import or export wildlife specimens is required to obtain/hold a permit.
No registration, application or permit fees are currently charged under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 . The permits and registrations relate to the either the control of protected shipwreck relics or visitation to historic shipwrecks within protected zones and are issued to private individuals, associations and businesses.
As at April 2009 fees for the assessment of applications for sea dumping permits are as follows:
The fee for an application to vary a permit is $860.
Prior to April 2009, but within the period to which QoN 2344 refers, the fees for the assessment of applications were as follows:
The fee for an application to vary a permit was $500.
Only the non-government (private) sector or state government based corporate entities applying for a permit to dump material at sea pay a fee for the assessment of an application (Part 5 - Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Regulations1983).
(3) Wildlife trade import and export permits: are not renewed but they do have an expiry date, which varies with the type of permit. Facility assessments do not have an expiry date.
Expiry dates for sea dumping permits range from 1 to 12 months depending on the purpose.
Fees for the assessment of applications are not subject to renewal, but are occasionally varied upon payment of a variation fee as above.
(4) Fees that have been paid for sea dumping permits:
Fees that have been paid for wildlife trade import and export permits and facility assessments:
(5) For sea dumping permits, a total of $1,268,550 has been paid since 2007-08.
For wildlife trade permits, a total of $736,146.02 has been paid since 2007-08.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)
(1) The GBRMPA administers permits and other permission structures under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 , the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003, theSea Installations Act 1987 , theEnvironment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 , and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Regulations 1983. Most of these are issued to the non-government sector, and of the 1367 current permits, approximately 2.5 per cent (33 permits) are issued to the government sector.
(2) Permits are required for anyone (including individuals, companies, incorporated bodies and government departments and agencies) intending to conduct activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which require permission under any of the pieces of legislation that the GBRMPA administers.
Permit Application Assessment Fees (applies for calendar year 2012 only)
Fees for other applications and requests
(3) Permit tenure forms part of the decision of the delegate, however in some cases, is informed by GBRMPA policy. In general, permits are usually issued for between one and fifteen years with the most common tenure being six years.
(4) Totals for this year and the five preceding years are:
(5) A total of $1,729,369 has been paid since 2007-08.
Marine Division
Commonwealth Marine Reserves
(1) 258 permits have been issued to the non-government sector in the 2012/13 financial year.
(2) There are no fees associated with permits or approvals issued by the Director of National Parks in relation to Commonwealth marine reserves. People, companies or government agencies undertaking activities in Commonwealth marine reserves that would otherwise be an offence under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Regulations 2000 are required to have a permit or an approval to undertake their activity.
(3) There is no set period for the renewal of permits or approvals.
(4) No fees have been paid.
(5) No revenue is collected.
Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme (ABBBS) Banding Authorities
ABBBS Banding Authorities authorise the holder to use the Scheme's bands and may be regarded as 'skills tickets', confirming that the authority holder has a specified level of skills in the capture, handling and banding of birds or bats.
(1) Approximately 600 banding authorities are administered to the non-government sector on an annual basis.
(2) The annual fee to hold an authority is $54.25. Anyone wishing to attach metal ABBBS bands to birds or bats in Australia is required to hold an ABBBS Authority.
(3) ABBBS Banding Authorities are renewed annually.
(4)Total revenue collected annually:
*estimate of fees at 16/10/2012
(5) A total of $160,661.62 has been paid since 2007-08.
Section 238 Permits to interfere with cetaceans
Permits to interfere with cetaceans are administered under Section 238 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 . The requested details are as follows:
(1) Since the 2007-08 financial year, 20 permits have been administered to the non-government sector.
(2) The associated fee for applying to obtain a Section 238 permit is $25 per application. All Australian citizens, research institutions, non-government organisations and private enterprises are required to obtain a permit to interfere with cetacean in the Australian Whale Sanctuary and beyond, which includes for the purpose of research.
(3) There is no set timeframe for renewal. The duration of the permit is based on application and assessment of the activity.
(4) The following fees have been paid for application for a Section 238 permit in each of the following financial years:
(5) A total of $500 has been paid since 2007-08.
Australian Antarctic Division
(1) Of the permits and environmental authorisations issued by the Australian Antarctic Division, approximately one-third are provided to individuals within the non-government sector.
(2) No fees are associated with these permissions.
(3) Permits are valid for one year. Environmental authorisations typically cover a number of years.
(4) N/A.
(5) N/A.
Environment Quality Division
(1) For permits granted under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 , 18 permits were granted to applicants in the non-government sector in 2011-12.
For licenses under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 , at any given time approximately 1000 import/export licences are being administered.
All registrations that are processed under the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme are from the non-government sector. There are approximately 500 registrants currently registering products with the WELS scheme.
Fees are charged by the department to process applications for a fuel standard variation under the Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 (the Act). All applications are from the non-government sector.
(2) Under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 all sectors of the community are required to obtain a (d) permit for the import, export and transit of hazardous waste. The fees for applications are as follows:
Under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 a licence (or exemption) must be held by any person or entity from all sectors of the community wishing to import, export or manufacture substances regulated. A cost recovery levy (or fee for service) of $165/tonne imported is paid quarterly.
The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (WELS Act) requires specified products to be registered and labelled with their water efficiency before they can be offered for supply. Products currently administered under the scheme are showers, taps, toilets, urinals, washing machines (including combination clothes washers/dryers) and dishwashers. Flow controllers are also included in the scheme on a voluntary basis. The WELS Determination 2011 currently specifies a fee of $1500 to register a WELS product, family of models or a set of minor products.
In most instances, manufacturers are usually the registrants but other parties, such as importers, wholesalers, trade suppliers, and retailers of WELS products are also able to register WELS products.
Fees are set by the Fuel Quality Standards Regulations 2001 and based on a sliding scale related to the volume of fuel to be supplied. Applications to vary the fuel standards are received from:
(3) Under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 the majority of permits are for up to one year. Under certain conditions, a permit can be issued for up to three years.
Under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989 renewal of licences is undertaken every two years, except for a 'Low Volume Import Licence' which is valid for fourteen days.
Each registration currently lasts for five years under WELS.
Approvals for racing fuel and mid-range suppliers are normally granted for up to two years.
Approvals for other small businesses and major fuel refiners may be granted for up to five years.
(4) Under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989:
Under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989:
Total fees and revenue collected under the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 are as follows:
* Total fees and revenue collected from 1 July 2012 to 21 November 2012 (rounded to the nearest dollar).
Annual revenue under the Fuels Quality Standards Act 2000:
(5) Under the Hazardous Waste (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Act 1989 a total of $113,410 has been paid since 2007-08.
Under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act a total of $21,560,676 has been paid since 2007-08.
Under the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 a total of $3,230,235 has been paid since 2007-08.
Under the Fuels Quality Standards Act 2000 a total of $1,007,025 has been paid since 2007-08.
Sydney Harbour Federation Trust
For each of the following items: (a) licences; (b) registrations; (c) fee for services; and (d) permits (and all other permission structures):
(1) The Sydney Harbour Federation Trust administers the following types of permits to the non-government sector:
(2) The fees for each type of permit are as follows:
(3) Renewal for each permit:
(4) Fees paid since 2007-08 to 2012-13 (up to 1 November 2012).
(5) A total of $1,620,134 has been paid since 2007-08.
Parks Australia Division including the Director of National Parks
Parks Australiahas 6 categories of permits that have been issued to the non-government sector. Parks Australia administered 1212 permits since 2007-08.1
Parks Australia has 6 categories of fee for service that are charged to the non-government sector. Given the nature of fee for service activities, Parks Australiais unable to provide a figure for how many have been administered.
