The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That–
(a) the Environment and Communications References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 12.35 pm; and
(b) the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 1.45 pm.
Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2010
That the question be now put.
That the question now be put.
That this bill be now read a third time.
In 2006 nearly 71 per cent of full-time domestic undergraduate students reported working during semester
On average these students were working about 15 hours per week. One in six of the full-time undergraduate students who was working during the semester were working more than 20 hours per week.
That the question be now put.
That this bill be now read a third time.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day No. 5, Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 and a related bill.
Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011
Trade Marks Amendment (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Bill 2011
… Big Tobacco will try and pull all sorts of tricks along the way to discredit me, discredit the policy or discredit the Government.
We've done a lot of research to ensure that we make the cigarette packs as unattractive as possible …
Apparently dark olive is the least attractive colour - olive green - for any smokers and particularly for young people.
Association chief executive Lisa Rowntree has sent a cease-and-desist letter to Health Minister Nicola Roxon, asking her to stop using the term ''olive green'' and instead adopt the term ''drab green''.
''Our members are having enough problems countering the flood of imported olive products being dumped in Australia via the large supermarket chains without the government promoting to the community that there is something negative about olive green,'' the letter says.
''I'd be happy to offer an (olive) branch to the association and support their bid for greater publicity.''
From next year, all tobacco products are sold in Australia will be required to have the same packaging in an unattractive drab dark brown colour.
The use of a trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements …
Expropriation, in ordinary usage, means dispossessing property owners of their property. But it has a much broader meaning under trade law.
Australia's performance since the onset of the global financial crisis has been enviable.
… one of the few advanced economies to avoid a recession in recent years, reflecting its strong position at the onset of the crisis and a supportive macro policy response.
The carbon tax is a much more transparent, much more direct, much more flexible type of system …
I endorse the government and opposition path that, in light of the unsettled science, we cannot afford to do nothing. However, I believe the opposition could change direction to the equally effective carbon tax route.
Well, I am a sceptic. I've never moved away from that. I've always believed sceptical. But a sceptic is a different person than a denier. I say the science is not settled. I'm not saying it's wrong. I've never said it's wrong, but I don't believe it's settled.
A carbon tax ultimately means death to the coal industry.
Senator Waters: Given the minister's view that the regulation of coal seam gas mining is primarily a matter for state governments, is the minister alarmed at admissions made by the Queensland government's head of LNG enforcement last week that the coal seam gas industry will have aquifer and regional scale impacts, and that the Queensland government is only monitoring 10 per cent of coal seam gas wells for leaking methane and aquifer connectivity?
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's questions.
The separate roles and responsibilities of state and Commonwealth governments in regulating the coal seam gas industry are determined by legislation. The Commonwealth government is responsible for managing compliance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
Compliance with the Queensland regulatory regime is a matter for the Queensland government. The statement the honourable senator refers to relates to matters of state responsibility and concerns wells that have been approved under state laws. None of the three coal seam gas projects approved under Commonwealth legislation has yet reached production.
In deciding to approve three coal seam gas projects, proposed respectively by Queensland Gas Company, Santos, and Australia Pacific LNG, the minister received detailed advice from Geoscience Australia and another independent expert on groundwater issues, including aquifer connectivity. That advice, and the conditions attached to the approval of those projects, addressed the question of regional impacts. The conditions require the companies to each submit detailed plans for the management of aquifers, groundwater and surface water for the minister's approval, and to undertake aquifer connectivity studies, and carry out ongoing monitoring and reporting of their activities throughout the life of their project. The conditions provide for precautionary drawdown thresholds, to provide an early indication of any unacceptable groundwater-related impacts. If those thresholds are exceeded, the companies must restore pressure, for example, by reinjection or other approved means.
The conditions also require the companies to contribute data to a regional groundwater model that will inform the adaptive management of these projects at both the project scale and the regional scale. The regional groundwater model is being developed by the Queensland Water Commission, with the involvement of the coal seam gas companies, independent experts and officers from the Commonwealth and Queensland governments.
Senator Waters: Mr President, I have a further supplementary question. Given the mounting scientific and community concern, and the inadequate state regulation of coal seam gas, will the government now adequately resource departmental monitoring and enforcement of those federal conditions, reconsider its refusal to add a water trigger to our environmental laws, and reconsider its refusal to impose a moratorium until the full impacts of coal seam gas are understood?
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's questions.
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities includes a dedicated compliance and enforcement branch for enforcement of federal conditions under the EPBC Act. Since the federal approval of three Queensland coal seam gas projects, the department has established an additional section dedicated specifically to monitoring compliance with the conditions attached to the minister's approval of coal seam gas projects.
The independent review of the EPBC Act, led by Dr Allan Hawke AC, considered but did not recommend a water trigger. Dr Hawke concluded that including water extraction or use as a matter of National Environmental Significance was not the best mechanism for managing water resources.
Under the EPBC Act, the Australian Government considers the impacts of proposals on defined matters of national environmental significance. The EPBC Act does not include a provision for the minister to refuse to assess and decide on proposals. The possibility of a general moratorium on coal seam gas would be a matter for state and territory governments, which have wider regulatory responsibilities for exploration and mining.
That the Senate take note of the explanation as provided by the minister.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked today.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rhiannon today relating to vocational education and training.
... confronted with an operating deficit of nearly $125m last year, after public payments to non-taste providers rose almost $140m to $275m.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and two related bills, and the
National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment Bill 2011.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION BILL
BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION (TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION (FEES) BILL
Purpose of the Bills
To establish a national business names registration system. These cognate bills will cause the existing eight state/territory business names registration systems to be replaced by a single, national, online registration system for business names and Australian Business Numbers (ABNs), thus enabling businesses to register for both a national business name and an ABN in one transaction.
Reasons for Urgency
The ABN/Business Name Project is part of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), National Partnership Agreement To Deliver A Seamless National Economy, of December 2008. Establishing a national ABN/Business Names scheme requires a referral of constitutional powers from the states to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth and each of the states, need to enact legislation to meet the COAG approved timeline, which will see the new national business names registration system commence on 28 May 2012.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2011 SPRING SITTINGS
NATIONAL VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING REGULATOR AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
On 7 December 2009, the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the creation of a National Vocational Education and Training Regulator and a Standards Council. On 24 March 2011 Parliament passed the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2010 (the NVR Act). The NVR Act formed the national VET regulator as a new statutory authority, which will be known as the Australian Skills Quality Authority, with responsibilities and powers for the registration and auditing of registered training organisations (RTOs) and accreditation of courses in the VET sector. The NVR Act also established strengthened mechanisms for the monitoring and enforcement of the regulatory framework.
The bill addresses particular concerns and recommendations identified by the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee that were unable to be addressed prior to the passage of the NVR Act.
Reasons for Urgency
Introduction and passage of the bill through Parliament is a prerequisite to the further text based referral of powers by state governments.
New South Wales has made a text based referral of powers to the Commonwealth. Three other states have indicated that they will make referrals to the Commonwealth to empower the National VET Regulator and two states have indicated that they will pass mirroring legislation. Timely passage of the bill is therefore necessary to provide clarity to those states referring powers to the Commonwealth and certainty to those states that are mirroring the legislation as to what they need to legislate.
That the following list of general business orders of the day be considered under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills on Thursday, 13 October 2011:
No. 71 Auditor-General Amendment Bill 2011
No. 60 Carbon Tax Plebiscite Bill 2011 [No. 2].
That the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 5 pm, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the Government’s response to kidnappings of Australian citizens overseas.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Bushby for 12 October 2011, for parliamentary reasons, and that leave of absence be granted to Senator Heffernan for 13 October 2011, for personal reasons.
That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4 pm, followed by a private briefing.
That the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit be authorised to:
(a) hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by a private briefing, during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, from 11.30 am to noon; and
(b) hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, from noon to 1 pm.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4.30 pm.
That the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 12 October 2011, from 9.30 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee’s inquiry into the funding of political parties and election campaigns.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 11 October 2011, from 4 pm.
