The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took that e chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.50 pm.
That the hours of meeting for Tuesday, 10 May 2011 be from 12.30 pm to 6.30 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and for Thursday, 12 May 2011 be from 9.30 pm to 6 pm and 8 pm to adjournment, and that: (a) the routine of business from 8 pm on Tuesday, 10 May 2011 shall be: (i) Budget statement and documents 2011-2012, (ii) adjournment; and (b) the routine of business from 8pm on Thursday, 12 May 2011 shall be: (i) Budget statement and documents—party leaders and independent senator to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 30 minutes each, and (ii) adjournment.
That the order of consideration of government business orders of the day for today be as follows:
No. 4–Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 1) Bill 2011
No. 2–Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Bill 2011
No. 3–Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulatory Levies Legislation Amendment (2011 Measures No. 1) Bill 2011
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulatory Levies (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
No. 14–Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010
Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (subject to introduction)
No. 15–Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010
No. 6–Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill 2011
No. 5–Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010
No. 1–Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011
No. 8–Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011
No. 9–Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Enrolment and Prisoner Voting) Bill 2010
No. 16–Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Bill 2010
No. 12–Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 1) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Personal Property Securities (Corporations and Other Amendments) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Regulatory Levies (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2010
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Schedule 2, heading, page 8 (lines 1 and 2), omit the heading, substitute:
Schedule 2—Disability support pension
[portability of disability support pension]
(3) Schedule 2, item 7, page 9 (table item 2), after "1218AA", insert ", 1218AB".
[portability of disability support pension]
(4) Schedule 2, page 9 (before line 12), before item 8, insert:
7A After section 1218AA
Insert:
1218AB Extended portability period for disability support pension(1) The Secretary may, by written determination, extend the person's portability period for disability support pension if all of the following circumstances (the qualifying circumstances ) exist: (a) the person is severely disabled (see subsection 23(4B)); (b) the person is receiving disability support pension; (c) the person is wholly or substantially dependent on a family member of the person (see subsection 23(14)); (d) the Secretary is satisfied that the person will be living with the family member of the person throughout the period of absence; (e) the family member of the person is engaged in employment in Australia for an employer immediately before the start of the period of absence; (f) the Secretary is satisfied that the family member of the person will be engaged in employment outside Australia for that employer throughout the period of absence.(2) If the Secretary extends a person's portability period under subsection (1), the person's portability period for disability support pension, for the purposes of this Part, is the extended period.(3) The Secretary may revoke the determination if any of the qualifying circumstances ceases to exist.(4) A determination under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.
Note: The heading to section 1218AA is altered by omitting "Extended" and substituting "Unlimited".
That this bill be now read a third time.
Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
I have great pleasure in introducing the Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 which integrates Medicare Australia and Centrelink into the Department of Human Services.
This Bill supports the Government's Service Delivery Reform agenda, which was announced by the former Minister for Human Services, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, in December 2009.
The Bill continues a broader program of reform that commenced in 2004 when the previous government created the Department of Human Services to place greater emphasis on the way government delivers services to Australians.
In 2007, the Department's role was expanded to reflect responsibility for the develop ment, delivery and co-ordination of government services, and development of service delivery policy.
The continued reform of service delivery through this Bill will create a better exper ience for people and contribute to improved policy outcomes for government, particularly in areas such as economic and social participation, edu cation, child care and health. These outcomes are in line with greater integration and cross-agency service provision initiatives within government.
Service Delivery Reform will significantly improve the way services are delivered by the Human Services portfolio. The progressive rollout of co-located offices will extend the portfolio's reach by providing one-stop-shops in more places. Increased self service options will allow people to manage their own affairs, including through expanded online services. People facing significant disadvantage or multiple complex challenges will be offered more intensive support through coordinated assistance with a case coordinator.
Effective and accessible service delivery is also an important element of the Govern ment's efforts to build a more inclusive society. Service Delivery Reform will simplify people's dealings with the government and provide better support to those most in need.
A key element of the reform is the integration of the portfolio into a single department of state. Bringing together back office functions will drive efficiency, reduce the cost of service delivery for government and free up staff for more frontline customer service delivery.
Schedule 1 of the Bill amends the Medicare Australia Act 1973. The primary purpose of the amendments is to integrate Medicare Australia into the Department of Human Services. The statutory office of the Chief Executive Officer of Medi care Australia will be replaced by a new statu tory position, the Chief Executive Medicare. The Chief Executive Medicare will be a Senior Executive Service officer in the Depart ment of Human Services, who will have broad service delivery functions and will maintain statutory powers.
These administrative changes do not alter the Government's commitment to Medicare. Medicare has provided Australians with afford able, accessible and high quality health care since 1984. The integration of agencies will further extend the reach of the widely recognised and successful Medicare brand in the community. For example, through the co-location of services the number of shopfronts where Medicare services are available will double from 240 today to around 500.
The Bill also amends the investigative powers of the Chief Executive Officer of Medicare Australia, in Part HD of the Medicare Australia Act. The investigative powers will not be extended in scope. The amendments will bring the provisions into line with the Crimes Act 1914 and reduce unnecessary notifications to patients whose medical records are seized but not examined in an investigation.
Schedule 2 of the Bill amends the Com monwealth Services Delivery Agency Act 1997. Schedule 2 replicates, for Centrelink, the governance changes made by Schedule 1 for Medicare Australia. Schedule 2 integrates Centrelink into the Department of Human Services and replaces the statutory office of Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink with a new statutory position, Chief Executive Centrelink. Like the Chief Executive Medicare, the Chief Executive Centrelink will be a Senior Executive Service officer in the Department of Human Services who will have broad service delivery functions and will maintain statutory powers.
Centrelink and Medicare Australia employees will become employees of the Department of Human Services under the machinery of government provisions in the Public Service Act 1999. Departmental employees will be able to assist both Chief E xecutives to perform their functions, enabling consolidation of back-office functions and greater focus on frontline service delivery.
Schedule 3 amends the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. The amendments align the provisions for the appointment of the Child Support Registrar with the provisions for the appointment of the two Chief Executives.
The Bill also contains transitional provisions to facilitate the transition from the current gov ernance arrangements to the new integrated Department of Human Services, with no interruption to service delivery.
Finally, Schedule 4 makes consequential amendments to a range of legislation to reflect the new governance arrangements. References in legislation to Medicare Australia, Centrelink or the Chief Executive Officers are amended to refer to the Department of Human Services and the new Chief Executives.
The secrecy provisions will continue to operate in essentially the same way under the new governance arrangements for the portfolio. To bring this about, the conse quential amendments include changes to various provisions in program legislation, for example the Health Insurance Act 1973 and theSocial Security (Administration) Act 1999.
The Government is conscious of the need to protect customer data, therefore only existing customer data sharing arrangements supported by legislation will continue. Importantly, any new sharing of customer data within the integrated Department of Human Services will occur only with customer consent. The Govern ment is particularly aware of the trust Australians place in Medicare Australia's management of their clinical health informa tion and the need for this information to be held separately and securely. For this reason clinical health information will be excluded from any data sharing under Service Delivery Reform.
The changes I have outlined today are an essential component of the Government's Service Delivery Reform agenda. Service Delivery Reform will transform the delivery of services by the Human Services portfolio and will provide better outcomes for generations of Australians. It will put people first in the design and delivery of services and will ensure services are delivered more effectively and efficiently, especially to people who need more intensive support and to those with complex needs. The Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 is a significant step towards achieving this vision.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Autonomous Sanctions Bill 2010
That this bill be now read a third time.
Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
As part of a suite of health reform measures, the Commonwealth is providing $120 million in capital finding over four years to the states and territories for an additional 286 beds/bed equivalents to expand subacute care capacity in Multi-Purpose Service (MPS) facilities in rural and remote areas. This will be done under the National Partnership Agreement for the Expansion of Subacute Care in Multi-Purpose Services (the NPA).
The total funding available for New South Wales (NSW) under the NPA is $38.8 million. Following agreement of the NPA, funding will be provided based on an approved Implementation Plan, which will outline activities and required funding. NSW will distribute the funding according to local needs, based on this Implementation Plan.
The Department of Health and Ageing has also received a proposal from the NSW government seeking funding for a number of aged care places at a multi-purpose service in Gulgong. This proposal is currently being considered by the Department against the criteria listed in the Aged Care Act 1997.
Negotiations with the states and territories on the NPA will commence shortly.
In terms of recurrent funding for the residential aged care places, if the NSW government proposal seeking aged care places is successful, the funding for these places would be provided from the time the service (and places) became operational.
Senator Fielding asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General on 24 March 2011:
Q: Is the Government aware of concerns by Centacare? In particular that there is an eight week waiting period on post-separation services and that a decrease in funding will increase waiting periods further?
The Senator also referred to a lack of consultation regarding funding cuts.
Senator Ludwig -
The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to Senator Fielding's question:
that clients need to go through a comprehensive intake and assessment process before the intervention can commence;
that group programs that run over a number of weeks may only be scheduled on a periodic basis;
it may take some time to locate, invite and assess the other party as suitable for the dispute resolution process; and
a clinical decision may be made to refer the client elsewhere for another intervention (for example, related to family violence) before it would be suitable to provide the family relationship service to that client.
The Attorney-General's Department will continue to monitor waiting times for post separation services.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senators Evans, Ludwig and Carr to questions without notice asked in question time today.
That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Stephens from 10 May to 12 May 201 1 , for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Furner on 11 May 2011, on account of parliamentary business.
That the Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5.30 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee on the exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 be extended to 27 May 2011.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 11 May 2011, from 9.30 am till 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the conduct of the 2010 federal election and matters related thereto.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the humpback whale is listed as a threatened species,
(ii) human generated habitat degradation is identified as a major threat to humpback whales by the Department of the Environment and Heritage's Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 ,
(iii) the plan notes the following forms of possible habitat degradation:
(a) acoustic pollution, for example, commercial and recreational vessel noise and seismic survey activity,
(b) entanglement, for example, in marine debris, fishing and aquaculture equipment,
(c) physical injury and death from ship strike,
(d) built structures that impact on habitat availability and/or use, for example, marinas, wharves, aquaculture installations, mining or drilling infrastructure,
(e) changing water quality and pollution, for example, runoff from land based agriculture, oil spills, outputs from aquaculture, and
(f) changes to water flow regimes causing extensive sedimentation, and
(iv) building a gas hub at James Price Point, Western Australia, could result in habitat degradation for humpback whales who can typically be found along various parts of the Kimberley coastline for up to 9 months of the year from April to December; and
(b) calls on the Government to invest in more scientific research into the effect of development on the Kimberley coast on the humpback whale.
That general business order of the day no. 54, relating to the Assisting Victims of Overseas Terrorism Bill 2010, be discharged from the Notice Paper .
The Gillard government's continued failure to secure Australia's borders to secure Australia's borders and introduce policies to deny people smugglers the product they sell.
We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.
The economic impact of recent natural disasters, Afghanistan, and recent developments in the Middle East.
That: (a) Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on the science underpinning the inability to eradicate the Asian honey bee be presented by 30 June 2011; (b) Community Affairs References Committee on the impacts of rural wind farms be presented by 1 June 2011; (c) Community Affairs References Committee on the options and services for people ageing with a disability be presented by 31 May 2011; (d) Economics References Committee on the impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry be presented by 1 October 2011; (e) Economics References Committee on the State government insurance and the flood levy be presented by 30 June 2011; (f) Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee on the Department of Defence's request for tender for aviation contracts and associated issues be presented by 23 June 2011; and (g) Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee on pilot safety, including consideration of the Transport Safety Investigation Amendment (Incident Reports) Bill 2010 be presented by 15 June 2011.
That consideration of each of the committee reports and government responses to committee reports tabled today be listed on the Notice Paper as orders of the day.
Electronic Transactions Amendment Bill 2011
Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010
That this bill be now read a third time.
Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011
The exact number of Registered Households that will participate in the scheme may be higher or lower (than outlined in the Schedule) … The list of locations participating in the scheme may also vary due to decisions by the broadcasters to, or not to, convert self-help sites to digital …
(1) At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should extend the timeframes for the consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the Satellite Subsidy Scheme.
(2) At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.
At the end of the motion, add:
but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011
Budget statement and documents 2011-12
Budget speech 2011-12—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan), dated 10 May 2011.
Budget papers—
No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 2011-12.
No. 2—Budget measures 2011-12.
No. 3—Australia's federal relations 2011-12.
No. 4—Agency resourcing 2011-12.
Ministerial statements—
Australia's international development assistance program 2011-12
Investing in regional Australia
Investing to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians
National mental health reform 2011-12
Our cities, our future—A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future
Dear Minister
I am writing to seek clarification on the current confusion surrounding the status of Bibles as "gifts" under the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code. I refer also to recent communications I have had with the Bible Society of Tasmania who have serious concerns. I seek your confirmation that Bibles have not been—and will not be—banned at citizenship ceremonies.
I refer to my previous correspondence dated October 28, 2010 addressing the confusion surrounding the status of Bibles as "gifts" under the current Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code.
As at the date of this letter no response has been received. Your early response would be greatly appreciated.
Online ID theft is a fraudulent activity which has become increasingly complex, relying on ever changing high-tech methods. Tackling it requires concerted, collaborative efforts by all stakeholders ( i.e . government, business, and consumers). Education and awareness are therefore necessary to ensure that both consumers and businesses are aware of the importance of the problem, and knowledgeable about its evolving forms.
(1) (a) Can an itemised list be provided of how much the department has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.
(2) For each Minister and any associated parliamentary secretary: (a) can an itemised list be provided of how much each office has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.
(1) (a) The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's (and its predecessor the Department of Climate Change) total hospitality spend from 24 November 2007 to 30 June 2010 was $200,138 comprising:
295 Australian based events costing $155,390; and
19 International events costing $44,748.
The Department is unable to provide further details of each event as it would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.(b) Details of the alcohol component of any official hospitality are not recorded separately. Provision of these details would involve an extensive manual process and therefore, in the context of existing workloads, an unreasonable diversion of resources.
(2) (a) Details of events for each Minister to 30 June 2010 are as follows:
(b) Details of the alcohol component of any official hospitality are not recorded separately. Provision of these details would involve an extensive manual process and therefore, in the context of existing workloads, an unreasonable diversion of resources.
I would like to clarify the employment and working conditions for Aboriginal workers employed under the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), including under what conditions participants in Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program, traineeships or work-for-the-dole programs may be employed. I have received some disturbing reports from communities in central Australia of the inconsistent treatment of Aboriginal workers.
