The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 12:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to proceedings of the House today:
(1) the Prime Minister to move a motion of condolence in relation to the recent bushfires and debate on the motion to have precedence over all other business;
(2) debate to continue until adjourned or resolved, if necessary beyond the usual time of adjournment of the House;
(3) the Federation Chamber not to meet;
(4) the House to adjourn on the motion of a Minister, without debate; and
(5) any variation to this arrangement to be made only by a motion moved by a Minister.
That the resumption of debate on the Prime Minister's motion of condolence in connection with the Australian bushfires be referred to the Federation Chamber.
That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Federation Chamber meeting for the following times tomorrow, 5 February: from 9.45 am until 1.30 pm and from 3.45 pm until 7.45 pm; and
(2) the Prime Minister's motion of condolence on the Australian Bushfires to be the only item of business.
That the House do now adjourn.
1. Over the forward estimates, and broken down by financial year: (a) how much agricultural research funding has the Government allocated to regenerative agriculture practices; and (b) what proportion does this comprise of the total Government funding for agricultural research.
2. Has the Government provided financial support to regenerative agriculture trials; if so:
(a) where; and (b) how much per trial.
1. (a) (b)
The Australian Government invests approximately $1.1 billion a year in rural research and development (R&D) through the Research and Development Corporations, Cooperative Research Centres, the CSIRO, universities, R&D Tax incentive and other programs. Funding is invested in research activities in accordance with each recipients identified research priorities and objectives.
Within the Department of Agriculture, funding for regenerative agriculture research, development and extension projects has been provided through competitive grants under the Smart Farms component of the National Landcare Program (made up of Smart Farming Partnerships, Smart Farms Small Grants and Building Landcare Community and Capacity) (Table 1). The National Landcare Program is a key part of the Australian Government's commitment to protect and conserve Australia's water, soil, plants, animals and ecosystems. The program includes a range of measures to support natural resource management, sustainable agriculture and to protect Australia's biodiversity.
Table 1. Funding for regenerative agriculture research, development and extension projects via the Smart Farms program
*Figures have been rounded to nearest whole dollar. Note some programs for 2021-22 and 2022-23 have not allocated funding at this point in time.
#Figures have been rounded to the nearest one decimal place. Proportion calculated based on total funding per financial year available under the National Landcare Program – Smart Farms component.
2. (a) (b)
Government funding to regenerative agricultural research projects has been provided through the Smart Farms component of the National Landcare Program. Over the period of 2018-19 to 2022‑23, 62 projects, which include regenerative agriculture practices and demonstration components, have been allocated funding across Australia. The Government contribution to these projects totals $21.2 million (GST excl.).
(1) When was the last time the Government published a National Nutrition Policy.(2) Is the Government developing a National Nutrition Policy; if so, when will it be published; if not, why not.(3) When was the last time the Government revised and published the Australian Dietary Guidelines.(4) Is the Government developing new guidelines; if so, when will they be published; if not, why not.(5) When was the last time the Government revised and published the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.(6) Is the Government developing a new guide; if so, when will it be published; if not, why not.
(1) The last National Food and Nutrition Policy was published in 1992.
(2) The National Preventive Health Strategy is currently under development and nutrition and physical activity is a key focus.
Additionally, supporting Australians to eat a healthy diet to prevent obesity is a proposed key focus of the National Obesity Strategy, currently under development.
(3) The Australian Dietary Guidelines are developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and were last reviewed and updated in 2013. The Australian Dietary Guidelines were published under the Department of Health's Eat for Health program on 18 February 2013.
(4) The Australian Government is currently considering a review of the Australian Dietary Guidelines within the context of the development of the National Preventive Health Strategy.
(5) The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating is a resource under the Eat for Health banner and was last updated and released in 2013 with the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines.
(6) The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating is a pictorial resource based on the Australian Dietary Guidelines to assist Australians in consuming a healthy diet. As the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating is informed by the Australian Dietary Guidelines, it will be reviewed following any revisions to the Australian Dietary Guidelines.
(1) Will the Government's Safer Communities Fund Round 5 provide community based organisations the opportunity to secure funding for Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs.
(2) Can a breakdown be provided, in tabular form, of the total Government expenditure on community based CVE programs for the years: (a) 2016-17; (b) 2017-18; and (c) 2018-19.
(3) Of the funds referred to in (2), what was the breakdown of total funds by category of violent extremism, such as far right and left extremism, or religious extremism.
(1) The Safer Communities Fund does not provide funding specifically for Countering Violent Extremism Programs. The purpose of the Safer Communities Fund is to deliver safer communities, by boosting the efforts of identified local councils and community organisations to address crime and anti-social behaviour by funding crime prevention initiatives (such as fixed and mobile CCTV, lighting and youth early intervention projects), and protecting community organisations that may be facing security risks associated with racial or religious intolerance.
(2) Since 2013-14, the Government has invested over $53 million in CVE initiatives, including over $13.4 million in funding to CVE intervention programs. The Government funds a range of CVE programs in each state and territory, which include combatting terrorist propaganda online, promoting messages of social cohesion in the community and supporting projects that enhance cooperation and best practice CVE policy across all levels of government. These Government-funded CVE programs are not specifically community based programs.
(3) The Government's approach to violent extremism addresses all drivers of radicalisation to violence. CVE intervention programs include participants from a range of ideological backgrounds, and funding is not allocated based on 'categories' of violent extremism. People who are referred to these programs are assessed for their individual needs and appropriate support services provided to them.
In respect of the Government's $63.4 million election commitment for expanded cancer treatment and services and the promise to fund a new radiation therapy centre in Tweed Heads:(1) Has a provider been contracted to provide these services in Tweed Heads; if so, was there a tender process and what were the details of the tender process; if not, will there be a tender process and what are the details of the tender process.(2) Does the Radiation Therapy Advisory Group (RTAG) have any role in rolling out these services.(3) Does the Government have a financial or other arrangement with the RTAG.
Through the 2019-20 Budget, the Australian Government is providing funding to expand cancer treatment capacity through new radiation therapy services in 13 regional areas. The Tweed Heads region is one of the areas identified for a new centre. The specific locations and support to deliver services are not yet finalised, with funding to commence in 2020-21.
The Government plans to undertake a competitive tender process that allows potential providers to apply for funding under the initiative.
There is no financial or commercial agreement with the Radiation Therapy Advisory Group to deliver services in Tweed Heads, or any of the other regions.
