The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
From this time forward, under God—
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.
When she got to the Sydney parlour, the owner told her she had to repay a 'debt' of $25,000 that she'd 'incurred' by having her flight and visa organised. In order to pay off this 'debt' she worked 14 hours a day, 6 days a week and her boss pressured her to work on her day off as well. She wasn't paid any money until her 'debt' had been paid off. Sometimes, her boss pressured her to perform sexual services without a condom. She lived in an apartment adjoining the parlour and was not permitted to leave the premises unsupervised. The boss threatened Sun with deportation if she complained too much, refused a customer or tried to go to the authorities for help.
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 8), omit paragraph (d) of the definition of coercion in section 270.1A.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 9), omit "power;", substitute "power."
(3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 10), omit paragraph (f) of the definition of coercion in section 270.1A.
… the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purposes of exploitation.
(1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (after line 21), after the definition of servitude in section 270.1A, insert:
sexual servitude has the meaning given by section 270.4A.
(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (after line 25), after paragraph (a) of the definition of slavery-like offence, insert:
(aa) section 270.5A (sexual servitude offences);
(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 9), after section 270.4, insert:
270.4A Definition of sexual servitude
(1) For the purposes of this Division, sexual servitude is the condition of a person who provides sexual services and who, because of the use of coercion, force or threats:
(a) is not free to cease providing sexual services; or
(b) is not free to leave the place or area where the sexual services are provided.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether the coercion, force or threat is used against the victim or another person.
(3) The victim may be in a condition of servitude whether or not:
(a) escape from the condition is practically possible for the victim; or
(b) the victim has attempted to escape from the condition.
(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 12), after section 270.5, insert:
270.5A Sexual servitude offences
(1) A person:
(a) whose conduct causes another person to enter into or remain in sexual servitude; and
(b) who intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, that sexual servitude;
is guilty of an offence.
Penalty:
(c) in the case of an aggravated offence (see section 270.8)—imprisonment for 20 years; or
(d) in any other case—imprisonment for 15 years.
(2) A person:
(a) who conducts any business that involves the sexual servitude of other persons; and
(b) who knows about, or is reckless as to, that sexual servitude;
is guilty of an offence.
Penalty:
(c) in the case of an aggravated offence (see section 270.8)—imprisonment for 20 years; or
(d) in any other case—imprisonment for 15 years.
(3) In this section:
conducting a business includes:
(a) taking any part in the management of the business; or
(b) exercising control or direction over the business; or
(c) providing finance for the business.
(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 21), omit the heading to subsection 270.7B(2).
(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 22) to page 11 (line 4), omit subsections 270.7B(2), (3) and (4), substitute:
Note: For the avoidance of doubt, an individual may commit an offence if the person is a party to the marriage.
For the avoidance of doubt, an individual may commit an offence if the person is a party to the marriage.
(c) the person is not a victim of the forced marriage.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That government business order of the day no.2, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Bill 2012, be postponed till a later hour of the day.
The provisions of the Migration Amendment (Employer Sanctions) Act 2007 are wholly ineffective as a deterrent against the small number of employers and labour suppliers who engage or refer non-citizens who do not have lawful permission to work or who work in breach of their visa conditions. TheEmployer Sanctions provisions are also ineffective as an educational tool for recalcitrant employers and labour suppliers.
… we believe that the proposed changes are heavy handed and unnecessary. Imposing strict liability offences on employers and labour suppliers will not deter the small minority of employers or labour suppliers who already knowingly abuse the law to engage cheap labour. Rather the proposed changes will impact the unintended targets, i.e. good employers and labour suppliers. It is unfair that these persons be subject to high regulatory burdens because of the illegal practices of a very small few.
… AMMA believes the existing framework is sufficient provided there is greater awareness of the current penalties and sanctions against employers who do the wrong thing. While it is important that penalties are in place to deter businesses and individuals in respect of work by non-citizens, the significant number of strong measures in the exposure draft … would impose disproportionate cost and inconvenience on resource industry employers …
… it is imperative that the cost of doing business is balanced appropriately against the cost of ensuring compliance with migration laws.
The NFF has been supportive of imposing stricter sanctions for employers who knowingly and repeatedly employ illegal workers. The NFF believe that these employers constitute a relatively small number and therefore we support Government adopting a targeted approach to identifying and prosecuting these offenders. The NFF does not believe that it is necessary and therefore would not be an effective spend of taxpayer money, to implement a broad scale compliance program across all employers.
ACCI believes that the recommendations in the Howells' Report, if implemented, would be a disproportionate and inappropriate response to the problems they are trying to address.
Strict liability offences should only be imposed in circumstances where it is just and fair to do so; not as a matter of administrative convenience. The case is not made in this Bill or the Policy Commentary supporting the Bill.
But when the mining boom arrived, framing the budget went from being a carefully managed process to the equivalent of a cargo cult.
was also a former Treasury official. He said the boom gave the budget process "a lucky dip feel"—
… as officials and ministers scrambled to formalise tax cut options and decide which ones would get the go-ahead.
Now … if you want better public transport in Sydney … sure ask the Feds for more money … but basically you've got to change the State government if you want better public transport in Sydney.
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.
… … …
Our party is in a very serious and potentially catastrophic situation.
… … …
The headlines about corruption emanating from ICAC and the HSU scandal must shame us all into action …
… … …
… the full force of the law should be levelled against all those who have operated in an illegal and unethical manner.
… … …
I struggle to see what else but fading Labor values can account for the inexplicable decisions that sometimes come from Canberra …
… … …
… the toxic lack of trust that has poisoned our movement in recent times …
Soon after losing to Robertson—
Sheldon's union was caught out, gotcha-style, as video surveillance by private detectives showed his chief political operative Scott Connelly helping a campaign to unseat the NSW leader of the Australian Workers Union, Russ Collison.
In a letter to the Industrial Registrar, Collison lashed out. He challenged Sheldon's fitness to hold elected office because of a past conviction over ballot rigging, attaching parts of a 1990 report by Commissioner Marshall Cooke that referred to it after an investigation into elections of the Liquor Trades Union in Queensland, where Sheldon had been briefly an official.
… CONVICTED under s 171(1)(h) of Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 … [of] obtaining or having in his possession a ballot paper, on 27 July 1990. Discharged on good behaviour bond of $200 for nine months.
… the recorded convictions for relatively minor offences do not reflect the extent of ballot paper fraud revealed by this report.
… extracted millions of dollars from employers that have been hidden in a special fund and then used without the knowledge of its members.
"side deals" with many employers of its members in which company money has been paid to a union "training fund"—possibly at a cost of discounting workers' wages.
According to one agreement …labour hire firm Blue Collar agreed as part of an enterprise bargain to pay the TWU 1 per cent of the total payroll for the union's members employed at Qantas in Sydney.
Angry former TWU delegates from Qantas told the program workers were never told that their union's leadership had signed a side deal with payment into the union's "Industrial Rights and Training Fund".
They said the deal—personally signed off by TWU state secretary Tony Sheldon—was made at the same time Blue Collar employees stood to suffer a 30 per cent pay cut.
Sheldon never established a fund board or council with company representation that was distinct from the TWU, despite wage agreements saying explicitly that this would happen.
He did not separate the training fund from the TWU's general ledger. He did not separately audit the activities of the fund. And the definition of how it could be spent was very broad. … It is also not clear whether all TWU members knew about the fund's existence, until a union resolution last year.
A day after the union's West Australian secretary Chris Cain told delegates 'laws need to be broken, you're going to get locked up'—
I wish we could bottle a bit of the spirit here and spread it on perhaps some of the members in the Labor caucus …
Mr Rudd had tried to 'modernise' the ALP, while the Prime Minister and Mr Shorten were more interested in paying 'sycophantic homage to trade union bosses'.
Entrenching them into poverty is not a pathway back into employment.
Labor senators took note of and were impressed with the quality of evidence presented on the inadequacy of Newstart Allowance throughout this inquiry. Multiple respected welfare groups and professionals with extensive experience in the social security field presented the committee with a clear, well-argued message which could not be ignored: the real value of Newstart Allowance has receded so significantly that it is exacerbating poverty and becoming an impediment to employment for many.
Labor senators lend their in-principle support to an increase in Newstart Allowance, and note that many in the welfare sector advocate an increase of $50 per week, as explained in the committee report.
We've managed to put people on the moon. We've managed to eradicate terrible diseases of the past. We've just put that robot on Mars …
Don't tell me we can't find somewhere safe and secure for people to live.
Don't tell me we can't solve the problem of children going to bed hungry.
… lower international shipping costs, which are making imports more competitive.
My preference was—and this was expressed, that—I would like to retain the whole 1,096…to build up the Reserve Bank Reserve Fund. But he did not agree with that…
…the prudent course will be to apply future earnings to rebuilding the RBRF before the resumption of dividend payments.
This is an important step in meeting the Government’s commitment to at least halve the gap for Indigenous students in Year 12 or equivalent attainment rates by 2020.
The new facilities will provide more than 150 beds across a range of accommodation styles.
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 Senator Payne today relating to western Sydney and the Prime Minister.
We recently received our CDSE grant from Rooty Hill RSL Club which could not have come at a better time as we also received acknowledgement from DVA regarding our BEST Funding. Unfortunately with the Government in “Claw Back Mode” to pay for the insulation and schools improvement program our Grant has been slashed by several thousand dollars …
The Rooty Hill experiment, Mark Butler, not to put too fine a point on it. Is it a sign of a party that thinks it's rooted?
There are so many different sort of double entendres you can do with this place. I stay at the Penrith Panthers when I'm in western Sydney because I'm not sure I could check into the Rooty Hill RSL with a straight face. It just conjures up all these sort of Carry On films and Benny Hill episodes and Carry On Governing filmed at the Rooty Hill RSL.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 8 February 2013, of John Joseph Morris, former senator for New South Wales, places on record its appreciation of his public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
In 1984, in exchange for his Union's loyalty to the ruling right-wing faction in the Labor Party, Mr Morris demanded—and was given—a safe seat in the Senate. It was classic accommodation of interests.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Kroger for 26 February 2013, for personal reasons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Xenophon for today, for personal reasons.
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 June 2013:
The impact of federal court fee increases since 2010 on access to justice in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the impact of federal court fee increases on low-income and ordinary Australians and operators of small businesses;
(b) whether these fee increases are reasonable, based on evidence and consistent with other justice policy matters;
(c) how increases in court fees, and other reform to the courts and justice system, can act as a barrier to accessing justice;
(d) the extent to which court fee increases may impact on services provided by legal assistance services (i.e. legal aid commissions, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, family violence prevention legal services and community legal services);
(e) the degree to which the fee changes reflect the capacity of different types of litigants to pay;
(f) the application of the revenue that has been raised by federal court fee increases; and
(g) other relevant matters.
That the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 17 June 2013:
(a) the possible imminent importation of beef products from countries whose cattle herds have bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and/or foot and-mouth disease (FMD);
(b) the processes undertaken by Australian government agencies in determining risk to consumers and industry and the adequacy of such processes;
(c) the lessons to be learnt from the recent contamination of the beef supply chain with horse meat throughout Europe and its implications for Australian consumers and industry;
(d) the likely implications of allowing imports of beef from BSE and FMD countries on Australia's international reputation and standing as the world's safest exporter of beef;
(e) the adequacy of Australian food labelling laws to ensure Australian consumers can make a fully informed choice on Australian meat products; and
(f) any related matters.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Amendment Bill 2013, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) February 2013 is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month,
(ii) Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month is run each year by Ovarian Cancer Australia with its purpose to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer and to offer support for the women, their families and friends affected by ovarian cancer, and
(iii) Wednesday, 27 February 2013 is Ovarian Cancer Australia's Teal Ribbon Day, a day when Australians are invited to purchase and wear a teal ribbon to show support for ovarian cancer awareness, support and research, and to recognise those affected;
(b) recognises that:
(i) according to Ovarian Cancer Australia, one in 77 women will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime,
(ii) each year, more than 1 200 Australia women are diagnosed with ovarian cancer and around 800 will die from the disease, equating to an average of 3 Australian women being diagnosed every day, and
(iii) early detection of ovarian cancer is key, as detection in the early stages increases the percentage to up to 95 per cent of women being alive and well after 5 years; and
(c) commends Ovarian Cancer Australia for the work that they have done in raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of ovarian cancer and to reduce the impact on Australians of ovarian cancer.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 12 March 2013, from 3 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into fresh pineapple imports.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that South Australia's iconic Lake Eyre is dependent on water flows from the Cooper, Diamantina and Georgina rivers, which are under threat by the Queensland Government's proposal to repeal legislation that currently protects them;
(b) opposes the repealing of the Wild Rivers legislation by the Queensland Government; and
(c) urges the South Australian Premier, Mr Weatherill, to act promptly to work with the Federal Government to protect the Lake Eyre Basin from the proposal of the Premier of Queensland, Mr Newman.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the comments by the Tasmanian Premier Ms Lara Giddings at the Press Club in the week beginning 17 February 2013 calling for the Tamar Valley pulp mill project to be revived,
(ii) the comments by the Minister for Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government in late 2012 in support of a pulp mill in the Tamar Valley in Tasmania, and
(iii) the Federal Government funding promised to Tasmania under the Intergovernmental Agreement with the Tasmanian Government; and
(b) calls on the Government to guarantee they will not buy the Tamar Valley pulp mill permits and that no more Government resources will go to supporting this pulp mill.
