That Senator Hogg do take the chair of this Senate as President.
That Senator Ludlam do take the chair of this Senate as President.
That Senator Parry be appointed Deputy President and Chairman of Committees.
That Senator Ludlam be appointed Deputy President and Chairman of Committees.
That the order of consideration of government business orders of the day for the remainder of today be as shown in the list circulated in the chamber.
No. 3—Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Bill 2011
No. 1—National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Bill 2011
No. 2—Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2011
No. 4—Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
No. 5—Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011
No. 13—Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Amendment Bill 2011
No. 14—Aviation Transport Security Amendment (Air Cargo) Bill 2011
No. 12—Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010.
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (Child Care and Other Measures) Bill 2011
… the establishment of a new statutory body, widely representative of the sector, for the purposes of advising the Minister on childcare policy and its implementation, with powers to oversee a uniform regulatory regime operating across states and territories.
We are doing this because we know from years of international research that the first five years of a child’s life shapes their future—their health, learning and social development—and we want to make sure that future is bright.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That Senator Carr be granted leave of absence this week as he is travelling on parliamentary business.
What I'd be keen to see is the OIE standard, that is the international standard and encourage stunning.
The truth about tax reform is that you have to leave money on the table for people, even if it means you are reducing the size of the surplus.
Maybe that's a comment on the quality of our economists.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Milne today relating to logging of old growth forests.
That the provisions of paragraphs 5 to 8 of standing order 111 not apply to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures Bill) 2011, allowing it to be considered during this period of sitting.
Statement of Reasons for Introduction and Passage in the 2011 Winter Sittings
Social Security and O ther Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill
Purpose of the Bill
The primary purpose of the bill is to provide certainty in relation to prosecutions and previous criminal convictions for social security fraud.
Reasons for Urgency
Introduction and passage of the bill during the 2011 Winter sittings is urgently required to:
(a) mitigate the risk that up to 12,000 previous convictions for social security fraud could be overturned if the High Court decision in relation to the matter of CDPP v Poniatowska (Poniatowska ), which is overdue and imminent, is adverse to the Commonwealth, as advised by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions; and
(b) ensure the certainty of social security fraud prosecutions currently on hold pending the High Court's decision in Poniatowska .
That leave of absence be granted to Senators Carr and Farrell from 4 July to 7 July 2011, on account of parliamentary business.
That the leave of absence be granted to Senator Coonan from 4 July for the remainder of this sitting week, for personal reasons.
That the Senate:
(a) notes that Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD) is:
(i) an overarching term used to describe a range of physical, mental, behavioural, learning and development disorders that can result from foetal exposure to alcohol, and
(ii) reported to be the greatest cause of non-congenital, irreversible and permanent brain damage to new-borns in Australia;
(b) calls on the Australian Parliament to continue to facilitate and support the development of a FASD national diagnostic tool for the use of medical professionals and other health service providers; and
(c) calls on the Australian Government to:
(i) give those with FASD access to disability support funding and services, where appropriate,
(ii) institute an awareness campaign targeted to groups most at risk to raise their awareness of the risks to the unborn child when alcohol is consumed in pregnancy and highlight the potential cognitive and developmental consequences for affected individuals as these pertain to service providers, law enforcement and justice, the community sector and education, and
(iii) give support to the development of models of care and helping strategies for families and individuals dealing with the impacts of FASD.
That notice of motion No. 308 standing in my name for today, be postponed to the next day of sitting.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 the Hawke Labor Government allowed many thousands of Chinese students studying in Australia to stay after their visas had expired; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) provide an extension of student visas on humanitarian grounds to the students of the conflict-ridden countries of Libya, Syria and Bahrain, allowing them to stay in Australia until it is safe to return home, and
(ii) lift the current work restrictions, to allow these students, who have had their assets and bank accounts frozen, an increased ability to work and access basic entitlements in Australia.
The Government's continued failure to release the full details of its broken carbon tax promise for parliamentary and public security.
inevitably we'll have a price on carbon … we'll have to.
… politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is 'crap' and you don't need to do anything about it.
The ATO was not consulted on the current proposal for a carbon price, as the matter was being handled by another department.
But Senator Brown, who had campaigned for petrol to be included—
But Senator Brown, who had campaigned for petrol to be included in the tax, said: ''Forever is a very brave word in politics. Down the line I think there is an inevitability that all fossil fuels will, under the weight of evidence that they should, pay the full cost of the creation of climate change.''
(a) Committee reports
1. Scrutiny of New Taxes—Select Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—The mining tax: A bad tax out of a flawed process (received 29 June 2011)
2. Joint Select Committee on the Christmas Island tragedy of 15 December 2010—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee (received 29 June 2011)
3. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents received by the committee—Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 29 June 2011)
4. Economics References Committee—Interim report—State government insurance in Australia (received 30 June 2011)
5. Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents received by the committee—Superannuation claims of former and current Australian Public Service employees (received 30 June 2011)
6. Select Committee on the Reform of the Australian Federation—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents received by the committee—Australia’s Federation: an agenda for reform (received 30 June 2011)
(b) Government responses to parliamentary committee reports
1. Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Report—Review of the Defence annual report 2008-09 (received 28 June 2011)
2. Select Committee on Ministerial Discretion in Migration Matters—Report (received 30 June 2011)
3. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Report—2007 federal election: Events in the division of Lindsay – Review of penalty provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (received 1 July 2011)
(c) Government documents
1. Report to Parliament on barriers to generic medicines entering the market through the inappropriate use of intellectual property rights over product information (received 30 June 2011)
2. Extended Medicare Safety Net Review of capping arrangements, together with contextual overview (received 1 July 2011)
(d) Report of the Auditor-General
Report no. 57 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Acceptance into service of navy capability: Department of Defence; Defence Materiel Organisation (received 28 June 2011)
(e) Return to order
Trade—New Zealand—Import protocol for apples (motion of Senator Colbeck agreed to on 23 June 2011) (received 30 June 2011)
(f) Letter of advice relating to the Senate order on lists of departmental and agency grants
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio (received 24 June 2011)
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE
Report into Defence Annual Report 2008-09
Minority Report — Mr Robert Oakeshott
Government Response
Recommendation 1
I recommend that the Defence Department remove the reference to Ms Wolfe's employment having 'ended' from their Annual Report.
Government Response
Agreed.
The statement in Volume 2 of the 2008-09 Defence Annual Report - Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) correctly reflected the understanding of the DMO at the time the report was printed. In light of the orders made by the Federal Court the statement is no longer accurate. In accordance with the Requirements for Departmental Annual Reports—Document as approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit , approved by the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit and issued by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet on 17 June 2009. information to correct the record was included in the 2009-10 Defence Annual Report.
Recommendation 2
I recommend that a Code of Conduct inquiry he held into the action of Dr Stephen Gumley and any other party who failed to act in accordance with the Public Service Act and theFinancial Management and Accountability Act in relation to this very costly, and very avoidable matter of the termination of Ms Jane Wolfe.
Government Response
Disagreed.
It would be a breach of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 to find that an Australian Public Service employee had breached the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct in relation to evidence that the Australian Public Service employee had given a Parliamentary committee. Further, as indicated below, the issue is still under consideration.
The Government guidelines for official witnesses before Parliamentary committees and related matters - November 1989 make clear the need for official witnesses to ensure the accuracy of their evidence. In accordance with the guidelines the Secretary requested that DMO employees review evidence provided to the Defence sub-committee and, as a result, minor corrections to the Hansard were made.
On 8 April 2010, with the consent of all parties, the Federal Court ordered that the decision terminating Ms Wolfe's employment be set aside and that the matter be referred to the Secretary, for further consideration, in accordance with law. The Secretary subsequently identified a suitable delegate, and provided Ms Wolfe with an opportunity to raise any objections in relation to the proposed delegate, the proposed tasking and the proposed documents to he provided to the delegate. The delegate has been appointed and is currently considering the matter.
Recommendation 3
I recommend that the policy and strategy options contained in my minority report at paragraphs 1.43 and 1.44 of my minority report be deeply considered by Government, and done so with recognition that the most 'controversial' of these is the inclusion of the Taliban in discussions about the future of Afghanistan as a democratic country.
1.43 And the key strategic considerations include:
1.44 I recommend that both these policy and strategy options be deeply considered by Government, and done so with recognition that the most 'controversial' of these is the inclusion of the Taliban in discussions about the future of Afghanistan as a democratic country.
Government Response
Agreed in part.
The Australian Government agrees, in the main, with the recommendations in the minority report, with the bulk of them already being addressed by existing government policies on, and approaches to, our Afghanistan contribution.