That the following operate as a temporary order with immediate effect until the conclusion of the 43rd Parliament:
Standing order 18 establishing the Committee of Privileges be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph (1), omit “7”, substitute “8”; and
(b) omit paragraph (3), substitute:
(3) The committee shall consist of 8 senators, 4 nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 nominated by a minority party and independent senators.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) 10 October was World Mental Health Day which aims to raise public awareness about mental health issues worldwide,
(ii) this event promotes open discussions on illnesses, as well as investments in prevention and treatment services,
(iii) Mental Health Day falls within Mental Health Week which in 2011 will be celebrated from 9 October to 15 October 2011,
(iv) 1 in 5 of us in 2011 will experience a mental illness and at any given time more than 600 000 Australians are affected by severe mental illness,
(v) ready access to services can dramatically reduce long-term disability resulting from mental illness, and
(vi) all Australians share a responsibility to minimise the discrimination faced by people affected by mental illness;
(b) recognises that:
(i) mental illness is experienced across a lifespan and most illnesses emerge before the age of 25,
(ii) most people affected by mental illness can recover a good quality of life with the right supports and community acceptance,
(iii) services responding to mental illness should not be confined to health care and community based services have an important role to play,
(iv) services must recognise and respond to the impact of mental illness on families and carers, and
(v) in the Australian context better integration of Commonwealth and state services is essential to deliver the holistic care required by people experiencing mental illness as well as their families and friends; and
(c) calls on the Government to:
(i) collaborate effectively across all tiers of government and across the full range of health, community, housing, employment and education services to ensure properly integrated responses to mental illness,
(ii) recognise that the health system's response to mental illness must address the poor physical health status of people affected by mental illness, including higher rates of most major diseases and reduced life expectancy, and
(iii) recognise that the burden of mental illness ranks among the most serious health problems faced by Australians and continue to build the capacity of the mental health system to reflect this.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) that the Northern Territory Government adopted legislation to launch a territory-wide container deposit scheme from 12 January 2010,
(ii) that Coca Cola Amatil has proposed legal action against the Northern Territory Government citing a breach of section 9 of the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 , and
(iii) Clean Up Australia's activities throughout Australia over the weekend of 16 September and 17 September 2011; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to adopt a container deposit scheme by all states and territories, effectively annulling the proposed court action by Coca Cola Amatil.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the current dismal state of debate on asylum seeker policy in Australia with:
(i) the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) calling the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) hypocritical, and
(ii) the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Abbott) calling the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) hypocritical; and
(b) calls for Australia's international refugee obligations to be respected.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the asseveration of the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) that, in the issue of relations between Palestine and Israel, 'direct negotiation is the only true path to peace';
(b) recognises that negotiations are most likely to succeed if they are between equals; and
(c) backs the United Nations initiative for recognition of Palestine as a member state.
That the motion (Senator Hanson-Young's) be agreed to.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The harmful and damaging effects of the Gillard Government's proposed carbon tax on regional Australia.
From the commencement of an emissions trading scheme costs of agriculture inputs—electricity, liquid fuel and fertiliser—will rise. This will particularly affect parts of the sector where energy costs and energy-dependent costs are a large proportion of total costs.
Yes, that is quite true and not at all inconsistent with what I have said before.
... imposing a carbon price in Australia ahead of similar carbon constraints in our trade competitors ... could result in some movement of emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries from Australia to other countries that impose less of a carbon constraint.
... disgusting the way Labor twists their failures and blames others, Tony Windsor betrayed us. Labor do not care for the people—they are self driven.
... will not vote for an Independent again State or Federal.
Windsor sold us out. We cannot get any poorer. What is next—will Gillard send us out in boats and get more in?
SURVEY OF THE NEW ENGLAND AND LYNE ELECTORATES
Subject — Carbon Tax
New England electorate — 57,700 forms distributed
Lyne electorate — 62,200 forms distributed.
Forms distributed by Australia Post w/c 19th September, 2011
RESULTS BY POSTCODE — NEW ENGLAND HOUSEHOLDS
RESULTS BY POSTCODE - LYNE
(a) Committee reports
1. Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee––Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Exposure drafts of Australian privacy amendment legislation––Part 2––Credit reporting (received 6 October 2011).
2. Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network––Interim report (received 7 October 2011).
3. Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes––Interim report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––The Carbon Tax: Economic pain for no environmental gain (received 7 October 2011).
(b) Government documents
1. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)––Telecommunications reports for 2009-10––Report 1: Telecommunications competitive safeguards; Report 2: Changes in the prices paid for telecommunications services in Australia (received 23 September 2011)
2. Family Law Council––Report for 2010-11 (received 28 September 2011)
3. Department of Finance and Deregulation––Campaign advertising by Australian government departments and agencies––Report for 2010-11 (received 30 September 2011)
4. Final budget outcome 2010-11 (received 4 October 2011)
5. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry––Report for 2010-11 (received 6 October 2011)
6. Administrative Review Council––Report for 2010-11 (received 7 October 2011).
(c) Report of the Auditor-General
Australian National Audit Office––Report for 2010-11––Corrections (received 23 September 2011)
(d) Return to order
Correspondence––Order for the production of documents––New Zealand––Export of apples to Australia (motion of Senator Colbeck agreed to 20 September 2011) (received 7 October 2011)
(e) Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
1. Lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
2. Lists of departmental and agency grants:
That the final report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immigration Detention Network be presented by 30 March 2012.
That consideration of each of the committee reports just tabled be listed on the Notice Paper as orders of the day.
That the Senate take note of the Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes report The carbon tax: economic pain for no environmental gain.
That the Senate take note of the report of the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation— Advisory report on the Clean Energy bills and the Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011 .
It is outrageous that only one week was allowed for the committee to receive submissions … To make matters worse, hearings were scheduled in the week following the closing date for submissions, which did not allow enough time for the committee to properly consider the more than 5000 submissions received.
(a) from the Minister for Trade (Mr Emerson) to a resolution of the Senate of 7 July concerning Burma and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi;
(b) from the Premier of Queensland (Ms Bligh) to a resolution of the Senate of 17 August 2011 concerning the Burdekin Falls Dam; and
(c) from the Head, ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs (Ms McLiesh) to a resolution of the Senate of 15 September 2011 concerning the broadcast of the South Australian National Football League.
That the Senate take note of the document.
To condemn the … regime’s atrocities against the Kachin people as well as against other ethnic nationalities and to call on the regime to put an end to such human rights violations.
To provide urgently needed humanitarian assistance to internally displaced persons and refugees fleeing the conflict—
To impose an international arms embargo to avoid supplying the Burmese regime with weaponry that can be used against civilians.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Corporations and Financial Services—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Hanson-Young
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Thistlethwaite to replace Senator Stephens on 17 October and 18 October 2011
Participating member: Senator Stephens.
That the Senate take note of the report.
… has grown from servicing 35 remote Aboriginal Health Services to 173 in 2011.
The supply of PBS items has increased from around 250,000 in 1999-2000 to more than 1.4 million in 2010-11.
In 2010-11, expenditure under the RAAHS Program had grown to $43 million from $3.9 million … in 1999.
Around 170,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are estimated to benefit from the increased access to PBS medicines and better quality use of medicines …
That the Senate take note of the report.
… appreciative of the efforts made by the two parties to provide fundamental protection safeguards for transferees, notably: respect for the principle of nonrefoulement, the right to asylum, the principle of family unity and best interests of the child, humane reception conditions, including protection against arbitrary detention, and the realization of durable solutions.
The decision by Alderman Ray Shipp not to recontest his seat on the Launceston City Council marks the end of an era.
To spend more than 20 years on the council, in addition to 14 years as an MLC for Launceston, is an extraordinary commitment to civic duty by any measure.
Many people regard Alderman Shipp as the council's unofficial historian and there is no doubt that this corporate knowledge has served the city well.
I thought it was probably time to make way for another person from Launceston who may have their eyes on a council career.
We are not going to rest until the government reverses its decision. We want BHP Billiton out of the desert.
We will spare no effort to free our fellow men, women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of extreme poverty …
Safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights …
Local sports clubs are integral to the social and cultural life of many country towns and provide an important public space for connection.
All the Armenians are driven from the town Afyonkarahisar. The principle cause of this is the Armenians are Christians and all the business of the town is carried on by them. There is a very strong feeling against the Christians in this Country. At this time, thousands of Armenians were turned out of these big towns to starve and thousands were massacred.
Towards midday we stopped at the rail junction town of Eskisehir, where we were provided with our first meal of the day. At this station we witnessed a sad and depressing sight. On the opposite side of the platform another train was standing. It was composed of a number of empty two-tier steel sheep trucks. On the platform a considerable number of Armenian women and children were huddled together. As our train pulled into the platform, Turkish soldiers armed with whips were driving the women and children into sheep trucks. It was evidently intended to transport them to some distant concentration camp.
Many polio survivors who have emerging symptoms tell me about the difficulty they have in obtaining correct diagnosis and treatment.…
As time passes, an increasing number of previously ‘stable’ persons with a history of polio infection experience new symptoms. The large number of survivors who are now reporting these symptoms has transformed the problem from an individual predicament to a social concern.
… we've dropped the ball in relation to going on beyond smallpox and dealing with other conditions, particularly polio … We've done 99 per cent of the work. We've actually done the majority of the hard work. It's just a matter of getting serious for once, putting the final nail in the coffin of this condition and dealing with those last four countries in which it's still endemic.
I'm looking forward to a positive announcement by the Australian government which says very plainly that we're part of this global effort to rid the world of this disease once and for all
The GPEI prevents devastating paralysis and death in children and also allows developing countries and the world to realize meaningful financial benefits.
I made a mistake by not giving her polio drops. I would beg every parent to vaccinate their child and not make the same mistake.
That the House recognises that:
… the needs of polio survivors have been largely neglected since vaccination against the disease became a reality, and as they age with chronic disabilities this neglect must be addressed as a matter of urgency.
The onset of the late effects is a cruel blow to polio survivors who fought hard to overcome their original disability. As we now increasingly lose mobility, function and independence, knowledgeable health care professionals who understand our unique issues are critical to maintaining our quality of life and our ability to continue as valued, contributing members of society. This is why Polio Australia's strategies for nationally consistent information and education programs are so essential.