The Senate divided. [16:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Minister for Environment and Water Resources under the Howard Government approved the construction and operation of the Gunns proposed pulp mill in Tasmania in October 2007,
(ii) under Condition 45 of the Federal Approval for the pulp mill it states 'If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the Minister notifies Gunns Limited in writing That the Minister is not satisfied that there has been substantial commencement of construction of the pulp mill, then this approval lapses and the action must not thereafter be commenced',
(iii) it has now been more than 5 years since that approval was granted and no substantial commencement of construction has begun, and
(iv) the passing of the Pulp Mill Assessment Act 2007 by the Tasmanian Parliament bypassed the environmental impact assessments usually required for a project of this significance; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to notify the receivers of Gunns Limited That the approval has lapsed.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) less than half of one per cent of Australian organisations and individuals making submissions to the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security inquiry into potential reforms of National Security Legislation support the proposal for tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years,
(ii) of the total 5 554 submissions made to the inquiry, 25 were explicitly supportive of data retention, 32 submissions were listed as confidential and 34 do not address the issue, leaving 5 463 submissions or 98.9 per cent of submitters from a broad spectrum of Australian society explicitly indicating their opposition to the retention of data for up to 2 years, and
(iii) respondents objected That the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years was vaguely and briefly presented, threatens privacy and freedom of expression and posed security risks through potential misuse of preserved data; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) abandon the proposal to retain data on all Australians for up to 2 years due to the public consultation revealing a wide diversity of opposition from across the political spectrum, from industry, lawyers, non-government organisations, information technology experts and the media, and
(ii) propose national security measures that are appropriate, proportionate and strengthen rather than erode human rights standards that are the cornerstone of Australian democracy.
The Senate divided. [16:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) on 25 February 2013, 38 retired generals and admirals from the United States of America (US), and prominent national security experts, presented a letter calling on US policymakers to recognise the security effects of climate change and the undeniable consequences and costs of inaction in addressing climate change for vulnerable nations,
(ii) the Australian Strategic Policy Institute in 2007 called on the 2009 Defence White Paper to examine the full implication of climate change for the Australian Defence Force, and
(iii) the brief acknowledgement in the 2009 Defence White Paper that climate change has the potential to be a destabilising global force erroneously concludes That the strategic consequences of climate change will not be felt before 2030; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) recognise the undeniable security implications of climate change, the costs and consequences of inaction, and
(ii) ensure That the Defence White Paper, due to be released in May 2013, addresses the fact that climate change is shaping the contemporary security climate, is a driver of conflict and should guide procurement and deployment in Australia's national security.
The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
Labor's waste and mismanagement and the chaos caused in the health sector, especially through retrospective funding cuts.
Last Friday week at 3 am, I suffered a major heart attack at Penguin.
My wife drove me to the Burnie hospital where I was assessed and given first-line treatment and when I was stable, it was decided to evacuate me to the Hobart hospital for specialist treatment.
Unfortunately there were no beds available so I was sent by the Royal Flying Doctor Service to Launceston, where I was seen by specialist staff and by 8am had had a stent placed in my heart.
After a few days of wonderful treatment, I was discharged to enjoy the remainder of my holiday in your state.
All I can say as a visitor from Queensland, thank you very much to the health services of Tasmania and the professional staff.
However, these incremental improvements—
now look likely to fall victim to Labor's poor economic management. Desperate for budget savings in this year's Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, the Gillard government used revised population estimates to cut $1.6 billion in hospital funding.
The state government plans to close a ward and slash 26 beds at Randwick's Prince of Wales Hospital despite assurances that frontline health services would remain intact.
Staff were advised by an email from Patrick Bolton, the director of clinical services, who said hospital management was "required" to cut bed numbers, close a ward and reduce staffing costs.
The NSW health department says it's "consolidating" beds at a leading Sydney hospital but if refusing to comment on claims that 26 beds have been lost.
Thousands of jobs may be axed from the NSW health service as part of deep budget cuts confirmed by the NSW Health Minister, Jillian Skinner.
Just days after the Education Minister, Adrian Piccoli, announced a $1.7 billion funding cut in his department, Mrs Skinner confirmed this morning that $3 billion would be cut from NSW health over the next four years.
The hidden disaster in the 2012-13 MYEFO is the hit (unacknowledged by anyone in the Government) taken by preventive and public health. We know that $1.5 billion over four years … has been cut from the National Health Reform (NHR) funding.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
ANAO found that up to half a million active Medicare enrolment records were probably for people who are deceased.
That the report be received.
That Senator Bernardi replace Senator Nash on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for the committee’s inquiry into the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 on 1 March 2013, and Senator Nash be appointed as a participating member.
Senate divided. [18:11]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That these bill be now read a third time.
While there is an acknowledgment of Her Gracious Majesty, Queen Victoria, in our Constitution there is no acknowledgment of the original inhabitants of this country. So let's make our Constitution better. Let's make it, in that sense, even more Australian.
The apology was about getting things right for the past. Constitutional recognition is about getting it right for the future.
We have to acknowledge that pre-1788, this land was as Aboriginal then as it is Australian now and until we have acknowledged that we will continue to be an incomplete nation and a torn people. We only have to look across the Tasman to see how it can be done so much better.
This is a stain on our soul that Prime Minister Keating so movingly evoked in Redfern 21 years ago.
There is a window to convert this moment of opportunity into something real and lasting in a way that gets the balance right.
In the end, my appeal to the broader Australian community on this is simpler and far less eloquent. It goes to love of country and a fair go. It is about understanding the destiny that we share as Australians, that we are all in this together. It is about recognising that while ever our Indigenous citizens are left out, or marginalised, or feel their identity is challenged, we are all diminished. It is about appreciating that their long struggle for a fair place in this country is our struggle too.
Indigenous people did not ordain our Constitution, nor contribute to its drafting. They had no opportunity to vote for it, and yet all were affected by what it said and failed to say.
We cannot possibly allow News Corporation to own more print or electronic media and that is a top legislative priority to deal with what is becoming a cancer in our democracy.
(1) Given that, in a speech made to the Association of International Life Offices, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi asked countries to prevent their companies from partnering with the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise due to the lack of transparency and accountability, will the Government take steps to stop Australian companies investing in Burma's oil and gas industry.
(2) Will the Government apply internationally recognised standards such as the International Monetary Fund's Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency in its trade with Burma, and require Australian companies to be subject to the code including the publication of accounts.
(1) The Government takes the view that the private sector has an important role to play in developing Burma's economy, consolidating democratic gains and contributing to sustainable reform, including through strengthening economic and corporate governance.
The Government will encourage Australian companies wanting to do business in Burma, including in the oil and gas sector, to apply the highest standards of corporate, environmental and social responsibility.
(2) The IMF Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency is a set of guidelines that the IMF uses to encourage better transparency standards and performance by governments. It is not a code that another government can apply to companies in its jurisdiction.
Australia is a strong supporter of and major donor to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and encourages countries to implement it as a standard. We understand there is interest in the Burmese government about joining the EITI, which would help promote transparency and accountability in the oil and gas sector.
For each of the following financial years, 2008‑09, 2009‑10, 2010‑11 and 2011‑12:
(1) When was the due date for submissions to the Commonwealth Grants Commission in relation to goods and services tax (GST).
(2) When did the Tasmanian Government provide its submission.
(3) Can a list be provided detailing each occasion, including the date, location and who was present, when the Commonwealth Grants Commission, in relation to GST, met with:
(a) the Premier of Tasmania;
(b) Tasmanian Government ministers; and
(c) Tasmanian Government public servants.
(1) States are requested to respond to the New Issues paper for years in which updates are conducted and to the Draft report for years when a Review is conducted.
Update 2008 – New Issues Paper – response due 15 August 2007
Update 2009 – New Issues Paper – response due 12 September 2008
Review 2010 – Draft Report – response due 30 September 2009
Update 2011 – New Issues Paper – response due 31 August 2010
Update 2012 – New Issues Paper – response due 28 October 2011
(2) Update 2008 – New Issues Paper – response received 17 September 2007
Update 2009 – New Issues Paper – response received 12 September 2008
Review 2010 - Draft Report - responses from Tasmania
Update 2011 – New Issues Paper – response received 1 September 2010
Update 2012 – New Issues Paper – response received 1 November 2011
(3) Various meetings have taken place over the years on a range of issues relating to GST distribution.
(1) Will the Government honour the verbal undertakings that facilitated United Nations (UN) member states agreement by consensus to the 'Cocos' association with Australia', the outcome of the UN supervised act of self-determination.
(2) What standing in international law does the Government accord to verbal undertakings made by ambassadors and permanent representatives at the UN when those undertakings produce results sought in Australia's national interest.
(1) The Australian Government's publicly stated position at the time of the Cocos' association with Australia was that it had no intention of making the Cocos Islands a military base. The Australian Government continues to honour that undertaking.
(2) A verbal undertaking made by a Permanent Representative at the United Nations does not establish rights or obligations at international law.
(1) In relation to industrial disputation during the 2011 12 financial year:
(a) what was the annual cost to the economy; and
(b) what was the impact on Australia's productivity.
(2) Does the Treasurer acknowledge that there has been an increase in industrial action; if so, has the Treasurer expressed concerns to either the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations or the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations about this increase or the impact of industrial disputation on the economy.
(1) (a) Treasury has not calculated this.
(b) Treasury has not calculated this.
(2) No. Under Fair Work, days lost to industrial disputes are on average about one third of the average level since 1985 (the earliest year comparable ABS data is available).
With reference to the Criminal Code Amendment (Cluster Munitions Prohibition) Bill 2010 and the Convention on Cluster Munitions:
(1) What form will the 'public statement' or 'non-legislative assurances' take, to be made by the Government at the time of Australia's ratification of the convention.
(2) Is there a process under the convention enabling such statements.
It is intended that the public statement confirming the Government's commitment to not approve the stockpiling of cluster munitions in Australia by foreign governments will take the form of a Ministerial media release.
There is no specific provision in the Convention. States Parties are free to make public statements on their commitments to the Convention at any stage.
(1) Is the Minister aware of the health of the endangered thrombolite communities in the Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar area.
(2) Are the critically endangered thrombolite communities in the Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar area now all dead.
(3) What are the reasons for the decline in health of the thrombolite communities in the Peel-Yalgorup Ramsar area.
(4) What part does nutrient pollution and rising salinity play in the decline.
(5) Can an explanation be provided as to why the Government has failed to uphold its obligations to protect the critically endangered thrombolite communities.
(6) Will this failure be reported to the Ramsar Secretariat; if so, when.
(7) Is the Minister aware that the thrombolite community at Lake Richmond is currently threatened by a marina canal development.
(8) What actions will be taken to protect the thrombolite community at Lake Richmond.
(1) Yes.
(2) There are currently no scientific measures to establish this.
(3) The reasons for any decline may include increasing nutrients, increased salinity, green macroalgae Cladophora and physical disturbance.
(4) See the response to question 3.
(5) The Australian Government has been taking into account the status of thrombolite ecological communities through environmental assessment processes and in the provision of funding to support conservation activities to ensure these ecological communities are not put at further risk. This included allocation of $698,839 to the Peel-Harvey Catchment Council Incorporated under the 2011/12 round of Caring for our Country for the restoration of habitat and management of threats to Lake Clifton's listed thrombolites communities.
(6) As per the response to question 2 above, the status of the Lake Clifton thrombolites has not been established.
(7) The Minister visited the proposed Point Peron Marina development site and Lake Richmond in early September 2012 in order to gain a better understanding of the development and its potential impacts, including potential impacts to the thrombolite community.
(8) The proposal is currently being assessed under the EPBC Act through a Public Environment Review, in accordance with the bilateral agreement between the Western Australian Government and the Commonwealth Government. Actions that have, or are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of environmental significance require approval under national environmental law from the Commonwealth Government. The assessment process is rigorous and includes opportunities for public input and the ability to obtain independent expert advice when required.
With reference to the freedom of information papers FOI Reference No: 11/4734, released on 28 May 2012:
(1) In regard to the recognition of the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic on page 92, who does the Australian Government recognise as exercising state sovereignty in the area east and inland of the berm which divides Western Sahara.
(2) In regard to the recognition of the Polisario Front in the document entitled Western Sahara: Policy as 'an important representative body', and the statement that 'it would be hard to preclude the emergence of other Western Sahara voices as the situation evolves', has the Government been approached by any other emerging Western Saharan voices claiming to represent the interests of the Saharawi People.
(3) Given that, prior to 1975, the International Court of Justice advised that Morocco's claimed legal ties to Western Sahara were not sovereign ties to that territory, does Australia consider that Morocco's sovereign claims to Western Sahara are more legitimate now than when examined by the International Court of Justice.
(4) If the Government accepts the International Court of Justice decision, that Western Sahara was not terra nullius and that Morocco's legal ties were insufficient to create any sovereign interest in the territory, why does Government policy attach equal importance/legitimacy to Morocco's continuing sovereign claim to rule Western Sahara by characterising the issue of sovereignty over Western Sahara as a conflict with two sides.
(5) Does the Government take the view that the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion was ambiguous in regard to Morocco's claims to sovereignty over Western Sahara.
(6) Does Morocco's 36 year occupation of Western Sahara create greater sovereign interest in the natural resources of Western Sahara, allowing it to legally exploit those resources in partnership with Australian companies, despite having no legally recognised sovereign ties to the territory prior to invasion and annexation.
(7) In regard to the United Nations Code for Trade and Transport Locations (UNLOC) (pp. 171-172, 303, 308-309):
(a) is the Government aware that Standards Australia has considered and rejected the UNLOC code as an Australian standard and advises that Australians needing to state country locations in official documents must rely on their own enquiries and legal advice as to the actual geographical location of any particular city or the validity of sovereign claims to resources;
(b) does the Government's official endorsement of the misleading UNLOC code contradict its policy not to advise importers in regard to the legal implications of importing Western Saharan goods; and
(c) can a list be provided of the number and type of goods imported from the occupied territory of Western Sahara that have declared Western Sahara as the country of origin in importation documents.
(8) In regard to fishing and information referred to at http://www.austrade.gov.au/Morocco-profile/default.aspx, and given that trade figures provided for 2007 state 'prepared seafood' was imported from Morocco, are these products still being imported and do they come from Western Saharan waters.
(9) In regard to the letter from the Government of Morocco dated 13 February 2008, requesting support for its autonomy plan, what was the Australian Government's response.
