The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 09:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Fadden speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 16 minutes.
A spokesman for Mr Smith declined to comment.
Corporations Amendment (Further Future of Financial Advice Measures) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a second time.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Groom speaking for a period not exceeding 11 minutes.
We could muddle through as has occurred in the past, but frankly, that gets us nowhere. Without decisive action we face the worst of both worlds. The irrigation sector goes into steady but inevitable decline while water quality and environmental problems continue to get worse.
The Committee heard of grave mistrust of this department—
across Basin communities resulting from the failure of the department to identify and respond to community concerns on a range of issues. In addition, this department has demonstrated a consistent failure to deliver water programs, including strategic water buyback, which is in the best interests of productive communities. This department should no longer be responsible for delivering these programs.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Stirling speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 14 minutes.
That the House concur with the resolution of the Senate.
That the report be agreed to.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
That the House take note of the reports.
That the orders of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
That the following Main Committee orders of the day, private Members’ business, be returned to the House for further consideration:
No. 7—Occasional Care Child Care Funding,
No. 8—Dairy Industry, and
No. 9—Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following orders of the day, private Members' business, being called on, and considered immediately in the following order:
Motion relating to the bombing of Darwin;
Motion relating to the dairy industry;
Motion relating to the Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaign against Israel;
Motion relating to occasional care child care funding; and
Motion relating to GST revenue for Western Australia.
Parliamentary Service Amendment (Parliamentary Budget Officer) Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 8) Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
National Residue Survey (Excise) Levy Amendment (Deer) Bill 2011
Indigenous Affairs Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011
That notice No. 2, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Ermington, NSW.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development and construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Rasmussen, Townsville, Queensland.
That the honourable member for Fisher, Peter Slipper, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the member for Chisholm do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the member for Lyons, Mr Adams, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the honourable member for Braddon do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the honourable member for Cunningham, Ms Bird. do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the honourable member for Capricornia, Ms Livermore, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the honourable member for Hindmarsh do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the member for Reid, Mr Murphy, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the member for Calwell, Ms Vamvakinou, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
That the member for Petrie, Mrs D'Ath, do take the chair of this House as Speaker.
I am a child of the House of Commons. I was brought up in my father's house to believe in democracy.
That the honourable member for Chisholm, Ms A. E. Burke, be elected Deputy Speaker of this House.
That the honourable member for Maranoa, Mr Scott, be elected Deputy Speaker of this House.
As we have seen in other political cultures, short-term tactical victories lead only to longer term strategic defeat as our system declines in public esteem.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving the following motion forthwith:
That this House censure the Prime Minister for presiding over a deceptive, dysfunctional and directionless government.
That the House take note of the following documents:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Doing time - Time for doing: Indigenous youth in the criminal justice system—Government response.
Australian Public Service Commission—State of the service—Report for 2010-11.
Department of Defence—Special purpose flights—Schedules for the period January to June 2011.
Department of Finance and Deregulation—Reports—
Former parliamentarians’ expenditure on entitlements paid by the department for the period January to June 2011.
Parliamentarians’ expenditure on entitlements paid by the department for the period January to June 2011.
Parliamentarians’ overseas study travel reports for the period January to June 2011—
Volume 1.
Volume 2.
Education and Employment—House of Representatives Standing Committee—School libraries and teacher librarians in 21st century Australia—Government response.
Finance—Advance to the Finance Minister—Issues from the Advances under the annual Appropriation Acts—Report for 2010-11.
Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003 —Quarterly report on the operation of the Act for the period 1 April to 30 June 2011, together with report for 2010-11.
That leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.
The Speaker's Schedule of O utstanding Government Responses t o Reports of House of Representatives and Joint Committees (also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between 7 July 2011, the date of the last schedule, and 23 November 2011)
24 November 2011
The Speaker's Schedule o f O utstanding Government Responses t o Committee Reports
The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 7 July 2011. It also lists reports for which the House has not received a government response. Schedules of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, generally in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.
