The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
Renewable Energy Legislation Amendment (Supporting Renewable Communities) Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a second time.
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017
That this bill be now read a second time.
Access to justice is an important issue for small business operators. … The Senate bill allows Federal Court judges to waive liability for adverse costs to small business private litigants in cases related to the misuse of market power.
It gives small business operators confidence to proceed with legal action, knowing they will only be liable for their own costs.
This has the added benefit of filtering cases that might potentially be considered vexatious or unlikely to succeed, saving time and money for all involved.
… access to justice for small business people has always been an issue for our members. The cost of going to court and facing highly paid barristers and expensive quarrels of lawyers is confronting when you know that to lose the case will bring exorbitant costs to cover the opposing sides legal expenses. We congratulate Bill Shorten and Labor on this initiative.
The ALP policy announced today goes to the heart of the issue which is access to justice.
If you take the view that competition is there for the consumer, which is what I believe is the fact, everything else will fit into place. That's why I’m against the so-called effects test, [which is] designed to protect competitors, particularly less efficient ones, from a competitive challenge.
Under the Harper amendment, businesses would curb their competitive behaviour because of the legal risk. This would have drowned the commercial activity of big business in a sea of uncertainty. Lawyers and economists would need to sit at the right hand of business CEOs to guide them on the legality of every significant transaction.
In 2018, Australia and the United States will mark a centenary of mateship—a friendship first formed in the trenches of World War I during the Battle of Hamel on July 4, 1918.
The offensive to retake Hamel was the earliest instance of American and Australian troops fighting side by side. American troops offensively fought under the command of a non-American for the first time during the Battle of Hamel. That commander was Australian General Sir John Monash—and in honour of the Americans he was commanding, General Monash chose July 4, 1918 as the date of the offensive on Hamel.
The battle plan devised by General Monash was radical for its time—it marked the first time tanks had been used as protection on a battlefield for the advancing infantry and the first time aircraft had been deployed to drop ammunition to ground troops.
General Monash predicted that the offensive would last for 90 minutes. Incredibly it took the Allied forces just 93 minutes to secure victory and—
turned the tide against the Germans on the Western Front.
The Battle of Hamel is the symbolic foundation of the deep and enduring bond, mutual respect and close cooperation that continues to exist between the American and Australian militaries today.
That alliance relationship stands because many in government make judgments about the Australian national interest and the fact that it serves it. But it also stands because Australians believe their relationship with the United States is a matter of fair dealing. Australians believe that, in entering a relationship with the United States, we are entering a relationship with a people who are roughly compatible with us in outlook and views about life.
If you do not like the government of the day in the United States, they might not like ours. If you do not like their opposition, they might not like ours. But you know that at the end of the day the process will produce from time to time governments in the United States which every single Australian will have agreements with.
… we are not an aligned country which had to agree, or did agree, with every single aspect of US policymaking … In the expression of those differences of opinion you do not militate against the alliance. They are a re-flection of its basic strength.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.
The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the direction of the democracies' fighting plan.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
That this House:
(1) acknowledges the outstanding work of hearts4hearts and its CEO Ms Tanya Hall in promoting awareness and improved treatment of cardiac arrhythmias;
(2) notes that:
(a) atrial fibrillation affects at least 500,000 Australians and comes with high risk of stroke and heart failure with conventional treatments;
(b) while many cardiovascular conditions have declined in mortality rates in the past years, the mortality rates for atrial fibrillation have almost doubled in the last two decades;
(c) catheter ablation is the acknowledged best practice treatment;
(d) there are long waiting lists for catheter ablation in the public hospital system and the treatment is not listed on the Prostheses List; and
(e) up to 40,000 Australians could benefit from catheter ablation, including 13,000 on private health insurance; and
(3) welcomes the recent announcement by the Minister for Health that the Government will consider changes to Prostheses List processes in order to account for catheter ablation and other non implantable devices, but calls on the Minister to provide further details on this announcement, including a clear time line for implementation.
That leave of absence from today until the end of the current period of sittings be given to the honourable member for Perth for parental leave purposes and leave of absence from 16 to 19 October be given to the honourable member for Fremantle for the purposes of parliamentary business overseas.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the life insurance industry be extended to 7 December 2017.
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017
That the amendments be agreed to.
So these laws are current even though they were written at a time before the Internet?
Well, quite frankly, we have competition laws in Australia that were written in the 1970s but we don't say that we should abolish competition laws outright Kieran. This government has gone ahead and said we're going to do all these deals with all these different parts of the media, we're going to call it a holistic package. This isn't a holistic package, this is a grab bag.
But every media outlet agrees . . .
Every media outlet agrees because they've got something in it for them.
Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017
Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017
Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017
Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017
International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017
Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017
Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017
Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017
That the House take note of the report.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:
(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and
(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut".
Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Toll Holdings is moving quickly to implement the findings of an urgent 100-day strategy review by its new management team that will reduce its operational business units and slash 1700 jobs, most in Australia.
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
The acquisition of legal personality by workers' and employers' organisations, federations and confederations shall not be made subject to conditions of such a character as to restrict the application of the provisions of Articles 2, 3 and 4 hereof.
… consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions.
The CFMEU's record of noncompliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.
The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.
The CFMEU's compliance with industrial legislation generally has been poor.
… bespeaks an attitude by the CFMEU of ignoring, if not defying, the law and a willingness to contravene it as and when it chooses.
It would be apt to describe the behaviour of the First Respondent—
as "sheer thuggery". Such thuggery has no place in the Australian workplace. Contraventions of the FW Act that involve such thuggery cannot be tolerated.
We will observe three days of mourning for innocent victims, flags will be flown at half-mast. Time to unite and pray together. Terror won't win.
That further statements on indulgence on the death of Dr Evelyn Ruth Scott be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
… allow excessive political, corporate and regulatory interference in the democratic functioning and control of industrial organisations, with no true objective other than political gain.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017
Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.
The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.
Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.
Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise.
Obsession is the single most wasteful human activity, because with an obsession you keep coming back and back and back to the same question and never get an answer.
The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017 (the bill) contains a number of schedules which impact on the internal functioning of trade unions.
The right to freedom of association includes the right to form and join trade unions. The right to just and favourable conditions of work also encompasses the right to form trade unions. These rights are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
The interpretation of these rights is informed by International Labour Organization (ILO) treaties, including the ILO Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize (ILO Convention No. 87) and the ILO Convention of 1949 concerning the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining (ILO Convention No. 98). ILO Convention 87 protects the right of workers to autonomy of union processes including electing their own representatives in full freedom, organising their administration and activities and formulating their own programs without interference. Convention 87 also protects unions from being dissolved, suspended or de-registered and protects the right of workers to form organisations of their own choosing.
A number of measures in this bill, by limiting the ability of unions to govern their internal processes, engage and limit these rights.
The House divided. [19:04]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
The House divided. [19:12]
(The Speaker—Hon. Tony Smith)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017
Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Competition Policy Review) Bill 2017
Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017
Overcoming poverty is not a task of charity, it is an act of justice. Like Slavery and Apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Buchholz ) took the chair at 10:30.
There are always solutions locally. This is a company born out of having a son with autism, to running a business that feeds back into the disability sector, making a product for autistic children and adults, which then employs back into that region as well.
That this House:
(1) notes that the:
(a) last three years have seen an unprecedented global coral bleaching event which has had a devastating impact on many coral reefs ecosystems around the world, including our own Great Barrier Reef (GBR); and
(b) World Heritage Committee:
(i) met in early July in Poland and expressed its 'utmost concern' regarding the 'serious impacts from coral bleaching that have affected World Heritage properties' ; and
(ii) noted that the most widely reported impacts were on the GBR and called on all States Parties to undertake ' the most ambitious implementation of the Paris Agreement' ;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the World Heritage Centre released the first global scientific assessment of the impact of climate change on World Heritage coral reefs;
(b) the assessment found that it is a well established conclusion of international peer reviewed literature that limiting the global average temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels provides a chance of retaining coral-dominated communities for many reef locations around the globe;
(c) the assessment also found that the GBR will start to experience severe coral bleaching twice per decade by 2035, a mere
18 years away; and
(d) this frequency of bleaching will not allow coral reefs to recover, putting the survival of the GBR in danger along with the 64,000 jobs that are dependent on it; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) urgently adopt a clean energy target that is fully consistent with Australia' s obligations within the World Heritage Convention to protect the outstanding universal value of the GBR World Heritage area; and
(b) abandon plans for a $1 billion loan through the Northern Australian Infrastructure Facility to Adani to help establish one of the world' s largest coal mines.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) applications are now open for Round Three of the Stronger Communities Programme (SCP);
(b) the SCP has:
(i) invested in thousands of worthwhile projects applied for by small community groups and organisations which would often not have received funding another way; and
(ii) had a positive impact on the lives of all kinds of Australians, supporting youth sporting clubs, community halls and clubhouses, surf lifesavers, aged and day care facilities among many more;
(2) welcomes the funding allocated to all successful projects under Rounds One and Two of the SCP, including the Caloundra Woodworking Club’s grant of $15,000 to enable the construction of an extension to their building and the grant of $8,700 to Caloundra Surf Club which enabled the purchase of an inflatable rescue boat;
(1) acknowledges the important contribution that the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry and its workers make to the Australian economy including:
(a) creating over 300,000 Australian jobs;
(b) contributing over $125 billion in turnover; and
(c) exporting over $30 billion of products; and
(2) encourages the Government to work with the Australian food, beverage and grocery industry to ensure its continued success.
