The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Equal Pay Standard Bill 2018
That this bill be now read a second time.
National Integrity Commission Bill 2018
That this bill be now read a second time.
That this House:
(1) notes that 23 November 2018 is White Ribbon Day (WRD) followed by the International
Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on 25 November;
(2) recognises that WRD aims to prevent violence against women by increasing public awareness and challenging attitudes and behaviours that allow gendered violence to continue;
(3) supports the United Nations UNiTE to End Violence against Women and the 16 days of activism campaigns which are held internationally from 25 November to 10 December each year;
(4) understands that:
(a) this year, as of 15 October 2018, 55 women have been killed by violence in Australia;
(b) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(c) each week on average one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(d) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
(5) acknowledges the high economic cost of violence against women, which is estimated to cost the Australian economy $21 billion a year; and
(6) asks all Members to show their support for the principles of WRD.
(b) one in three women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence perpetrated by someone known to them;
(c) each week on average one woman is killed by a current or former partner; and
(d) domestic and family violence is the principle cause of homelessness for women and their children;
•Adoption and implementation of multi-sectoral national plans of action that emphasize prevention and are adequately resourced.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) on Remembrance Day on 11 November 2018, we commemorated the Centenary of the First World War Armistice;
(b) from a population of less than five million, more than 400,000 Australians enlisted to serve, and of these, more than 150,000 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner and more than 60,000 made the ultimate sacrifice giving their lives for their country; and
(c) this was an enormous toll for a young nation like Australia with nearly every family and community across the country having experienced a loss of some kind; and
(2) acknowledges:
(a) the service and sacrifice of Australia's current and former serving men and women;
(b) the unwavering commitment of the families who support our veterans on the home front; and
(c) and thanks all current and former defence personnel for their service.
Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
Customs Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at the Border) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Australian Consumer Law Review) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Gift Cards) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Lower Taxes for Small and Medium Businesses) Bill 2018
Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2018
The real danger of a bipartisan agreement is that it could become an exit ramp from the more robust, better-informed and ongoing discussion about defence which is what the national interest deserves.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Every State and Territory Gets Their Fair Share of GST) Bill 2018
Aviation Transport Security Amendment Bill 2018
Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2018
National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2018
Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 2) Bill 2018
Excise Tariff Amendment (Collecting Tobacco Duties at Manufacture) Bill 2018
Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Sector Regulation) Bill 2018
My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018
That the amendments be agreed to.
Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017
Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2018
The Senate transmits to the House of Representatives the following resolution which was agreed to by the Senate this day:
That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to establish a national anti-corruption commission.
The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in this resolution.
That the resolution of the Senate be agreed to.
When this confidence and trust is diminished, pessimism, divisiveness and conflict increase; and social cohesiveness is harmed.
Existing federal integrity agencies lack the necessary jurisdiction, powers and know-how to investigate properly the impartiality and bona-fides of decisions made by, and conduct of, the federal government and public sector.
Confidence and trust in government and public institutions is at an all-time low. When this confidence and trust is diminished, pessimism, divisiveness and conflict increase; and social cohesiveness is harmed. As a result, the economy and the welfare of all Australians suffers. Ultimately, as international experience has shown, democracy itself is threatened and may be irreparably damaged. Governments ignore at their peril demands by citizens to combat corruption with vigor.
A major cause of the current deterioration in trust is the suspicion that corruption permeates many governmental decisions and actions. Corruption, broadly understood in this context, occurs when those in public office place private interests over the public good. The avoidance of corruption is an essential organising principle of our representative democracy.
Secrecy is at the core of corrupt conduct. Electronic communications and advanced developments in IT provide formidable means of concealing misconduct, which is difficult and expensive to combat. Those involved in large-scale corruption are usually well-organised, experienced, astute and wealthy. A well-funded and properly resourced national anti-corruption agency, with overall jurisdiction to investigate all public decisions and conduct, and with appropriate powers and protections, is needed to combat them. The price of freedom, and freedom includes living in a society free from corruption, is eternal vigilance.
… … …
The National Integrity Committee has outlined a benchmark for designing a model integrity commission. It must have a broad jurisdiction and strong investigative powers, including public hearings, in order to adequately investigate and expose corruption and misconduct.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
The intention is that we won't reappoint into Division 1 … Over time there will no longer be a Division 1.
Our current understanding is the Australian Government will not make any new appointments of judges to the specialised Division 1 of the new court, meaning the quality of the family law justice system would reduce under this change. Australians may no longer have access to a court that specialises in family law.
Having more appeals heard by a single judge of the Federal Court will free up considerable judicial resources to help reduce delays in family law appeal matters and in first instance matters.
When I initially asked the question 'how do we measure complexity?', frankly I was expecting a detailed multifactor analysis weighted to produce measures of complexity based on a long list of salient criteria (of which estimated trial length would be just one).
That statements by indulgence in relation to Edward Carrington (Ted) Mack be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
That further statements in relation to the Bourke Street terror attack be permitted in the Federation Chamber.
Let us saddle up and go—
At the melting of the snow.
… it improves the current taxation situation faced by low income investors …
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Wentworth making a statement immediately and that the Member speak without limitation of time.
That the House take note of the report.
Western Australian farmers are embracing technology advances to improve efficiencies. However, they are finding it increasingly difficult to contend in a global marketplace without connectivity comparable to that of their international competitors.
This is especially the case in regional, rural and remote Australia where an access will be essential to overcome the tyranny of distance and provide unparalleled opportunities. Such steps are vital to drive the projected growth of the agriculture sector to $100 billion by 2030.
The 2017 Australian Digital Inclusion Index report ranks Queensland fifth for access across all states and territories and fifth for affordability, with our most digitally excluded Queenslanders being elderly people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, rural and low-income people and people with a disability.
… nbn undertakes an assessment of those premises mapped for satellite that are adjacent to fixed wireless services and reports on how many premises allocated to satellite are capable of receiving a fixed wireless service …
That the House take note of the report.
That the House take note of the report.
That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Bill 2018
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018
The reality is that by the time people reach the courts, stress, despair, anxiety, depression and other forms of mental illness are common, along with anger and frustration, and frequently a sense of powerlessness.
Australia's family court system today is under immense pressure but rushing through changes without proper consultation is not the answer.
We owe it to the people caught-up in the family law system not to give the most significant court changes since 1975 a mere cursory glance, or a simple tick-and-flick.
The Family Court of Australia and its specialist judges perform important work in difficult and complex family law cases, but the court has been under-resourced for many years. The ABA remains of the view that the court should not be dismantled after 40 years of operation without careful consideration of the value that maintaining a properly-resourced specialist family court would bring.
… the government should be condemned for going through what is clearly a sham consultation process. … You don't do this sort of thing on the run.
We owe it to the people caught-up in the family law system not to give the most significant court changes since 1975 a mere cursory glance, or a simple tick-and-flick
There should be no indecent haste to attempt to ram through the Parliament proposed legislation that should be carefully considered and assessed based on evidence.