The main allegations I have heard are:
I am concerned that, if some or all of these allegations are true, they are undermining the positive employment outcomes that could be achieved by the significant opportunity provided by SIHIP, therefore:
(1) What proportion of jobs on SIHIP is made up of CDEP workers.
(2) Can a breakdown be provided, by community, of the number of Indigenous SIHIP workers: (a) on grandfathered CDEP payments; (b) in receipt of CDEP via Basics Card; (c) on other work experience programs; (d) being paid real wages; and (e) who received top-up wages, including the amount received.
(3) How is it that the promised 'real jobs for real wages' under SIHIP are subject to income management.
(4) Which organisations pay CDEP participants who are employed on SIHIP or SIHIP ancillary jobs.
(5) (a) Can the accreditation requirements, workplace agreements and remuneration standards that are required by contractors who are providing construction or maintenance services under SIHIP be clarified; and (b) can an explanation be provided as to how these apply to organisations that are providing CDEP placements, traineeships or work-for-the-dole programs.
(6) Can Aboriginal organisations or organisations employing Aboriginal workers be required to provide a certain number of CDEP places.
(7) If there are accredited Aboriginal contractors willing and able to do construction or maintenance work, can and should they be excluded in favour of CDEP workers.
(8) What are the arrangements concerning top-up pay for workers who are on income support and having their income managed under the Northern Territory Emergency Response.
(9) Are companies providing training or managing CDEP or work-for-the-dole programs required to clearly inform workers up-front as to how many hours they can work and how much top-up money they will be paid.
(10) Should the amount of top-up pay decrease over time.
(11) If there are changes to top-up arrangements or numbers of hours worked, are organisations required to inform workers beforehand.
(12) What can workers do if they believe they have worked a significant number of hours for which they have not been paid.
(13) (a) What are the contractual obligations of Community Enterprises Australia (CEA) and New Future Alliance under SIHIP; and (b) are they required to report on employment outcomes, number of hours worked, rates of pay etc.
(14) What remedy is there for JSA providers who have referred participants to CEA and/or SIHIP but have not received placement or outcome fees due to a lack of reporting.
(15) Which other communities who are in receipt of SIHIP housing or renovations also have, or will have, CDEP and work experience participants working on them.
(16) What action, if any, is the Government taking to remedy: (a) the underpayment of CDEP workers; (b) the lack of placement or outcome fees for referring JSA providers due to inadequate outcomes reporting by CEA; or (c) the loss of potential wages to Aboriginal contractors paying Aboriginal workers real wages for doing real work, who were overlooked in favour of the cheaper CDEP or work experience option.
(17) In regard to the CDEP program: (a) what proportion of available CDEP positions are now being taken up; and (b) can the latest data be provided on ex-CDEP participants, including: (i) the total number, (ii) how many ex-participants have jobs, and (iii) how many are on income support.
(1) Employment of CDEP workers in SIHIP is limited to the New Future Alliance 3A package. At 22 November 2010, of the 58 Indigenous people employed in this package 17 were on CDEP. Across SIHIP this represented 4.9 per cent of the total Indigenous employment recorded across the program at that time.
(2) (a) and (b) As of 3 December 2010, there were 24 CDEP participants working on the SIHIP program at three locations:
Grandfathered CDEP participants, on CDEP wages, are those listed as 'continuing participants'.
New CDEP participants receive income support, are subject to income management and will be issued with a basics card. However, no CDEP participants are paid via the basics card. As at 3 December 2010, there were 19 CDEP participants receiving income support.
(c) Alliance partners do not employ workers under the Work for the Dole or work experience programs. However, in some locations with larger capital works packages, the Alliances assist Job Services Australia and other employment providers to run work experience or pre-employment programs with provision of tools and materials.
(d) All new participants, noted in (2) (a) above, are paid real wages at award rates for every hour worked.
(e) Continuing participants as noted in (2)(a) above, receive top-up payments for hours worked in excess of the 15 hours (on average) covered by CDEP wages. The actual amount of top-up paid depends on the number of hours worked over and above the first 15 hours (on average). At 3 December 2010, there were five continuing participants involved in SIHIP.
(3) Where a CDEP participant is classified as 'new', that is they commenced on CDEP after 1 July 2009, they participate on the program in receipt of income support. This change was part of the reforms to the CDEP program to ensure that incentive and participation requirements of CDEP participants were aligned with other Indigenous job seekers. As with other income support recipients, all wages earned from employment must be declared to Centrelink. All new participants will have a participation obligation under CDEP, however, this does not preclude them from obtaining part-time employment such as through SIHIP. Payment for all work with SIHIP is paid at or above award rates and is not subject to income management. Continuing participants, that is those on CDEP wages, are not subject to income management.
(4) There are four CDEP provider organisations that are paid by the New Future Alliance for part-time work undertaken on SIHIP. These CDEP providers then pay relevant participants at the award hourly rates. The four providers are: Central Desert Shire Council, Community Enterprises Australia Ltd (Alice Springs), Tangentyere Council Incorporated and Tjuwanpa Outstation Resource Centre Aboriginal Corporation.
(5)(a) Funding for SIHIP works, under NPARIH, requires contracted organisations constructing houses and refurbishment/rebuilds to be compliant with all relevant Australian Government and Northern Territory Government legislation/regulations.
The Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government also requires that all works meet quality standards as described in the Building Code of Australia and that housing design and amenity complies with the Nation Indigenous Housing Guide. Compliance with Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC) is also mandated.
Alliance partners must meet all relevant industrial relations legislation as they are the employer of an individual. They may also contract parts of the work to smaller subcontractors who will have similar employer obligations. In addition, subcontractors working in the building and construction sector in the Northern Territory are also required to be Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL) compliant. To obtain CAL accreditation contractors must:
CDEP providers must also ensure that work experience employers comply with all relevant laws, industrial agreements and instruments (part of the CDEP Funding Agreement).
(b) Alliance partners do not employ workers under the Work for the Dole or work experience programs. However, in some locations with larger capital works packages, the Alliances assist Job Services Australia and other employment providers to run work experience or pre-employment programs with provision of tools and materials. CDEP Work Experience Agreements are not applicable for periods under 13 weeks. As short-term refurbishment packages are usually two to twelve weeks CDEP participants were provided under a labour hire arrangement rather than a Work Experience Agreement.
Where the CDEP participant has been directly employed, safety and workplace requirements are incorporated into their training. A CDEP participant's wages are consistent with the award under which they are employed as it is for other non-CDEP employees.
In the case of the labour hire arrangements in package 3A in the Southern Refurbishments, Community Enterprises Australia are providing the labour to New Future Alliance. New Future Alliance undertakes training of the participant ensuring that all OH&S and safety requirements are met. Community Enterprises Australia remains the employer for the participant, ensuring all relevant industrial requirements are met. In addition, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) monitors compliance of CDEP providers to all aspects of their funding agreements.
(6) No, there is no requirement to guarantee a certain number of places for CDEP workers.
(7) No, accredited Aboriginal contractors are not excluded in favour of CDEP workers. Accredited Aboriginal contractors are also able to employ CDEP participants, similar to any other employer. Alliances have subcontracted work to 13 local Indigenous businesses including –Thamarrurr Development Corporation, and Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises (GEBIE Civil & Construction).
(8) New participants (those on income support) on the CDEP program who obtain part-time work with a SIHIP employer must declare all earnings to Centrelink. Income received from working (wages) is not income managed but may impact on the participant's income support which is subject to income management.
(9) Before placing new and continuing participants with a Work Experience Employer, CDEP providers must execute a Work Experience Agreement with the Work Experience Employer. This Work Experience Agreement details the pay and conditions on which the CDEP participants are engaged and must be signed by the CDEP participants. For the short-term placements under the labour hire arrangement, the hours a participant works are negotiated between the CDEP provider, SIHIP employer and the individual. All hours worked are paid at or above award rate.
(10) Only continuing CDEP participants are eligible to receive top-up pay. The CDEP provider will pay CDEP wages to the continuing participant for, on average, the first 15 hours worked per week. Any additional hours worked must be paid by the employer, in this case New Future Alliance. These hours will be paid at award rates and would be considered 'top-up'. Pay for 'top-up' is dependent on the hours per week worked – if hours decrease, top-up pay decreases and if hours increase, top-up pay increases.
(11) Yes.
(12) In the first instance, a worker should raise the query with their local CDEP manager. The Government will investigate any claim made that workers are not being fairly remunerated.
(13) (a) Community Enterprises Australia is a CDEP provider and has no contractual obligations under SIHIP. It has an agreement with New Future Alliance to provide labour hire personnel. Their contracts are commercial-in-confidence but include amounts for workers compensation, superannuation and administration costs.
(b) Yes, both the CDEP provider and the Alliance Partner have separate reporting requirements with regard to Indigenous employment and keep records of all hours worked and paid for CDEP participants.
As a CDEP provider, Community Enterprises Australia must record and report all participants against relevant activities. Under their labour hire arrangement, this includes signed time sheets. Community Enterprises Australia would submit outcome claims for all employment outcomes.
New Future Alliance reports to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in the Northern Territory on employment information. This information includes – number of indigenous employees, hours worked and training participation.
(14) It is a requirement under the CDEP funding agreement and JSA deed, that all CDEP and JSA providers must enter into Service Level Agreements (SLA) where they service the same locations. The SLA should outline how the two providers will jointly service their shared participants, including communications and reporting between the two parties. If a JSA provider feels the SLA is not being honoured they can raise the matter with their Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) contract manager who will liaise with the relevant CDEP agreement manager in FaHCSIA.
(15) Please refer to (2)(a).
(16) (a) The Government will investigate any claim made that workers are not being fairly remunerated. FaHCSIA's investigations have shown that to date CDEP participants working on SIHIP are being remunerated appropriately. In order to address confusion around CDEP participants undertaking short-term employment with a SIHIP employer, FaHCSIA has advised CDEP providers that any placement with a SIHIP employer that is not under a formal Work Experience Agreement, that is for placements of less than 13 weeks, the CDEP participant must be exited from the program.
(b) Please refer to (14).
(c) FaHCSIA is not aware of any specific information about potential losses to Aboriginal contractors. Any complaints should be directed to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in the Northern Territory.
(17) (a) At 30 November 2010, a total of 10,400 participants were active on the CDEP program out of the 14,891 available places (69.84 per cent).
(b) (i) The total number of exits from the CDEP program between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010 was 12,897. The total number of program exits between 1 July 2010 and 30 Nov 2010 was 6,421. These exits are for multiple reasons and include multiple episodes of participation for the same people.
(ii) Between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010:
(iii) Of the 19,318 exits from the CDEP program since 1 July 2009 it is not possible to report how many of these are currently in employment or on income support.
With reference to the answer provided on 14 May 2010 through additional estimates that:
'Green Loans were made available for a range of home improvements. Abatement estimates are not available at this time',
and the answers provided on 17 November 2010 through Budget estimates, months after the 22 March discontinuation of the loans component of the Green Loans Program, that:
'As at 31 August 2010, the total value of the 7,448 loans for which the Department had paid subsidies and application fees was $67,900,866.00', and
'As at 31 August 2010, the total sum of subsidies and application fees paid to all financial institutions participating in the program was $13,553,381. This is based on the 7,448 loans for which payments had been made as at 31 August 2010':
(1) For what reason are these answers given 'As at 31 August 2010'.
(2) Is the department expecting to pay, or has the department paid, any subsidies or application fees later than 31 August 2010.
(3) (a) What information has been kept on the home improvements made or planned as a result of the securing by householders of Green Loans; and (b) can an itemised list be provided by eligible action (e.g. fridge, hot water system replacement) of: (i) the number of Green Loans provided, (ii) the total value of Green Loans provided, and (iii) the total number of such eligible actions subsidised (noting that each Green Loan might subsidise more than one eligible action).
(4) What are the estimated emissions reductions resulting from subsidised Green Loans, including:
(a) a total estimate for the loans component of the program;
(b) a total estimate for the entire program if different; and
(c) an itemised listing of emissions reduction by eligible action (e.g. fridge, hot water system replacement).
(1) The 31 August 2010 date coincided with the date on which data was collated by the Department to respond to Senator Birmingham's original question.
(2) One invoice is still to be paid for loans that were approved prior to the 22 March 2010 closure date. The Department is seeking clarification from the relevant financial institution about a number of items included in this invoice. Once the items claimed for payment have been verified, this invoice will be paid as a matter of priority.
(3) Information on improvements planned as a result of the securing by householders of a Green Loan is contained on the loan declaration provided by applicants to the relevant financial institution. The Department has not yet received this information from the financial institutions but will do so as part of the overall audit and evaluation strategy.
To ensure householders have adequate time to see the benefits of both making improvements to their property and sustained behavioural changes, the evaluation and audit of Green Loan recipients is planned to occur in the first quarter of 2011.
As of 14 December 2010, there were 7,774 loans approved, with a total value of $70,930,829.25.
(4) The Department is exploring whether it is possible to provide answers to some or all of these questions.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
I am advised that the general ongoing practice is that Ministers' letters in the portfolio are printed on plain paper with the 'letterhead' being part of the electronic document. There is however a requirement for some letters from the Prime Minister to be printed on pre-printed letterhead. No expenditure on pre-printed letterhead paper was incurred in the period covered by this question as paper is ordered in bulk and used over an extended period.
The following Ministers use 'Stephen Swiss White' 115gsm A4 paper and matching DL envelopes for ministerial correspondence:
the Prime Minister, the Honourable Julia Gillard MP;
the Minister for the Arts, the Honourable Simon Crean MP;
the Cabinet Secretary, the Honourable Mark Dreyfus MP, and
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Kate Lundy.
The cost of the Stephen Swiss White paper and envelopes are:
one ream (500 sheets) is $32.87 or $26.40 per ream if bulk orders (50 reams or more) are placed; and
DL envelopes are $76.50 per box of 500.
As at 29 November 2010, standard white paper (A4 80gsm) and 'Stephen Swiss White' envelopes were used for ministerial correspondence for the other Ministers in the portfolio, i.e:
The cost of one ream (500 sheets) of standard white paper is $4.90.
The 'Stephen Swiss White' product is carbon neutral. The standard white paper used more generally for ministers is not carbon neutral.
The total cost for stationary used by each minister over the period since 14 September 2010 cannot be identified as stationery is ordered in bulk, sometimes for several ministers, and then used over an extended period. The costs have therefore been presented as an amount per ream or batch of stationary.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
(1) From 14 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 the total amount expended on publications was $1,258.56. Expenditure on stationery is recorded by the Department under a single account code and it would be too resource intensive to identify what proportion was attributed to the Office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.
(2) The Minister's Office does not use printed letterhead and instead prints the letter template straight onto blank paper. As expenditure for blank paper supplied by the Department is recorded under a single account code, it would be too resource intensive to identify what proportion was attributed to the Minister's Office.
(3) Until mid-January 2011 the Minister's Office used 50% recycled copy paper that is 80 GSM for correspondence from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. From mid-January to date the Office has used a paper that is 110 GSM. This was used to exhaust stocks that the Department of Defence had provided to the Office. The Office will shortly transition to a new paper that is 104 GSM.
(4) The 80 GSM and the 110 GSM papers used for ministerial responses were not carbon neutral. The 104 GSM paper that the Office will transition to shortly is carbon neutral.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:
(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.
(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.
(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.
(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.
Please refer to the Special Minister of State's answer to Question 266*.
*All figures quoted in the answer to Question 266 are shared between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, in accordance with the SMOS' dual role as Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
(1) No.
(2) (a) 20, comprising 10 Blackberries and 10 Next G cards. (b) $7,729.44. This figure relates to costs incurred between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010.
(3) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 October 2010.
(4) The cost of official travel for Parliamentarians paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation is reported bi-annually. Travel costs for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010 will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011.
In addition, between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010, the total cost of short-term transport (such as hire cars and taxis) was $4,587.06.
(5) The Special Minister of State will respond on behalf of other Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in relation to the total travel for all staff, by office. Please refer to the answer to Question No. 308.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
Please refer to the Special Minister of State's answer to Question 308*.
*All figures quoted in the answer to Question 308 are shared between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, in accordance with the SMOS' dual role as Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State.
Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
(1) No.
(2) (a) 18, comprising 8 Blackberries, two mobile phones and eight Next G cards. (b) $10,593.16. This figure relates to costs incurred between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010.
(3)The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 October 2010.
(4) The cost of official travel for Parliamentarians paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation is reported bi-annually. Travel costs for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010 will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011.
In addition, between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010, the total cost of short-term transport (such as hire cars and taxis) was $3,228.23. Similar costs incurred by Departments on behalf of their Portfolio Ministers should be reported separately by each Department.
(5 )A table outlining the cost of travel paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation for the staff of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries is at Attachment A. It should be noted that Departments may have incurred additional staff travel costs directly, and if so, these costs will be reported separately by each Department.
Attachment A
Cost of travel paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation for employees of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries for the period 14 September to 29 November 2010
The figures in the above table reflect the cost of travel, including domestic and overseas airfares, car transport and Travelling and Motor Vehicle Allowances for all employees of each Minister or Parliamentary Secretary employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) ACT), and includes both personal and electorate employees. The figures do not include travel on Special Purpose Aircraft which is administered by the Department of Defence.
As employees are able to lodge claims for Travelling Allowance up to 60 days after completion of the relevant travel, and allowing time for ticket charges and refunds, the total cost of travel may not be reflected in the table above. However, the information provided is correct as at 8 December 2010.
* Role ceased on 14 September 2010 when the new Ministry was sworn in. Please note that a Direction made under the MOP(S) Act defers the termination of staff for a period of two weeks after an Office Holder ceases to hold office. Staff are eligible for limited official travel at Government expense during this period.
With reference to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) and Burma: Has EFIC provided any services, assistance, funding or insurance to Australian companies investing or doing business in Burma; if so, can a detailed explanation be provided of those services.
In the past decade, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has not provided finance or insurance to support Australian company investments or contracts in Burma.
Given that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) has provided new loan support to West African mines and according to a media release on its website dated 30 August 2010, EFIC is providing a 4 year loan facility to the Australian business, African Underground Mining Services Pty Ltd (AUMS), for its contract underground mining operations in Ghana and Mali to the value of US$15 million:
(1) On what date did EFIC sign the loan contract and the contract become valid.
(2) Did EFIC apply its environment policy to benchmark the application against International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards and the Equator Principles before making the decision to approve this loan facility to AUMS.
(3) Does one of the four contract mining agreements that AUMS has entered into relate to Newmont Mining Corporation's Ahafo gold mine in Ghana, located in a farming region northwest of the country's capital Accra.
(4) When EFIC approved this transaction, classifying it as a Category B project (rather than a Category A – significant impacts), was it aware of any controversy surrounding the Ahafo gold mine since its commencement in 2006.
(5) Can comment be provided on the following 'known' controversies associated with the Ahafo gold mine: (a) allegations of human rights abuses by security forces protecting the mine; b) displacement of 10 000 people (95 per cent of whom were subsistence farmers); (c) inadequate compensation; (d) irresponsible practices; and (e) a serious cyanide spill in October 2009.
(6) Was EFIC aware that a ministerial panel of the Government of Ghana has recommended that the Newmont Mining Corporation be fined US$4.9 million for failing to prevent a major cyanide spill in October 2009 at its Ahafo gold mine, and for failing to properly report on and investigate the spill.
(1) African Underground Mining Services Ltd (AUMS) is not an Australian business but is an Australian-owned joint venture incorporated in Ghana. The EFIC US$15 million facility relates to AUMS's operations in Ghana and Mali.
The effective signing date of the Ghana loan contract is 8 April 2010 and the effective signing date of the Mali loan contract is 13 September 2010.
(2) EFIC assessed this transaction under its Environment Policy. As required under the Policy EFIC assessed the activity of our client using the IFC Performance Standards as the benchmark.
The Equator Principles apply only to project finance and were not relevant to this transaction which does not involve project finance as described in the Equator Principles.
(3) EFIC provided a loan of $US15 million to AUMS, a Ghanaian joint venture company, owned by two Australian companies. The purpose of the loan was to allow AUMS to purchase mining machinery manufactured in Australia for use in contract mining services provided by the Ghanaian joint venture to its clients in West Africa. Those clients included Newmont Ghana Gold Limited which operates and owns Ahafo Gold Mine.
(4) EFIC's assessment included a review of publicly available information (at the time of assessment) on its client's customer, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and its Ahafo Gold Mine Project. That information indicated that the project was assessed and funded by the commercial arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and that the IFC financing of the project was subject to the mine operator meeting stringent environment and social standards. The IFC also has ongoing monitoring and reporting in place, including assessments by independent consultants. Since the financing was approved by the IFC, the project has publicly reported on its management of environmental and social issues. EFIC's review provided adequate assurance that World Bank Group policies and guidelines had been met at the time of that review.
(5) EFIC cannot comment on these issues specifically as they are related to the operator and owner of the Ahafo gold mine, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, and EFIC has no relationship with that company.
(6) EFIC is aware from news reports of payment by Newmont Ghana Gold Limited of an unspecified amount as compensation for an accidental overflow at the Ahafo Gold Mine.
EFIC cannot comment specifically on this issue as it is the responsibility of the operator and owner of the Ahafo Gold Mine, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited. EFIC has no relationship with that company.
With reference to the publication dated 18 August 2010 on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) website which states that EFIC had signed a 10 year $50 million loan agreement with Australian business Orica Limited, to support the construction of an industrial grade ammonium nitrate plant in Indonesia: Why were the social and environmental impacts of this large scale project not considered to be significant enough to have the project classified as a 'Category A' under the EFIC environment policy.
EFIC assessed this transaction under its Environment Policy. As required under the Policy, EFIC assessed the activity of its client using the IFC Performance Standards as the benchmark. EFIC considered that this project's social and environmental impacts were few in number, generally site specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation i.e. the characteristics of a Category B project.
Has the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) provided any services, assistance, funding or insurance to Australian coal companies or coal projects operating overseas; if so, can details be provided of what has been provided, to which company and to what project; if not, can details be provided clarifying whether there is anything preventing coal projects or companies from accessing EFIC assistance in the future.
In the past 12 months, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) has participated in a trade receivables purchase facility between Westpac and entities of Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. The receivables relate to purchases of various grades of coking coal by ArcelorMittal, a Luxembourg-registered company.
Under its mandate EFIC has no bias in its support for any specific sector and is reactive to requests for support from any Australian exporter. As such, there is nothing preventing coal projects or companies from seeking EFIC's assistance. EFIC may provide support to coal projects or companies if they comply with EFIC's environmental and social requirements; the projects are technically and commercially viable; and there is a 'market gap' for the financial support.
With reference to the 5 year environment and social policy review conducted by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC):
(1) What steps have been taken by EFIC to promote the current review.
(2) What kinds of efforts were made by way of consultation and encouraging public submissions.
(3) Has EFIC provided a public document outlining the review process and opportunities for consultation and engagement.
(4) What efforts were made to seek input from EFIC supported projects where communities have been affected, and from other stakeholders in host countries.
(5) In relation to the submissions received by EFIC as part of its review: (a) how many have been received and from whom; (b) will they be made public; (c) will EFIC publish a public response to the submissions and recommendations received during the current review; (d) will EFIC respond to these submissions beyond a letter of acknowledgement; and (e) is there anything in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 that prevents EFIC from responding to the substance contained in the submissions.
(6) Has EFIC engaged in a public forum or public hearing process during the review; if not, will EFIC hold such a public consultation event before approving the revised policy.
(7) Have the proposed new EFIC Social and Environment Policy and Procedure documents been reviewed by an independent corporate social responsibility expert during the review process.
(1) EFIC commenced the current review of its Environment Policy more than 18 months ago. Over that time EFIC has consulted its stakeholders through a variety of methods including one-on-one discussions, distribution of a questionnaire to clients, a formal public consultation period (discussed under questions 2 and 3) and a workshop with respondents to the formal consultation (discussed under question 6).
(2) (3) and (4) EFIC formally consulted its stakeholders by posting a draft revised Environmental Policy and Procedure on its website and requesting submissions from interested parties. The consultation period was open between 6 August and 1 October, 2010 and was twice extended following the separate requests of two civil society organisations that eventually made submissions.
To encourage submissions EFIC directly emailed details of the consultation period and the consultation documents to those people and organisations registered with EFIC to receive alerts when EFIC's Category A register is updated. (The Category A register advises stakeholders of EFIC's potential involvement in projects with a potential for significant environmental and social impact).
(5) (a) EFIC received three submissions from civil society organisations (CSOs): Oxfam Australia, Jubilee Australia and the Mineral Policy Institute. (b), (c), (d) and (e) EFIC organised a workshop in December 2010 with the three CSOs that responded to its request for submissions on its Environment Policy Review (discussed under question 6). One of the outcomes of that workshop was an agreement that EFIC will publish on its website:
- copies of the submissions received (subject to the author's consent);
- EFIC's response to the submissions. This comprises an analysis of the submissions that was used as the basis for the workshop discussions; and
- a paper summarising the workshop outcomes. This was prepared by an independent facilitator engaged for the workshop and represents a set of agreed outcomes that will help inform the finalisation of EFIC's revised Policy and associated Procedure.
(6) EFIC organised an independently facilitated one day workshop between EFIC, DFAT and the three CSOs that made submissions on its Environment Policy Review. The workshop's aims were to:
- provide an opportunity for EFIC and the CSOs to discuss the Policy, Procedure and the submissions, and
- identify and develop some consensus views that will inform the Policy and Procedure finalisation.
- An independent facilitator was engaged for the workshop to both facilitate discussions and also to prepare a paper summarising the workshop outcomes.
(7) EFIC has internal expertise in environmental and social impact assessment and management. However EFIC did not engaged an independent corporate social responsibility expert. A combination of that expertise and consultation with stakeholders and the other activities noted above has provided a broad basis for the preparation of the new Policy and Procedure.
The preparation of the proposed new Policy and Procedure for EFIC's environmental and social review of transactions has been in progress for about 18 months and was informed by a broad range of activities including:
- direct discussions with stakeholders as outlined in the responses to previous questions;
- the participation of EFIC's staff in a variety of external forums. Coincidental to EFIC's Environment Policy review there has been a review by the International Finance Corporation of the Performance Standards (EFIC's benchmark) and a review of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development "Common Approaches" (EFIC's international obligation). EFIC staff have been actively participating in these reviews.
With reference to the current environment policy and reporting procedures of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), and drawing on examples of the export credit agencies operating in Canada, the United States of America (US) and Japan:
(1) In terms of establishing international benchmarks for the practice of export credit agencies and their environment policies, is it fair to compare EFIC to other export credit agencies such as Export Development Canada (EDC), Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC); if not, why not.
(2) Has EFIC adopted an environment policy that is consistent or comparative with the environment policies adopted by EDC, Ex-Im Bank and JBIC.
(3) Is EFIC complying with industry best practice; if so, can a copy of its guidelines, policies or standards outlining industry best practice be provided.
(4) Given that the EDC's implementation and compliance with its Environmental Review Directive is reviewed every 5 years by the Auditor General of Canada: (a) has EFIC's implementation and compliance with its environment policy been independently reviewed and audited by the Australian Auditor-General or an independent third party in the past 5 years; and (b) is there anything in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (the Act) that prevents the Australian Auditor-General performing this audit.
(5) Can the Minister confirm that the export credit agencies Ex-Im Bank and JBIC disclose monthly summaries of the minutes of meetings of the Board of Directors, in addition to media releases published, in order to provide a level of public accountability and to keep domestic stakeholders up to date with transactions.
(6) Does EFIC disclose summaries of its Board minutes to the Australian public; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from disclosing these summaries to the Australian public.
(7) Given that the Canadian export credit agency, EDC, has at least one corporate social responsibility (CSR) representative on the Board of Directors, does EFIC have a CSR representative/expert on their Board; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents the appointment of a CSR representative/expert to the EFIC Board.
(8) With reference to the JBIC and Ex-Im Bank process, where, after receiving submissions on Category A projects, a summary of their benchmarking against International Finance Corporation Performance Standards is published to demonstrate compliance and transparency to domestic stakeholders: (a) how many Category A projects did EFIC disclose in the 2009-10 financial year; (b) does EFIC respond to public submissions on Category A projects beyond a letter of acknowledgement; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from responding to the substance contained in public submissions; and (c) does EFIC publish summaries of project benchmarking; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from disclosing summaries of project benchmarking.
(1) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) export credit agencies (ECAs) have agreed that they will use a common approach for addressing environmental issues relating to officially supported export credits. The agreement is referred to as the OECD Common Approaches. As a result, all OECD ECAs (including EFIC, EDC, Ex-Im Bank and JBIC) apply the same standard for transactions involving officially supported export credits.
However, a number of ECAs provide products and services beyond officially supported export credits that are appropriate to their Government mandate. As an example, US Ex-Im's mandate is largely focussed on the provision of export credits, whilst, in addition to export credits, JBIC provides a broader range of products in fulfilling a development and strategic acquisition role for Japan. EDC in Canada has a very broad mandate and operates more closely to a commercial bank.
Accordingly, the environmental policies of ECAs may need to cover both export credits and other types of business. The variations in mandate and differences in environment policies make direct comparisons somewhat difficult.
(2) As indicated in the response to question 1 it is difficult to directly compare EFIC's Environment Policy with the environmental policies of other ECAs. Some points of difference may further illustrate this:
EFIC has adopted the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards as its benchmark for conducting environmental and social reviews of transactions (since the IFC Performance Standards were introduced in 2006 no other benchmark has been used by EFIC for transactions). The other three ECAs referenced in the question nominate and use either the World Bank Safeguard Policies or the IFC Performance Standards depending on the transaction type.
EFIC's Environment Policy applies to all transactions. EFIC understands that this is not the case for EDC and the Ex-Im Bank while JBIC's position is unclear in this respect.
EFIC considers that the standards and procedures nominated in its Environment Policy benchmark well in comparison to that of any other OECD ECA.
(3) The IFC Performance Standards are widely regarded as the best practice benchmark for environmental and social assessment. The Performance Standards and associated Guidelines are applicable to almost any type of activity.
A copy of the Performance Standards and Guidelines can be found at:
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards
EFIC occasionally supplements the IFC Performance Standards with other guidelines or standards and this is determined according to the needs of specific transactions. For example, EFIC has referenced the community development toolkit of the International Council on Metals and Mining (ICMM) and has also used the Human Rights Guidance Tool for the Financial Sector developed by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).
(4) (a)There is no legislative requirement that the Australian Auditor-General audit EFIC's Environment Policy. The last external review of EFIC's implementation of its Environment Policy was commissioned by EFIC from PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2004.
As part of its current Environment Policy review, EFIC is considering a regular independent audit of the application of its Environment Policy. The audit frequency has yet to be determined. EFIC's preference would be to engage a specialised environmental consultancy to undertake the proposed audit so that people with the requisite experience and skills are involved, which would enhance the effectiveness of the audit.(b)There is nothing in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (the EFIC Act) that prevents the Australian Auditor-General performing this audit. The appointment of the Australian Auditor-General to perform such an audit would be regulated by the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Cth).
(5) The US Ex-Im Bank publishes a brief summary of its Board meetings. The information provided is limited to the names of the parties involved in a transaction, the transaction type, the amount and term of the financial support provided for the transaction, the country where the transaction is located and the Board's decision.
JBIC does not appear to publish summaries of its Board of Directors meetings nor do any other OECD or non-OECD ECA publish information concerning Board meetings.
(6) EFIC complies with the reporting and other obligations of a Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth)(CAC Act). Those reporting obligations do not include the provision of summaries of its Board minutes. Section 87 of the EFIC Act contains provisions which prohibit the disclosure by EFIC employees, officers and Board members of information relating to EFIC's business under the EFIC Act.
(7) The 2009 EDC Annual Report reveals there are no Board members with responsibility for CSR. EDC has an individual in its Executive whose responsibilities include CSR issues, as does EFIC. Appointments to the EFIC Board (other than the Managing Director) are made by the Minister. Both the EFIC Act and the CAC Act impose obligations and duties on EFIC Board members, including a duty to act in the best interests of EFIC with due care, skill and diligence.
Before an EFIC board position is vacated, depending on the specific position and taking account of the skills required to ensure that the Board has appropriate balanced membership to meet its functions, an extensive list of potential candidates is prepared. This list is then provided to the Minister and a short list of candidates determined. The candidates short listed are contacted and resumes submitted. The Minister then selects a suitable candidate from this list.
(8) (a) EFIC disclosed its potential involvement in three Category A projects during the 2009-2010 financial year. (b) EFIC provides a letter of acknowledgement to those that make a written submission on Category A projects. EFIC incorporates these submissions into its due diligence process prior to making a decision to provide or decline support for a transaction. Section 87 of the EFIC Act contains provisions which prohibit the disclosure by EFIC employees, officers and Board members of information relating to EFIC's business under the EFIC Act. (c) EFIC does not publish summaries of project benchmarking. EFIC is aware of only one ECA that regularly publishes a summary of project benchmarking; JBIC, which publishes a very brief overview of each of its 'Category A' projects. The published summary contains little information on a project's environmental and social impacts and resultant management response. JBIC is also not a directly comparable organisation to EFIC as it also fulfils a development and strategic acquisition role for Japan.
(1) What amount of funding has been spent and/or committed under the Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program (AISAP).
(2) How many companies have received funding under the AISAP; of these, how many have merged and with whom have they merged.
(3) How many individuals have received funding under the AISAP.
(4) What amount of funding remains uncommitted under the AISAP for the 2010-11 financial year and for each (if any) subsequent year.
(1) As at 25 January 2011, $35,213,036 had been committed under the structural adjustment element of AISAP.
The total amount of funding spent under the labour market element of AISAP as at 25 January 2011 is $9 million (this element is the responsibility of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)).
(2) As at 25 January 2011, nine companies had received funding under the structural adjustment element of AISAP. Of these, three companies had received funding assistance to undertake mergers and acquisitions. Information regarding mergers and acquisitions is commercial in confidence.
(3) As at 25 January 2011 there were a total of 2,718 job seekers who received support as a result of funding provided under the labour market element of the AISAP (DEEWR).
(4) As at 25 January 2011, $34.495 million remained uncommitted under the structural adjustment element of AISAP for the financial year 2010-11. No funding is appropriated for subsequent years under the structural adjustment element of AISAP.
As at 25 January 2011, there is a total of $27.3 million uncommitted funds under the labour market element of AISAP (DEEWR).
In regard to the extraction of coal seam gas:
(1) What is the average amount of methane released in such operations.
(2) What is the estimated maximum for methane release.
(3) How is such a release measured.
Methane emissions from the extraction of coal seam gas are estimated and reported within the National Greenhouse Accounts, as part of the fugitive emissions from natural gas production and processing, venting and flaring. It is not possible to separately identify the emissions associated with the extraction of coal seam gas. According to the National Greenhouse Accounts, fugitive methane emissions from natural gas production and processing (leakage and venting) for Australia in 2008 were 33,335 tonnes.
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008 (the Determination) provides methods and criteria for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and energy data under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Methodologies for determining the fugitive methane emissions from the extraction of coal seam gas are provided in the Determination under Divisions 3.3.6 and 3.3.9 for natural gas production and processing.
(1) What formula or formulas are used to calculate: (a) the total annual level of permanent migration targeted over the past 5 years (2006 to 2011); and b) the total annual level of skilled and family permanent migration over the same period.
(2) Has the formula, or its parameters, changed between 2006 and 2011; if so: (a) in what way; and (b) what have been the impacts on the targeted level of migration.
(3) What are the objectives which drive the level of permanent migration in Australia.
(4) What work has been undertaken to assess whether the targeted levels of permanent migration have met these objectives.
(1) (a) and (b) The Permanent Migration Program is planned and managed on an annual basis through the setting of the annual permanent skill and family intake levels.
In determining the size and composition of the Migration Program, a range of factors are considered, including:
- immediate and forecast long-term social, demographic and economic trends;
- expected demand for skilled labour in key occupations and industries over the medium to long term;
- estimated demand for Migration Program places within categories that are uncapped under existing legislation, in particular the Partner and Child categories;
- specific social, economic and labour market advice and analysis from other Australian Government agencies including Skills Australia, as well as feedback from key industry and business bodies, community groups and state and territory governments through the conduct of annual migration program consultation meetings and receipt of written submissions;
- research and analysis of the current and projected labour demand in Australia;
- an identified need to address critical immediate and emerging longer term labour force skill shortages, that are unable to be met by the domestic labour market or training schemes or through temporary migration programs; and
- the economic and social contribution of the permanent migration program and any adjustment costs and wider considerations which need be balanced against the above considerations.
Annual permanent migration planning levels are indicative and are revised and reviewed regularly by the Government to ensure that they are meeting their aim. The proportion of visa grants in Skill Stream categories can be readjusted in response to changes in economic circumstances.
(2) (a) and (b) The method of determining the size and composition of the annual Migration Program has not changed over the last five years. However, since 2010 the Department analysed temporary migration trends alongside permanent migration program trends. This information has been considered alongside the migration program to ensure that immigration levels are optimal in terms of their economic contribution, and balanced against adjustment costs which flow from resultant population growth.
(3) The Migration Program has the objective of facilitating the entry of migrants who can contribute to economic growth by enhancing the size, skill level and productivity of the Australian labour force; as well as the reunion of immediate family members such as partners and children, and other family members within the extent that the social gain is balanced against the fiscal cost.
(4) The Department consults industry, businesses and community groups on the effectiveness of the Migration Program to meet their critical skill and social needs. Input from these consultations is considered as part of future Migration Program planning. Regular internal and external evaluations and reviews of migration programs and policies are also undertaken to ensure these are meeting their objectives. For example the Independent category of the Skill Stream was reviewed in 2010, and the Business Skills and Employer Sponsored Category is currently under review, as is the Student Visa program which is a key feeder category for the permanent program.
The Department regularly commissions external research on current and emerging issues associated with immigration, population, multiculturalism and settlement and undertakes evaluations to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of migration priorities, legislation and policy settings.
Longitudinal and continuous surveys of Australia's migrants are conducted to evaluate the labour market and settlement outcomes of migrants. The Department also collects and analyses a range of immigration related statistics to monitor the progress of our programs.
With reference to the Government's promise to resettle 500 UNHCR registered refugees from Indonesia: Can the Government confirm whether this target has been met; if not (a) how many from the promised 500 have been resettled; and (b) what will be the timeframe for resettling the remaining refugees.
(a) The Australian Government resettles UNHCR mandated refugees from a number of locations globally.
In relation to refugees resettled from Indonesia, in the 2009–10 Program year (which runs from 1 July to 30 June), 109 visas were granted to UNHCR mandated refugees under the Humanitarian Program.
In the 2010–11 Program year to 28 February 2011, 457 visas have been granted to UNHCR mandated refugees in Indonesia under the Humanitarian Program.
(b) Most refugees who are granted visas travel shortly after visa grant, however this is subject to flight availability and ensuring that appropriate settlement services are available in Australia.
(1)When the Minister decided on 12 November 2009 that Mr Charles Zentai be extradited to the Republic of Hungary, was the Minister aware of any of the following information that had been provided to the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department and the Minister's office:
(a) that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had advised the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that there was no evidence to support a charge against Mr Zentai of a war crime (or any other crime);
(b) that the DPP and the AFP had therefore decided not to prosecute Mr Zentai for the alleged war crime, although if there had been sufficient evidence to support a charge, (which there was not) it would have been open to the Australian authorities to charge Mr Zentai and have him tried in Australia, rather than extradite him;
(c) that the Republic of Hungary only wanted Mr Zentai to be extradited to Hungary for interrogation, as no charge has been laid against him.
(2) If the Minister was aware of all or any of that information: (a) what information was he aware of; and (b) did he give consideration to it before making his extradition determination; if so, what were his reasons for deciding that an Australian citizen, Mr Zentai, be extradited to Hungary.
(3) If the Minister was not aware of any or some of that information before he made the decision to extradite Mr Zentai, was he made aware of it after the decision of Federal Court Justice McKerracher in December 2010; if so, why did the Minister authorise an appeal against Justice McKerracher's decision that had set aside the Minister's determination to extradite Mr Zentai.
(4) Has the Minister ever suggested to the Hungarian authorities that they conduct their 'investigation' and/or 'interrogation' of Mr Zentai in Australia; if so, what was the Republic of Hungary's response; if not, why has the Minister not made that suggestion to the Republic of Hungary, having regard to the age and health of Mr Zentai, the fact that the Hungarian authorities have said they only want him for interrogation and the fact that Mr Zentai has stated that he is prepared to cooperate with investigators and is prepared to answer questions on oath.
(5) To date:
(a)what has been the total cost to the Commonwealth Government (including departmental personnel time and cost) in seeking to extradite Mr Zentai; and
(b)what is the estimated further cost of pursuing the appeal against the decision of Justice McKerracher.
(1) As set out in the judgment of His Honour Justice McKerracher in Zentai v Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 3) [2010] FCA 691, prior to making a surrender determination in respect of Mr Zentai, the Minister was provided with a submission (annexing relevant documentation) prepared by the Attorney-General's Department. The submission discussed advice provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the Australian Federal Police on evidentiary issues relating to the allegations against Mr Zentai and also discussed the basis on which the Republic of Hungary sought Mr Zentai's extradition. As the issues raised by Senator Boyce are the subject of proceedings currently before the Full Court of the Federal Court, it is not appropriate to comment further.
(2) The submission prepared by the Attorney-General's Department referred to in response to Question (1) above was before the Minister at the time he determined that Mr Zentai was to be surrendered to Hungary to face prosecution for a war crime. In view of the issues raised in current litigation in this matter, it is not appropriate to comment further.
(3) The decision of Mr Justice McKerracher of 2 July 2010 raises significant and complex issues for the administration of Australia's extradition scheme. It is appropriate that an appeal be pursued.
(4) The Republic of Hungary made a formal request under the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary for the extradition of Mr Zentai to face prosecution for a war crime. Australia has an obligation to consider that request in accordance with the Treaty and the Extradition Act 1988.
(5) (a) The approximate cost to the Commonwealth of litigation in the matter of Mr Zentai's extradition to date is $455,000 (including GST and disbursements). These include costs of approximately $247, 000 incurred in earlier proceedings instituted by Mr Zentai challenging various aspects of the extradition process, including the constitutionality of the Extradition Act 1988. Mr Zentai was unsuccessful in those proceedings. The Australian Central Authority for extradition in the Attorney-General's Department does not maintain records of the time particular officers spend on particular matters. (b) It would be inappropriate to provide an estimate of the costs of the current appeal proceedings in circumstances where the proceedings are ongoing and at a relatively early stage.