(1) In respect of the Government's response to questions by Senator Rex Patrick that between the 2015-2016 financial year and May 2018 the National Archives of Australia (NAA) had spent $926,474.89 on legal costs to defend access requests, how much has the NAA spent on legal costs between May 2018 and the date of answering this question in defending such requests.(2) How much has the NAA spent on legal costs since 1 June 2016 and the date of answering this question in relation to the release request made by historian, Professor Jenny Hocking, for: (a) access to archival record AA1984/609; (b) access to all original correspondence received by, and all contemporaneously made copies of, correspondence sent between former Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, or his Official Secretary to and from the Queen by means of her Private Secretary; and (c) the release of records and information in relation to the 'Palace letters' case (High Court Case Number: Case No. S262/2019) currently before the High Court.(3) How much does the Attorney-General estimate the NAA will spend on legal costs in relation to the release requests detailed in questions (2) (a), (b) and (c).(4) In relation to questions (2) (a), (b) and (c), what is the itemised breakdown of the expenditure.(5) Have costs been incurred by any other Commonwealth agencies or departments in relation to the release requests detailed in questions (2) (a), (b) and (c); if so: (a) which agencies or departments; (b) what are the total and itemised costs to date; and (c) what are the estimated total and itemised costs.
1. The National Archives of Australia (NAA) has spent $484,628.14 on legal costs arising from appeals against access decisions in the period May 2018 to 10 January 2020.
2. From 1 June 2016 to 10 January 2020 the NAA has spent $682,692.05 on this matter.
3. As the matters mentioned in the answer to Question 2 are still before the Court, the NAA is unable to estimate remaining legal costs in relation to AA1984/609.
4. All expenditure for these matters relate to professional services from the Australian Government Solicitor (AGS). Expenditure covers services such as drafting and reviewing correspondence, research and court attendance.
5. From October 2019, the NAA and the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) agreed to split the legal costs 75/25 relating to the matters raised in question 2. To date, the AGD has incurred costs amounting to $23,105.41 for AGS services. The NAA is unaware of any other legal costs that may have been incurred by any other Commonwealth entity in relation to the Hocking matter.
1 Yes.
2 Yes.
3 APRA intends to release updated guidance for consultation in the first quarter of 2020.
(1) For each of the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018: (a) how many drug tests were carried out by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) on Australian sports participants; (b) how many returned a positive result; (c) what banned substances were identified; (d) what was the cost of the tests; and (e) what penalties were applied to each person who returned a positive test result. (2) Who pays for the drug tests carried out by ASADA. (3) Are there any national sporting organisations that are not subject to ASADA oversight; if so which ones.
Explanatory Note
Question 1 (a)
The number of anti-doping tests carried out by ASADA on Australian sports participants is reflected in the table below.
Question 1 (b)
The number of anti-doping tests carried out by ASADA on Australian sports participants that returned a positive result is reflected in the table below.
*Number of positive results does not include positive results where the athlete had obtained a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for the banned substance.
Question 1 (c)
Banned substances identified in anti-doping tests conducted are reflected in the table below.
Explanatory Notes
Question 1 (d)
The cost to ASADA for conducting anti-doping tests is reflected below.
Explanatory Notes
Expenditure by Financial Year
$5.900m in 2014-15
$5.351m in 2015-16
$5.262m in 2016-17
$6.705m in 2017-18
$4.215m in 2018-19
Question 1 (e)
The penalties applied were as follows.
Explanatory Notes
Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations in 2014–15
Publicly announced anti-doping rule violations in 2015–16
Anti-doping rule violations publicly announced in 2016–17
Anti-Doping Rule Violations Publicly Announced In 2017–18
Anti-Doping Rule Violations Publicly Announced In 2018–19
Question 2
ASADA's testing program combines government-funded and user-pays arrangements. Anti-doping tests carried out by ASADA are paid for by either:
Question 3
Sport Australia is responsible for administering the National Sporting Organisation Recognition program. Sporting organisations are required to apply and meet the criteria as established by Sport Australia to obtain recognition as a National Sporting Organisation. There are currently nine criteria that must be met to be recognised by Sport Australia, this includes the requirement for the organisation to have a current ASADA approved Anti-Doping Policy.
All recognised National Sporting Organisations are subject to ASADA oversight and can be found on the Sport Australia website https://www.sportaus.gov.au/australian_sports_directory
1 Parent compound refers to the substance which would have been used
2 Metabolite is formed by the body following use of the related prohibited substance
3 This entry represents the disclosure of 17 Cronulla–Sutherland Sharks Football Club players following the finalisation of outstanding cases resulting from the Operation Cobia investigation.
4 This entry represents the disclosure of 34 past and present Essendon Football Club players following the Swiss Federal Tribunal's dismissal of the players' final appeal.
(1) Why did the Minister respond to the question, which asked for the assumptions underlying the Department of Home Affairs' revenue estimates for the Pacific Labour Scheme (PLS), by saying this information was cabinet in confidence when the Treasurer responded to question in writing No. 123 (House Hansard, 14 October 2019, page 206), which asked for the assumptions underlying the Australian Taxation Office's revenue estimates for the PLS, by providing these assumptions.(2) Did the Treasurer breach cabinet in confidence requirements or did the Minister use cabinet in confidence as an excuse to avoid accountability to the parliament.
(1) The Department of Home Affairs from time to time receives Questions on Notice (QoNs) relating to the disclosure of revenue modelling and assumptions that support an agreed revenue measure. For these types of QoNs, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) have advised that any disclosure of the revenue model and associated assumptions could potentially reveal the deliberations of the Cabinet, which are confidential.
(2) The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs provided a response in line with PM&C advice. Questions relating to the actions of the Treasurer would be a matter for the Treasury.
(1) Further to the answer to question in writing No. 906 from the 45th parliament (House Hansard, 28 March 2018, page 3224): (a) since expending the $500,000, what funding has the Government: (i) allocated and on what date; and (ii) disbursed and on what date; and (b) on what date did activity under this funding for the eradication of feral cats on Kangaroo Island cease.(2) Further to the answer to question in writing No. 10 (House Hansard , 9 September 2019, page 2223): (a) will any of the $1.5 million for Dunnart recovery efforts on Kangaroo Island be expended for feral cat eradication; if so, what is the projected amount.(3) Does the Government plan to provide further funding for feral cat eradication; if so: (a) in which months and years; and (b) what amounts.
(1) Further to the answer to question in writing No. 906 from the 45th parliament (House Hansard, 28 March 2018, page 3224): (a) since expending the $500,000, what funding has the Government: (i) allocated and on what date; and (ii) disbursed and on what date; and (b) on what date did activity under this funding for the eradication of feral cats on Kangaroo Island cease.
(1) (2) Further to the answer to question in writing No. 10 (House Hansard , 9 September 2019, page 2223): (a) will any of the $1.5 million for Dunnart recovery efforts on Kangaroo Island be expended for feral cat eradication; if so, what is the projected amount.
Subject to negotiations with the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board and in light of the extensive bushfires on the island, the $1.5 million Environment Restoration Fund project is likely to include feral cat management to safe guard any Dunnart populations that survive the fires.
(3) Does the Government plan to provide further funding for feral cat eradication; if so: (a) in which months and years; and (b) what amounts.