1 Note: the information provided in this response includes the Director of National Parks.
(2) Any sector of the community undertaking an activity that requires a permit or incurs a fee for service in Commonwealth national parks or reserves must apply for one. Associated fees for 2012-13 are:
Permits:
Fee for Service: see Attachment A for the Australian National Botanic Gardens current fee for service charges.
Fees for camping within Kakadu and Booderee National Parks range from $5.00 to $49.00 depending on site size, amenities and if it is "peak" season or not.
Park Use fees are charged for Booderee ($11.00 per day per car), Kakadu ($25 for fourteen days) and Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Parks ($25.00 for three days).
(3) Renewal times are as follows:
Fee for service activities are charged each time the service is requested unless otherwise noted in the response to Question 2.
(4) Fees per financial year are as follows:
(5) A total of $47,849,566 has been paid since 2007-08.
Freedom of Information
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and its portfolio agencies follow the advice and protocols provided by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (the OAIC) in line with the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) and Freedom of Information (FOI) Guidance Notes. The department also follows the FOI Guidance notes provided by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 28 July 2011 which are available at www.dpmc.gov.au/foi/guidance_notes.cfm.
Fees collected for Freedom of Information since 2010-11 are reported by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner at www.oaic.gov.au/publications/reports.html. Fees collected for Freedom of Information prior to 2010-11 are reported by the Attorney-General's Department at www.ag.gov.au/Freedomofinformation/Pages/Freedom-of-information-annual-reports.aspx.
ATTACHMENT A
Fee for service charges – Australian National Botanic Gardens.
The fee for service charges apply to a range of users, government, non-government and general public. Currently fees are:
(1) What military and civilian response plans, if any, does the Australian Government have in place to respond to a nuclear attack against Australian territory?
(2) What such plans have been in place in the past?
(3) Will the Government release the sections of the Force Posture Review prepared along with the 2009 Defence White Paper that relate to the issue of attacks on Australian and joint Australia United States (US) military and intelligence facilities in the event of major conflict between the US and China?
(4) What sites in Australia does the Government believe are likely nuclear targets in the event of major conflict?
(5) Does the presence of joint US military and intelligence facilities in Australia increase the risk of a nuclear attack against Australia?
(6) Does the presence of US nuclear-armed submarines in Australian waters and at Australian ports increase the risk of a nuclear attack against Australia?
(7) Does the Government have any casualty estimates resulting from nuclear attacks against Pine Gap and other facilities in Australia that are likely nuclear targets?
(8) How many designated bums beds would be available across Australia in the event of a nuclear attack against Australia?
(9) What general advice, if any, does the Government offer the Australian public in case of a nuclear attack against Australia?
(10) How would the Government attempt to protect medical and other emergency response workers from radiation effects in the aftermath of a nuclear attack?
(11) What research and preparations has the Government conducted on the effects of nuclear weapons on health and the environment?
(12) What are the likely effects of a regional nuclear war in South Asia on agricultural production in Australia?
(13) To what extent do the humanitarian and environmental effects of nuclear weapons inform Australia's policies on nuclear disarmament and non proliferation?
(14) Will the Australian Government participate in the conference in Oslo in March 2013 on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons?
(1) and (2)
Emergency Management Australia has provided the following information:
Under Australia's constitutional arrangements, State and Territory Governments have responsibility, within their borders, for coordinating and planning for the response to and recovery from disasters and civil emergencies. When the total resources (government, community and commercial) of an affected State or Territory cannot reasonably cope with the needs of the situation, the State Government or a Territory Controller can seek assistance from the Australian Government.
The Australian Government has plans for providing Australian Government physical assistance in response to such requests. The Australian Government Disaster Response Plan (COMDISPLAN) describes the arrangements for centralised coordination of the provision of Australian Government physical assistance within Australia. This plan can be activated for any disaster or emergency regardless ofthe cause. COMDISPLAN was first adopted in December
1997- it replaced the AUSDISPLAN (Australian Disaster Plan) which was first issued in July 1992.
The arrangements for provision of Defence resources for the performance of emergency or non-emergency support within Australia and its territories that are primarily the responsibility of the civil community or other government organisations are outlined in Defence Instruction (General) OPS 05-1: Defence Assistance to the Civil Community -policy and procedures (DACC).
The Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, is designated as the Minister with responsibility for disaster-related matters. Emergency Management Australia, a division of the Attorney-General's Department (AGD EMA) is responsible for planning and coordinating Australian Government physical assistance to the States and Territories under the Australian Government Emergency Management Policy Statement. Coordination of this assistance is carried out by the AGD EMA Crisis Coordination Branch.
(3) A Force Posture Review was not prepared along with the 2009 Defence White Paper (2009 DWP).
The Force Structure Review (FSR) that informed the 2009 DWP was not prepared with any specific threat or nation in mind. It is about the array of challenges we might face over the next generation and the role of Defence in meeting those challenges. The FSR is a classified review and the Government is not considering releasing sections of the FSR Report. The 2009 DWP noted that in the event of Australia making contributions to conventional combat in the region, our planning would need to take into account retaliatory action being taken against us (paras
7.15-7.18).
Consistent with its Terms of Reference, the ADF Posture Review did not consider an attack on Australia and Australia-United States Joint Facilities in the event of a major conflict between the US and China.
(4), (5), (6) and (7)
As stated in the 2009 Defence White Paper, Australia is one of the most physically secure countries in the world and Australia will most likely remain a secure country over the period to 2030 (paras 3.7 and 6.23). In the event of a crisis, Australian defence policy acknowledges the value to Australia of the protection afforded by extended nuclear deterrence under the US Alliance. Under extended nuclear deterrence, as long as nuclear weapons exist, we can rely on US nuclear forces to deter nuclear attack on Australia. The Government does not intend to speculate on hypothetical scenarios but will continue to regularly consider its judgements concerning the risk of nuclear attack, including in the 2013 Defence White Paper.
Successive Australian Governments have acknowledged that joint facilities could be targeted in conflict, but also emphasised that Australia's hosting of these facilities contributes to a stable system of global deterrence.
Successive Australian Governments have acknowledged US policy to neither confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any location. US officials have stated that it is not US practice to carry nuclear weapons on training flights, and US Administrations have previously stated that in normal circumstances US naval aircraft and ships no longer carry nuclear weapons.
(8) (10) and (11)
As with any disaster or civil emergency, appropriate resources would be made available. Under Australia's constitutional arrangements, State and Territory Governments have responsibility, within their borders, for coordinating and planning for the response to and recovery from disasters and civil emergencies. If further resources are required, the State Government or Territory Controller can seek assistance from the Australian Government. Further detail should be sought from the Minister for Health.
(9)
The 2009 DWP judged that Australia is one of the most physically secure countries in the world and that Australia will most likely remain a secure country over the period to 2030. Defence's current advice is that the 2009 DWP judgements remain sound.
(12)
The Government is aware of research quoted by the report of the independent International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND) on the likely effects of a regional nuclear war in South Asia on agriculture worldwide with potential relevance to Australia, but is not aware of any substantial body of research on the subject of any specific effects on Australian agriculture arising from use of nuclear weapons.
(13)
Humanitarian and environmental consequences of the use of nuclear weapons inform the Government's policies on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Australia is committed to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The Government acknowledges that nuclear attack would be potentially devastating. Australia is a party to, and fully implements non-proliferation and disarmament treaties, including those prohibiting weapons of mass destruction and inhumane conventional weapons.
Australia has made a sustained contribution to the international consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, including through the 1996 Report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination ofNuclear Weapons. More recently, the independent International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), established by Australia and Japan, reinvigorated international efforts on the issue. The Commission's report made a significant contribution to the success of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference. Australia has since established-with Japan-the ten-nation Non Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI) to take forward the NPT Review Conference outcomes.
The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons is a subject on which Australia, as part the NPDI, has previously made a joint statement on:
Recognizing that nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity we express deep concern at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and reaffirm the need for all states at all times to fully comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law. (para 4 of the 22 September 2010 Joint Statement by Foreign Ministers on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation).