… while overall delays in the Family Court were about 17 months from filing to hearing, some people have to wait up to three years to get their case to trial.
There are very vulnerable people caught up in the system and at the moment we are powerless to do a lot about it. … I feel as though the Government doesn't understand the effect this is having on families.
We owe it to the people caught-up in the family law system not to give the most significant court changes since 1975 a mere cursory glance, or a simple tick-and-flick.
… should not be dismantled after 40 years of operation without careful consideration of the value that maintaining a properly resourced specialist family court would bring.
Further investment in the courts and legal aid is still required to deliver the best outcomes for children and Australian families.
Chronic underfunding for more than a decade has led to a court system which continually struggles to meet the needs of the community.
The ABA remains of the view that any legislation to restructure Australia’s family law system requires close and careful examination by Parliament.
In our view, the proposed reforms are significantly flawed and the Bills will not achieve their intended objective.
… this would see a court well-versed in sensitive family law matters abolished in favour of a court which handles multiple areas of law. We submit that this would be to the detriment of families who will not have the benefit of the expertise the Family Court currently provides.
… the Bills will result in a loss of family law specialisation, diminishing the courts' capacity to understand the nature and dynamics of family violence, and respond in a way that is trauma-informed and ensures the safety of victim survivors. In particular, it is not clear whether new judges appointed to the new family law division or the family law appeal division would be required to have specialist family law and family violence expertise.
DVNSW is concerned that this will result in the loss of the current expertise and specialist features in the current family law system. Specialist knowledge of family law and family violence is critical in ensuring the safety of women and children experiencing domestic violence.
When we set it up the Family Court was provided with internal counseling and mediation services. It was meant to be a place where you would get your issues resolved without having to resort to litigation but all those services have been reduced and, as they say, privatised.
We owe it to the people caught-up in the family law system not to give the most significant court changes since 1975 a mere cursory glance or a simple tick-and-flick.
The Law Council is deeply concerned by the truncated three-week timeframe for the public to scrutinise the recently introduced court merger bills.
The two bills, if passed, will merge the current Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia into the new Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The bills signify the biggest changes to Australia’s justice system in decades.
On Thursday, the same day the bills were introduced in the lower house, the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee reduced the reporting deadline from 15 April 2019 to 26 November this year. The Committee also fixed a submission closing date of 14 September.
Law Council of Australia President, Morry Bailes, said the peak body already held significant concerns about the proposal to merge the courts, and a three-week deadline to scrutinise the bills would short-change a court system already at breaking point.
"We owe it to the people caught-up in the family law system not to give the most significant court changes since 1975 a mere cursory glance, or a simple tick-and-flick," Mr Bailes said.
"A reporting deadline in mid-April 2019 would allow the Senate to consider the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Family Law Review. The final report is due on 31 March 2019.
… the ABA remains of the view that any legislation to restructure Australia's family law system requires close and careful examination by Parliament.
The structure and implementation of any reform of the area can only be determined if all interested parties have access to and appropriate time to consider, the most up-to-date information available and particularly the PwC report which the Commonwealth Attorney-General has referred to as being the basis of the current proposals.
… put Australia in the forefront of family law reform and … ensure that other facilities and remedies provided in the Bill can have effective implementation.
Federal Circuit Court judge Joe Harman told his court at Parramatta, in Sydney's west, the number of judges had dropped from five to four, and at one point was down to "effectively two".
It is well known that the delays before this court and, in particular, this registry, are severe with great disadvantage, particularly in parenting proceedings, occasioned to parties who wait three years or more for a determination of their business.
Some part of that delay may well be connected with an absence of resources. Certainly, the number of judges in this registry depleted between 2014 and 2015. The registry, in 2014, was staffed by five judges. The registry now has four judges although having dropped, at one point, to effectively two judges.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Laundy ): took the chair at 10:30.
CASA only deals with the aviation aspects of the Wing operation with privacy, security and noise issues being outside of CASA's remit.
These war animals have demonstrated true valour and an enduring partnership with humans. The bond is unbreakable, their sacrifice great …
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) Brisbane's southside hosts a vibrant Vietnamese-Australian community; and
(b) Vietnamese migration is a successful case of multiculturalism at its finest and has strengthened the social fabric of Australian society;
(2) recognises that:
(a) Australia must continue to advocate for freedom and the respect of human rights for the people of Vietnam and for all people around the world;
(b) international human rights organisations such as Human Rights Watch, have become increasingly concerned about abuses to human rights in Vietnam;
(c) Vietnam's prisons currently hold at least 140 political prisoners; and
(d) during the first five months of 2018 alone, at least 26 rights activists and bloggers were put on trial, convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; and
(3) calls on the Australian Government to:
(a) exert pressure on the Vietnamese Government to allow thorough examination of claims of human rights abuses;
(b) seek the holding of those responsible for these abuses to account; and
(c) help protect vulnerable citizens from human rights abuses in Vietnam.
… in all foreign relations, we should have a clear understanding and articulation of our interests.
… … …
Our national interests are firmly grounded in our values – and we will always seek to protect them.
This includes defending and promoting democracy, free speech, the rule of law, and protection of rights, including freedom from intimidation.