Afghanistan's current system of government has been decided by Afghans, initially at a meeting in Bonn, Germany, in November 2001. The resulting Bonn Agreement installed a new government, the Afghan Interim Authority, in Kabul under President Hamid Karzai. Following a Loya Jirga (Grand Council of Afghans representing tribal and ethnic groups) in June 2002, this was replaced by the Afghan Transitional Administration. Afghanistan adopted a new constitution at a further Loya Jirga in January 2004. The constitution provides for a presidential system of government, with a parliament, within the framework of an Islamic republic.
Transition to Afghan responsibility is a key element of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) strategy for Afghanistan. The strategy involves building the capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and improving the Afghan Government's ability to deliver government services. US President Obama has said that the US intends to commence a drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan in mid 2011. The US Administration has made it clear, however, that July 2011 is not a deadline for withdrawal, but the beginning of a conditions-based transition to Afghan-led security responsibility.
At the International Conference on Afghanistan in July 2010, Afghanistan's international partners, including Australia, supported Afghanistan's objective that the ANSF lead and conduct military operations in all provinces by the end of 2014. Australia will continue to support efforts to create the conditions necessary to allow for this transition, where Afghan security forces are capable of maintaining security.
The primary focus of Australia's military mission in Afghanistan is to train the Afghan National Army (ANA) 4th Brigade in Uruzgan Province to the level where it is able to take responsibility for the security of the Province. the Australian Defence Force also conducts security operations throughout the Province to provide safe, secure spaces for development work in Uruzgan. While much work remains with our mission to train and mentor the ANA 4th Brigade, this mission is on track. The Australian Defence Force (ADF) assesses the task of training the ANA 4th Brigade will take a further two to four years, and this is in line with the 2014 timetable agreed at the International Conference on Afghanistan. To support ISAF-led programs to sustain and develop the Afghan National Army, both in Uruzgan Province and more broadly across the country, the Australian Government has pledged US$200 million over five years to the ANA Trust Fund,
The Australian Government recently announced an enhancement to our civilian effort to complement our military mission, in line with broader ISAF strategy. The Government announced an expansion of our diplomatic, development assistance and police contribution to around 50 personnel. The enhanced civilian component of Australia's efforts in Afghanistan is designed to provide more effective basic services for the people of Uruzgan, improve livelihood opportunities for local communities, and create a strong foundation for the eventual transition of the Province to full Afghan responsibility. Our whole-of government approach reflects our commitment to strengthening the legitimate political, legal, economic and security institutions of Afghanistan:
Following commencement of the drawdown of Dutch forces from Afghanistan on 1 August 2010, an Australian senior civilian coordinator has taken up leadership of a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Uruzgan under the multinational, ISAF-flagged Combined Team-Uruzgan. The PRT is the primary mechanism in Uruzgan focused on governance and development. It also seeks to build relations with key government and tribal actors in the Province.
The Australian Government recognises and has consistently stated that the conflict in Afghanistan will not be ended by military force alone. Political reconciliation and, ultimately, settlement between the Afghan Government and insurgents will be essential to a lasting and durable solution. The Australian Government supports Afghan-led efforts to reach out to elements of the insurgency that might be prepared to lay down their arms and rejoin their communities.
Australia is supporting the Afghan-led reintegration effort by contributing $25 million to the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, subject to the establishment of appropriate governance arrangements and role for donors, like Australia, in the administration of the fund. The Australian Government welcomes the release of the Afghan Government's draft Peace and Reintegration Plan, which set out a number of preconditions for reintegration, including renouncing violence, ceasing support for the insurgency, recognising the Afghan Constitution, and cutting all current and future tics with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. These pre-conditions arc of course a matter for the Afghan Government to determine.
SELECT COMMITTEE ON MINISTERIAL DISCRETION IN MIGRATION MATTERS
MARCH 2004
Department of Immigration and Citizenship
April 2011
The Government welcomes the Senate Select Committee’s Report on Ministerial Discretion on Migration Matters (the Report).
The Migration Act 1958 (the Act) provides the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) with discretionary, non-compellable, and non-delegable powers to resolve cases, if it is considered in the public interest to do so. Therefore, Ministerial Intervention (MI) processes differ from those in the codified visa framework.
The Report identified a number of issues for reform of MI under the Act, including the need for greater accountability, transparency and procedural fairness. It also recommended regulation changes allowing greater access to the migration visa framework, thereby providing access to review and reducing the number of MI cases.
In 2008, the government commissioned Ms Elizabeth Proust to provide advice to the Minister on arrangements for the exercise of the Minister’s public interest powers. The Proust Report, released in July 2008, reiterated a number of issues outlined in the Senate Select Committee’s Report. It recommended that, to the extent MI was retained, it should be very limited and subject to strict guidelines.
Both Reports supported the retention of MI to deal with cases which are unable to be resolved within the codified visa framework in the Act but which, nevertheless, require a migration outcome.
Taking into account the views of the Committee and the Proust Report, the government and the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) are engaged in ongoing reform of MI, with a number of significant changes already implemented.
Following are DIAC’s responses to the Committee’s 21 recommendations.
Chapter 3 – Patterns of use of ministerial discretion
Recommendation 1 (3.54)
The Committee recommends that the Minister require DIMIA to establish procedures for collecting and publishing statistical data on the use and operation of the ministerial discretion powers, including (but not limited to):
Government Response
DIAC collects and reports on most of the information covered by the recommendation and is working to increase its capacity to record and report on a broader range of MI issues1. Key statistics on MI under section 417 is published in the DIAC annual report and will henceforth be available quarterly on the DIAC website.
A significant proportion of MI requests exhibit circumstances which may meet more than one of the grounds for referral, making identification and recording of any one specific ground problematic.
Chapter 4 – Development of ministerial guidelines and the exercise of the Minister’s discretionary powers
Recommendation 2 (4.67)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA establish a procedure of routine auditing of its internal submission process. The audits should address areas previously identified by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, namely identifying ways to improve departmental processes for handling cases, and ensuring that claims are processed in a timely way and case officers consider all of the available material relevant to each case.
Government Response
Since the tabling of the Ombudsman’s report, DIAC has strengthened arrangements for supporting the Minister in the use of his powers.
To ensure consistency in assessments, decision-making and referral of MI requests to the Minister, changes have been made to DIAC’s guidelines on the administration of ministerial powers. DIAC has implemented an analysis-based approach for all information provided by clients seeking the exercise of the Minister’s public interest powers. New templates for submissions and schedules have been developed which support a comprehensive analysis of the case and provide a preferred option in all cases that are referred to the Minister for consideration.
In line with evidence-based decision making principles and to ensure timely case processing, DIAC has conducted extensive training for staff involved in assessing MI requests.
A quality assurance process has been developed and implemented to review MI processes under section 417 of the Act, in line with DIAC’s National Quality Assurance Framework. The process monitors whether quality controls such as templates, guidelines and training are effective.
Recommendation 3 (4.70)
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Ombudsman carry out an annual audit of the consistency of DIMIA's application of the ministerial and administrative guidelines on the operation of the Minister's discretionary powers. The audit should include a sample of cases to determine whether the criteria set out in the guidelines are being applied, and to identify any inconsistency in the approach of different case officers.
Government Response
The Government notes that it is a matter for the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman to determine whether to carry out such an audit and, if so, the timetable, priority and focus of such an audit. DIAC would cooperate fully and provide support in any such audit.
Recommendation 4 (4.84)
The Committee recommends that the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) standardise their procedures for identifying and notifying DIMIA of cases raising humanitarian and compassionate considerations.
Government Response
The Migration Review Tribunal (MRT)’s and Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT)’s standard procedures for identifying and notifying DIAC of cases raising humanitarian and compassionate considerations are set out in “Tribunals’ Policy and Procedures Guideline 1/2010 – Referrals for Ministerial Intervention” (issued on 4 February 2010).
The guideline contains standardised procedures for identifying and notifying DIAC of those cases considered by Tribunal members to exhibit unique or exceptional circumstances, including compassionate and humanitarian grounds, which the Minister may wish to consider in accordance with sections 351 or 417 of the Act.
Recommendation 5 (4.85)
The Committee recommends that the MRT and the RRT keep statistical records of cases referred to DIMIA, the grounds for referral and the outcome of such referrals.
Government Response
The MRT and RRT keep statistical records of cases referred to DIAC and records of the grounds for referral.
DIAC provides monthly advice to the Tribunals of cases in which the Minister has intervened under sections 351 or 417 in a format which enables the matching of outcome of referrals with the relevant Tribunal’s records.
Chapter 5 – Operation of the powers – problems encountered by applicants Recommendation 6 (5.9)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA create an information sheet in appropriate languages that clearly explains the ministerial guidelines and the application process for ministerial intervention. The Committee recommends that the new information sheet be accompanied by an application form, also to be created by the department. Both the information sheet and application form are to be readily and publicly accessible on the department’s website and in hard copy.