(14)
The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons is an important subject on which Australia, including as part the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), supports discussion. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is considering Australia's participation in the conference.
Since 1 July 2010, have any electorate-by-electorate dissections for actual or potential Government programs, initiatives or decisions been prepared by departments, agencies or authorities within the Minister's portfolio; if so, for each dissection: (a) what has been its purpose; (b) what resources have been used; (c) who requested it; (d) to whom has it been circulated; and (e) can a copy be provided.
Consistent with longstanding practice, departments provide a range of advice to relevant ministers. Consideration of these briefs is a matter for the Australian Government.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under theCommonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) How many Australian Public Service full‑time equivalent staff are engaged by each department, agency and authority in relation to the: (a) creation; (b) administration or management; and (c) enforcement of new or existing Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and quasi-regulation.
(2) What and how many: (a) compliance requirements; (b) industry guidelines; (c) best practice procedures; (d) codes of conduct; and (e) any other industrial manuals/documents, have been created since December 2007.
(3) Was an Annual Regulatory Plan completed for each of the 2009‑10, 2010‑11, 2011‑12, and 2012-13 financial years, and will a plan be completed for the 2013‑14 financial year.
(4) For the 2009‑10, 2010‑11, 2011‑12, and 2012-13 financial years: (a) how many pieces of regulation, including Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and quasi-regulation, were included in each Annual Regulatory Plan; and (b) were the same, more or fewer pieces of regulation passed as anticipated in each Annual Regulatory Plan: (i) if more, which pieces of regulation were passed in addition to the plan, and (i) if fewer, which pieces of regulation were not passed and why were they not passed.
(5) Does each department, agency and authority assess the total costs associated with its regulatory measures; if so: (a) what is the total: (i) direct, and (ii) indirect, regulatory cost burden that each department, agency and authority imposes on the non-government sector; and (b) how much regulatory cost has each department, agency and authority: (i) imposed, and (ii) removed, from the non-government sector since August 2010.
(6) Does each department, agency and authority impose a cost-recovery scheme on the non‑government sector; if so: (a) what are the cost‑recovery programs; (b) what fees are currently being imposed; and (c) in each case, by how much have these fees increased since August 2010.
(1) As at 6 December 2012, the Department, the Clean Energy Regulator and the Climate Change Authority had 1,006.19 [627.2 plus 353.79 plus 25.2] Australian Public Service full-time equivalent employees. Low Carbon Australia Limited staff members are not Australian Public Service employees. The Department and the agencies within the portfolio do not centrally maintain records that identify the function or role of positions relevant to the creation; administration or management; and enforcement of new or existing Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and quasi-regulation. Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) The Department and the agencies withing the portfolio do not centrally maintain a register of what and how many compliance requirements; industry guidelines; best practice procedures; codes of conduct; and any other industrial manuals/documents. Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3-5) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Finance and Deregulation portfolio. Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(6) Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency
(a) Yes, the Department imposes a cost-recovery scheme on the non-government sector. Under the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards (Registration Fees) Act 2012 the Australian Greenhouse and Energy Minimum (GEMS) Regulator is able to set registration fees for regulated products. Registration fees recover a portion of the costs incurred in registering products and monitoring compliance with theGreenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012 (GEMS Act 2012).
(b) Registration fees are charged when businesses supplying or importing regulated products register their product on the Energy Rating website. Registration fees range from $440 to $780 per registration and are calculated according to the cost of registering products and the costs involved in monitoring compliance for different product types.
(c) Not applicable. The GEMS Act 2012 commenced on 1 October 2012.
Clean Energy Regulator
(a) Yes, Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and related Regulations impose various fees on participants including non-government sector.
(b) The fees are set under Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001 . Attachment A is an excerpt from the regulations showing the current fees.
(c) From 17 October 2011 certificate creation fee for Small-scale Technology Certificates (STC) created by Small Generation Units such as small size solar Photovoltaic, wind and hydro systems was increased from 8 to 47 cents per STC.
The Climate Change Authority and Low Carbon Australia Limited do not impose cost‑recovery schemes on the non-government sector
Attachment A
28 Fees
(1) For paragraph 10 (2) (d) of the Act:
(a) the fee for an application for registration is $20; and
(b) the fee for an application for registration as a person to whom certificates may be assigned under subsection 23 (2) or 23C (2) of the Act is $250.
(2) For paragraphs 12A (2) (f) and 13 (2) (e) of the Act, the fee for an application for provisional accreditation or accreditation is:
(3) For subsection 26 (3A) of the Act, the fee for registration of a certificate is:
(a) for a small-scale technology certificate created on or after 17 October 2011 for a small generation unit:
(i) for the first 250 certificates registered—nil;
(ii) for the 251st certificate registered—$117.97;
(iii) for each certificate registered after the 251st certificate—47 cents; and
(b) for any other certificate:
(i) for the first 250 certificates registered—nil;
(ii) for the 251st certificate registered—$20.08;
(iii) for each certificate registered after the 251st certificate—8 cents.
(4) For subsection 45E (1) of the Act, the fee for the surrender of a certificate under Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5 of the Act is 8 cents.
(5) For section 98 of the Act, the administration fee for a certificate surrendered by a liable entity under section 95 of the Act for a charge year is:
where:
total of certificate values is the total of the certificate values of all certificates surrendered by the liable entity under paragraph 95 (1) (b) for that year.
number of certificates is the number of certificates surrendered by the liable entity under section 95 for that year.
P is:
(a) if the total of certificate values for the number of certificates surrendered for the charge year is less than $1000—2%; or
(b) if the total of certificate values for the number of certificates surrendered for the charge year is at least $1000 but less than $5000—1.5%; or
(c) if the total of certificate values for the number of certificates surrendered for the charge year is at least $5000 but less than $15000—1%; or
(d) if the total of certificate values for the number of certificates surrendered for the charge year is $15000 or more—0.5%.
Note: For the meaning ofcertificate value , see section 96 of the Act.
(1) How many Australian Public Service full time equivalent staff are engaged by each department, agency and authority in relation to the: (a) creation; (b) administration or management; and (c) enforcement of new or existing Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and quasi-regulation.
(2) What and how many: (a) compliance requirements; (b) industry guidelines; (c) best practice procedures; (d) codes of conduct; and (e) any other industrial manuals/documents, have been created since December 2007.
(3) Was an Annual Regulatory Plan completed for each of the 2009 10, 2010 11, 2011 12, and 2012-13 financial years, and will a plan be completed for the 2013 14 financial year.
(4) For the 2009 10, 2010 11, 2011 12, and 2012-13 financial years: (a) how many pieces of regulation, including Acts of Parliament, legislative instruments and quasi-regulation, were included in each Annual Regulatory Plan; and (b) were the same, more or fewer pieces of regulation passed as anticipated in each Annual Regulatory Plan: (i) if more, which pieces of regulation were passed in addition to the plan, and (i) if fewer, which pieces of regulation were not passed and why were they not passed.
(5) Does each department, agency and authority assess the total costs associated with its regulatory measures; if so: (a) what is the total: (i) direct, and (ii) indirect, regulatory cost burden that each department, agency and authority imposes on the non-government sector; and (b) how much regulatory cost has each department, agency and authority: (i) imposed, and (ii) removed, from the non-government sector since August 2010.
(6) Does each department, agency and authority impose a cost-recovery scheme on the non-government sector; if so: (a) what are the cost recovery programs; (b) what fees are currently being imposed; and (c) in each case, by how much have these fees increased since August 2010.
(1) & (2) Given the very broad nature of the question, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3), (4) & (5) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Please see the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to Senate question on notice 2469.