The Government will continue to deliver its $2 million Regional Land Partnerships project ' Creating a safe haven for the Kangaroo Island Dunnart and other priority threatened species by eradicating feral cats from the Dudley Peninsula '.
Subject to negotiations with the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board and in light of the extensive bushfires on the island, the $1.5 million Environment Restoration Fund project is likely to include feral cat management to safe guard any Dunnart populations that survive the fires.
As noted in the table in response to Question 1, $200,000 has recently been allocated to the Kangaroo Island Nature Resources Management Board to assist the recovery of threatened species and threatened ecological communities in areas impacted by bushfires on the island. Funding will support emergency intervention activities such as priority pest animal control, which may include feral cat management.
This funding is part of the Australian Government's initial investment of $50 million to support immediate work to protect wildlife and longer-term protection and restoration efforts. The $50 million funding package comprises:
(1) When will the first review of the Product Stewardship Act 2011 be finalised.
(2) Given that public consultation for the review closed in June 2018, why is the review of the Act taking so long.
(3) When will the submissions to the review of the Act be published on the Department of the Environment and Energy's website.
(4) Why: (a) have no annual product lists been published under the Act since June 2017; (b) were no new products added to the 2017-18 list; and (c) have no mandatory product stewardship schemes been implemented under the Act.
(5) Will proposed stewardship schemes for batteries and photovoltaic systems be implemented under the Act; if so when; if not, why not.
(1) The Product Stewardship Act review will be completed in the coming months.
(2) The Coalition Government recognises that product stewardship has a critical role to play in improving Australia's waste management and recycling outcomes. Since public consultation closed, the review has had regard to domestic and international best practice experiences, and has been carefully considering interactions between the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and broader waste policy developments, such as the National Waste Policy (approved by Environment Ministers in December 2018), the National Waste Policy Action Plan (approved by Environment Ministers in November 2019) and the Government's $20 million Product Stewardship Investment Fund.
(3) The submissions to the review will be published on the Department of the Environment and Energy's website following delivery of the review report to the Minister.
(4) a) No new product issues have been brought forward since June 2017.
b) The Coalition Government is encouraging industry to take greater responsibility for its waste and identify problematic products that may be dealt with through the product stewardship framework. On 13 November 2019, I announced my intention to add child car seats to the Priority List under the Product Stewardship Act, as old, worn or damaged seats with reduced structural integrity are less able to protect a child in an accident.
c) Since June 2017, significant progress has been made on items listed on the 2017-18 Product List. The Meeting of Environment Ministers (MEM) has overseen a voluntary phase-out of microbeads in rinse-off cosmetic and personal care products, as well as work on schemes for batteries (Queensland Department of Environment and Science) and solar photovoltaic panels (Sustainability Victoria) which are being progressed through state governments.
The Government is likely to consider mandatory product stewardship schemes where industry has not been able to address identified product issues.
(5) The Government has set aside funding under the $20 million Product Stewardship Investment Fund for the development of industry-led schemes, which also covers batteries and photovoltaic systems.
At the ninth MEM in November 2019, Ministers agreed to strongly encourage major battery manufacturers, Energizer and Duracell, to participate in a new industry-led Battery Stewardship Scheme to improve the rate of battery recycling. The Government has indicated it will move to a Regulatory Impact Statement process from January 2020.
In respect of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency media release of 26 August 2019, 'Ultra fast highway charging network for electric vehicles':(1) How many of the 42 charging sites will be located in: (a) South Australia; and (b) in the electoral division of Mayo.(2) In which town or suburb will each of the 42 charging sites be located.(3) When is construction of these sites expected to commence and finish.
1 - How many of the 42 charging sites will be located in: (a) South Australia; and (b) in the electoral division of Mayo.
Evie's deployment plan proposes a total of four sites in South Australia. Three of these sites are planned within the greater Adelaide metro area in the Adelaide Hills, Bolivar and Noarlunga, with a further site along the Dukes Highway at Tailem Bend.
The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has been advised by Evie that there are no sites confirmed for the electoral division of Mayo as part of this deployment plan. However, specific details around the site development process including final confirmed locations, construction and commissioning for the majority of locations are still being finalised by Evie. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency will be happy to provide additional information on this aspect as the roll-out progresses.
2 - In which town or suburb will each of the 42 charging sites be located.
The Evie website provides an overview of anticipated charge site locations.
Map available in original document from Table Office
3 - When is construction of these sites expected to commence and finish.
Construction of sites commenced in August 2019, with the first site at Coochin Creek commissioned in November 2019. It is expected that 23 sites will be operational by the end of the first year with all sites expected to be operational by early 2022.
In respect of the Government's Long Term National Health Plan, will the Minister extend access to telehealth services for Australians under the age of 70 and living with chronic illness, including Australians who do not live in remote areas but because of the nature of their illness are unable to travel to medical appointments; if not, why not; if so, when.
The 2019-20 Budget included $448.5 million in new investment from 1 July 2020 under the Strengthening Primary Care measure. This funding will enable patients aged 70 years and older, as the first cohort of this new model, to enrol with their usual GPs to receive enhanced primary health, including more flexible care and non face-to-face services. Voluntary Patient Enrolment has been developed as a mechanism to formalise patient-provider relationships and provide additional resources to support continuity of care for patients leading to better primary care outcomes.
In the 2019-20 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO), the Australian Government has announced that Voluntary Patient Enrolment will extend to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged 50 years and over.
Services provided through the implementation of voluntary patient enrolment are distinct from telehealth items provided under the MBS. The Government's commitment to telehealth includes a new investment of $33.5 million over four years at MYEFO 2018-19 for new MBS items for GP telehealth services for eligible patients living in rural and remote areas (Modified Monash Model areas 6-7). The new items commenced on 1 November 2019.
Under the MBS, patients not living in remote areas are eligible to access telehealth services, provided they are: a care recipient in a residential care service; or a patient of an Aboriginal Medical Service; or an Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service.
The MBS Review Taskforce's General Practice and Primary Care Clinical Committee (GPPCCC) has reviewed GP Medicare items, including GP telehealth items. Reforms recommended by the GPPCCC will be considered by the Taskforce, which will make final recommendations to the Government in early 2020.
In respect of the Government's federal election commitments in 2016 for $1.2 million for road safety upgrades in the electoral division of Mayo:
1. Can the following information be provided in tabular form and itemised by project: (a) the Government's commitment; (b) the eventual Government contribution; and (c) percentage variation of the contribution from the commitment.
2. Is it a fact that: (a) all six projects have now been completed; and (b) the Government underspent its $1.2 million commitment by $222,408; if not, what was the aggregate underspend, and why was there this underspend.
1. Six Black Spot projects itemised in tabular format. The following table summarises:
(a) The Australian Government's commitment;
(b) The eventual Government contribution; and
(c) The percentage variation of contribution from the commitment
2.
(a) All six Black Spot projects have been successfully completed.
(b) There is no Government underspend. Councils were invited to provide estimates for the project work. The total budget estimate for the six Black Spot projects was $1,196,150.