When I was a kid, I never understood why my Mum walked funny, and always needed to rest.
I remember walking to school with her once—I would have been eight or nine. I ran off ahead, and she shouted after me to stop. I didn't—I thought it was funny. She tried to run after me, but couldn't. She seemed really upset, so I came walking back.
By eradicating smallpox we no longer have to vaccinate young children, and as someone who myself received the smallpox vaccine as a young boy, when we were travelling to Indonesia, I can attest that it was a pretty painful vaccination to receive.
Senior NSW Police have been informed by American Express in the US that Mr Thomson and Health Services Union boss Michael Williamson were both supplied with credit cards by John Gilleland.
Communigraphix, a graphic design business run by Mr Gilleland, has received hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to produce the HSU newsletter, Health Standard.
Senior police sources say Mr Thomson—who would be forced to resign from Parliament if charged and ultimately found guilty—had use of the American Express card for two years.
The explosive developments will rock the Gillard government, which is relying on Mr Thomson fending off multiple allegations that he rorted union funds.
In May 2011, the Australian Labor Party New South Wales branch paid a sum of money in settlement of a legal matter to which I was party.
History was made today with the first drops of water pumped along the $120 million Mardi-Mangrove Link, the Central Coast's largest infrastructure project in decades.
The system was officially turned on at a special ceremony at Mardi Dam by Wyong Shire Council Mayor Doug Eaton, Gosford City Councillor Chris Burke representing Gosford City Council Mayor Laurie Maher and Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water Senator Don Farrell. The ceremony was also attended by current and past Gosford City and Wyong Shire councillors and local members of parliament.
For each portfolio/agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary:
(1) How many reviews are currently being undertaken in the portfolio/agency or affecting the portfolio/agency.
(2) What was the commencement date of each review.
(3) When will each review conclude.
(4) (a) Which reviews were completed in the period 1 July to 31 December 2010; and
(b) When will the Government respond to the each of these reviews.
(5) As at 31 December 2010, what was the cost of each of these reviews.
(1) Twenty four.
(2) to (3) and (5) The following (Table A) reviews are currently being undertaken by Defence or contributed to by Defence.
Table A
(4) (a) to (b) and (5) The following (Table B) reviews were completed between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011.
Table B
(1) What was the involvement of the Treasurer or department in the new health proposal, including:
(a) the process behind how this new health agreement came about; and
(b) at what time and on what date the decision was made to overhaul the first National Health and Hospital Plan.
(2) Was the Treasurer or department:
(a) made aware of what was wrong with the National Health and Hospital Network; and
(b) advised that it needed to be scrapped.
(3) When were the Treasurer or department first made aware that a new health proposal was being considered.
(4) Who advised the Treasurer or department that a new health proposal was being considered.
(5) When were the Treasurer or department first asked to provide advice.
(6) In relation to any advice sought from the Treasurer or department:
(a) what was the nature of the advice sought;
(b) when was the information sought; and
(c) when was the advice provided.
(7) Did the Treasurer or department provide costings advice to the Prime Minister, the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or any other department in relation to the new health proposal; if so:
(a) when was any advice in relation to costings provided;
(b) to whom or to which department was it provided; and
(c) when was the advice provided.
(8) How long was the Treasurer or department given to cost the new health deal and was there agreement on the costs.
(9) Given that Labor’s new health proposal only relates to ‘growth’, not existing hospital costs and the Commonwealth will fund up to 45 per cent of the growth in hospital costs in 2014 15 and up to 50 per cent in 2017 18, which is estimated to cost $16.4 billion, and noting that all of the promised increase in Commonwealth funding is beyond the forward estimates:
(a) where is the money coming from;
(b) how was the figure of $16.4 billion arrived at;
(c) what assumptions have been used;
(d) can a copy of all costings documents, including supporting documents, be provided;
(e) how accurate are costings for items beyond the forward estimates;
(f) what assurance can be given as to the accuracy of the health costings; and
(g) what guarantees do the taxpayers of Australia have that the costings will not change.
(10) In relation to the estimated cost of $16.4 billion, how will this be funded.
(11) Given that the Government can commit to the spending now, can a list be provided detailing offsetting savings; if not, will the proposal be funded from general revenue.
(12) Is the Treasurer or department aware of why the National Funding Authority was dumped.
(13) Is the Treasurer or department aware of the parameters of the National Funding Pool.
(14) Who was responsible for the decision to introduce the National Funding Pool, and in relation to this:
(a) what role did the Treasurer or department have in relation to the introduction of the National Funding Pool;
(b) when was the decision made; and
(c) if the decision was made by another Minister or department, when was the Treasurer or his department made aware of its proposed introduction.
(15) What is the difference between the dumped National Funding Authority and the National Funding Pool, and can an outline of the parameters of each be provided, including:
(a) management structures;
(b) responsibilities;
(c) accountability;
(d) funding;
(e) reporting framework;
(f) Commonwealth legislative requirements for the establishment of each body;
(g) state and territory legislative requirements for the establishment of each body; and
(h) Commonwealth and state and territory ‘accounts’.
(16) Did the Treasurer or department have any input or role in relation to the drafting of the Heads of Agreement – National Health Reform document; if so, can details be provided.
(17) Given that, in the health and ageing incoming brief to government, there is a reference to the Health Expenditure Working Group which has been established under the deputy heads of Treasury structure to quantify the costs of services agreed for transfer to government under the agreement (the first agreement) which will inform the amount of goods and services tax (GST) revenue to be withheld in the Commonwealth forward estimates for dedication to health and hospitals:
(a) did the department prepare any advice on the amount of GST required;
(b) was it quantified; if so, what was the amount;
(c) was it the case that the amount of GST to be recovered under the 30 per cent clawback would not have been sufficient to cover the health and hospitals costs that were going to be needed over the forward estimates; and
(d) if this is the case, was the dumping of the 30 per cent GST clawback a hollow decision.
The detail of the National Health and Hospitals Network Agreement was the subject of ongoing consultation between the Commonwealth and the States during late 2010 and early 2011. The new features of the new agreement were developed in the weeks prior to the 13 February COAG meeting. Treasury, along with the Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, supported the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PM&C) in preparing the Heads of Agreement on National Health Reform and supported the negotiations that led to states’ agreement. All states and territories (including Western Australia) have signed the Heads of Agreement.
Treasury provided advice to Government throughout the process in the lead up to the Heads of Agreement being signed as they would on any area of policy under consideration by Government.
The National Health Reform Agreement has now been signed by all states and territories as announced on 2 August 2011. The new agreement will provide better access to services, improved local accountability and transparency, greater responsiveness to local communities and a stronger financial basis for the health system into the future.
Additional funding under the new agreement will meet the costs of around 2.0 million more admitted patient episodes of care, 2.9 million more services in emergency departments, and 19 million more outpatient consultations based on current patterns of hospital expenditure, than the Commonwealth would have funded under the previous health care agreement.
(1) How many ambassadors/high commissioners are fluent in the official language of the country in which they are currently posted.
(2) How many departmental officials are considered fluent in: (a) Bahasa Indonesia or other Indonesian dialects; (b) Japanese; (c) Mandarin; (d) Hindi; (e) Korean; (f) Arabic; (g) French; and (h) German.
(1) 31 ambassadors/high commissioners are fluent in the official language of the country to which they are currently posted where English is not the official language.
(2) The following table shows the number of departmental officials fluent in the particular language:
For each calendar year, from 2005 to 2010, how many overseas delegations were sponsored by the department, including:
(a) which countries the delegations were from;
(b) the names and positions of each delegation member; and
(c) the total cost to the Government of these delegations.
To provide the detailed information sought on overseas delegation visits would entail a significant diversion of resources requiring input from all departments and agencies and all overseas posts. I do not consider the additional work can be justified.
(1) How many cases of alleged corruption in Papua New Guinea: (a) are currently being investigated; and (b) were investigated in each calendar year, from 2005 to 2010, including how many of these cases resulted in: (i) dismissal, (ii) a fine, (iii) demotion, and (iv) any other penalty being handed down.
(2) For each calendar year, from 2005 to 2010, what sum of money was lost to corruption in Papua New Guinea.
It is not possible to provide authoritative and reliable information in response to these questions.
I am advised that PNG authorities do not aggregate data on cases of alleged corruption. Therefore, there is no accurate information available from PNG to answer these questions. International organisations and their affiliates, such as Transparency International and Transparency International PNG Inc, provide general assessments of corruption related activity in PNG. However, detailed case information is not available.
In March 2010, the PNG Government tabled an 800-page Commission of Inquiry report on the management of public monies by the PNG Department of Finance. The Commission of Inquiry concluded that statutory processes had been grossly abused allowing improper claims for payment to be made on the State, and excessive payouts to be legitimised, over the investigation period of 2000 to 2006. However, corruption covers a range of offences wider than the misuse of public money covered in the Commission of Inquiry report.
With reference to the department and the agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(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.