(10) Does the Government support the Moroccan autonomy plan as the preferred solution to the conflict over self-determination in Western Sahara.
(11) Will the Government revise its commercial and military regulations and guidelines so as to make any trade with Morocco conditional upon restoring human rights.
(1) Australia notes the UN classification of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory. The Government of Morocco and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro dispute sovereignty of Western Sahara.
(2) No.
(3) Australia notes the UN classification of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory.
(4) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion that the territory of Western Sahara did not constitute terra nullius (a territory belonging to no-one) at the time of its colonisation by Spain. The ICJ also stated that, while other legal ties existed between Morocco and Western Sahara, it found no tie of territorial sovereignty at the time of colonisation by Spain, and accordingly no legal tie that might affect the application of the principle of self-determination to the peoples of Western Sahara.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion did not, however, resolve the contentious issue of the present status of territorial sovereignty in relation to Western Sahara. Australia supports the UN classification of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing-territory and Australia's view is that the people of Western Sahara have a right to self-determination.
(5) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) stated in its advisory opinion that the territory of Western Sahara did not constitute terra nullius (a territory belonging to no-one) at the time of its colonisation by Spain. The ICJ also stated that, while other legal ties existed between Morocco and Western Sahara, it found no tie of territorial sovereignty at the time of colonisation by Spain, and accordingly no legal tie that might affect the application of the principle of self-determination to the peoples of Western Sahara.
The ICJ Advisory Opinion did not, however, resolve the contentious issue of the present status of territorial sovereignty in relation to Western Sahara. Australia supports the UN classification of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing-territory and Australia's view is that the people of Western Sahara have a right to self-determination.
(6) Australia notes the UN classification of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory. The Government of Morocco and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Rio de Oro dispute sovereignty of Western Sahara. The United Nations has not imposed any restrictions on trade in natural resources from Western Sahara and the Government is not aware of any country which has autonomous sanctions against that trade. Given the status of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consistently draws companies' attention to the possible international law considerations involved in importing natural resources sourced from Western Sahara and recommends companies seek independent legal advice before importing such material.
(7) (a) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade understands from Standards Australia that Standards Australia did not issue advice to this effect.
(b) The Government notes the fact that the port of Laayoune is designated under the UN Code for Trade and Transport as a Moroccan port. This does not amount to the provision of legal advice. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade consistently draws companies' attention to the possible international law considerations involved in importing natural resources sourced from Western Sahara and recommends companies seek independent legal advice before importing such material.
(c) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's Statistical Analysis and Retrieval System database (which contains data from July 1988 sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics) records the following imports from Western Sahara:
December 1988: broom or brush handles of wood; quantity: 27,700; value: $10,008;
May 1989: non-coniferous dowelling; quantity: not recorded; value: $11,644; and
March 2012: tape drives for computers; quantity: 1; value: $1,796.
(8) In 2011, Australia imported seafood, prepared or preserved, from Morocco.
(9) The Government does not comment on communications with other Governments.
(10) The Government supports the efforts of the United Nations to find an enduring settlement in relation to Western Sahara.
(11) No. The export of goods and technologies for use by armed forces are already subject to controls set out in the Customs Regulations . Applications for controlled goods are assessed against criteria which include consideration of potential human rights concerns.
In regard to each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 within the Minister ' s portfolio:
(1) Is information collected from stakeholders and the broader community; if so:
(a) what forms or other methods are used to collect information;
(b) how many of these forms are: (i) paper-based, (ii) electronic based; and (iii) both;
(c) do these forms request an estimate of the time taken to complete; if not, why not; and
(d) is data collected on how long it takes to complete each form; if so, can this data be provided.
(2) For each proposed regulatory initiative since August 2010:
(a) how many stakeholder consultations have been conducted; and
(b) have there been any complaints from stakeholders about the consultation process; if so, from whom.
Given the very broad nature of the question and the diverse range of information collected by DEEWR, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth 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.
(1) (a) Not applicable to this department.
(b) Not applicable to this department.
(c) DFAT provides services (support for finance, human resource management and property) to the Reserve Bank of Australia and the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade under a Service Level Agreement (SLA). The SLA is designed to recover the costs to DFAT of delivering these services to non-DFAT staff at DFAT-managed posts. The fee is calculated on the basis of the percentage of time taken to deliver these services (salary and salary-related expenses) by DFAT locally-engaged staff (LES).
(d) Not applicable to this department.
(2) (a) Not applicable to this department.
(b) Not applicable to this department.
(c) DFAT provides services under an SLA to recover the costs to DFAT of delivering services to non-DFAT staff at DFAT-managed posts (see 1(c)).
(d) Not applicable to this department.
(3) (a) Not applicable to this department.
(b) Not applicable to this department.
(c) The current Service Level Agreement will expire on 30 June 2015.
(d) Not applicable to this department.
(4) (a) [Licences] Not applicable to this department.
(b) [Registrations] Not applicable to this department.
(c) [Fee for services]
(a) 2007-08: $15,329,732
(b) 2008-09: $14,354,332
(c) 2009-10: $14,192,882
(d) 2010-11: $18,230,208
(e) 2011-12: $25,137,384
(f) 2012-13: $2,519,132 as at 31 October 2012.
(d) [Permits] Not applicable to this department.
(5) (a) Not applicable to this department.
(b) Not applicable to this department.
(c) Total revenue is as noted at 4(c) above.
(d) Not applicable to this department.
For each department and agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and each Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth 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.
Permits issued under the Protection of Word ' Anzac ' Regulations
(1) 141 permits have been issued to the non-government sector.
(2) Permits are issued (on application) at no cost to any sector of the community approved by the Minister to use the word 'Anzac'.
(3) This is assessed on a case by case basis.
(4) (a) 2007-08 - Nil
(b) 2008-09 - Nil
(c) 2009-10 - Nil
(d) 2010-11 - Nil
(e) 2011-12 - Nil
(f) 2012-13 - Nil
(5) Nil
With reference to the answer provided to question no. BE12/0380, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimate hearing of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee concerning the 2011 Christmas Island riots, which states that seven people were convicted and that the Minister refused the visa of one of the convicted persons:
(1) Can details be provided of the offence/offences for which each of the seven individuals was convicted.
(2) For what offence was the individual who was refused a visa by the Minister convicted.
(1) Following consultation with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, the Department can confirm the following:
Of the seven persons convicted:
3 persons were involved in removing or attempting to remove food and beverage items (cans of soft drink) from the kitchen and were convicted of "burglary";
1 person was convicted of "aggravated burglary" as a result of entering the kitchen in the company of others and removing a small number of food and beverage items;
1 person was convicted of 2 counts of "common assault" and 1 count "destroy or damage Commonwealth property" following their involvement in the disturbance;
1 person was convicted of "possess weapon" following their involvement in the disturbance; and
1 person was convicted of "threaten to cause harm to Commonwealth Official" following their involvement in the disturbance however this person was successful in a court appeal in relation to the conviction and the conviction has been set aside.
(2) The individual who was refused a visa by the Minister was convicted of the offence "possess weapon" following their involvement in the disturbance.
(1) Why has Australia not signed up to the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, given that a number of countries such as Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, United Kingdom and United States are participants.
(2) Would an Australian company engaging the services of the Burmese military be viewed as in violation of Australia's arms embargo.
(3) Has the Australian Government, through any agency, provided any funding to Asialink at the University of Melbourne for their Asialink Conversations or missions to Burma or for the Australia Myanmar Business Taskforce.
(4) Is Australia providing any financial or in-kind assistance to Australian businesses to invest or operate in Burma.
(5) What precisely is proposed by the Minister when Australia offering support 'in establishing an investment regime' in Burma is discussed.
(6) With reference to the Labour, Trade and Investment Delegation to Myanmar:
a) when is it scheduled to take place;
b) who will participate and from which corporations; and
c) with whom will the delegation meet.
(7) What is department's budget in relation to Burma.
(8) What is the budget used to fund.
(9) Who implements the programs and what proportion of funding is allocated to each element.
(1) The Government is currently considering the issue of joining the Voluntary Principles.
(2) Australia's arms embargo on Myanmar is implemented in the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011 . The making of a sanctioned supply or the provision of a sanctioned service by a person in Australia or by an Australian company or body corporate without prior authorisation is a criminal offence pursuant to section 16 of theAutonomous Sanctions Act 2011 .
(3) The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has not made payments to Asialink for their Asialink Coversations or missions to Myanmar for the Australian Myanmar Business Taskforce. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is not able to comment on whether or not other agencies have made payments to Asialink for the purposes outlined in this question.
(4) The Australian Embassy in Yangon refers business enquiries to Austrade in the first instance. The Embassy often provides general country briefings to Australian businesses that seek meetings. The Embassy also provides Australian businesses with generic contact details for the peak private sector body, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) and the government agency responsible for investment, the Directorate for Investment and Company Administration (Ministry of National Planning and Investment). The Embassy has also issued to a number of Australian companies registered with ASIC a courtesy letter confirming their registration details, which they can provide to the Myanmar government for the purpose of arranging meetings. Both Embassy and Austrade staff assisted with the business delegation which accompanied Minister Shorten on his visit to Myanmar in late October (see Question 6).
Austrade does not have an office in Myanmar and currently responds to inquiries about the Myanmar market from its office in Bangkok, via a general inquiries line (Austrade Direct - 13 28 78) and through the provision of information on the Austrade website. Austrade is currently planning how it will provide further support to Australian companies seeking to do business in Myanmar. Austrade participated in the Asialink mission to Myanmar in May 2012. In 2011-12, Austrade made Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) payments to three Australian organisations that listed Myanmar among their top six export markets.
(5) Australia is committed to supporting Myanmar's reform process, including in relation to economic development and the important role that quality foreign investment can play. To this end, Australia is co-funding the World Bank's analytical work program that is designed to support the broader re-engagement of the Bank and other donors in Myanmar to determine a range of capacity building priorities, including in relation to analysing the investment climate and access to finance issues. Australia is also discussing with Myanmar a range of other possible assistance, including capacity building, to help Myanmar manage the economic opportunities and challenges arising from its re-opening. These discussions are at an early stage and information will be available once Australia and Myanmar have further determined specific priority areas for assistance.
Australia provides most of the funding for the Economic Cooperation Work Programme (ECWP) under the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand FTA (AANZFTA). Under this program, Myanmar is undertaking an OECD Investment Policy Review. These reviews are an international best practice tool to support investment growth.
(6) (a) The Labour, Trade and Investment delegation visited Myanmar from 22-26 October 2012.
(b) The following business and union representatives participated in the delegation:
(c) The delegation met with a number of government, non-government and business representatives in Myanmar, including President Thein Sein, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission, the International Labour Organisation, the Federation of Trade Unions – Burma, and the Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The delegation also met local civil society representatives.
(7) DFAT does not receive a specific budget appropriation for Myanmar. Each year, the department allocates an operating budget to work units in Australia and overseas based on business need. In 2012-13, the operating budget (excluding staff salaries and allowances) for the Australian Embassy in Yangon is $1.3 million.
(8) and (9) DFAT operates under a devolved budget management framework. Southeast Asia Division has overall responsibility for managing Australia's relations with Myanmar, in close cooperation with the Embassy in Yangon. The Embassy in Yangon has a separate operating budget which is used to cover expenditure that relates to the running of the mission, including for locally engaged staff, property, security, ICT, minor assets and administrative expenditure.
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.
(a) to (e) The Department from time to time prepares briefs with factual information on a specific location (which may include one or more electorates) to support a senior official or Ministerial visit or event.
The Department publishes a series of grant reports on the FaHCSIA website: www.fahcsia.gov.au/grants-funding/grants-funding
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.
(a) The Department of Health and Ageing prepares:
(i) quarterly reports, by electoral division, on progress towards implementation of key initiatives and actual or committed expenditure measures; and
(ii) annual reports, by electoral division, which contain demographic information and information on selected health and aged care programs and services.
(b) The Department does not make a distinction between the resources required to produce these reports and other program implementation, expenditure or demographic reports. As such, it is not possible to quantify the specific resourcing required to compile the reports.
(c) and (d) The Department prepares the reports described above as part of regular departmental operations. The reports are provided to portfolio Ministers' offices and to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on request.
(e) Facts, figures and statistics on selected health and ageing programs represented on a geographical basis, including by electoral division, are publicly available on the Department's internet site at http://health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Statistics-1.
With reference to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2011/D5, 'Income Tax: School or College Building Funds' and Taxation Ruling TR 96/8 'Income Tax: School and College Building Funds':
(1) Given that Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2011/D5 states that the 50 per cent rule is no longer considered correct, what is the reason for departing from the 50 per cent use test; for example, has there been an important court judgment on the subject.
(2) Has the ATO simply changed its mind about the issue.
(3) What is the ATO's intended service standard for the finalisation of public rulings.
(4) Given that Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2011/D5 was notified on 6 April 2010, and was issued on 5 December 2011, why has the ruling not yet been finalised.
(5) Is it sound administrative practice to withdraw a ruling such as Taxation Ruling TR 96/8 without first finalising a replacement public ruling, such as Draft Taxation Ruling TR 2011/D5.
(1) The ATO initiated a review of Taxation Ruling TR 96/8 (TR 96/8) when compliance activity indicated that some funds were purporting to rely on the ruling in cases where non-school activities were extensive. In those cases, it was being argued that the 50% test was met and the building was therefore a school building, even though, viewed objectively, it appeared that the design and dominant use of the building was not as a school. TR 96/8 was withdrawn when the ATO concluded that the 50% test could not be sustained as a matter of law.
(2) TR 96/8 was reviewed, and subsequently withdrawn, when it came to the ATO's attention that the 50% test was being applied to buildings used for extensive non-school activities. See the answer to question 1.
(3) There is no formal published service standard for the finalisation of public rulings. However, the ATO provides general guidance as to the expected timeframes for the publication of draft and final public rulings on its external website and publishes regular status updates for its public rulings program.