That this House:
(1) recognises that the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS):
(a) is a cultural institution of international renown; and
(b) has been central to the development of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies;
(2) notes that on Monday, 15 October 2018 AIATSIS unveiled its Strategic Plan 2018-2023 in Parliament House;
(3) congratulates the dedicated team at AIATSIS for its ambitious strategic plan;
(4) commends the work of AIATSIS in helping to forge a national identity that embraces, celebrates and preserves the unique cultures of Australia's First Peoples; and
(5) encourages honourable Members to raise public awareness of the institute's collections and the great work being done by AIATSIS to assist and promote the study of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages and culture
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) a recent report into CEO remuneration found that the average total pay of ASX 100 CEOs rose by 9 per cent last year—4 times the pace of average wage growth;
(b) the median ASX 100 CEO earned more than $4 million, and the average pay for ASX 100 CEOs was 75 times the average pay of full time workers, meaning a CEO takes home in a single year what it would take the average worker nearly two careers to accrue;
(c) excessive remuneration was not always the norm, given in the late 1970s, the BHP CEO was earning only around 6 or 7 times what an average Australian worker took home; and
(d) there is widespread public concern about inequality, and in particular that CEO salaries are growing at an unfair rate and leaving workers behind;
(2) recognises that:
(a) large firms in the United States and the United Kingdom are required to report ratios between CEO pay and workers in their firms;
(b) excessive CEO pay makes firms less profitable than they should be, with experts noting that an excessive gap can hurt employee morale and reduce productivity;
(c) remuneration ratio transparency is not an affront, but rather a complement, to a market economy; and
(d) extending current market reporting requirements for public companies helps inform investors as they calculate risks and decide where to invest their money; and
(3) calls on the Government to support Labor's plan to implement reporting rules requiring large listed firms to publicly release the ratio of total CEO remuneration and median worker pay.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service was renamed as Open Arms: Veterans and Families Counselling Service, by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs on 19 October 2018 to coincide with the Invictus Games;
(b) veterans of the Vietnam War were the first to recognise the need for specialist counselling services for Australia’s returned service personnel—their lobbying resulted in the establishment of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service, or VVCS, in 1982;
(c) since its establishment, VVCS has assisted thousands of veterans and their families with mental health and relationship issues, as well as building resilience and wellbeing; and
(d) over the years, the focus of this service has expanded to include veterans of all conflicts, their families and other members of the veteran community and the new name recognises this broader focus; and
(2) acknowledges the significant legacy of Australia’s Vietnam veterans who have ensured that future generations of serving men and women will have access to specialised mental health and wellbeing support.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) there are approximately 1,500 new car dealers in Australia that operate 3,500 new vehicle outlets;
(b) 85 per cent of new car dealers are private or family owned businesses; and
(c) the Australian Automotive Dealer Association is the peak industry body exclusively representing franchised new car dealers in Australia;
(2) recognises that:
(a) the economic impact of the new vehicle retailing sector to Australia is significant, contributing $14.91 billion dollars to the national economy and employing almost 70,000 Australians;
(b) vehicle manufacturers in Australia are increasingly behaving in a way that makes it very challenging for new car dealers to run a viable business;
(c) relations between manufacturers and dealers is currently governed by the Franchising Code of Conduct; and
(d) this code has failed to protect dealers as it does not account for the highly technical nature of the automotive industry and the scale of both dealers and manufacturers relative to regular franchisees and franchisors; and
(3) calls on the Government to support Labor's plan to implement an industry-specific auto dealership code that will deliver clear ground rules for manufacturers and dealerships, including obligations under the Australian Consumer Law and consumer complaints, warranty and repair processes, dealership agreements and the ability to make variations to them, and termination notices.
Commercial arrangements between manufacturers and dealers can constrain and adversely influence the behaviour of dealers in responding to complaints.
We believe an industry specific code regulating behaviour between new car Dealers and offshore vehicle manufacturers is necessary to protect consumers, dealerships and their employees. Currently new car Dealers are locked into one-sided agreements with vehicle manufacturers which restrict our ability to run a profitable business and protect our consumers.
The power imbalance between vehicle manufacturers and car dealerships is a major issue that is consistently raised with us, in both our dispute support area and our policy work. Manufacturers continue to use their market power to constrain car retailers, which in turn disadvantages customers.
The Franchise Council of Australia has welcomed the announcement by the Federal Opposition that if elected it would introduce a separate automotive industry code of conduct.
There is a Power Imbalance in the Automotive Industry. [There is a] structural power imbalance between car Manufacturers (franchisors) and franchised new car Dealers (franchisees) [that] disadvantages both dealership businesses and consumers who purchase new vehicles from Dealers.
Many Dealers enjoy good relations with their respective Manufacturers and work in a mutually beneficial partnership, but there remain many instances where Dealers are subjected to treatment resembling a master/servant relationship.
That this House:
(1) notes that:
(a) the scientific evidence for both the existence of climate change and the anthropogenic factors that cause it is overwhelming and compelling and should no longer be held in doubt;
(b) climate change is projected to create serious risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security and economic growth and that action on climate change is of critical importance to future generations of Australians;
(c) the Australian Institute's report entitled Climate of the Nation 2018 found that 73 per cent of Australians are concerned about climate change, up from 66 per cent in 2017, and that only 11 per cent of Australians do not think that climate change is occurring;
(d) in March 2007, the then Opposition Leader, the Hon Kevin Rudd, stated that 'Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation.';
(e) in February 2010, the then Member for Wentworth, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull, stated that 'Climate change policy...is an exercise in risk management and no reasonable person could regard the risk as being so low that no action was warranted.';
(f) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2018 special report entitled Global Warming of 1.5°C concluded that human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels;
(g) that same report concludes with high confidence that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate;
(h) climate related risks are projected to substantially increase with global warming of 1.5°C and seriously increase with global warming of 2°C or higher; and
(i) serious Government action on climate change in Australia has badly stalled; and
(2) calls on the Government to:
(a) maintain its commitment to the Paris Agreement and its targets; and
(b) take:
(i) genuine and meaningful action to meet those targets; and
(ii) significantly greater action to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions, and as soon as possible.
In Australia, we emit less than 1.3 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.
About that.
If we were to reduce the world's emissions of carbon by 1.3 per cent, what impact would that make on the changing climate of the world?
Virtually nothing.
The study findings may seem counterintuitive … but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.
(a) maintain its commitment to the Paris Agreement and its targets; and
(b) take:
(i) genuine and meaningful action to meet those targets; and
(ii) significantly greater action to reduce Australia's greenhouse emissions …
… if you don't do what we want, we will blow the show up …
The truth is … the Liberal Party and the Coalition is not capable of dealing with climate change.
Charles Munro, of Burpengary, Queensland—
has received a cablegram from the commandment, 13th Flying Squadron, advising that his son, Lieutenant J.D. Munro, was killed in England in an aeroplane accident on the 17th instant.
News has been received by Mr and Mrs J.C. Kellior, Mt Comrie, Upper Caboolture, that their second son, Private T.H. Kellior, died of wounds on August 9 in France. This is their second son to make the supreme sacrifice.
He is all of them. And he is one of us.
(1) Who makes the determination that a citizenship application requires 'thorough analysis' or 'further assessment' or any similar designation.(2) Does the schedule of delegates provide for different levels of authority to approve certain cases; if so, what is the (a) typology, and (b) number of delegates, for each category.(3) How many departmental staff have the authority to (a) approve citizenship (by conferral) applications, and (b) assess citizenship applications that require 'further assessment' or 'thorough analysis' or any similar designation.(4) Since the decision handed down in the Federal Court by Justice Bromberg in BMF16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1530, has his department increased the number of staff capable of assessing citizenship applications requiring 'further assessment' or 'thorough analysis' or any similar designation.
Q1.All applications for Australian citizenship are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the legislative criteria of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 . The Department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question.
Q2. No.
Q3
(a) 222 departmental staff within Australia are delegated to approve citizenship by conferral applications under the delegation in force in March 2018.
The Department does not maintain data on the number of staff allocated to the processing of conferral or other streams of citizenship applications at a particular historical date.
Q3
(b) The Department does not currently allocate staff to the processing of applications based on their level of complexity as indicated by the question.
Q4.
Between 1 July 2015 to 31 March 2018, the number of staff performing the Citizenship function has increased to respond to an increase in applications for Australian Citizenship.
The Department has also implemented a number of initiatives to support the progression of citizenship applications. These measures include:
(1) What number of citizenship applications were lodged by 'Illegal Maritime Arrivals' in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).(2) What number of citizenship (by conferral) applications lodged by people who arrived in Australia as 'Illegal Maritime Arrivals' were granted citizenship by conferral in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).(3) What number of citizenship applications lodged by people who arrived in Australia as 'Illegal Maritime Arrivals' were classed as requiring 'thorough analysis' or 'further assessment' or any similar designation in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).