(c) Four projects were delivered under budget and one was delivered on budget. Savings realised were put towards the cost increase on the final project which was over budget. Final project costs for the six projects totalled $973,742.
Note:
(a) Project cost estimates are provided by proponents. Any costs savings from project underspends are put back in the State pool to be made available to the program.
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 6 (House Hansard, 9 September 2019, page 2222) and to the Prime Minister's media release 'Faster delivery of road and rail projects to boost South Australia's economy' (18 November 2019):
1. Broken down by financial year, what is the projected expenditure over the forward estimates by the Government on the project to duplicate Victor Harbor Road between Main South Road and McLaren Vale, in South Australia.
2. When will the project; (a) commence; and (b) be completed.
1.
2. The project is expected to commence in Quarter 1, 2021 and be completed in Quarter 1, 2023.
(1) Why hasn't the Prime Minister advised the Queen to authorise the release of the 'Palace letters' which are currently subject to an expensive High Court appeal (High Court Case Number: Case No. S262/2019).
(2) When will the Prime Minister stop wasting taxpayer money and simply advise the Queen to authorise the release of the 'Palace letters'.
(3) Why has the Prime Minister not indicated his support for Australian historian, Professor Jenny Hocking's claim, and by extension the Australian people's, of a right to know what the 'Palace letters' contain regarding relevant parties prior to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975.
(4) In what circumstances will the Government deem correspondence between the Monarch and the Governor-General as 'personal'; (a) what is the distinction between 'personal' and 'non-personal'; and (b) what are the defining characteristics that distinguish correspondence as 'personal' as opposed to 'non-personal'.
As this matter (Hocking v. Director-General of the National Archives of Australia) is currently before the High Court of Australia, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 208 (House Hansard, 25 November 2019, page 244), and in respect of part (3) of the question:
a. why are 114 electorate offices on copper (PSTN/Copper) and not on the NBN; and
b. what does copper refer to, if not PSTN
a. The rollout of NBN is scheduled to complete its build phase in June 2020, with 90 per cent of residential premises Ready to Connect to the NBN now. As at 2 December 2019, there were 150 electorate offices on the NBN, with a further 19 in the process of transitioning to NBN. Finance works with each electorate office to transition to NBN as it becomes available in each location.
b. In Australia, the bulk of the Public Switched Telephone Network (PTSN) is provided over copper. There are some lines however which technically could be provided over other technology. For example, services in major cities could be provided over a fibre network. For simplicity, this would still be referred to as PSTN.
In respect of 'Project Climate Ready', referred to in the article, 'The country's top bureaucrats say Government unprepared for climate change' by Michael Slezak and Michael McKinnon (ABC News, 11 September 2019):
(1) What departments and agencies were involved in the project.
(2) What was the role of the Minister's department in the project.
(3) What exercises did the project conduct.
(4) What scenarios did the project consider.
(5) Over what period of time was the project carried out.
(6) Which body oversaw the project.
(7) Did the body that oversaw the project have terms of reference.
(8) What project reports were: (a) released publicly; and (b) not released publicly.
(9) Did the project warn the Government of: (a) health risks resulting from climate change; (b) national security risks resulting from climate change; and (c) litigation risks resulting from climate change.
In March 2017, the Secretaries Group on Climate risk tasked the Departments of Defence and the Environment and Energy to jointly manage the development of scenarios to examine climate risks and implications for public policy responses. This body of work was referred to as "Project Climate Ready" and developed scenarios that considered climate change impacts on various matters over various time periods, including health and wellbeing, cities, infrastructure and energy security.
Defence developed an initial scenario that was considered by the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk, and two subsequent scenarios that were considered by various departments from the Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group (Resilience Reference Group). The scenarios were developed with consultation across Government including Geoscience Australia, the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation, the Bureau of Meteorology, the Attorney-General's Department, and the departments of the Environment and Energy, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Home Affairs, Health, Agriculture, Education, Finance, Communications and the Arts, Employment Skills, Small and Family Business, Industry, Innovation and Science, Social Services, and the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Defence was not involved in the preparation of subsequent scenarios, but participated in the fourth exercise, which completed the scope of works in February 2019.
Defence and the Department of the Environment and Energy reported on the outcomes of respective scenarios to the Resilience Reference Group and the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk. The outcomes have supported the understanding of climate risks that are common across the public service and informed the development of cross-agency approaches to frameworks to consider climate risk. Information related to the scenario exercise reports was released publicly through a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) request in April 2019. That original Freedom of Information decision went to review and the applicant was advised in late August 2019 that the original decision was upheld. The decision was to partially deny access to parts of the documents under sections 33 [Documents affecting national security, defence or international relations], 42 [Documents subject to legal professional privilege], 47C [Deliberative process] and 47F [Personal privacy] of the FOI Act, and this decision included denying access to the scenarios.
With the abolition of the Education Investment Fund, how does the Government plan to assist universities to undertake major campus renewal projects that maintain facilities for teaching and research.
The Australian Government announced in the 2014–15 Budget, that the Education Investment Fund (EIF) would be abolished in response to a recommendation from the National Audit Commission. At this point responsibility for the EIF funds transferred to the Department of Finance.
At the end of 2018, Australia's public universities, as well as the Australian Catholic University and the University of Notre Dame Australia, had total cash and financial investments of nearly over $20 billion. These institutions generally have low levels of debt relative to these assets even without considering further non-financial assets. The university sector is well-placed to provide for its own capital investment needs.
With regard to research infrastructure, university researchers will benefit from the $1.9 billion committed by the Government in the 2018–19 Budget to the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS). NCRIS, which commenced in 2004–05, is a national network of world-class research infrastructure projects that support high-quality research that will drive greater innovation in the Australian research sector and the economy more broadly. It enables open, merit-based access to research infrastructure in areas of national priority identified with the research sector.
NCRIS projects support strategically important research through which Australian researchers and their international partners can address key national and global challenges. The most recent NCRIS program guidelines (2018) provide projects with funding through to 2022–23.
The Government will also provide $910 million to higher education providers (HEPs) in 2020 through the Research Support Program (RSP). The RSP provides a flexible funding stream for HEPs to support their research activities, with funding able to be spent on any activity related to the conduct of research, including research infrastructure projects, the maintenance costs of research facilities and the indirect costs associated with Australian competitive research grants.
Through the National Competitive Grants Program, the Australian Research Council (ARC) administers the Linkage Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities (LIEF) scheme. The LIEF scheme enables researchers to participate in cooperative initiatives so that expensive research infrastructure, equipment and facilities can be shared between higher education organisations and also with industry. It also fosters collaboration through supporting the cooperative use of international or national research facilities.
Under the LIEF scheme applicants may seek ARC funding for:
All commitments made under the EIF were honoured, with the last payment made in 2018. The Government announced in the 2019–20 Budget that remaining uncommitted EIF funding would be used to fund the new Emergency Response Fund (administered by the Department of Finance).