DFAT
(1) As at 31 March 2011 DFAT had 2,493 A-Based employees and 1625 Locally Engaged Staff (LES).
(2) As at 31 March 2011 DFAT had 29 employees who had self identified as having a disability (LES are not asked to report on their disability status).
(3) DFAT's Disability Action Strategy 2011 – 2015 (DAS) stipulates that all job advertisements are to encourage people with disability to apply for positions in the department; and that recruitment information is to be made available in disability-friendly formats. Similarly, all recruitment processes are to cater for applicants with disability by including reasonable adjustments. When a candidate identifies as requiring reasonable adjustment through the recruitment process, a further form is completed and adjustments are made in accordance with the request made (e.g. additional time for the face-to-face interview).
(4) Under the DAS, retention strategies include: making reasonable adjustments where appropriate; engaging the services of a disability service provider to assist with adjustments where required; providing training to supervisors and managers to assist in working with people with disability; and establishing a Disability Employees Network to assist with the development of policies that assist in the retention of people with disabilities.
(5) All staff are required to have an annual performance management plan, reviewable every six months, that includes a skills/training plan. Under the DAS, the department is also engaging an external consultant to assist with identifying training and development opportunities for employees with disability. The Department is also actively encouraging mentoring for employees with disability.
(6) There are no specific targets for recruitment and retention as the department's priority is to develop policies and programs that enable DFAT to be an employer of choice for employees with disability. This is much broader than simple recruitment or retention targets. It is about developing a workplace culture in which employees with disability are treated with respect and there is no discrimination.
(7) The DAS outlines in detail the policies, programs and services available to support staff with a disability. In addition, all staff with disability have access to the Workplace Diversity Unit which provides guidance and advice to employees with disability and their supervisors and teams. Training is provided as required. Disability services providers are engaged as necessary to assist the department in managing people with disability.
(8) DFAT is preparing to launch, as a pilot program in the Australian Public Service, a Disability Cadetship program aimed at tertiary and non tertiary studies in the second half of 2011. The department will also be establishing a Disability Employees Network and including a representative of the Network on the department's peak consultative body, the Workplace Relations Committee (WRC).
AusAID
(1) 1183
(2) 12
(3) AusAID's Workforce Plan commits to a diverse workplace. The AusAID Disability Action Plan also includes measures to promote job opportunities to people with a disability.
AusAID commits to advertise all opportunities electronically, and provide selection documentation in a range of accessible formats on request. Recruitment documentation also makes reasonable adjustment available if needed to assist in the recruitment process. AusAID is identified as an Equal Employment Opportunity employer.
(4) In addition to agency wide retention strategies, AusAID: provides reasonable adjustments for employees with disability, in Australia and overseas. AusAID also provides information to managers and employees on principles of reasonable adjustment so that staff are aware of responsibilities and opportunities. AusAID accommodates access and equity needs for employees with a disability when attending training and training materials are made available in alternative formats when required. AusAID consults with employees with disability on the purchase of goods or services that directly impact on their ability to do their job.
(5) Career pathway development and planning is undertaken through the agency's performance management system. All staff are required to participate in performance assessment and planning.
(6) AusAID's Workforce Plan and Disability Action Plan emphasises the importance of a diverse background. The Workforce Plan acknowledges the need for AusAID to diversity staff, with a particular focus on employees with a disability.
(7) The agency Disability Action Plan provides information on services to support staff with a disability. In addition, AusAID joined the Australian Network on Disability in March 2011 to access a greater range of services and advice to support staff.
(8) AusAID will revise the Disability Action Plan in 2011, drawing on expertise from staff, the Australian Network on Disability and the Australian Public Service Commission.
ACIAR
(1) As at 31 March 2011 ACIAR had 65 staff (47 A-based employees and 18 overseas staff).
(2) As at 31 March 2011 ACIAR had 2 A-based employees who had identified as having a disability. Overseas staff are not asked to report on their disability status.
(3) ACIAR has a Workplace Diversity Program which links to our recruitment policy and procedure to ensure that equal opportunity is provided to all applicants.
(4) ACIAR's Workplace Diversity Program includes retention strategies such as ensuring that any employee requiring support to perform their duties has access to reasonable adjustment and assistive technology and training and development is available equally to all ACIAR staff. ACIAR also has a policy of offering flexible working arrangements to all staff, each case is assessed based on individual and organisation requirements.
(5) Career pathways and planning is undertaken utilising the agency's Individual Development and Planning Evaluation Scheme. All staff in the agency are required to participate in development planning and evaluation.
(6) No. As a small agency, we provide equal opportunity in all aspects of employment through our Workplace Diversity Program.
(7) The Workplace Diversity Program outlines the policy and services available to support staff with a disability. Our building and working environment is fully compliant.
(8) ACIAR will revise the Workplace Diversity Program in 2011 and will consult with staff, the Australian Public Service Commission and the Portfolio Networking Group.
(1) Since 1 January 2008, for each centre:
(a) what incidents of violence have there been;
(b) on what date did they occur; and
(c) what injuries were suffered by:
(i) detention centre staff, and
(ii) other detainees
(2) Were the perpetrators of the violence identified; if so what action, if any was taken against them
(1) (a) From 1 January 2008 to 14 June 2011 the following incidents have been reported:
596 incidents of allegations of assault or damage to facilities involving individual detainees across the immigration detention network;
(c) The 596 incidents of alleged assault or damage to facilities involving individual detainees across the immigration detention network resulted in:
(i) 45 incidents of injury to staff; and
(ii) 196 injuries to clients.
The majority of these incidents were minor in nature and the injury was treated on site. The majority of alleged assault incidents involved physical altercations between clients.
(2) In the period 1 January 2008 to 14 June 2011, police were notified 242 times in relation to incidents of alleged assault or damage to facilities. Police are notified when a victim of an alleged assault requests the police to be notified and is prepared to make a statement. Where there are allegations of assault or major disturbances of a critical nature, the police are called out to investigate the matter irrespective of the victim's preparedness to provide a statement.
Serco has a behavioural management policy in place to guide the management of behavioural issues that arise within immigration detention environments. The policy focuses on preventing behavioural issues through fostering a positive physical and social environment and diffusing issues that do arise before they escalate. All people in immigration detention are briefed on the policy around anti-social behaviour during the induction process and are advised about how they can raise issues or make a complaint to the detention service provider, the department, Commonwealth Ombudsman or Australian Human Rights Commission.
Where behavioural issues are observed or a complaint is made, Serco considers an appropriate intervention or response to address the particular circumstances. The type of intervention or response that may be implemented includes, but is not limited to:
Actions taken by Serco in relation to these incidents are recorded in multiple systems depending upon the nature of the incident. The very detailed information sought in the question is not readily available in consolidated form and it would be a major task to collect and assemble it. In order to report on the outcome for each incident, the department would need to manually interrogate these systems. The department estimates that this would take a departmental officer an average of 30 minutes for each incident. This equates to approximately 58 working days.
Recent amendments to the Migration Act may prevent people who have been involved in criminal, violent or destructive behaviour, from being allowed to apply for a permanent protection visa. These include provision for a person to fail the character test if convicted of an offence while in immigration detention, which will, in turn, affect a client's visa outcome. Relevantly, if clients are charged with an offence and are subsequently convicted, they will be considered against the character provision and may fail the character test.
The following tables summarise the 596 reported incidents involving allegations of assault and/or damage to Commonwealth property where the people involved were identified for each centre for the period 1 January 2008 to 14 June 2011. Incidents of abusive or aggressive behaviour and minor disturbances are excluded from these tables due to the difficulty in establishing actual violent behaviour and the identity of the people involved.
Brisbane ITA
Berrimah APOD
Construction Camp APOD
Curtin IDC
Darwin Airport Lodge APOD
Gwalia Lodge APOD
Inverbrackie APOD
Maribyrnong IDC
Melbourne ITA
North West Point Immigration Facility
Northern IDC
Perth IDC
Perth IRH
Phosphate Hill APOD
Port Augusta IRH
Scherger IDC
Sydney IRH
Villawood IDC
(1) Why was the decision made to purchase both a multi-cam design from Crye and a licence to manufacture the garment.
(2) What opportunities did the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) provide for Australian companies to bid for this design work.
(3) Were Australian companies deemed as not being capable of designing this camouflage pattern.
(4) Where will the fabric for the multi-cams be manufactured in Australia; if not in Australia, where will it be manufactured.
(5) Where will the uniforms be manufactured.
(6)
(a) What will be/was the tender process to manufacture the uniforms;
(b) what was the process in DMO deciding to purchase the licences to manufacture the four Crye garments;
(c) was this expertise not available in Australia;
(d) what was the cost of purchasing these licences;
(e) what cost savings were realised in deciding to proceed with this particular contract; and
(f) how can the Government reconcile that Australian manufacturers were ready and able to supply world's best practice in the design of this camouflage pattern and provide a significant sample for $70 000 compared to the $7.8 million that has been spent by the Government.
(7) What technical advice and independent expertise was undertaken by the Government before committing to this $7.8 million expenditure.