(6) This question does not apply to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. While the Department undertakes cost recovery where it identifies an overpayment, it does not have a cost recovery scheme in the context of this question.
The Australian War Memorial applies a cost recovery regime on activities that include Tours, Public & Education Programs, selected Function costs, staff consultancy, Collection loans and photo reproduction sales, where appropriate. Fees imposed are calculated by applying a cost recovery model that closely follows the Australian Government Cost Recovery Guidelines. Much of the cost recovery activity relates to invoicing for employee/agency salary & wages costs, with increase in fees reflecting increases in employee costs.
Can an update be provided in relation to questions on notice nos 900 and 901, including: (1) What was the planned take up rate and associated program expense, year on year, over the forward estimates period 2012-13 to 2015-16. (2) What was the actual take up rate of each program, and has this been revised over the remaining forward estimates period from 2013-14 to 2015-16.
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Department/Budget/Pages/1213PBS.aspx.
http://deewr.gov.au/annual-reports
Regulations made under DEEWR portfolio legislation - since August 2011 (updates since Questions 900, 901)
Attachment B
(1) What reductions or savings have been made within the portfolio following the 2012 13 Budget. (2) What programs have been reduced or discontinued within the portfolio following the 2012 - 13 Budget.
The 2012-13 Budget when released on 8 May 2012 published a number of savings or reduction measures. These are available for the portfolio in 2012-13 Budget Paper No. 2 at:
http://budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-08.htm
All savings decisions taken since the 2012-13 Budget were reported in the 2012-13 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO). The MYEFO was released by the Treasurer on 22 October 2012, and provides detail on all decisions, including savings measures, taken by Government since the 2012-13 Budget. The MYEFO publication is available at: http://budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/myefo/html/index.htm.
Can a full list be provided of all savings that have resulted from the efficiency dividend following the 2010 11 Budget.
The efficiency dividend is applied to the total departmental budget and not allocated to specific functions. Each year the department undertakes robust business planning processes through which resources are matched to workload and priorities. It is not possible to assign specific savings to the efficiency dividend.
Will the Government intervene in the case General Manager of Fair Work Australia v Craig Thomson; if not, why not.
These proceedings arise from the General Manager's investigation into the national office of the Health Services Union, which concluded in March 2012.
This is a matter for the General Manager of Fair Work Australia, her legal advisers and ultimately for the Court. Additional Commonwealth involvement is unwarranted.
(1) Did the department have any input into former Minister Evans' speech to the Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association National Conference in Fremantle, Western Australia in October 2011; if so:
(a) to what extent; and
(b) did the department draft the speech.
(2) Does the Government stand by the speech as a statement of Government policy in the workplace relations space.
(3) Was the Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations consulted.
(1) The Department provided an event briefing to Minister Evans covering background information and logistics relating to the Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association National Conference. The briefing included a draft speech.
(2) The speech, as attached and posted to the DEEWR website, reflected Government policy.
(3) No.
Attachment A
Minister Evans Speech - Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association National Conference 2011
(as per http://ministers.deewr.gov.au/evans/australian-labour-and-employment-relations-association-national-conference-2011)
Friday 7 October 2011 Speech
Senator the Hon Chris Evans
Acknowledgments
I acknowledge the traditional owners and custodians of this land— the Wadjuk people of the Nyungar nation — and pay my respects to their elders, past and present.
I welcome the Australian Labour and Employment Relations Association as a new body in the industrial relations policy scene in Australia, and I expect it to build on the many fine achievements of its preceding body, the Industrial Relations Association of Australia.
As a Labor minister and a proud Western Australian making a speech in Fremantle, I can't let the 7th of October pass without mentioning that today is the 70th anniversary of the day that John Curtin, the former member for Fremantle, became Prime Minister of Australia.
John Curtin was one of our greatest national leaders. He led Australia through the Second World War.
He was the federal member for this seat of Fremantle from 1928 to 1931 and (again) from 1934 to his death in July 1945, just a few weeks before World War II came to an end.
Curtin not only commanded a nationwide war effort, his government put in place the measures for post-war reconstruction that fostered a shared prosperity that has made Australia what it is.
Curtin was intent on ensuring that Australia emerge from the war free from the unemployment problems of the 1930s. He aimed for a policy of work for all who wanted it, arguing this could be achieved in peacetime as it had in war.
This, coupled with Curtin's legacy of uniform national taxation and expanded social welfare services, embodies the principles of fairness, shared prosperity and a genuine safety net for the benefit of all Australians.
These are the very same principles that underpin Labor's workplace relations reforms.
Since coming into office our Government has worked with determination to reshape and reform the industrial relations landscape in this country.
Our challenge remains continuing to support and create prosperity in which all Australians can share. We need to invest in training our workforce and build a productive, competitive economy that delivers better paid more highly skilled work for all Australians.
Yesterday the Government sought the views of industry and union leaders at the Future Jobs Forum.
We discussed the very real challenges we face in our economy. The challenges which flow from the patchwork nature of our economy. The reality that while some sectors are experiencing record growth, others are struggling under the weight of the high Australian dollar.
There was a shared understanding that these are challenges that we must confront together.
That we need to move beyond the shallow, point scoring political debate to work in unison to create sustainable jobs in sustainable and competitive industries.
Lifting productivity growth and improving labour productivity are essential elements to meet this challenge.
The productivity challenge
I'm sure you are aware that we're in the middle of a national debate about productivity and why it appears, on paper at least, to be stagnating.
Labour productivity grew at only 1.5 per cent per annum over the 10 years to 2009–10, compared with 2.1 per cent over the previous decade.
At present, it appears to jump around from quarter to quarter depending on the measures used and short-term impacts like droughts, floods and cyclones
There are lots of factors at play of course—one of which is the statistical effect of major increases in resources sector investment.
Another is the legacy of neglect we inherited in hard infrastructure – our roads, rail, ports and telecommunications network.
It is true that we need to address labour productivity because it will strengthen our economy.
What is not true is that productivity decline is the result of the introduction of the Fair Work Act.
There has been no shortage of Opposition members, past and present, who have justified their calls to return to WorkChoices by blaming the FW Act for declining productivity.
But for all their ideological statements, there is precious little substance to support any of their claims.
The reality is that long-term structural improvements in productivity require long-term reforms.
I understand the importance that many prominent employer groups place in continuing to make our workplaces more flexible.
Flexibility is the Government's objective too. Flexibility that comes with fairness.
While the Government has indicated its willingness to review the practical workings of the Fair Work Act, to refine its processes and operation, to have an evidence based discussion on improving the system ensuring it is working to its full potential - the Gillard Government will not resile from the Act's essential elements.
We believe that the Fair Work system gets the balance right between workplace flexibility and workplace rights – that is the fairness the Australian people demand.
A return to some of the most extreme elements of WorkChoices would put hard working Australians and their take home pay at risk. It would also do nothing to boost productivity.
Putting the squeeze on the Australian workforce is not the answer.
The Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, recently had this to say, and I quote:
The desire for more productivity is not a call for working harder. Australians already work pretty long hours by international standards. Productivity per hour, which is what counts, is not improved by adding more hours, but by finding ways of making the hours that are already being contributed more effective .[1]
He is absolutely right.
So, how do we make the hours hard-working Australians already put-in have greater economic impact?
Productivity and the knowledge economy
The first answer is by investing in education and improving skill levels.
Greater effort on education and skills development is one of the best ways to increase productivity over the long term. That's what our education revolution is all about.
I won't take you through the full details of the Government's substantial investments in education, but I do ask you to imagine for a moment the economic potential of the changes we are making.
Early childhood education, kindergartens, schools, TAFEs and universities have all had major funding increases since 2007, matched by major regulatory reforms to improve their quality and flexibility.
Taken as a whole, these funding increases and regulatory changes comprise the most important economic and social reforms of recent decades.