Q1.
Q2.
Q3.
All applications for Australian citizenship are assessed on a case-by-case basis against the legislative criteria of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 . The Department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question. Current citizenship application processing times are available on the Department's website.
(1) What was the breakdown, by country of birth, of the median time between an applicant sitting the citizenship test and a decision being made regarding their application in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).(2) What was considered an acceptable standard processing time for citizenship applications (by conferral), in respect of Key Performance Indicators, by his department in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).(3) What is the average length of time between successfully sitting the citizenship test and attending a citizenship ceremony for the 10 per cent of applicants who experienced the shortest and longest waiting times.(4) How many Ministerial determinations were made under section 26(3) in (a) 2012-13, (b) 2013-14, (c) 2014-15, (d) 2015-16, (e) 2016-17, and (f) 2017-18 (to date).
Q1.
Q2.
From 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2014, the service standard for Australian citizenship by conferral processing was for 80% of applications to be decided within 60 days of lodgement; from 1 July 2014 to date, the service standard has been for 80% of applications to be decided within 80 days of lodgement.
The Department replaced publication of service standards with the publication of current processing times from 13 March 2017. The processing times is updated monthly providing clients with an up-to-date, indicative timeframe of the time taken to process citizenship applications, at a point in time.
Q3.
Q4.
Further to his answer to question in writing No. 931 (Hansard, 18 June 2018, page 177), why is there a discrepancy between evidence provided by the then Minister responsible for citizenship applications to the Federal Court in BMF16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1530 at [61] that 'a portion of...applications is identified as requiring "thorough analysis" or "further assessment"', when he stated in his answer that 'The Department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question'.
In previous years, the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) referred to citizenship applications that were more complex than standard applications as 'assurance cases'. These applications usually required additional analysis or assessment before they could be finalised. The Department has phased out the practice of referring to complex citizenship applications in this way. Instead, the Department considers all applications as falling on a spectrum from low to high complexity. The degree of complexity of each case is dependent on the individual circumstances of the applicant, and the complexity of the case will determine what, if any, additional checks or further assessment – or referral to specialist officers or teams – may be required before a decision can be made.
The evidence given by the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the answer recently provided by the then Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs were both in line with departmental practice at the time.
Further to his answer to question in writing No. 931 (Hansard, 18 June 2018, page 177), why is there a discrepancy between the evidence provided by departmental staff to the Federal Court in BMF16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1530 at [59] and [76] that there were applications that had been designated as needing 'thorough analysis' or 'further assessment', and his answer that 'the Department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question'.
The response previously given by the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the answer recently provided by Minister Tudge were both in line with departmental guidelines at the time.
Please refer to my response to question on notice No. 992.
In respect of the answers to question in writing Nos. 680 and 931 (Hansard, 9 May 2017, page 4094 and 18 June 2018, page 177, respectively), why is there a discrepancy between the previous Minister's answer to question in writing No. 680 which acknowledged that there were applications which required 'thorough analysis', and the Minister's answer to question in writing No. 931 which states that 'the Department does not attribute applications into broad designations or categories as indicated in the question'.
The response previously given by the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the answers recently provided by the then Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs were both in line with departmental practice at the time.
Please refer to my response to Question on Notice No. 992.
Does he intend to respond to questions in writing Nos. 934, 937, 941, and 942; if so, when; if not, why not.
My answer to Parliamentary Question on Notice (PQoN) number 942 was tabled in Parliament on Monday, 13 August 2018.
There will be a response to PQoNs 934, 937 and 941. They will be provided to you in due course.
How many people who currently have a pending application for Australian citizenship by conferral lodged their application within the (a) last twelve months, (b) between 1 and 2 years ago, (c) between 2 and 3 years ago, (d) between 3 and 4 years ago, (e) between 4 and 5 years ago, and (f) over 5 years ago.
How does his department internally update or report information or management data about the number of citizenship by conferral applications (a) pending before the department, (b) recently lodged, and (c) that have been (i) rejected, and (ii) withdrawn.
Regular reports on the number of lodged, finalised, and on-hand citizenship applications are provided to citizenship staff and executives. Reports on the number of lodged, finalised, and on hand citizenship applications are also regularly provided to relevant senior executives.
1. (a) Around $7.7 billion has been raised from luxury car tax (LCT) from 2000‑01 to
2017-18 inclusive.
(b) Treasury does not have data concerning LCT collections on historic cars.
2. Treasury does not have data concerning LCT collections on historic cars.
3. In the 2018-19 Budget, the Government announced it will remove LCT from cars re-imported into Australia following refurbishment overseas, from 1 January 2019. The effect of this measure will be that cars sent overseas for refurbishment, including historic cars, will not face LCT upon re-importation. Legislation was introduced into Parliament on 20 September 2018 to give effect to this measure.
(1) In respect of the sum of funding allocated to extend the Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) program, in September 2017 Minister Frydenberg announced it would be $93 million and in July 2018 Minister Scullion announced it would be $87 million; why is there a $6 million discrepancy.(2) Is the $6 million discrepancy (a) yet to be delivered to Indigenous organisations in the implementation of the management of the IPA network; if so, what is the process for allocating this funding, and (b) being allocated to administrative costs; if so (i) why, and (ii) what is the breakdown of expenditure.
(3) Do the Department of the Environment and Energy and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet plan to distribute to Indigenous organisations on the ground (a) the total sum of allocated funding, or (b) a portion of the allocated funding; if the latter, what sum.(4) What is the breakdown of the expenditure of (a) allocated, and (b) expended (to date), IPA program funding.
(1) The September 2017 announcement by the (then) Minister for the Environment and Energy, the Hon Josh Frydenberg MP, of $93.4 million over five years from 2018-19 to 2022-23 to support ongoing Indigenous Protected Areas was the full allocation from the Natural Heritage Trust and comprised $87.75 million of administered funding and $5.60 million of departmental funding. The July 2018 announcement by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator the Hon Nigel Scullion refers to the full allocation of administered funding from 2018-19 to 2022-23.
(2) There is no discrepancy. As stated above, the $93.4 million announcement included funding allocated to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in departmental funding to administer the Indigenous Protected Area Program over five years from 2018-19 to 2022‑23.
(3) $87.868 million has been allocated to ongoing Indigenous Protected Area projects over five years from 2018-19 to 2022-23 under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy. This comprises the initial $87.75 million and $0.118 million added through indexation of IPA funding at 1.4 percent.
(4) (a) $87.868 million in grant funding has been allocated through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy to ongoing Indigenous Protected Area projects over five years from 2018-19 to 2022-23.
(b) As at 30 September 2018, $4.9 million had been expended. Funding is released over the length of funding agreements pending the completion of project milestones.
(1) Why has $15 million of funding commitments been allocated to new Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) under the National Landcare Program until June 2021 when the existing IPA network funding commitments have been extended to June 2023.(2) What plans does the Government have to ensure that these two funding commitments cover the same time span.