(8) How is this procurement on a value for money basis going to pay for itself many times over into the future, as stated by Dr Gumley on 30 May 2011.
(9) How many options were put to Government in relation to this procurement and what were they.
(1) The initial requirement for an enhanced uniform and a new camouflage pattern arose when troops in Afghanistan identified the need for a greater level of concealment and force protection across the range of different terrains in Afghanistan—urban, desert and green—while also providing improved ergonomics and comfort. A user assessment of alternative uniforms was conducted by the Special Operations Task Group in Afghanistan in 2009. The trial assessed Multicam as the superior uniform on operations. Based on the user assessment the Chief of Army made the decision to issue Crye Precision combat uniforms in the Multicam pattern to all soldiers operating "outside the wire" in Afghanistan in October 2010.
The decision to purchase the licenses to the Crye Precision garments and to develop an Australian version of the Multicam pattern was made to enable the Crye garments to be manufactured in Australia with the ability to have uniforms and personal equipment manufactured in an Australian unique version of the Multicam pattern without sourcing all the fabric from current Multicam fabric manufacturers in the United States.
(2) The intellectual property associated with the uniforms and the Multicam pattern are owned by Crye Precision LLC. Therefore Defence dealt directly with them as the owners of the intellectual property.
(3) No. The intellectual property associated with the Multicam pattern is owned by Crye Precision LLC which means that Australian companies were not able to design the Multicam pattern without infringing Crye Precision LLC's intellectual property.
(4) and (5) In accordance with Government policy the fabric and the uniforms will be manufactured in Australia by companies selected through a tender process. The location of those companies will not be known until the tender process is complete.
(6)
(a) The manufacture of the uniforms will be determined as a result of the release of a request for tender using the rights and technical data that have been procured from Crye Precision LLC.
(b) See answers to questions 1 and 2.
(c) The Special Operations Task Group did evaluate other uniforms and concluded that the Crye Precision uniforms were superior.
(d) US$4.7million.
(e) This urgent operational requirement was identified by troops on operation in Afghanistan who required a uniform that could be used across the range of terrains experienced on a typical patrol. The decision to change from the current range of combat uniforms to the Crye uniforms in the Multicam pattern was not driven by a requirement to realise a cost saving but to satisfy an operational requirement.
(f) The decision to purchase a license means the uniforms can be made in Australia under the licenses. Multicam is a proprietary camouflage pattern owned by Crye Precision LLC. No Australian company has the intellectual property rights to manufacture this proven pattern and therefore it would not be possible for an Australian company to produce this camouflage pattern without infringing on Crye Precision's intellectual property. If an Australian company was to produce something that was sufficiently different that it would no longer be considered Multicam then it would be by its very nature a developmental product that would require significant trialling and testing before it could be fielded.
(7) The user assessment conducted by the Special Operations Task Group was managed by Defence Science and Technology Organisation personnel deployed to the Middle East Area of Operations with assistance provided by Defence Science and Technology Organisation personnel based in Australia. Land Engineering Agency staff provided technical assistance during the tender evaluation and were present throughout contract negotiations.
In addition to the user evaluation conducted by the Special Operations Task Group, both the US Army and the UK Ministry of Defence has reached the same conclusion; that the Multicam pattern is a superior camouflage pattern for use across a range of environments including Afghanistan. The US Army is now issuing Multicam uniforms to soldiers deploying to Afghanistan whilst the UK Ministry of Defence has a version of the Multicam pattern which is being issued to troops deploying to Afghanistan and which has been selected to replace the current UK camouflage pattern.
(8) The purchase of the intellectual property from Crye Precision LLC will make this technology, which is in wide use with both the US and UK military, available to Australian manufacturers rather than limiting Defence to a US supplier. As Defence has purchased the rights to modify the garments and the camouflage pattern it will also have the ability to ensure the utility of both the garments and the camouflage pattern beyond the current operations in Afghanistan and across the full suite of disruptive pattern clothing and personal equipment.
(9) The Government was briefed on the Special Operations Task Group user assessment. There were six options in the user assessment. These were the in-service Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform, the in-service Disruptive Pattern Desert Uniform, a uniform from another supplier in the Disruptive Pattern Desert Print and three uniforms from three different suppliers all in the Multicam pattern
(1) What language is used for local websites in the various posts that Australia has around the world, for example, is the website that Greek people access in Greece in English or Greek.
(2) Can advice be provided in relation to all international websites at Australia's various posts as to what language is used.
(1) There are currently 89 post websites hosted and maintained by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) at its posts overseas (http//:www.< country >.embassy.gov.au). Of these, 54 are in English only, 30 are dual language (a version in English and a translated version in the local language/s) and five are in the local language only.
A list of the primary languages currently used on DFAT-managed post websites is at Attachment A. A list of posts with a small amount of bilingual content is at Attachment B.
(2) In addition to the lists at Attachment A and Attachment B, Attachment C lists additional websites maintained at posts primarily aimed at reaching local audiences for event-specific or public diplomacy purposes.
Attachment A
Post websites.
Attachment B
Post websites that are primarily monolingual but with some other language content.
Attachment C
Public diplomacy or event specific websites
For each portfolio/agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary:
(1) How many reviews are currently being undertaken in the portfolio/agency or affecting the portfolio/agency.
(2) What was the commencement date of each review.
(3) When will each review conclude.
(4) (a) Which reviews were completed in the period 1 January to 30 June 2011; and (b) when will the Government respond to the each of these reviews.
(5) As at 30 June 2011, what was the cost of each of these reviews.
(1) Twenty four.
(2), (3) and (5) The following (Table A) reviews are currently being undertaken by Defence or contributed to by Defence.
Table A
(4) (a) to (b) and (5) The following (Table B) reviews were completed between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2011.
Table B
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, ‘Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a carbon price’:
(1) Is it correct that Treasury did not use Warwick McKibbin’s G-Cubed model on this occasion for any of its modelling; if so, why not, given the G-Cubed model is a highly regarded global model which has been widely used for precisely these sorts of exercises, and it was used for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme modelling in 2008.
(2) Is it correct that, for the 2008 modelling (Australia’s Low Pollution Future), the G-Cubed results for the 5 per cent emissions reduction scenario showed a cost to the level of Gross Domestic Product in 2030 that was more than twice as large as in the Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM).
(3) Is it correct that, for the 2008 modelling (Australia’s Low Pollution Future), the G-Cubed results for the 5 per cent emissions reduction scenario showed only just over half as much abatement being achieved globally via internationally-linked Emission Trading Schemes (ETS), in 2050, as the GTEM model.
(4) Is it good modelling practice in general – especially for complex exercises like Carbon Tax Modelling that are potentially so dependent on assumptions about factors such as technological progress – to run several different models so as to allow comparison of the results (as was done in 2008).
(1) Treasury used a broad suite of models that included the global computable general equilibrium (CGE) model GTEM, the domestic CGE model MMRF, the set of PRISMOD models for household price impacts, and detailed sector specific modelling of transport, electricity generation and land sector abatement by experts in those fields. The modelling exercise undertaken for the Australia’s Low Pollution Future (ALPF) report was predominantly focussed around providing information on the targets and trajectories for Australian emission reductions. In contrast, the modelling exercise for the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report was predominantly focussed on domestic policy mechanisms. As such, more resources were devoted to the domestic implications of carbon pricing rather than the international dimension. This required a reordering of priorities given the time and budget constraints faced by the modelling exercise and resulted in the use of two sector specific electricity generation sector models rather than two international CGE models.
(2) Table 5.12 and 6.4 in the ALPF report presents a range of estimates for Gross Domestic Product in 2020 and 2050. Page 111 of the ALPF report outlines some of the reasons for the divergence of results between the G-Cubed and GTEM models.
(3) In the ALPF modelling exercise both GTEM and G-Cubed were required to meet the same environmental targets through time. It is not accurate to suggest that global emissions were significantly differently in the two models.
(4) See question 1.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling report, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given Treasury has released additional domestic electricity sector modelling reports by consultants, to supplement the Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price, and press coverage of these reports suggests that they show that regions such as the Latrobe Valley will not be adversely affected by the carbon tax/emission trading scheme, with power generation capacity in the region actually increasing.
(1) Is this correct over the period out to 2020, rather than just out to 2050; if so, does it take into account the Government’s announced plan to spend some unspecified billions of dollars to shut down 2000 MW of brown coal power generation capacity by 2020.
(2) More generally, how reliable does Treasury regard the modelling of these sorts of regional level claims to be.
Section 5.4.3 of the Government’s Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price report contains detailed projections of the electricity generation sector, including generation capacity in the Latrobe Valley/Gippsland region over time.
The modelling shows that the Latrobe Valley remains an important energy exporting region, even as existing coal plant is retired. The Latrobe Valley has significant transmission and distribution networks, making it ideal for investment in new and cleaner energy sources.
The Government’s planned closure of 2000 MW of very highly emission-intensive power generation capacity was not specifically modelled. However, the modelling does include retirements that are projected to occur as a result of carbon pricing.