Government Response
DIAC provides written information about the MI process for public distribution on its website.
A general fact sheet about MI is available on DIAC’s website in English and 11 other languages including Arabic, Bengali, traditional and simplified Chinese, Hindi, Indonesian, Korean, Malaysian, Tongan, Urdu and Vietnamese. This is provided in hard copy through DIAC counters to clients interested in submitting a first MI request and refers to the more detailed information online.
Unlike a visa application process, a MI request does not require a client to comply with statutory criteria. Introduction of a prescribed application format has the potential to misrepresent MI as an application or review process, rather than as a safeguard for resolving unique and exceptional cases. It would therefore be inappropriate to create a binding format for making MI requests
In addition to the aforementioned general fact sheet, all clients making their first MI request are provided with a detailed fact sheet outlining the process and the expectations of the Minister and DIAC.
Recommendation 7 (5.12)
The Committee recommends that coverage of the Immigration Application Advice and Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) be extended to enable applicants for ministerial intervention to obtain an appropriate level of professional legal assistance. Extending the coverage of IAAAS should assist in reducing the level of risk of exploitation of applicants by unscrupulous migration agents.
Government Response
The Immigration Advice and Application Assistance Scheme (IAAAS) is a carefully directed response to Australia's international obligations not to refoule persons who might engage Australia's protection by meeting the Refugee Convention definition of a refugee. It provides publicly funded application assistance and independent and professional immigration advice to vulnerable clients seeking protection in immigration detention, and to the most disadvantaged, vulnerable Protection Visa (PV) applicants and other visa applicants in the community. The focus of IAAAS is on achieving an immigration outcome at the primary and merits review stages of the protection process.
A MI request is not a visa application process, nor does it require applicants to comply with statutory criteria. MI is intended as a safeguard to resolve unique or exceptional circumstances and not as a standard part of the visa application process. As clients request MI at their own discretion after receiving an immigration outcome, it is not appropriate for IAAAS services to be available to this group.
It should be noted, however, that the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2011 is before the Parliament. This Bill may pass into law, matters that are currently considerations in cases for MI such as other international conventions that have a non-refoulement (non-return) obligation. Where IAAAS assistance is available, these complementary protection considerations may be brought within the operation of the IAAAS.
The responses to recommendations 13 and 14 detail measures put in place to address the problem of unscrupulous migration agents.
Recommendation 8 (5.18)
The Committee recommends:
Government Response
The revised Minister’s Guidelines which came into effect on 5 December 2008 provide that a request for the exercise of the Minister’s public interest powers can only be accepted from the person who is the subject of the request or their authorised representative, unless initiated by DIAC. Letters of support provided by the person’s supporters can still be forwarded to DIAC and may be taken into account when a request for MI has been made.
In keeping with the principles of client service delivery and the best interests of the client, DIAC consults with clients to obtain any additional documentation which might assist to present their case holistically to the Minister. DIAC is currently considering the potential impact on MI of the High Court decision of November 2010 in Plaintiff M61/2010E v Commonwealth regarding procedural fairness.
However, providing individuals with draft submissions would cause significant delays to finalising MI requests. Due to the non-compellable nature of the MI powers, providing individuals with a draft submission for their comment would be an unnecessary measure. For this reason, it would also be inappropriate for the Minister to provide reasons for not considering or declining to intervene in a request.
Recommendation 9 (5.35)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA take steps to formalise the application process for ministerial intervention to overcome problems surrounding the current process for granting bridging visas, namely:
Government Response
Unlike a visa application process, a MI request does not require a client to comply with statutory criteria. Introduction of a prescribed application format has the potential to misrepresent MI as an application or review process, rather than as a safeguard for resolving unique and exceptional cases. It would therefore be inappropriate to create a binding format for making MI requests
The guidelines published by the Minister on 5 December 2008 provide that a request will only be considered when made by the person for whom intervention is requested or their authorised representative2. This ensures that clients are not disadvantaged if supporters request MI without their knowledge.
These changes also included the direction that, unless a client is in immigration detention, the Minister will not generally consider their request unless they hold a current bridging visa or other visa, or have applied for a bridging visa. Details regarding bridging visa conditions for MI clients are outlined on the DIAC website, including permission to work arrangements, access to Medicare and eligibility for Centrelink benefits3.
Departmental ministerial powers instructions state that “requests or information provided by any third party who is not the person’s authorised representative may be taken into account if a request by the person or their representative has been made.”
Recommendation 10 (5.44)
The Committee recommends that all applicants for the exercise of ministerial discretion should be eligible for visas that attract work rights, up to the time of the outcome of their first application. Children who are seeking asylum should have access to social security and health care throughout the processing period of any applications for ministerial discretion and all asylum seekers should have access to health care at least until the outcome of a first application for ministerial discretion.
Government Response
As part of the 2009-10 Budget, the Government announced changes to permission to work and Medicare access for PV and MI applicants.
New arrangements introduced on 1 July 2009 support the principle that PV applicants and people making an initial MI request, who have remained lawful and actively engaged with DIAC to resolve their immigration status, should be eligible for permission to work (and therefore access to Medicare) while they await the outcome of their application.
In addition, DIAC’s Community Assistance Support (CAS) program specifically targets clients who are assessed as being highly vulnerable, on temporary visas (including Bridging visas) while their immigration outcome is being actively managed.
Recommendation 11 (5.53)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA consider legislative changes that would enable ministerial intervention to be available in certain circumstances where there is a compelling reason why a merits review tribunal decision was not obtained.
Government Response
Existing provisions in migration legislation may offer further options in certain circumstances to applicants who fail to seek merits review. Section 48 of the Act enables a person whose visa application has been refused, whether or not they have sought merits review, to apply for a range of specified visas, including a PV if they have not already applied for such a visa.
The Minister also has the personal power under section 48B of the Act to allow a person who did not seek review of a PV refusal to lodge a further PV application. If that application is unsuccessful at the primary stage and at review, the MI power becomes available. Additionally, section 195A of the Act provides the Minister with a personal non-compellable power to grant a visa to a person who is in immigration detention, if the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to do so, whether or not the person has applied for a visa.
Making MI available only after both the primary decision and merits review was intended to preserve the statutory basis and consistency of visa decision making generally, while also providing a safety net for unique and exceptional cases after all of the formal processes have concluded. The comprehensive criteria in the Migration Regulations for each visa class which are considered at both the primary and review stage, allow for a structured and transparent assessment process to be undertaken.
In 2009, the Migration Regulations were changed to allow certain partners of Australian citizens, permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens, who were previously barred from making an application for a Partner visa in Australia, to do so where they meet certain criteria4.
Chapter 6 – Representations to the Minister Recommendation 12 (6.71)
The Committee recommends that the Migration Act be amended so that, except in cases under section 417 that raise concerns about personal safety of applicants and their families, all statements tabled in Parliament under sections 351 and 417 identify any representatives and organisations that made a request on behalf of an applicant in a given case.
Government Response
Publication of the identity of representatives or organisations could identify the client, raising complex privacy considerations and the potential for delay while agreement to publish such information is sought.
Recommendation 13 (6.74)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA and MARA disseminate information sheets aimed at vulnerable communities that explain the regulations on charging fees for migration advice, the restrictions that apply to non-registered agents and the complaints process. The information should also explain that the complaints process does not expose the complainant to risk.
Government Response
To protect communities from exploitation by unscrupulous and unregistered migration agents, DIAC has implemented a number of initiatives including:
In consultation with key stakeholders, the OMARA is publishing a Consumer Guide to provide information on what to expect from a registered migration agent and the complaints process. OMARA also publishes agent average fee information on its website.
Recommendation 14 (6.75)
The Committee recommends that the Migration Agents Taskforce should expand its operations to target unscrupulous operators that are exploiting clients through charging exorbitant fees, giving misleading advice and other forms of misconduct.
Government Response
The Migration Agents Taskforce (MATF) was set-up in June 2003 to deal specifically with particularly unscrupulous operators (who may be registered migration agents or unregistered persons acting unlawfully as agents) and to target any related criminal behaviour. It was originally intended that the taskforce would exist for a limited time and was dissolved in March 2007.
The 2007-08 Review of Statutory Self-Regulation of the Migration Advice Profession (the Review) found that there is a strong view in the broader stakeholder community that the architecture of the arrangements for regulating the migration advice profession was not ideal.
On 9 February 2009, the then Minister announced the establishment of the new OMARA. On 1 July 2009, the new OMARA was established to regulate migration agents to ensure visibility and transparency of the operations of the Office and to enhance consumer confidence. The new Office, attached to DIAC, is supported by a representative and independent advisory board.