1. As at September 2019 (or more recently) and expressed in tabular form: (a) what is the number of asylum seekers in each category of detention in Australian sovereign territory, broken down by number of total whole years of their detention (whether continuous or non-continuous); and (b) what is the number of asylum seekers who have been detained for more than a total of five years (whether continuous or non-continuous), broken down by category of reason for their continued detention.
2. What are the most significant reasons the Government has been unable to deport or release asylum seekers who have been detained for more than a total of five years (whether continuous or non‑continuous).
1. a) Table 1 provides the number of persons in each category of detention in Australia with an application for a Temporary Protection (subclass 785) visa, Safe Haven Enterprise (subclass 790) visa, or Protection (subclass 866) visa on hand before the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) as at 30 September 2019.
Table 1 : As at 30 September 2019, persons in each category of detention in Australia with an on hand protection visa application .
Please note:
1. Figures were extracted from departmental systems on 28 November 2019. As data has been drawn from a live systems environment, the figures provided may differ slightly in previous or future reporting.
2. For privacy reasons, the Department does not provide figures where there are less than five individuals.
3. Periods of detention are cumulative whether the individual is held for a continuous or non-continuous period.
4. Places of immigration detention include: immigration detention centres (IDC), alternative places of detention (APOD) and immigration transit accommodation (ITA).
1. b) Data on the number of persons with an ongoing protection visa application broken down by reasons for continued detention cannot be readily reported by departmental systems. However, the reasons for continued detention most commonly include unresolved identity, health issues that cannot be managed in the community, national security risks or serious criminality.
2. The most common reasons individuals are in detention for more than five years are unresolved identity, national security risks or serious criminality. The Department is unable to remove these individuals from Australia where they have ongoing matters including merits or judicial review.
MS SHARKIE: To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business—(1) Expressed in tabular form, and broken down by annual aggregate turnover size of the employing firm and number of firms, what were the total payments made to employers under the PaTH program.(2) Expressed in tabular form, and broken down by electorate and industry, how many interns: (a) started their internship; and (b) completed their internship.
(1) As at 31 October 2019, $8.7 million has been reimbursed to employment service providers (providers) for 4527 businesses who were paid PaTH Internships Host Payments. The Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business does not record the annual aggregate turnover for businesses using PaTH Internships. As such, we are unable to provide a breakdown of total payments as requested.
(2) As at 31 October 2019:
INTERNSHIPS BY ELECTORATE
* The internships commenced numbers include: 352 internships still in progress and 151 internships which have ended but are awaiting finalisation by the provider. Once these internships are finalised they will increase the count of completed internships in applicable electorates. Other internships commenced but not recorded as completed were ended early by either the job seeker, host business, provider or the department.
* Internships Commenced and/or Internships Completed, with a value of 10 or less, are represented as <10 due to privacy considerations.
* Electorates with a count of 10 or less for both elements are not represented in the table, due to privacy considerations.
INTERNSHIPS BY INDUSTRY
* The internships commenced numbers include: 352 internships still in progress and 151 internships which have ended but are awaiting finalisation by the provider. Once these internships are finalised they will increase the count of completed internships in applicable industries. Other internships commenced but not recorded as completed were ended early by either the job seeker, host business, provider or the department.
* Internships Commenced and/or Internships Completed, with a value of 10 or less, are represented as <10 due to privacy considerations.
(1) When was the last time the Government undertook a non-administrative review of the Assistance for Isolated Children (AIC) payments.(2) Will the Government conduct a review of AIC payments; if so, when; if not, why not.(3) Has the Government considered different AIC payment rates for geographically isolated children as compared to non-geographically isolated children; if so, what was the result of that consideration; if not, why not.(4) Why are AIC payments currently indexed to the consumer price index rather than the education sub-index.(5) Broken down by state and territory, how many geographically isolated students are enrolled in an early years' program via distance education in their pre-school education year prior to compulsory schooling.(6) Has the Government considered allowing access to AIC payments for parents of children undertaking an early years' program via distance education prior to compulsory schooling; if so, what was the result of that consideration; if not, why not.(7) In respect of Senate general business notice of motion no. 200 ( Journals of the Senate , 17 October 2019, page 715), will the Government implement a rural hardship education fund or grants program linked to disasters such as drought, bushfire and flood to assist rural and remote students continue their education unchanged; if so, can details be provided; if not, why not.
(1) The Department of Social Services regularly provides advice on a range of issues related to social security payments, such as Assistance for Isolated Children, including policy options, payment rates, cohort analysis and commentary on analysis undertaken by research and other organisations.
(2) The Department of Social Services regularly provides advice on a range of issues related to social security payments, such as Assistance for Isolated Children, including policy options, payment rates, cohort analysis and commentary on analysis undertaken by research and other organisations.
(3) AIC allowances are intended for the families of students who do not have reasonable daily access to an appropriate state school. This may be because of geographical isolation or because the student has special needs due to a disability or other health-related condition. The Department of Social Services regularly provides advice on a range of issues related to social security payments, such as Assistance for Isolated Children, including payment rates.
(4) Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases to AIC allowances commenced from 1 January 2000. The application of CPI increases to AIC allowances is consistent with CPI increases applied to other student payments such as Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY.
(5) The Department of Education is unable to provide an answer to this question. Information on preschool enrolments is contained in the National Early Childhood Education and Care Collection (NECECC). The NECECC does not include a variable identifying whether a preschool program is provided via distance education. The collection does provide information on preschool enrolments by geographic location, available at www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS%5Cabs@.nsf/0/BC7AC812771E8FEFCA2578680014F525?Opendocument. State and territory governments are responsible for preschool delivery and, as such, may be able to provide information on distance education preschool enrolments.
(6) The AIC Scheme provides assistance to students undertaking compulsory education. Responsibility for early education resides with state and territory governments, which provide a range of programs to support early education.
(7) Special Circumstances Funding provides financial help to eligible schools when unexpected circumstances or events cause severe and temporary financial difficulty. A dedicated $4 million Special Circumstances Funding round was conducted during early 2019 to provide support to schools affected by the 2019 North Queensland floods. Likewise, a $10 million 2019/20 Drought Relief Fund for non-government schools opened on 12 November 2019. Applications for the drought relief fund closed on Monday 16 December, and the department is currently assessing the applications received, with funding to be delivered during early 2020.