The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests, and the Publications Committee (other than reports on inquiries). Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered. Reports from other committees which do not include recommendations are only included when first tabled.
Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. Responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within 6 months of tabling a report. The committee monitors the provision of such responses.
November 2011
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the funding of political parties and election campaigns be extended to 12 December 2011.
Not everyone was ready for such early hostilities. Labor's lycraed Bernie Ripoll and Liberal Bob Baldwin in sporty shorts turned up for the votes.
Napoleon said that one quality he wanted in his generals was luck. Well, I think the one quality the public want in their Prime Ministers is judgment.
… consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Fair Protection for Firefighters) Bill 2011
That the House take note of the reports.
That the orders of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate.
That the House do now adjourn.
Report relating to private Members’ business and the consideration of bills introduced 21 to 24 November 2011
1. The committee met in private session on 23 and 24 November 2011.
2. The committee determined that the following referrals of bills to committees be made—
Standing Committee on Climate Change, Environment and the Arts:
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services:
Standing Committee on Economics:
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters:
Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications:
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
Following advice from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry, the following bill was also referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs:
3. The committee recommends that the following items of private Members’ business listed on the notice paper be voted on:
Orders of the Day
Exceptional circumstances exit grants program (Dr Stone).
Tuberculosis in Papua New Guinea (Mr Entsch).
Srebrenica remembrance (Mr Danby).
Meals on Wheels (Ms Hall).
White Ribbon Day (Mr Hayes).
Surf lifesavers (Mr Lyons).
Organ donation in Australia (Ms Brodtmann).
Early onset dementia (Ms Rishworth).
That the House do now adjourn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper) took the chair at 09:31.
I, Brydan Toner, am writing to say that I was that extremely fortunate teenager, and I am eternally grateful to my Federal Member, Joanna Gash, for giving me this once-in-a-lifetime chance.
The friendship between the Commonwealth of Australia and the United States of America is one that is second to none. As the visit coincided with the marking of a 60 year long alliance, it was a great pleasure to see that the bond between our two nations is stronger than ever before. The announcement of the joint training and exercises, planned for Darwin, between our two defence forces is a testament to our nation's leaders.
As the current school captain of Nowra High School, it was a great honour to be able to witness this historical moment in our nation's history.
From meeting with various MPs, to dining with a doctor who often works in Antarctica, from having a conversation with former Prime Minister John Howard, to shaking the hand of the President of the United States of America, the experience is one that I will never forget, and one that I have gained a great deal from. I am hoping that from this, I will be able to give something back to the community that allowed me to represent them during the course of the Presidential visit.
Being someone who has a keen interest in politics, and someone who is hoping to represent my electorate one day in federal parliament, words cannot describe what the experience meant to me. I was able to gain a brief insight into the working lives of various politicians, and even had the chance to converse with various representatives on a matter of issues, and on the workings of the Australian parliament.
As I stated to my federal member, Joanna Gash, 'I can already imagine telling my grandchildren about this one day', and I can honestly say that this is true. Whether it was the fact that I was a guest at an official state dinner hosted by the Prime Minister, the fact that I exchanged a few words with President Barack Obama, or the fact that the Federal Member for Gilmore invited me to be her somewhat excited guest throughout the visit, I know that the experience will be etched into my brain for the remainder of my life.
I would like to take advantage of this opportunity now, to thank Ms. Gash and various other parliamentarians for making my experience even more amazing than one would expect, and for making me feel welcome. It is not often that a high school student takes part in such events and celebrations, and the fact that I, a sixteen year old boy, was able to witness the president of the USA address the Australian Federal Parliament is nothing less than remarkable.
To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives
This petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:
The Better Start for Children with Disability (Better Start) Initiative urgently requires reform. The Better Start policy excludes thousands of Australian children with developmental disabilities in need of early intervention services. These children have comparable early intervention needs and similar developmental disabilities as those with eligible conditions, and many are able to prove the beneficial impact of such treatment.
The inequalities of Better Start must be removed to allow all Australian children with developmental disabilities access to the support they need in the critical early years of development.