Persons who may have been exploited by unscrupulous operators may make a complaint to:
Chapter 7 – Role of the Minister Recommendation 15 (7.53)
The Committee recommends that the Minister ensure all statements tabled in Parliament under sections 351 and 417 provide sufficient information to allow Parliament to scrutinise the use of the powers. This should include the Minister’s reasons for believing intervention in a given case to be in the public interest as required by the legislation. Statements should also include an indication of how the case was brought to the Minister’s attention – by an approach from the visa applicant, by a representative on behalf of the visa applicant, on the suggestion of a tribunal, at the initiative of an officer of the department or in some other way.
Government Response
Statements tabled in Parliament under sections 351 or 417 of the Act are prepared in a manner consistent with legislative requirements and include broad reasons why the Minister considers it in the public interest to intervene in a case. Any circumstances by which the case was brought to the Minister’s attention that would identify the person cannot be included in the tabling statement.
Recommendation 16 (7.54)
The Committee recommends that the Migration Act be amended so that the Minister is required to include the name of persons granted ministerial intervention under section 351 in the statement tabled in Parliament unless there is a compelling reason to protect the identity of that person.
Government Response
Publishing the names of people whose case the Minister has intervened on under section 351 of the Act in statements tabled in Parliament could give rise to genuine concerns about the person’s personal safety, such as in cases involving domestic violence or children.
Interventions under section 351 of the Act may relate to a person owed protection under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and disclosure of the name of the person involved may place them at risk, as well as family members or associates in their home country.
Recommendation 17 (7.71)
The Committee recommends that the Minister should make changes to the migration regulations where possible to enable circumstances commonly dealt with using the ministerial intervention power to be dealt with using the normal migration application and decision making process. This would ensure that ministerial intervention is used (mainly) as a last resort for exceptional or unforseen cases.
Government Response
Since the release of the Proust Report on 9 July 2008, a substantial amount of work has been done to reform MI through administrative improvements, changes to the Minister’s guidelines, the development of alternative visa pathways and a possible legislation change.
DIAC has explored options for consideration by the Minister so that, where possible, circumstances commonly dealt with using the MI powers can be resolved using normal application and decision-making process.
On 14 September 2009, the Migration Regulations were changed to allow certain partners of Australian citizens, permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens, who were previously barred from making an application for a Partner visa in Australia, to do so where they meet certain criteria. On that date, the Minister’s guidelines were amended so that MI requests made by clients who may be eligible to lodge a Partner visa under these changes are generally finalised without further assessment.
The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill 2011 (Complementary Protection Bill) was re-introduced in Parliament on 24 February 2011. If Complementary Protection is implemented, the legislation would allow Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under CAT, CROC and ICCPR to be considered as part of an integrated Protection visa framework.5
Chapter 8 – International humanitarian obligations
Recommendation 18 (8.29)
The Committee recommends that DIMIA establish a process for recording the reasons for the immigration Minister's use of the section 417 intervention powers. This process should be consistent with Recommendation 15 about the level of information to be provided in the Minister's tabling statements to Parliament. This new method of recording should enable the department to identify cases where Australia's international obligations under the CAT, CROC and ICCPR were the grounds for the Minister exercising the discretionary power.
Government Response
As the Minister’s public interest powers are discretionary and non-compellable, the Minister is only required to table in Parliament statements that comply with section 417 of the Act. For privacy and security reasons, the tabling statements do not hold specific information on the reasons for the Minister’s decision to intervene in specific cases.
Recommendation 19 (8.82)
The Committee recommends that the government give consideration to adopting a system of complementary protection to ensure that Australia no longer relies solely on the Minister's discretionary powers to meet its non-refoulement obligations under the CAT, CROC and ICCPR.
Government Response
The Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Bill was re-introduced in Parliament on 24 February 2011.
If this Bill is passed and Complementary Protection implemented, the legislation will allow Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under CAT, CROC and ICCPR to be considered as part of an integrated Protection visa framework. This would improve the efficiency of decision-making by more rapid and accountable assessments of asylum seekers’ protection claims in a single process with access to merits review.
If a system of complementary protection is adopted, it is anticipated that the Minister’s public interest powers would continue to allow the Minister to consider cases involving unique or exceptional circumstances where it may be in the public interest to substitute a more favourable decision.
Chapter 9 – Appropriateness of the Minister’s discretionary powers Recommendation 20 (9.73)
The Committee recommends that the ministerial intervention powers are retained as the ultimate safety net in the migration system, provided that steps are taken to improve the transparency and accountability of their operation in line with the findings and other recommendations of this report.
Government Response
The Government response to the Committee’s recommendations outlines a number of areas where steps have been or are being taken to enhance the transparency and accountability of the MI process.
These steps include the amendments to the Minister’s Guidelines and the associated Administrative Guidelines implemented on 5 December 2008, which clarified the process of referring MI requests to the Minister.
Work continues in DIAC to identify areas of reform and further efficiencies and to provide greater clarity, transparency and fairness to clients. These include:
The Committee recommends that the government consider establishing an independent committee to make recommendations to the minister on all cases where ministerial intervention is considered. This recommendation should be non-binding, but a minister should indicate in the statement tabled in parliament whether a decision by the committee is in line with the committee's recommendation.
Government Response
As the Minister’s personal public interest powers are discretionary and non-compellable, it would not be appropriate for an independent committee to make recommendations on cases.
1 Refer to Government Response to Recommendation 5 regarding review tribunal referrals.
2 Refer to Government response to Recommendation 8.
3 Refer to Government response to Recommendation 10.
4 Refer to Government Response to Recommendation 17 for more information.
5 Refer to Government Response to Recommendation 19.
Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
Report on the 2007 Federal Election — Events in the Division of Lindsay
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Special Minister of State, with assistance from the Attorney-General, introduce amending legislation to update the penalty provisions in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 using the schedule provided by the Australian Electoral Commission which is reproduced at Appendix K as a guide.
The penalty provisions in the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 should be updated in accordance with changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
The Special Minister of State is requested to refer the relevant amending legislation to the committee so that it can conduct a bills inquiry into the proposed changes to the penalties in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Response
Supported. The Government supports amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act) and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 (Referendum Act) to update the penalty provisions. Using Appendix K of the Report as a guide, the Special Minister of State will review the penalty provisions in both Acts, with advice from the Department of Finance and Deregulation and other agencies, including the Attorney-General's Department, as required.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that section 328 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 be redrafted as a strict liability offence, and the maximum penalties be 60 penalty units for an individual and 300 units for a body corporate.
Response
Partly-supported. The Government agrees that electoral advertisements published or distributed during an election campaign by a candidate, a political party or another participant in an election campaign must have the appropriate authorisation. Failure to do so should be a strict liability offence in the Electoral Act with the maximum penalties being 60 penalty units for an individual and 300 penalty units for a body corporate.
However, the Government notes that section 328 currently applies more broadly to a wide range of publications that may be published or distributed at any time of year by persons or organisations, including the Government. The Government is concerned that as section 328 currently applies this offence may often be inadvertently breached.
The Government therefore proposes to prepare legislative amendments to the Electoral Act to establish two offences in section 328 to apply to certain publications that do not include the required authorisation:
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Electoral Commission should, at the next federal election, record all polling booth offences that are reported, the actions that were taken and provide an appraisal of the adequacy of the powers under the Electoral Act to deal with polling place offences.
Response
Supported in principle. The Australian Electoral Commission reviews and reports on the adequacy of the powers under the Electoral Act following each election. This advice will assist the review of some of the penalty provisions in response to Recommendation 1.
That the committee reports be printed in accordance with the usual practice.
That the time for the final presentation of the report of the Economics References Committee on State government insurance in Australia be extended to 29 July 2011.
That consideration of each of the committee reports and government responses to committee reports tabled today be listed on the Notice Paper as orders of the day.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Australia's Food Proce ssing Sector––Select Committee–
Appointed––Senator Edwards
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity––Parliamentary Joint Committee –
Appointed––Senator Wright
Corporations and Financial Services ––Parliamentary Joint Committee–
Appointed––Senator Milne
Environment and Communications References Committee –
Discharged––Senator Singh
Appointed––Senator Cameron
Law Enforcement––Parliamentary Joint Committee –
Appointed––Senator Wright
Public Accounts and Audit––Joint Committee –
Appointed––Senator Milne.
That the order of the Senate of 23 June 2011 relating to the membership of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, for the purposes of the committee’s inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns, be amended as follows:
omit "Senator Birmingham".
Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2011
Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011
Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment (Oil Transfers) Bill 2011
Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 1) 2011
The Financial Framework Legislation Amend ment Bill (No. 1) 2011 would, if enacted, amend 8 Acts across 5 portfolios to help further clarify aspects of the Commonwealth's financial framework.