The ATO issues public rulings in draft form to seek professional, industry and community comment on its proposed position on tax issues. The ATO usually aims to issue a draft ruling for public comment within 6 months of the topic being notified as part of the public rulings program and to issue a final public ruling within 6 months of the draft ruling being published. However, timeframes for particular rulings can be affected by a range of factors, such as the complexity of the issues dealt with by the ruling, the nature of issues raised during consultation and the effect of legislative changes or court decisions.
(4) The ATO recognises that the process of finalising draft Taxation Ruling TR 2011/D5 (TR 2011/D5) has been lengthy and is aware of the community's concerns. In this case, the timeframe for issuing both the draft and final ruling was extended to enable the ATO to undertake additional consultation with peak bodies and other stakeholders, due to the level of public interest and comment on the issue. The period for comments on TR 2011/D5 was also extended in recognition of the committees that have at their core, volunteers, who are involved with administering and running of school building funds. The ATO considered the community's feedback and finalised the ruling, which was released on 13 February 2013.
(5) It is usual ATO practice to withdraw a ruling when a replacement draft ruling issues.
TR 96/8 was withdrawn with effect from 5 December 2011, the date TR 2011/D5 was issued.
In addition, the ATO recognises the need for taxpayers to have certainty in situations where it is developing its position on an issue and therefore has provided a level of protection for existing arrangements:
With reference to the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 and its application to Authorised Deposit-taking Institutions (ADIs), and in particular Section 8, which sets out shareholding limits by reference to voting power, and subclause 10(1) of Schedule 1, which defines the stake that a person holds in a company at a particular time as 'the aggregate of: (a) the direct control interests in the company that the person holds at that time; and (b) the direct control interests in the company held at that time by associates of the person':
(1) Would a company that makes an application to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to become licensed as an ADI, which has a majority of its capital of $2.5 million sourced from one individual through fully paid non-voting shares and a minority of its capital, $500 000, sourced through partly paid voting shares belonging to several individuals (between them having all the voting power but with no individual holding more than 15 per cent of the voting stock), be rejected on the grounds that the funding base is not diversified in accordance with the requirements of the Act; if so:
(a) what would be the legislative grounds for rejecting this application; and
(b) is it the intention of the Act that such an application would be rejected on the grounds that the funding base is not diversified.
(2) Does APRA require a diversification of not only the voting power but also the economic ownership for financial sector companies to comply with the 15 per cent shareholding limit; if so:
(a) what is the legislative requirement for such diversification under the Act;
(b) does the Minister consider such diversification to be the correct interpretation of the legislation; and
(c) why does the Act appear to establish that a person's stake is related to their voting power rather than their economic interest.
The 15 per cent control threshold in the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 is based on the concept of voting power. However a person with less than 15 per cent voting power may be declared to have practical control over a financial sector company, for example if the company's directors are accustomed or under an obligation to act in accordance with that person's wishes.
The FSSA does not impose a blanket prohibition on a person controlling a financial sector company. However it does require the person to obtain the approval of the Treasurer (or APRA, where it exercises the relevant delegation). Approval may be granted if it is deemed consistent with the national interest. Prudential considerations are a key factor in determining the national interest in these circumstances.
(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). Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2). Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3). Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Department of Finance and Deregulation; please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(4) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Department of Finance and Deregulation; please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(5) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Department of Finance and Deregulation; please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(6) Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(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.
Please refer to the response to question 2458.
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 (ii) 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) Given the very broad nature of the question, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) Given the very broad nature of the question, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Finance and Deregulation. Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(4) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Finance and Deregulation. Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(5) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Finance and Deregulation. Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(6) Given the highly detailed nature of this information, attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
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) Given the very broad nature of the question attempting to answer this question would cause an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) As per (1) above.
(3) Annual Regulatory Plans are managed within the Department of Finance and Deregulation. Please refer to the response provided by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to question 2469.
(4) As per (3) above.
(5) As per (3) above.
(6) The following link details the current Australian Government guidance on cost recovery: http://www.finance.gov.au/financial-framework/financial-management-policy-guidance/cost-recovery.html
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) Answering this would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) Answering this would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(3) Yes.
(4) Answers for each financial year are set out below:
2009-10
(a) 13
(b) 2 of 13 pieces of regulation passed.
(i) 5 additional pieces of regulation passed:
- Charter of the United Nations (Dealing with Assets) Amendement Regulation 2010 (No.1)
- Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions – Eritrea) Regulations 2010;
- Charter of the United Nations (UN Sanction Enforcement Law) Amendment Declaration 2010 (No. 1);
- Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions – Liberia) Amendment Regulations 2010 (No. 1);
- Australia-EU Security of Classified Information Agreement, tabled in Parliament on 12 May 2010.
(i) 11 of 13 prices of regulation no passed:
- WTO Doha Round Negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Legislative amendment regarding simplifying and expanding EFIC's powers (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Negotiation of Australia-China Free Trade Agreement (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Negotiation of Australia-Japan Free Trade Agreement (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Negotiation of Australia-Korea Free Trade Agreement (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Negotiation of Malaysia-Australia Free Trade Agreement (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Scheme for accreditation of entities to issue Certificates of Origin under Australia's Free Trade Agreement (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- World Wine Trade Group Agreement on Labelling Requirements (tabled 15 June 2010, but entry force in Australia not until 1 June 2012);
- Negotiation of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) (the final ACTA text did not require any changes to Australian laws);
- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement Negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy).
- Australia-Gulf Corporation Council (GCC) Free Trade Agreement Negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy).
20010-11
(a) 8
(b) 6 of 8 pieces of regulation passed.
(i) No additional pieces of regulation passed.
(ii) 2 of 8 pieces of regulation not passed:
- WTO Doha Round Negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Amendment to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 to simplify and expand EFIC's powers (in part 4 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991) (deferred pending outcome of Productivity Commission review of export credit in Australia).
20011-12
(a) 4
(b) 2 of 4 pieces of regulation passed.
(i) 3 additional pieces of regulation passed:
- Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions – Iran) (Export Sanctioned Goods) List Amendment Declaration 2011 (No. 1);
- Charter of the United Nations (Sanctions – Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No. 2);
- Amendment to Annex 4-A of the United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA).
(ii) 2 of 4 pieces of regulation not passed:
- WTO Doha Round Negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
- Australia's Free Trade Agreement negotiations (difficult to predict such regulatory change with accuracy);
20012-13
(a) 9
(b) Unable to comment – financial year still underway.
(5) No.
(6) Not applicable to this department.
(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.
Refer to the response to question 2458.
(1) Have Sri Lankan authorities, including the Sri Lankan Navy, ever informed Australian officials of illegal boats arriving in or on their way to Australia; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(2) Have Sri Lankan authorities ever expressed a view that a boat or boats, of which the authorities may have informed Australian officials, should be returned to Sri Lanka, or that the authorities would be willing to aid in the return of the boat/s; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(3) Did the Minister, Minister's office or any agency instruct the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to intercept any boat before it entered Australian waters; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(1) Yes. Operational information is provided by the Sri Lankan authorities to the Australian authorities on a confidential basis. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service is the lead agency on people smuggling and questions regarding illegal boat arrivals should be referred to the Minister for Home Affairs .
(2) Yes. The Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia has publicly expressed the view that boats should be turned around at sea and sent back to where they come from ( The Australian, 16 July 2012). Defence is not aware of any occurence where Sri Lankan authorities have expressed views directly to Defence officials regarding a boat or boats being returned to Sri Lanka.
(3) No. At no time has the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence's Office or the Australian Defence Organisation instructed the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to intercept any boat before it entered Australian waters. Border Protection Command is the lead agency for interception of Illegal Maritime Arrival ventures into Australia's maritime domain. Defence contributes to the conduct of interception activities; however Border Protection Command directs and controls interceptions.
(1) Have Sri Lankan authorities, including the Sri Lankan Navy, ever informed Australian officials of illegal boats arriving in or on their way to Australia; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(2) Have Sri Lankan authorities ever expressed a view that a boat or boats, of which the authorities may have informed Australian officials, should be returned to Sri Lanka, or that the authorities would be willing to aid in the return of the boat/s; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(3) Did the Minister, Minister's office or any agency instruct the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to intercept any boat before it entered Australian waters; if so, can details be provided including but not limited to: the date, time, method and nature of communication, the agency/agencies notified and any action taken by the agency/agencies notified.
(1) These are matters for the Ministers for Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and Defence. However, Sri Lankan agencies have not approached the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on this issue.
(2) As for (1) above.
(3) The Minister or the Minister's office did not instruct the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to intercept any boat before it entered Australian waters.
For each of the 11 flights used to transfer asylum seekers to Nauru during the period 13 September to 19 October 2012:
(1) What was the date of the flight.
(2) From where did the flight depart.
(3) What type of aircraft was used.
(4) Which company operated the aircraft.
(5) What is the seating capacity of the aircraft.
(6) How many asylum seekers were on-board.
(7) What were the origins of the asylum seekers on-board the aircraft.
(8) How many officials, including but not limited to Australian Federal Police officers, departmental staff, interpreters and health and medical staff, were on the flight.
(9) Were any incidents on the flight reported; if so, can details of the nature and classification of the incident, such as whether it was critical, major or minor, be provided.
(10) What was the cost of the flight.
Detailed information for each of the first 11 flights used to transfer asylum seekers to Nauru during the period 13 September to 19 October 2012 is provided in the attached file.
Overall for the 11 flights, ten flights were from Christmas Island and one flight departed direct from Darwin to Nauru. The Airbus A319 operated by Skytraders was utilised for six of the flights and the Boeing 737-300 operated by Adagold Pty Ltd for five flights.
For the period 13 September to 19 October 2012, 365 asylum seekers were transferred to Nauru. The numbers and cohort of the asylum seekers were: Sri Lanka (215), Iraq (23), Iran (26), Afghanistan (58) and Pakistan (43).
On each flight escort duties were provided by the Australian Federal Police (AFP). At least two interpreters were on the flights to Nauru. Two medical staff and two departmental staff were also onboard all flights to Nauru.
The total direct cost of the 11 flights used to transfer asylum seekers to Nauru during the period 13 September to 19 October 2012 is $3 171 018. The cost of each individual flight ranges from $209 125 to $572 900.
Question on Notice 2508: Charter Transfers to Nauru over the period 13 September to 19 October 2012
(1) What briefing material is provided by the department to the Minister at the table for Senate estimates hearings.
(2) Does the department provide a briefing folder to the Minister at the table.
The Department provides a folder to the Senator representing the Minister containing briefing information.
Does the Government continue to stand by article 16 of the International Labour Organization Occupational Safety and Hea lth 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.
(1) Did the Minister and/or any other minister or parliamentary secretary in the Foreign Affairs portfolio attend the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Brazil in June 2012; if so, for how many days.
(2) Did any ministerial staff attend; if so:
(a) how many staff;
(b) for how many days did each attend; and
(c) how many staff travelled:
(i) first class, and
(ii) business class.
(3) Did any departmental staff attend; if so:
(a) how many staff;
(b) for how many days did each attend; and
(c) how many staff travelled:
(i) first class, and
(ii) business class.
(4) Can a full breakdown be provided of all costs associated with attendance at Rio+20 including, but not limited to, flights and accommodation.
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) (a) Twenty-three officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (including from the Australian Embassies in the region and the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who travelled with the Prime Minister's party) attended the Rio+20 Conference, including providing support for the Prime Minister's attendance.
(b) DFAT staff attended Rio+20 for varying periods, ranging from three to 20 days.
(c) (i) None
(ii) Eight officers flew business class, and six officers flew in combination of economy and business class.
(4) The cost to DFAT of attending the Rio+20 Conference was $388,865
With reference to the department's On Base Advisory Service (OBAS):
(1) How many OBAS officers are there.
(2) How many full-time equivalent staff are employed by OBAS.
(3) Where are the staff located.
(4) How many full-time equivalent staff are employed at each location.
(5) Does the department keep records on the number of visits to each OBAS location; if so, can copies be provided; if not, how does the department measure the success or otherwise of the initiative.
(6) Since the roll-out of OBAS, has the department kept statistics on the number of primary claims filed through OBAS offices; if so, how many and where have these claims been lodged.
(7) Do ex-service organisations have any representation at OBAS locations.
(8) Do staff working in OBAS locations refer current or former service personnel to ex-service organisations for independent advice about claims or for assistance in making claims; if so, what proportion of clients are referred to ex-service organisations.
(1) There are currently 6 full time and 18 part time staff visiting Australian Defence Force (ADF) bases with a number of backup staff available depending on demand. As the Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) is focused on providing the appropriate support to ADF members and to ensure that they have timely access to services and benefits, there are a total of 50 staff trained nationally to support OBAS activities.
(2) There are currently 16.3 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. As noted above, there are overall 50 trained staff capable of undertaking OBAS duties nationally as required.
(3) Due to a high demand for OBAS services, there are two On Base Advisors located full time on ADF bases: one located at Lavarack Barracks (Nth QLD) and the other at Enoggera Barracks (Sth QLD). The remaining On Base Advisors are located within the DVA State/Territory offices and visit over 35 ADF bases as scheduled. The On Base Advisors are generally located within Defence Health Centres (or within the health precinct). This allows all ADF members easy access to On Base Advisors. DVA continues to monitor the visiting schedule and adjust services as required.
(4) The following is a breakdown of the current FTE in each State/Territory:
(5) DVA does not record the number of visits to each OBAS location. OBAS advisors record all of their OBAS-related activities, which is then collated. These statistics assist DVA in monitoring the demand for OBAS and the flow-on impact to DVA business areas. Individual client feedback and feedback from the base also assist in measuring the success of the initiative.
(6) Primary claims are not lodged through the OBAS system. OBAS provides advice and support relating to the provision of DVA services and benefits.
In particular, OBAS provides the following:
(7) The ADF is responsible for determining ex-service organisation (ESO) representation on its bases.