Community Child Care Fund (CCCF) Special Circumstance funding is available to support approved child care services impacted by local emergencies, natural disasters or operating in drought affected areas that are experiencing financial pressure putting them at risk of closure. A dedicated $5 million funding for 2019-20 was made available from November 2019 for eligible child care services in drought affected areas. Another $4 million is available in 2019-20 for services affected by natural disasters such as floods and fire, or other unforeseen circumstances causing financial pressure and putting the service at risk of closure. Applications for this grant opportunity are available on the Department of Education website and are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 99 (House Hansard, 14 October 2019, page 203):(1) In respect of the answer to part (1) of the question: (a) what happened to in-service emissions testing that stopped in 2008; and (b) how can Australia adequately track its vehicle emissions without actual measurements, especially considering its unique international position on issues such as fleet characteristics and fuel quality.(2) In respect of the answer to part (2) of the question, why have there been no updates regarding national air pollutant emissions from motor vehicles for base years beyond 2010.(3) In respect of the answer to part (3) of the question, have any new policy measures focused on more effective control of real-world emissions; if so, what are they and can details be provided.(4) In respect of the answer to parts (4) and (5) of the question: (a) is it a fact that a draft regulation impact statement was released in 2016 that clearly identified net benefits of introduction of Euro 6 emission standards; (b) what is the reason that the Government is still 'considering' this issue three years later; (c) what does the Government mean by 'considering'; (d) is there an agreed process with clear timelines to progress policy; and (e) can a clarification be provided as to exactly who is being consulted, and when this has happened or will happen.(5) In respect of the answer to part (6) of the question, how does the Government plan to respond to claims that current Australian fuel (petrol) quality will create technological issues for owners of Euro 6 technology cars?
(1) The Hon Michael McCormack MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development is leading this work, and questions are best addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
(2) In May 2019, the Department of the Environment and Energy published the latest release of the National Inventory Report along with updated data for Australia's UNFCCC Inventory (ageis.climatechange.gov.au/UNFCCC.aspx). The UNFCCC Inventory includes national road transportation emissions trends to 2017 for the following (as well as other) gases:
For the first time, the 2019 release of Australia's UNFCCC Inventory included road transportation emissions trends from 2009 to 2017 for:
The Department of the Environment and Energy will continue to track road transportation emissions for the above gases in future years.
The methods underpinning the estimates for road transportation are set out in Australia's National Inventory Report 2017 (volumes 1 and 3):
environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science-data/greenhouse-gas-measurement/publications/national-inventory-report-2017
(3) The Hon Michael McCormack MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development is leading this work, and questions are best addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
(4) The Hon Michael McCormack MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development is leading this work, and questions are best addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
(5) Manufacturers that have concerns about the suitability of current Australian market fuels are able to specify the use of a higher grade of fuel (eg 95 RON) as a condition of warranty.
1) Is it a fact that expenditure on health and medical research through the National Health and Medical Research Council and Medical Research Future Fund equates to 0.53 per cent of total health expenditure; if not, what is the Government's expenditure on health and medical research as a percentage of the total health budget for 2018-19.
2) Does the Government accept the recommendation of the 2013 Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research to increase investment in medical research to 3 per cent of total health expenditure and what steps, if any, is the Government taking to meet that target; if not, why not.
3) Does the Government accept that an increase in expenditure on medical research will lead to better health and economic outcomes; if not, why not.
1) The Department of Health is unable to reconcile the 0.53 per cent figure from the honorable Member's question.
In 2018-19, Commonwealth total health expenditure was $100.7 billion and the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) expended a combined $1.2 billion. As such, the sum of NHMRC and MRFF expenditure was 1.14 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditure on health for 2018‑19.
The sum of NHMRC and MRFF funding does not represent the total Australian Government support for research and development provided to the health and medical research sector.
The Australian Government provides substantial support for health and medical research and development including through its support of tertiary institutions through Research Block Grants and through the Research and Development Tax Incentive. Details of the Australian Government's approximately $9.6 billion contribution to research and development (2019-20) are available in the Science, Research and Innovation tables (SRI tables) published by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.
The SRI tables attribute $1.47 billion of R&D funding to the socio-economic objective (SEO) of health for 2018-19. This figure is a conservative estimate of total Commonwealth Government spending on health and medical research as it does not count, for example:
It should also be noted that all research block grant funding in that document is attributed to the SEO 'General advancement of knowledge'. Based on Research Australia's estimate that health and medical research accounts for one third of all R&D expenditure in higher education institutions, and 2018-19 research block grant expenditure estimates published in the 2019-20 SRI tables, approximately $700 million of research block grant spending could be attributed to health and medical research.
Combining this attribution of research block grant funding with the published figure of $1.47 billion gives a total of $2.17 billion for health and medical R&D. This represents a total of 2.2 per cent of total Commonwealth expenditure on health.
It should be noted that disbursements from the MRFF are projected to nearly triple over the period 2018-19 to 2021-22, which will increase the Commonwealth's contribution to health and medical research as a proportion of health spending.
2) The Australian Government is committed to funding health and medical research and building a strong, sustainable research sector and industry more broadly.
The Australian Government established the MRFF to provide grants of financial assistance to support health and medical research and innovation to improve the health and wellbeing of Australians. The MRFF operates as an endowment fund with the capital preserved in perpetuity. At maturity, the MRFF will reach $20 billion. It is estimated that MRFF earnings will reach $650 million by the end of the forward estimates. Increasing earnings from the endowment fund will result in higher disbursements.
In the 2019-20 Budget, the Government announced its continued commitment to supporting lifesaving medical research with a $5 billion 10-year investment plan for the MRFF. It will place Australia at the leading edge of research in areas like genomics and will support the search for cures and treatments, including for rare cancers.
The MRFF complements the National Health and Medical Research, which will provide around $850 million in funding for health and medical research in 2019-20.
The Government has also established the Biomedical Translation Fund (BTF), which comprises a $250 million contribution from the Commonwealth, more than matched by private capital, to form a $501.25 million fund to fast‑track investment in late stage medical innovation of commercial potential. As at the end of September 2019, BTF Fund managers had invested $150.20 million in late stage research including for the development of an artificial heart and for the development of a drug to treat kidney disease.
In addition to direct health and medical research funding, the Australian Government supports health and medical research and development through a range of programs as mentioned in the answer to (1).
3) Health and medical research improves and saves lives, plays an essential role in health system improvement and is leading our innovation economy.
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring Australia is a health and medical research powerhouse.
Health and medical research has been identified as one of the key pillars supporting the health system and is essential to building a stronger, sustainable health system.
The above reasons contributed to the Government's decisions to boost the health and medical research sector and the Medtech and Pharmaceutical (MTP) industry more broadly through the introduction of the MRFF and BTF. In the 2017-18 Budget, the Government launched a National Health and Medical Industry Growth Plan, which aimed to:
According to the Industry Growth Centre for the MTP Industry, MTPConnect, the MTP industry supported an estimated 70,000 jobs in 2018, including 26,650 in research, an increase of 6 per cent since 2016. In 2018 it was responsible for $6.5 billion in exports (up 12 per cent since 2016) and had market capitalisation of $129 billion (MTPConnect Sector Competitiveness Plan 2019).
To ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs—Further to the Minster's answer to question in writing No. 141 (House Hansard, 17 October 2019, page 108), how much of the $300 million that the Government is spending over four years to 2020 to deliver climate and disaster resilient low carbon growth in the Pacific region was spent in 2018-19.
Of the commitment to spend $300 million over four years in climate and disaster resilience support in the Pacific, $101.7 million was spent in the 2018-19 financial year.
The definitive instrument for the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to register a higher education provider has always been the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 , which is established under theTertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011 (TEQSA Act).
The functions of TEQSA under Section 134 of the TEQSA Act include 'to collect, analyse interpret and disseminate information relating to: (iii) quality assurance practice, and quality improvement, in higher education; and (iv) the Higher Education Standards Framework'. This provides the basis for the exercise of the TEQSA's provision of guidance notes. Guidance notes are not legislative instruments and do not impact on the assessment of applications.
(1) When was 'fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline' (formerly 'contemporary fire regimes resulting in the loss of vegetation heterogeneity and biodiversity throughout Australia') first nominated as a key threatening process (KTP) under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).(2) Is it a fact that, as stated on the Department of the Environment and Energy's website, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) provided finalised advice to the Minister on this nomination in March 2011.(3) Has any further advice been provided by the TSSC since March 2011.(4) In respect of the statement on the department's website that the timeframe for the Minister to make a decision on whether to list this KTP was extended to 31 August 2013 to allow for further consultation with state and territory governments and to allow the Minister to consider the department's review of key threatening processes, and was then further extended to 29 November 2013 to allow the committee to review the further input from the states and territories—why has there been such a delay in making a decision on this nomination.(5) When will a final decision be made on whether or not to list 'fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline' as a KTP under the EPBC Act.
(1) 'Contemporary fire regimes resulting in the loss of vegetation heterogeneity and biodiversity in Northern Australia' was nominated as a key threatening process (KTP) in 2007. As the issues raised in the original nomination were also relevant to other areas of Australia, the Threatened Species Scientific Committee broadened the nomination to encompass the whole of Australia and changed the title to 'Contemporary fire regimes resulting in the loss of vegetation heterogeneity and biodiversity throughout Australia'. The broadened nomination was included on the Finalised Priority Assessment List for the assessment period commencing 1 October 2008 and subsequently renamed 'Fire regimes that cause biodiversity decline'.
(2) Yes.
(3) Yes. The Committee sent a letter to the then Minister (Minister Burke) in May 2013.
(4) The assessment is particularly complex, requiring consideration of multiple aspects of fire and biodiversity management in Australia.
(5) I have asked the Threatened Species Scientific Committee to review its assessment of this threatening process and provide me with advice on next steps following its February meeting.
1. Does the Government have any role or control over the operation of the Bomana Detention Centre in Papua New Guinea.2. Have there been any Australian public servants involved in the operation of Bomana; if so, how many.3. Have any contractors or subcontractors involved in the operation of Bomana been paid by the Government; if so, how many, broken down by category.4 .Has the Government paid for training of any Bomana staff; if so: (a) how many people have been trained; (b) what is the total number of participant hours of training; and (c) what was the total value of that training; if not, why not.5. Can a copy be provided of the agreement or agreements made between the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments regarding Bomana; if not, why not.6. Did the Australian Government contribute to the: (a) construction of Bomana; and/or (b) ongoing operational costs of Bomana; if so, how much (in tabular form by financial year, including projected costs over the forward estimates).7. Is the Government aware that multilateral and not-for-profit organisations have been denied consistent access to Bomana; if so, has the Government made any representations to the Government of Papua New Guinea to encourage access; if not, why not.
1. No.
2. No.
3. The Department of Home Affairs provides funding support to the Papua New Guinea Government for its operation of the Bomana Immigration Centre. The Department does not hold any contracts in relation to the operation of the Bomana Immigration Centre.
4. At the request of the Papua New Guinea Government, the Department of Home Affairs provided training to six Papua New Guinea Immigration and Citizenship Authority officers working at the Bomana Immigration Centre.
The Papua New Guinea Immigration and Citizenship Authority also engaged local service providers to deliver other relevant training directly to staff working at the Bomana Immigration Centre at cost of $12,952.25. The training included first aid, fire equipment training and St John's Ambulance defibrillator training.
5. The arrangement between the Australia and Papua New Guinea Governments was agreed in confidence. If released, it could undermine Papua New Guinea's confidence in its good working relationship with Australia and may jeopardise cooperation on people smuggling matters more broadly.
6. (a) Yes. The cost to construct the centre was approximately $23.2 million.
(b) As noted in 3) contracts are held by the Papua New Guinea Government.
7. Access to the Bomana Immigration Centre is a matter for the Papua New Guinea Government.
In respect of the Seasonal Worker Program administered by the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, for each of the financial years from 2013-14 to 2018-19, how many seasonal workers participated in the program by: (a) nationality; (b) occupation at the Australia and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations 4 digit level; (c) the sponsoring employers' industry subsector at the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 4 digit level; and (d) location of the sponsoring employer at Statistical Area Level 4.
(a) Seasonal workers participation in the Seasonal Worker Programme (SWP) by nationality
Table 1 represents the number of subclass 416 and 403 visas issued under the SWP from 2013–14 to 2018–19 by the country of citizenship.
a) Source: Department of Home Affairs, 2019 (BR0146.04)
b) Note 1: Seasonal Worker Programme includes visa subclass 416 and subclass 403 under the Seasonal Worker Programme
c) Note 2: Excludes subclass 416 visas granted under the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme
d) Note 3: Figures are from a dynamic source as reported on 30 November 2019 and are subject to variations.
(b) and (c) Seasonal workers occupation and industry sub-sector
The Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business does not collect SWP data by occupation at the Australia and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations 4 digit level and the sponsoring employers' industry subsector at the Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 4 digit level.
Table 2 provides the number of approved places for seasonal workers by eligible industry under
the SWP from 2013–14 to 2018–19.
* The department approves SWP places based on the requests from the Approved Employers .
The number of SWP places ultimately filled depends on the availability of workers and the issued visas.
Note: The number of SWP approved places does not align with the numbers of issued visas each financial year, as they are separate processes subject to different timing and workers ' availability.
(d) Location of the sponsoring employers
The Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business does not collect the data on location of the sponsoring employers at Statistical Area Level 4 level (SA4). Around one third of SWP approved employers are labour hire firms/contractors that operate across the states and/or nationally. In addition, some growers have farms in different SA4 locations. However, SWP data is available for approved places for seasonal workers at the SA4 level as per Table 3.
Table 3 provides a breakdown of SWP approved places from 2013–14 to 2018–19 by location at SA4 level.
* The department approves SWP places based on the requests from the Approved Employers .
The number of SWP places ultimately filled depends on the availability of workers and the issued visas.
Note: The number of SWP approved places does not align with the numbers of issued visas each financial year, as they are separate processes subject to different timing and workers ' availability.
(1) Has the Government undertaken a formal investigation into the benefit of telehealth psychiatric services during and following natural disasters such as drought or floods; if not, why not.(2) What steps, if any, is the Government taking to encourage the use of telehealth psychiatric services in rural, regional and remote communities.(3) What financial incentives, if any, does the Government make available to telehealth providers who offer psychiatric services to rural, regional and remote communities.
(4) Does Item 288 of the Medical Benefits Schedule (telehealth) encourage providers to offer telehealth services; if not, why not.
(1) Telehealth psychiatric services are currently being considered by the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) Review Taskforce (the Taskforce). The Taskforce includes independent clinical and consumer representatives, and is reviewing all Medicare items to ensure that they align with best clinical practice. The Taskforce is expected to provide its final recommendations about specialist services, including telehealth psychiatry, in early 2020.
(2) Medicare rebates which support non-metropolitan patients' access to telehealth psychiatry services are a long-standing feature of the MBS, introduced in 2011.
In response to the bushfire emergency affecting many rural, regional and remote communities, new bushfire MBS items have been made available for MBS-subsidised psychological services for people who have been adversely affected by bushfire in 2019-20. Items commenced on 17 January 2020 and provide MBS rebates for up to 10 individual mental health services per calendar year. People can self-refer to an eligible allied mental health professional (GPs, psychologists, social workers and occupational therapists) and do not have to have a diagnosed mental illness or a GP Mental Health Treatment Plan to access support.
This complements patients' entitlements through the existing Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners through the MBS (Better Access) initiative, and the GP mental health and well-being telehealth services for bushfire-affected patients introduced on 10 January 2020.
(3) The Medicare rebates for telehealth psychiatry provide an additional 50% loading on the relevant face-to-face MBS attendance item.
(4) Medicare data indicates that the uptake of telehealth services has increased every financial year since the introduction of the first telehealth items in 2011. Over this time, the proportion of specialist psychiatry telehealth services (MBS item 288) has increased from approximately 24.5% to 40.8% of all specialist telehealth services (see table below).
Table: MBS specialist telehealth services by year
Source: Department of Health analysis of unpublished MBS data
* MBS item 288
** MBS items 112, 113, 114, 149, 16399, 17609, 2799, 2820, 288, 3015, 6016, 6025, 6026, 6059, 6060, 99
In respect of the Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group:(1) Which departments or agencies are members of the group.(2) Which officials represent those departments or agencies.(3) When was the group established.(4) What are the responsibilities of the group.(5) Does the group have terms of reference.(6) How many times has the group met.(7) When and where does the group meet.(8) What reports has the groups published and are they publicly available.(9) Will the group produce reports in the future that will be publicly available.(10) What is the relationship of the group to the 'Secretaries Group on Climate Risk' referred to in the article, 'The country's top bureaucrats say Government unprepared for climate change' by Michael Slezak and Michael McKinnon (ABC News, 11 September 2019).
1) Members of the Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group (the Resilience Reference Group) include:
2) Participating departments or agencies are formally represented at the Deputy Secretary level.
3) The Resilience Reference Group was established in 2015.
4) The Resilience Reference Group is a coordinating group of senior officials which considers the risks and opportunities arising from climate change and natural disasters.
5) The Resilience Reference Group has Terms of Reference.
6) The Resilience Reference Group has met 12 times.
7) The Resilience Reference Group meets approximately on a quarterly basis. Meetings are held in Canberra, generally hosted by the Department of the Environment and Energy or the Department of Home Affairs.
8) The Resilience Reference Group has not published any reports.
9) The Resilience Reference Group currently does not have any plans to produce any reports.
10) The Resilience Reference Group supports the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk by progressing actions as directed by that Group.
In respect of 'Project Climate Ready', referred to in the article, 'The country's top bureaucrats say Government unprepared for climate change' by Michael Slezak and Michael McKinnon (ABC News, 11 September 2019):(1) What departments and agencies were involved in the project.(2) What was the role of the Minister's department in the project.(3) What exercises did the project conduct.(4) What scenarios did the project consider.(5) Over what period of time was the project carried out.(6) Which body oversaw the project.(7) Did the body that oversaw the project have terms of reference.(8) What project reports were: (a) released publicly; and (b) not released publicly.(9) Did the project warn the Government of: (a) health risks resulting from climate change; (b) national security risks resulting from climate change; and (c) litigation risks resulting from climate change.
1) The delivery of "Project Climate Ready" was tasked to the Australian Government Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group by the Secretaries Group on Climate Risk. The Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group has representatives from all Australian Government departments and key science agencies. Departments participated in individual scenario exercises as appropriate.
2) The Department of the Environment and Energy led the development and delivery of scenarios for the project, in close consultation with the Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group. Two of the scenario exercises were managed jointly with the Department of Defence.
3) The project conducted a series of scenario exercises. These were designed to explore plausible future impacts from climate change and extreme weather events over the medium term (roughly 5-10 years).
4) Scenarios explored some of the possible impacts of extreme weather events in a number of sectors including health, cities and infrastructure and energy.
5) The project was carried out over the period March 2017 to February 2019.
6) The Disaster and Climate Resilience Reference Group oversaw the delivery of the project.
7) Yes.
8) Information on the scenario exercise reports was released publicly through a Freedom of Information Act request in July 2019.
9) The project was designed to explore plausible future impacts from climate change and extreme weather events over the medium term. The intention was to understand what challenges could be presented by such events, in order to inform policy and program design and thinking.
Further to the answer to question in writing No. 94 (House Hansard, 14 October 2019, page 201), and in respect of the Minister's statement on 5 April 2019 that 'GP bulk billing rates under Medicare rose to 86 per cent in the six months from July to December 2018, a record high for this period': what percentage of patients who visited a general practitioner for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 March 2019 were bulk billed.
(1) For the period 1 July 2018 to 30 March 2019, 86% of visits to the general practitioner were bulk billed, a record high for the period.
(1) Are the maturation requirements for rum, whisky and brandy in Section 77FI of the Excise Act 1901 a barrier to entry for small distillers; if not, why not.(2) What is the policy rationale for the maturation requirement.(3) Have changes to distilling practices reduced the relevance or necessity for these maturation requirements; if not, why not.(4) Has Treasury considered, or consulted on, proposals to amend these maturation requirements to assist craft distilleries to enter the market.
1) The Government has recently enacted a number of measures to extend support to craft distillers. From 1 July 2017, the Government extended the brewery refund scheme, to also include domestic spirit producers and distillers. This expanded scheme allows both brewers and distillers to claim a refund of 60 per cent of the excise duty they have paid, up to an annual cap. From 1 July 2019, this cap was increased from $30,000 to $100,000 per financial year.
2) The requirement for rum, whisky and brandy to be matured for two years in wood barrels prior to its sale in Australia is a long standing policy that ensures a minimum standard of quality.
3) This question is best directed to the Minister for Industry, Science and Technololgy.
4) There are currently no plans to amend the two year maturation requirement.