In higher education our goal is to increase the proportion of young Australians with university qualifications to 40 per cent by 2025.
In apprenticeship training, the Government is putting great effort and resources into improving Australia's trade training system, including modernising our all-important apprenticeship system.
As a result of our investment Australia's apprenticeship and traineeship numbers are up significantly in recent years despite the Global Financial Crisis—from 410,000 in September 2006 to around 448,000 in September 2010, the highest level ever recorded.
And this includes a 15.7 per cent increase in commencements last year alone.
These are transformative changes with immediate economic benefit and with even greater economic potential.
Through modelling conducted for my department, Econtech has estimated that full implementation of the Government's policy agenda across education, training and participation could deliver an average increase in GDP of:
In other words, investing in skills and building a better skills system will pay a very significant economic dividend.
But we also have to address education and training with greater vigour because it is a social need that addresses wider concerns. It is vital to fulfilling our nation's promise to offer a decent and secure life to every citizen.
Productivity and the FWA
The second answer to our productivity needs is to properly and fully utilise the framework of the Fair Work Act.
Productivity growth is a key objective of the Fair Work Act and a prime consideration in all of the Act's major sections, including modern awards, bargaining, minimum wages and transfer of business.
At the heart of the Act is collective agreement-making at the enterprise level achieved by good faith bargaining. This is the best way to promote greater workplace flexibility and deliver higher productivity and higher growth in skilled jobs over the longer term.
The bargaining and agreement making frameworks of the Fair Work Act is designed to encourage employees and employers to negotiate enterprise agreements that deliver productivity benefits for businesses, improved skills and better pay for employees.
Take its major provisions. Under the Act:
And this is what is happening on the ground. Let's look at the results from the most recent Trends in Enterprise Bargaining Report.
On this evidence the system is working. There are more than 25,000 enterprise agreements covering 2.6 million Australian employees.
The FW Act requires this level of commitment to flexibility – what we need to determine is whether employers and employees are taking up the opportunities the Act provides and if not, why not.
Despite these record levels of bargaining there is still moderate and contained wages growth which in turn has a moderating effect on inflation. This is especially important in a growing economy.
The average annual wage increases in the private sector in the March 2011 quarter remained constant at 3.8 per cent.
The variability of this moderate wages growth across industry sectors confirms that the new workplace relations system provides necessary flexibilities.
In other words, wage outcomes are linked to industry circumstances. While some areas of the labour market are experiencing higher than average wages growth, there is no evidence of wages pressure spreading to other parts of the economy.
Despite a few high profile and, in the case of Qantas, increasingly bitter disputes there has in fact been a continuation of the long term downward trend in industrial disputation.
The industrial dispute rate in quarterly terms over the past ten years (June quarter 2001 to June quarter 2011) has trended downwards and currently stands at 6.5 working days lost per thousand employees for the June quarter 2011.
While the figure is higher than recent quarters, it remains below the most recent peak of 9.1 working days lost per thousand employees in the June quarter 2008 which was well before the Fair Work Act commenced.
The increase in the quarterly rate of industrial disputes is in line with an increased number of expiring agreements in the March quarter 2011 where 3212 agreements expired compared with an average of 1765 expiring agreements each quarter over the last three years.
Most employers and employees appear to be getting on with the business of bargaining under the Fair Work Act.
I am interested in understanding the experiences of both employers and employees in the bargaining framework, especially the issues surrounding good faith bargaining. This is one of the matters that I want the Fair Work Act review process to explore.
In summary, the Fair Work Act has produced:
The complaints of its critics often relate not to the Act itself but to other circumstances, such as, the uneven nature of economic growth and the patchwork economy they are creating.
Looking to the future
Ensuring that the Fair Work Act is implemented, as intended, with its focus on flexibility, improved productivity and the effective use of skills, is a crucial part of the Government's workplace relations agenda.
But there are other important workplace relations issues too, which are currently progressing, and which have major implications for productivity and workplace justice.
These include:
I want to make a few comments on the national reform of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws.
Over the past three years the Commonwealth has worked with the states and territories, business groups and unions to develop the new legislative framework. It will replace nine [9] separate pieces of legislation and more than 400 OHS regulations and codes of practice currently in operation across Australia.
This is a major regulatory reform, with significant potential to improve efficiency and productivity.
A recent regulatory impact analysis estimates that haromonised OHS laws will add around $2 billion per annum to productivity and an extra $250 million per annum in national benefits derived from reducing red tape and improving safety standards for workers.
It is very disappointing that the Western Australian and Victorian Governments appear to be moving away from their earlier commitment to meet the COAG deadline of 1 January 2012.
The regulatory analysis shows that over 60 per cent of the reforms will involve no cost or minimal cost for both jurisdictions.
The harmonised laws will actually improve upon the legislation that currently exists in both jurisdictions, including enhanced rights of workers to cease unsafe work and a best-practice system of licensing for high-risk asbestos removal work.
Ironically, the OHS regulators in both states have endorsed the model laws but their Ministers are waivering.
The Gillard Government considers that this reform needs to be put above politics for the benefit of the community, the safety of workers and the strength of the economy.
Every week of delay represents an opportunity cost of $43 million.
The achievement of this reform will be a significant win for all stakeholders as well as a victory for common sense.
Conclusion
Since coming into office we have worked with determination to reshape the industrial relations landscape in this country.
Our investment in education and skills, as well as our commitment to promoting skills and productivity in agreements made under the Fair Work Act is stronger than ever.
The clear challenge is for industry and unions to now work together with us to ensure that the economic and social gains that are possible under the Fair Work Act are fully realised.
This requires an understanding that productivity growth, to be sustainable and lasting, cannot be achieved by following the "low road to reform" – by making jobs less secure or by cutting employee wages and conditions or by legislative quick fixes.
Let's find better ways of meeting the unique needs of individual workplaces and employers, of creating more flexible and innovative working arrangements and productivity gains through enterprise agreements.
The challenge to you all is to move beyond the obsession with quick legislative fixes.
As Industrial Relations professionals, I look to you to fully develop and realise the economic and social potential of the Fair Work system.
Thank you.
Did the Government submission to Fair Work Australia on penalty rates go to Cabinet; if so, on what date
I thank the Senator for his question, however, as is consistent with long standing custom and practice, what is considered by Cabinet is a matter for the Government.
What was the total cost of the intervention by the Minister in the Health Services Union matter, and can a full breakdown of costs be provided?
The legal costs relating to the appointment of an administrator to the Health Services Union were as follows:
Can a list be provided detailing all resolutions of the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council (COAG Select Council on Workplace Relations) since 1 January 2008.
The decisions of the former Workplace Relations Ministers' Council (WRMC) and the COAG Select Council on Workplace Relations (SCWR) are reflected in the Communiques that are issued by the members of the respective Councils.
The Communiques for WRMC and SCWR since 1 January 2008 are attached. A Communique was not issued for the WRMC meeting (No.79) held on 12 February 2009.
Can an update be provided to question no. EW0031_13, taken on notice during the 2012 13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee and relating to Fair Work Building and Construction.
FWBC is likely to encounter some additional expenses.
With reference to question on notice no. 1907 (Senate Hansard, 15 August 2012, p. 5466) and question no. EW0010_13, taken on notice during the 2012 13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, can a list be provided of all changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 presently being considered by the Government outside of the Fair Work Act Review.
The Government is committed to working with all stakeholders on the report and recommendations arising from the Fair Work Act (FW Act) Review. The recommendations and review panel report are publicly available documents. The Government retains an open mind on all remaining recommendations and none of them have been ruled in or out.
As indicated in the responses to question on notice no. 1907 and question no. EW0010_13, the Government is constantly considering the operation of the FW Act and whether its operation can be improved.