Your petitioners request that the House take all necessary steps to:
Act urgently and effectively to amend the Better Start for Children with Disability policy so that:
That consideration of government business order of the day No. 1, committee and delegation reports, be postponed until a later hour this day.
… They give us two of the most crucial elements for our survival:
oxygen and books!
What do we plant when we plant the tree?
We plant the ship, which will cross the sea.
We plant the mast to carry the sails;
We plant the planks to withstand the gales—
The keel, the keelson, and the beam and knee;
We plant the ship when we plant the tree.
What do we plant when we plant the tree?
We plant the houses for you and me.
We plant the rafters, the shingles, the floors.
We plant the studding, the lath, the doors,
The beams, and siding, all parts that be;
We plant the house when we plant the tree.
What do we plant when we plant the tree?
A thousand things that we daily see;
We plant the spire that out-towers the crag,
We plant the staff for our country's flag,
We plant the shade, from the hot sun free;
We plant all these things when we plant the tree.
The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process through COAG to create a national plan for plantations, to ensure that:
The Committee recommends the Australian Government:
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, in concert with state and local governments, provide immediate and ongoing financial support to local organisations that provide extension services for farm forestry, particularly through the Caring for our Country initiative.
The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process of discussions with all state and territory governments, to consider national approaches to:
What do we plant when we plant the tree?
We plant the ship, which will cross the sea.
Opportunities for and constraints upon production; Opportunities for diversification, value adding and product innovation; Environmental impacts of forestry … ; Creating a better business environment for forest industries … ; Social and economic benefits of forestry production; Potential energy production from the forestry sector … ; Land use competition …
MIS investments can use their tax advantages to bid for prime agricultural land to the detriment of existing industries. In the case of the sugarcane industry, ongoing viability of a region depends on the availability of sugar milling capacity.
If a significant proportion of a sugar mill supply area is alienated, the mill would become uneconomical and would close. Cane cannot be transported economically more than about 60km, so unless there were another mill in that radius, all growers in that area would thereby have lost access to growing their traditional, high-value crop.
… the Australian Government, through the COAG Standing Council on Primary Industries, lead a process to assess and publicly report on likely wood demand and supply scenarios over the longer term …
… a process to consider and publicly report on whether Australia should aim for wood supply 'self-sufficiency'.
… run public information campaigns to promote timber and wood products as replacements for more energy-intensive materials.
… the Australian Government develop robust national standards quantifying the carbon stored in different products made from harvested trees, including the duration of storage and policy implications of those standards.
The Committee recommends the Australian Government lead a process through COAG to create a national plan for plantations, to ensure that:
The Committee recommends the Australian Government:
National memorials are a permanent representation of the nation's history and culture. We need a sound mechanism in place to ensure that national memorials are rigorously assessed for their commemorative intent, design and location before people commit money and resources to the final outcome. The committee believes that the National Memorials Ordinance is past its time and that the proposed Commemorative Works Act will provide a simple, modern and effective mechanism to take its place.
In respect of investigations by the Australian Securities Investments Commission (ASIC) into (a) Trio Capital Ltd and its associated managed investment schemes, (b) Storm Financial Ltd, and (c) the Westpoint Group of companies, (i) when did investigations commence, (ii) what prompted the investigations, and (iii) what series of actions were taken by ASIC to prevent each entity from continuing to operate, or continuing to offer financial products.
As ASIC's investigations and proceedings into the affairs of Storm Financial Limited (Storm), Westpoint Group and Trio Capital Limited (Trio) are continuing ASIC is unable to provide a comprehensive response to all questions in detail.
Trio
ASIC formally commenced its investigation in relation to Trio on 2 October 2009 in respect of the Astarra Strategic Fund ('ASF'), of which Trio was the responsible entity. ASIC in taking regulatory action worked closely with the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority as Trio Capital was the trustee of a number of superannuation funds.