(1) Funding decisions have been made in accordance with relevant processes under the Indigenous Advancement Strategy and the National Landcare Program.
(2) The Government has stated its commitment to ongoing support for IPAs. Future funding decisions will be made in accordance with budget processes.
1051 - MS SHARKIE: To ask the Minister for the Environment—In respect of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee's final report Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling industry in Australia (26 June 2018), will the Government (a) establish a Plastics Cooperative Research Centre to lead Australia's research efforts into reducing plastic waste, cleaning up our oceans and finding end-markets for recovered plastic; if not, why not; (b) publish the National Waste Report biennially; if not, why not; (c) set mandatory targets for government departments in respect of the recycled content of materials (i) bought directly, and (ii) provided by private contractors; if not, why not; (d) implement a National Container Deposit Scheme; if not, why not; (e) require the establishment of mandatory product stewardship schemes for tyres, mattresses, e-waste and photo-voltaic panels; if not, why not; and (f) re-establish the Product Stewardship Advisory Committee; if not, why not; if so, would it be tasked with recommending products for listing under the Product Stewardship Act 2011.
The Australian Government is committed to setting a sustainable path for Australia's recyclable waste, and notes the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Report: Never waste a crisis: the waste and recycling industry in Australia .
On 27 April 2018 Australia's Commonwealth, State and Territory environment ministers and the President of the Australian Local Government Association committed to set a sustainable path for Australia's recyclable waste. Commitments included bringing forward updates to the 2009 National Waste Policy by year end, which will include circular economy principles.
The updated Policy will establish a national roadmap for collective action on waste. It will also provide a framework for further planning, prioritisation and implementation.
The Department of the Environment and Energy is currently coordinating work across the Australian Government, state, territory and local governments, industry and non-government organisations to prepare updates to the National Waste Policy. Updates will take into consideration the eighteen recommendations presented in the Senate Committee Report. The updated Policy will be finalised in late 2018 for consideration at the next Meeting of Environment Ministers.
(1) Has she, her ministerial office or her department been made aware of the NSW Government's plan to impose a major hospital on the state-significant and productive high yield farmland at Cudgen in Northern NSW.(2) Is she aware that this major infrastructure project will require assessment and approval to proceed under the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 .(3) Has the NSW Government referred this project to her, her ministerial office or her department for assessment and approval under the Act.(4) Will the Australian Government call in this project under the Act.(5) Will she advise the Member for the electoral division of Richmond if and when this project is called in under the Act.
(1) The Minister is aware of the proposed development of the Tweed Valley Hospital.
(2) No decision has been made as to whether the proposed development will require assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
(3) As at 25 September 2018 no referral for this project has been received under the EPBC Act.
(4) The Department of the Environment and Energy wrote to NSW Health Infrastructure on 20 September 2018 to provide information about its obligations under the EPBC Act.
(5) If the Minister requests referral of a proposal under Section 70 of the EPBC Act, the referral information will be published on the internet in accordance with Section 74(3) of the EPBC Act.
(1) Given that the Environment Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act 1999 requires a Commonwealth assessment and approval for actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered, endangered or vulnerable species, can she explain what actions she has taken to protect the (a) water mouse, (b) wallum sedge frog, (c) southern black-throated finch, (d) Australian bittern, (e) Australian painted snipe, (f) Australian grey-headed flying fox, (g) koala, (h) Mitchell's rainforest snail, (i) cattle egret, (j) magpie goose, (k) painted snipe, and (l) white-throated needletail, and their habitat on the proposed Cudgen hospital site.(2) Can she explain what actions she has taken to protect the area of early regrowth rainforest on and adjacent to the proposed Cudgen hospital site.(3) Given that the Act requires a Commonwealth assessment and approval for actions that will have or are likely to have a significant impact on Listed Migratory Species and their habitat, can she explain what actions she has taken to protect the (a) cattle egret, (b) magpie goose, (c) painted snipe, and (d) white-throated needletail, on the proposed Cudgen hospital site.
(1) No referral for this project has been received under the EPBC Act to determine whether it requires assessment and approval
(2) As above for (1)
(3) As above for (1)
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment in all ministerial offices supported by the Minister's department, and what goods were replaced?
The Attorney-General's Department did not incur any costs for replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment in the portfolio ministerial offices in 2017-18.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on replacing lost, stolen or misplaced equipment in all ministerial offices supported by the Minister's department, and what goods were replaced.
In 2017-18, no equipment in ministerial offices supported by the Department of Communications and the Arts (the Department) was reported lost, stolen or misplaced. As such, the Department did not spend any money on replacement goods or equipment.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on replenishing all of the Minister's drinks cabinets, on what date were these purchases made, and what was purchased..
The Attorney-General's Department does not replenish the drinks cabinets of portfolio ministers.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on the use of private dining rooms for ministerial purposes, and where were these dinners held.
According to Attorney-General's Department records, there were no instances where private dining rooms were used for ministerial purposes in 2017-18.
In 2017-18, were there any instances of cyber security breaches within the Minister's ministerial office concerning the hacking of (a) mobile phones, and (b) social media accounts; if so, (i) how many, and (ii) what sum did it cost to investigate and remedy these breaches..
There have been no reported or known cyber security breaches of mobile phones or social media accounts within the Minister's ministerial office in 2017-18.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent in the Minister's ministerial office on (a) indoor plants, (b) office decorations, (c) artwork, and (d) office furniture.
There was no expenditure on the listed items in my ministerial office during 2017-18.
What sum has been spent on external media and public speaking training in the Minister's portfolio since 2014?
Answer
The below table details the expenditure on external media and public speaking training since 2014 in the Attorney General's Department and Portfolio. Training recorded in internal human resource record management systems for the specified period has been included. Any limitations on the data available are noted in the table under additional comments.
The response to this question excludes agencies that were moved out of the Attorney-General's Portfolio as a result of the Home Affairs machinery of government changes.
What sum has been spent on external media and public speaking training in the Minister's portfolio since 2014.
The table below outlines the amount spent on external media and public speaking training in the Minister's portfolio since 2014.
* Museum of Australian Democracy cannot answer this question for expenses before 1 July 2017, due to a change in finance system the detail is not available before this date.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on advertising by the Minister's department (a) in Australia, or (b) outside of Australia?
In 2017-18, the Attorney-General's Department spent $5,286,967.21 (GST exclusive) on advertising.
This included expenditure on recruitment advertising, public notices relating to various consultation processes, and advertising campaigns such as the National Firearms Amnesty Campaign and National Security Campaign, which have since moved to the Department of Home Affairs as part of machinery of government changes.
The majority of advertising was within Australia, however as invoices are not grouped by region, the work involved in determining the proportion would represent a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources.
In respect of non '.gov.au' domain names owned by the Minister's department (a) what sum has been spent, (b) how many exist, (c) what are their urls, and (d) what is their purpose.