With reference to the Fair Work Act Review report titled Towards more productive and equitable workplaces, which states that 'The Panel was disinclined to recommend legislative changes where there was a reasonable prospect that judicial interpretation of existing provisions would resolve the problem': can examples be provided where the Review specifically did not consider issues because of a 'reasonable prospect' of judicial interpretation.
After considering certain matters, the Review Panel, in some instances did not make a recommendation for change to the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 because there was a reasonable prospect that judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions would develop to resolve matters raised as part of the Review.
Specific examples in the Review Report - Towards more productive and equitable workplaces: An evaluation of the Fair Work legislation - include:
What is the final, total cost of the Fair Work Act Review, and can a full breakdown be provided including all staff, travel and secretariat costs.
Senator Wong – The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:
The total cost of the Review was just under $900 000, including Panel, secretariat and publication expenses.
Each Panel member was paid $550 per hour (including GST) for a maximum of eight hours a day ($4400 per day including GST). The Panel members' appointments were part-time and they were remunerated for time worked, not for each day of the review period. These arrangements are consistent with appointments of similar standing and import.
The remuneration invoiced by the Panel was $382 800. The total cost of additional expenses incurred by the Panel was $13 000. This includes travel to attend meetings of the Panel and meetings with stakeholders as part of the Panel's consultations, accommodation, and Professor McCallum's engagement of a reader to assist him in his work. The total cost of the services provided by the panel was $395 800 (including GST).
The total cost for the Secretariat from 20 December 2011 (when the Minister announced the appointment of the Panel members) until the finalisation of the Review in June 2012 was $447 700, including the cost of an outposted officer from the Office of Best Practice Regulation for approximately eight weeks.
The Secretariat spent $29 800 on travel, accommodation and meeting expenses which included arrangements for stakeholder meetings and roundtables. These costs are independent of those incurred by the Panel and are included under 'Secretariat expenses' below.
Cost of the Review
Note: figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
Was the Minister's meeting of 4 July 2012, relating to 'The Future of Work', convened under the Chatham House Rule.
The Department is unaware as to whether the meeting was convened under the Chatham House Rule.
What is the cost of the Minister ' s intervention in the Fair Work Australia Modern Awards Review.
The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Hon Bill Shorten MP, is entitled under Section 597, Subsection 1, of the Fair Work Act 2009 to make a submission for consideration in relation to a matter before Fair Work Australia (FWA) if the matter is before a Full Bench and it is in the public interest for the Minister to make a submission.
The Australian Government has provided several submissions to Fair Work Australia's Modern Awards Review. Each submission has been prepared by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The department does not keep records that would allow us to cost the preparation of these submissions.
At any time, did the Minister consider pulling his application to the High Court on the Barclay v Bendigo TAFE case.
No. The previous Minister intervened in the matter in the public interest under section 569 of the Fair Work Act. That public interest remained extant through to the hearing of the matter.
Can full details be provided of the standard due-diligence that would usually take place for appointments to Fair Work Australia.
Resumes are scrutinised and references are sought on all prospective nominees. In the case of Deputy President and Commissioner candidates, the shortlist of candidates is scrutinised by the Opposition Spokesperson for Workplace Relations and the views of the States and Territories are sought on the shortlist of candidates resident in that State or Territory. In the case of the President, the views of the Opposition Spokesperson and the State and Territory Ministers for Workplace Relations were sought on the entire shortlist. The President of Fair Work Australia is also consulted on prospective nominees.
Prospective nominees are required to complete a private interest declaration and provide an assurance that they have no conflict of interest in addition to providing a release to allow the Department to undertake credentials checks.
These checks may include the following:
Prospective nominees are not advised of which of these checks will be, or are, undertaken.
Any matter disclosed in the private interest declaration or that arises from other sources, is considered on a case by case basis with all information being treated in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 .
With reference to question no. EW0035_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee:
(1) Were the claims referenced in the question in the spirit of the Fair Work Act 2009.
(2) Are ambit claims in the spirit of the Act.
The objects of the enterprise bargaining provisions of the Fair Work Act are based on good faith bargaining. Claims made by bargaining representatives during enterprise bargaining are a matter for the parties involved. The good faith bargaining requirements do not require employers or employees to make concessions or to reach agreement. They do require bargaining representatives to meet standards of bargaining conduct which includes giving genuine consideration to bargaining proposals. Parties are able to take steps to enforce these requirements, including through seeking orders from Fair Work Australia.
With reference to question no. EW0036_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee: can a response be provided to part 1(a), which asked whether the referenced claims were in the spirit of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The Government notes your ongoing media monitoring efforts.
The objects of the enterprise bargaining provisions of the Fair Work Act are based on good faith bargaining. Claims made by bargaining representatives during enterprise agreement negotiations are a matter for the parties involved. The good faith bargaining requirements do not require employers or employees to make concessions or to reach agreement. They do require bargaining representatives to meet standards of bargaining conduct which includes giving genuine consideration to bargaining proposals. Parties are able to take steps to enforce these requirements, including through seeking orders from Fair Work Australia.
Did the department or the Minister ' s office have any input into the Prime Minister ' s address to the Australian Industry Group on 20 August 2012; if so, can full details of that input be provided.
The Department and the Minister's office did not have any input into the address.
Is the Government considering withdrawing support from, or de-ratifying, any International Labour Organization conventions; if so, can details of the convention and the reason for considered action be provided.
No. The Australian Government is not considering the denunciation of any International Labour Organization Conventions which Australia has ratified.
Does the department agree with the article, published in The Australian on 17 August 2012, that states '85,600 jobs could be lost from manufacturing within the next five years unless the nation's productivity and competitiveness is improved'.
Employment projections produced by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) are based in part on the Monash model developed by the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash University and Deloitte Access Economics projections, but also take into account recent employment trends and known industry developments at the time of compilation. The projections are published on DEEWR's Labour Market Information Portal (deewr.gov.au/lmip).
DEEWR's projections do not make any specific assumptions about productivity or competitiveness in the Manufacturing industry, nor has DEEWR performed any specific modelling on the impact of changes in productivity or competitiveness on employment in Manufacturing.
With reference to the answer provided to question on notice no. 1906 (Senate Hansard , 10 September 2012, p. 6537), can a yes or no response be provided to the question.
The answer is yes because industrial dispute figures have been trending down strongly over time, noting that short-term comparisons and commentary can be misleading because the figures tend to fluctutate in the short-term and figures over the last year have been inflated by state public sector disputes outside of the Fair Work Act.
With reference to the Minister's interview with Mr Paul Bongiorno on Meet the Press, on 26 August 2012, in which the Minister stated that 'trade unions in Australia – with notable exceptions, but very few exceptions – are honestly run', can the Minister provide a full list of these notable exceptions.
The notable exceptions I was referring to during my interview with Mr Bongiorno were the NSW registered HSUeast and those branches of the federally registered Health Services Union to which Justice Flick of the Federal Court appointed an administrator in his decision of 21 June 2012.
Is the Minister considering any further amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 following the KPMG review commissioned by Fair Work Australia.
No. My Department has advised that KPMG did not recommend any amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2000 and that given amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 that were made by the Government earlier this year, that no further amendments are warranted at this time.
Does the Minister stand by the Government's statements that Qantas is a 'rogue employer'.
The Australian Government has not referred to Qantas as a 'rogue employer'.
Does the Government continue to stand by article 16 of the International Labour Organization Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155).
Yes. Article 16 of the International Labour Organization Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155) imposes an obligation on employers to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the workplaces, machinery, equipment, processes and chemical and biological substances under their control are safe and without risk to health. In addition, Article 16 requires that employers provide, where necessary, adequate protective clothing and protective equipment to prevent the risk of accidents of adverse health effects.
Australia ratified Convention 155 on 26 March 2004. Australia most recently reported to the International Labour Organization regarding its compliance with Convention 155 on 7 September 2012. In its report Australia advised that all jurisdictions continue to be compliant with the articles of the Convention.