On 14 October 2009 ASIC applied to the NSW Supreme Court for orders restricting overseas travel for two directors of the investment manager of the ASF. On 16 October 2009 ASIC placed interim stop orders on the Product Disclosure Statement for the ASF and on 21 October 2009 interim stop orders were placed on three associated Trio superannuation funds. This had the effect of stopping further investments being made into these funds. On 16 December 2009 Trio was placed into voluntary administration. The next day ASIC suspended its Australian financial services license which ensured it was no longer able to provide financial services
On 16 December 2009 APRA suspended Trio as the trustee of four superannuation funds and one pooled superannuation trust. APRA also appointed an acting trustee to manage these five entities.
On 16 April 2010 Justice Palmer in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, on the application of Trio's administrator, ordered the winding up of five managed investment schemes for which Trio was the responsible entity, including the ASF and ARP.
Storm
ASIC’s formal investigation commenced on 12 December 2008.
In the months of October, November and December 2008 the stock market fell significantly resulting in a shortfall between the equity and margin loans for Storm clients. Around 18 December 2008, following the commencement of its investigation, ASIC sought to negotiate an enforceable undertaking (EU) with Storm. The purpose of the EU was to address ASIC’s concerns that Storm may have been providing conflicted and incorrect advice to Storm clients who were in negative equity that they did not need to meet their margin calls and should not deal with the banks.
An EU was not ultimately executed. However, around 19 December 2008, Storm said it would cease contact with all its clients over the Christmas period. This action was not requested by ASIC and was a decision made by Storm. Storm subsequently went into administration on 9 January 2009.
Westpoint
From 2000 until early 2006, a number of investigations were conducted by ASIC in relation to the Westpoint Group of companies.
On 10 May 2004, Bayshore Mezzanine Pty Ltd commenced action against ASIC seeking a determination as to whether the promissory notes issued by it were regulated under the Corporations Act. On 12 May 2004, ASIC commenced proceedings against Emu Brewery Mezzanine Limited alleging that that company was carrying on an unregistered (but registrable) managed investment scheme. The two proceedings were heard together. In November 2004, the Supreme Court of Western Australia ruled that the promissory notes issued by Emu Brewery Mezzanine Ltd and Bayshore Mezzanine Pty Ltd were not debentures requiring a prospectus to be lodged with ASIC, but they were interests in a managed investment scheme. In June 2006, the Court of Appeal held that the promissory notes were interests in a managed investments scheme.
In 2004 and 2005 ASIC issued a number of interim and final stop orders in relation to the fundraising activities of the Westpoint Group.
In November and December 2005 ASIC issued applications in the Federal Court seeking to wind up York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd and Ann Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd and to appoint a provisional liquidator in the interim. ASIC also sought orders for lodgement of financial reports for a number of Westpoint Group entities.
On 20 December 2005 the Federal Court ordered that Ann Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd and York Street Mezzanine Pty Ltd, be wound up. Orders were also made for the lodgement of financial accounts for a number of Westpoint Group entities.
In respect of investigations by the Australian Securities Investments Commission (ASIC) into (a) Trio Capital Ltd and its associated managed investment schemes, (b) Storm Financial Ltd, and (c) the Westpoint Group of companies, (i) approximately what total sum of money was lost by investors in each fund/scheme, (ii) what series of actions were taken by ASIC against parties, including third parties, for loss recovery purposes, including compensating investors, (iii) what criteria were used by ASIC in taking such actions, particularly in determining whether the public interest was served, (iv) how were the facts of each case assessed against the criteria, (v) what weight was given to situations where investors had been placed into very risky investments, versus those where money was lost through fraud, and (vi) what was the outcome of the series of actions taken by ASIC.
General overview of civil recovery proceedings by ASIC
ASIC plans to publish a document by the end of this year that sets out factors that may be relevant in choosing particular enforcement remedies. One such remedy is to take action to recover damages or property on a person’s behalf, including as part of other court actions we take. However, ASIC must form the view that it is in the public interest to commence such litigation..