SKM MMA and ROAM both modelled the electricity sector at the generator level and included region specific assumptions about the cost and performance of new generators. As such, the regional results of the electricity sector modelling are considered reliable, subject to the inherent uncertainties involved in these types of modelling exercises.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price:
Given that ‘Chart 3.5 of international carbon prices’ shows prices for the European Union emission trading scheme (EU ETS) only on a ‘3 month moving average’ basis, and only from 2008 onwards.
(1) Why does Chart 3.5 only go back to 2008, instead of to 2005 when the EU ETS started.
(2) How much more volatile would Chart 3.5 look if it were plotted on a daily
or weekly basis.
(3) How many days have there been during 2011 to date when EU permit prices have fallen or risen by:
(a) 10 per cent or more in a day;
(b) 5 per cent or more in a day; and
(c) 2 per cent or more in a day.
(4) How many weeks have there been during 2011 to date when EU permit prices have fallen or risen by:
(a) 20 per cent or more over the course of a week;
(b) 10 per cent or more over the course of a week; and
(c) 5 per cent or more over the course of a week.
(5) What are the lowest and highest nominal permit prices recorded in the EU ETS since its inception in 2005, and what is the current permit price.
Chart 3.5 in the Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price report shows EU ETS permit prices from 2008 to present. This period was selected as Phase II of the EU ETS was considered the most appropriate period for examination of future carbon prices. The first trading period of the EU ETS (which ran from 2005 to 2007) was designed as a pilot phase with different policy settings to the current EU ETS and the proposed carbon price mechanism — particularly in relation to the banking of permits and sectoral coverage.
Underlying market prices for financial instruments, such as EU carbon permits, are better reflected by trend movements, rather than temporary price fluctuations. For this reason a 3 month moving average was applied to the data to look through temporary daily movements.
Based on settlement prices from IntercontinentalExchange, from 3 January 2011 to 18 August 2011 (164 trading days), there were:
Over the same time (32 weeks), there were:
Since 2005, the lowest recorded EU ETS settlement price was €8.20 (on 12 February 2009) and the highest was €32.90 (20 April 2006). The EU ETS settlement price for 18 August was €12.22.
The Government’s proposed domestic carbon price mechanism will only apply to the 500 biggest polluters in Australia. These businesses have experience in managing risk in relation to a range of factors such as variable electricity prices, commodity prices and exchange rates. As such, they are well equipped to manage a variable carbon price.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given that the Treasury modelling asserts on p. 3 of the 'Overview' that 'delaying global action by 3 years adds around 20 per cent to the first year global mitigation cost':
(1) How can the notion that delay is very costly be reconciled with the fact that in the latter part of the modelling horizon, under what is supposedly the optimal approach to emissions reduction (global carbon pricing), the world does a huge fraction of its 'abatement' simply by borrowing abatement from the future.
(2) How can such a 'delay', year after year through this latter part of the modelling horizon, be economically desirable as part of a global market mechanism, when far smaller scale delay earlier on is reportedly very costly.
(3) If such global delay were not allowed later on, how much higher would the global carbon price need to be in 2050 than its projected level of $131 per tonne in real, 2010 Australian dollars.
Delayed global action to reduce greenhouse gas emission will raise the cost of achieving any given stabilisation target for three reasons: (i) opportunities for low cost abatement in earlier years will be forgone; (ii) emission-intensive investment will be locked in; and (iii) the starting carbon price will be higher, resulting in a bigger adjustment to the economy. The Treasury modelling contained in the Strong growth, low pollution report found that delaying global action by 3 years adds around 20 per cent to the first year global mitigation cost. Delaying entry by a further 3 years adds a further 30 per cent to the first year mitigation cost.
The question implies that the methodology adopted in the Treasury modelling for determining the global carbon price path results in a delay in global emission reductions through the borrowing of abatement from the future. That is an incorrect inference. The carbon price path is determined such that the global emission path achieves the given environmental target. The actual emissions reported in the report are those that determine the calculation for the environmental target, not the allocated emission path. It is the combination of the carbon price and actual emission reductions that result in the output impacts from achieving global emission reductions. The banking and borrowing assumptions do not influence to any significant degree the Australian and world gross output modelling results.
With reference to the Treasury 2008 Carbon Tax modelling Australia's low pollution Future, is it correct that in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) modelling no global borrowing of emissions from the future occurred in the CPRS-5 scenario at any stage prior to 2050.
Chart 5.3 in Australia's Low Pollution Future report (page 96) shows that the implied level of globally banked permits in the CPRS -5 scenario remains positive in 2050.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
In relation to the Government's estimates of the initial impacts of its carbon tax on households, in Table 5.20 of the Treasury modelling the results for families on 'estimated price impacts by household type' are all generically subdivided into either 'with children' or 'no children' – rather than distinctions being drawn based on the number of children:
(1) Is it the case that, for families with children, Treasury's modelling of the household impacts of the carbon tax has been done on a generic basis (i.e. 'with' or 'without' children), rather than separately modelling different family sizes; if so, does this mean that the household modelling results may not fully capture all of the different potential impacts of the carbon tax on
households of different sizes.
(2) Conversely, if different household sizes have been separately treated in the Treasury household modelling, has this further disaggregation of households reduced the sample sizes for some of these categories to the point where the results are not statistically significant (at the significance levels used in the tables on p. 126 of the Treasury modelling).
The Treasury household modelling of a $23 carbon price in 2012 13 has been undertaken using detailed ABS income and expenditure data at the individual household level. These data are representative of different household types, income levels and different family sizes. Table 5.20 of Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price presents a summary of this analysis for 11 different household categories.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given the shapes of the curves in the right-hand panels of Charts 5.10 to 5.13 of the Treasury modelling show the impact of the carbon tax, in percentage deviation terms, continuing to grow at a more or less steady pace, year after year, right through until 2050, for each of Gross National Income (GNI) per person, the capital stock, real wages and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), on this basis:
(1) How much longer will these costs continue to grow like this.
(2) At what level do the equilibrium costs to the levels of GDP, GNI and real wages eventually settle (in percentage deviation terms).
The left-hand panels of Charts 5.10 to 5.13 of Strong growth, low pollution show the projected levels of gross national income per person, capital stock, real wages and gross domestic product under various policy scenarios, with and without carbon pricing. The right-hand panels of these charts show the marginal impact on these variables of the carbon price relative to what is projected to occur without carbon pricing. In all instances the level of the relevant variable is higher in the future with and without carbon pricing, with carbon pricing having a modest impact on the annual growth of these variables. The carbon price path adopted in the Australian economic modelling is that required to achieve various environmental objectives. Once those environmental objectives are met the carbon price would be expected to stabilise as would the implications for all other economic variables in the projections.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given Treasury modelling states in Chapter 3 on p. 53 that '…due to the inelastic nature of oil demand, after a threshold is reached, higher oil prices do not induce lower emissions'.
(1) Does this observation imply that it would be pointless (in emissions reduction terms) for the Government to allow its carbon tax on heavyvehicle transport fuels (which is to be in place by 2014-15) to continue to rise indefinitely, in line with the projected relentless rise of the carbon price in the Treasury modelling; if so, has Treasury advised the Government of this.
(2) Is an eventual unlinking of the transport fuels excise from the carbon price factored into Treasury's economic and fiscal modelling.
The Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price (SGLP) report shows that an effective carbon price on fuel used in heavy on-road vehicles will reduce transport sector emissions in Australia and provide an incentive for business to develop and adopt cleaner transport fuels and technologies. In the scenarios explored in the SGLP report, abatement from the Australian road transport sector continues to occur at higher carbon prices, encouraging greater uptake of low emission options such as bio fuels and electric vehicles.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price, under the medium global action scenario, what is the projected parts per million concentration of CO2-e in the atmosphere in 2050.
The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is projected to be around 556 parts per million in 2050 in the medium global action scenario. The concentration level is projected to increase further before stabilising at 550 parts per million by around 2100.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: modelling a carbon price, and specifically page 5 of the 'Overview', is the statement 'gross national income per person is expected to grow at an annual rate of 1.2 per cent to 2020' an error, since it seems inconsistent with the figures in Table 1.1 on page 11.
In the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report, the growth rate of GNI per person in the global medium action scenario over the period (to 2050) is 1.2 per cent, consistent with the figure reported in Table 1.1 on page 11. There are two references to GNI per person in the scenario 'before domestic carbon pricing' on page 5 of SGLP report. The first reference has an inconsistency between the reported growth rate and the stated time period. The growth of GNI per person in the global medium action scenario over the period to 2020 is 1.6 per cent as reported in Table 5.1.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price, and specifically Table 3.5 (Global headline indicators) on p. 40 of the Treasury modelling:
(1) Why does the level of actual emissions in 2010 differ across the 3 scenarios.
(2) Is it correct to infer from the data in this table and elsewhere that the Treasury modelling envisages a real AUD/USD exchange rate of around $1.07 in 2010, rising to around $1.14 in 2020 and then dropping back to around 76c by 2050.
(1) The international baseline scenario represents a world where only international abatement policies in place prior to 2008 are included. In contrast, the global action scenarios include abatement policies enacted since 2008 and assumed to take place in future. These policy differences explain the difference in emission levels for 2010 reported in Table 3.5 of the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report.