This Bill is the eighth Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Bill since 2004, and forms part of an ongoing program to address financial framework issues as they are identified, taking a collaborative and whole-of-Government approach.
The work behind this Bill has already been partially presented to Parliament through the Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 , which I tabled on 23 March 2011 to repeal 39 redundant special appropriations relating to the Commonwealth's financial framework.
The breadth of appropriation, governance and financial management issues across the Government compel continued attention. For this reason, the Department of Finance and Deregulation works with all parts of Government, in a culture of strong collaboration, to address statutory financial framework issues promptly.
Accordingly, this Bill seeks to amend 2 Acts in the Finance and Deregulation portfolio, but also 6 Acts in 4 other portfolios. These are: the Attorney-General's portfolio; the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio; the Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio; and the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio.
Specifically, Schedule 1 of the Bill contains minor amendments to the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 to enable the content requirements for the corporate plans of government business enterprises to be specified under regulations, rather than in the Act. This allows that content to be updated more readily.
Schedule 2 of the Bill contains minor amendments to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) primarily to clarify the legal status of various legislative instruments, such as determinations, instructions, and guidelines issued under that Act or under its regulations. There is also an amendment to clarify that the Auditor-General is the external auditor of FMA Act agencies.
Schedule 3 of the Bill then makes consequential amendments to the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and removes reference to an instrument under the FMA Act that is now redundant. As a result, the matters dealing with theLegislative Instruments Act 2003 will be covered in the FMA Act alone.
Schedules 4 to 8 of the Bill contain minor amendments to 5 Acts of Parliament.
These amendments seek to:
This short Bill is, accordingly, another step to help ensure that specific provisions within our financial legislation remain clear and up-to-date.
The Australian Government is committed to transforming the scale, potential and quality of higher education in Australia.
When we came to office in 2007, we understood very clearly the transformative potential of higher education.
We understood that new investment and reform was required to allow our nation’s universities to meet the increasing demand for higher qualifications from students and employers, to meet our nation’s future workforce needs.
In 2008, the Government commissioned a wide ranging Review of Australian Higher Education, known as the Bradley Review.
This review was the catalyst for the major package of reforms, Transforming Australia’s Higher Education System, announced in the 2009 10 Budget.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011 which I am introducing today will implement more of the reforms announced in that package.
Fundamental to the Government’s reforms has been the understanding that the Australian economy today – and the Australian economy of the future – will require more Australians to be degree qualified.
The demand for ever more sophisticated goods and services will require higher levels of innovation and skills in our workforce.
In Australia today, the demand for professionals, managers, and community and personal services workers is outstripping demand for clerical workers and labourers.
More professionally qualified people, engineers and managers will be needed by 2015. We will need them in the health care sector. We will need them in the mining sector. We will need them to respond to future challenges that arise across the breadth of the Australian economy.
This is why the Government has made a commitment to the expansion of a high quality university sector, to educate the graduates needed by an economy based on knowledge, skills and innovation.
This approach is essential if Australia is to participate fully in, and benefit from, the global knowledge economy.
The Government has set an ambitious goal for national attainment. It is seeking to increase the proportion of 25 to 34 year old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025.
This was one of the major reasons the Government committed to demand driven funding for undergraduate student places at public universities.
We are committed to funding growth in undergraduate student places and to opening the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians.
The Bill being introduced today gives effect to that commitment.
The Bill reforms the Commonwealth Grant Scheme which provides the Australian Government’s financial contribution to a student’s place at university.
Australian universities will no longer be asked by the Government to ration Commonwealth supported student places among students competing to get a bachelor degree.
The Government will make its financial contribution to the cost of educating all students admitted to undergraduate courses of study.
The Government will no longer set the number of undergraduate places that a university can offer.
From 1 January 2012, universities will have greater flexibility to respond to student demand, and employer and industry needs.
The Commonwealth Grant Scheme is to be changed so that universities will be funded, not on the number of places which the Education Minister decides they will be given, but based on the number of places they provide.
The legislated cap on the Commonwealth Grant Scheme is being removed by the Bill.
By 2012, the Government will have increased higher education expenditure on teaching and learning by 30 per cent in real terms since 2007.
This year, the Government will fund more than 480,000 undergraduate places at public universities.
With an anticipated 4 per cent growth, next year this will rise to over half a million places – a 20 per cent increase since 2008.
To fund this historic expansion of opportunity, the Government provided an additional $1.2 billion in this year’s Budget, bringing the total demand-driven funding to $3.97 billion over successive budgets.
The Government recognises that it will continue to have a role in the national oversight of our higher education sector.
It will retain some powers to assist achievement of those outcomes and to enable it to respond to national imperatives.
Higher education providers will continue to be required to have a funding agreement with the Commonwealth in order to be eligible to receive Commonwealth Grant Scheme funding. The Bill amends some provisions relating to these funding agreements.
The most significant of these amendments relate to the specification of maximum basic grant amounts.
These changes are required by the change to the method of calculating the amount of grant a university will receive under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme.
In addition, there may be circumstances in which the Australian Government needs to limit the extent of future growth in unallocated undergraduate places. The Minister will be able to do this by specifying a maximum basic grant amount for these places in a university’s funding agreement.
Significantly, the Minister will not be able to specify an amount that would reduce the funding for undergraduate student places that a university receives from one year to the next.
The Government will not be specifying any maximum basic grant amount for unallocated undergraduate places in any funding agreement for 2012.
It also does not plan to do so in future years, but the Government does wish to ensure that growth in undergraduate courses is sustainable, does not involve excessive risk and that the Government’s fiscal position is properly managed.
The Government is not uncapping funding for student places in postgraduate and medical courses. It will continue to allocate Commonwealth supported places in these areas.
The Government will be maintaining each university’s current target for postgraduate student places in 2012. It will also be ensuring that postgraduate student places that have been provided within the existing allowance for over-enrolment continue to be funded.
The Bill provides that the Government can specify in a university’s funding agreement a maximum basic grant amount for allocated places that is higher than the amount for the university’s target load.
The Government’s forward estimates of expenditure provide sufficient funding to ensure that there is no contraction in the level of Commonwealth supported postgraduate student places. It will be working with the sector to establish a framework for funding postgraduate places into the future.
The outcomes of the Base Funding Review will also be taken into account when considering future arrangements in the postgraduate coursework area.
In recent years, there has been a major expansion in the number of medical schools.
The number of domestic medical graduates is projected to rise from around 1900 to over 3100 – an increase of over 60 per cent.
This has placed significant pressure on the availability of clinical training places and internship opportunities. These are vital to maintaining the quality of graduating doctors.
For these reasons, the Government will not be removing the controls on student medical places at this time.
The Government will be monitoring demand and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of implementation of the new funding system.
The Bill ensures that the Government has the capacity to respond to any new skill shortages and, if necessary, to the oversupply of graduates in particular areas.
Amendments to the Higher Education Support Act 2003 will ensure that the Government retains powers to allocate places for particular disciplines.
The Bill allows the Minister to declare a course of study to be a designated course of study. This will provide the Minister with the capacity to allocate places for those particular courses.
The Bill provides that such a declaration must be tabled in both Houses of Parliament and is a disallowable instrument.
The Government believes that the measures contained in this Bill for demand driven funding of undergraduate places provide for much needed investment in higher education.
As a result of these reforms, universities will be able to grow with confidence and diversify in response to student needs.
Consistent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the Government agreed in its response to the Bradley Review that the Student Learning Entitlement (SLE) provisions of the Act would be abolished from 2012.
The SLE currently limits a person’s ability to study at university as a Commonwealth supported student to the equivalent of seven years full-time study, subject to exceptions specified in the Act which allow for further periods of ‘additional’ SLE and ‘lifelong’ SLE to be allocated.
Application of the SLE has resulted in instances of hardship for particular students – for example, where a student who completes a three-year undergraduate science degree subsequently goes on to re-enrol in a six year medical degree. In cases such as these, students can exceed their SLE and no longer be eligible for a Commonwealth supported place.
The Bill repeals Part 3-1 of the Higher Education Support Act and amends other provisions of the Act to remove the SLE and its role in the various funding schemes under the Act.
The Bill amends the Higher Education Support Act to require that each Table A and Table B higher education provider enters into a mission-based compact with the Commonwealth. Compacts will provide for Commonwealth oversight of the teaching and research missions of universities.
Mission-based compacts provide an important process of dialogue and communication between universities and the Government.
Compacts provide assurance concerning the alignment of university missions with the Commonwealth’s national goals in the areas of teaching, research, research training and innovation. They do so in a way that recognises that the objectives of Government and universities are often shared.
In preparing compacts for the 2011-13 period, the Government has been made aware of universities’ growth strategies, their intentions for maintaining the quality both of teaching and the student experience, and their contributions to the Government’s attainment targets.
As a consequence, the Government is better informed about the future research directions of universities, their strategies to advance innovation and of their efforts to train Australia’s future research workforce.
The Australian Government will continue to work cooperatively with higher education providers through compacts to ensure that individual university missions serve Australia well in teaching, research, research training and innovation. It will continue to monitor developments, progress and achievement across the sector.
The Bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act to promote free intellectual inquiry. Free intellectual inquiry is an important principle underpinning the provision of higher education in Australia. It is one that the Government has committed to include in the Act.
Free intellectual inquiry will become an object of the Act. The Government’s funding arrangements should not be used to impede free intellectual inquiry.
Table A and Table B providers will be required to have policies that uphold free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research. This will be a new condition of funding.
Most universities already have such policies and I know they all wish to support research and teaching environments which promote free intellectual inquiry. It is fundamental to the scientific method and rigorous scholarship. It is necessary to enable evidence to be challenged, competing theories to be debated and facts to be established. It provides the foundation for our understanding of the world and the accumulation of knowledge.
This Bill reflects the Government’s continued commitment to invest in Australia’s universities and to expanding opportunities for Australians to obtain a higher education degree.
As a consequence of this Bill and our investment in higher education, more Australians will have the opportunity to gain a university education.
In this next generation of students, there will be many people who will be the first in their family to embrace the opportunities that a university education can offer, with the promise of a high skilled, high paid job when they graduate.
Our industries will get the university-educated workforce they need. Our regional communities and industries will share in the benefits.
Australia will have a growing and sustainable higher education system which meets the needs of our nation.
Australian transport relies almost entirely on oil products. A significant amount of Australia's oil is imported as crude oil for refining at one of Australia's seven oil refineries.
On occasions, crude oil is transported in super tankers. Because of their size, these large ships are unable to enter most ports. To enable their cargo to be taken to an oil refinery, it will often be transferred to two or more smaller tankers. There may also be other times when oil cargo is transferred between tankers.
While such transfers are rare in Australian waters, indeed the first and, so far, only such transfer was successfully carried out off the NSW coast in March of this year, it is important that they be carried out in a responsible manner.
The Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization has recognised the potential for pollution damage resulting from an oil spill during a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation. In July 2009, the Committee adopted amendments to Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) to regulate ship-to-ship oil transfers. The purpose of this Bill is to implement those amendments in Australia.
The key provision of the Bill is the requirement for all tankers with a gross tonnage of 150 tons or more to have on board an operations plan setting out how ship-to-ship oil transfer operations are to be conducted. The carriage of such a plan indicates that a tanker is fully prepared to undertake STS oil transfers in accordance with the requirements of Annex I of MARPOL. Transfers are to be carried out in accordance with the plan.
Should a plan not be in place for a tanker involved in an oil transfer operation, then the risk of an oil spill would be greatly increased. Failure to have a plan would be an indication that the tanker may not have sufficient safeguards in place to avoid an oil spill and that there is the potential for major environmental damage resulting from the escape of oil during the oil transfer operation.
The ship-to-ship operations plans for Australian oil tankers will be checked and, if found to comply with the requirements of the amendments contained in this Bill, will be approved by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority.
The master of an oil tanker involved in a ship-to-ship oil transfer operation will be required to notify the administration of the country in whose waters the transfer is to take place. Notification is required at least 48 hours before oil transfer operations begin. This is to allow sufficient time for authorities to ensure that pollution response equipment is on standby in case of an oil spill during the transfer.
The requirements set out in the Bill will apply to all ship-to-ship oil transfer operations carried out from 1 April 2012. The requirements will also apply to any tanker which has undergone a survey to check compliance with safety and marine pollution prevention requirements between the date of Royal Assent of this Bill and 1 April 2012.
Since coming to power in 2007 this Government has significantly improved the protection of Australia's marine environment; this Bill continues that work.
The Statute Stocktake Bill (No. 1) 2011 seeks to reduce red tape in the Government’s internal administration by repealing redundant special appropriations and a statutory Special Account.
This Bill is an important part of Government housekeeping in keeping the financial regulatory framework of the Commonwealth up to date.
The Bill, if enacted, will update legislation across a range of portfolios, by abolishing 39 special appropriations, including a statutory Special Account, repealing redundant provisions in 11 Acts and repealing 25 Acts in their entirety.
These redundant provisions have been identified through a stocktake of special appropriations. The Government committed to regular stocktakes of this nature in response to the report, Operation Sunlight – Overhauling Budgetary Transparency released with the Government’s response on 9 December 2008.
The Bill carries on from the efforts of 5 previous Financial Framework Legislation Amendment Actsfrom 2005 until 2010 and the Statute Stocktake (Regulatory and Other Laws) Act 2009 , and contributes to Commonwealth efforts to clean up the statute book. The Bill also assists the Government to maintain effective legislative housekeeping, which is consistent with the Government’s Better Regulation Agenda.
The Billcontains no significant policy changes.
Schedule 1 of the Bill would, if enacted, repeal 13 special appropriations that have either been fully expended or would concern functions that are no longer being undertaken, such as the Loans (Australian Industry Development Corporation) Act 1974 .
Schedule 2 of the Bill will repeal 26 redundant special appropriations, including 25 Acts and a statutory Special Account that no longer have any effect, such as the Forestry and Timber Bureau Act 1930.
The measures contained in the Bill reflect the Government’s commitment to enhance transparency and accountability across the Commonwealth’s financial framework.
I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Remuneration and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Home Loans and Credit Cards) Bill 2011
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:
Part 3—Amendments relating to termination fees and credit fees and charges
Banking Act 1959
1 At the end subsection 9(4)
Add "or the requirements of section 9AF".
2 After section 9
Insert:
9AF Variation of conditions of certain authorities
(1) APRA must, within 30 days of the commencement of this section, vary the conditions of relevant existing section 9 authorities to give effect to this section and any new section 9 authority granted after that commencement to which this section applies must include conditions that give effect to this section.
(2) The section 9 authority for a bank which has a market share of more than 10% must prohibit the bank from imposing an early termination fee in respect of any loan agreement or mortgage contract entered into by the bank after the commencement of this section.
(3) If a bank which has a market share of more than 10% has an interest of 51% or more in a subsidiary which is an ADI, the section 9 authority for that ADI must prohibit the ADI from imposing an early termination fee in respect of any loan agreement or mortgage contract entered into by the ADI after the commencement of this section.
(4) In this section:
bank means an Australian ADI that is permitted under section 66 of theBanking Act 1959 to assume or use:
(a) the word bank, banker or banking; or
(b) any other word (whether or not in English) that is of like import to a word referred to in paragraph (a).
early termination fee means any additional charge imposed on a borrower or mortgagor in any situation in which the borrower or mortgagor chooses to pay out the loan agreement or mortgage contract, as the case may be, ahead of the time specified in the relevant loan or mortgage contract.
market share means market share determined by APRA on the basis of proportion of total deposits.
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
3 Before section 31 of the National Credit Code (in Division 4 of Part 2)
Insert:
30C Credit fees or charges relating to credit contracts
(1) A credit fee or charge payable by a debtor to a credit provider must be reasonable.
(2) ASIC may, if satisfied on the application of a debtor or guarantor that a credit fee or charge is not reasonable, apply to the court for an order annulling or reducing the credit fee or charge and for any other ancillary or consequential orders.
(3) In determining whether a credit fee or charge is not reasonable, ASIC must have regard to whether the amount of the credit fee or charge materially exceeds:
(a) the credit provider's reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates; or
(b) the credit provider's average reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates in respect of that class of contract.
(4) In considering an application by ASIC under subsection (2), the court must have regard to whether the amount of the credit fee or charge the subject of the application materially exceeds:
(a) the credit provider's reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates; or
(b) the credit provider's average reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates in respect of that class of contract.
[termination fees and credit fees and charges]
(2) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 20), at the end of the Schedule, add:
National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009
3 Before section 31 of the National Credit Code (in Division 4 of Part 2)
Insert:
30C Credit fees or charges relating to credit contracts
(1) A credit fee or charge payable by a debtor to a credit provider must be reasonable.
(2) ASIC may, if satisfied on the application of a debtor or guarantor that a credit fee or charge is not reasonable, apply to the court for an order annulling or reducing the credit fee or charge and for any other ancillary or consequential orders.
(3) In determining whether a credit fee or charge is not reasonable, ASIC must have regard to whether the amount of the credit fee or charge materially exceeds:
(a) the credit provider's reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates; or
(b) the credit provider's average reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates in respect of that class of contract.