(1) (a) Domain names are purchased at either an annual or bi-annual basis. The total cost of the non-.gov.au domains is approximately $735 per year.
(b) The department currently maintains 27 non-.gov.au domains
(c) The list of current non-.gov.au domains/URLs are:
(d) The Royal Commission-related domain names are purchased at the request of the Royal Commission to assist in avoiding public confusion regarding the official website. These domain names are not associated with a website. The Pacific Islands Law Officers' Network (Pilonsec.org) domain name is administered by the department as part of the support arrangements. The website and mail are maintained externally.
In respect of non '.gov.au' domain names owned by the Minister's department (a) what sum has been spent, (b) how many exist, (c) what are their urls, and (d) what is their purpose.
(a) The Department of Communications and the Arts (the Department), as at Friday 12 October, has spent $620.24 (GST inc) on non .gov.au domain names.
(b) The Department owns eight non .gov.au domain names.
(c) and (d) The URLs and purpose for each of these non .gov.au domain names are as follows:
Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by departments or agencies in the Minister's portfolio from (a) internal sources, or (b) external sources, that resulted in cost to the Minister's department or agencies in 2017-18; if so (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to the Minister's department or agencies of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what action has been taken to prevent such theft or fraud from reoccurring.
(1) (a) Nil
(b) Nil
Were there any instances of fraud or theft detected by departments or agencies in the Minister's portfolio from (a) internal sources, or (b) external sources, that resulted in cost to the Minister's department or agencies in 2017-18; if so (i) what fraud or theft took place, (ii) when did the fraud or theft take place, (iii) what was the cost to the Minister's department or agencies of this fraud or theft, and (iv) what action has been taken to prevent such theft or fraud from reoccurring.
The Department of Communications and the Arts had one instance of internal fraud/theft detected in 2017-18:
The Australian National Maritime Museum (ANMM) had one instance of internal fraud/theft detected in 2017-18:
The Australian Film Television and Radio School (AFTRS) had the following instances of external fraud/theft in 2017-18:
NBN Co had the following instances of internal and external fraud/theft detected in 2017-18:
Australia Post had the following instances of internal and external fraud/theft in 2017-18:
What sum was spent by the Minister's department and agencies on market research and associated services 2017-18, and what policy areas did this inform?
In 2017-18, the Attorney-General's Department and agencies spent $454,781 on market research. The table below shows a breakdown of these costs and the policy areas they informed. Agencies with nil expenditure have not been included.
What sum was spent by the Minister's department and agencies on market research and associated services in 2017-18, and what policy areas did this inform?
All market research expenditure is detailed in the department's and agencies' annual reports.
For example, details of all market research for the Department of Health can be found on the Department's website.
What sum was spent on promotional material and merchandise for the Minister's department and agencies in 2017-18, and of this, (a) what types of promotional material and merchandise were produced, and (b) what policy areas did this relate to?
The Attorney-General's Department and the Australian Financial Security Authority have determined that it would represent a significant and unreasonable diversion of resources to provide the requested level of detail.
All other agencies had nil expenditure.
What sum was spent on promotional material and merchandise for the Minister's department and agencies in 2017-18, and of this, (a) what types of promotional material and merchandise were produced, and (b) what policy areas did this relate to.
The table below outlines the total expenditure in 2017-18 for promotional materials for the Minister's department and agencies.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent by the Minister's department on (a) external social media and marketing consultants and/or agencies, (b) boosting or sponsoring facebook posts, (c) boosting twitter posts, (d) advertising on (i) youtube, (ii) Google, and (iii) snapchat, and (e) sponsored Instagram posts.
The Attorney-General's Department did not incur any expenses related to this question in 2017-18.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent by the Minister's department on (a) external social media and marketing consultants and/or agencies, (b) boosting or sponsoring facebook posts, (c) boosting twitter posts, (d) advertising on (i) youtube, (ii) Google, and (iii) snapchat, and (e) sponsored Instagram posts.
In 2017-18, the Department's expenditure on social media content was:
a) Nil
b) $4,118 (GST exclusive)
c) Nil
d) Nil
e) Nil
In 2017-18, what total sum was spent by the Minister's department and agencies on credit card (a) interest, and (b) fees.
Interest and fees are not payable on official departmental credit cards for the Attorney-General's Department, which includes the Australian Government Solicitor.
In 2017-18, what total sum was spent by the Minister's department and agencies on credit card
(a) interest, and (b) fees.
The table below outlines the total amount spent by the Minister's department and agencies on credit card:
(a) interest
(b) fees
*The National Gallery of Australia receives substantial donations from private sources and in many instances these donations are received via American Express or Diners Club cards, which attract fees.
**This amount relates to fees payable for the use of expense management system software used with respect to the approximately 2,900 cards used by the Australia Postal Corporation.
***Please refer to Question on Notice 235 from the Budget Estimates hearing in May 2017.
In 2017-18, what total sum was spent by the Minister's department and agencies on credit card (a) interest, and (b) fees?
*Please note: Department of Health includes Therapeutic Goods Administration; National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme; and Office of the Gene Technology Regulator.
In 2017-18, what sum was spent on (a) domestic travel, and (b) international travel, for departmental staff and of this, (i) on what dates, and to what locations, did the Minister travel, (ii) how many departmental staff accompanied the Minister on this travel, and (iii) for what purpose did the Minister travel.
Answer
(a) $5,944,381.63
(b) $2,030,717.37
(i)-(iii) These matters were relevant to the previous portfolio ministers and we are unable to provide any further information.
In respect of the Government's commitment during the by-election for the electoral division of Longman to provide $20 million towards upgrades of Bribie Island Road, will this be honoured; if not why not; if so, (a) what is the timeline for this project, (b) which 'key intersections' will be upgraded, (c) when will this funding be delivered, and (d) will he ensure that local workers are prioritised for construction jobs.
The Australian Government remains committed to the $20 million Bribie Island Road Upgrade.
The precise details of the upgrade, including construction timelines, will be negotiated with the Queensland Government, with funding to flow once a scope of works has been approved by the Australian Government.
The focus will be on projects that enhance traffic flow and include upgrades to key intersections along the commuter stretch to ensure a smoother and safer drive to and from home, such as traffic signaling and pavement widening at priority pinch points along the road.
Under the Infrastructure Investment Program, all Australian Government funded projects are required to have a local industry participation plan.
In respect of the Government's commitment during the by-election for the electoral division of Longman for a $500,000 Domestic Violence Unit, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) from which program will these funds come, and (b) when will this funding be delivered.
The Government has honoured its commitment by funding Women's Legal Service Queensland to establish a new specialist domestic violence unit and accompanying health justice partnership in Caboolture. In response to the member's follow‑up questions:
(a) The new domestic violence unit is funded through a grant agreement administered by the Attorney‑General's Department under the Community Legal Services Program.
(b) In 2018-19, the Government will provide $530 000 to Women's Legal Services Queensland for the new domestic violence unit. Women's Legal Service Queensland received its first instalment payment ahead of the unit's official launch on 3 October 2018.