(2) Consistent with the 2011-12 Budget, the Australian exchange rate is assumed to be 107 US cents in 2011-12 in the scenarios explored in the SGLP report (see page 59). The implied Australian exchange rate in the core policy scenario outlined in the SGLP report falls over time to maintain Australia's external balance, responding to movements in the terms of trade, trade volumes and income flows.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
(1) Why is there a major step down in estimated global annual emissions in 2012-13 in Chart 1.1 on p. 4 of the 'Overview', even when this is viewed as an 'equilibrium' projection.
(2) Specifically, what are the changes between 2011-12 and 2012-13 in global emissions-reduction settings or commitments that account for this fall.
(1) The projected step down in global emissions reflects expanding international mitigation action. The Global Trade and Environmental Model (GTEM), which was used to produce the international modelling results in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report, assumes labour and capital adjust quickly across industries, and it does not capture as many of the transition issues to a policy change as would be experienced in the real world, as acknowledged in the SGLP report (page 27).
(2) Individual countries are assumed to increase their implementation of policy action towards meeting their 2020 pledges in 2012-13.
With reference to the Treasury carbon tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
(1) What is the expected share of Australia's electricity generation that will come from wind power in 2020 and in 2050.
(2) How many wind turbines will have to be installed to achieve these generation shares (given available data on the actual average power output of wind turbines, relative to their rated output).
(3) How many new wind farms do these figures correspond to, given the current typical size of wind farms, and in what regions, in the modelling, will these wind farms be located.
Section 5.4.3 of the Government's Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report contains detailed projections of the electricity generation sector, including the projected share of wind generation.
These projections are based on detailed analysis provided by SKM MMA and ROAM Consulting. Further details on the assumptions underpinning the projections of new wind investments — such as cost, capacity factors, land availability and network access — can be found in the consultants' reports on the SGLP website.
The modelling projects that the combined effect of the carbon price and the Large-scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET) will drive significant investment in new wind capacity. A large proportion of this investment is expected to be in southern Australia, when the best wind resources are located near networks.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given that Table 1.1 'Headline Australian Indicators' on p. 11 of the 'Overview' includes figures on the emissions-intensity of output under the 'core policy scenario'.
(1) Is it correct that these figures imply a reduction of around 20 per cent in domestic emissions intensity over the decade to 2020 under the carbon tax/emission trading scheme.
(2) What was the reduction in emissions-intensity of Australian output achieved between 1990 and 2008 (in percentage terms).
In the Treasury modelling for the Government's Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report, the emission intensity of GDP in the core policy scenario decreases by 20 per cent from 2010 to 2020, compared to a decline of 13 per cent in the medium global action scenario without carbon pricing.
Without land use change emissions, the decrease is 19 per cent in the core policy scenario from 2010 to 2020, compared to an 11 per cent fall in medium global action scenario. This compares to decreases in the emission intensity of GDP of 19 per cent from 2000 to 2010 and 17 per cent from 1990 to 2000.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong g rowth, low p ollution: Modelling a carbon price :
In Appendix B of the Treasury modelling there is a table (p. 167) with information about the assumed values, for different fuels (coal, gas, diesel, etc), of certain key parameters ( , ) which determine the ' extent of adjustment of emission intensity in response to a carbon price ' (p. 164) , and o n the same page, the report notes that higher values imply 'larger changes' (i.e. bigger improvements in emissions intensity for a given carbon price, relative to the starting level).
Comparing the figures assumed for each fuel in the current modelling exercise with those assumed for the previous carbon pollution reduction scheme modelling, is it correct that the following changes have been made, from among the 7 fuel categories considered:
(1) The assumed values for both and have been increased in the latest modelling for all of gasoline, diesel, LPG, air fuels and other fuels (in the case of , by more t han a factor of 2 in each case).
(2) For gas, the parameters are almost unchanged (though has been increased very slightly) and o nly for coal has the marginal cost of abatement been raised, via a modest lowering in the assumed value of ; i f so, on wha t basis were these changes made.
(3) Do these parameter changes imply that Treasury is now assuming that a given carbon price will have a greater impact in terms of reducing emissions intensity, for all of gasoline, diesel, LPG, air fuels and other fuels (and even, to a small degree, for gas), while only for coal have the assumptions been changed modestly in the opposite dir ection.
(4) Is a further implication of these changes that:
(a) they reduce the economic cost of achieving a given degree of abatement, in the case of almost all fuels ; and
(b) to the extent that this is not so for coal, they increase the incentive for the economy to shift away from the use of coal and towards other fuels.
(5) How much difference do these parameter changes make to the modelling outcomes, and i n particular, what would the modelling results look like if the same parameter values had been used as in 2008.
The combustion marginal abatement cost (MAC) curve parameters used in the Treasury modelling for the Government's Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report were revised from those used in previous Treasury carbon price modelling. The revised parameters reflect updated information on the technological options available to industry to reduce their emissions arising from the use of various fuels in their production processes. It is important to note that these parameters do not apply to the use of these fuels in the electricity generation sector or from the provision of transport as these sectors are modelled through detailed sector specific modelling of technological options.
The changes in the parameters taken as a whole imply that for a given carbon price there could be a smaller reduction in emissions than under the CPRS modelling. In order for firms to access the abatement opportunities represented by the MAC curves they must incur a resource cost. As a result, the MAC curve parameter values have little impact on individual industry output growth rates. The change in parameters slightly changes the overall economic cost of achieving any given emission reduction target through changing the degree to which abatement is sourced within Australia or overseas.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given that in the medium global action scenario in the Treasury modelling, Treasury assumes that countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] enter co-ordinated global action on carbon pricing from 2021:
(1) What probability does Treasury attach to the idea that countries like Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Syria and Yemen will have operational and internationally-linked emission trading schemes (ETSs) within 10 years.
(2) If they are not expected to have internationally-linked ETSs by this time, what does it mean to say that they will join co-ordinated global action on carbon pricing by 2021.
The Treasury modelling contained in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report assumes that OPEC1 as a group of countries responds to a mitigation target from 2021. It assumes that OPEC is able to buy or sell abatement from or to either firms or governments outside OPEC to achieve its target. The modelling does not assume OPEC will have an operational emission trading schemes (ETS) in 2021. Members of OPEC currently undertake Clean Development Mechanism projects which allow countries to source abatement within the OPEC region.
——————
1 Note that the "OPEC" region in the GTEM model used for the SGLP report does not align exactly with current membership of OPEC. The GTEM OPEC region includes: Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Palestinian Territories, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and Yemen.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
(1) Is it correct that in 2020, under the medium global action scenario, Treasury modelling foresees that the 'rest of the world' bloc will be purchasing over 800 million tonnes per annum of CO2-e abatement from other countries, more than the total abatement being purchased in that year by the United States of America, the European Union, Japan and Canada combined.
(2) To the nearest percentage point, how much would these purchases represent as a share of the projected 2020 Gross Domestic Product of this bloc of countries, which includes some of the poorest in the world (countries like Papua New Guinea, Somalia, Malawi, Pakistan and Mongolia).
(3) What probability does Treasury attach to this actually occurring.
(1) The global economic modelling undertaken for the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report indicates that it could be cost effective for the Rest of World (ROW) to sources 805 Mt CO2–e of abatement from other countries in 2020. This result is dependent on the abatement costs within the ROW and the amount to which they choose to contribute to any global emission reduction target.
(2) The sourcing of abatement from outside the ROW group represents a cost of 0 per cent to the ROW economy, rounded to the nearest percentage point.
(3) The scenario modelling provides a projection of what could happen in the future, given the structure of the models and input assumptions, as acknowledged in page 24 in the SGLP report.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
(1) Is it factually correct that the results of Treasury modelling show that, for the medium global action scenario, the gross domestic product-per-person cost for countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 2050 will be around 20 or more times the estimated cost for the United States of America or the European Union.
(2) Is it also correct, based on the figures in Table 3.8 of the Treasury modelling and Treasury's real carbon price projections, that Treasury is forecasting that by 2050 the OPEC bloc will be collectively spending around US$150 billion a year in real, 2010 US dollars to buy carbon credits from other nations.
(3) What probability does Treasury attach to this actually occurring.
(1) Table 3.7 in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report shows the projected effect on Gross Domestic Product-per-person by country or region expressed as a percentage deviation from the baseline. Since OPEC's Gross Domestic Product is significantly smaller than that of the United States of America or the European Union, the ratio of effects on Gross Domestic Product-per-person costs will be lower than shown in this table.
(2) The results in Table 3.8 indicate that it is cost effective for the OPEC countries to purchase some portion of any emission reduction from outside their region. This result is dependent on the abatement costs within the OPEC and the amount to which they choose to contribute to any global emission reduction target.
(3) The scenario modelling provides a projection of what could happen in the future, given the structure of the models and input assumptions, as acknowledged in page 24 in the Strong Growth, Low Pollution report.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
(1) Is it correct that Treasury modelling envisages that the bloc 'Other south and east Asia' will reduce its emissions by around twice as much in 2020 in percentage terms, from 2001 levels, as either the United States of America or the European Union.