(8) Yes, On Base Advisors do refer OBAS clients to ESOs. In 2012, there were 1,220 enquiries to OBAS that were referred to ESOs.
(1) Given that, in 2009, the Minister for Tourism, Mr Martin Ferguson, encouraged tourism operators via the climate change guide Mitigation and Adaptation Measures for Australian Tourism Operators to ''Firstly, think about the major costs and environmental impacts of your business. This may involve looking through your electricity, gas and water bills, looking at your accounts to see how much fuel you have used, working out how much time and money you spend on sourcing materials and services, costing your maintenance activities, or seeing what your staff ongoings are'', has the department sought to engage with individual tourism operators since the introduction of the Carbon Tax to ascertain what extra ''carbon charges'' they now face, and what this means to their viability.
(2) What modelling has the department undertaken since the introduction of the Carbon Tax to determine the impact on tourism operators of the additional pressures from 2014, when the private vehicle fuel exemption will no longer apply to heavy vehicles.
(3) Why has the department refused at successive estimates hearings to undertake Carbon Tax impact analysis on behalf of the 350 000 tourism connected businesses in the Australian market?
(4) Is the Minister aware that Mr Kevin Rudd stated via Twitter on 4 October 2012, that ''The front desks of all our major hotels must have Chinese language skills for the future. So too with guided tours''.
(5) What proportion of Australia's 350 000 tourism connected businesses employ staff with a Chinese language ability.
(6) Is this considered a central part of being ''China-ready''?
(7) What consideration is being given to linking tourism businesses with staff that have a Chinese language ability.
(8) With reference to the Strategic Tourism Investment Grant awarded to ensure Australian Tourism is ''China-ready'': (a) how much was awarded under this grant and to whom; (b) what has been achieved under this project; and (c) what does the department aim to achieve before its completion.
(9) With reference to the policy to drive China-readiness, are there plans to better utilise the Chinese language skills of Australians who speak fluent Chinese, or international students who are permitted to undertake limited work while studying in Australia.
(10) Given that the Government has invested $1 million via the Australian Tourism Data Warehouse (ATDW) to translate websites of Australian tourism connected businesses into Chinese and other world languages: (a) is the Minister aware of concerns that automated language translation leads to confusing broken Chinese messages; (b) has the department sought or received advice that automated translation services create perceptions that the businesses they represent are similarly lacking in quality; and (c) what is being done to resolve both these issues.
(11) Given that, since Mr Rudd was Prime Minister, Australian receipts from international education have declined by $3.6 billion, and that the international education sector is an important part of the tourism market, how is the department working to ensure that this trend is reversed.
(12) With reference to the early 2012 pre-Budget submission of the Tourism and Transport Forum indicating that, under a Coalition Government, Australia earned a net profit of $3.6 billion from tourism, while in 2012, Australia is forecast to lose $8.7 billion in the tourism sector, what is being done to stem the overall net decline of Australia's tourism performance.
(13) Can the department confirm that: (a) the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) lists Australians in the top ten international spenders; and (b) the Australian Bureau of Statistics has highlighted that Australians took 8 million overseas trips in 2011, and spent 139 million nights abroad.
(14) How much did Australians spend on overseas trips in 2011, and how does this compare to: (a) spending by international visitors to Australia; and (b) the long term average.
(15) With reference to the World Economic Forum system of ranking nations in international tourism competitiveness, what is the estimated impact the additional taxes and charges announced in the 2012 13 Budget will have on Australia.
(16) What impact has the 100 departmental staff cuts, announced at the end of 2011, had on the department's ability to manage ongoing projects.
(17) Given that the 2012 13 Budget provided no funding for the continuation of the T‑QUAL program, the only program solely devoted to assisting improvements in tourism products in Australia, can an outline be provided of what dedicated tourism programs will be available to assist struggling tourism businesses to rejuvenate tourism products.
(18) What proportion of the T QUAL program budget has been allocated to the quality accreditation process in relation to the small grants component.
(19) In terms of the quality assurance and standards accreditation system, has consideration been given to how effective the program is in replacing the previous 1 to 5 star ratings system, in particular: (a) has the department reviewed market testing of the efficacy of T QUAL accreditation (brand awareness); (b) what does T QUAL mean to the average Australian traveller; (c) is it a recognised and understood brand for inbound tourists; (d) how does it differ from the world's major accreditation schemes, and why are they more or less well understood; (e) does the UNWTO suggestion for mystery shoppers have merit; (f) do assessors have a clear checklist to remove subjectivity, ensure consistency across venues and drive continual improvement; (g) is there merit in the Australian Accommodation Association (AAA) suggestion that T QUAL participation requires participation in an occupancy reporting regime (ABS/STA Global); (h) should every hotel front desk carry a pamphlet explaining T QUAL and inviting feedback; (i) are there other metrics that should be reflected in the brand such as disability access; and (j) have any venues lost their T QUAL status.
(20) What are the criteria for T QUAL accreditation.
(21) Has the department engaged in discussions across government departments and agencies with regard to the impact that the proposed mandatory pre commitment for poker machines will have on clubs in Australia; if so, what impact will the legislation have on clubs; if not, why not.
(22) With reference to the use of Garden Island in Sydney as an overflow facility for cruise ships: (a) can details of the plan be provided, including the long term projected growth of cruising, given that new ships coming on line will be increasingly unable to pass under the Sydney Harbour Bridge; (b) when and for how long will the agreement come into effect; (c) how many ships per year will be allowed to use the facility and during which months; (d) will the cruise industry be charged for use of Garden Island; if so, how much; and (e) what is the economic benefit to Australia, including how many trips per year will this secure by giving the sector certainty, and what is the total in country spend, both in Sydney and other ports visited, as part of itineraries of these cruise liners.
(23) Has any research been undertaken into the impact of the Passenger Movement Charge increase from $47 to $55 per passenger, particularly with respect to Australia's favourability as a tourist destination.
(24) With reference to the Jackson Report recommendations, and the corresponding T2020 objectives, and given that industry indicates it is currently unclear who is driving the National Online Strategy for Tourism, can the Minister clarify this and indicate what the forward objectives are.
(25) What action is being taken to promote the Going Global Action Plan and to incentivise the take up of the tourism e-kit.
(26) What Federal funding has been allocated to ATDW compared to funding received from the states since its inception.
(27) Are the digital ready programs run by state tourism organisations being monitored in order to better tailor programs provided by the Federal Government.
(28) Has the department expressed concern that disaster affected businesses have waited extended periods to have cyclone affected infrastructure repaired, and is the department aware that businesses at Mission Beach in Queensland continue to suffer due to the delay in funds to repair the Clump Point Marina and the yet to be announced repairs to the jetty on Dunk Island.
(29) With reference to the speech by Mr Alan Joyce to the National Press Club on 9 October 2012, indicating that 22 per cent of flights in Western Australia were mining related, undermining the Government's claim of healthy aviation activity, can the Minister advise whether Tourism Research Australia (TRA) will amend its national visitor survey to better represent the health of non-mining related tourism.
(30) With reference to the increased Passenger Movement Charge from $47 to $55, has any modelling been undertaken by TRA in relation to the effects of this rise (separate from the University of New South Wales modelling into a 20 per cent increase).
(31) Has any modelling been undertaken on the impacts of passing on the $118.1 million in costs relating to Australian Federal Police security to airports.
(32) Has TRA undertaken, or will TRA undertake, any modelling on the impacts of staff reductions from the Australian Border and Protection Service based at airports, or 750 staff cuts in total.
(33) Given that TRA is tasked with undertaking research on policy affecting tourism, what research is being undertaken by TRA since being absorbed into the department, and therefore no longer operating as an independent body.
(34) Are Tourism Australia or the department working to mitigate negative perceptions about ''Brand Australia'' in social media.
(35) How many hours or full time equivalent positions are devoted in the department, its agencies and other portfolios to monitoring online commentary and to engaging in and correcting dialogue relating to ''Brand Australia'.
(36) With reference to the increased passenger movement charge, the Asia Marketing Fund, and the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund (RTIF): (a) how is the Government spending the $48.5m million RTIF and over how many years; (b) how is Tourism Australia involved in using the fund to drive visitation to rural and regional Australia; (c) is there a commitment to focusing this funding towards ''demand driver'' infrastructure to ensure tourists are motivated to visit regional Australia given that groups such as Tourism Accommodation Australia and Inland Tourism New South Wales consider ''support infrastructure'' funding is wasteful.
(37) What does Tourism Australia estimate the impact of the decision to reduce its budget by 6.2 per cent ($8 million) will be.
(38) How much does Tourism Australia spend on cooperative airline attraction with Australia's leading airports, and what is the measured benefit.
(39) Which airlines does Tourism Australia or the department currently provide funding to, and can an outline of the purpose of this funding be provided, including the measured benefit and how is it measured.
(40) How many projects outlined in the Government's prospectus of 80 ''shovel ready hotel construction projects'' have attracted capital investors since it was launched, and have key performance indicator targets been set for departmental officers.
(41) Given that residual funds from the closure of the Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre were to develop a key performance indicator framework, did TRA develop its own set; if so, why and in what way were they different.
(42) Can an update be provided on the ''best practice guide for destination management planning'' funds to ARTN, including when it will be released for the use of regional tourism organisations.
(43) Given that the Jackson Review recommended in 2009 a ''visitation priorities list'' what progress has been made against this objective.
(44) Can a report be provided on the take up of recommendations of the L.E.K. report, published on the department's website, and given that many actions require state and local government involvement, how is the Council of Australian Governments process being used to drive outcomes in this space.
(45) To date, what successes have been achieved by the Investment Facilitation Branch now operating under Tourism Australia.
(1) The Department has not conducted research on impacts of the carbon tax. The Department of Treasury is responsible for modelling impacts of the carbon price and any questions should be directed to Treasury.
(2) The Department has not undertaken any modelling in this respect. Also, refer to the response to Question 3.
(3) It is the Department's view that any assessments relating to the impact of the Carbon Tax should be undertaken by Treasury or the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.
(4) The Minister was not aware of the Twitter comment. Responses to Questions 7-9 below outline initiatives underway through Tourism 2020 and the T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grants program to assist tourism businesses to become 'China Ready'.
(5) The Department does not collect statistics on the Chinese language ability of the tourism workforce.
(6) Chinese language ability is an important consideration for tourism businesses with front-line staff that connect with Chinese tourists.
(7) As part of Tourism 2020 , the National Tourism Alliance has been contracted to develop a Careers Promotional Campaign to provide tourism and hospitality businesses with a promotional toolkit to enhance their ability to market the various career pathways that the industry has to offer. One of the target markets of the Campaign to entice people from a non-English speaking background (including people fluent in Chinese) into a tourism and hospitality related career.
As part of Tourism 2020 ' s Sydney Tourism Employment Plan, strategies will be developed to address labour and skills pressures being faced by the tourism and hospitality industry, including strategies to better utilise the language skills of international students in tourism and hospitality occupations. Strategies developed under the Sydney Tourism Employment Plan will be able to assist tourism business in other regions by providing options to employ workers with foreign language skills.
Also, refer to the response to Question 8.
(8) (a) The Welcoming Chinese Visitors project has been developed through the provision of $600,000 under the T-QUAL Strategic Tourism Investment Grants program. The successful grant recipient (a consortium led by Avana Learning Pty Ltd) was announced by the Minister for Tourism on 13 June 2012. Collaborating with Avana on this program are China Ready & Accredited, the Australian Tourism Export Council (ATEC) and TAFE NSW – Western Sydney Institute.
(b) Following extensive research to develop a course curriculum for the 'China-ready' project, the consortium launched the formal training modules on 12 December 2012 at the China Tourism Industry Forum, The training modules will be rolled out throughout 2013 via a dedicated website at: www.welcomingchinesevisitors.com.
(c) Through this project and before the completion of the funding period on 30 June 2013, the Department aims to achieve;
(9) As per the response to Question 7, one of the goals of Tourism 2020 ' s Careers Promotional Campaign is to entice people from a non-English speaking background (including people fluent in Chinese) into a tourism and hospitality related career to help drive China-readiness policy.
As part of Tourism 2020 ' s Sydney Tourism Employment Plan, strategies will be developed to address labour and skills pressures being faced by the tourism and hospitality industry, including strategies to better utilise the language skills of international students, including Chinese, in tourism and hospitality occupations. Strategies developed under the Sydney Tourism Employment Plan will be able to assist tourism business in other regions by providing options to employ workers with foreign language skills.
(10) (a) No.
(b) No.
(c) The Australian Government provided $1 million to ATDW to translate approximately 26,000 tourism product records on the Australian Tourism Data Warehouse database. ATDW contracted SDL, a reputable worldwide translation company that won the project through a competitive tendering process. SDL were well briefed by ATDW and Tourism Australia to ensure that all translations were carried out to excellent standards. SDL have rigorous internal processes including review by editors and linguists. Tourism Australia's China office also reviewed samples of the translations to ensure the translations are accurate.
All accommodation data has already been translated and is currently searchable on Australia.com. The translated content will also be available for publication by all 150 distributors of ATDW product information, including state and regional tourism organisations and large and niche commercial players such as AAA Tourism, Flight Centre, Escape Travel and Yahoo7.
(11) The Department participates in the Interdepartmental Forum on International Education (led by Australian Education International). Through the Interdepartmental Forum, the Government has undertaken a substantive program of reform over the past three years to support a sustainable, high quality international education sector. These reforms include the establishment of national regulators, the introduction of the International Students Strategy for Australia and the Review of the Student Visa Program 2011 (Knight Review). These reforms among others allow for the streamlining of visa processing for international student visas and help increase the competitiveness of Australia as an international education destination.
Although international student enrolments have fallen from a historic peak in 2009, enrolments in 2011 were still the third highest on record, after 2009 and 2010. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship's (DIAC) June Quarter 2012 student visa data provided a basis for optimism that offshore interest in studying in Australia is up, with 15.1 per cent growth in higher education visas granted to offshore applicants, compared to the June Quarter 2011.