(4) In considering an application by ASIC under subsection (2), the court must have regard to whether the amount of the credit fee or charge the subject of the application materially exceeds:
(a) the credit provider's reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates; or
(b) the credit provider's average reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates in respect of that class of contract.
In determining whether a credit fee or charge is not reasonable, ASIC must have regard to whether the amount of the credit fee or charge materially exceeds:
(a) the credit provider's reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates; or
(b) the credit provider's average reasonable costs of undertaking the activity or service to which the credit fee or charge relates in respect of that class of contract.
That the amendment (Senator Xenophon's) be agreed to.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Military Justice (Interim Measures) Amendment Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2011
The lack of detail in the EM, particularly in relation to the proposed foreign intelligence amendments, did not assist the committee in undertaking its consideration of the legislation. The EM does not provide a detailed explanation of the need for the provisions and how the expansion of ASIO's powers will assist it and other foreign intelligence agencies to perform their functions, nor does it mention the safeguards in place that will ensure appropriate use of the enhanced powers.
… afford the Minister and the agency almost unfettered discretion to determine when and how ASIO’s powers may be used to gather information about people’s activities, communications and relationships abroad.
… the oversight function of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is seriously undermined because, ultimately, the ASIO Act provides the framework against which that Office assess the lawfulness and appropriateness of ASIO’s activities.
… continue to monitor this closely, as not only will it affect my workload but also a significant increase in warrant applications could be a clear indicator of whether the relevant conditions are being applied too broadly
These threshold tests are important. If they are framed too broadly they provide no safeguard against the misuse or overuse of ASIO's powers. Further, the effectiveness of the oversight function of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security is seriously undermined because, ultimately, the ASIO Act provides the framework against which that Office assess the lawfulness and appropriateness of ASIO's activities.
"security" means:
The proposed changes will almost render meaningless the threshold test that must be met by ASIO in order to obtain a warrant or authorisation to collect intelligence under 27A and 27B. A warrant or authorisation will be able to be obtained to gather information about the activities of any person or group outside Australia whenever those activities are considered to be somehow relevant to Australia's national security, Australia's foreign relations or Australia's national economic well-being.
Even if it is accepted that the current definition and test need revision in light of the changing nature of threats to Australia, it does not follow that the new definition and test must necessarily be reframed in such broad terms.
The new definition and test will afford the Minister and the agency almost unfettered discretion to determine when and how ASIO's powers may be used to gather information about people's activities, communications and relationships abroad.
(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (lines 13 to 16), item TO BE OPPOSED.
[definition of foreign intelligence]
(2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (line 24) to page 4 (line 4), item TO BE OPPOSED.
[collection of foreign intelligence]
(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 4 (lines 17 to 24), item TO BE OPPOSED.
[collection of foreign intelligence]
Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 14), at the end of Part 1, add:
Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979
28A Section 5 (definition of foreign intelligence)
Repeal the definition, substitute:
foreign intelligence means intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign power.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test and Other Provisions) Bill 2011
Character can have regard to a number of factors: whether somebody has been sentenced for a criminal activity to prison for more than 12 months, and also general conduct and whether somebody’s general conduct implies that they are not of good character. ... character considerations will be taken into account for those on Christmas Island who have organised and perpetrated this sort of activity. It will be taken into account by our decision makers and ultimately by me.
Notwithstanding international obligations, the power to refuse or cancel must inherently remain a fundamental exercise of Australian sovereignty. The responsibility to determine who should be allowed to enter or to remain in Australia in the interests of the Australian community ultimately lies within the discretion of the responsible Minister.
The purpose of refusing or cancelling a visa under section 501 is to protect the safety and welfare of the Australian community and to exercise a choice on behalf of the Australian community as a whole as to who should be allowed to enter or to remain in the community.
… people involved in disturbances in immigration detention centres may currently be prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under the Criminal Code Act 1995.
… the proposed amendments continue a legislative approach which treats people differently depending on their mode of arrival.
… detainees from engaging in disturbances in immigration detention, rather than the need to ensure all non-citizens arriving in Australia are of good character.
The amendments to sections 501 and 500A have been drafted to ensure that, where applicable, they apply only to persons who have been convicted of an offence by a court. The amendments made to sections 501 and 500A would not apply to a person who is charged before a court with an offence or offences, and the court is satisfied, in respect of that charge or more than one of those charges, that the charge is proved, but has discharged the person without a conviction on that charge, or any of those charges. That is, there must be at least one conviction for the amendments to sections 501 and 500A to apply.
(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 31), after item 4, insert:
4A Paragraphs 501(7)(b), (c) and (d)
Repeal the paragraphs, substitute: (b) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment or periodic detention; or (c) the person has been convicted of an offence and the court orders the person to participate in: (i) a residential drug rehabilitation scheme; or (ii) a residential program for the mentally ill; or
4B Subsections 501(8) and (9)
Repeal the subsections.
[character test]
The holder must not have one or more criminal convictions, for which the sentence or sentences (whether served or not) are for a total period of 12 months duration or more, at the time of travel to, and entry into, Australia.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment (Registration of Foreign Proceeds of Crime Orders) Bill 2011
That this bill be now read a third time.
… a robust index which reflects the price inflation experience of superannuants better than the CPI becomes available in the future.
And so my work and that of my colleagues has been to find a way to use the Matthews report to still achieve our basic aim of fair retirement incomes for all ComSuper and Defence superannuants.
Firstly, recommendation 4 of the Matthews report gives us the green light to implement a new and fair indexation method. The shortcomings of the CPI alone as a measure of the cost of living have been acknowledged—even by Matthews! The government in introducing its new index for the aged pension (the PBLCI—Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index) acknowledged this also, so it is not a point of argument.
I do not consider, as the coalition does, that a changed indexation applying to only one section of defence pensions is a fair solution. Of course they deserve it, and of course we owe a debt to those who have served Australia, but we should not seek to water down this campaign, or to divide those involved, by choosing to benefit only one group and not the others. I agree with David Jamison and the DFWA that this political football with veterans should stop.
Since 14 September 2010:
(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.
(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.
(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.
(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.
(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.
(1) The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are not issued with departmental credit cards.
(2) (a) The following mobile devices have been assigned to the Minister and ministerial staff since 14 September 2010:
Ministerial Office Mobile phones, blackberries and data cards
* Mobile devices provided by the Department of Finance and Deregulation
** Mobile devices provided prior to 14 September 2010
# The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has not issued any mobile phones, blackberries and data cards
(b) Total spend on mobile devices for each office as per the Telstra and Optus billing period between September and November 2010 is as follows:
(3) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department of Finance and Deregulation tabled with the Senate F&PA Committee, Government Personal positions as at 1 October 2010.
(4) The costs of official travel by Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries and accompanying staff employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 are largely paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. As such, with the exception of those costs listed below, the information sought will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011 in his six-monthly report on Parliamentarians Travel paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
The total cost of short-term transport (e.g. hire cars, taxis) since between September and November 2010 was:
(5) The Special Minister of State will respond on behalf of other ministers.
What is the total cost of media monitoring services for the department, its agencies and the Minister's office (listed separately) for each financial year since 2007-08.
Figures are GST inclusive.
Portfolio agencies and ministerial offices use the main DEEWR service but pay for any special orders placed (such as transcripts or video files) or additional services (such as subscription to services such as Meltwater or AAP wire services). The amounts for the additional orders and services are listed above by minister and agency.
* Includes former DEST, former DEWR and then DEEWR from December 2007.
**Office of the Workplace Ombudsman became the Fair Work Ombudsman on 1 July 2009.
***FWA came into existence on 1 July 2009
**** Paid for a 2 year subscription to online/internet monitoring service – hence no cost recorded for the subsequent year.
Can a list be provided detailing:
(a) the internet domain names registered by the department, related statutory bodies or agents on their behalf;
(b) the cost of designing and building each site; and
(c) the cost of maintaining each site (broken down by year since establishment).
Attachment A contains a list of domain names that represent active websites used by the department, related statutory bodies or agents on the department's behalf. A number of additional domain names have been registered to protect the trademarks held by the department.
The majority of departmental websites are developed in-house using existing staff from program areas, communication and IT teams from across the department. The department often uses in-house resources to develop websites for its statutory bodies and agencies, consistent with APS guidelines. In some cases elements of production of a website may be outsourced to support in-house activities. The department does not attribute costs of the various activities associated with the production of each website to that particular website.
Maintenance of websites is routinely performed using in-house resources, contracted service providers or a combination of both. The department does not attribute costs of the various activities associated with the ongoing content development and maintenance of each website.
Attachment A
List of DEEWR domain names for active websites.
(1) What is the total number of staff currently employed.