1118 MS LAMB: To ask the Minister for Education—In respect of the Government's commitment during the by-election for the electoral division of Longman of $750,000 to establish an Advanced Welder Training Centre in Caboolture, will this be honoured; if not, why not; if so, (a) when will this funding be delivered, and (b) to whom will this funding be paid.
1. Why did the regulator cancel the export licences of (a) Emanuel Exports, and (b) EMS Rural Exports.
2. Did Emanuel Exports breach its licence conditions; if so (a) what were the breaches, (b) when did they occur, and (c) how did the regulator become aware of the breaches.
3. Can Emanuel Exports reapply for a live sheep export licence; if so, when.
4. Have any shipments of live sheep left Australia since May 2018; if so (a) how many shipments, (b) on which dates did they leave Australia, (c) how many sheep were on board each shipment, (d) what was the intended destination of each shipment, and (e) did any sheep die in transit; if so, how many
1. These matters are currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and it would not be appropriate to comment at this time.
2. This matter is currently before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and it would not be appropriate to comment at this time.
3. The exporter can reapply for an export licence should it choose to do so at any time. Such an application would be assessed on its merits in accordance with the requirements of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 .
4. The export of live-stock from Australia is regulated by the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. The department does not comment on details of individual consignments. Mortality rates for all voyages are reported to Parliament every six months.
1. On what date did the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC) Board finalise the appointment of the permanent CEO position?
2. How many applicants applied for the CEO position?
3. Where will the CEO position be based?
1. The recruitment of a permanent CEO has not yet been finalised. The RIC expects the process to be completed shortly.
2. 10 candidates responded to the advertisement. A further 11 candidates expressed interest from an executive search process which identified 71 potential candidates.
3. The CEO will be based in Orange, NSW.
1. On what date did the Board finalise the final site for the Regional Investment Corporation's (RIC's) office in Orange, NSW?
2. What is the length of the lease signed for this site?
3. How many permanent RIC staff will be employed in Orange?
4. What is the breakdown of the job classifications that will be based in Orange?
5. Have the jobs for the positions in Orange been advertised; if so, when; if not, when will they be advertised?
1. On 17 July 2018 the RIC Board chose its preferred site for the RIC Orange headquarters. A Heads of Agreement outlining the key terms of the lease was signed on
9 August 2018. On 19 October 2018, the RIC signed a lease for its head office at Suite 3, 122-124 Kite Street, Orange, NSW.
2. The lease is three years with options to extend for two further three-year periods.
3. The RIC is funded for up to 32 staff. It is expected that the majority of the permanent staff including the CEO will work from the Orange headquarters. A small number of Business Development and Outreach Officers are expected to be located in regional/rural areas across Australia. The exact locations are yet to be determined. The major recruitment activity has commenced to fill most positions in Orange with some further recruitment activity to fill any remaining positions at a later date.
4. Jobs will be classified as RIC level 1, RIC Level 2 and RIC Level 3.
5. Jobs in the RIC in Orange were advertised on 9 October 2018 and were open for candidates to apply until 29 October 2018.
1. How many types of concessional loans are currently available via the Regional Investment Corporation (RIC)?
2. How many loan applications have been received by the RIC?
3. How many loans have been granted by the RIC?
4. How many water infrastructure loan applications have been received by the RIC?
5. What is the breakdown, by state and territory, of applications for water infrastructure loans?
6. How many water infrastructure loans have been granted by the RIC?
1. The Regional Investment Corporation Operating Mandate Direction 2018 provides authority to deliver;
2. As at 15 October 2018, 40 complete applications have been accepted by the RIC.
A further 49 applications have been received but require further information from the applicant before they are suitable for assessment.
3. Four loan applicants have had their loan application assessment completed.
4. As at 15 October 2018 no water infrastructure loan applications have been received by the RIC.
5. Not applicable
6. Not applicable
Has the Murray-Darling Basin Authority undertaken a review of climate change risks on the Basin, as required under the Basin Plan 2012; if so, can the Government provide a copy; if not, why not, and when will this review be undertaken.
The MDBA has not conducted a review of climate change risks on the Basin since the Basin Plan was finalised.
As part of its development, the MDBA considered the impact of climate on the proposed Basin Plan by analysing its performance across 114 years of climate records. This long climatic sequence takes into account the extremes of climate experienced in the past, including three prolonged drought periods (the 'Federation' drought around 1900, the 'World War Two' drought around 1940, and the recent Millennium drought) and has a similar mean annual rainfall and mean annual runoff as recent decades.
Under the Water Act 2007, the MDBA is required to review the Basin Plan in 2026, or earlier if requested by the Minister, or all Basin States. A review of climate change risks will be undertaken as part of this review. The MDBA may of its own accord also conduct a review before this time.
1. Does the Northern Basin Review (November 2016) include an up-to-date assessment of climate risks.
2. In respect of the Review's claim that there is a large degree of uncertainty around whether a wetter or drier future will eventuate, particularly in the northern Basin, are there any Murray-Darling Basin Authority studies that have concluded that a wetter future could eventuate for the northern Basin; if so, can the Government provide a copy.
1. Studies in the Basin over the last 10 years have shown that changes in climate could have a significant impact on water resources. There is a large degree of uncertainty around whether a wetter or drier future will eventuate, particularly in the northern Basin. Consequently, the approach taken by the Murray−Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) in its consideration of the northern Basin sustainable diversion limit was to conduct analyses using the Basin's long-term climate record over the 114 year period 1895 to 2009. This dataset includes considerable natural climate variability from very wet periods to prolonged droughts, including the Millennium Drought, and allowed Basin Plan outcomes to be explored under a wide range of different climatic conditions representative of both past and future weather patterns. The approach is consistent with advice provided by the CSIRO on the climate baseline for Murray Darling Basin Plan modelling.
2. As part of its Murray−Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, in 2008 CSIRO concluded that there is a large degree of uncertainty around whether a wetter or drier future will eventuate in the northern Basin. In 2010, MDBA repeated CSIRO's analysis using updated modelling information and some minor analytical refinements. This MDBA study, Water Availability in the Murray–Darling Basin, reached the same conclusions as the CSIRO work
Will the Government formally respond to Australian Law Reform Commission Report No.133 Pathways to Justice—Inquiry into the Incarceration Rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (28 March 2018) before the end of 2018; if not, why not, and in which month will the Government formally respond..
The report by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) provides valuable insight into the issues that contribute to the over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia's prisons. The Government will respond to the report in due course.
Most of the laws and legal frameworks which contribute to Indigenous incarceration fall within state and territory jurisdictions, and as such implementation of the majority of the recommendations is a matter for consideration by them.
The Commonwealth's focus remains firmly on the underlying disadvantage that puts Indigenous Australians at risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place, including improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians in a range of areas such as employment, education, health and families.