That this House:
(1) notes that trade union malfeasance has cost taxpayers around 30 per cent, and possibly more, of their investment in recent infrastructure projects, and has led to widespread harm among Australian workers;
(2) welcomes the Government's decisive and comprehensive program of measures to investigate, stamp out and punish union malfeasance, including;
(a) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2016;
(b) the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, which included the restored Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC), and the Building Code 2016; and
(c) the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Act 2017;
(3) congratulates the Government on dealing with the scourge of union misbehaviour on Australian construction sites; and
(4) encourages the Government to continue to explore ways of eliminating unethical trade union practices and to provide all necessary legal and financial support to the ABCC in its work to investigate and punish illegality in the construction industry.
The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious … That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.
The CFMEU has as egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.
The union's prior history bespeaks an attitude by the CFMEU of ignoring, if not defying the law, and a willingness to contravene it as and when it chooses.
It would be apt to describe the behaviour of—
as sheer thuggery. Such thuggery has no place in the Australian workplace. Contraventions of the Fair Work Act that involve such thuggery cannot be tolerated.
(1) acknowledges the good work of the Northern Melbourne Regional Development Australia (RDA) committee;
(2) condemns the Government for shutting down the Northern Melbourne RDA;
(3) recognises that Melbourne' s northern suburbs are a significant growth area, which has not received its fair share of vital infrastructure support under this Government and that this is adversely impacting on productivity and liveability; and
(4) calls on the Minister to reconsider amalgamating the RDA committees in Victoria.
If we can't stop it in the parliament, we'll stop it by standing in front of those bulldozers.
(1) recognises:
(a) 14 September 2017 marks the 70th anniversary of Australia' s involvement in international peacekeeping; and
(b) the important and unique role peacekeepers and peacemakers provide in the transition from conflict to peace;
(2) notes that:
(a) over 70,000 Australians have been involved in peacekeeping and humanitarian operations since 1947; and
(b) Australia has had peacekeepers in the field with the United Nations continuously for over 50 years, through which:
(i) peacekeeping has involved members of Australian Defence Force, civilians and Australian police;
(ii) since 1964, Australian police have served in Cyprus and places as widely separated as Cambodia, Haiti, Mozambique, Bougainville and Timor; and
(iii) peacekeepers are often at the centre of dangerous conflicts and are exposed to the impacts of war;
(3) recognises those who are on peacekeeping missions at the moment, as we assist the United Nations with its mission in the Republic of South Sudan and looks forward to their safe return;
(4) congratulates all those who have worked hard to deliver the new Australian Peacekeeping Memorial Project on Anzac Parade; and
(5) remembers and pays tribute to all those who have served Australia in peacekeeping operations, those who have been wounded and the 14 Australians who lost their lives whilst on peacekeeping operations.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) according to Australian Bureau of Statistics figures one in five Australians report having a mental or behavioural condition, while the prevalence is highest among people aged 18 to 24; and
(b) data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare suggests that 54 per cent of people with a mental illness do not access treatment;
(2) congratulates the Government for its engagement with the mental health community and for its measures to support mental health in Australia including:
(a) additional investment of $170 million in mental health programs in the 2017 budget including $80 million to maintain community psycho-social services for people with mental illness who are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, $11.1 million to prevent suicide in specific locations where it is a frequent occurrence, $15 million to support mental health research initiatives such as the Thompson Institute on the Sunshine Coast and $50 million for mental illness prevention and support for serving Australian Defence Force members, veterans and their families; and
(b) investment of:
(i) $9.5 million to expand mental health first aid training in 14 high risk communities; and
(ii) $9.1 million to support rural telehealth services for mental health and the appointment of the first National Rural Health Commissioner;
(3) encourages the Government to continue this focused work and to seek additional ways to support the mental health of Australians; and
(4) further encourages anyone who believes that they might be suffering from a mental illness to seek immediate help from their General Practitioner or a qualified mental health practitioner.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the scientific consensus about climate change, and particularly the role of human activity in driving it, is undeniable;
(b) the case for real and immediate action on climate change has never been stronger; and
(c) renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power;
(2) recognises that the:
(a) decisions we make now concerning environment, climate and energy policy will have lasting and profound affects for the future; and
(b) transition to a low carbon economy wil1 provide significant opportunities for regional development; and
(3) calls on the Government to:
(a) commit to:
(i) utilising the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility for investments that deliver real benefits to communities in Northern Australia, now and into the future; and
(ii) a considered and integrated energy policy in Northern Queensland that actively supports the transition to a low carbon economy; and
(b) recommit to protecting Australia' s marine resources, like the Great Barrier Reef, from modern and evolving threats, to ensure their economic benefits can be borne by future generations.
renewable energy, when combined with storage, is the most economical method of creating new and reliable power ...
Nope ... it is not an accurate representation.
Science is not a democracy, even if the majority of scientists think one thing (and it translates to more papers saying so), they aren't necessarily correct.
On balance, I don't see any particular dangers from greenhouse warming. {Humans do} influence climate to some extent, what we do with land-use changes and what we put into the atmosphere. But I don't think it's a large enough impact to dominate over natural climate variability.
The notion that there's a trade-off, that we can't have it all, that there's no free lunch, that's not been made clear to the public. In fact when you look at it, we've ruled out all the least-cost ways of transitioning to a low-emission economy … we've ruled out nuclear and essentially ruled out gas too.
Why did the NSW Government commence the acquisition process for the site at 7 Darley Road Leichhardt for use as a mid-tunnel construction site for Stage 3 of the WestConnex project prior to the reference design for that Stage of the project being finalised.
While property acquisitions are a matter for the NSW Government, land acquisition processes start as early as possible to ensure that program schedules can be met and to provide certainty to land owners.
(1) Is he aware of the complaints from numerous Leichhardt residents regarding the most recent concept design for the M4-M5 Link of the WestConnex project, including the vagueness of the design and the lack of detail and specificity about the impacts of the project.
(2) What minimum level of community consultation and transparency is required for major infrastructure projects, and has Sydney Motorways Corporation (SMC) met this standard for the concept design.
(3) Will he call on the SMC to retract and reissue the concept design with appropriate details and specificity about the project.
Yes. Community feedback contributed to the development of the concept design, which was released on 12 May 2017. A further 12-week consultation period then started, involving information sessions, written correspondence and a toll-free telephone line. The Environmental Impact Statement was released for public comment on 18 August 2017, providing the public with further opportunity to provide input. The closing date for submissions is 16 October 2017. Submissions will be considered by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment. The Government does not intend to ask SMC to retract and reissue the concept design.
In respect of the most recent concept design for the M4-M5 Link of the WestConnex project stating that Sydney Motorway Corporation is undertaking consideration of the western end of the Rozelle Rail Yard corridor as a potential mid-level tunnel construction site, can he outline how these investigations are progressing.
The M4-M5 Link concept design was released for community feedback on 12 May 2017. Both the western end of the Rozelle Rail Yard corridor and 7 Darley Road were identified as potential mid-tunnel construction sites. The concept design feedback contributed to the next stage of the planning process, the Environmental Impact Statement, which was published for public comment on 18 August 2017. Public submissions on the Environmental Impact Statement will close on 16 October 2017, and will be considered by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.
The selection of the mid-tunnel construction site is a matter for the NSW Government.
(1) Is he aware that Sydney Motorways Corporation (SMC) advised the WestConnex Community Reference Group of the Inner West Council on 2 May 2017 that there was the possibility of an overlap between the 12 week exhibition of the concept design for the M4-M5 Link project and the release of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.
(2) Will he ensure that the SMC takes into account the community feedback generated by the exhibition of the concept design when the EIS for the project is being finalised.
(3) What is the minimum level of community consultation and transparency required for major infrastructure projects, and has the SMC met this standard when it comes to the M4-M5 Link project.
(1) Questions regarding advice provided by Sydney Motorway Corporation (SMC) to other parties are best directed towards SMC
(2) See answer to Question No. 734.
(3) See answer to Question No. 734.