(2) What is the total number of staff with a disability currently employed.
(3) What policies or programs are in place to encourage the recruitment of people with a disability.
(4) What retention strategies are in place for people with a disability.
(5) What career pathways or plans are on offer for people with a disability; if none, why.
(6) Are there any specific targets for recruitment and retention; if not, why not.
(7) What policies, programs or services are there to support staff with a disability.
(8) Can details be provided of any policies, programs, services or plans currently under development within the department and its agencies, concerning the employment of people with a disability.
(1) As at 30 April 2011, DEEWR employed 5472 staff.
(2) As at 30 April 2011, 147 who disclosed a disability.
(3) DEEWR's existing recruitment programs have been effective in attracting employees with disabilities. For example, the department's annual graduate intake has been successful in attracting graduates with disability from local universities. In addition the department has continued to participate in the 'Stepping Into Program" facilitated by the Australian Network on Disability (AND).
The department is also developing a pilot traineeship program for people with disability. Participants will be engaged under the APS Special Measures Circular utilising Disability Employment Service providers.
(4) DEEWR has a range of supports in place for employees with a disability. Through our reasonable adjustment policy, DEEWR ensures that all new employees and existing employees who return to work after injury or illness receive the equipment (including assistive technology) they need to support them in the workplace. This also extends to modifying their physical environment to suit their individual circumstances.
More generally, DEEWR promotes a supportive environment for employees with disability. For example the department has a Disability Employee Network supported by DEEWR's Disability Champion, Mr John Kovacic, Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations.
To increase disability confidence and awareness in the department, disability awareness sessions have been delivered for managers. Future additional sessions will focus on Mental Health and Workforce Wellbeing.
DEEWR also raises awareness by celebrating significant events focusing on disability. For example DEEWR celebrated the International Day for People with Disability by inviting some prominent people with disability to share their inspiring stories with employees, and hosting an awareness forum together with disability support agencies such as Vision Australia, Better Hearing Australia and members of the Disability Employment Network.
(5) By successfully removing barriers for people with disability, DEEWR ensures that people with disability can fully participate in the workplace. This includes working with their managers to develop individual performance and development plans to access training and other development opportunities to achieve their career aspirations.
(6) DEEWR's Disability Employment Plan 2009 – 2012 includes a target of 10% average annual growth in the number of employees with disability as a proportion of total employees.
(7) DEEWR has the following specific policies to support staff with a disability:
a. Reasonable Adjustment Policy
b. Reasonable Adjustment Funding Policy
c. Rehabilitation and Return to Work Policy
d. IT Support Processes for Assistive Technology
DEEWR has the following specific programs to support staff with a disability:
a. DEEWR Graduate Program
b. Participation in the Australian Network on Disability (AND) 'Stepping into' Program
DEEWR has the following specific services to support staff with a disability
a. Disability Coordination Unit – The unit provides centralised support for staff with disability, their colleagues and managers, and ensure all DEEWR's workplace policies support employees with disability.
b. Disability Employee Network – The Network offers peer support, helps to raise disability confidence, and provides a voice for employees with disability in the department.
c. DEEWR's Disability Champion – Champions our commitment to employees with disability at our most senior forums.
d. DEEWR Disability Portal – Provides consolidated information for staff with disability, managers and colleagues.
e. DEEWR's Gold membership of the Australian Network on Disability (AND) – provides access to key services and professional support.
f. Access to DEEWR's Equity and Diversity Officer Network.
g. Access to Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
(8) DEEWR is currently developing a pilot traineeship program for people with disability in consultation with Work Force Australia (WFA). The pilot is expected to commence in mid 2011.
DEEWR is also developing an online disability learning module as part of the department's onboarding process. The module is designed for all employees new to the department and will continue to raise disability awareness in DEEWR.
DEEWR will continue to work in consultation with the Australian Public Service Commission to share ways of improving attraction and retention of people with disability.
With reference to the Australian delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011:
(1) What is the estimated cost of:
(a) airfares;
(b) accommodation;
(c) travel allowance; and
(d) any other items.
(2) How many officers and ministers will attend.
(3) How many of the delegation will fly:
(a) first class;
(b) business class;
(c) premium economy; and
(d) economy or equivalent.
With reference to the Australian delegation to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to be held in Durban, South Africa, in December 2011:
(1) (a) The estimated cost of airfares is not known, as the delegation has not yet been determined.
(b) The estimated cost of accommodation is not known, as the delegation has not yet been determined.
Given the limited accommodation available in Durban, the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has entered into a contract to secure appropriate accommodation well in advance of the 17th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP17) for the period of the conference (28 November – 9 December 2011) and for associated pre-sessional preparatory meetings in the days leading up to the conference. A preliminary estimate of $245,104.60 is based on quotes provided by a COP17 accommodation service provider in January 2011.
This full amount has not been paid, and the estimated cost will be revised closer to the conference once it is clearer what the composition of the delegation will be.
(c) The estimated cost of travel allowance is not known, as the delegation has not yet been determined.
(d) The estimated cost of any other items is not known, as the delegation has not yet been determined.
(2) It is not yet known how many officers and ministers will attend, as the delegation has not yet been determined.
(3) Please refer to the response to part (1) (a) above.
(1) Since 21 August 2010, have there been any meetings of Cabinet, the National Security Committee, the Expenditure Review Committee and the Multi Party Committee on Climate Change; if so, for each meeting can the following be provided: (a) who met i.e. Cabinet or which committee; (b) who attended the meeting; and (c) did anyone deputise for any attendee; if so: (i) who deputised, and (ii) for whom.
(2) Pursuant to agreements reached following the federal election in 2010 have there been any meetings between the Prime Minister and Senator Brown, Mr Windsor, and Mr Oakeshott; if so, for each meeting can the following be provided: (a) the date of the meeting; and (b) who attended.
I am advised that:
(1) Yes. In the period 21 August 2010 to 20 June 2011, the following number of meetings have occurred (current as at 20 June 2011):
It is not normal practice to discuss the details of Cabinet or Cabinet committee meetings.
The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee is not a Cabinet committee. The details relating to MPCCC meetings are publicly available at:
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/multi-party-committee.aspx.
(2) As the Agreements provide, the Prime Minister meets with the Leader of the Greens, and with the three Independent Members of Parliament who have signed agreements with the Government, every sitting week, with less frequent meetings occurring in non-sitting periods.
With reference to issues arising between Mr Peter John Wilkshire and IP Australia and given that the Minister states 'an internal review was conducted by the Director General of IP Australia' in correspondence to the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Dr Kelly) on 17 January 2011:
(1) Was the inquiry formal or informal.
(2) Was the inquiry and its findings ever committed to paper and/or in writing.
(3) How was the inquiry conducted.
(4) With whom did the Director General discuss the matter during the inquiry.
(5) From what sources did the Director General glean his information and who was interviewed.
(6) To whom did the Director General report his findings.
(7) Can a full account be provided of how the Minister became aware of the review, for example, was it by a written brief from IP Australia to the Minister or verbally third hand.
(1) The inquiry was informal.
(2) No.
(3) A review of files and correspondence associated with Mr Wilkshire's case was conducted.
(4) The Director-General discussed the matter with the officers involved.
(5) The Director-General's information came from correspondence from Mr Wilkshire, the hearings decisions and material associated with the case.
(6) The Director-General informed Mr Wilkshire of his findings via correspondence.
(7) The Minister became aware of the review when responding to correspondence from Dr Kelly on behalf of Mr Wilkshire.
(1) What is the number of charges laid and convictions recorded against non-citizens for each financial year from 2006-07 to 2010-11 to date: (a) by state; (b) by visa type; (c) by type of offence, and (d) where relevant, the nature of any sentence, classified as: (i) no custodial sentence, (ii) a custodial sentence of 12 months or less, (iii) a custodial sentence of more than 12 months to 3 years, (iv) a custodial sentence of more than 3 years to 10 years, or (v) a custodial sentence of more than 10 years?
(2) What reporting requirements are in place to the department from responsible state, territory and other Commonwealth agencies, for charges laid and convictions recorded against non-citizens?
(3) Are there any proposals to change the reporting requirements to the department from responsible state, territory and other Commonwealth agencies, for charges laid and convictions recorded against non-citizens?
(1) My Department does not collect the data sought in the question. The Department considers the preparation of an answer to the question would involve significant diversion of departmental resources in the seeking of information from each state or territory and the Australian Federal Police and, in the circumstances, does not consider that the additional work can be justified.
(2) My Department has in place information sharing arrangements with state, territory and other Commonwealth agencies to identify non-citizens serving prison sentences who fail the character test. Such agencies are not required to report to my Department on charges laid and convictions recorded against non-citizens.
(3) No.