(12) Australia is not 'losing' $8.7 billion in the tourism sector. While the GFC, natural disasters and the high Australian dollar have impacted on visitor numbers to Australia, Australia's tourism industry is proving resilient.
Tourism Research Australia's State of the Industry 2012 report shows there was an eight per cent increase to total visitor expenditure to $95 billion in 2011-12. This is the strongest growth in total visitor expenditure since 2000-01 and has been primarily driven by a strong domestic tourism industry. Domestic tourism expenditure increased by nearly 11 per cent to over $68 billion. This is the strongest growth recorded for domestic tourism expenditure since the National Visitor Survey commenced in 1998.
As part of Tourism 2020 , the Government is working with state and territory governments and industry to create a policy framework that will support industry growth and provide industry with the tools to compete more effectively in the global economy. Further information on the activities being undertaken as part ofTourism 2020 can be found at www.tourism.gov.au.
Funds allocated to marketing have increased over 2011-12 levels. Tourism Australia (TA) received $8.5 million as part of the Asia Marketing Fund, and additional funds for China projects including Chinese translation of the Australian Tourism Data Warehouse and China based TA website.
(13) According to the latest issue of World Tourism Barometer published by the United Nations World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO), Australia was in 10th place in relation to international tourism expenditure in 2011, representing 2.6 per cent of total global spending. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), there were approximately 7.8 million short‑term Australian resident overseas departures in 2011.
ABS does not release data on visitor nights of Australian residents travelling overseas but it does release data on intended length of stay by Australian residents. According to TRA's National Visitor Survey (NVS), Australian residents (aged 15 years or more) spent 143 million nights abroad in 2011.
(14) TRA's NVS reports that Australians spent AU$41.5 billion overseas in 2011. According to TRA's International Visitor Survey (IVS), international visitors spent $26.4 billion on their trips to Australia in 2011. From 2005 to 2011, Australian resident expenditure on overseas trips recorded an average annual growth of 11.6 per cent compared to the average growth in international visitor spend in Australia of 3.4 per cent over the same period.
(15) The Department has not done any modelling to estimate the impact.
(16) The small reduction in staff numbers within the Division announced at the end of 2011, did not have a material impact on the capacity of the Division to manage ongoing projects and effectively implement the Government's policies and programs for the Australian tourism industry. The Division is carefully monitoring its ongoing work program and all activities currently undertaken to ensure that available resources are effectively allocated to the Government's key priorities. Additional resources have been provided to the Division from 2012-13 to deliver the Government's new Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund (TIRF) grants program. There is also additional research funding for Tourism Research Australia in 2012-13 through the Asia Marketing Fund announced by the Government in the 2012-13 Budget. Overall staff levels for Tourism Research Australia have been maintained and have not been affected by the Departmental staff cuts.
(17) Funding of $40 million was allocated for T-QUAL funding over four years from 1 July 2011 until 30 June 2015.
The current Budget allocation for the T‑QUAL Grants program provides for:
The Government has also provided $48.5 million over four years from 2012-13 to establish the Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund (TIRF) - which aims to increase the quality and range of visitor experiences in regional Australia through tourism product investment. The first round of TIRF Grants opened for applications on 23 October 2012 and closed on 14 December 2012. Successful applicants are expected to be announced in March 2013.
(18) Under current arrangements, individual applications for T‑QUAL Grants - Tourism Quality Projects are assessed on merit under assessment criteria set out in the Program Guidelines. No proportion of the budget has been set aside in advance to fund projects relating to accreditation.
(19) To clarify, T-QUAL Accreditation has not replaced AAA Tourism's Star rating scheme. T-QUAL Accreditation provides an umbrella framework under which existing Quality Assurance Schemes (QAS), which include Accreditation Programs (AP) and Large Tourism Organisations (LTO), can apply to co-brand with a common national brand (the T-QUAL Tick) and standard oriented to building consumer purchasing preference and corresponding market benefit for accredited participants. AAA Tourism is one of 13 QAS'sare endorsed under T‑QUAL Accreditation as at 4 January 2013.
(a) Tourism Australia undertook quantitative research distributed through a national online survey. The survey was completed by 1,522 respondents that had travelled domestically in the last six months. This research suggests that the 2011/2012 consumer marketing campaign for T-QUAL Accreditation was successful with total consumer awareness of the marketing activity reaching 15 per cent (three times the campaign target of 5 per cent).
(b) Consumer marketing for T-QUAL Accreditation was launched in December 2011. Since then, the only consumer testing that has been conducted is that which is referred to in the response to (a) above. This research suggests that 15 per cent of consumers that had travelled between January and June 2012 had an awareness of the marketing activity for T‑QUAL Accreditation.
(c) To date, consumer marketing activity has focused on the domestic market. In addition, Tourism Australia has recently implemented a comprehensive international awareness campaign through communications distributed to international trade partners through its international offices and industry events.
(d) T-QUAL Accreditation operates as an umbrella framework working with existing Quality Assurance Schemes (QAS) making it different to other international programs. T-QUAL Accreditation endorses existing QAS who meet the T-QUAL criteria, the QAS then accredit individual operators. Individual operators cannot become T-QUAL Accredited directly, but are eligible to use the T-QUAL Tick through their accreditation with a T-QUAL endorsed QAS. Most international schemes accredit operators directly.
(e) The UNWTO has confirmed that it does not have a position or information regarding mystery shoppers.
(f) Applications for T-QUAL Accreditation are assessed by independent assessors who use a standard assessment template, which includes each criterion. This ensures that each application is assessed against the full criteria. To become T-QUAL Accredited the QAS must demonstrate that they have a robust assessment process in place.
(g) Tourism Research Australia is working with a range of industry stakeholders including T‑QUAL Accredited QAS to encourage participation in the Small Scale Accommodation Survey. Making participation in the survey a requirement for T-QUAL Accreditation would not necessarily ensure operator participation in the survey and may be beyond the remit of the QAS.
(h) As part of the T-QUAL Tick Welcome Packs, a range of collateral is provided to operators including a strut card and a brochure explaining about the T-QUAL Tick. In order to become T-QUAL Accredited QAS and their operators must provide a feedback mechanism for consumers.
As part of T-QUAL Accreditation, the Customer Feedback Management System (CFMS) has been developed, providing a mechanism for consumers to escalate feedback where the response from the operator has not been satisfactory. Where the operator is T-QUAL endorsed, the feedback will be forwarded to the QAS in the first instance for action. Where the feedback is not resolved, or it is beyond the remit of the QAS, it can be forwarded to the relevant Office of Fair Trading for investigation. The feedback form is hosted on the Department's website.
(i) The T-QUAL Accreditation criteria stipulates that programs applying for T‑QUAL accreditation must require all tourism operators they accredit, rate or certify to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations, including compliance with all Trade Practices Act, consumer affairs and Occupation Health and Safety obligations. This includes the Disability (Access to Premises-Buildings) Standards 2010 , and theDisability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 where applicable.
(j) An operator will lose their T-QUAL status when they are no longer accredited with a T‑QUAL endorsed accreditation program. The Department does not collect statistics on this.
(20) There are 21 criteria for T-QUAL Accreditation. These are outlined in the Guidelines for Applicants available from the Department's website at: http://www.ret.gov.au/tourism/Documents/Tourism%20Policiy/national-tourism-accreditation-framework/Guidelines-for-applicants-LTO-and-AP.pdf.
(21) The Department participated in Interdepartmental Committees relating to the implementation of the Government's problem gambling reforms. Determining the impacts of mandatory pre-commitment on clubs, players and more broadly, is the subject of the proposed trial of mandatory pre-commitment. The results of which will be evaluated by the productivity commission. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs is working closely with government to implement the reforms which form part of the National Gambling Reform Act 2012. Industry stakeholders including clubs and pubs will have an opportunity to inform the development of regulations which give effect to the reforms through consultations in early 2013. This will ensure that new requirements are workable and take account of particular industry issues.
(22) (a) On 15 July 2012, the Prime Minister announced that the Australian Government was expanding the number of guaranteed berths for the biggest visiting cruise vessels. This will ensure three visits this coming cruise season and another three the next. The Government is also considering options to meet the long-term needs of the cruise industry.
(b) See response to Question 22a.
(c) Consistent with the Prime Minister's announcement, three cruise ship visits will be accommodated at Garden Island in the 2012-13 peak cruise season and a further three visits the following season. The first of the three 2012-13 visits took place on 21 November 2012 (Celebrity Millennium). Further visits are planned on 27 February 2013 (Balmoral - a ship which can proceed under the Harbour Bridge) and 28 February 2013 (Costa Delicioza). Available visit dates for the 2013-14 cruise season have yet to be agreed.
(d) The Department of Defence currently levies berthing charges on cruise ships accessing Garden Island at rates which reflect those charged by the Sydney Ports Corporation at the commercial Overseas Passenger Terminal berth at Circular Quay, Sydney. For each cruise ship visit, these charges are contained in a three-way Licence Agreement approved by the Department of Finance and Deregulation and executed by the Commonwealth (Defence), NSW Roads & Maritime Services (with respect to the seabed lease at Garden Island) and the Cruise Ship representative.
Most recent charges advised by the Department of Defence were as follows:
Berthage: $250.50 plus GST per hour
Water usage: $2.10 plus GST per kilolitre
Gangways: $68.50 plus GST per gangway per day
Crane hire: $682.50 plus GST per hour per crane
Hardstand area: $351.40 plus GST per day
Security: $58.87 plus GST per hour
Similar charges will apply for ships visiting on 27 and 28 February 2013. Future berthage charges remain subject to review, in light of new charging regimes being introduced by the NSW Government at the Overseas Passenger Terminal from 1 July 2013.
(e) The additional berthage announced by Prime Minister on 15 July 2012 will generate three trips to Garden Island in 2012-13 and three trips to Garden Island in 2013-14. The Department has not undertaken any economic modelling to determine the economic impact of these services.
Currently, an annual economic impact assessment of the cruise industry is conducted by Cruise Down Under. Its Economic Impact Assessment of the Cruise Shipping Industry in Australia, 2011-12 found that the cruise shipping industry resulted in $725.6 million in direct expenditure in the 2011-12 cruise season. The report details expenditure at various Australian ports but does not provide a breakdown of expenditure by itinerary. The most recent report, and previous reports, are available at: www.cruisedownunder.com/reports.
(23) In 2011, Tourism Research Australia commissioned the Centre for Economics and Policy at the University of New South Wales to model the impact of a 20 per cent rise to the Passenger Movement Charge which was then at $47. Under this scenario a 20 per cent increase equated to a rise of $9.40, or a total Passenger Movement Charge of $56.40.
The Centre for Economics and Policy modelling found that increasing the Passenger Movement Charge to $56.40 would have a net negative impact on the tourism industry of $7 million a year, but a net positive economy wide impact of around $40 million a year.
The Department has not conducted any further analysis following the increase in the Passenger Movement Charge from $47 to $55 on 1 July 2012.
(24) The National Online Strategy for Tourism (NOST) is driven by the Digital Distribution Working Group which is chaired by Destination NSW. The key objective of the NOST moving forward is to deliver global competitive advantage to the Australian tourism industry, through the areas of research and insights; partnerships and collaboration; industry and trade communication and education; content and consumer engagement; and distribution.
(25) The Going Global Action Plan is being promoted to the tourism industry through the Digital Distribution Working Group website; distributed and referenced in tourism-related consultations; and referenced in various industry materials (including workshop paper for 2012 Tourism Directions Conference).
As part of the Going Global Action Plan, the Tourism e-kit is promoted through the Australian Tourism Data Warehouse website; state tourism organisation websites; referenced in various industry materials; and distributed and referenced in tourism-related consultations.
Under Tourism 2020 , The Australian Tourism Data Warehouse has been contracted to undertake the Tourism e-kit Development Project, which includes revisions to existing tutorials and the development of new tutorials to ensure that the industry is kept up to date with the latest in digital distribution, new technologies and consumer usage. The Project will also aim to increase uptake of the e-kit by industry through the delivery of aTrain the Trainer Program , which will create an accredited group of trainers to teach specific e-kit tutorials to industry on a one-on-one and group workshop basis. TheTrain the Trainer Program is expected to commence in mid-2013.
(26) The Australian Tourism Data Warehouse (ATDW) was created in 2001 as a joint initiative of the government tourism organisations from all Australian states and territories and Tourism Australia to further secure Australia's position in the global tourism marketplace and increase the number and expenditure of visitors to Australia. Total funding allocated to ATDW from 2001 to 2012 was $26.137 million – comprising $21.649 million provided by the states and territories and $4.488 million of Federal funding.
(27) The Department is aware of digital programs being run by some state tourism organisations. The Department does not monitor these programs, nor does it operate any of its own programs that would need to be tailored.
(28) The Department is aware that the substantial impact of Cyclone Yasi on North Queensland continues to be felt by the tourism industry in the region. The Queensland Government advised that for Mission Beach, the Cassowary Coast Regional Council has received assistance to rebuild the Clump Point and Dunk Island jetties as soon as possible with $5.5 million from Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements funding allocated for these works. The tender process for the design and construction of the new jetties is well advanced with Cassowary Coast Regional Council approving the award of the contract to CivilPlus Constructions. All works are scheduled to be completed by June 2013.
(29) Aviation activity in Australia is increasing.
The most recently available figures from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics demonstrate that domestic aviation capacity also continues to increase. There were 54.98 million passengers carried on Australian domestic airlines in 2011-12 – a record high. The number of available seats rose by 0.7 per cent to 71.08 million.
In relation to international aviation the most recently available data from the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics shows that in 2011-12, 56 airlines operated international scheduled flights to and from Australia. The number of airline seats available to travel to and from Australia increased by 3.6 per cent to a record high of 38.265 million seats. The number of international passengers travelling to and from Australia has increased from 16 million in 2002-03 to 29 million in 2011-12.
Regarding the National Visitor Survey (NVS) methodology, the NVS has been conducted in its current form since 1998 and collects information on the domestic overnight, domestic day and outbound travel of Australians aged 15 years or more. The annual sample is 120,000, increased by 50 per cent in 2005 from 80,000, with respondents interviewed in their homes by landline about their recent travel using Random Digit Dialling and a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system. Australia's NVS is an international leader in the collection of domestic travel expenditure and behaviour.
NVS travel definitions are based on those recommended by the UNWTO. As such, interviews are conducted with people who have travelled for a number of purposes including holiday, visiting friends and relatives and business. Overall, the survey contains around 70 questions covering areas such as destination(s) visited, purpose of travel, transport used, accommodation used, length of stay, activities undertaken and expenditure on trip.
The broad coverage of the NVS ensures that it currently provides a robust measure of the overall health of domestic tourism and enables the level of performance for various segments within the domestic tourism industry to be compared. As such it is providing a good picture of the health of non-mining related tourism.
To further enhance the NVS, it will be transitioned to a combination of landline and mobile phone interviewing from 2014. With the number of "mobile only" households increasing substantially in recent years, this transition will ensure that collection methods are keeping pace with technological advances and the survey continues to provide a good picture of the health of non-mining related tourism.
Notably, the new collection methodology will provide better coverage of population groups often away from home and/or more likely to be "mobile only" (for example, frequent business travellers, fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out workers and grey nomads). As such, from 2014, it is likely that the transition will not only enhance NVS measurement of non-mining related tourism but mining related travel as well.
(30) No. However, TRA was responsible for managing this project on behalf of states and territories and worked closely with the University of New South Wales.
(31) No.
(32) The selection of projects that TRA undertakes within its discretionary research budget is guided by the Tourism Research Advisory Board (TRAB) in line with the National Tourism Research Agenda (the Agenda). On behalf of the TRAB, TRA is currently updating the Agenda and this has involved wide consultation with industry and government. Issues relating to the Australian Federal Police and Border and Protection Services have not been raised as priorities in the consultation process.
(33) While TRA is a branch of the Department, it operates in accordance with the code of 'professional independence' as outlined on the TRA website. TRA's discretionary research program is approved by the Tourism Research Advisory Board.
TRA continues to provide independent statistics, research and analysis to support industry development, policy development and marketing for the Australian tourism industry.
Since becoming a branch of the Department, TRA has continued with all of the research projects and activities that were undertaken whilst it was located within Tourism Australia. In addition to this workload, TRA has undertaken a number of other research projects to support policy and industry development such as the "State of the Industry Report", "Investment Monitor" and "Small Scale Accommodation Survey".
Research undertaken by TRA may be categorised into three areas: current market dynamics, emerging trends and productive capacity (with broad dissemination of that research an overarching goal). Current market dynamics includes the annual State of the Industry report, TRA's benchmark surveys – the National Visitor Survey and International Visitor Survey, the Destination Visitor Survey program, Small-Scale Tourism Accommodation survey, regional expenditure and tourism profiles, and tourism demand segment research. Emerging trends includes tourism forecasts (arrivals and departures). Productive capacity includes benchmarking the tourism industry's [economic] performance via state tourism satellite accounts, tourism business performance and the estimates of the contribution of tourism to the economy at the national and regional levels as well as monitoring investment in the Australian tourism industry.
(34) Tourism Australia is not aware of any negative perceptions of Brand Australia on social media and all indications are that Brand Australia is portrayed positively in social media.
Tourism Australia is very active in the social media space and generates extensive global interest in Australia as a travel destination. Tourism Australia maintains the largest destination Facebook page worldwide, with over 4 million fans globally.
On 10 October 2012, Austrade issued a media release stating that the Brand Australia country reputation ranked second on the Reputation Institute's CountryRep Trak survey. According to the study, Brand Australia is in excellent standing. The survey measured reputation based on economic, social and aesthetic measures.
It is impossible to monitor and prevent negative comments posted on every blog or social networking site worldwide, however Tourism Australia is very proactive in hosting several social media sites that portray the positive aspects of Australia. Tourism Australia has a dedicated team regularly removing spam and other offensive comments from the site. Tourism Australia deletes posts that are offensive, discriminatory or racist.
(35) Tourism Australia maintains three full time social media positions.
(36) (a) The $48.5 million Tourism Industry Regional Development Fund (TIRF) is comprised of $42.915 million in Administered funds and $5.585 million in Departmental funds, distributed across a four year period. TIRF Administered funds will be allocated across two separate programs - the TIRF Grants Program (which supports tourism industry projects in regional Australia through grants of up to $250,000), and a labour and skills initiative, administrative details of which are still being finalised. Departmental resourcing provides for the implementation, staffing and management of the Fund.
(b) Tourism Australia is represented on the TIRF Industry Advisory Panel established to provide industry experience and knowledge during the development of the TIRF Grants Program and Tourism Australia personnel will be directly involved in the assessment of TIRF applications. Tourism Australia has also been allocated Administered funding for the 'Great Australia Tourism Makeover', a marketing initiative linked with the TIRF Grants Program.
(c) The objective of TIRF Grants Program is to increase the quality and range of visitor experiences in regional Australia through tourism product investment and to encourage interstate and international tourism. Funding will be available in two streams for projects to improve tourism infrastructure in regional areas and for innovative tourism projects. The expected outcomes are enhanced tourism quality and visitor experiences and increased visitation and expenditure in regional Australia – in line with Tourism 2020 growth projections and objectives around productivity, innovation and quality.
(37) In 2012/13 Tourism Australia's appropriation net of efficiency dividend is $129.7 million. In addition to this, Tourism Australia received $8.5 million as part of the Asia Marketing Fund, as well as additional funds for special technology and China projects, and the promotion of the TQUAL Tick. This represents an increase on 2011/12 on funding levels. Tourism Australia's strong partnership model supplements the appropriation funding with $48 million in partner contributions in 2011/12.
Tourism Australia has also implemented significant efficiency and cost reduction strategies targeting staff travel, contractor, consultant and IT support costs. These costs have been reduced by 21 per cent in 2012/13.
Future appropriation and Asia Marketing Fund contributions will result in the following total funding over the forward estimates:
(38) In 2012/13, Tourism Australia plans to use the Asia Marketing Fund to spend $2 million on aviation development marketing. Tourism Australia works in partnership with airports as well as with state and territory tourism organisations and airlines to attract new aviation capacity. The partnerships help build demand for new air services through cooperative marketing. As part of this activity, Tourism Australia focuses on attracting international flights to Australia's leading airports. Tourism Australia is also in discussion with regional airports such as Canberra, Broome and the Sunshine Coast to attract new international flights. Tourism Australia, airports and state and territory tourism organisations regularly discuss and agree to pursue mutually agreed priorities to attract inbound tourists to Australia.
Where Tourism Australia undertakes aviation development marketing, airlines and state and territory tourism organisations must match Tourism Australia's investment and the marketing must incorporate Tourism Australia's branding ( There ' s Nothing Like Australia ). Aviation development marketing aligns to Asia Marketing Fund projects such as geographic expansion in China, encouraging greater capacity to support growth from second tier cities in China.
The measured benefits of this activity include delivery of increased seat capacity to Australia, the establishment of new routes and increased co-operative marketing with airlines, state and territory tourism organisations and airports. The aim is to grow international aviation capacity to Australia by 40-50 per cent between 2009 and 2020.
Aviation development marketing is in addition to cooperative marketing partnerships with airlines outlined in the response to Question 39.
(39) In addition to the response to Questions 38, in 2012/13 Tourism Australia plans to invest $15.7 million in cooperative aviation marketing which including partner contributions gives a total investment of $31.01 million with the following airlines: Qantas, Emirates, Jetstar, Singapore Airlines, China Southern, Virgin Australia, Air New Zealand, Malaysia Airlines, Etihad, Air Asia X, Air Canada, Delta Airlines, United Airlines, Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, Silk Air, Korean Air, Scoot, Garuda and Sichuan Airlines.
Tourism Australia currently has six global Memorandums of Understanding (MoU) in place, with Etihad, Emirates, Singapore Airlines, China Southern, China Eastern and Virgin Australia. The MoUs outline a long term spirit of cooperation and matched investment in multiple international markets and these relationships are managed by Tourism Australia and airlines' head offices.
The measured benefits are a stronger Brand Australia message with consumers being able to connect Brand Australia with competitive airfares and further reach of Tourism Australia's marketing dollars.
(40) The Australian Tourism Investment Guide and Investment Opportunities list was released in May 2012, with each of the state and territory tourism investment agencies inputting investment ready and proposed projects seeking investment. This list showcases some of the tourism opportunities that are available in Australia and is an invaluable tool when dealing with current and potential investors, both internationally and domestically. The list of investment opportunities was updated in November 2012 with a total of approximately 70 projects including a number of new investment opportunities. Since May 2012, 9 projects from the initial list have progressed to the next stage of the investment process.
To measure success, key performance indicators include the number of investment list properties that progress to the next investment stage; the number of transactions that have increased due to an increase in awareness of investment opportunities; the maintaining or upgrading of product to world standards, and the number of investment attraction meetings facilitated.
(41) The Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre (STCRC) developed a comprehensive set of key performance indicators that helps inform TRA's research and reporting. As a key priority of TRA is to further enhance its engagement with the broader tourism industry by producing more accessible outputs, TRA has simplified the performance framework into a Scorecard that was included in the State of the Industry Report released in 2012. It is intended that this Scorecard be expanded over time as industry become more comfortable with the measures to incorporate a wider range of indicators including the sustainability dimension. This will further draw upon the STCRC framework.
(42) As part of Tourism 2020 , The Best Practice Guide to Destination Management Planning was completed by the ARTN under contract to the Department for a total of $79,500 and released at the ARTN Convention on 22 October 2012. Copies of the guide are available at www.tourism.gov.au.
(43) The Australian Government is working across agencies and jurisdictions through a new strategic partnership between the Department, Tourism Australia and Austrade to promote tourism investment opportunities across Australia. These agencies work closely with state and territory tourism organisations and state investment facilitation bodies to compile a regularly updated Australian Tourism Investment Opportunities List to highlight tourism investment opportunities to foreign and local investors. As a national investment priority, Austrade is using its global resources to promote these and other tourism investment opportunities around the world. To complement this, the Government recently announced a Tourism Major Project Facilitation Service which will 'case manage' projects at the Australian Government level with the aim of saving investors time and money by streamlining interactions with Australian Government approval agencies.
(44) Progressing Tourism 2020 , Tourism Ministers released the Investment and Regulatory Reform 2012 Report Card and accompanying Progress Report on 23 November 2012. These documents are available at www.tourism.gov.au. The Progress Report shows each jurisdiction's progress against each of the recommendations of the L.E.K. report, based on each jurisdiction self-assessing their own individual progress. The Report Card explicitly recognises the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) process, noting that Tourism 2020 and COAG are closely aligned to remove red tape and streamline approval processes across all tiers of government.
(45) Tourism Australia's Investment Attraction team has successfully targeted several investors to take up opportunities in Australian tourism. As mentioned in response to Question 40 above, 9 out of the 80 projects initially listed in the prospectus have now progressed to the next stage in the investment process.
Tourism Australia has also played an active role in facilitating meetings at the Ministerial level with potential international investors. Together with Austrade and the Department, Tourism Australia held six Ministerial Roundtables with a major focus on the Asia Pacific. To date Ministerial roundtables include:
Tourism Australia sponsored the 'Hotel Investment Conference Asia Pacific' (HICAP) in Hong Kong, October 2012, where many industry decision makers were in attendance, considerably raising the profile of Australia as an investment opportunity.
Domestically, Tourism Australia has been successful in galvanising state and territory tourism investment agencies to convene the Investment Attraction Partnership Group (IAPG). This group meets regularly to ensure a team Australia approach to attracting foreign and domestic investment. This provides a forum for identifying relevant investment opportunities, as well as ensuring a commonality of strategy and process.
With reference to the grant of $14 million from the Aboriginals Benefit Account that was approved for the Traditional Credit Union (TCU) in June 2011 and the following issues, which are having an impact on the ability of TCU to effectively deliver, compete and expand its financial services into remote Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory:
(1) Why is TCU required to cover upfront costs and then claim reimbursement, rather than being paid on an advance and acquittal basis.
(2) Why is TCU required to use the money of its members for the expansion of services and then claim reimbursement, given that this has not been a requirement of other grant recipients in the Northern Territory, including other large Aboriginal Development Corporations.
(3) Why is the TCU prevented from investing the grant funds, which would allow it to obtain and retain interest monies to assist with meeting the operational costs associated with the expansion of services to remote locations.
(1) The Traditional Credit Union (TCU) is not required to cover up front costs and then claim reimbursement. The funding agreement between the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs specifies that payments to TCU will be made in accordance with the projected cash flow contained in the approved costed work plan provided to the Department by the TCU.
(2) Refer to the answer at (1) above.
(3) Funds for this project are to be expended over four financial years from 2010-2014 and in accordance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Australian National Audit OfficeImplementing Better Practice Grants Administration guide which does not support payment for projects in advance of need.
(1) Is the Minister aware of the closure of the Eucla weather station in Western Australia.
(2) Why was the Eucla weather station closed.
(3) Has any account been taken of the effect of this closure on the quality of services to the local community.
(1) The Bureau informed Eucla community leaders of the changes during September-October 2012. The service announcement formally advising of the changes was placed on the Bureau's website in early October 2012.
(http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/announcements/radar/eucla_tennant_creek_dec2012.shtml )
(2) The Bureau of Meteorology's weather forecasts and warnings for all regions, including Eucla, are based on a combination of various observing systems, including satellite, radar, lightning, upper air and surface observations together with predictions from advanced computer-based models. The Bureau is continuously reviewing its observations networks to ensure that these services are delivered in the most efficient and effective way possible.
At Eucla, the radar, primarily installed to track weather balloons, is no longer required as satellites and other observation sources provides the Bureau with information to support the Bureau's forecast, climate and warning services. Streamlining and automation of other equipment at the meteorological office has also reduced the requirement to retain staff on the station. The full time observer based at Eucla has been relocated to another site.
In close conjunction with implementing these changes, the Western Australia Regional Forecast Centre switched to the Next Generation Forecast and Warning System (NexGenFWS) on 31 October this year, providing seven-day forecasts for Eucla and extended district and coastal waters forecasts.
(3) The weather and warning service for Eucla was expanded to include 7 day forecasts for Eucla and District from 31 October 2012.
Coastal Waters forecasts for the adjacent Eucla coast have also been extended to 4 days and with the introduction of the Bureau's new information portal "MetEye" in 2013, coastal wind and weather information will be available out to 7 days.
The Bureau will continue to issue Severe Thunderstorm Warnings and Severe Weather Warnings for the Eucla District.
Members of the community can continue to obtain current weather, forecast and warning information from the Bureau's website, radio and television, as well as by phoning the Bureau's Telephone Weather Service on 1900 926 113.
(1) What process was undertaken to employ Robert Brennan and Associates to investigate the bullying, harassment and national security issues in the Defence Security Association (DSA)?
(2) What were the terms of reference?
(3) What issues concerning national security were found and reported by Robert Brennan and Associates?
(4) What action was taken by DSA following the report by Robert Brennan and Associates?
(5) What level of security clearance was held by Mr Robert Brennan and his associate Ms Julie Trent?
(6) Were the necessary checks made to ensure that vetting processes were completed before awarding Robert Brennan and Associates the contract for this task?
(7) How much was the contract that was awarded to Robert Brennan and Associates for the purpose of this investigation?
(8) What additional work by Robert Brennan and Associates has been commissioned by DSA or the department since June 2010, to provide what has been described as 'The Brennan Reports' within the reports of Mr Brennan and Ms Trent?
(9) For each set of investigations and/or work that Robert Brennan and Associates has been contracted to perform, what were the: (a) terms of reference; (b) costs and; (c) resulting reports.
(1) Robert Brennan and Associates were one of the service providers on a Defence Intelligence and Security Group Standing Offer Panel established for the provision of human resource management consultancy services – this included specialist advice in diagnosis of business problems and goals, and delivering solutions to overcome such problems.
The DSA engaged Robert Brennan and Associates under this panel arrangement to investigate issues within the National Coordination Centre of the DSA.
(2) The statement of work for the contract required Robert Brennan and Associates to investigate:
(i) the 'complaint to the Minister' of alleged breaches in the management of the contractor workforce (ie. harassment and bullying)
(ii) the staff complaints of alleged poor APS management work practices (ie. systemic management issues).
(3) The scope of the work undertaken by Robert Brennan and Associates was to investigate alleged breaches in the management of the contractor workforce and complaints of poor APS management.
During the investigation into these issues, concerns about security processes were raised by two persons interviewed. As this was outside of the scope of the investigation, the investigators only made reference to these concerns in their final reports. The investigators did not pass the specific details of these concerns to Defence.
(4) The DSA adopted all of the recommendations made by Robert Brennan and Associates.
(5) Mr Brennan and Ms Trent held RESTRICTED level security clearances at the time they performed the contracted work for the DSA. This security clearance satisfied the requirements of the contract let to Robert Brennan and Associates.
(6) Robert Brennan and Associates was awarded a position on the Defence Intelligence and Security Group standing offer panel after a full tender evaluation encompassing its technical capacity and tender compliance in 2008. The security vetting processes for the company were completed in 2009, prior to awarding Robert Brennan and Associates the contract for this task in 2010.
(7) The total cost was $32,625.67 excluding GST.
(8) Only one contract was let by the DSA to Robert Brennan and Associates to provide the work described as 'The Brennan Reports'. No additional work has been commissioned by the DSA since June 2010.
A review found no evidence that any other business unit within Defence, had any contractual involvement with Robert Brennan and Associates in relation to the work described as 'The Brennan Reports'.
In relation to what has been described as the 'The Brennan Reports', there have been no other investigations and/or work undertaken by Brennan and Associates on behalf of the DSA.
Can a list be provided detailing which organisations over the past 4 years have received grants or money from the department for sexual and reproductive health services, including the dollar amount of funding and the purpose of the grant.
The Department of Health and Ageing provides funding to several organisations working in the area of sexual and reproductive health promotion to support public education, research and professional development, and to support advocacy for people affected by blood borne viruses and sexually transmissible infections.
The Department does not provide any funding to organisations to directly provide sexual and reproductive health services. Australian Government funding for these services is provided only through the Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Some funding to organisations is provided by state and territory governments.
With reference to questions on notice nos 1634 to 1683, dated 5 March 2012, and questions on notice nos 2570 to 2619, dated 26 November 2012, and given that this is the third occasion on which this information has been sought:
(1) Can full and detailed information be provided, including:
(a) the date of the first date for first pass approval;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval;
(c) the date of first pass approval;
(d) the date of second pass approval;
(e) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(f) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(g) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(h) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(i) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable; in relation to each of the following major projects:
(2) Can a full and private briefing on these major projects be provided as a matter of urgency.
(1) and (2)
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources. A full and private briefing on the projects listed is also considered an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan (http://www.defence.gov.au/publications/CapabilityPlan2012.pdf), Portfolio Budget Statements (http://www.defence.gov.au/budget/) and the Defence Annual Report (http://www.defence.gov.au/annualreports/) provide some detail on the information being sought.
What is the: (a) hourly; (b) daily; (c) monthly; and (d) yearly cost to the department for each of the following Royal Australian Navy platforms: Adelaide Class Frigate; Anzac Class Frigate; Armidale Class Patrol Boat; Collins Class Submarine; Huon Class Mine Hunter;
HMAS Choules; HMAS Tobruk; HMAS Success; HMAS Sirius; Balikpapan Class Landing Craft Heavy; Leeuwin Class Surveying; Paluma Class Coastal Surveying; and Helicopters?
The daily and hourly cost of each Navy vessel is based on actual direct costs for financial year 2011-12, which includes sustainment, fuel, salaries, allowances and superannuation.
The average monthly cost is calculated by dividing the annual cost for each Platform Class by 12 and then by the number of vessels.
The average daily cost per vessel has been calculated by dividing the annual cost for each Platform Class by the number of vessels, and then dividing that cost by 365 days (except for HMAS Choules ).
The average hourly cost per vessel has been calculated by dividing the average daily cost by 24.
Included in the cost of Anzac Class Frigates are the costs of three ships in Extended Readiness (HMAS Anzac from July 2011 to September 2011; HMAS Arunta from July 2011 to June 2012; and HMAS Stuart from September 2011 to June 2012).
Included in the cost of Huon Class Mine Hunters is the cost of maintaining two vessels at Extended Readiness throughout 2012.
The cost of HMAS Choules is for the period from 13 December 2011 to 30 June 2012 (200 calendar days only) and has therefore been extrapolated to provide an annual cost.
It should be noted that this method of calculating a rate per vessel does not differentiate between a vessel at sea or a vessel is alongside in harbour – it is an average. Of course, in reality, a fully crewed vessel at sea costs Navy substantially more per hour than those alongside in harbour.
MRH-90 helicopter costs are not included as these aircraft did not incur Navy operational costs in the financial year 2011-12.
With reference to funding for Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia:
(1) In each of the past 5 years, how much funding has the Federal Government contributed to Animal Health Australia in the form of: (a) membership subscription; and (b) funding for particular projects.
(2) In each of the past 5 years, how much funding has the Federal Government contributed to Plant Health Australia in the form of: (a) membership subscription; and (b) funding for particular projects.
(3) What is the total amount paid collectively by the states and territories for membership subscriptions for: (a) Animal Health Australia; and (b) Plant Health Australia.
(1) The membership subscription and total government project funding for particular projects the Australian Government has provided to Animal Health Australia from 2008−09 to 2012−13 are outlined in Enclosure 1, Table 1.
(2) The membership subscription and total government project funding for particular projects the Australian Government has provided to Plant Health Australia from 2008−09 to 2012−13 are outlined in Enclosure 1, Table 2.
(3) (a) Animal Health Australia's annual membership is equally shared between its three groups of stakeholders. The Australian government; states and territories; and industry groups each provide a third of the total subscription funding per annum. For the financial year 2012–13, the total annual subscription for states and territories is $1.3 million (exc GST).
(b) Plant Health Australia's annual membership is equally shared between its three groups of stakeholders. The Australian government; states and territories; and industry groups each provide a third of the total subscription funding per annum. For the financial year 2012–13, the total annual subscription for states and territories is $0.78 million (exc GST).
Enclosure 1: Funding for Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia
Table 1: Animal Health Australia Commonwealth membership and project funding 2008–09 to 2012–13.
Table 2: Plant Health AustraliaCommonwealth membership and project funding 2008–09 to 2012–13.
*Projected full year funding
With reference to the establishment of Australian Government Authorised Officers (AAO) in export businesses for biosecurity/quarantine purposes, approximately 2 years ago:
(1) Which trading partner countries have subsequently accepted the use of AAOs.
(2) Which trading partner countries have refused to accept AAOs, and what action is the department taking to change this position.
(3) Can a list be provided detailing which countries are in negotiation with Australia over the acceptance of AAOs, including the timeframes for the completion of negotiations and implementation of the AAO system.
(4) Has the use of AAOs been raised with countries that have import protocols with Australia relating to horticultural produce.
(5) Will Australian horticultural industry exports have access to AAOs in protocol countries in the next 12 months; if not, what is the timeframe.
(1) Australian Government Authorised Officers (AOs) may conduct a range of duties, depending on the commodity, and are accepted by all major trading partners, except for horticulture products exported to the protocol markets listed below.
(2) None, ongoing discussions for horticulture protocol markets will occur in 2013.
(3) The Department has commenced preliminary discussions on the plant export service delivery model with horticulture protocol countries such as the Republic of Korea and Japan, through the bilateral plant meetings over the last 24 months. The department has undertaken a trial on horticulture AOs to demonstrate the equivalence of industry AOs to DAFF AOs. The trial is part of a broader market access strategy to have key horticulture protocol markets accept the use of industry AOs in order to reduce departmental costs for exporters. This strategy includes a DVD outlining the horticulture export certification and AO process and has been translated into Korean, Chinese and Japanese. Further discussions will be held throughout 2013.
(4) As above
(5) No definitive timelines can be given at the moment, but it is likely within the next 12 months that Australia will receive acceptance of AOs into some of these protocol markets.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio, how many:
(a) voluntary; and
(b) involuntary redundancies were there in each of the 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011- 13 (to date) financial years.
(a) Voluntary redundancies
(b) Involuntary redundancies - nil
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio, how many: (a) voluntary; and (b) involuntary redundancies were there in each of the 2009 10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 (to 31 January 2013) financial years.
VR = Number of Voluntary Redundancies
IVR = number of Involuntary Redundancies
(1) How many neonicotinoid pesticides are registered for use in Australia, and can a list be provided detailing on which crops each is registered for use.
(2) Is the department aware of the finding by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that the neonicotinoid pesticide Imidacloprid poses an 'unacceptable danger to bees feeding on flowering crops'.
(3) In light of this ruling, will the department review the registered uses for Imidacloprid in Australia; if not, why not.
(4) Is the department aware of the growing body of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that neonicotinoid pesticides are significantly contributing to bee decline in Europe and the United States of America, and what steps has the department taken to review these studies.
(5) Has the department: (a) obtained; and (b) reviewed, studies by the companies producing neonicotinoid chemicals, who claim that they have research proving the safety of neonicotinoid products for bees, and has the department made any effort to make such research publically available.
(6) Given the EFSA findings that there is a widespread lack of information, and that current regulations contain 'major weaknesses', will the department review Australia's regulations in regard to neonicotinoid pesticides; if not, why not.
(7) Is the department aware of, or actively researching, effective and safe alternatives for the main neonicotinoid pesticides used in Australia.
(1) Six neonicotinoid active ingredients are approved for use in Australia and of these, five are included in products registered for use on crops. The following table shows which crops each active is registered for use on.
(2) No, the EFSA assessment of imidacloprid, released on 16 January 2013, concluded that there were some risks but that others could not be assessed on the basis of the available information, and identified the data gaps that would need to be filled before regulatory action is considered.
(3) The APVMA is responsible for reviewing agvet chemicals. It monitors international developments in relation to imidacloprid, including any reports from EFSA.
(4) The department is aware of studies on neonicotinoids and bees, and the APVMA has reviewed them in conjunction with the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
(5) The department has obtained and the APVMA has reviewed studies by the companies producing neonicotinoid chemicals as part of the normal registration process. Summaries of such information are available in Public Release Summaries published on the APVMA website at: www.apvma.gov.au/registration/assessment/ public/index.php. In addition, anyone can request a technical assessment report for any product that the APVMA registers. If any new studies are received after registration, brief summaries are published in advice summaries, available at www.apvma.gov.au/registration/assessment/advice/index.php.
(6) There are no provisions in the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Regulations 1995 specifically in regard to neonicotinoid pesticides. The current risk-based approach to assessing the hazard and exposure of non-target organisms to pesticides when used according to the mandatory label statements is appropriate and is consistent with world's best practice. If a risk is identified after registration of a chemical product, the APVMA may review label instructions and conduct additional assessments of new studies as part of its review program. In addition, the government has introduced legislation that will require re-approval and re–registration of all agvet chemicals. Re-registration requires the APVMA to regularly look at chemicals available in the market and see if there are concerns about the chemical that need to be addressed with a formal review.
(7) The department is aware of the registered alternatives to neonicotinoids, which are all safe when used according to the mandatory label directions. Researching alternatives is an industry responsibility. In 2012-13, the department provided $235.9 million in matching payments to support rural research and development.