In respect of the reported cost (of tens of millions of dollars) of the potential acquisition of the site at 7 Darley Road Leichhardt for a mid-level tunnel construction site for WestConnex, (a) what steps have the Australian and NSW governments taken to mitigate the exposure of taxpayers to paying compensation to Tdrahhciel Pty Ltd, and (b) is any of the (i) advanced Australian Government funding, and (ii) Australian Government's concessional loan, for WestConnex being used for this proposed acquisition.
The Australian Government's grant funding covers all three stages of the project, and can be utilised for property acquisition, project construction and urban renewal.
The Commonwealth concessional loan was provided to accelerate Stage 2 of WestConnex. It is not being applied to Stage 3 of the project.
Property acquisition, and any claims for compensation, are matters for the NSW Government.
Could he provide an explanation as to why NSW Roads and Maritime Services informed Leichhardt residents that no decision had been made in respect of the acquisition of 7 Darley Road Leichhardt to build a mid-level tunnel construction site for WestConnex, while at the same time beginning the statutory acquisition process.
See answer to Question No. 733
(1) How many people have become Australian citizens since the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 came into force. (2) How many people are currently eligible to become Australian citizens but have not applied. (3) In (a) 2014-15, (b) 2015-16, and (c) 2016-17 (to date), how many people were refused Australian citizenship for (i) an inability to pass the citizenship test, and (ii) reasons unrelated to an inability to pass the citizenship test. (4) How many Australian citizens have had their citizenship revoked, and for what reasons.
(1) More than five million people have become Australian citizens since the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 came into effect on 26 January 1949. Departmental systems do not have data on all of the period enquired about and an exact figure is unable to be provided.
(2) The Department is not able to determine the exact number of people who may be eligible to apply for Australian citizenship.
(3) The following numbers of people were refused Australian citizenship for (i) an inability to pass the citizenship test, and (ii) reasons unrelated to an inability to pass the citizenship test.
(4) Since the inception of the Act in 1948, there have been 29 revocations under section 34 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 . Of these, 15 were for serious offences and 14 related to conviction for migration and citizenship fraud.
(1) Question
In respect of the indexation freeze on access to Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) funded specialist services for veterans under the Repatriation Medical Fee Schedule (RMFS), (a) is he aware (i) of the impact on veterans accessing clinical help, including through psychologists, (ii) of the evidence provided to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel by Griffith University's Australian Institute for Suicide Research Prevention, the Australian Psychological Society and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, raising concerns that it is creating disincentives for experienced and skilled clinicians to see veterans, (iii) that it will force many clinicians to close their books to veterans, (iv) of the Australian Medical Association's survey of some members which highlighted that only 71.3 per cent of specialists are currently continuing to treat all veterans under the DVA RMFS, with the remainder adopting a range of approaches including closing their books to new DVA funded patients or treating some as fully private or public patients, (v) of information provided during a public hearing that the Australian Defence Force pays a psychologist $200.95 per session, whereas under this fee freeze the DVA can only pay $148.95, and (vi) that some veterans now have to pay out of their own pocket for access to a psychologist, and (b) what has he done, and is he currently doing, to have the freeze dropped immediately.
(1) Answer
The Department of Veterans' Affairs (DVA) acknowledges the anecdotal evidence provided to the Committee about psychiatrists and psychologists not accepting DVA arrangements or withdrawing from these. DVA is aware of individual instances of health care providers not accepting DVA arrangements but these do not suggest this is a wide-spread issue impacting on veterans' and war widows' ability to access clinically necessary treatment.
In the event that a practitioner does not accept DVA fees or there are no providers, DVA can help to identify other practitioners, and can also provide transport assistance, or consider a provider's request to fund services above DVA fees. An 'above fee' request is determined on the basis of clinical need, and includes consideration of the patient's ability to reasonably access another suitable practitioner.
The 2017-18 Budget provided for the re-introduction of the indexation across Medicare services, which will also flow through to DVA medical services. This will occur through a staged approach to indexation which will commence as follows:
- 1 July 2017 GP bulk billing incentives, including the Veterans Access Payment;
- 1 July 2018 GP and specialist consultations;
- 1 July 2019 specialists procedures; and
- 1 July 2020 for targeted diagnostic imaging services.
These changes were made as part of a compact with the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.
DVA fees for psychiatry and psychology services
DVA health card arrangements are designed to allow the funding and delivery of services through a nationally consistent framework to meet the needs of DVA clients across the country.
DVA arrangements for medical services, including psychiatry, are aligned to Medicare; although DVA fees are set at a higher rate than comparable Medicare fees.
DVA psychiatry consultations are paid at 135 percent of the equivalent Medicare fee, with a psychiatrist consultation of between 45 minutes and 75 minutes currently $247.95 under DVA and rebated under Medicare at $156.15 (which is 85 per cent of the Medicare fee).
In 2010 when DVA introduced individual fee schedules for each allied mental health profession, the fees reflected the MBS-equivalent time based items and were paid at 100% of the MBS rate, as part of a package negotiated with the relevant provider associations at the time.
Under current DVA arrangements for clinical psychology, a consultation lasting 50 minutes or more attracts a fee of $148.95 where the equivalent is rebated under Medicare for $124.50 (which is 85 percent of the Medicare fee of $146.45). The indexation of the DVA fees will resume on 30 June 2018.
DVA clients do not need to seek reimbursement or incur an out-of-pocket expense when services are provided by a psychologist participating in DVA arrangements, nor are the number of consultations available to DVA clients capped. In contrast, a Medicare patient receives a maximum benefit for a consultation of the same length, with any potential charges in excess of the Medicare benefit being the responsibility of the patient, and with an annual service cap. In addition DVA funds a broader range of services than those available under the MBS, such as trauma therapy and cognitive assessments.
Indexation of fees for DVA funded psychology services will resume on 1 July 2018.
Defence arrangements
Defence provides holistic health services to ADF personnel in order to maximise operational capability and care for those who are wounded, injured or ill. In the non-deployed environment, it does this through its garrison health system. Defence has a contract with Medibank Health Solutions for the supply of a range of services within the garrison health system. This includes labour hire of contracted health professionals in Defence health facilities, and fee-for-service arrangements to access a range of off-base health services available in the civilian community. Off-base services purchased through these arrangements include specialist and allied health services, pathology, imaging and radiology, and an after-hours nurse triage service. Through this arrangement the Australian Defence Force does not itself pay individual practitioners. Medibank Health Solutions is responsible for the procurement and invoice processing arrangements for these services and Defence does not have visibility of the commercial arrangements between Medibank Health Solutions and its network of providers in support of the contract with Defence.
(1) Question
What sum of funding is required over the forward estimates to meet the needs of the Veteran Centric Reform, and why was this sum not met in the 2017-18 budget.
(2) Question
Is it normal procedure to fund reform projects one year at a time.
(3) Question
Why will the Government not commit to fully funding the much needed upgrade to the information and communication technology system.
(4) Question
How does this approach provide certainty for his department and for veterans.
(1) Answer
Veteran Centric Reform has been fully funded for the first year in the 2017-18 budget. Future funding is a matter for government.
(2) Answer
There is no normal procedure to fund projects.
(3) Answer
Future funding is a matter for government.
(4) Answer
$166.6 million will provide firm foundations for government to consider further investment and will deliver early benefits to clients.
In respect of the restricted non-competitive (for specified services) component of the Community Child Care Fund program draft guidelines, (a) how many months in advance of July 2018 will child care services receive notice of whether or not their application for supplementary funding has been successful, and (b) what support in finding alternative child care services will be available to the families using providers whose grant applications are unsuccessful?
(a) The Department of Education and Training anticipates advising services of the outcome of the Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) restricted non-competitive grant opportunity no less than three months prior to CCCF funding agreements commencing in July 2018. If Budget Based Funded services need assistance to help them transition to the new child care arrangements from July 2018, $61.8 million – the same amount that they are receiving now – is available to help them do so.
(b) All BBF services which require grant funding to transition child care services to the new system will be supported under the Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) restricted non‑competitive grant opportunity.
In respect of the restricted non-competitive (for specified services) component of the Community Child Care Fund program draft guidelines, in particular, that a capital contribution, in kind contributions, and designated use periods, might apply to grants given for capital improvements, given many Budget Based Funded services operate from buildings owned by councils or other third parties, does the Minister's department intend taking a flexible approach?
The Department of Education and Training will take a flexible approach to capital co-contributions and in-kind contributions, taking into account the circumstances of services applying for funding under the capital component of the Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) restricted non-competitive grant opportunity. It is anticipated that standard designated use period provisions will be required as part of any grant for capital works provided under the CCCF, and that the period will vary depending on the nature of the investment.