(2) What probability does Treasury attach to this actually occurring, and where does this bloc's emissions stand currently, at the half-way mark between 2001 and 2020.
(3) Is it a correct interpretation of Table 3.9 of the Treasury modelling that this bloc is projected to reduce its emissions by more than 100 per cent by 2050, relative to 2001 levels, under the medium global action scenario; if so, how is this possible.
(1) Table 3.9 of the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report shows that Other South and East Asia's percentage emission reduction from 2001 levels in 2020 is approximately 1.8 times that of the United States and the European Union. This includes net emissions from land use change and forestry (LUCF).
(2) Other South and East Asia's projected emission reduction in the modelling reflects their ability to abate cost-effectively, for example, through LUCF. According to the latest data available from Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) database, Other South and East Asia's CO2 emissions including LUCF are around 12 per cent higher in 2005 than 2001 levels.
(3) Table 3.9 of the Strong Growth, Low Pollution report shows that Other South and East Asia provides a net sink of emissions by 2050. This is possible because of LUCF activities in the region.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price, does Treasury modelling assume unlimited global banking and borrowing of permits over time and is it correct that as a result:
(a) the global carbon price is in fact smoothly determined over the next 40 years by a global emissions reduction path determined by a 'Hotelling rule'; and
(b) different countries' emissions allocations in the modelling (based on Cancun 'pledges' to 2020 and a 'multistage allocation rule' thereafter) are in fact irrelevant to the determination of the global carbon price in the model.
The method by which the global carbon price trajectory is determined is described in detail in pages 149-150 in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report.
With reference to the Treasury Carbon Tax modelling, Strong growth, low pollution: Modelling a carbon price:
Given that in relation to emissions intensity in the global electricity generation sector, a noticeable feature of Chart 3.12 in the Treasury modelling is that, leaving aside the two big 'steps down' in this chart, it does not otherwise show much improvement in emissions intensity (either in the baseline or the medium global action scenario) until around 2026-27, when emissions intensity starts to drop steadily: Is this driven by the modelling's assumption about when carbon capture and storage becomes commercially viable; if not, what is driving it.
The projected emission intensity of electricity output is affected by the projected take up of renewable, nuclear and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as shown in the Chart 3.13 in the Strong growth, low pollution (SGLP) report.
The modelling assumption about the availability of CCS technology is in line with other studies, such as the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2010.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the Australian Taxation Office for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) incurred the following expenditure in 2010-11:
(a) Advertising – general non-staff related advertising was $1.354 million or 0.04% of the 2010-11 budget. Included in this amount is expenditure related to specific campaigns undertaken over 2010-11 to inform the community or target audiences about their rights entitlements or obligations. The ATO Annual Report includes detailed information on advertising undertaken by the ATO for a broad range of activities including direct mail, media placement and market research.
(b) and (c) The ATO collected $253.2 billion in 2009-10 and employs 22,189 ongoing staff and 2,820 temporary/non-ongoing staff in 61 sites including 35 major sites, in metropolitan and regional areas all around Australia. About 87% of ATO staff are located outside Canberra. The ATO's operating expenditure budget in 2010-11 was $3,230 million. Total expenditure on air travel in 2010-11 was $20.579 million which represents 0.65% of the total budget and approximately $927 per ongoing staff member. An indicative breakdown between business class and economy class travel is provided below, based on analysis of the top twenty routes travelled in 2010-11:
- Air travel within Australia in business class – $7.758 million or 0.2% of the 2010-11 budget
- Air travel within Australia in economy class – $12.821 million or 0.4% of the 2010-11 budget.
(d) Air travel within Australia by charter flight – Nil
(e) Air travel outside Australia in first class – $0.029 million or 0.001% of the 2010-11 budget.
(f) Air travel outside Australia in business class – $0.461 million or 0.014% of the 2010-11 budget.
(g) Air travel outside Australia in economy class – $0.034 million or 0.001% of the 2010-11 budget.
(h) Air travel outside Australia by charter flight – Nil.
(i) Hospitality and entertainment – $0.089 million or 0.003% of the 2010-11 budget This expenditure includes light refreshments provided to a wide range of consultative and stakeholder groups and forums as well as gifts for guest speakers and international delegations visiting the ATO and official dinners.
(j) Total operating Information and communications technology (ICT) budget is $624 million or 19.3% of the 2010-11 budget. In addition, the ATO's 2010-11 ICT related capital expenditure was $76.0 million comprising $40.4 million for internally developed software, $20.5 million for IT infrastructure and $15.1 million for purchased software.
(k) ICT costs to external providers – $386.9 million or 12% of the 2010-11 budget. ICT services supplied by external providers include the ATO's desktop computers and other office machines, all ICT service support services including the IT help desk, all phone services including call centre infrastructure, all mainframe and midrange services, data warehouse and storage services.
(l) External consultants generally – $9.286 million or 0.287% of the 2010-11 budget.
(m) External accounting services – $0.144 million or 0.004% of the 2010-11 budget.
(n) External auditing services – the ATO does not pay for external auditing services. External audit services are provided to the ATO by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). While there is a charge for this service the charge is classified as 'Resource received free of charge'. In 2010-11 this charge was $3.578 million.
(o) External legal services – $54.083 million or 1.674% of the 2010-11 budget. The ATO's expenditure on external legal services is reported in its Annual Report.
(p) Memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations – the ATO generally does not pay for staff memberships. The ATO contributed $178,338 to the OECD Forum on Tax Administration in 2010-11.
(2) The ATO's internal budget for 2011-12 does not provide budget information at the requested level of detail for the majority of the areas listed in Question 1. However, 2011-12 budget information is provided for the following categories:
(b) – (h) The ATO does not budget separately for airfares. The ATO's total travel budget for 2011-12 is $45 million or 1.4% of the 2011-12 budget. The travel budget includes the cost of all airfares, accommodation, motor vehicle fleet costs as well as other travel related expenses including taxi fares.
(j) Total operating ICT budget is $628.6 million or 19.1% of the 2011-12 budget. The ATO's total ICT related capital budget for 2011-12 is $97.7 million.
(k) ICT costs to external providers - $387.5 million or 11.7% of the 2011-12 budget.
(l) External consultants generally – the current 2011-12 budget is $10.240 million or 0.31% of the 2011-12 budget.
(n) External auditing services – the ATO does not pay for external auditing services. External audit services are provided to the ATO by the Australian National Audit Office (ANAO). While there is a charge for this service the charge is classified as 'Resource received free of charge'. The 2011-12 budget for this charge is $3.580 million or 0.11% of the 2011-12 budget.
(o) External legal services – The ATO's total legal services budget for 2011-12 which includes external legal services is $53.9 million or 1.6% of the 2011-12 budget.
The budget amounts above are initial budget amounts for 2011-12 and are subject to change.
All expenditure and budget amounts provided above are ATO only and exclude the Australian Valuation Office (AVO).
All figures quoted in this response are GST exclusive.
Have any detainees or former detainees at immigration detention facilities initiated legal action against the Commonwealth for illegal detention: if so:
(a) how many;
(b) how many claims have been: (i) settled, or (ii) contested in court, by the Commonwealth;
(c) what has been the: (i) average, and (ii) total cost of settling these claims to date;
(d) which law firms, centres or practitioners have acted for such claimants;
(e) how many claimants has each firm, centre or practitioner represented; and
(f) has any firm, centre or practitioner been in receipt of funding from the Commonwealth for acting on behalf of detainees or former detainees; if so, in each case, how much was the funding.
(a) For the period 1 January 2000 to 1 August 2011, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship's records show that 63 claims for compensation have been filed in the courts that include claims of unlawful detention by detainees or former detainees. All compensation payments were to persons in immigration detention prior to August 2007.
(b) Of these 63 claims, Department records show: 32 were settled prior to hearing with compensation paid; 17 are currently ongoing before the courts (including matters on appeal); 6 applicants have withdrawn; the court has found in the Department's favour in 6 matters; the Department lost 1 matter that resulted in compensation being paid; and the Department withdrew from 1 matter (no compensation was paid).
As these matters may have also raised other claims (such as personal injury), it should not be assumed that the unlawful detention claim formed the basis for any settlement. As such, although it was claimed in each of the matters, settlement does not necessarily mean that the applicant was unlawfully detained.
(c) Departmental records show that a total of $10,217,645 was paid in compensation in relation to matters in which an unlawful detention claim was made. This figure is only approximate as some settlements were inclusive of costs, while others were exclusive of costs. This amounts to an average settlement payment of $309,626 for the 33 matters in which compensation was paid. However, and as noted above, other claims may have been raised in these matters, so the compensation may not only relate to unlawful detention claims. All compensation payments were to persons in immigration detention prior to August 2007.
(d) and (e) Plaintiffs may have changed legal representation during the course of the proceedings, however, departmental records show that the following law firms, centres or practitioners initially acted in the above mentioned matters:
- Legal Aid NSW, represented 11 plaintiffs
- