The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the order of consideration of general business orders of the day for the remainder of today be as follows:
No. 20–Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2010
No. 57–Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bio regional Plans) Bill 2011
No. 55–Wild Rivers (Environmental Manage ment) Bill 2011
No. 50–National Broadband Network Finan cial Transparency Bill 2010 (No. 2)
No. 17–Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 (No. 2)
No. 52–Foreign Acquisitions Amendment (Agricultural Land) Bill 2010.
Food Standards Amendment (Truth in Labelling—Palm Oil) Bill 2010
I think in the context of providing more information to consumers through food labels that is very much around health and safety, and the objectives of our act make that clear. Whatever mechanism would be taken to give effect to the objectives of this bill—
I think we would probably struggle to meet the benefit-cost test that would be applied under the Council of Australian Governments best practice regulation guidelines, in terms of the cost that would be imposed on industry to put in place the systems that would be required to underpin label statements, and then the benefits of that for the consumers who were interested in that information.
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:
(2) Clause 4, page 2 (lines 15 to 20), omit the clause, substitute:
4 Purpose of Act
The purpose of this Act is to ensure that consumers have clear, accurate information about the inclusion of palm oil in goods.
(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 to 23), omit subsections 16 A (1) and (2), substitute:
(1) The Authority must, within 6 months after the commencement of this section, develop and approve labelling standards that prescribe that producers, manufacturers and distributors of food containing palm oil, regardless of the amount of palm oil used in the food or used to produce the food, must list palm oil as an ingredient of the food.
(4) Page 4 (after line 14), at the end of the bill, add:
Schedule 2—Amendment of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010
1 Section 33 of Schedule 2
Before "A person", insert "(1)".
2 At the end of section 33 of Schedule 2 (before the note)
Add:
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the characteristics of any goods include the use of palm oil in the goods or to produce the goods.
Application
(3) Subsection (2) applies to goods manufactured after 12 months after the commencement of that subsection.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011
I’m concerned that lobby groups like PEW WWF and MACS seem to get access to Ministers and control of what happens. The Department does not consult us or simply ignores what we have to say. I feel that democracy has been lost and further more my faith in the Labour party has gone with it. I along with all labour supporters that I know who also fish, are so disenfranchised with this government that at the next election we will do what I never thought we would and vote LAP. This is the last chance I will give labour, if this falls thru so does my vote- for good—
I would like to take this opportunity not only to acknowledge those senators who spoke last night—senators Hutchins, Hurley and Fielding—but also to acknowledge the contributions made to this parliament and chamber by all of the 12 retiring senators.
I would like to say a few words about those who are leaving, in particular my colleagues from the Australian Labor Party.
Senator Steve Hutchins
Firstly, to my good friend Steve Hutchins who I have had the pleasure of working with during the tough years of opposition and now in government.
I would like to congratulate you, Senator Hutchins, on your contribution not only to this parliament but to the wider Labor cause to which you are so dedicated.
In your first speech you mentioned that: 'We have failed to soften the impact of the enormous economic and social changes upon ordinary Australians, and more importantly, we have failed to recognise how tough people are doing it.'
I think serving in this parliament, especially since forming government in 2007, you can walk away with pride knowing that you have helped to soften that impact on working families, especially during the global financial crisis.
I want to publicly acknowledge your long career with the Transport Workers Union, your time as president of the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party and your service on the ALP national executive, including as national vice-president.
While I am very sorry to be saying goodbye to you, Steve, I look forward to catching up with you in Melbourne.
Senator Michael Forshaw
I turn to another friend and colleague Michael Forshaw who last week gave us ‘a fond farewell with few regrets and complaints’. After 17 years in the chamber, this is a remarkable achievement.
I know that you expressed regret about never serving on the front bench, except in opposition. Unfortunately, you were one of us who endured the long and hard years of opposition.
As Senator Evans said last week, you have made a tremendous contribution to the Labor cause both on the front bench and in committee work, especially as Chair of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the parliament.
Committee work is often undervalued and I salute you for your hard work and commitment to such important and necessary committee work.
Prior to becoming a senator, replacing another great Labor man Graham Richardson, you served the Australian Workers Union for an impressive 18 years, becoming General Secretary in 1991.
And of course on a personal note, as one of the Hoggarama or La Capana members, you will be greatly missed.
Senator Kerry O’Brien
To Senator Kerry O’Brien, another long-serving senator, who endured the long years of opposition.
Kerry, I wish you every success in the future years. You have served your Tasmanian constituency well in this chamber since 1996.
I read in the Canberra Times that you believe your greatest achievements are the regional forestry agreement and forging agriculture policies as an opposition frontbencher. I congratulate you on these significant achievements.
I also want to acknowledge that, before entering parliament, Kerry was Secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers' Union (Tasmanian Branch) and a member of the union's national executive.
Senator Dana Wortley
Dana Wortley is a valued member of the Senate Labor team and unfortunately missed out on the opportunity to serve once again in this chamber.
I too know the dangers of trying to be re-elected from the No. 3 position. It was a close battle and I know many feel it was unlucky that you only got one term.
Prior to entering parliament, Dana worked as a teacher and education officer as well as a journalist and education editor.
Having been an industrial officer for the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance in 1994, she went on to be Assistant State Secretary (SA and NT), from 1997-2001 and State Secretary (SA and NT) from 2001-05, all impressive achievements.
Senator Hurley
To Annette Hurley, I pay tribute to your contribution, particularly to South Australia.
Prior to entering parliament, Annette worked first in a hospital based pathology service before working in the arts, merchant banking and mining related services.
I want to acknowledge Annette’s service as a member of the South Australian parliament from 1993 until 2002 and becoming a shadow minister in 1994 and Deputy Leader of the Opposition in 1997.
Closing Remarks
While I do not have the opportunity to mention all those senators who are leaving, I give you all my best wishes for the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead.
You have all served this parliament, your parties and your constituents.
In particular, I acknowledge my fellow Victorians, senators Fielding and McGauran.
Julian, I wish you well in your teaching career and I do hope it succeeds in a way your dancing career never did!
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011
That the question be now put.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 8 OF 2011
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 22 June 2011 at 7.26 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the order of the Senate of 12 May 2011 adopting the committee’s 5th report of 2011 be varied to provide that the Crimes Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2011 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 August 2011; and
(b) the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 and the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] be referred immediately to the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 August 2011 (see appendices 1 and 2 for statements of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011
Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Tobacco Industry Donations) Bill 2011
Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (New Zealand Rules of Origin) Bill 2011.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Fees) Bill 2011
Cybercrime Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Government Advertising (Accountability) Bill 2011
Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Bill 2011
Interactive Gambling and Broadcasting Amendment (Online Transactions and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Migration Amendment (Declared Countries) Bill 2011
Public Service Amendment (Payments in Special Circumstances) Bill 2011
Responsible Takeaway Alcohol Hours Bill 2010
Schools Assistance Amendment Bill 2011
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 6) Bill 2011.
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
23 June 2011
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Humane Society International
World Society Protection of Animals
RSPCA
Animals Australia
Voiceless
Australian Meat Industry Council
Meat and Livestock
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
AQUIS
LiveCorp
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural Affairs and Transport
Possible hearing date(s):
July/August 2011
Possible reporting date:
16 August 2011
Senator Siewert
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of Bill:
Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
In undertaking the inquiry, the Committee should consider:
1. The animal welfare issues inherent in live animal exports
2. The failure of successive governments and governmental agencies to improve welfare standards for live exports overseas
3. The lack of enforceable standards for animal welfare overseas
4. The economic benefits and impacts of the live export trade
5. The economic benefits and imports of phasing out the live export trade and replacing it with a chilled meat trade, as has occurred in New Zealand
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
Meat and Livestock Australia
Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service Animals Australia
RSPCA
Australian Meat Industry Council
Australian Meat Industry Employees Union
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New Zealand
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport
Possible hearing date(s):
July/August 2011
Possible reporting date:
14 September 2011
Senator Siewert
That the following list of general business orders of the day be considered under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators’ bills on Thursday, 7 July 2011:
No. 68––Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011
No. 57––Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011
No. 55––Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2011
No. 50––National Broadband Network Financial Transparency Bill 2010 (No. 2)
No. 17––Evidence Amendment (Journalists’ Privilege) Bill 2010 (No. 2).
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 August 2011:
The Government’s funding and administration of mental health services in Australia, with particular reference to:
(a) the Government’s 2011-12 Budget changes relating to mental health;
(b) changes to the Better Access Initiative, including:
(i) the rationalisation of general practitioner (GP) mental health services,
(ii) the rationalisation of allied health treatment sessions,
(iii) the impact of changes to the Medicare rebates and the two tiered rebate structure for clinical assessment and preparation of a care plan by GPs, and
(iv) the impact of changes to the number of allied mental health treatment services for patients with mild or moderate mental illness under the Medicare Benefits Schedule;
(c) the impact and adequacy of services provided to people with mental illness through the Access to Allied Psychological Services program;
(d) services available for people with severe mental illness and the coordination of those services;
(e) mental health workforce issues, including:
(i) the two-tiered Medicare rebate system for psychologists,
(ii) workforce qualifications and training of psychologists, and
(iii) workforce shortages;
(f) the adequacy of mental health funding and services for disadvantaged groups, including:
(i) culturally and linguistically diverse communities,
(ii) Indigenous communities, and
(iii) people with disabilities;
(g) the delivery of a national mental health commission; and
(h) the impact of online services for people with a mental illness, with particular regard to those living in rural and remote locations and other hard to reach groups; and
(j) any other related matter.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011
That the following bill be introduced:
A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and family assistance , and for other purposes.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2011 contains a number of amendments to protect the integrity of the Australia's social security system.
Australia is a society that looks to provide a safety net for those that are most in need. Social security payments provide that safety net to thousands of Australians.
While the great majority of social security recipients claim payments to which they are rightfully entitled, successive Australian Governments have recognised that some people will attempt to receive payments to which they are not entitled. It is necessary, therefore, that there are robust measures in place to ensure the integrity of the social security system.
The Bill amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act) to address issues that have been identified, dating back to the commencement of the Administration Act in 2000, as a result of the recent case of Poniatowska versus the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (the CDPP).
For many years the CDPP has prosecuted cases involving social security fraud under various sections of the Criminal Code, particularly section 135.2 'Obtaining a financial advantage'. These offence provisions involve, for the physical element of the offence, proving that
the defendant engaged in conduct, where the relevant conduct is an omission — namely, failing to inform the Department of an event or change of circumstances that might affect the person's social security payment or qualification for a concession card.
Section 4.1 of the Criminal Code provides that engaging in conduct includes an omission to perform an act. Section 4.3 provides that an omission to perform an act can only be a physical element of an offence if (a) the law creating the offence makes it so; or (b) the law creating the offence impliedly provides that the offence is committed by an omission to perform an act that by law there is a duty to perform.
In the recent case of Poniatowska, a majority of the full court of the Supreme Court of South Australia held that 'section 135.2 does not define any duty or obligation relevant to an offence committed by way of omission'. It further noted that the CDPP had not relied on any notice issued to the defendant to establish a duty to inform the Department of an event or change of circumstances, and that the Administration Act did not create a separate "stand alone" obligation'. On this basis, the court set aside the convictions which had been recorded against the defendant.
The Commonwealth has appealed the Poniatowska decision to the High Court, which has reserved its decision. The current position is that a large number of past convictions are at risk of being overturned on appeal on the basis of the decision in Poniatowska.
Since the decision, the CDPP has adjourned or discontinued a large number of matters of this kind before the courts. The CDPP is also not commencing new proceedings of this kind, pending the determination of the appeal before the High Court.
Since the 2000-2001 financial year, the CDPP has prosecuted approximately 36,500 defendants for social security fraud. Without a detailed analysis of each case, it is not possible to state definitively how many matters of social security fraud have been committed via omission since the introduction of the Criminal Code, however the Governments best estimate is that as many as 40% of this number, or around 15,000 convictions, may now be open to question as a consequence of the decision in Poniatowska.
To ensure the past convictions cannot be called into question, the Bill amends the Administration Act to insert a stand alone obligation for a person to inform the Department of events or changes of circumstances that might affect the payment of a social security payment to the person or the person's qualification for a concession card
This provision will operate both prospectively and retrospectively to 20 March 2000, the date the Administration Act commenced.
Successive Australian governments have not lightly pursued retrospective legislation. However, in this case there are exceptional circumstances justifying retrospectivity, namely that it would not be appropriate for a significant number of prosecutions conducted from 2000 for social security fraud to be overturned on the basis of a previously unidentified legal technicality.
One of the criticisms that can be directed at retrospective legislation in relation to criminal offences is that people will be unaware that their conduct is an offence. In this case, however, the convicted persons would all have been aware that they should have informed the Department of the specified events and changes of circumstances listed in the notices given to them by Centrelink in relation to their social security payment or concession card. The effect of the retrospective application of this provision is to confirm convictions already made.
As Members would be aware, Centrelink has more than seven million customers. Its operations depend on the use of computer programs to generate decisions based on the requirements of the social security legislation.
Considerations in the light of the Poniatowska decision have also raised some doubt that there is sufficient evidence to prove that, with respect to the period from 12 June 2001 to the present, decisions made by Centrelink under the social security law by the operation of computer programs have satisfied all legislative requirements.
To ensure that these decisions are not open to question, the Bill provides that the requirements of subsection 6A(1) of the Administration Act are taken to have been complied with in relation to decisions made under the social security law by the operation of a computer program for the period 12 June 2001 to the date of Royal Assent.
Finally, the Bill makes technical amendments to the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Act 2011 and to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Child Care Rebate) Act 2011 to correct drafting oversights.
I conclude by noting that the bill has been designed such that there will be no practical impact on the ordinary course of Centrelink's business, or on a person's obligations to report changes in circumstances to Centrelink.
Every person who receives a social security payment or a concession card is currently sent notices by Centrelink. These notices require the person to inform the Department of events or changes of circumstances which might affect the person's social security payment or qualification for a concession card. That will not change as a result of this bill.
The bill is necessary to protect the integrity of the social security system. It has been brought forward by the Government, based on advice from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Solicitor-General, to address technical issues that have been brought to light by recent litigation. It does so without disturbing the existing protections that the law guarantees for Centrelink clients.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee as an inquiry under standing order 25(2)(a), for inquiry and report by 29 November 2011:
The performance of the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS), with particular reference to:
(a) matters raised at the Budget estimates hearing of the committee on 23 May 2011 and in answers to questions taken on notice;
(b) policies and practices followed by DPS for the management of the heritage values of Parliament House and its contents;
(c) asset management and disposal policies and practices;
(d) resource agreements and/or memoranda of understanding for the provision of services within and by DPS;
(e) an assessment of the efficiencies achieved following the amalgamation of the three former joint parliamentary service departments and any impact on the level and quality of service delivery;
(f) the efficient use, management and delivery of information technology services and equipment; and
(g) any related matter.
That the Senate—
(a) orders that all documents associated with the development of the import protocol for apples from New Zealand be laid on the table by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry by 5 pm on Thursday, 30 June 2011, including:
(i) all details of the Integrated Fruit Production System that forms the basis of on farm management of fireblight and other diseases in orchards producing apples for export to Australia, including a copy of the Integrated Fruit Production Manual,
(ii) documents referred to in the Draft report for the non-regulated analysis of existing policy for apples from New Zealand (May 2011) (the draft report), including:
(A) Biosecurity Services Group (2011) Trip Report: Apple production practices in Hawkes Bay and Nelson, New Zealand , March 6–11, Biosecurity Services Group, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra,
(B) Japan Regulations (2007) Plant Quarantine Enforcement: Detailed Regulation Concerning Fresh Apple Fruit Produced in New Zealand, July 2007,
(C) Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry New Zealand (2011) Correspondence sent from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to Plant Biosecurity, 8 April 2011, and
(D) Rogers DJ (2008): Correspondence sent from Dr DJ Rogers to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and
(iii) evidence of new science taken into account in preparing the draft report which was not referred to in the Final Import Risk Analysis Report for Apples from New Zealand (November 2006),
(iv) records of communications between Biosecurity Australia or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with:
(A) the Prime Minister, Minister for Foreign Affairs, or Minister for Trade about the draft report, or the review leading to the draft report, including all briefings provided to the Prime Minister concerning the review prior to her speech to the New Zealand Parliament on 16 February 2011 and all briefings provided to the Minister for Trade, Minister for Foreign Affairs or Prime Minister concerning the review prior to the Minister for Trade publishing the document 'Gillard Government Trade Policy Statement: Trading our way to more jobs and prosperity' in April 2011,
(B) the Director of Quarantine,
(C) the Government of New Zealand since the decision by the World Trade Organization in 2010, including ministers and New Zealand Government departments and agencies, and
(D) Pipfruit New Zealand Inc.,
(v) all details of how 'equivalence' of other systems will be assessed and the process of consulting with Australian industry with regard to permission of other on farm systems,
(vi) all details relating to the verification processes, including audit frequency, auditor qualifications/competency and registration, related to the Integrated Fruit Production System,
(vii) all details of the historic efficacy of the Integrated Fruit Production System in containing, controlling and preventing the outbreak of fireblight and other diseases in apple orchards,
(viii) all details of pack house management protocols for export of apples to Australia, including, but not limited to:
(A) details of testing and assessment of fruit maturity,
(B) maintenance of sanitary conditions in dump tank water,
(C) maintenance of high pressure water washing and brushing of fruit,
(D) good hygiene practices, and
(E) training of key personnel in the identification of fireblight and other diseases of concern to Australia,
(ix) all details relating to the verification processes, including audit frequency, auditor qualifications/competency and registration, related to the pack house management protocols,
(x) details of accreditation of auditors and certification bodies by independent bodies, such as JAS-ANZ [Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand],
(xi) all details of inspection protocols at the border, including training, qualifications/ competency and registration of inspectors, and
(xii) mitigation measures for outbreaks of fireblight in export orchards; and
(b) calls on the Government to extend to 4 August 2011 the period of public consultation by Biosecurity Australia on the draft report, to allow consideration of the documents referred to above.
That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 August 2011:
The Government's administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), with particular reference to:
(a) the deferral of listing medicines on the PBS that have been recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee;
(b) any consequences for patients of such deferrals;
(c) any consequences for the pharmaceutical sector of such deferrals;
(d) any impacts on the future availability of medicines in the Australian market due to such deferrals;
(e) the criteria and advice used to determine medicines to be deferred;
(f) the financial impact on the Commonwealth Budget of deferring the listing of medicines;
(g) the consultation process prior to a deferral;
(h) compliance with the intent of the Memorandum of Understanding signed with Medicines Australia in May 2010; and
(i) any other related matter.
That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2011:
(a) the expected role of Government in preventing the destruction and concealment of documents which should be retained in the public interest, including documents in relation to potential legal proceedings;
(b) the circumstances under which documents should be categorised as Cabinet-in-confidence;
(c) the need for a national requirement for documents relating to child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, to be held for a minimum of 30 years;
(d) the appropriateness of victims of child abuse, particularly child sexual abuse, being required to sign confidentiality agreements as part of any compensation arrangements;
(e) the role state and federal archivists can play in setting standards for the preservation of documents relating to the above matters;
(f) in relation to events relating to allegations of abuse in the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre in Queensland from 1988:
(i) the shredding of documents by the then-Queensland Government in 1990 relating to the alleged rape of a resident at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre in 1988, and other abuses and the implications these actions had on the ability of victims and others to pursue their legal rights with reference to section 129 of the Queensland Criminal Code, and the need for a national approach to the protection of such documents,
(ii) previous Queensland Government initiated inquiries and Federal Parliamentary inquiries into the matters referred to at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre,
(iii) whether evidence provided to previous Senate committee inquiries about the shredding of the documents referred to was misleading, or whether evidence was withheld from previous Senate committee inquiries, and whether there is any new evidence relating to these matters, and
(iv) the prevalence of abuse, and how reports of abuse were managed by management at the John Oxley Youth Detention Centre, and whether there should be national standards generally in relation to the reporting and management of such matters; and
(g) any other related matter.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the ongoing crisis and radiation leaks from the severely damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear complex,
(ii) that on 12 April 2011 the nuclear disaster reached INES [International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale] disaster level 7, the worst possible type of nuclear event due to cumulative radiation releases and contamination of the air, soil, water and food,
(iii) the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization and specialist research institutes have documented radiation from Fukushima spreading to Korea, China, Russia, Europe, the United States of America and Australia,
(iv) that seabed, air and soil samples taken in the region record alarming radiation levels that are hundreds of times higher than previously detected in and around Fukushima,
(v) the 7 June 2011 report from Japan to the United Nations indicating that fuel in three Fukushima's reactors have melted through the containment structure,
(vi) the report tabled on 6 June 2011 by Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency that doubled the figure for the radiation it believed was released into the atmosphere in the first 6 days, from 370 000 terabecquerels to 770 000,
(vii) the 3 June 2011 disclosure that Japanese authorities had suppressed the 12 March 2011 finding of radioactive tellurium 6 kilometres from Fukushima, the presence of which indicates that the temperature of the fuel rods was more than 1 000 degrees and that a meltdown had commenced before the emergency ventilation of the unit 1 reactor containment, and
(viii) the Declaration by the International Atomic Energy Agency Ministerial Conference on Nuclear Safety in Vienna of 20 June 2011; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) maintain the interdepartmental emergency task force coordinating Australian nuclear expertise and equipment to measure detectable levels of radiation, model the plumes and provide advice to the Australian Government,
(ii) publicly disclose all data held by Australian authorities on inspection and monitoring efforts regarding radiation levels in the environment, including radiation levels in the surface of soil, rain water, tap water, food and air, exposure to which is dangerous to human health, and
(iii) regularly update the Senate on findings by the interdepartmental emergency task force on all data collected by Australian nuclear experts and equipment.
That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 19 September 2011:
(a) the effectiveness of the Australian Government's response to Australian citizens who are kidnapped and held for ransom overseas, including but not limited to the response of the Australian Federal Police, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the consular assistance in the relevant country;
(b) how the Australian Government's response in these situations compares to the approach taken by other countries;
(c) measures that could be taken by the Australian Government to improve the handling of its assistance to Australian citizens and their families; and
(d) any other related matter.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
Turning to trade and investment, Mr President—
The 53 countries of Africa have a total population in excess of one billion; in Sub Saharan Africa the population is in excess of 870 million. This represents a potential huge market. Australia's trade links with Africa are currently modest, but there are opportunities for joint ventures with businesses in South Africa and in the horticultural and tourism sectors generally.
Australia is increasing its trade and investment links with the continent, yet has only a handful of Austrade personnel in Africa. Due to the increased importance of trade and investment in Africa combined with the large geographical area and increasing workload, the Committee has recommended that the number of Austrade offices and personnel that are based in Sub-Saharan Africa be increased.
The corporate social responsibility obligations of Australian resource sector companies operating in Africa was raised by a number of witnesses. The report discusses in some detail the activities of several Australian mining companies in Africa including the links with NGOs with an interest in this area.
Of particular note, Mr President, is that BHP Billiton has a target of spending one per cent of its pre-tax profit on community programs. In 2009-10 this amounted to $200 million which makes BHP Billiton the third largest development agency in Australia—after the Australian Government and World Vision!
The Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a process whereby host governments publish what they receive from mining companies which in turn publish what they pay. This promotes transparency and is aimed to reduce the risk of corruption.
Norway is the only First World country that is EITI compliant; no other First World country, including Australia, is either an EITI candidate or has signalled intent to adopt EITI principles. It would considerably enhance Australia's advocacy of EITI adoption if it was itself engaged in the process of becoming BM compliant.
The Committee has also recommended that the Government promote corporate social responsibility and continue to promote the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative principles and other corporate social responsibility instruments to the Australian mining sector, in particular at the Australia Down Under Conference, and especially to new entrants and small operators.
The Committee believes the increasing opportunities for links with Africa, including the potential for increased trade with Africa and the increasing levels of investment that are already occurring, warrant the establishment of an Australia-Africa Council similar to those currently existing for other countries and regions. An example of such a council is the Council on Australian Latin America Relations—an organisation which had its genesis in a recommendation from this Committee in 2000.
The Report also discusses the defence and security aspects of Australia's engagement with Africa, and issues facing African migrants and refugees living in Australia and how the African community in Australia can contribute to Australia-Africa relations.
The Committee has recommended that the proposed Australia-Africa Council should include within its goals, support for activities that encourage and facilitate cultural interchange and exchange, particularly including the Australian African community.
In closing, Mr President, I would like to thank all those who provided submissions and gave evidence at the public hearings I also wish to thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Affairs Minister for enabling a delegation of the Committee to visit four countries in Africa as part of the inquiry. In particular, the Foreign Minister encouraged the Committee Delegation to visit Zimbabwe. This provided valuable insights into the situation in that country.
Finally, I thank my colleagues on the Africa Sub-Committee, and the secretariat.
[Those who worked on the report were Dr John Carter, James Bunce, Dr Brian Lloyd, Rhys Merrett; office staff were Jessica Butler and Gillian Drew]
Mr President, I commend the report to the Senate.
Senator Michael Forshaw
Senator for New South Wales
That the Senate take note of the report.
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011
Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2011
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Amendment Bill 2011 (‘the Bill’) is to update and modernise the operation of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (‘the Act’).
The proposed amendments are primarily intended to ensure the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS) is able to undertake the work of the Office of the IGIS (‘the Office’) more effectively and efficiently, including by addressing issues which have arisen or become evident since the legislation was enacted in 1986.
The Bill will also strengthen the accountability and oversight framework governing the activities of the agencies that make up the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC), and will provide greater assurance regarding the legality or propriety of their activities.
The Act was originally drafted in response to the Royal Commission on Intelligence and Security conducted by the Honourable Justice Robert Hope in 1983, which raised, amongst various issues, concerns about the capacity of Ministers to control effectively some AIC agencies.
The Government’s expressed aim at the time in establishing the Office was for assistance to be provided to ministers in undertaking their oversight and review responsibilities in relation to the five Australian intelligence and security agencies, particularly with regard to ensuring compliance with the law, propriety of their particular activities, and consistency with human rights. The work of the IGIS, particularly in assisting the Government meet its responsibilities in relation to the intelligence agencies, is one of the foundations of the accountability framework for the AIC, currently numbering six agencies.
With a view to renewing assurance to the Parliament and the public that agency use of special powers and capabilities is subject to scrutiny, the Bill recognises expressly the IGIS’s special role in assisting the Government in relation to oversight of the intelligence agencies.
In relation to the IGIS’s inquiry and reporting functions, the Bill enhances and expands the IGIS’s capacity to undertake own-motion inquiries and to provide copies of reports of inquiries to the Prime Minister.
Currently, the Act allows the IGIS to undertake preliminary inquiries, but only where a complaint is made to the Office. The proposed amendment will widen the scope for such preliminary inquiries by the IGIS. The ability to undertake a preliminary inquiry in response to a complaint provides the IGIS with an efficient and cost-effective mechanism to ask an agency for information about a matter, without having to allocate resources to conduct a full investigation.
In a significant number of instances, this allows for a sufficient examination of the matter while avoiding a full inquiry. There can be occasions when an allegation about one or more of the AIC agencies is made, for example in the media, but a formal complaint is not lodged with the IGIS. Currently, the only formal option open to the IGIS to examine a matter raised in this way, if he or she is so minded, is to move straight to a full inquiry.
It is preferable in such circumstances for the agency to have an early opportunity to present relevant facts to IGIS, prior to a decision about whether or not to commence a full own motion inquiry. The Bill allows for the adoption of this two stage process for deciding whether to commence an own-motion inquiry, which will help ensure the significant coercive powers provided under the Act for use in a full inquiry are only available when an actual need is identified. Moreover, this will provide the IGIS with more flexibility and a more cost effective option for handling many issues.
The Bill also addresses an anomaly in the Act in that for the Office of National Assessments (ONA), the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation, inquiries can be conducted by the IGIS on his or her own motion into ‘the effectiveness and appropriateness of the procedures of (the agency) relating to the legality or propriety of the activities of (the agency)’, but for the Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Australian Secret Intelligence Service there is currently no own motion capacity in this regard – the IGIS can only conduct an inquiry into these agencies in response to individual cases of concern. The Bill ensures IGIS can adopt a common approach towards all six AIC agencies.
The Act currently allows the IGIS to provide to the Prime Minister, as the Minister responsible for ONA, a copy of any report covering ONA, but not the other five AIC agencies within the IGIS’s jurisdiction. The Bill will correct this anomaly and allow the IGIS to give the Prime Minister a copy of any final report prepared in relation to an inquiry conducted under the IGIS Act, either where the Prime Minister has requested that be done or where the IGIS otherwise considers such action appropriate.
The Bill will also provide the IGIS with the capacity to delegate his or her powers in certain circumstances, subject to Ministerial approval.
There is currently no power of delegation in the Act, and hence the IGIS must personally exercise the significant powers of the Office. Due to the small size of the Office, there is a limit to how many inquiries can be effectively conducted at any one time on top of its inspection and complaints handling functions.
In addition, the strong coercive powers provided to the IGIS to compel persons to provide information and documents can be exercised only by the IGIS personally. In practice, this means it would be difficult for IGIS to concurrently progress more than two full inquiries of a significant nature in a timely way.
The Bill allows for the engagement of a suitable person to conduct a major inquiry with access to the full range of powers under the Act. This will ensure the IGIS has greater flexibility to expand the capacity of the Office at short notice if a person of suitable standing could be engaged and delegated the full powers of IGIS in respect of a particular inquiry.
Coercive questioning, however, is an extraordinary power exercised by a very limited number of agencies. Accordingly, the scope for the IGIS to delegate the powers of the Office, particularly coercive questioning powers, will be subject to limitations that ensure this mechanism is only resorted to when there is a strict need.
The proposed amendments require the IGIS to seek approval from the relevant Minister in each case where such powers are to be delegated for the purpose of a specific inquiry only. The amendments also specify that unless the responsible Minister otherwise agrees in relation to a particular inquiry, the person proposed to be employed in relation to the inquiry must be able to obtain and maintain a security clearance to at least the same level as staff members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service.
There would be a relatively limited number of suitable candidates for delegation. The key qualities required for a suitable person would include: a very good understanding of the policy, bureaucratic and legal environment within which the intelligence and security agencies work, as well as an ability to approach issues fairly and with an open mind in order to arrive at objective, credible and defensible outcomes from inquiries or other investigations.
The person would have to have the seniority and wisdom required to engage effectively the highest levels of agencies, and where necessary to resist pressures to influence unreasonably the outcomes of an IGIS investigation. For reasons of credibility, a delegate should also not have worked for any significant period of their career in the intelligence community itself, and would have to be able to work with and be subject to direction from the IGIS. Finally, the amendments require that the responsible Minister must be satisfied that the proposed delegate has appropriate expertise for the particular inquiry.
The Bill also provides the IGIS with the capacity to assist Royal Commissions at the discretion of the Government of the day, while ensuring the effective operation of limitations on any unauthorised release of sensitive intelligence material by current or former IGIS officers to a court, coronial inquiry or Royal Commission. This would be in order to assist the work of relevant Royal Commissions.
The secrecy provisions of the Act are intended to avoid court proceedings becoming an indirect route for disclosure via the IGIS of documents and information from the intelligence and security agencies, to which the IGIS has complete and necessary access, and the Bill ensures that no person can be required by a court or tribunal to disclose information in contravention of the secrecy provisions of the Act.
There are, however, likely to be cases where the IGIS could provide significant assistance to, and facilitate the work of, a Royal Commission. The Bill therefore recognises the desirability of enabling the IGIS to release material to Royal Commissions in certain circumstances. The proposed provision that a Commission must be expressly prescribed in regulations as authorised to seek evidence from, or cooperate with, the IGIS will avoid the IGIS being under an obligation to give evidence to all Royal Commissions at a Commission’s request.
The Bill will also simplify some of the existing provisions of Section 8 which, although they are key to the IGIS’s jurisdiction, complainants and interested members of the public often find convoluted and difficult to read and comprehend. The operation of subsections 8(5), (6) and (7), which relate to the scope of the IGIS’s authority to inquire into employment matters concerning intelligence agency employees, will be simplified, providing greater clarity regarding the IGIS’s inquiry functions covered by these provisions. The substantive role, powers or functions of the IGIS in relation to the intelligence agencies will not be altered by these proposed amendments.
Finally, the opportunity is taken with this Bill to rectify drafting oversights and inconsistencies that have become apparent in the Act.
One oversight arose when a new requirement was introduced by the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009 for the IGIS to give evidence in Information Commissioner reviews in certain circumstances, requiring a minor consequential amendment to paragraph 34(5)(a) proposed by this Bill.
The Bill will also rectify an unintended inconsistency in subsection 34(5) regarding the treatment of ‘documents’ as opposed to ‘information’ that arose when the subsection was repealed and substituted by Schedule 4 to the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009, and then amended by Schedule 6 to the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010.
Currently, paragraphs 34(5)(c), (ca), (d) and (e) deal with circumstances in which a person can be required to divulge or communicate information, but there are no equivalent provisions relating to documents. The proposed new paragraphs 34(5)(ba), (bb), (bc) and (bd) correct this drafting oversight.
As noted by the Prime Minister in announcing in December 2010 the Independent Review of the Intelligence Community, which is currently under way, intelligence plays a key role in preserving Australia's national security and supports a wide range of our national interests.
With the significant expansion in the resources and capabilities of the intelligence community over the past decade, it is important for the accountability machinery for the intelligence agencies to be revisited and refined in order to keep pace.
This Bill will ensure the Office of the IGIS is well positioned for the future, and is one part of the Government’s broader agenda of ensuring accountability machinery across the Commonwealth is operating both efficiently and effectively.
The Australian Military Court was established in 2007 by legislation supported by both sides of the Parliament.
The Court's establishment followed a series of Senate Committee reports over a number of years recommending extensive changes to the system of military justice.
On 26 August 2009, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in the case of Lane v Morrison . The case challenged the constitutional validity of the Australian Military Court.
The High Court found unanimously that the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 establishing the Australian Military Court were invalid, because the Australian Military Court purported to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth, but did not meet the requirements of Chapter III of the Constitution.
Chapter III of the Constitution ensures judicial independence from the executive and the legislature by providing that federal judges have tenure until they reach a fixed age of no more than 70, and that they can only be removed for proved misbehavior or incapacity following a request from both Houses of Parliament to the Governor General.
The Australian Military Court legislation claimed that the court was not a court under Chapter III of the constitution, as the appointment and tenure of its judges did not comply with Chapter III.
However the High Court found in Lane v Morrison that it was exercising judicial power, which the Constitution only allows to be exercised by a Chapter III court.
The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 was then passed by the Parliament, again with bipartisan support, to reinstate the pre-2007 military justice arrangements.
The reinstatement of the pre-2007 military justice system was required to allow time for the consideration and development of options for a new military justice system which meets the requirements of Chapter III of the Constitution.
The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Act (No. 1) 2009 provided for a tenure of up to two years for the Chief Judge Advocate and the Judge Advocates.
This tenure is due to expire in September this year.
The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2011 will continue the appointment, remuneration and entitlement arrangements for the Chief Judge Advocate and the two full-time Judge Advocates for an additional two years or until the Minister for Defence declares, by legislative instrument, a specified day to be a termination day, whichever is sooner.
The Department of Defence and the Attorney-General's Department are currently working to finalise the details of a Military Court of Australia Bill and associated consequential and transitional provisions.
This important legislation will establish a permanent, effective and constitutionally sound system of military justice for Australia's defence forces.
This process will take some time, and there is currently no certainty that it will be complete and be enacted by the Parliament by September this year.
This Bill will ensure the continuity of these key military justice appointments until legislation establishing the Military Court of Australia takes effect.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Organised crime affects all Australians. The Australian Crime Commission estimates that between $10-$15 billion dollars every year is lost as a result of organised crime. This is money that is being siphoned from legitimate Australian businesses; it is money that cannot be spent on education, health or any number of services. And in this way, organised crime steals from every Australian citizen every day.
In an age where borders are increasingly permeable, effective and efficient international crime cooperation is increasingly important. The growing use of sophisticated technology by organised criminal groups means assets derived from criminal activities are often moved offshore to avoid detection and confiscation by local authorities.
Organised criminals are motivated by greed – money is their lifeblood. If we can stop the money flow we can stop organised criminals in their tracks. The Gillard Government has made combating organised crime a priority, and being able to confiscate assets and profits which are a result of crimes committed overseas is a key plank in this strategy.
Legislative framework
Australia has a strong framework for cooperating with foreign countries and restraining and confiscating benefits derived from foreign criminal offences where those assets are located in Australia. Part VI of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Mutual Assistance Act) enables an Australian court to register and enforce orders issued by a foreign court. These foreign orders include restraining, confiscation and pecuniary penalty orders over property derived from serious criminal offences.
Once a foreign order is registered in Australia, it is able to be enforced as though it were an Australian order made under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Provisions in the International Criminal Court Act 2002 and the International War Crimes Tribunals Act 1995, expand upon the regime in the Mutual Assistance Act and allow an Australian court to register and enforce forfeiture orders issued by the International Criminal Court and specified international war crimes tribunals.
A recent High Court decision regarding New South Wales proceeds of crime related provisions has highlighted the importance of ensuring that functions imposed onto a court properly reflect the nature of judicial functions under Chapter III of the Constitution. Specifically, the decision reinforced that courts must be allowed to exercise appropriate supervision over the making or enforcement of proceeds of crime orders.
Amendments in Bill
To ensure the legislative framework providing a court with the power to register and enforce foreign orders continues to operate as intended, this Bill will make minor but important amendments to the Mutual Assistance Act, the International Criminal Court Act and the International War Crimes Tribunal Act.
The amendments to each of these Acts will provide a court with greater discretion when determining whether a foreign order should be registered and enforced in Australia, and whether or not to hear an application for registration on an ex parte basis. The amended provisions will require a court to register a foreign order unless it considers it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. In determining whether registration of a foreign order is in the interests of justice, the court is to give due regard to the overarching purpose of the regime.
Objects provision
In order to clarify the purpose of this regime, the Bill will also insert an object clause into Subdivision A of Part VI of the Mutual Assistance Act. The objective of the Subdivision is to enable Australia to give effect to foreign orders in situations where property related to serious foreign offences is located in Australia. As reciprocity is the fundamental basis of international crime cooperation, it is vital that we are able to provide the same level of assistance to other countries as we would expect of them.
Conclusion
Where a person has committed a serious offence in a foreign country, and proceeds from that offence are located within Australia, it is important that Australia is able to enforce foreign orders. Australia must not be seen as a safe haven for criminals and their ill-gotten gains.
These amendments will ensure that the legislative framework continues to operate as intended and that Australia can register foreign proceeds of crime orders in an effective and timely fashion.
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) 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.
Today, I introduce a Bill which delivers on the Government’s election commitment to crack down on unfair treatment of Australians with credit cards, and to help them get a better deal in the banking system.
In December, the Government announced new reforms to promote a competitive and sustainable banking system to give every Australian a fair go.
We're introducing three broad streams of reform to empower consumers, support smaller lenders, and secure the flow of credit to our economy.
Today we are building on our new national responsible lending reforms by giving credit card holders more control over the amount they borrow.
We went to the last election promising to stamp out lender practices which see consumers pay more interest than they should.
And today that’s precisely what we will do.
This Bill also delivers on our commitment last year to introduce a compulsory, one-page key facts sheet for new home loan customers.
So consumers can compare a loan they are offered by a big bank side-by-side with what will often be a better deal from their local credit union.
Credit Cards
This National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Bill contains strong measures to help give hard working Australians a better deal when it comes to credit cards.
We have already overhauled our consumer laws in the past two years.
The commencement of the Australian Consumer Law marked the first time in 100 years that Australians have had a uniform consumer law.
The new National Credit Code introduced for the first time a national consumer credit law with tough new protections for consumers.
Today we deliver on our promise to fast-track reforms through the National Credit Laws to increase fairness for credit card holders.
This Bill will give consumers more say over how they use their credit cards and help them better understand what they are signing up to.
Banning unsolicited offers to borrowers to increase their credit limit
The Bill prohibits lenders from sending unsolicited invitations to borrowers to increase their credit limit, as they sometimes cannot easily afford to.
Australian families who accept these types of offers can, over time, end up with too much credit card debt which can take years to pay off.
Of course this means they are saddled with significant interest payments which make it that much tougher to balance the family budget.
Some families have seen their credit card limit blow out to $10,000 after a series of unsolicited offers. On a typical credit card at about 20 per cent interest per year this represents a very large debt.
For a family that can only afford repayments of around $200 a month, it would take them about nine years to repay this level of credit card debt, and they would be slugged with over $11,000 in interest bills.
This Bill ensures credit card lenders won’t any longer be allowed to send consumers pre-approved, ‘tick a box’ offers to increase their credit limit.
These types of offers will simply be banned.
Consumers will be able to explicitly agree upfront to receive pre-approved offers to increase their credit limit – if that’s what they want.
But consumers who want to carefully manage their finances will no longer have to resist the temptation these types of offers present.
They’ll be able to make an informed decision to modify their credit limit – either up or down - if that suits them and their family budget.
But they won’t be doing it because they were encouraged to do so by a lender who just wants to make a buck out of them.
Use of credit card in excess of credit limit
This Bill also prevents lenders charging fees to customers who go over their credit limit, unless they’ve expressly asked for this service.
Of course, the Government recognises that lenders will have discretion to approve some payments which go over the credit limit.
They may have only gone over their credit limit by a few dollars, so it’s important that we leave a bit of flexibility here while protecting them.
For example, it is in the interests of the borrower’s family for their lender to honour a payment of their electricity bill so their power isn’t shut off.
Lenders will have discretion to approve a transaction that takes a borrower over their credit limit. This formalises existing arrangements but supplements them with new protections. First, lenders will need to notify consumers when they go over their credit limits and, more importantly, lenders will not be able to charge a fee unless the consumer has given their express consent to being charged a fee.
It is estimated that Australians will save around $225 million annually from this reform.
Overall this critical reform will mean an end to most credit limit overdraw fees, and significant savings for Australian families and all consumers.
Warning on statements about only paying minimum repayments
We will further make regulations requiring all lenders to clearly warn consumers on their monthly credit statement of the consequences of only making minimum repayments.
Many consumers fall into the trap of only paying the bare minimum required every month – which ends up costing them dearly over time.
Even slightly higher payments can make a big difference to how much interest they are charged.
This is critical to helping Australian manage their household budget.
Force lenders to allocate repayments to higher interest debts first
The Bill also forces lenders to allocate repayments to higher interest debts first – so consumers don't pay more interest than they should.
Currently, consumers don’t have any control over how their repayments are allocated, with lenders often using their money to pay off parts of the loan which are actually only incurring low or no interest.
This means that the remainder of the consumer’s debt can be accruing interest at a higher rate, and without being reduced by the repayment.
The reform will address this by ensuring repayments are allocated to the higher interest balances first.
A family could save something like $170 a year or more, depending on their spending habits and credit limit.
Put simply, we’re ensuring that every dollar paid by the consumer works harder to pay down their debts.
One-page home loan key facts sheet
In December, the Government also announced that we would introduce a simple, standardised, one-page fact sheet for consumers to compare loans.
Families will be able to compare the cost of different home loans by putting one-page facts sheets from different lenders side by side.
They’ll be able to tell instantly the savings they could make between different mortgages every year and over the life of the loan.
A potential home borrower could easily compare the relative cost of a mortgage from a credit union against a big bank.
Buying a home is the most important investment many Australians will ever make – and this Bill helps them shop around for the best deal.
Choosing the wrong loan can be expensive - half a percent more interest on a $250,000 loan can cost a borrower $30,000 more over 30 years.
We’re ensuring consumers know how many dollars they will repay for every dollar they borrow – so they can compare this across lenders.
Consumers will be able to see and understand the true cost of a home loan, at a single glance.
This reform is all about forcing banks and other home loan providers to be honest and transparent with Australian families.
It is about promoting competition in the banking system, and doing a little bit to help all Australians meet the costs of living.
Conclusion
The Gillard Government is changing the way banks and other lenders do business, and putting the power back in the hands of consumers.
We worked hard through the global financial crisis to secure our financial system, and preserve the competitive foundations of our banking sector.
In December the Government announced a further reform package to help build up competition again in the banking system for all Australians.
Of course, there’s no silver bullet here, but the Bill I am introducing today is part of our commitment to always stand on the side of consumers.
I encourage all members of this House to do the same.
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Collection) Bill 2011
Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Combating the Financing of People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2011
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Further Election Commitments and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment (No. 1) Bill 2011
Product Stewardship Bill 2011
Senator FAULKNER—How do you take account of the heritage value of these items before they are flogged off?
Ms Konig—We have a policy that requires a heritage assessment of any items that the department is getting rid of or that have been declared surplus In this case, these were assessed as having no heritage value.
Senator FAULKNER—Who by?
Ms Konig—The disposal officer.
Senator FAULKNER—You are very confident about the heritage assessment that was made.
Ms Konig—Yes.
Senator FAULKNER—Could you provide copies of the heritage assessment and the valuation of these to the committee, please?
Ms Konig—I can.
Senator FAULKNER: … Did I receive the heritage assessment or not? It certainly was not in the material that was provided to me.
Mr Thompson: The heritage assessment is essentially the handwritten note on attachment B.
Senator FAULKNER: … That is the heritage assessment, is it?
Mr Thompson: You asked for the written heritage assessment. Yes, that was it.
Senator FAULKNER: I see. When was that note written?
Mr Thompson: I cannot tell you.
… after 21 February, so it was after the estimates hearing in February.
Mr Kenny: The tables were sold on 23 September 2010.
Senator FAULKNER: The last estimates hearing was 21 February, so the heritage assessment prior to their sale that I was told about at the last hearing—it was about six months later, for God's sake. Can someone now please explain how that could be?
Mr Kenny: I think it is clear that the advice at the last estimates was not correct, that a heritage assessment had already taken place.
Senator FAULKNER: That is the understatement of the year, Mr Kenny. It sure is true. Normally, when incorrect advice is provided to Senate committees, someone corrects the record.
Mr Kenny: I understand that. This—
Senator FAULKNER: What happened here was that this annotation was added ex post facto and sent off to me, assuming, 'He is a bit of a dill; he will cop that.'
Mr Kenny: The realisation that the heritage assessment had not taken place—I became aware of that at about 20 past one this afternoon.
Senator FAULKNER: As a result of the questions I asked this morning?
Mr Kenny: Basically, yes. You raised the matter, and, as we said before lunch, there was some more investigation being done internally as to the history, noting that the history of all the billiard tables, in terms of the records available to us, was not clear—therefore it took a little bit longer to work through—but at about 20 past one I was advised that the heritage assessment had not been done at the time of the sale.
Senator FAULKNER: That is a pretty ordinary effort, isn't it, Mr Thompson?
Mr Thompson: I am not very happy about it.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The Committee considers that the noise standards adopted by the states and territories for the planning and operation of rural wind farms should include appropriate measures to calculate the impact of low frequency noise and vibrations indoors at impacted dwellings.
The Committee recommends that the responsible authorities should ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and that the complaints processes should involve an independent arbitrator. State and local government agencies responsible for ensuring compliance with planning permissions should be adequately resourced for this activity.
… further consideration be given to the development of policy on separation criteria between residences and wind farm facilities.
… that the Commonwealth Government initiate as a matter of priority thorough, adequately resourced epidemiological and laboratory studies of the possible effects of wind farms on human health. This research must engage across industry and community, and include an advisory process representing the range of interests and concerns.
We regard this as a work in progress. We certainly do not believe that this question has been settled. That is why we are keeping it under constant review. That is why we said in our review that we believe authorities must take a precautionary approach to this.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to questions without notice asked by opposition senators today.
Where funding of over $75,000 is provided for a school for the construction or purchase of facilities, we have a right to repayment of the calculated portion of the funding where, at any time during the designated use period, the facilities cease to be used principally for the approved purpose, the facilities are sold or otherwise disposed of.
On the Labor side, two senior members of the Right faction are departing: Senators Steve Hutchins and Michael Forshaw, a former NSW party president and parliamentary convener of the Right respectively.
Both men were early movers against Rudd's leadership after they felt he had stopped listening to the caucus.
Australian Government Response to the Senate Econom ics References Committee Report
"Foreign Investment by State-owned entities"
June 2011
Introduction
Foreign investment has been an important component of Australia's growth in the past and will continue to make a positive contribution to Australia's economic growth and prosperity in the future. This is because Australia's domestic savings are not sufficient to meet the demands of domestic business for investment funds. Foreign capital represents the necessary call on overseas resources that fill this gap. It contributes to our capacity to develop and improve living standards.
Foreign investment also brings additional benefits, including:
While foreign investment enters Australia in a variety of guises, the last few years have seen an increase in investments being made through sovereign wealth funds and state-owned enterprises (SOEs). This has sparked public and media interest.
The Government has investigated whether significant changes were required to Australia's foreign investment regime to appropriately deal with increasing flows of investments from SOEs and sovereign wealth funds. Our assessment was that Australia's existing regime was already well-placed to deal with any national interest concerns arising from such investments.
Nevertheless, the Government recognised that it has a role in assisting SOEs to better understand our foreign investment regime, as well as helping the Australian public understand the Government's approach to foreign investment from sovereign entities.
That is why in February 2008 the Government first published principles that are used when evaluating the national interest implications of foreign government related investments. These were updated and expanded in June 2010 when, as part of the release of the Government's Foreign Investment Policy, the Government explained the national interest considerations for all investment proposals to buy Australian businesses or companies. For foreign governments and related entities, these considerations emphasise independence and commerciality.
The Government appreciates that more work can be done to improve communication of our foreign investment policies. In that regard, we welcome the Senate Economics References Committee report on 'Foreign Investment by State-Owned Entities'.
The Australian Government has carefully considered the recommendations of the Committee's report and we have provided our response below.
MAJORITY REPORT
Recommendation 1 – The committee recommends that FIRB develop a more effective communication strategy to improve public understanding of the risks and benefits of foreign investment to Australia. This strategy should also provide additional information about how foreign investment decisions are made and provide information about the emergence of sovereign wealth funds and state-owned entities internationally.
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation.
The Australian Government has asked the Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB) to review and improve communication of Australia's Foreign Investment Policy. The first task that FIRB undertook was to draft an easy-to-read version of the Foreign Investment Policy for prospective investors. The Government released that new Policy on 30 June 2010.
This new Policy has been made available in other languages including Chinese, Japanese and Bahasa.
The Government has also asked FIRB to engage directly with embassies in Australia – as it has done from time to time – to explain how the Policy is applied. FIRB has also rolled out a new stakeholder awareness program to educate and disseminate information to individuals and organisations affected directly and indirectly by the Government's Foreign Investment Policy.
Recommendation 2 – The committee recommends that the Minister require FIRB to be more assiduous in producing a timely annual report.
The Australian Government agrees with this recommendation and has requested FIRB to prioritise the timely release of its annual report. The Government recognises the importance to the Australian public of releasing information on foreign investment applications and trends.
It has been the usual practice of FIRB to produce its annual report early in the following year. This allows time for all data to be compiled and rigorously checked for accuracy before it is released.
Recommendation 3 – The committee recommends that the government tighten the FATA legislation to deal with complex acquisitions where takeovers of smaller strategic assets may be masked by an application which, in total, does not represent more than 15 per cent, and therefore does not trigger review. The committee would like FIRB to give adequate consideration to the interaction between the various components of an acquisition.
The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation.
Related foreign investors cannot avoid screening by each buying small stakes (below 15 per cent) in an Australian company and using the total investment to wield control. This is because the existing 'associates' provision in the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 (the FATA) is already broad enough to ensure such activities are caught by the regime.
However, the Government was concerned that investors could use complex financial instruments to avoid the intended operation of the FATA. For that reason, the Government introduced the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Act 2010 to remedy this matter.
This Act clarifies that convertible notes and similar instruments will be treated in a similar fashion to shareholdings for the purposes of the foreign investment regime. The Act has retrospective effect from 12 February 2009.
MINORITY REPORT
Recommendation 1 – A foreign government shall not use any corporate vehicle which they control to be allowed to purchase any strategic assets within Australia.
Further, for a non-state-owned entity, a related entity test will be applied so that different corporate entities with the same ultimate majority controlling influence represented by equity, debt or other mechanisms will be deemed as the one entity for assessment as to whether it will result in more than 10 per cent of control of any strategic asset market in Australia.
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation.
The Government is committed to a case-by-case examination of all foreign investment proposals. This approach ensures that Australia can maximise investment flows while protecting Australia's national interest.
The Government recognises that sovereign wealth funds and SOEs are increasingly a part of the global financial system. The Government notes that Australia has its own sovereign wealth fund. Reflecting this trend, the Government supports the efforts of the International Monetary Fund and the International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds to develop a set of voluntary, best-practice principles to maintain the free flow of cross border investment.
The Government applies a rigorous national interest test to allSOE investments. This is designed to examine whether SOE investments are transparent and commercial in manner and that investment and sales decisions are driven by market forces. Blanket bans on certain types of investment could risk unnecessary job losses and provoke retaliation against Australian investors overseas.
As outlined above, the 'associates' provision in the FATA prevents related foreign investors from avoiding screening by each buying stakes below 15 per cent in an Australian company and using the total investment to wield control.
Recommendation 2 – The Foreign Investment Board will be required to, as a point of consideration in its decision, assess whether Australia has reciprocal rights of investment in the proposer's country.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government does not consider it appropriate to penalise foreign investors for the investment policies of their home country government. This would be inconsistent with Australia's international obligations, including with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and Australia's free trade agreement (FTA) commitments.
The role of the FATA is to provide for screening of incoming investment, it has no role in outwards investment. Assessment of the national interest could include such considerations but in general, reciprocity is not a useful guide to Australia's national interest.
However, the Australian Government will continue to advocate for foreign governments that have restrictive investment policies to liberalise their regimes for the benefit of Australian investors. We do this in a variety of ways, including through FTA negotiations, as FTAs cover a variety of issues including the investment regimes of each negotiating party.
Recommendation 3 – The Government must look to enact effective laws to prevent creeping acquisitions of Australian businesses and assets owned by state-owned entities.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government already has laws in place to monitor 'creeping acquisitions' of Australian companies and businesses by foreign investors.
The FATA allows the Government to review any increase in ownership beyond 15 per cent of an Australian company or business valued above $231 million.
For investments by SOEs and other entities with links to foreign governments, the Foreign Investment Policy allows the Government to review any direct investments in Australian companies or businesses regardless of the value of the company or business. This includes investments that increase an existing stake.
Recommendation 4 – The Foreign Investment Review Board needs to provide clear criteria of what the 'national interest' test is and that abbreviated versions of FIRB advice to the Minister be tabled in both houses of Parliament.
Further, that the Government defines what it means by 'community interest' and 'common standards of business behaviour' and subject major investment proposals to rigorous public scrutiny to ensure that they meet genuine common standards of business behaviour.
The Government notes this recommendation.
In June 2010, the Australian Government published its Foreign Investment Policy, which explains the factors we consider when evaluating the national interest.
Specifically, the Government considers national security concerns, competition issues, the impact of the investment on Australia's revenue base and other policies, the impact of the investment on the Australian company, our economy and the broader community and the character of the investor. For foreign governments and their related entities, the Government also looks for evidence of a commercial basis for the investment.
The Government takes seriously the commercial-in-confidence nature of the investment proposals that it receives. It is not appropriate for the Government to release potentially market sensitive information on behalf of investors. This would undermine investor confidence and risk Australia's standing as a desirable investment destination.
The Government will continue, however, to release a statement whenever it determines that a foreign investment proposal raises national interest concerns.
Recommendation 5 – That the human rights records of the country of state-owned entity seeking to invest in Australia be a key factor during consideration by the Foreign Investment Review Board. Similarly, that all foreign non-state-owned entities be subject to consideration of their other investment activities and whether these conflict with Australia's ethical positions.
The Government notes this recommendation.
The Australian Government does not consider it appropriate to hold investors accountable for actions taken by its home country government, except in limited circumstances where Australia maintains formal sanctions against that country.
However, if there is evidence that the investor itself has breached human rights or undertaken other unethical behaviour, such actions will be considered when determining if the investment would be contrary to Australia's national interest. This has always been the case.
Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Negotiating the Maze: Review of arrangements for overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing
Government response - June 2011
Please note that since the release of The Joint Standing Committee report, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) has been renamed the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC). Where recommendations require input from DIMA, responses have been provided by DIAC. Similarly, the Departments of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and Education, Science and Training (DEST) are following machinery of government changes now the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR).
Recommendations and Responses
1 Overview
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that, as part of its long term research on migration outcomes, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs collect enhanced data on migrant utilisation of overseas qualifications and other indicators of the effectiveness of overseas skills recognition processes.
Government response
Accepted
The degree to which migrants utilise their overseas qualifications in the Australian labour market and the speed at which they do so are of critical importance, especially in the context of current skill shortages. The government also agrees that the monitoring of this process should continue and be enhanced.
Information on these issues has been collected by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) through the Longitudinal Surveys of Immigrants to Australia (LSIAs) and more recently the Continuous Survey of Australia’s Migrants (CSAM). These surveys measure the rate at which skilled migration principal applicants who have had their qualifications assessed are finding jobs related to their qualifications. This information is valuable in analysing the effectiveness of the skilled selection and assessment processes.
Response to recommendation 19 provided further, data from CSAM that suggests migrants who go through the skill recognition process have good skilled outcomes.
DIAC will continue to give careful consideration to incorporating other indicators of the effectiveness of overseas skills recognition processes in the CSAM including monitoring the experiences of migrants in negotiating the skill recognition processes. The information gathered in this way would then be used to help assess the effectiveness of the skill recognition processes and to improve them where necessary.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that the fee charged for assessing Australian qualifications for the purpose of independent overseas student and skilled Australian sponsored visas (subclasses 880, 881 and 882) be waived, where that qualification is sufficient in and of itself to allow the applicant to qualify for their profession or trade.
Government response
Not accepted
One of the threshold criteria for the grant of a skilled migration visa is that the applicant has applied for an assessment of their skills for the skilled occupation they nominated in their application by a relevant assessing authority. This is a legislative requirement regardless of whether the applicant has obtained their qualifications in Australia or at an educational institution overseas. While the assessing authorities charge fees for skills assessment on a not-for-profit basis, the fees charged are at the discretion of the individual assessing authorities.
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) undertakes to monitor each assessing authority annually, including looking at the fees they charge, the Government does not have a regulatory role in relation to fees charged for skills assessments and cannot direct the assessing authorities to charge differentially for skills assessments.
2 Policy coordination issues
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the industry outreach officer network collect information on skills recognition barriers from an employer perspective, including feedback on delays, bridging requirements, work experience and other skills issues, and that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs incorporate this information into further policy development.
Government response
Accepted
DIAC has 13 Industry Outreach Officers (IOOs) working across 19 Industry groups on full time and part time placements.
The IOOs work with peak industry bodies to promote skilled entry mechanisms to employers. The IOOs meet with members and officers of the associations as part of their information delivery program.
The roles of the IOOs include reporting on difficulties that members have with the immigration arrangements. The feedback covers all aspects of the immigration requirements and may include difficulties with qualification assessments. The peak industry bodies and associations are also encouraged to bring these concerns to the Department’s attention directly.
The details of concerns and difficulties are discussed with the relevant assessing bodies or with the appropriate government agency.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and other stakeholders use the skills expos to provide clearer and more detailed information on overseas skills recognition processes to users, particularly licensing and registration requirements.
Government response
Accepted
Australia Needs Skills (ANS) expos form part of the overall promotional strategy for skilled migration undertaken by DIAC.
ANS expos are held overseas to facilitate opportunities for potential skilled migrants to meet with Australian employers including state and territory governments, with a focus on sponsorship opportunities.
ANS expos are highly targeted to attract skills in critical shortage. DIAC invites the attendance of relevant assessing authorities (eg Engineers Australia, the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Australia, CPA Australia and Vetassess). These bodies provide invaluable information on the skills recognition process to expo attendees.
DIAC is working in close consultation with state and territory governments to ensure the future expo program continues to be effective in targeting skills in need.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs establish a mechanism to better capture information from the Migrant Resource Centres on the barriers faced by migrants in seeking skills recognition.
Government response
Accepted
DIAC has a close relationship with a range of settlement service providers, including Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy contractors, Migrant Resource Centres and other settlement grant recipients. DIAC is in regular contact with these service providers to discuss ways of improving the settlement outcomes of newly arrived humanitarian entrants and family stream migrants. DIAC is happy to share any information on the barriers to getting skills recognition with DEEWR and other government agencies involved in assessing skills recognition.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) work more closely with assessing authorities, industry groups and other stakeholders to ensure the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) reflects, as precisely as possible, occupations and specialisations in demand at any particular time. To facilitate this, DEWR should develop a process to more regularly review the MODL - on a three monthly basis, at a minimum - and improve feedback on its accuracy and currency.
Government response
Not Applicable
On 8 February 2010, and following a formal review which included extensive stakeholder consultation, the Government announced the immediate revocation of the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL).
The Government also announced a review of the General Skilled Migration (GSM) points test to evaluate its effectiveness and ensure it selects migrants with skills the nation needs in the future. The review resulted in the development of a new points test to come into effect from 1 July 2011. The employer-sponsored temporary and permanent migration arrangements continue to provide a framework for meeting skill shortages which cannot be met through domestic employment and training.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training accelerate the process of expanding and updating the Country Education Profiles and develop a process to periodically review and formally receive feedback on the accuracy and currency of that information.
Government response
Partially accepted
Country Education Profiles (CEPs) are an online product which are updated regularly as we receive information from other official government sources. The production schedule for new CEPs is determined by analysing factors such as source countries for international students, and stakeholder enquiries. Key internal and external stakeholders involved in international education provide input into the process to assist with determination of the priorities.
In addition to producing CEP updates, Australian Education International (AEI) also offers a free email advice service to educational institutions and professional bodies that subscribe to the CEPs Online.
All CEPs were reviewed prior to being published online in October 2005. In particular, the Lists of Institutions for all CEPs were updated as a priority, as these are critical to the assessment process by third parties.
3 Overseas skills recognition framework
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training implement a change of title for Australian Education International-National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition (AEINOOSR), with it to be referred to in future as Australian Education International (AEI). AEI should continue to perform the full range of functions currently undertaken by AEI-NOOSR.
Government response
Not accepted
AEI-NOOSR has a positioning brand within the network of assessment authorities, education institutions and other stakeholders. Changing the name would require extensive consultation and communication and a phased implementation. It may also cause potential confusion with the broader AEI grouping, which undertakes a range of functions far wider than those associated with skilled migration.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training:
(a) take over the management of the Vocational Education Training and Assessment Services contract from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA);
(b) improve its oversight, coordination and monitoring of assessing authorities;
(c) enhance its liaison and support role of assessing authorities; and
(d) improve its communication flows with assessing authorities, particularly concerning notice of policy changes by DIMA and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations that may affect assessment processes.
Government response
Partially accepted
(a) This part of the recommendation has largely been overtaken by events. There have been significant changes in the skilled stream of the migration program since the report was published. This has included substantial changes to the skills assessing regime administered by VETASSESS, which followed detailed discussions with DIAC. DIAC’s formal contract with VETASSESS ceased on 30 June 2006. DIAC and DEEWR continue to cooperate closely in the administration of assessing bodies, including VETASSESS.
After extensive consultations and communications with assessing authorities in 2006, DEEWR implemented the new guidelines for monitoring professional assessing authorities in December 2006.
(b) Underpinning the consultation process was the importance of liaison with and support to assessing authorities. The new monitoring approach has formalised the liaison and support role by including an annual conference and ongoing contact by Departmental officers with assessing authorities.
(c) DEEWR is conscious of the need to keep assessing authorities for which it is responsible well informed about developments in policy that affect assessment processes. To this end, DEEWR has developed a regular newsletter that is sent to assessing authorities every two months. DEEWR also convenes an annual conference to inform assessing authorities of changes in policy impacting on their work. Attendees and presenters include assessing authorities and key Government departments, including DIAC. The new monitoring and support initiatives have been predicated on the need to improve further communication flows with assessing authorities.
(d) Considerable work has taken place to improve communication with assessing authorities. As an example, in the lead up to the change to the Points Test to be implemented from 1 July 2011, DIAC officers have visited or teleconferenced with all assessing authorities and held a conference to discuss the policy changes.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs regularly update and continually monitor the content of the new Australian Skills Recognition Information website to ensure that it meets the varied needs of the different groups requiring overseas skills recognition, particularly with regard to ensuring the information is user-friendly to people from non-English-speaking backgrounds.
Government response
Accepted
The ASRI website has been designed to be user-friendly for all people including those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. While the majority of users of the website are potential skilled migrants who are required to have good English language skills to be accepted for migration, people with lower English skills are assisted to use the ASRI website through a summary of its purpose and function in seven major community languages – Arabic, Chinese, Dari, Hindi, Indonesian, Korean and Vietnamese. These are the top languages in common across the Skill and Family Streams and the Humanitarian Programme. These translated summaries allow non-English speakers to identify whether the ASRI website could be of use to them and then engage the assistance of an interpreter if necessary to find information relevant to them. It would not be practical to provide translation of all material on the website as the site comprises many thousands of pages of content.
Professional user testing of the ASRI website involved 22 test subjects, specifically including two recently arrived humanitarian migrants from Africa, formerly holding skilled occupations. Both, with some assistance, were able to successfully navigate the website and locate information pertaining to skills recognition for their occupations.
DIAC receives regular feedback from users and stakeholders through the feedback mechanism on the ASRI website. DIAC will continue to monitor user friendliness through normal processes. The vast majority of feedback takes the form of advice of change of contact details for the organisations listed on the website. There has been no feedback at this time relating specifically to the issue of its user friendliness to people from non English speaking backgrounds.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs add a ‘frequently asked questions’ section to the Australian Skills Recognition Information website.
Government response
Accepted in Principle
The vast majority of ASRI feedback emails received are notification of change of contact details for the organisations listed on the website. No direct questions have been posted as feedback regarding skills recognition processes; however, DIAC will continue to monitor and gather feedback data and if the need for a set of FAQs becomes apparent, a ‘frequently asked questions’ section will be added to the website.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ensure the Australian Skills Recognition Information website provides an overview of the various organisations involved in administering, monitoring and delivering overseas skills recognition services, both nationally and at the state and territory level, to clarify the governance arrangements and different roles and responsibilities of these bodies. This information should also include links to contact details and relevant performance reporting and accountability documents on skills recognition processes.
Government response
Accepted
The ASRI website already meets this recommendation, citing the pre-migration skills assessment bodies, state and territory licensing and registration authorities, training contacts, and professional associations for all occupations listed. The purpose of ASRI is chiefly to provide contact information for all these organisations so that people seeking recognition of overseas qualifications can contact the expert body in their field to find out the specific details of skills recognition for their occupation. The site also contains a ‘Useful Links’ section and also links to the Overseas Qualifications Unit (OQU) in every state and territory government.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) ensure the Australian Skills Recognition Information website includes a link to other key DIMA documents relating to overseas skills recognition—for example:
Government response
Accepted in Principle
The ASRI site has incorporated all the elements of Form 1121i. Links to ASRI are available from information pages on skilled migration. The ASRI site provides links to the relevant assessing authority allowing users to contact the assessing authority directly to obtain information on how to get their skills assessed. This allows the user to obtain relevant up-to-date information from the appropriate assessing authority. There is no longer a specific fact sheet on skills assessment – this has been overtaken by ASRI.
Recommendation 14
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ensure key documents relevant to the migration process contain links to the Australian Skills Recognition Information website.
Government response
Accepted
There are numerous links throughout the DIAC website to the ASRI pages, including from all main pages to do with skilled permanent and temporary visas and from Settlement content. There are also links to ASRI from other Australian Government websites and ASRI is now cited on numerous other websites around the world.
Recommendation 15
The Committee recommends that the Departments of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Education, Science and Training work together to remove duplication between the Australian Skills Recognition Information and the Australian Education International-National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition websites—in particular, the occupation specific information.
Government response
Accepted
The part of the AEI-NOOSR website that duplicated information on ASRI was reference to Individual Professions Guides under the Guide to Professional Recognition:
http://aei.dest.gov.au/AEI/QualificationsRecognition/RecognisingProfessionalQualifications/GuideToProfessionalRecognition/Default.htm
To address possible confusion and to encourage the development of a single authoritative information portal, DEEWR, after consultation with DIAC, will remove the Individual Profession Guides and will link to ASRI.
Recommendation 16
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training update the introductory information on overseas skills recognition on the Australian Education International-National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition website to include a reference to registration and licensing.
Government response
Partially accepted
DEEWR has no role in the way professional bodies undertake registration and licensing as these activities take place under state law. DEEWR does acknowledge however that, because registration and licensing issues can influence the way skilled migration processes are perceived, it has a role in ensuring that assessing authorities provide clear and accessible registration and licensing information to clients where appropriate.
The AEI-NOOSR website refers individuals to the DIAC ASRI website to obtain registration and licensing information.
Recommendation 17
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), together with the assessing authorities overseen by DEST, continue to review the pre-migration information they provide on overseas skills recognition to ensure that:
Government response
Accepted
The Government agrees that DEEWR, DIAC and assessing authorities will continue to collaboratively review pre-migration information on overseas skills recognition to ensure General Skilled Migration program information is comprehensive, clear and accurate.
Recommendation 18
The Committee recommends that, as part of its long term research on migration outcomes, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) collect data, where privacy concerns allow, on:
DIMA should coordinate with the Department of Education, Science and Training and assessing authorities/professional bodies to assist in tracking this information.
Government response
Accepted
The Government agrees that the experiences of migrants in negotiating the registration/licensing and professional membership process should be better monitored, not least because DIAC places a high premium on client service and client feedback.
DIAC will continue to carefully consider the option of monitoring skills assessment and licensing experience of skilled migrants in the CSAM surveys.
The results of the latest published CSAM data show good outcomes for skilled migrants in employment and skilled employment. The unemployment rate of skilled migrants was just 5 per cent (a figure below the 5.7 per cent national unemployment rate at the time of the survey) and their participation rate was 95 per cent . The vast majority of skilled migrants have therefore in a short period of time become active participants in the Australian labour market. For independent General Skilled Migrants from offshore, more than 90 per cent were in skilled job (www.immi.gov.au/media/research/surveys/CSAM).
Recommendation 19
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training increase the transparency of its monitoring arrangements and foster improvements in procedures by:
(a) immediately formalising its monitoring of assessing authorities, including establishment of an annual reporting arrangement, and communicating details of the full scope of this role to all stakeholders;
(b) arranging for a statement clarifying full details of its monitoring role to appear on the Australian Skills Recognition Information website, with a contact point for complaints handling;
(c) working with the professional bodies to agree on appropriate monitoring, reporting and accountability arrangements to cover overseas skills recognition processes undertaken by these bodies for other groups with overseas qualifications (family stream migrants etcetera) outside of the skilled migration stream, with these arrangements to be communicated to all stakeholders; and
(d) arranging for the performance and other statistical reporting data it collects from the assessing authorities, where privacy concerns allow, to be made publicly available.
Government response
Partially accepted
(a) The response to 9b above addresses this recommendation.
(b) ASRI will contain a link to the following information after it is posted on the AEI website:
DEEWR supports Australia’s General Skilled Migration program by approving, recommending for gazettal and monitoring the following professional assessing authorities:
Architects Accreditation Council of Australia
Australasian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership
Australasian Podiatry Council
Australasian Veterinary Boards Council
Australian and New Zealand Society of Nuclear Medicine
Australian Association of Social Workers
Australian Computer Society
Australasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine
Australian Dental Council
Australian Institute of Medical Scientists
Australian Institute of Quantity Surveyors
Australian Institute of Welfare and Community Workers
Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council
Australian Pharmacy Council
Australian Physiotherapy Council
Australian Psychological Society
Certified Practising Accountants of Australia
Council of Occupational Therapists Registration Boards
Council on Chiropractic Education Australia
Dietitians’ Association of Australia
Engineers Australia
Institute of Chartered Accountants of Australia
National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters
National Institute of Accountants
Optometry Council of Australia and New Zealand
Osteopaths Registration Board of Victoria
Spatial Sciences Institute
Speech Pathology Australia
(c) DEEWR supports Australia’s General Skilled Migration program by facilitating the approval of professional assessing authorities in accordance with the Migration Regulations 1994. There has been no discussion of expanding the work of assessing authorities to include “groups with overseas qualifications (family stream migrants etc) outside of the skilled migration stream.”
(d) Assessing authorities submit General Skilled Migration statistical information to DEEWR biannually in the context of DEEWR’s monitoring and support role. DEEWR, DIAC and individual assessing authorities are the appropriate audience for the data. Collated information is not available for release to the public domain.
Recommendation 20
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs include a link on the Australian Skills Recognition Information website to the Department of Education, Science and Training’s Good Practice Guide for the Assessment and Recognition of Overseas Qualifications and Skills for the Purposes of Migration.
Government response
Not Accepted
DEEWR’s annual program of monitoring and support initiatives has subsumed publication of the The Good Practice Guide.
4 Professions: skills recognition issues
Recommendation 21
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training, as part of its monitoring of assessing authorities, review the occupational specific concerns relating to overseas skills assessment procedures raised in the evidence in Figure 4.1 and, as appropriate, address those concerns, with a report back to the Committee.
Government response
Accepted
DEEWR’s annual program of support activities takes into consideration the issues raised in the evidence in Figure 4.1.
It should be noted that DEEWR does not have responsibility for all the parties and assessing authorities cited in Figure 4.1. Those that lie outside DEEWR’s purview are Anaesthetists, Law, Library Management, Medical and Planning.
Recommendation 22
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training review inconsistencies in the skills assessment procedures of assessing authorities, with reference to the first section of Chapter 4 of the Committee’s report, and work with assessing authorities to remove such inconsistencies, where appropriate, to ensure efficient and effective assessment processes.
Government response
Accepted
DEEWR acknowledges the importance of consistency in skills assessment practices within and across the assessing authorities for which it is responsible.
Recommendation 23
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training review assessment completion times across all the assessing authorities with a view to expediting decisions.
Government response
Accepted
DEEWR’s annual program of support activities includes review of assessment completion times. Assessing authorities have established average handling times and continue to seek to improve these where possible.
Recommendation 24
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) monitor assessment fees and work with assessing authorities to ensure these fees are reasonable and have been determined on a not-for-profit basis. DEST should also monitor exam failure rates and work with assessing authorities to address, as appropriate, any significant anomalies in this area.
Government response
Partially accepted
Through its support role, DEEWR advocates fees for General Skilled Migration program skills assessments and related services to be determined on a not-for-profit basis. Unreasonably high fees may pose a barrier to migration. Assessing authorities must notify DEEWR of their intent to change fees, providing a justification and likely impact on prospective applicants.
Exam failure rates are problematic to monitor. Many exams conducted by assessing authorities are for registration and membership/professional development purposes rather than migration purposes. Some of these are conducted under state and territory law. As such, DEEWR has no direct influence in the way they are conducted. However, because exams may link with how an assessing authority is perceived and by implication, the perceived efficiency of the General Skilled Migration program, it is in DEEWR’s interest to work with assessing authorities, to the extent that it is able, to ensure that the assessing authority’s processes are efficient and transparent. Through its support activities, DEEWR is also able to work as an information conduit, facilitating the sharing of information between assessing authorities that have exam issues in common.
Recommendation 25
The Committee recommends that Commonwealth agencies involved in implementing the new accreditation body for the health professions clarify as soon as possible how the development of a national approach for the assessment of the education and training qualifications of overseas trained health workers will impact on the current roles of the assessing authorities/professional bodies in this area, as well as on the Department of Education, Science and Training in its monitoring role for these authorities.
Government response
Accepted
On 26 March 2008, the Commonwealth was party to a COAG signed Intergovernmental Agreement to implement the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the health professions (the Scheme). Under the Scheme, the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency has the responsibility to engage external accreditation entities for the respective professions under the Scheme. Existing external accrediting authorities will continue for at least the first three years of the Scheme.
DEEWR continues to work with those assessing authorities included in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the health professions, to ensure there is minimal impact of the Scheme’s implementation on 1 July 2010 on prospective migrants.
Recommendation 26
The Committee recommends that, in light of the serious concerns that have been raised with the Committee about overseas skills assessment processes for overseas trained doctors (OTDs), the Department of Health and Ageing should ensure initiatives announced by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to establish a national process for the assessment of OTDs are implemented by the COAG agreed timetable of December 2006.
Government response
Completed
The Department of Health and Ageing has worked closely with jurisdictional representatives to complete the implementation of national assessment processes for overseas trained doctors (OTDs).
On 9 October 2008, AHMAC noted the final report of the Technical Committee for Nationally Consistent Assessment of OTDs that demonstrated implementation by Health Ministers and Health Departments of the July 2006 COAG decision.
The new national Medical Board of Australia supports the adoption and application of nationally consistent processes and pathways under the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the health professions.
Recommendation 27
The Committee recommends that the Department of Health and Ageing urgently address, as part of the recently announced Council of Australian Governments initiatives, the provision of:
(a) orientation and support services to overseas trained doctors (OTDs), particularly those located in rural and remote areas; and
(b) targeted bridging courses for OTDs.
Government response
Completed
The Department of Health and Ageing funds programs to assist OTDs and overseas trained specialists with up-skilling, orientation, mentoring and bridging courses to aid their transition into the Australian workforce. The COAG, under the National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Reform (NPA), agreed to implement an International Recruitment Program. The International Recruitment Program is intended under the NPA to facilitate training and employment services for international health professionals.
Recommendation 28
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training work with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to add a new section on training to the Australian Skills Recognition Information website. The website should emphasise the need to consult with assessing authorities before undertaking any education and training to ensure that the course will actually contribute to a successful skills assessment in their profession.
Government response
Accepted in principle
The ASRI site explains the processes persons must undertake before they can get their skills recognised, licensed or registered. This may include additional training and the site encourages people to check requirements with the assessing authorities or State/Territory licensing bodies. Links to the Overseas Qualifications Unit (OQU) in every state and territory are provided; this may include additional training information. They also hold the most up-to-date local skills recognition and training information. This approach was agreed on by state and territory government stakeholders during the consultative development of the website.
Recommendation 29
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training, as part of its international education policy oversight role, monitor education and training, including bridging courses, undertaken in Australia for skills assessment and migration purposes to improve communication to users.
Government response
Accepted
DEEWR as part of its domestic and international role monitors education and training, including bridging courses, undertaken in Australia and maintains a dialogue with DIAC in relation to migration related issues.
DEEWR will continue to work with assessing authorities to ensure that information they provide to clients about education and training, including bridging courses, is accurate and accessible.
Recommendation 30
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training, in its monitoring role of assessing authorities, work with the Australian Council of Physiotherapy Regulating Authorities (now the Australian Physiotherapy Council) to ensure its processes are consistent with best practice, and report back to the Committee on this matter.
Government response
Accepted
The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) works with the Australian Physiotherapy Council (APC) to ensure its migration skills assessment processes are consistent with good practice. Through its annual program of assessing authority support activities DEEWR has in place mechanisms to facilitate APC to establish processes to provide a transparent and effective service to prospective migrants. This has seen APC implement a suite of initiatives to standardise and improve information and support resources, both on shore and offshore, for prospective migrants seeking assessment from APC. APC will evaluate the outcomes of these initiatives in due course
Department of Health and Ageing response
Note that physiotherapy is included in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions under which the APC is assigned as the accreditation authority for the physiotherapy profession. The Physiotherapy Board of Australia will approve accreditation standards developed by the APC.
Recommendation 31
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training, in its monitoring role of assessing authorities, work with the Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia to ensure its processes are consistent with best practice, and report back to the Committee on this matter.
Government response
Accepted
Through its annual program of assessing authority support activities the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations works with the Council on Chiropractic Education Australasia (CCEA) to ensure its processes are consistent with good practice. This includes implementation of short and longer term strategies to address issues raised in the JSCM report ‘Negotiating the Maze’.
Department of Health and Ageing response
Note that chiropractics is included in the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for health professions under which the CCEA is assigned as the accreditation authority for the chiropractic profession. The Chiropractic Board of Australia will approve accreditation standards developed by the CCEA.
Recommendation 32
The Committee recommends that the lead Commonwealth agencies responsible for migration, employment and international education policy— the Departments of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Employment and Workplace Relations, and Education, Science and Training—implement processes to ensure:
(a) a rapid response to concerns raised by assessing authorities/professional bodies about specific occupational oversupplies or undersupplies that might impact on successful migration and employment outcomes; and
(b) there is improved coordination between migration employment policy and international education policy to avoid occupational oversupplies such as those that have occurred in accounting and information and communications technology.
Government response
Accepted
The Government announced a number of reforms to the skilled migration program in February 2010, following the Government’s review of the Migration Occupations in Demand List. The reforms aim at delivering a more responsive and targeted skilled migration program. Key reforms have included:
These reforms have resulted in a program designed to better meet Australia’s varied skilled labour needs, including specific employer needs, regional needs and medium to long term skills requirements.
Recommendation 33
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training, as the new manager of the Vocational Education Training and Assessment Services (VETASSESS) contract, review VETASSESS processes to enable it to broaden its skills assessment regime to allow competency based assessment and recognition of work experience.
Government response
Not Accepted
This recommendation is predicated on the acceptance of recommendation 9a) of this report which deals with the proposed transfer of the management of the VETASSESS contract from DIAC to DEEWR. For the reasons outlined in the response to recommendation 9, the government is not able to accept the recommendation without substantial consultation. Until such time as a decision is made regarding the contract management of VETASSESS, DEEWR is unable to consider undertaking the review of VETASSESS processes contained in this recommendation.
Recommendation 34
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs update:
(a) the occupational specific information for librarians and library technicians on the Australian Skills Recognition Information (ASRI) website to notify potential migrants of the need to contact the Australian Library and Information Association to obtain information on membership requirements of the professional body necessary to gaining employment in these occupations in Australia; and
(b) the generic information across all occupational entries on the ASRI website to ensure there is a reference to membership of professional bodies being a formal requirement to work in certain professions.
Government response
Accepted
(a) DIAC has incorporated the amendment regarding librarians and library technicians.
(b) The ASRI website meets this requirement. Under the heading “Industry Association Memberships” for every occupation, the following advice is provided, in addition to all contact details for professional organisations of which we have been made aware:
“You may benefit from becoming a member of a relevant industry association for your occupation. This could help you with your employment prospects, networking, contact with industry and professional development and may provide you with important information and support.”
Advice as to the need in some occupations for membership of a professional body is most appropriately provided by the relevant assessing body.
5 Trades: skills recognition issues
Recommendation 35
The Committee recommends that the Skilled Occupation List be amended to include a prominent statement at the start of the document that additional assessments for registration or licensing purposes may be required on arrival in Australia, before an applicant can commence work, and that additional training might be required.
Government response
Accepted in Principle
While agreeing that it is important that applicants are aware of the difference between a skills assessment for migration purposes and assessments that may be required for registration or licensing, the government considers that the ASRI website is a more appropriate location for such a statement than on the Skilled Occupation List (SOL). Indeed, the current version of ASRI advises whether there is a licensing requirement in the entry level requirement section.
Recommendation 36
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, along with the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Education, Science and Training, review the assessing authorities in the trades and technical areas to ensure some consistency of approach in allocation of trades to either the Vocational Education Training and Assessment Services or Trades Recognition Australia.
Government response
Noted
It is considered that the implementation of ASRI has greatly reduced any potential for confusion in this area.
Recommendation 37
The Committee recommends that the operation of the new system of overseas assessment due to be in place in the five target countries by July 2007 be assessed by a tripartite group comprising industry, union and public service representatives.
Government response
Accepted and Implemented
A new system of overseas assessment was implemented from 1 September 2007 in five high volume source countries for ten trade and associated supervisory occupations. The program has been run on behalf of the Australian Government by a consortium of Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), operating under the National Skills Framework (including the Australian Quality Training Framework and Training Packages). The lead Consortium member entered into a Service Deed with the Australian Government, and was also gazetted as the Authorised Assessing Authority for the trades and countries included in the Program.
Key stakeholders, including Commonwealth and State/Territory representatives, peak industry and employer groups and unions were involved in the program development. Employer and union representatives have participated in offshore monitoring activities with TRA. An evaluation of the new system is currently being finalised.
Recommendation 38
The Committee recommends that Trades Recognition Australia transfer officers to state and territory Overseas Qualifications Units (or their equivalent), where justified by demand, to provide direct liaison with all stakeholders to assist in the implementation of the Council of Australian Governments reforms.
Government response
Not accepted
Out posting of TRA officers to state OQUs is not under consideration. TRA consults with stakeholders including OQUs as required.
Recommendation 39
The Committee recommends that, during the period leading up to the introduction of new offshore processing arrangements, Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) expand its international telephone service hours to improve access for the five main source countries for trades. In addition, TRA should ensure that telephone contact from within Australia can be made to both its Canberra and Melbourne offices during normal business hours.
Government response
Accepted
TRA conducted a trial of extended opening hours of both its domestic and international application stream telephone enquiry lines in the last half of 2006. As a result of the trial, phone hours were extended.
Recommendation 40
The Committee recommends that the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulations Act 1946 be repealed, and Trades Recognition Australia cease to conduct domestic assessments of skills in the electrical and metal trades.
Government response
Noted
TRA administers the Act to provide national recognition in prescribed metal and electrical trades for Australian residents who developed their skills through means other than an Australian apprenticeship.
Recommendation 41
The Committee recommends that Trades Recognition Australia confine its activities to the international assessment of overseas qualifications for migration purposes, in line with the Council of Australian Governments directives to guarantee the quality of assessments and protection of Australian standards.
Government response
Noted
TRA is committed to ensuring the quality of assessments undertaken and protecting Australian standards.
Recommendation 42
The Committee recommends that, subject to the Council of Australian Governments’ agreement, a state-based trade recognition system be instituted, based around the Australian Qualifications Framework, for those trades currently covered by the Australian Recognised Trade Certificate system.
Government response
Noted
The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulations Act 1946 is currently under review.
6 International practice and agreements
Recommendation 43
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continues to encourage and assist professional regulatory authorities to expand their use of bilateral and multilateral international mutual recognition arrangements, while ensuring that Australian standards are not compromised. In particular, the Committee recommends improved policy oversight to facilitate this initiative.
Government response
Accepted and In Progress
Australia has had a longstanding agenda to improve qualifications and professional recognition systems and has pursued this agenda through a number of different fora in the regions including the Australia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Human Resource Development Working Group (HRDWG) and more recently through the Australian initiated Asia-Pacific Ministers of Education meeting.
The absence of effective recognition systems represents a significant behind the border barrier to trade and investment in the APEC economies. Australia will continue to use the HRDWG to identify opportunities and propose initiatives for professional associations and the education and training industry to pursue mutual recognition agreements with their counterparts in APEC economies and to facilitate transferability of higher education qualifications, particularly in priority areas identified by industry.
The inaugural Asia-Pacific Ministers of Education meeting in Brisbane in April 2006 saw agreement on four broad goals contained in the official document of the meeting, the Brisbane Communique. The recognition of educational and professional qualifications was acknowledged as fundamental to improving mobility and has been articulated as one of the four goals to progress. Australia has taken a leadership role in supporting the achievement of these goals in the establishment phase of this process.
Recommendation 44
The Committee recommends that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade coordinate, on behalf of the Australian Government, an annual report to be tabled in parliament on international skills recognition and licensing arrangements. The report should cover the progress in establishing, implementing and monitoring inter-governmental mutual recognition arrangements, including the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangements, the Asia-Pacific Recognition Convention, the Lisbon Recognition Convention, the recognition measures in the free trade agreements and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
Government response
Noted
The primary responsibility for international skills recognition and licensing arrangements lies with professional bodies themselves and with State authorities. Many mutual recognition arrangements are negotiated directly between respective professional bodies without the involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) or other Australian Government agencies. It would therefore not be appropriate that DFAT prepare an annual report of the kind suggested by this recommendation. The role of the Department is to facilitate such agreements where appropriate, for example in free trade agreements, and where applicable, to provide guidance on relevant international obligations, including the General Agreement on Trade in Services.
DEEWR has the responsibility of following most of the international recognition programs mentioned in the report. In terms of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangements (TTMRA), which establishes equivalencies for the registration or licensure of occupations, implementation is facilitated through the registration requirements set by professional bodies, which are established under state/territory legislation. Under the Australian Government’s Administrative Arrangements Order, the role of DEEWR with regard to TTMRA is to support the development of policy advice and to respond to issues raised concerning administration of the legislation where appropriate, limited to professional occupations.
Through DEEWR’s participation in the implementation of international cooperative arrangements, such as the Lisbon and Asia-Pacific Recognition Conventions, relevant progress and issues raised through their implementation can be monitored. DFAT provides support to DEEWR where appropriate in following the implementation of these arrangements.
7 Other issues in overseas skills recognition
Recommendation 45
The Committee recommends that:
(a) applicants under the skills stream, employer sponsored (including Labour Agreements) and temporary visa categories such as the 457 visa be required to have vocational English as a minimum standard;
(b) the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs specify the manner in which language proficiency is assessed; and
(c) an independent evaluation be conducted to ensure that consistent standards of English language competence are being applied.
Government Response:
Partially accepted
The Government has announced changes to policy settings relating to English language proficiency that will achieve a higher degree of consistency across the suite of temporary and permanent skilled migration visa products than exists at present. However, the Government considers that some flexibility in the policy settings is desirable and consistent with the different dynamics and the different target groups that apply to various visa classes.
There have been a number of changes to policy settings on English language proficiency since the Negotiating the Maze report was finalised. The English language requirement for GSM was increased to International English Language Testing System (IELTS) 6 (Competent English – ie above vocational) for most occupations (professional, managerial and technical) in September 2007. From 1 July 2009, the English language requirement for all GSM applicants who nominate a trade occupation has also been increased, to a minimum of IELTS 6.0 in each of the four components of the IELTS test. For provisional GSM visa subclasses, the threshold English language standard for applicants with Concessional Competent English who are sponsored and have enrolled in an English language course will be raised from an average of 5.5 to an average of 6.0. This change affects offshore GSM visa subclasses from 1 July 2009 and onshore GSM visa subclasses from 1 January 2010.
GSM applicants who are not sponsored by an employer are expected to compete in the skilled labour market. Relevant research suggests that English language proficiency is a critical determinant of labour market outcomes for skilled workers in these labour market sectors. The raising of the GSM IELTS requirements will support better outcomes for these migrants.
A new English language requirement introduced to the Subclass 457 – Business (Long Stay) visa program on 1 July 2007 required applicants to have proficiency in English equivalent to an average score of 4.5 across the four test components in the IELTS test (applicants must meet a higher level of English proficiency where this is required for licensing or registration in their nominated occupation). On 14 April 2009 further changes increased the minimum English language requirement from IELTS 4.5 to IELTS 5 for the Subclass 457 Visa program. The increased English language requirement will help to ensure overseas workers are able to respond to occupational health and safety risks, raise any concerns about their welfare with appropriate authorities and benefit Australia by sharing their skills with other workers.
In relation to 45b of the Committee’s recommendation, the Government does prescribe the manner in which English language proficiency is assessed.
In relation to 45c of the Committee’s recommendation, the Government has a number of formal consultative arrangements which aim to evaluate the effectiveness of various elements of the range of skilled migration visas including the English language proficiency requirements. These arrangements include the Skilled Migration Consultative Panel which meets regularly and includes state governments, unions and industry representatives.
Recommendation 46
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs extend its fee-free document translating service, to provide for three documents in each category for each eligible visa holder.
Government response
Accepted
The Department’s Fee-Free Translating Service supports positive settlement outcomes for clients in the areas of education, employment and community participation by providing fee-free translation of personal, settlement-related documents during their first two years of settlement in Australia. The policy allows for a potential, 20 documents per eligible individual to be translated under the following categories:
Identity and Relationship - up to 6 documents (eg birth certificates, marriages certificates, change of name, divorce certificate, custody documents and death certificates).
Facilitation - up to 4 documents (eg drivers licence, medical certificates, police certificates).
Education & employment - up to 7 documents (eg highest academic achievement, trade certificates, employment certificates, references, transcript of academic record.
Usage statistics for the fee-free translating service in 2009-10 indicate that close to 82 per cent of all individuals accessing the service had only one document translated, less than seven per cent had more than two documents translated, and less than one percent of individuals had more than five documents translated.
Recommendation 47
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs explore local work experience initiatives in a further review of migrant settlement services in 2007. The review should consider the development of new service options for migrants and humanitarian entrants that would allow them to gain work experience early on in their job search and provide them with scope to combine work experience with English language and other training elements, with a particular emphasis on workplace culture and use of technology. The role of professional bodies in providing transition to work programs should also be considered. This review would also look at English language training, particularly industry specific language courses.
Government response
Accepted
The Australian Government committed $49.2 million in the 2008/09 Budget over four years to strengthen measures to help refugees and other migrants to gain the language skills needed to join the Australian workforce. Of this, $40 million was provided for the Employment Pathways Program and $9.2 million for the Traineeships in English and Work Readiness Program.
The Employment Pathways Program aims to help people with low levels of literacy to learn English in formal and informal settings while gaining familiarity with Australian workplace culture and practices. It includes work experience, occupational health and safety training and other employment preparation skills.
The Traineeships in English and Work Readiness Program aims to help new arrivals transition into their professional field or into vocational training by offering them a combination of vocation specific English language tuition, together with work experience and mentoring.
The goal for clients undertaking these programs is direct employment, further vocational training or a traineeship. Both programs are available on a full or part-time basis, but it is expected that participants will complete the program within 6 months. Vocational Counsellors counsel participants about their employment goals and options, organise work placements and provide support.
Successful features of the Employment Pathways Program and Traineeships in English and Work Readiness Programs will be combined in a Settlement Language Pathways to Employment/Training Course (SLPET) which will be delivered from 1 July 2011 through the AMEP's new business model.
Recommendation 48
The Committee recommends that the settlement process for those who have not undergone a skills assessment prior to arrival should include a listing of their qualifications and previous work experience, and that, subject to the individual’s agreement, this information be made available to those involved in provision of settlement services and to the relevant state or territory OQU.
Government response
Accepted in Principle
All applicants for a visa under the Offshore Humanitarian Programme complete the form 842 Application for an Offshore Humanitarian Visa.
The 842 application form requests information about an applicants’:
- employment history in the past 15 years, including periods of unemployment
- main language, other languages and level of spoken English
- education - primary to post-secondary
However, this is generally a self assessment, and eligibility for a humanitarian visa is not determined by an applicant's skills, employment experience or knowledge of English. It is primarily determined by the strength of their humanitarian claims. Many humanitarian applicants have minimal, and sometimes no, education or employment skills.
Some information related to applicants' education and skills is recorded in IRIS, the off-shore visa processing system which records details of all Humanitarian and other visa applications. These information fields in IRIS allow for the reporting of occupation code, main language, reading ability, English ability, number of years of schooling, further education, rural or urban background.
This information is used to help DIAC determine where to settle unlinked humanitarian entrants (those without family or community links in Australia). It is also passed on to the settlement service provider who is responsible for settling new arrivals. Service providers are responsible for facilitating successful settlement using a case management approach. Settlement services include (but are not limited to) providing information and referral services to link the new arrival to the appropriate government services.
In the case of Family Stream migrants, partner forms do ask people to list their current occupation. However the information they provide is based on a self assessment made by the applicant. The visa office makes no assessment of this declaration. When entering case data in IRIS, the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) field requires mandatory completion, however based on the self defined information provided on the form, any report on ASCO codes for partner applicants would not be very reliable. Also, as it is not mandatory to complete the occupation question on the application form, any report generated would include a large number of non-stated.
Consideration has been given in the past to including additional questions in the application form, relating to occupation, skill/education levels, however this has not been pursued, because of concerns it may raise unnecessary angst among applicants if they thought that the information they provided on skill levels and/or, occupations may have some bearing on the assessment of their visa.
Recommendation 49
The Committee recommends that the Departments of Education, Science and Training, and Immigration and Multicultural Affairs undertake a scoping study on the potential of an online professional mentoring program targeting prospective skilled migrants in Australia. Such a program would recruit industry volunteers to provide general advice to prospective migrants on skills recognition, licensing, employment and related matters, based on the Canadian model described in Chapter 6 of the report.
Government response
Accepted in Principle
With appropriate resourcing, DEEWR agrees to undertake this work.
Recommendation 50
The Committee recommends that, given the lack of consolidated information on bridging courses around Australia, the Department of Education, Science and Training undertake a detailed audit of the availability of such courses, the costs and time commitments involved, the uptake rate of various courses and, most importantly, the success rates of bridging courses in enabling individuals with overseas qualifications to gain successful skills recognition. The results of the audit should be made publicly available—for example, on the Australian Skills Recognition Information website.
Government response
Noted
This work is not currently undertaken by DEEWR. The issue is complex, crossing Commonwealth and State and Territory jurisdictions and private and public sector providers. Considerable resources would be required to scope and develop a system to provide the requested information.
Recommendation 51
The Committee recommends the creation of a Higher Education Contribution Scheme type system to allow humanitarian stream entrants with some level of trade qualifications to undertake appropriate courses to enable them to work in their trade occupations.
Government response
Accepted
Vocational Education and Training fee-help was introduced in the 2007/08 Budget, and was further extended in Victoria in August 2008.
Recommendation 52
The Committee recommends Job Network contracts be revised to enable the agency to assist eligible overseas qualified job seekers pursue (through additional training, for example) occupations in which they have existing skills and experience, rather than immediately place them in any position available, including unskilled positions.
Government response
Not accepted
Finding and securing employment is a key component to successfully settling in Australia. Job Services Australia (which replaced Job Network in the delivery of Government employment service assistance on 1 July 2009) offers a range of services tailored to meet the individual needs of eligible jobseekers. Humanitarian and refugee entrant jobseekers have immediate access to the full range of services provided by Job Services Australia. Other migrant jobseekers have a two year waiting period to access the full range of services, and are eligible for Job Search Support only.
Recommendation 53
The Committee recommends that the Department of Education, Science and Training conduct a review of the Assessment Fee Subsidy for Disadvantaged Overseas Trained Australians to determine how well it is meeting the needs of humanitarian entrants and what could be done to improve its operation in this area, in terms of communication, coverage of occupations and the criteria for eligibility.
Government response
Not Accepted
Humanitarian entrants who are permanent residents are eligible to apply for funding assistance through the Assessment Subsidy for Overseas Trained Professionals Program (ASDOT) to support the assessment of their professional qualifications and skills gained overseas, in order to enter their profession in Australia.
A communication strategy to improve the level and breadth of information publicly available on the ASDOT program, including eligibility requirements, approved professions and the application process, has been implemented jointly between the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Centrelink.
The program continues to fully expend its financial year appropriation and as such, will not be reviewed or expand in its scope.
Recommendation 54
The Committee recommends that the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs monitor the use of English language tuition by humanitarian entrants and review the Adult Migrant Education Program to ensure that it meets the needs of humanitarian entrants.
Government response
Accepted
The Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP) has a long tradition of providing English skills in a specifically settlement context, teaching English while introducing eligible migrant and humanitarian entrants to Australian social norms and practices, services, and the rule of law.
The Adult Migrant Education Program (AMEP) is available to eligible clients, who are entitled to up to 510 hours of tuition or until they reach functional English, whichever comes first. Additional tuition of up to 400 hours is available to humanitarian entrants with low levels of formal schooling or those who have had difficult pre-migration experiences, such as trauma or torture.
In addition to the 510 hours of tuition, eligible clients can also undertake an employment focused course which assists them to learn vocational-specific English while gaining familiarity with Australian workplace culture and practices. To achieve this, the course employs workplace visits, simulated work environments and work experience placements.
The AMEP is not mandatory and the decision to participate in the course resides with the client. However the program is intentionally structured to be accessible to clients and adaptable to their needs. AMEP classes are available in more than 250 locations in metropolitan, rural and regional Australia. Flexible delivery is a key component of the AMEP and clients can choose to undertake full or part time courses in a class environment in a learning centre or a community setting. Alternatively, clients are able to participate in the program in their own home through distance learning or the home tutor scheme. The AMEP also provides free childcare services, education counselling and referrals to other Government and community programs to encourage access and benefit clients.
The AMEP was subject to review in 2008. The review considered all aspects of the program, in particular, whether the program is meeting the needs of its clients, including humanitarian entrants. The findings of the review were incorporated into the new AMEP business model, put to tender in late 2009.
As part of the new business model the number of AMEP counsellors is being increased. The role of the counsellor is to provide AMEP clients with increased support at entry and exit to AMEP, by identifying agreed learning pathways for students throughout their tuition and providing referrals to other appropriate services, as required.
DIAC has awarded a new single national contract to deliver distance/e-learning services for the Adult Migrant English Program to the AMEP Flexible Learning Network (AMEP FLN). The contract will commence on 1 July 2011.
Recommendation 55
The Committee recommends that the Departments of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Education, Science and Training review the current processes followed by assessing authorities to determine if further steps need to be taken to combat document and identity fraud.
Government response
Accepted and in progress
Integrity screening (including document and identity fraud detection and prevention) is a central component of the skills assessment process. There is ongoing dialogue between DIAC and DEEWR on fraud prevention issues in both the skills assessment system and the broader visa system. The process of appointing new assessing authorities and monitoring existing authorities includes evaluation of their capacity to manage integrity processes.
Importantly, on a practical level, there is ongoing interaction and information sharing between DIAC visa processing centres, DEEWR and various skills assessing authorities on document and identity fraud issues, trends, detection and prevention strategies.
On 2 April 2011, an amendment to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) took effect, introducing a new Fraud Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020. This PIC enables DIAC to refuse a visa application where the applicant has supplied to the Department or to a third party (including an assessing authority) false, misleading or incorrect information or bogus documentation in conjunction with their visa application or in relation to their skills assessment.
Assessing authorities are strongly encouraged to report to the Department, emerging trends in relation to possible false or misleading information or bogus documentation being presented by the client, to achieve a positive skills assessment.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Library Act 1960, the Senate elect Senator Humphries to be a member of the Council of the National Library of Australia on and from 1 July 2011, for a period of 3 years, consequent on the retirement of Senator Trood.
That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Senate appoints Senator Macdonald as a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust on and from 1 July 2011, consequent on the retirement of Senator Ferguson.
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a private senators' bill be considered under a limitation of debate.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
Several Australian and international studies have shown that people with disabilities such as mental disorders and substance abuse disorders will usually have co-occurring disorders, and a person with co-occurring disorders is likely to have greatly exacerbated negative impacts. A person with two or more moderate level disorders occurring across the tables when combined could result in a total equivalent of a severe impairment, when you combine substance, mental and physical disorders. The current amendment does not allow for cumulative totals across the tables and therefore does not take account of co-occurring disorders.
That the debate be now adjourned.
That the order of the Senate agreed to on 11 May 2011 relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business, be amended to provide that:
On Thursday, 23 June 2011––
(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to 6.30 pm, and 7.30 pm to adjournment;
(b) the order of consideration of government business orders of the day for the remainder of today be as follows:
No. 1 Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
No. 2 Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 5) Bill 2011
No. 6 Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
No. 5 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012;
(c) consideration of general business and consideration of committee reports, government responses and Auditor-General's reports under standing order 62(1) and (2) shall not be proceeded with;
(d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm;
(e) the question for the adjournment of the Senate shall be proposed after the Senate has finally considered the bills listed in paragraph (b); and
(f) if the Senate is sitting at 10 pm, the sitting of the Senate be suspended till 9.30 am on Friday, 24 June 2011.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.
That the amendment (Senator Siewert's) be agreed to.
(4) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 8 (line 31), Schedule TO BE OPPOSED.
(2) Schedule 2, item 2, page 5 (lines 9 to 15), item TO BE OPPOSED.
(3) Schedule 2, item 2, page 5 (line 15) after “1 July 2013”, add “except in relation to a FTB recipient who is receiving a social security pension, a social security benefit, service pension or income support supplement”.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the Senate continue to sit between 6.30 pm and 7.30 pm.
Tax Laws Amendment (2011 Measures No. 5) Bill 2011
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 5 (Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012, and related bills).
Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2011-2012
Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2011-2012
We have said that, if we are going to oppose measures which the government puts forward and that opposition will lead to a cost to the budget, we will identify where the savings are going to be made in the budget in order to compensate for that loss to the budget.
That these bills be now read a third time.
Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
(1) Schedule 2 , item 1 , page 14 (lines 14 and 15) , omit paragraph (d) of the definition of parliamentary allowance in subsection 4(1), substitute: (d) parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of theRemuneration Tribunal Act 1973 ), less any portion determined under subsection 7(1A) of that Act.
(2) Schedule 2 , item 6 , page 15 (lines 24 and 25) , omit paragraph (b) of the definition of parliamentary allowance in section 3, substitute: (b) parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of theRemuneration Tribunal Act 1973 ).
(3) Schedule 2 , item 14 , page 16 (lines 20 to 23) , omit the definition of parliamentary allowance in clause 1A of Schedule 3, substitute:
parliamentary allowance means parliamentary base salary (within the meaning of theRemuneration Tribunal Act 1973 ).
(4) Schedule 2 , page 17 (after line 2) , before item 17 , insert:
16A Subsection 3(1)
Insert:
parliamentary base salary means so much of the allowances determined under subsection 7(1) as: (a) represents the annual allowance payable for the purposes of section 48 of the Constitution; and (b) is identified in the determination as base salary.
(5) Schedule 2 , page 17 (after line 4) , after item 17 , insert:
17A After subsection 7(1)
Insert:(1A) The Tribunal may determine that a portion of parliamentary base salary is not parliamentary allowance for the purposes of theParliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948 .
(6) Schedule 2 , item 19 , page 17 (line 14) , after " subsection (1) ", insert " , (1A) ".
(7) Schedule 2 , item 20, page 17 (line 25) , after " subsection 7(1) ", insert " , (1A) ".
That this bill be now read a third time.
The former centralized government initiated the construction of a high-capacity central abattoir in Jakarta, capable of slaughtering up to 2 000 head of cattle per night in two lines, using electric stunning (locally acceptable for Halal standards) and other modern equipment. The shift to a market economy and decentralization led to the opening of many small, private slaughter facilities with poor hygienic standards but which attracted the majority of livestock due to the lower cost. Although offering much better hygienic standards, the central abattoir in Jakarta now operates only at 10 percent of its capacity. Some municipalities (Bogor and Yogyakarta) recently built good medium-sized abattoirs with line slaughter for cattle. Both have not gone operational as yet because of disputes with the local butcher communities who prefer to continue slaughtering in the traditional way.
The free-market economy stimulated the mushrooming of many small private slaughter facilities, mostly with obsolete technical and hygienic equipment or practically none at all.
These small slaughterhouses operate more cheaply than the large abattoirs primarily because of that lack of expenditure on maintenance, hygiene measures and energy. Thus, the butchers or meat dealers are charged less and have won over a large portion of the business from the established facilities.
With reference to travel undertaken by departmental staff: can a list be provided by the department itemising all air travel completed across each department of the Australian Government; if not, where are such costs itemised annually.
For the period 1 July 2010 to 31 March 2011, 557,771 airline bookings have been made at the whole of government level (Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) Agencies and the participating Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (CAC Act) bodies). Itemising all air travel across each Australian Government agency would be a large and unreasonable volume of information to collate.
The new travel arrangements, which came into effect on 1 July 2010, are delivering on their intended objectives by reducing costs and improving competition in the industry.
An analysis of 30 most travelled domestic routes for the March Quarter (representing about 74 per cent of domestic travel) shows that on average savings of approximately 30 per cent were achieved on cost of airfares, using 2007-08 data as the baseline.
The savings are based on the reduction in unit cost prices achieved though the whole of government contract tender process.
With reference to the Audit and Fraud Control Branch and the department's current review of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA):
(1) What are the terms of reference for this review.
(2) Who is leading and serving on the panel.
(3) With whom has the panel conducted interviews.
(4) At what locations has the panel conducted inspections.
(5) When did the review commence and when will it be completed.
(6) Will the review report be made public.
There is no formal review being undertaken of ARPANSA.
At the request of ARPANSA's CEO, the Audit and Fraud Control Branch (AFCB) of the Department of Health and Ageing (the Department) is undertaking an initial investigation into ARPANSA's handling of the Yttrium 90 and Molybdenum 99 incidents at the radiopharmaceutical site at ANSTO, with specific regard to those matters relating to impartiality.
AFCB will also provide advice to ARPANSA on whether any further investigation is warranted and if so, how such an investigation could be undertaken.
(2) There is no panel. Mr Colin Cronin, Assistant Secretary, AFCB of the Department is carrying out the investigation, with assistance as required from Departmental lawyers.
(3) Discussions have been held with current and former staff of ARPANSA and Mr David Reid.
(4) No inspections have been conducted.
(5) The investigatory work commenced on 31 March 2011 and is expected to be completed by the end of May 2011.
(6) Advice from AFCB will be provided directly to ARPANSA.
The following information is provided for the 2010-11 financial year (current to 24 May):
The Attorney-General's Department (AGD) undertook fitout changes to 3-5 National Circuit, Barton to accommodate a Departmental restructure. The cost of these fitout changes was $146,057.09.
The building owner of 3-5 National Circuit (ISPT) and AGD are sharing the cost of constructing an outdoor cover area for staff. This permanent structure is required to address potential OH&S issues (protection from the sun and rain) so that AGD can utilise the outdoor space for training, meetings and functions. Prior to its construction, staff could not utilise the area due to the extreme hot or cold conditions, reflection of light from the pavement and exposure to the elements. Expenditure for this project to 24 May 2011 is $542,190.90 of which the AGD component is $340,863.64. ISPT is responsible for any remaining expenditure (not expected to exceed $25,000).
Various minor fitout works were completed within the premises at 3-5 National Circuit at a total cost of $62,956.24. No single item exceeded $8,000.
AGD has committed to lease 8,000sqm of office space in a new building being constructed at 4 National Circuit, Barton. Expenditure to 24 May 2011 on this project is $3m against a total fitout budget of $18m. The project was approved through the Public Works Committee on 24 February 2011. Through this project AGD will achieve cost savings from:
All costs provided above are GST exclusive.