In relation to Fair Work Australia (FWA):
(1) With reference to the financial reporting requirements of registered organisations, can details be provided of the number of organisations that have failed to comply with the legislative target dates for each year since 2008, including:
(a) the names of each organisation; and
(b) to what the target dates related.
(2) For the 2009 10, 2010 11 and 2011 12 financial years, can details be provided of the number of registered organisations that failed to provide an auditor ' s report or statement referring specifically to the concise report as prescribed by section 265(3 ) ( c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act), including:
(a) when the failure occurred;
(b) whether the registered organisation has been required to correct the record and provide such an auditor ' s statement; if not, why not; and
(c) the names of each organisation.
(3) For the 2009 10, 2010 11 and 2011 12 financial years, how many registered organisations have:
(a) failed to provide a full report to their membership within 6 months of the financial year, over the past three years; and
(b) failed to lodge with FWA the necessary documentation within 14 days of a general meeting.
(4) To the knowledge of FWA, how many registered organisations have failed to comply with subsection 254(2 ) ( d) of the Act.
(5) If this information has been withheld by organisations:
(a) why has FWA not demanded organisations provide completed records; and
(b) does FWA simply request that requirements be met in the future without requiring that historical data be provided to both FWA and to the membership of the registered organisation.
(6) Given that subsection 237(1) of the Act requires certain steps if an individual grant or donation exceeds $1 000, has FWA sought historical data of registered organisations that are known not to have complied, in particular, matters in relation to United Voice Tasmania.
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has provided the following response:
(1) With reference to the financial reporting requirements of registered organisations, can details be provided of the number of organisations that have failed to comply with the legislative target dates for each year since 2008, including:
(a) the names of each organisation; and
(b) to what the target dates related.
A reporting unit is required to lodge its financial report under section 268 of the Fair Work (Registered Organsiations) Act 2009 (the RO Act) with FWC within a maximum of six months and 14 days of the end of its financial year. Prior to that event, obligations prescribed in sections 265 and 266 arise in relation to the provision of reports to members and the presentation of reports to a meeting, being either a general meeting of members or (where rules make appropriate provision) a meeting of the committee of management.
Attachment A sets out each reporting unit of a registered organisation that has failed to lodge its audited financial report with FWC (or its predecessor as relevant) within the maximum allowable period of six months and 14 days. Global statistics are provided on the front page. Information for 2012 is incomplete as some reporting units are not yet required to lodge this financial report, depending upon the end of financial year date.
All reporting units that have not lodged financial reports required by section 268 are being actioned in accordance with the FWC Regulatory Compliance Policy , including by commencing inquiries or investigations.
Whilst compliance with the timeframes required by sections 265 and 266 is assessed and addressed for each reporting unit once a lodged report is examined by FWC, it is not presently possible to generate a report on compliance with target dates for these obligations.
(2) For the 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years, can details be provided of the number of registered organisations that failed to provide an auditor ' s report or statement referring specifically to the concise report as prescribed by section 265(3 ) ( c) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act), including:
(a) when the failure occurred;
(b) whether the registered organisation has been required to correct the record and provide such an auditor ' s statement; if not, why not; and
(c) the names of each organisation.
FWC does not accept lodgement of a financial report that does not contain an auditor ' s report as such a report would not constitute a " full report " as defined in subsection 265(1) of the RO Act.
On occasion, a small number of reporting units will elect to provide members with a concise financial report. Subsection 265(3) requires that a concise report be separately audited (in addition to the audit of the " full " financial report). The following reporting units failed to lodge an auditor ' s report with respect to the concise financial report:
(3) For the 2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 financial years, how many registered organisations have:
(a) failed to provide a full report to their membership within 6 months of the financial year, over the past three years; and
(b) failed to lodge with FWA the necessary documentation within 14 days of a general meeting.
There is no legislative requirement that a reporting unit provide its financial report to members within 6 months of the end of financial year. The legislative scheme requires either that: 1
o For those reporting units with a 30 June end of financial year - 10 December of the same year; or
o For those reporting units with a 31 December end of financial year - 9 June of the following year.
Please see answer to question (1) above.
(4) To the knowledge of FWA, how many registered organisations have failed to comply with subsection 254(2 ) ( d) of the Act.
FWC is reliant upon self ‑disclosure by reporting units where officers or members meet the criterion set out in paragraph 254(2 ) ( d).
FWC would act upon any complaint received concerning a contravention of s254(2 ) ( d).
(5) If this information has been withheld by organisations:
(a) why has FWA not demanded organisations provide completed records; and
(b) does FWA simply request that requirements be met in the future without requiring that historical data be provided to both FWA and to the membership of the registered organisation.
Refer to the answer to question (4) above.
(6) Given that subsection 237(1) of the Act requires certain steps if an individual grant or donation exceeds $1 000, has FWA sought historical data of registered organisations that are known not to have complied, in particular, matters in relation to United Voice Tasmania.
Each reporting unit is required by paragraph 11(f) of the Registrar ' s Reporting Guidelines to disclose items of expense for " grants or donations " . Where grants or donations are disclosed in the financial report but a statement of loans, grants and donations has not previously been lodged by the reporting unit under section 237 of the RO Act, FWC advises the reporting unit of the requirement to lodge such a statement should any of the individual grants or donations exceed the $1,000 threshold.
The Regulatory Compliance Branch is currently drafting amendments to the Reporting Guidelines which will require disclosure in a financial report of all grants or donations that exceed the $1,000 threshold, thereby enabling FWC to determine whether the reporting unit has complied with section 237.
Lodgement by the Tasmanian Branch of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union (as it then was) of a statement of loans, grants and donations for the financial years ended 30 June 2010 and 30 June 2011 is the subject of a current inquiry by the General Manager ' s delegate.
_____________
1 For other financial year end dates, refer to sections 265(5) and 266 of the RO Act in order to determine the date by which the financial report must be circulated to members.
Attachment A
Lodgement of financial reports - summary statistics
This table concerns lodgement of financial reports by reporting units under section 268 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act) from 2009 to 2012.
* Financial reports are to be lodged within 6 months and 14 days of the end of a reporting unit's financial year under sections 265, 266 and 268 of the RO Act . Some reporting units are not required to lodge within this time frame (such as reporting units that lodge under the separate financial reporting provisions under sections 269 and 270 and reporting units that are granted an exemption from lodging a financial report under section 271 of the RO Act).
** The total number of reporting units required to lodge a financial report for 2012 on or before 15 January 2013 was 221 (this includes, for example, reporting units that had a financial year ending on 31 March 2012 and 30 June 2012). The 6 month and 14 day time frame for 2012 has not yet expired for reporting units with a year ending date after 30 June 2012 (such as those reporting units whose financial year ended on 31 December 2012).
Breakdown of reporting Units which failed to lodge within 6 months and 14 days of the end of the reporting unit ' s financial year
(1) During the period after Mr Jason Clare's appointment as Minister in December 2011 until 8 August 2012: (a) how many recommendations or proposals did the Commonwealth Firearms Advisory Council (CFAC) make; and (b) to how many of these recommendations or proposals did the Minister respond.
(2) Did the Minister have any difficulty receiving the minutes of CFAC.
(3) Up to 8 August 2012: (a) when did the Minister meet with CFAC; (b) how many requests did the Chair of CFAC make to meet or speak with the Minister; and (c) when did the Minister meet with the Chair of CFAC.
(4) On 8 August 2012, did the CFAC Chair, Mr Pete Steedman, write to the Minister stating that, 'The Council wishes to convey its disappointment that, at the time of writing, there is nothing to suggest that the Council's resolutions have been or will be incorporated into legislation or regulations. As outlined in earlier correspondence to you, this has generated considerable concern among the Council. The Council also expressed its disappointment that you have not met or engaged with any members of Council, nor acknowledged receipt of any written communications from the Chairman on behalf of Council'; if so, to whom was the letter copied.