In respect of the restricted non-competitive (for specified services) component of the Community Child Care Fund program draft guidelines, is it a fact that there is no appeal mechanism for decisions to approve or not approve a grant (page 15); if so, why does oversight by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or some other body not apply to such decisions made by a Minister or a delegate?
There will be no appeal mechanism regarding decisions to approve or not approve a grant under the Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) restricted non-competitive grant opportunity. These decisions are made under program guidelines rather than legislation, which is consistent with grants provided under both the Budget Based Funded program and the Community Support Program which will cease when the CCCF commences.
In respect of the restricted non-competitive (for specified services) component of the Community Child Care Fund program draft guidelines, in particular, that the Assessment Team may apply an equitable funding formula to determine the sum that services may require during their transition to the new child care system (page 14), could this formula be provided to help services with applications and planning?
The Department of Education and Training has considered feedback received through public consultations on the draft Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) guidelines for the restricted non-competitive grant opportunity, and has removed the reference to an equitable funding formula in the final guidelines, which were published on 7 August 2017. This previous reference has been replaced with a more detailed explanation of how funding to services will be determined.
This is outlined in 'Section 8.3 - Funding determination', on page 17 of the final guidelines, and states as follows:
The amount and term of funding provided to applicants will be determined on a case by case basis, depending on the activity being funded, the circumstances of the applicant and the department ' s program priorities.
In determining CCCF operational funding for this grant opportunity, the assessment team will be informed by a number of factors including, but not limited to:
In respect of the restricted non-competitive (for specified services) component of the Community Child Care Fund program draft guidelines, in particular, that the Minister's department can make amendments to the guidelines at any time and that reasonable notice will be given to participants, will the Minister consider the suggestion by stakeholders to provide a three month notice period in appropriate circumstances?
The Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) Guidelines are based on the Department of Finance's whole-of-government grant guidelines template. As outlined in the final CCCF restricted non-competitive grant opportunity guidelines, (published on 7 August 2017), changes may be made from time-to-time bythe Department of Education and Training and when this happens the revised guidelines will be published on GrantConnect at www.grants.gov.au/.
The length of the notice period would depend on the nature of the proposed changes under consideration.
(1) How many Round 2 National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF) applications were received for the maximum amount of $10 million, and how many grants of this amount were awarded.
(2) Under the Round 2 NSRF guidelines for application, how is an applicant's funding proposal assessed for competitive neutrality.
(3) What mechanisms in the Round 2 NSRF assessment process exist to ensure that when a grant is awarded to an individual business, other businesses are not unfairly disadvantaged.
(4) How broadly does the Round 2 NSRF assessment apply and does it consider like businesses Australia wide.
(5) In making the decision to fund a project, does the Round 2 NSRF Ministerial Panel receive advice on other business that may be impacted by the grant.
(1) 39 applications were received for the maximum amount of $10 million, and grants were awarded to six projects for the maximum amount.
(2) The NSRF Round Two Guidelines do not specify the requirement for applications to be assessed for competitive neutrality.
(3) This was not a requirement of the program.
(4) This was not a requirement of the program.
(5) This was not a requirement of the program.
(1) How many grants under Round 2 of the National Stronger Regions Fund (NSRF) are given to private businesses.
(2) What mitigation measures under Round 2 of the NSRF exist to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on other businesses as a result of grant funding being awarded to a particular business or council.
(3) Is there a process of appeal for businesses to demonstrate that they will be adversely impacted by a Round 2 NSRF grant being awarded to a particular business or council.
(1) None. For-profit business organisations were ineligible to apply.
(2) None.
(3) No.
In respect of the National Stronger Regions Fund grant to the Bourke Shire Council to assist the development and construction of the Bourke Small Stock Abattoir project, (a) on what date was the contract signed, (b) what sum has already been paid, (c) what are the milestones for progress payments, and (d) what is the completion date.
(a) 26 April 2016
(b) As at 31 August 2017, $4 million.
(a) The remaining milestones are:
i. $3 million was due to be paid in September 2017;
ii. $1 million is due to be paid in October 2017;
iii. $1 million is due to be paid in November 2017; and
iv. $1 million is due to be paid in February 2018.
The proponent has submitted a request to vary these milestone dates, which is currently under assessment by the Department.
(b) October 2020.
In respect of the National Stronger Regions Fund grant to the Bourke Shire Council to assist the development and construction of the Bourke Small Stock Abattoir (BSSA) project, (a) was an assessment (i) undertaken to ascertain whether the project would have a negative impact on existing abattoirs or agribusinesses across regional Australia, and (ii) completed on the potential for other abattoirs to lose business to the BSSA and impact on jobs in other regional communities across Australia, (b) if an assessment was undertaken, (i) what evidence was found that in opening the BSSA, other abattoirs would not be adversely affected, and (ii) were existing abattoirs consulted; if so, did any raise concerns with the proposal prior to the decision to grant funds, and (c) did the Bourke Shire Council address competitive neutrality issues in the application for funding.
(a) No.
(b) N/A.
(c) No.
Given the number of employees stood down in abattoirs in March 2017 (350 in Cobram, 180 in Deniliquin, 220 in Cootamundra, 130 in Lonford and 110 in Myrup), how many jobs are expected to be created by the Bourke Small Stock Abattoir.
194 full time equivalent employees and a further 200 jobs involved in the supply of goats, in administration areas, in the services field, and in retail trade through direct supplies to the abattoir.
In respect of the National Stronger Regions Fund grant to the Bourke Shire Council (BSC) to assist the development and construction of the Bourke Small Stock Abattoir (BSSA) project, (a) what is the anticipated processing capacity, in goats per year, (b) how many goats have been processed in Australia each year in the last 10 years, (c) was the availability of goats for processing addressed in BSC's application, (d) will the BSSA harvest additional goats or take a share of the existing goat supply, and (e) was the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries consulted in the assessment of this application.
(a) 1 million goats per year.
(b) Figures on goat processing for the past 10 years are not available, however in 2012 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that approximately 1.63 million goats were slaughtered in Australia in 2011-12. Meat and Livestock Australia estimate that in 2016-17, 1.74 million goats were slaughtered, which was 9 per cent lower than the previous year due to below average rainfall.
(c) Yes.
(d) According to Bourke Shire Council, the BSSA intend to use existing goat supplies initially, but expect the number of goat suppliers to increase over time as the industry matures.
(e) Yes.
In respect of the Higher Education Reform Package, (a) what sum will be saved in each year of the forward estimates by lowering the threshold at which repayment of HELP debts commence, (b) as loans, do HELP debts have an impact on the budget bottom line, and (c) has any modelling been done on the impact on the budget if the minimum repayment threshold of $42,000 for HELP debts is not legislated; if so, what was the outcome?
(a) The measure is estimated to have the following savings over the forward estimates:
(b) Yes, HELP debts do affect the budget bottom line. HELP loans, as a government asset, contribute to net debt on the Australian Government's balance sheet. The current nominal value of HELP debt is $50.4 billion and the fair value is $36.8 billion (as at 30 June 2016). As an asset, HELP has a feedback effect on the underlying cash and fiscal balances through the flow of its revenue and expenses.
The underlying cash balance is affected by:
The fiscal balance is impacted by:
(c) If the measure is not pursued the projected savings arising from the measure will need to be found elsewhere in the Budget.
(1) Has the Minister's department modelled the impact on regional and remote students of measures outlined in its Higher Education Reform Package, including the impact on students' plans to attend university given the increase in student fees and the lowering of HELP repayment thresholds?(2) Is the research conducted by La Trobe University that shows that regional and remote students are on average 10 per cent less likely to have plans to attend university than metropolitan students consistent with the Australian Government's modelling of students across Australia?(3) What modelling has the Minister's department completed to understand the impact that these changes will have on bridging the gap in regional and metropolitan educational attainment, and will the Minister provide a copy?(4) Will universities with regional campuses receive the financial backing they need to meet the higher costs associated with regional delivery outlined in the Government-commissioned report Cost of Delivery of Higher Education (Deloitte Access Economics, 1 May 2017) in order to maintain their regional operations and continue delivering higher education options?
Evidence shows modest increases in student contributions will not be a barrier to accessing higher education as students do not need to pay any upfront fees. Since the introduction of the demand driven funding system (2011 to 2015), there has been a 21 per cent increase in the number of commencing domestic undergraduate students from regional and remote areas. This includes the period when the Higher Education Grants Index (HEGI) was applied to student fees, leading to fee increases that were larger than those proposed under the reforms. Eligible students can continue to defer payment of their fees through HELP. The notion that these changes will not discourage students from undertaking higher education is supported by Professor Bruce Chapman who designed HELP, he said: 'The evidence is now overwhelming that changes to the level of the charge, or other aspects of HECS-HELP, such as the first threshold of repayment, have no discernible effects on student behaviour or choices' (CBE Blogisphere, May 2017).
The Australian Government has several initiatives to improve educational opportunities and make it easier for people from regional Australia to access higher education.
From 1 January 2018 students from regional areas can be considered independent for Centrelink purposes after 14 months, lowered from 18 months. This will allow regional students to take one gap year and commence university in the following February, instead of further delaying university commencement.
Recognising that regional students are under-represented in higher education, and often face obstacles such as lack of financial resources and distance from a campus, the Government is introducing Rural and Regional Enterprise Scholarships.
The scholarships aim to improve access to and completion of science, technology, engineering and mathematics courses for people from regional and remote Australia. The Government is providing $24 million in funding over four years for this program, with individual scholarships valued at up to $18,000 each for four year qualifications. The program will support at least 1200 undergraduate, postgraduate and vocational education and training students, and include flexible study arrangements for people who need to study part-time or online.
The Government has commissioned an independent review into regional, rural and remote education to consider the key issues, barriers and challenges that impact on student learning outcomes and recommend ways in which the Government can support these students. The review will provide recommendations on innovative and evidence-based approaches to help these students succeed at school and in their transition to further study, training and employment. A discussion paper and online platform for public submissions was released in July 2017.
Emeritus Professor John Halsey, who is leading the review, will also lead face-to-face consultations during July and October 2017 with the breadth of organisations, institutions and people passionate about regional, rural and remote education. The final report will be provided to the Government by the end of 2017.
Regional students from low socio-economic status (SES) backgrounds will benefit from ongoing operation of the Government's Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP). HEPPP reforms will provide increased certainty of funding to universities in the form of a legislated per low SES student loading and performance funding. This will enable universities to plan and implement longer term programs that assist students from low SES backgrounds to access, participate in and succeed at university.
The Cost of Delivery of Higher Education report by Deloitte Access Economics acknowledged that the proportion of regional students at a higher education provider is associated with higher average costs but was unable to distinguish whether this is due to regional students being more expensive to teach wherever they choose to study or whether it is due to regional campuses having higher underlying costs independently of other cost drivers. To ensure students have access to tertiary education in regional areas, the Government provides around $285 million over four years in regional loading to assist universities who provide services in regional areas. The Government will also provide $15 million over four years for the establishment and maintenance of up to eight community-owned, regional study hubs across Australia.
(1) In respect of the 'regional loading' under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme (CGS), (a) how is it determined—is it based on the number of students enrolled in units/classes on the regional campus, and (b) is there a requirement for a unit/class to be delivered in person on the regional campus or can it be delivered via distance education?(2) Can the Minister provide a list of the campuses that receive the regional loading, including the sum (a) received by each campus, and (b) equal to 7.5 per cent of the campuses' CGS funding?(3) What modelling has been completed on the expected impact of withholding 7.5 per cent of CGS funding from regional university campuses, and will the Minister provide a copy?
(1) Under subsection 33-1(1) (b) (i) of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA), the amount of regional loading payable to a provider is specified in theCommonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines 2012 (CGS Guidelines). The eligibility requirements and the formula used to calculate regional loading are set out in Chapter 4 of the CGS Guidelines.
A campus is eligible for regional loading if:
(i) it meets the definition of a rural and remote campus based on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Structure as specified in the CGS Guidelines (varying levels of remoteness loading apply depending on the remoteness category)
(ii) it has over the past three years had an average student load of at least 50 internal1 and multi-modal2 Commonwealth supported students (measured as equivalent full-time student load (EFTSL)).
The formula for calculating regional loading for an eligible campus has two components.
1. The first component is based on the EFTSL of the internal and multi-modal Commonwealth supported student load of each of a provider's eligible campuses. The regional loading for the first component of the formula is calculated by multiplying the average student load of a higher education provider's internal and multi-modal Commonwealth supported student load for each eligible campus by the remoteness loading for the physical location of the eligible campus.
2. The second component is based on the provider's external3 Commonwealth supported student load. The regional loading for the second component of the formula for a higher education provider is calculated by multiplying 50 per cent of the average student load of a provider's external Commonwealth supported student load by the remoteness loading for the provider's headquarters campus.
The total amount of regional loading available to all eligible higher education providers in each year is fixed. The amount of regional loading paid to eligible higher education providers each year is a proportion of the total pool based on the regional loading calculation for each provider's eligible campus(es).
1 Internal means a mode of attendance for a unit of study whereby the student must attend classes at the provider's facilities on a regular basis.
2 Multi-modal means a mode of attendance for a unit of study that is undertaken partially in an internal mode of attendance and partially in an external mode.
3 External means a mode of attendance for a unit of study whereby the provider delivers the course materials to the student and the student is not required to attend classes on campus on a regular basis.
(2) The list of campuses that received regional loading in 2017 is at Attachment A. Under the Australian Government's proposed higher education reforms, the 7.5 per cent performance funding would not extend to regional loading and has not been included in the table.
(3) CGS funding is distributed to universities, not campuses. It is a matter for each university to determine how it will use the funding across its various locations.
The Government has announced that it will consult on the design of the performance contingent formula for CGS, taking into account a range of factors including the position of regional institutions. As consultations are still ongoing, and a final formula has not been developed, no modelling is available on the impact of performance contingent funding on individual universities. Further, as the intention of performance contingent funding is to drive institutional behaviour it will not be possible to accurately model institutional responses.
In respect of the Higher Education Reform Package, have the proposed performance measures been developed in consultation with universities; if so, what was the process for determining these performance measures?
As announced in May, the Australian Government is committed to developing performance contingent funding for the Commonwealth Grant Scheme (CGS), subject to the passage of legislation and in consultation with universities and other stakeholders.
The Government will establish an expert panel to advise on the design of the formula that is proposed to be introduced from 2019. The panel's membership will reflect the views of all stakeholders, including experts in regional higher education.
Guided by the expert panel, the Government expects to release an options paper for public comment with, subject to the passage of legislation, the formula for performance contingent funding being finalised by mid-2018 to give institutions certainty.
Under the Higher Education Reform Package, will (a) an expansion of places in eligible sub-bachelor programs be aligned with the needs of students in regional areas, and (b) students in regional areas have continued access to the innovative sub-bachelor and dual enrolment programs now offered through La Trobe University and other regional higher education providers?
a) The expansion of the demand driven funding system to approved sub-bachelor courses at public universities will provide regional universities with greater flexibility to determine their course offerings and student numbers in response to student and industry demand.
Universities are currently limited to offering the number of sub‑bachelor places decided by an inefficient central allocation. Regional universities have called for additional sub-bachelor places to allow them to support their student cohorts. The Regional Universities Network (RUN) and three regionally headquartered universities (Central Queensland University, Charles Sturt University, University of Southern Queensland) expressed support for the expansion of the demand driven system to sub‑bachelor courses in their submissions to the Senate Inquiry into the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017. La Trobe University also expressed support for the expansion of the demand driven system to sub-bachelor courses in its submission to the Senate Inquiry.
b) The new arrangements for sub-bachelor courses will not place restrictions on universities partnering with TAFEs and other tertiary education providers to offer innovative courses.
How will the introduction of Regional Study Hubs under the Higher Education Reform Package address (a) declining demand for tertiary education from regional students impacted by increased student contributions and a lower threshold for repayments, and (b) the higher costs of delivering tertiary education in regional areas in order to stop the move by regional students to the city?
Evidence shows modest increases in student contributions are not a barrier to accessing higher education as students do not need to pay any upfront fees. Eligible students can continue to defer payment of their fees through the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP).
While it has been proposed the minimum threshold be reduced, it will remain well above most social security thresholds and the minimum wage (currently around $35,000 for a full‑time worker), maintaining the principle that graduates should only repay their debts when they start receiving a reasonable wage.
The proposition that these changes will not discourage students from undertaking higher education is supported by Professor Bruce Chapman who designed HELP, who said: 'The evidence is now overwhelming that changes to the level of the charge, or other aspects of Higher Education Contribution Scheme – Higher Education Loan Program (HECS-HELP), such as the first threshold of repayment, have no discernible effects on student behaviour or choices' (College of Business and Economics (CBE) Blogisphere, May 2017).
Regional study hubs will provide infrastructure such as study spaces, video conferencing, computing facilities and internet access as well as pastoral and academic support for students studying via distance at partner universities. This will ensure students in regional areas can access universities in a supported environment, without having to leave their regions.
The Australian Government acknowledges that establishing full university campuses in some smaller regional centres is not always economically viable. By providing a contribution to the establishment and operation of Regional Study Hubs, the Government will encourage communities, higher education providers and state and local governments to investigate innovative ways to ensure students in regional areas receive the support they need to complete their higher education qualifications.
The Government will also continue to provide around $285 million over four years in regional loading to assist universities who provide services in regional areas in recognition of the additional costs of delivery in these areas.
What is the status of the bid for a new regionally based medical school, the Murray Darling Medical School, by Charles Sturt University and La Trobe University?
The Australian Government is currently reviewing the distribution of medical schools, medical school places and training in Australia.
The Department of Education and Training and the Department of Health are jointly assessing relevant policies, programs and evidence, and consulting with key stakeholders to inform advice to Government.
The Government will be in a position to further consider Charles Sturt and La Trobe universities' proposal for a Murray Darling Medical School in light of the evidence provided by the national assessment process.
(1) What is the funding allocation over the forward estimates for the National Climate Change Adaptation Facility (NCCAF).(2) Will there be ongoing funding for the NCCAF's online platform CoastAdapt.
The Government has announced a $550,000 (GST exclusive) investment in 2017-18 to establish a new partnership between the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, the CSIRO and the Department of the Environment and Energy. Of this, funding of $300,000 (GST exclusive) will be provided to the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
The funding will ensure CoastAdapt continues to be a source of information and guidance for decision-makers during 2017-18. A priority for the Partnership is to consider options for a sustainable funding model for CoastAdapt.
(1) What is the definition of the 'family home' under the Age Pension assets test?(2) Is the total value of the family home excluded as part of the assets test?(3) What analysis has the Government done on options to change the assets test structure to include the family home?(4) Are there any plans to review or change the pension assets test treatment of the family home? If so, what is the timeframe for this review or change?
(1) The principal home is generally the home in which the single age pensioner or couple lives for the greatest amount of time each year. The principal home includes an area of adjacent land on the same title document that meets the "private land use test". The maximum amount of land on the same title as the principal home that can be exempted under the "private land use test" is two hectares. To meet the private land use test the area of land must be used primarily for private and domestic purposes. There is an "extended land use" concession that allows all the land on the same title as the principal home to be exempt from the assets test. To qualify for this, the pensioner must have a long-term (20 year) continuous attachment to their principal home and adjacent land on the same title, and they must be making effective use of productive land to generate an income taking their capacity to do so into account.
(2) Yes. The total value of the principal home, including allowable adjacent land, is exempt from the assets test as long as it is used primarily for private and domestic purposes. Where the "extended land use" concession applies, all the land on the same title as the principal home is exempt from the assets test.
(3) Nil.
(4) No.
(1) How does the Age Pension assets test take into account disparity in house/land value between Australia's capital cities and regional/rural Australia (i.e. a 'family home' valued at $2 million in Melbourne or Sydney as compared with a similar sized home worth $200,000 in rural Australia)?(2) How does the asset test account for pensioners in regional Australia who are not able to obtain reverse mortgages or sell their homes/land in order to downsize and use equity as disposable income?
(1) Social security law provides for the exemption of the principal home from the assets test, regardless of value and where it is located.
(2) The same rules apply to all pensioners whether in regional Australia or Australia's capital cities.
There are special hardship provisions that may assist pensioners who have assets that they cannot sell, cannot be reasonably expected to sell or are in the process of selling. The hardship provisions may mean that pensioners who are in severe financial hardship are able to have certain assets disregarded when calculating their pension rate.
Also, people who receive a reduced rate of pension and own real estate in Australia may be able to obtain additional income through the Pension Loans Scheme. The Pension Loans Scheme is available through Centrelink to part-rate pensioners and some self-funded retirees who own real estate. Under this scheme, a person who is of Age Pension age, or the partner of someone who is, may be able to obtain a loan that will bring their fortnightly payment up to the maximum pension rate. Repayments can be made at any time or the debt can be left, including the accrued interest, to be recovered from the person's estate. The loan is secured against the value of any real estate they own.
(1) How many regional Australians of Age Pension age have been living on properties greater than two hectares for less than 20 years?(2) How many rural and regional pensioners will lose or have their pension reduced under the Extended Land Use Test because their land is over two hectares and they have not lived on that land for at least 20 years?(3) What is the policy basis for the 20 year rule under the 'Land over two hectares rule'?(4) Has the Government considered reducing the 20 year time frame and setting a value based on the previous/traditional use of the parcel of land, the productive potential of this land and the actual or rateable value of this land?
(1) As at 11 August 2017, there were 12,425 Australians of Age Pension age living on properties greater than two hectares for less than 20 years who are in receipt of an income support payment.
The Department of Human Services does not classify home properties of income support recipients under categories such as 'regional' or 'rural' as these categories are not mandated or defined in the Social Security Act 1991.
(2) The Department of Human Services is not able to determine the number of pensioners who will lose or have their pension reduced in the future because they are not eligible for the Extended Land Use Test. The Extended Land Use Test can be applied when a person claims for an eligible payment or when they apply for and meet the eligibility requirements.
(3) The 20 year rule is an element of a concession that extends the exemption of the principal home and allowable adjacent land (two hectares) to encompass all land on the same title as the principal home.
To qualify for this concessional treatment of land, the pensioner must have a long-term (20 year) continuous attachment to their principal home and adjacent land on the same title, and they must be making effective use of productive land to generate an income taking their capacity to do so into account.
The 20 year rule recognises that older Australians living in rural and rural residential areas should not be forced to move from their principal home, where they have lived for a long period of time, to gain an adequate retirement income.
(4) The Government continuously reviews policy settings to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the community for well-targeted income support. There are no current plans to change the Extended Land Use Test criteria.
(1) How does the Age Pension assets test account for the current planning laws in Victoria, where properties zoned as Farm Land under 40 hectares in area cannot be subdivided?(2) Is there special consideration for Victorian pensioners who do not meet the criteria under the 'Land over two hectares rule' but cannot split their land for sale to have this extra land counted as an asset under the assets test?(3) What methods are used to value extra land that has only limited or no productive capacity and cannot be subdivided for sale?(4) Does the assets test recognise the extra costs of maintaining rural property and the need for specialist equipment, such as a ride on mower? If so, how?
(1) The assessment of land in excess of the allowable adjacent land (two hectares), applies regardless of its location, size and whether it is productive or non-productive or capable of being sub‑divided.
There is a concession in the assets test for the exemption of the principal home and allowable adjacent land to be extended to encompass all land on the same title as the home (the extended land use test). To qualify for this concession, the pensioner must have a long‑term (20 year) continuous attachment to their principal home and adjacent land on the same title.
Local council laws relating to the subdivision of rural land is a State or Local Council matter.
(2) See answer to Question (1) above.(3) Assets are assessed at their net market value. The net market value is the amount the owner could expect to receive if the asset was sold on the open market less any allowable charges or encumbrances and would take into account the productive capacity of the land.
(4) The extra costs of maintaining rural properties are reflected by assessing assets at their net market value which would take into account costs associated with maintaining an asset. The assets test also has generous free areas below which a person's rate of payment is not affected. Currently these free areas are:
(1) Is special consideration or discretion under the Age Pension assets test given to assist older Australians who unwittingly made the mistake of releasing some of their accumulated capital so they can enjoy a comfortable retirement?(2) What appeal options are available to older Australians, who, having sold their metropolitan homes and moved to lifestyle blocks in regional Australia, find that they then lose access to the pension under the assets test?
(1) All assets are assessed under the means test except for exempt assets such as a person's principal home.
The pension assets test allows pensioners to hold a certain amount of assessable assets before their rate of payment is affected by the assets tests. These amounts are known as the free areas.
The pension assets test provides different free areas based on whether single or partnered and home ownership. The value of a pensioner's assessable assets above the assets test free area currently reduces their pension payment by $3 per fortnight ($78 a year) for every $1,000 in assets. The current assets test free areas are $253,750 for a single home owner, $456,750 for a single non-home owner, $380,500 for home owner couples (combined), and $583,500 for non-home owner couples (combined).
It is important to note that while the excess funds realized from the sale of a pensioner's former home may impact their pensions, they would generally be better off in terms of their total income.
The design of the pension means test free areas and taper rates means a pensioner with additional funds remaining after downsizing will usually have a higher total income (pension plus private income) than before the move.
If a pensioner needs help with understanding the financial side of moving house, Centrelink can help. Centrelink's Financial Information Service is a free and confidential information service which offers expert information to help people make informed decisions about investment and financial issues.
Financial Information Service officers are specially trained to provide information on financial issues and the operation of the social security income and assets tests. A person can make an appointment with a Financial Information Service officer by phoning Centrelink on 13 2300 for the cost of a local call (calls made from mobile phones may incur additional costs).
(2) Centrelink applies the social security legislation to a person's individual circumstances. If a person disagrees with a decision by Centrelink, they have review and appeal rights, including review by Centrelink and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These steps are free of charge.
For more information about review and appeal rights or for forms to request a review of a decision, a person can go to www.humanservices.gov.au, phone 13 2300 or visit a Centrelink Office.
(1) Has his department or the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) undertaken any modelling that takes into account (a) the current rules in the Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources 2012, and (b) current storage capacity on the Barwon-Darling; if so, can he provide a copy.
(2) Has his department or the MDBA undertaken an audit that establishes the number and holding capacity of water storages on the Barwon-Darling.
(1) As part of the modelling for the Northern Basin Review (NBR), the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) completed a model scenario representing the 2012 Barwon–Darling Water Sharing Plan. A summary of the results of this model scenario can be found in section 2 of the NBR hydrologic modelling report at www.mdba.gov.au/publications/mdba-reports/hydrological-modelling-northern-basin-full-report.
As required by the Basin Plan (Schedule 3), this is a baseline diversion limit (BDL) model that represents water sharing arrangements (including private storage capacity) as at 30 June 2009. Note the basis of current storage capacity in the model was provided by the NSW Department of Primary Industry.
On 6 October 2017 the Government tabled in the Senate its response to Senate Order 420 for the production of documents which included draft and final reports relating to modelling undertaken by the MDBA for the Barwon Darling Unregulated River since 1 January 2014.
(2) The MDBA and the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources have not undertaken an audit that establishes the number and holding capacity of private water storages on the Barwon–Darling.
(1) Is independent auditing conducted in respect of the water accounting standards used by his department and the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA); if not, why not.
(2) Are independent reviews conducted of the MDBA's progress; if so, how often are they conducted; if not, why not.
(3) How will the Government guarantee that all water meters meet the necessary standards and are tamper proof before water resource plans can be accredited under the Water Act 2007 .
(4) For infrastructure water efficiency measures relating to the 450 gigalitre (long term average annual yield), what amount of water has been recovered, and is planned to be recovered.
(5) In respect of constraints relaxation, will his department and/or the MDBA require action by the states to achieve 111,000 gigalitres per day passing flow capacity at the South Australian border as per the MDBA Constraints Management Strategy, despite NSW and Victoria submitting business cases that do not currently meet these targets (and which only total 78,000 gigalitres per day).
(1) The water accounting undertaken by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is prescribed in:
Independent auditing for compliance with the Cap is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Schedule E of the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement.
The MDBA conducts an annual quality assurance process for water use data provided by Basin states under section 71 of the Water Act 2007. The MDBA also has powers to undertake audits in relation to apparent non-compliance with the SDLs when they commence.
(2) Yes. The Productivity Commission is required to conduct an inquiry into the effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan and the state water resource plans by 31 December 2018. This involves all entities implementing the Basin Plan including the MDBA, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and Basin state governments. The Productivity Commission must perform subsequent inquiries every five years after the completion of the first inquiry.
(3) The MDBA assesses Water Resource Plans (WRP) for consistency with Basin Plan requirements before making a recommendation to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources on whether a WRP should be accredited. Chapter 10 of the Basin Plan includes requirements for measuring and monitoring to ensure there is transparency about how much water take is measured, and ensure that current levels and standards of measurement are maintained, and improved where practicable.
(4) As at 12 August 2017, 911.5 ML of entitlements (820.4 ML Long term average annual yield) has been contracted under Efficiency Measures. No entitlements have been transferred to the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. At the June 2017 COAG meeting, Murray–Darling Basin First Ministers confirmed their commitment to the Basin Plan and welcomed the COAG plan for delivering the Basin Plan package, developed by the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
(5) The proposed constraint relaxation project proposed by South Australia for the River Murray in South Australia is 80 000 ML/day. This constraint relaxation is consistent with those proposed by NSW and Victoria for the Murrumbidgee, Goulburn, lower Darling and River Murray.
The Basin states will be responsible for the delivery of these constraint relaxation projects, which the Basin states have indicated will be based on strong community engagement and support for the proposals.
(1) Since 7 September 2013, (a) what proportion of Commonwealth arts program funding has been spent or committed by the (i) department, and (ii) Australia Council for the Arts, across all programs in Queensland, and (b) by program, what is the breakdown of this funding.
(2) Has any funding been provided for capital expenditure for any arts organisations in Queensland since 7 September 2013; if so, (a) what sum, and (b) to which organisations.
(1) To answer this question for the programs administered by either the Department or the Australia Council would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.
Details of the Department's grant commitments across programs for all states are published on the Department of Communications and the Arts website – refer to the links below:
www.communications.gov.au/documents/grant-reporting-2017-18-arts-division
www.communications.gov.au/documents/grant-reporting-2016-17-arts-division
www.communications.gov.au/documents/grant-reporting--arts-division--1july2014-to-30june2016
www.communications.gov.au/documents/grant-reporting--arts-division--1july2011-to-30june2014
Details of the Australia Council's grant commitments are published on the Australia Council website – refer to the link below:
www.online.australiacouncil.gov.au/ords/GrantsList
(2) Details about capital expenditure are not captured separately in the Department's financial management system. As such, the Department is not in a position to readily provide the information requested. To attempt to provide this level of detail would be an unreasonable diversion of the Department's resources.
No direct funding for capital expenditure was provided to any arts organisation in Queensland by the Australia Council during this period as it is outside the scope of the Australia Council's support.
On how many occasions since 7 September 2013 has the Minister for the Arts met with the Queensland Theatre Company?
Minister Fifield became the Minister for the Arts in September 2015. Since that time he has met with the Queensland Theatre Company on 19 August 2016, 21 April 2017 and 21 September 2017.
In respect of asylum seekers whose applications for the Protection visa (subclass 866), Temporary Protection visa (subclass 785) or Safe Haven Enterprise visa (subclass 790) have been unsuccessful, (a) what support is provided to assist asylum seekers to return to their country of origin or permanent residence, and (b) does the department keep track or follow up on the treatment asylum seekers receive after they return to their country of origin or permanent residence; if so, how many asylum seekers who have returned to their country of origin or permanent residence have been imprisoned or subsequently died as a result of the persecution they had sought to escape.
a) The International Organization for Migration provides Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration assistance services under contract to the Australian Government.
International Organization for Migration provides confidential and impartial migration information and return counselling.
b) For eligible persons, International Organization for Migration provides voluntary access to reintegration programme activities which may include income support and periodic observation of general health and well-being for up to 12 months.
Can he detail any plans by the Government to include Spinal Muscular Atrophy on the list of conditions generally tested for through newborn bloodspot screening.
Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs are the responsibility of the states and territories, and programs vary slightly between jurisdictions.
In 2016 the Standing Committee on Screening started developing a new NBS National Policy Framework (the Framework) to assist state and territory governments to determine which conditions should be screened for in their NBS programs. The Framework was approved by the Community Care and Population Health Principal Committee on 24 August 2017 and will be submitted to the Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council for endorsement. Once endorsed, the Framework will provide state and territory governments with guidance on considering applications for new tests for rare diseases.
While the Framework will provide advice and recommendations for jurisdictions to make informed decisions for their NBS programs, it will remain the prerogative of individual jurisdictions to determine which conditions should be screened for by their NBS program.
The Australian Government also provides support for children affected by Spinal Muscular Atrophy through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, National Health and Medical Research Council grants, and raising awareness of rare conditions among general practitioners and other health professionals. The Therapeutic Goods Association is also considering two applications for new treatments for Spinal Muscular Atrophy, while the Department of Health is reviewing current health services and systems to identify further opportunities to assist families affected by rare conditions such as Spinal Muscular Atrophy.
Can he detail plans for any ongoing work by the Government to develop a national framework for newborn bloodspot screening.
Newborn bloodspot screening (NBS) programs are the responsibility of the states and territories, and programs vary slightly between jurisdictions.
The NBS National Policy Framework (the Framework) was developed to assist state and territory governments to determine which conditions should be screened for in their NBS programs. The project was led by the Standing Committee on Screening, which advises the Community Care and Population Health Principal Committee (CCPHPC) of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council (AHMAC) on national population based screening activities.
The Framework was approved by the CCPHPC on 24 August 2017 and will be submitted to AHMAC for endorsement. Once endorsed, the Framework will provide state and territory governments with guidance on considering applications for new tests for rare diseases.
While the Framework will provide advice and recommendations for jurisdictions to make informed decisions for their NBS programs, it will remain the prerogative of individual jurisdictions to determine which conditions should be screened for by their NBS program.
The Australian Government also provides support for children affected by rare conditions identified through newborn bloodspot screening, through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, National Health and Medical Research Council grants, and raising awareness of rare conditions among general practitioners and other health professionals.
(1) Can the Minister detail how many low socio-economic status schools (with an SES score of lower than 800) participate in the Parliament and Civics Education Rebate (PACER) program.(2) Will the Minister grant students in schools that participate in the PACER program on Kangaroo Island extra allowances (similar to those granted to Tasmanian students) to cover the minimum $80 additional expense to travel to the mainland.
(1) The Parliament and Civics Education Rebate (PACER) is available to all schools across Australia which meet the criteria and eligibility requirements. Information on school socioeconomic status is not one of the criteria, and is not collected.
(2) The Department of Education and Training is currently undertaking a review of the PACER program which is considering the equitable recognition of travel costs for schools in locations such as Kangaroo Island.
In respect of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, will the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) be able to accommodate Australians (a) living in regional, rural and remote communities who collect their mail from a central pick up point and therefore do not have a recognised residential address for delivery, (b) who are currently travelling or living overseas and therefore do not have access to their residential mail service, and (c) who will be in hospitals or other facilities for an extended period of time; if so, will the ABS outline measures for all of the aforementioned Australians so that they are able to cast their vote.
The Minister for Finance in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey has provided the following response.
Whilst it is expected that nearly all eligible people in Australia will be able to participate using the postal service, the ABS will implement a number of strategies to ensure all eligible Australians have the opportunity to respond to the survey.
(a) The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey package will be posted to an eligible Australian's address within Australia including: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, PO boxes, and nominated identified mailing addresses (shelters, hotels, workers camps, AusPost offices). In cases where people don't have a street address, mail will be held for collection at their local mail agent in the same way as they receive and collect any other mail.
In addition to delivering survey materials by post, the ABS will promote locations in every capital city, and some regional and remote locations, where eligible persons who cannot receive their materials by post can collect and/or return survey materials from or to an ABS officer. Locations, dates and times for where forms can be picked up will be promoted on the ABS website and communicated to relevant stakeholder groups.
(b) There are multiple options for participation in the survey for eligible Australians who are overseas. People who have an overseas postal address on the Electoral Roll will be posted a letter containing a Secure Access Code that allows them to complete the survey online or by phone. Paper forms will not be posted overseas for this survey.
Eligible Australians overseas who do not have an overseas postal address on the Electoral Roll will be able to request a Secure Access Code from the ABS through the Information Line or the ABS website from 25 September to 20 October 2017 and complete the survey online or by phone.
Australians who are temporarily overseas may be able to complete their survey form in Australia before they leave or after they return during the survey period. Survey forms will be delivered by post by 25 September 2017 and need to be received at the ABS address by 7 November 2017, allowing a reasonable period for completing and posting back the paper form.
Eligible Australians that are overseas for this entire period and for whom the above options will not work could also ask a trusted person to complete it based on their instruction and return it to the ABS.
The ABS has worked closely with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to ensure that information is available to Australians who are overseas about how to participate in the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. Information has been posted and repeatedly updated on the DFAT Smart Traveller websites for Australians overseas and the ABS website. The ABS has also consulted with and provided information to Department of Defence and, Australian Federal Police, DFAT, AusTrade and Department of Immigration and Border Protection to ensure Australian personnel serving overseas are able to participate and have information available on how to participate. Search and digital advertising has also been served in overseas markets to reach Australians overseas. Future phases of advertising will continue to be placed to reach Australians overseas. The ABS is also aware of a number of other organisations who have been promoting ABS messages about how Australians overseas can participate.
(c) Australian Marriage Law Survey Forms will be sent by post to the address on the Commonwealth Electoral Roll which may include the address of an aged care or nursing facility. Where a person is a long term resident of a hospital and they have listed the hospital as their electoral address, a survey form will be sent to that address. Otherwise the survey form will go to their home address and they can use a trusted person such as a family member to assist them to complete the survey form, or contact the ABS to have a new form delivered to the hospital address. There are multiple options for residents of aged care and other facilities to participate in the survey including; completing the survey independently through the postal service, having their mail redirected to their facility, by requesting the assistance of someone they trust, or through a paperless response option. The ABS has created specific information for aged care and nursing home providers which is available on the ABS website.
To ask the Treasurer—(1) How will the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) assist Australians with accessibility issues in completing the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.(2) In what languages will the survey be available.(3) Will the ABS provide 'paperless' participation for people who cannot access or fill in a paper survey; if so, (a) will it take the form of SMS, telephone, online or some other means, and (b) which contractors will the ABS use to assist with this.
The Minister for Finance in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey has provided the following response.
(1) The ABS has significant experience working with organisations that represent people with a disability to ensure that the Census of Population and Housing, and ABS surveys, are accessible to everyone in the community. In preparation for this survey, the ABS is consulting with a range stakeholders, including the National Disability Insurance Agency, those who represent people with a disability and those in residential aged care, to ensure that the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey is accessible, and that as many eligible Australians as possible can participate. These groups include: Council of the Ageing; Aged Care Services Australia; Leading Aged Services Australia; Aged Care Guild;Vision Australia; Council to Homeless Persons; People With a Disability; and Blind Citizens Australia
In consultation with Vision Australia, Blind Citizens Australia, and People With a Disability, the ABS has developed an inclusion strategy for people who are blind, have low vision or have a disability.
Where an eligible Australian has a disability that may make the completion of the postal survey form more difficult, they will be able to request a Secure Access Code from the ABS through the Information Line or the ABS website from 25 September to 20 October 2017 and then complete the survey online, via the automated telephony service or via a call centre.
All survey material and the ABS website has been designed to maximise accessibility for people with disabilities. The Information Line (and also via the National Relay Service) is also available to provide assistance.
(2) The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey forms will be printed in English which is the case for Census forms and is standard ABS practice. The instructions will include details of the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS) helpline to assist people with translations including. Instructions on how to contact TIS is in 15 languages. TIS provides translators in over 160 different languages.
Advertising will be translated in up to 38 languages, including 25 culturally and linguistically diverse communities comprising of 31 languages, and seven Indigenous Australian languages and booked to run on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander owned and operated media.
(3) In limited circumstances, a person will be able to respond to the survey through a paperless method. This is available for eligible Australians who: are overseas throughout the collection period; have blindness, low vision or other disability that makes the paper form a more difficult option; or are in a remote or other location throughout the collection period where they can not reasonably access a form by post or pick up a form.
Eligible Australians in these categories will be able to request a Secure Access Code from the ABS through the Information Line or the ABS website from 25 September to 20 October 2017.
The Secure Access Code is then used to provide an anonymous survey response through an automated telephony service, a secure online form or a call centre.
The ABS's procurement processes related to the paperless methods are currently underway and will be published on AusTender when completed.
In respect of Centrelink’s processing of age pension applications since 2 July 2016, (a) what is the average processing time, (b) how many Centrelink customers in the electoral division of Richmond have waited past their eligibility date to receive their pension, (c) have staff numbers at Centrelink offices in the electoral division of Richmond been maintained, (d) are position vacancies caused by staff resignations filled; if not, why not, and (e) what training is provided to Centrelink staff to assess and process applications.
a) The Department of Human Services (the Department) aims to process 80 per cent of Age Pension claims within 49 days. Where all of the required information is provided by the customer this is generally met. At times, some claims will take longer than 49 days due to information being incomplete or requiring additional work due to the complex financial arrangements or residency arrangements of the claimant.
b) The Department does not record postcode or electoral division data in a way that supports an immediate response to this question. Provision of accurate and reliable data would require an unreasonable diversion of Departmental resources. Where a claimant has lodged their claim prior to their date of eligibility and had to wait beyond that date for their claim to be processed, their payment is backdated to the date of eligibility.
c) Staff numbers in the electoral district of Richmond are managed in line with local business needs. In addition, age pension applications are managed through the national network.
d) Please refer to answer c).
e) Training provided to staff is inclusive of all technical components required to assess and process applications. This includes eligibility requirements, related payment and services to assist in an assessment, claim coding, and use of the system to process the applications. Staff are also provided with the necessary tools and support post training to consolidate their skills in assessing and processing applications.
(1) Can he provide an update on the evaluation of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring product currently being undertaken by his department to consider its suitability for subsidisation under the National Diabetes Services Scheme, including the timeline for completion of the evaluation.
(2) Can he detail any current or future plans to subsidise the purchase of sharps containers used for the disposal of needles from lancets and required for management of diabetes, specifically for patients with a prescription for lancets to assist in their treatment for diabetes.
(1) My department is conducting a cost-effectiveness evaluation of the FreeStyle Libre Flash Glucose Monitoring System.
The evaluation is currently underway and is expected to be finalised before the end of this year.
(2) The National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS) provides access to subsidised consumable products to assist in the self-management of diabetes. These consumable products include syringes and needles, blood glucose test strips, urine ketone test strips and insulin pump consumables. In 2016/17 the Government spent $243.5 million on the NDSS.
In addition, from 1 April 2017 the Australian Government provides fully subsidised access to continuous glucose monitoring products to eligible children and young people aged under 21 years with type 1 diabetes through the NDSS.
Sharps containers for the disposal of needles and lancets are not subsidised under the NDSS and there are currently no plans to do so.