In considering whether it is in the public interest to take civil recovery action on behalf of an aggrieved investor ASIC will take into account a range of considerations including the following:
Trio Capital Ltd
Trio Capital Limited ('Trio') was the trustee of five superannuation entities, the responsible entity for twenty five managed investment schemes and trustee of three unregistered managed investment schemes.
ASIC’s investigations have focused on:
These investigations are continuing.
When Trio was placed into administration the reported value of the ASF was around $125 million. These figures include the capitalisation of questionable returns reported by Trio for a number of years. The reported value of ARP was around $58 million. Both these funds are in the process of being wound up. To date the liquidator of Trio has been unable to realise any value from most of the investments made by the ASF and ARP.
ASIC has not commenced any actions against any third parties for loss recovery purposes. As ASIC's former Chairman indicated to the Joint Standing Committee for Corporations and Financial Services on 24 November 2010, ASIC is unlikely to commence such an action in relation to ARP.
Approximately 5000 investors who invested in APRA regulated superannuation funds with an exposure to the ASF will be compensated through the Part 23 SIS Act compensation decision announced by the Assistant Treasurer on 13 April 2011. The amount of the compensation is in the order of $55 million.
Storm
ASIC commenced its investigation into the collapse of Storm on 12 December 2008. On 19 March 2010, ASIC announced that it would enter into confidential discussions with the individuals and entities which had been the subject of its investigations, to see if a commercial resolution could be reached which would be acceptable to ASIC and which ASIC would be prepared to recommend to investors. Those negotiations proved to be unsuccessful.
In December 2010, in addition to civil penalty proceedings against Emmanuel and Julie Cassimatis, ASIC commenced 2 compensation proceedings. The first proceedings seek compensation and claim damages on behalf of 2 investors, Barry and Deanna Doyle, and are against Bank of Queensland Limited (BoQ), Senrac Pty Limited, the franchisee of BoQ’s North Ward branch, and Macquarie Bank Limited (MBL). ASIC alleges in these proceedings that the banks acted unconscionably in lending to the Doyles, breached the Banking Code of Practice and were linked to credit providers with Storm under s73 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (re-enacted as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) and are jointly and severally liable for any loss suffered by the Doyles as a result of any breach by Storm in relation to the services they supplied.
The second proceedings, against Storm, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, BoQ and MBL, seek declarations that Storm operated an unregistered managed investment scheme and that the banks were knowingly involved in the operation of that scheme, as well as injunctions. A successful outcome in these proceedings lays a foundation for subsequent claims for compensation against the banks on behalf of those who have suffered loss.
ASIC’s proceedings above are ongoing.
Westpoint
When the Westpoint Group collapsed in early 2006, investors in Westpoint-issued financial products had an outstanding total capital invested of approximately $388 million. The estimated losses to investors totalled approximately $310 million.
In 2007 and 2008 a number of compensation actions were commenced by ASIC under section 50 of the ASIC Act. The actions were in four categories: (a) a claim brought against KPMG, the former auditors of the Westpoint Group, (b) a claim brought against the directors of certain companies in the Westpoint Group, (c) representative proceedings on behalf of investors against financial planners who recommended investments in Westpoint Group financial products (seven separate actions) and (d) representative proceedings on behalf of investors against State Trustees Limited, the trustee of mezzanine finance notes issued by one of the mezzanine finance companies in the Westpoint Group.
ASIC's actions against State Trustees Limited and a number of financial planners produced settlements in excess of $25.5 million. On 1 February 2011 ASIC settled the actions against KPMG and the Westpoint directors. The settlement of the proceedings against KPMG and the Westpoint directors means the total amount recovered as a result of ASIC's compensation litigation will be up to $92.95 million.
Another $49.2 million obtained through the liquidation process has also been distributed, a figure that is expected to reach $56 million. Returns from Westpoint companies not in liquidation are expected to reach $22.5 million. In all, investors are expected to see a return of around $160 to $170 million of the $388 million in losses.
ASIC's class action against two financial planners and a cross-claim brought by a former Westpoint director against ASIC remain on foot.
In addition to its compensation actions, ASIC has banned 23 licensed advisers, four unlicensed advisers and one corporate entity in relation to advice concerning Westpoint-related products for periods between 3 years and permanently. ASIC has also accepted enforceable undertakings from three KPMG partners preventing them from practising as auditors for periods between nine months and two years. A number of criminal convictions have also been secured and criminal proceedings against former Westpoint directors and officers are ongoing.
In respect of the investigations by the Australian Securities Investments Commission into Trio Capital Ltd and its associated managed investment schemes, what actions are being, or have been, taken to pursue international enforcement, for example, via intergovernmental treaties, liaison with the regulatory agencies, extradition arrangements, etc.
ASIC has been liaising on a confidential basis where necessary with overseas regulators and is able to make use of the IOSCO Multi-lateral Memorandum of Understanding to assist this process.
(1) What is the status of the investigation by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) into allegations of impropriety surrounding Australian Property Custodian Holding Limited (APCH) and its management of the Prime Retirement and Aged Care Property Trust (PRACPT).
(2) Can he provide the findings (to date) of the investigation.
(3) By when will the investigation conclude, and the outcome be made public.
(4) What assurance can he provide that (a) this matter will be treated seriously and investigated thoroughly by ASIC, irrespective of whether or not PRACPT is still a solvent entity, (b) individuals associated with APCH will be penalised and/or prosecuted to the full extent of the law if ASIC determines its actions in managing PRACPT were criminal and/or negligent, and (c) funds will be tracked down and seized to repay PRACPT if it is determined by ASIC that illegal transactions were made on its behalf by APCH.
(1) ASIC is continuing to look into the affairs of APCH as responsible entity of the PRACPT and has taken steps to obtain further information in relation to these matters, including the operation and current circumstances of the PRACPT. ASIC is liaising with the administrators of APCH and is considering what further action is required.
(2) As there is an ongoing investigation being conducted, ASIC is unable to comment at this stage in relation to any findings of the investigation to date in relation to the collapse of APCH and PRACPT.
(3) ASIC is taking all appropriate steps to make sure its investigation is carried out as thoroughly and efficiently as possible. ASIC is not in a position at this time to comment on the possible outcomes or actions that may result from its investigation or when these will be made public.
(4) ASIC recognises the seriousness of the allegations raised in this matter and is treating them seriously and is undertaking a thorough and timely investigation. Where ASIC determines, based on admissible evidence that individuals associated with APCH, have breached the law, it will ensure appropriate action is taken.
Was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report the sole factor in the decision to introduce the Clean Energy Plan; if so, (a) which part; (b) what peer reviews support the evidence in the report (including citations and authors); and (c) what dissenting reports are annexed to the report (including citations and authors); if not, will he provide a list of references for the scientific evidence on which his decision to introduce the Clean Energy Plan was based, including any peer reviews and dissenting reports (with citations and authors).
The Government draws on a range of reliable, peer reviewed research in developing climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Future Plan. Reliable information sources include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, Academies of Science around the world, the World Meteorological Organization and other peer reviewed literature.
The role of the IPCC is to advise policy makers about the current state of knowledge and provide reliable information pertaining to climate change. The IPCC does not conduct scientific research itself, but instead reviews the thousands of scientific papers on climate change published in the peer reviewed literature every year. The state of knowledge on climate change is summarised in the IPCC's assessment reports, published approximately every six to seven years. The reports are subject to an intense peer review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.
The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 is a key information source for the Government in developing climate change policies. Twenty-four Australian authors contributed to all three Working Group reports of the Fourth Assessment Report. (Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis; Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; and Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change). Chapter 11 of the Fourth Assessment Report highlights many of the potential impacts from climate change in the Australian and New Zealand region. Currently, the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is being written and is due for publication in 2013-14.
The Government also draws on the body of peer reviewed work that has been completed since the Fourth Assessment Report was published. Key reports include The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science; Climate Change: a Summary of the Science published by the UK Royal Society in 2010; Advancing the Science of Climate Change published by the US National Academies of Science; and The Critical Decade: Climate Science, Risks and Responses published by the Climate Commission in 2011.
In respect of a statement he made that the Clean Energy Plan is needed to 'save the Great Barrier Reef', was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report the sole factor in his decision to introduce the Clean Energy Plan to save the Great Barrier Reef; if so, (a) which part; (b) what peer reviews support the evidence in the report (including citations and authors); and (c) what dissenting reports are annexed to the report (including citations and authors); if not, will he provide a list of references for the scientific evidence on which his decision to introduce the Clean Energy Plan to save the Great Barrier Reef was based, including any peer reviews and dissenting reports (with citations and authors).
The Government draws on a range of reliable, peer reviewed research in developing climate change policies such as the Clean Energy Future Plan. Reliable information sources include the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology in Australia, Academies of Science around the world, the World Meteorological Organization and other peer reviewed literature.
The role of the IPCC is to advise policy makers about the current state of knowledge and provide reliable information pertaining to climate change. The IPCC does not conduct scientific research itself, but instead reviews the thousands of scientific papers on climate change published in the peer reviewed literature every year. The state of knowledge on climate change is summarised in the IPCC's assessment reports, published approximately every six to seven years. The reports are subject to an intense peer review process involving hundreds of scientific experts and government reviewers. This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.
The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 is a key information source for the Government in developing climate change policies. Twenty-four Australian authors contributed to all three Working Group reports of the Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis; Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; and Working Group III: Mitigation of Climate Change). Chapter 11 of the Fourth Assessment Report highlights many of the potential impacts from climate change in the Australian and New Zealand region. Currently, the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report is being written and is due for publication in 2013-14.
The Government also draws on the body of peer reviewed work that has been completed since the Fourth Assessment Report was published. Key reports include The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science; Climate Change: a Summary of the Science published by the UK Royal Society in 2010; Advancing the Science of Climate Change published by the US National Academies of Science; and The Critical Decade: Climate Science, Risks and Responses published by the Climate Commission in 2011.
Other sources of information, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef, include research conducted through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and the Global Change Institute, University of Queensland.
(1) In respect of his department's outcome and program structure in 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, how many programs exist(ed) under each outcome of his department.
(2) In the same period, what (a) sum was/is allocated to, (b) number of staff were/are in, and (c) regulations relate(d) to, each program in part (1).
(3) In the same period, for each outcome and program, what sum was/is allocated to (a) advertising, (b) travel (including the breakdown of domestic and international business and economy classes), (c) hospitality and entertainment, (d) information and communication technology, (e) contractors and consultants, (f) education and training of staff, (g) external (i) accounting, (ii) auditing, and (iii) legal, services, and (h) membership grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(1) The Department's outcome and program structure for 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, as reported in the Portfolio Budget Statements for the Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio, has not changed across the financial years and is as follows:
Outcome 1 – 1 program
Outcome 2 – 1 program
Outcome 3 – 1 program
Outcome 4 – 4 programs
Outcome 5 – 1 program
Outcome 6 – 1 program
For further information on the Department's outcome and program structure, please refer to the Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio's 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements.
(2) (a) and (b) The 2009-10 and 2010-11 expenses are the actual departmental expenses incurred and are reported in the Department's annual financial statements. The
2009-10 and 2010-11 average staffing levels are the actual staffing levels for those years. Both the expenses and average staffing levels are published in the Department's annual report. For 2011-12, the estimated expenses and average staffing levels are as reported in the Immigration and Citizenship Portfolio's 2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements.
2009-10
2010-11
In reviewing the financial information provided in the above tables in response to question 3 (a) to (h), the following notes need to be considered:
For 2011-12, the internal budget is not allocated at the disaggregated level sought and therefore estimates cannot be provided.
How many (a) complaints from the electorates of Dawson and Capricornia were lodged regarding work carried out under the Home Insulation Program, by (i) postcode, and (ii) nature of complaint, and (b) follow-up inspections were carried out on homes that were the subject of these complaints, by postcode.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency advises that 106 instances of contact have been received by the Department in a category including general inquiries, tip-offs for possible fraud, and requests for advice on program guidelines from the electorates of Dawson and Capricornia in regard to work carried out under the Home Insulation Program as at 30 September 2011. These contacts relate to 97 dwellings.
These figures are within the context of 17,128 installs of insulation in the electorates of Dawson and Capricornia under the Home Insulation Program.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency advises that more specific information may have the potential to unjustly and adversely affect businesses in the local area, even if it is not business specific. As a result, it is not appropriate to release such information.
The Government offers inspections to all homes with foil installed under the HIP and provides householders with the option of having the insulation removed or on the advice of a Licensed Electrical Contractor, a safety switch installed.
The Government will continue to offer inspections to any householder that had insulation installed under the HIP and who has not previously had one, until 30 June 2012.
The Government has also committed to work with police and other relevant authorities in all jurisdictions to deal with cases of non-compliance and fraud in relation to the Home Insulation Program.
How many (a) staff are currently working (i) as contract managers in the Job Services Australia program, (ii) as contract managers in the Disability Employment Services program, and (iii) in each state office, (b) regional offices exist within her department, and (c) departmental employees are working in regional offices.
(a) As of 16 September 2011:
(i) there were 184 full-time equivalent State-based staff managing the Job Services Australia program;
(ii) there were 108 full-time equivalent State-based staff managing the Disability Employment Services program;
(iii) there were 934 staff working in DEEWR’s State Network. 716 of these worked in DEEWR’s State Offices, and the remaining 218 worked in regional locations;
(b) As of 16 September 2011, DEEWR had a presence in 41 regional locations, i.e. excluding National Office and the State offices listed above.
(c) As of 16 September 2011, 218 DEEWR staff worked in regional locations, i.e. excluding National Office and the State offices listed above.
In respect of the Home Insulation Program (HIP) and the programs that were established following the closure of the HIP (such as the Home Insulation Safety Program and the Industry Assistance Package), (a) how many claims has he received in respect of these programs under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (b) at what stage is consideration of each claim at, and (c) when does he expect to be making final decisions on these claims.
Thirty-two claims under the Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration (CDDA Scheme) have been received.
The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency is currently engaging with the claimants and considering the claims. It is the Department’s practice to undertake a preliminary assessment of each claim and request further information from the claimant as necessary. The Department will consider any further information which is provided and will give the claimant the opportunity to comment on all relevant material proposed to be put before the decision maker. Claims will not be finally decided before all relevant information, including any further information and comments provided by the claimant, has been considered.
No claims have yet been finally decided. Due to the complexity of the claims and the level of consultation with claimants, it is not possible to advise of a timeframe as to when the claims will be finally decided.
In the electoral division of (a) Dawson, and (b) Capricornia, what sum was collected per tax revenue stream for (i) 2010-11, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2008-07, and (iv) 2007-08.
The data necessary to answer this question in full is not available. With regard to individual taxpayers, complete data for the 2009-10 year is not yet available and data for the 2010-11 year will not be complete until late in 2012. With regard to other heads of revenue, comprehensive data is not available at the postcode level, mainly because Australian Taxation Office (ATO) data shows addresses of taxpayers' agents or accountants rather than taxpayers themselves.
However, the following information is produced by the Parliamentary Library from postcode data published by the ATO in Taxation Statistics .
Taxation Statistics by Commonwealth Electoral Division (2009 electoral boundaries), 2008-09
Taxation Statistics by Commonwealth Electoral Division (2009 electoral boundaries), 2007-08
When will the Natural Disaster Insurance Review report be made public, and can he indicate what recommendations the review has made in respect of body corporate insurance.
The Natural Disaster Insurance Review report was released to the public on 14 November 2011. The report is available at:
http://www.ndir.gov.au/content/report/downloads/NDIR_final.pdf
The Government’s response to the recommendations of the report is available at:
http://www.treasury.gov.au/contentitem.asp?ContentID=2226&NavID=037.