(5) Was Mr Steedman's letter to the Minister received via the CFAC secretariat.
(6) Did CFAC resolve not to meet or conduct any further business until the Minister confirmed his intention to refer matters to, and utilise the services of, CFAC and did Mr Steedman also convey this in his letter.
(7) Up to 8 August 2012, what statements about firearms management did the Minister make without consultation with the firearms community.
(8) Has the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's office or the Attorney General made any comment to the Minister about the above issues; if so, what were the comments.
In relation to question 1:
(a) CFAC made five recommendations or proposals on the operation of the firearms importation regime or firearms issues relating to areas of Commonwealth responsibility during the specified period.
(b) One of the recommendations has been included in a consultation paper prepared by the Attorney-General ' s Department. The public consultation period ended on 14 December 2012.
The next step will be to release draft regulations for public comment.
In relation to remaining questions the Minister and members of his staff met several times with members of CFAC as well as two formal meetings with the Council, on 22 October 2012 and 30 November 2012. During these meetings, a number of communication issues were raised, discussed and resolved. CFAC has provided further advice to Government on various firearms policy issues and is currently reviewing a consultation paper setting out various proposed amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 .
With reference to the storage of radioactive waste at the Australian Defence Industries (ADI) site at St Marys and its transportation to Woomera in 1995:
(1) What clean-up was undertaken of the area where the material had been stored.
(2) Has any study been undertaken to assess if any radioactive waste is still on the ADI site; if so:
(a) when was it undertaken;
(b) what were the findings; and
(c) have the findings been made public.
(3) If further radioactive material has been found at the site, what has been done and has the material been removed.
(1) The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO) has advised that normal surface cleaning procedures were conducted after removal of the radioactive packages. The storage area and all areas associated with the transfer, conditioning and further packaging were then surveyed for radiation and contamination. All were determined to be at normal background levels. These surveys were conducted by ANSTO and independently by another qualified organisation, confirming this status. The decisions to demolish the facilities as normal non-radioactive buildings were endorsed by the NSW EPA.
(2) The Department of Finance and Deregulation (DFAD) has advised that the NSW Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (DUAP) commissioned two separate reports to assess if the decontamination works on the ADI site rendered the site suitable for urban use.
(a) The Stage 1 Independent Audit Report from CMPS&F Environmental was provided to DUAP in 1996 and the Stage 2 Decontamination Report from HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd was provided to DUAP in 1999.
(b) Consistent with s.4(a) of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Regulations 1994, ANSTO completed its clean up and removal of radioactive material on the ADI site prior to 31 December 1995. Therefore, DUAP's Audits did not identify any possible radioactive contamination.
(c) The two audits were made public by DUAP.
(3) As stated in the answer to question (2)(b), no further radioactive material has been found at the site.
With reference to applications for the Low Income Supplement:
(1) Why does Centrelink not accept a driver licence, which contains a photograph, as proof of identity?
(2) Why does Centrelink require an original birth certificate, which has no photograph, as proof of identity when a driver licence is requested as evidence of identity to obtain the birth certificate.
(1) Generally, when claiming a Centrelink pension, benefit, allowance or service, customers are required to establish their identity by providing original documents from an approved list. The requirement for verification of identity is based on Section 8 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which states that abuses of the social security system are to be minimised. The Proof of Identity model used by the Department of Human Services (the Department) requires claimants/recipients to prove their identity when making new claims or when renewing or altering their claims. The model is based on providing documents which add up to 100 points. The Department provides a comprehensive list of acceptable proof of identity documents which is available to all staff and customers at the following website: (http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/forms/ss231).
The Low Income Supplement is one type of benefit which requires a person, who is unknown to the Department, to establish their identity as per these requirements. This means the person needs to provide commencement of identity (proof of birth or arrival) in Australia, and other documents from the approved list that add up to 100 points. If a customer has previously met the proof of identity requirements and is claiming within 52 weeks of receiving a payment, the full proof of identity requirements may not apply to them. Customers are advised to contact the Department if they are unsure.
An Australian driver licence is an acceptable form of proof of identity, providing it is a current driver licence, learner permit or provisional licence showing signature and/or photo and the same name as the claim. However, on its own it is insufficient to meet the overall requirement of 100 points.
(2) As advised in answer (1), an original Australian birth certificate or arrival documents are required, with additional documents to make up the 100 point total. This is part of the proof of identity model used by the Department.
Each Australian state and territory has its own Proof of Identity model. A range of identity documents can be used to claim a birth certificate, including a current driver licence, but it must be provided in conjunction with other documents as per the specific state or territory requirements.
With reference to mining exploration applications for the Arnhem Land coastal region and nearby offshore sites:
(1) Is the Minister aware of the large number of mining exploration leases pending over areas of the Arnhem Land coastal region.
(2) Is the Minister aware that applications placed in a Darwin newspaper for the proposed offshore oil and gas exploration were only advertised in English.
(3) Is the Minister concerned that only English was used, given that exploration will impact most significantly on Aboriginal people who may speak languages other than English.
(4) Has the department reviewed the potential impact of these leases; if so:
(a) what are the potential cultural and environmental impacts of the cumulative offshore oil, gas, and seabed mining, as well as land‑based mining;
(b) what account is being taken of the proximity of recent offshore oil and gas, near-shore, up-river and estuary mineral exploration applications to areas where Aboriginal people extensively hunt, gather and fish;
(c) has any assessment been undertaken of the impact these activities will have, particularly on health if food sources are negatively impacted;
(d) has the impact of the exploration activity on the Arnhem Land coastal region and nearby offshore sites been calculated in relation to the traditional owners' song lines and sites of spiritual significance; and
(e) has a clean-up plan for any oil or chemical spills been proposed; if so, how does this clean-up plan propose to deal with the issues such as the large tidal range, crocodiles, lack of roads and a 6 month wet season; if not, why not.
(1) The Northern Territory Government has responsibility for the granting and maintenance of exploration licences and mining titles in the Northern Territory, including the Arnhem coastal region. In addition, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism manages, on behalf of the Australian Government, the annual release of offshore acreage for petroleum exploration. If more specific information was provided about the applications of concern (e.g., date of publication and newspaper), the department could more effectively respond.
(2) As per response (1).
(3) Nil response, given (1) and (2).
(4) No, as per response (1).
Have Arcadia and their joint venture partner Enovation undertaken a 3D seismic survey of the Bremer Basin, Western Australia; if so, when is it due to be completed; if not, when is it expected to commence.
No. The proponent has advised the department that the proposed seismic survey has been cancelled.
Have Arcadia and their joint venture partner Enovation undertaken a 3D seismic survey of the Bremer Basin, Western Australia; if so, when is it due to be completed; if not, when is it expected to commence.
Enovation Resources International Limited transferred their rights, title and interests in Exploration Permit WA-378-P and WA-379-P to Cathay Petroleum International Limited on 16 February 2010 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd holds a 90 per cent interest and Cathay Petroleum International Limited a 10 per cent interest.
Exploration Permits WA-378-P and WA-379-P are in year 5 of their work programs which list a minimum work requirement of 500 km2 new 3D seismic survey to be undertaken for each permit by the end of the permit year, 9 January 2013 unless varied.
The 3D seismic survey proposed by the joint venture has not yet commenced. An Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) referral decision for the survey was given on the 7 September 2012 for the survey to be undertaken as not a controlled action, if undertaken in a particular manner for the period of 1 November 2012 to 30 April 2013
Operators are required by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 to have an accepted Environment Plan (EP) in place before commencing activities The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) has not (as at 27/11/12) accepted an EP for the proposed activity.