1. Given his media release of 17 May 2018 indicated that he wanted 'an independent observer on every voyage carrying either sheep or cattle—not just the sheep voyages during the northern summer; why does his media release of 13 September 2018 stipulate that independent observers are only required from 1 May to 31 October.
2. How many independent observers have been employed, and what was the recruitment process.
3. What qualifications are required of the independent observers, and do they have animal husbandry qualifications.
4. Under what classification are independent observers employed, what remuneration do they receive, and what allowances are they paid.
5. Has his department finalised the role and responsibilities of the independent observers; if not, what are their current duties.
6. Will the daily photos and written evidence provided by the independent observers be available to the public; if not, why not.
7. Will the independent observers program be assessed or reviewed; if so, what assessment criteria will be used.
1. The media release of 13 September 2018 referred to new conditions that were applied during the Middle East summer (1 May to 31 October). From 1 November 2018, independent observers are required on all voyages. Arrangements for voyages where an independent observer cannot be physically accommodated are being considered.
2. As at 2 November 2018, 29 independent observers have been deployed. All independent observers to date have been existing employees of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Internal expressions of interest have been used to identify candidates with the skills, capabilities and personal attributes required to successfully undertake the role. The selection process includes a selection panel interview, referee checks, medical and psychometric assessments.
External recruitment will be conducted when internal recruitment is completed.
3. Independent observers may be veterinarians or others with suitable skills. All independent observers must be able to demonstrate relevant experience or qualifications in livestock management, animal husbandry or related disciplines. Veterinary independent observers must have a degree in veterinary science or medicine.
4. Departmental employees are entitled to the remuneration and allowances agreed in the current Department of Agriculture and Water Resources Enterprise Agreement 2017–20. Veterinary independent observers are employed under the APS6 veterinary classification with a salary range of $88 125 to $115 130 as defined in the Enterprise Agreement. Non-veterinarian independent observers are employed at the APS5 Policy and Technical classification with a salary range of $72 743 to $78 421 as defined in the Enterprise Agreement. Departmental employees are entitled to an at-sea allowance of $118.95 per day when they are required to remain at sea overnight. Departmental employees are entitled to travel allowance as specified in the Enterprise Agreement.
5. The role of an independent observer is to monitor and report on activities in approved export programs for the purpose of ensuring the health and welfare of livestock in the course of export activities.
6. The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources intends to publish summaries of independent observers' reports shortly. These reports will summarise the key observations made by the independent observers from the loading of each vessel through to discharge at the final destination port. The summary reports will contain representative images of livestock throughout the course of the voyage.
7. The independent observer program will be subject to a post implementation review within the next two years. The review will be an opportunity to ensure the program is being delivered in the most effective and efficient manner.
(1) When will the Urban Congestion Fund be open for funding applications.
(2) What criteria and process will be adopted in allocating the Fund.
(3) Will there be a requirement for projects to have state and local government support.
(4) In the allocation of the Fund, what weighting will be given to fast growing (a) outer suburbs, and (b) regional centres.
(5) In millions of dollars, what is the estimated backlog of infrastructure expenditure for Australia's fast growing (a) outer suburbs, and (b) regional centres.
The Australian Government committed $1 billion to the Urban Congestion Fund (UCF) in the 2018-19 Budget.
The government will work with relevant stakeholders, including state and local governments, to identify projects to be funded under the UCF that remediate pinch points, improve traffic safety and increase efficiency for commuter and freight operators on urban transport networks.
As stated at Budget, there is no specific weighting to outer suburbs or regional centres. There is expected to be a focus on the major capital cities with the highest levels of congestion.
There is no accurate estimate of any backlog of infrastructure, and attempts to estimate it are fraught with issues around assumptions, methods and what is actually meant by a 'backlog'. There are often multiple potential solutions to infrastructure problems such as congestion, so it is difficult to measure the type, number or scale of projects that would be required to address an identified deficiency in order to quantify a backlog. Rather than focusing on whether there is a backlog, the government is committed to delivering its $75 billion investment in Australia's transport infrastructure, including the $24.5 billion Pipeline of major projects and new initiatives, such as the UCF, announced in the 2018-19 Budget.
(1) Why does a letter sent for $1 by 'regular' mail from Gordonvale (postcode 4865) to Edmonton (postcode 4869) take three to four business days, travelling 584 kilometres (Gordonvale to Cairns, then to Townsville to be sorted, returning to Cairns before being delivered in Edmonton).(2) Why does this same letter, if sent for $1.50 by 'priority' mail, take only two business days, travelling only 31 kilometres (from Gordonvale to Cairns, and then directly to Edmonton).(3) In how many other regional centres does this additional transportation of 'regular' mail occur (in comparison to 'priority' mail).(4) How many jobs have been lost from regional sorting centres around Australia to centralised sorting centres in major centres.
This question has been referred to me as the Minister representing the Minister for Communications and the Arts as the issue relates to the communications portfolio.
The introduction of Australia Post's two-speed postal system in 2016, including Regular and Priority services, was necessary because Australia Post is experiencing an ongoing significant decline in letter volumes as customers switch to digital communication channels such as email and social media. Australians are now sending around 50 per cent fewer letters than they were at their peak in 2008. The reforms have allowed Australia Post to return to profitability while still meeting all of its Community Service Obligations (CSO). It is an operational matter for Australia Post to determine processing of letters, consistent with its CSO.
Please see below for responses to the specific questions.
(1) Transportation of Regular letters to large regional processing centres for automated letter sorting enables Australia Post to achieve cost efficiencies in the operation of the letters business. Letters posted in the Cairns region, including Gordonvale, are initially transported to Cairns for sorting into Regular and Priority mail. Cairns does not have automated letter processing equipment, and letters sent via the Regular timetable are transported to the nearest regional processing centre, in Townsville, for machine sorting, including sequencing to the delivery round. Mail is then returned to Cairns for distribution.
(2) Letters posted in the Cairns region for delivery by the Priority timetable undergo a different process. There are much smaller volumes of Priority mail, and this is sorted manually in Cairns. While this is a less efficient process, it enables quicker delivery of Priority letters to meet the shorter, two day delivery timeframe applying to Priority letters.
(3) The process by which letters are processed and delivered, including the transportation of Regular letters to a regional processing facility for automated sorting, is the standard model by which Australia Post processes letters throughout Australia. In regional areas, Priority mail for the same township/region (of which there are small volumes) remains in the same township/region to be processed for quicker delivery.
Regular mail is transported to the nearest automated processing centre to be sorted/sequenced to the postal delivery round, then transported for delivery in line with the performance standards.
Australia Post operates a number of regional processing centres throughout Australia including Queensland regional centres in Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton and Toowoomba. Of these, only Townsville has advanced automated letter sorting facilities.
(4) Australia Post moved to centralised sorting when it introduced its Sustainable Regional Mail Program in 2014. This program resulted in the reduction of approximately 60 full-time equivalent staff from regional sites nationally. These reductions were achieved through voluntary redundancies and by not backfilling vacant positions.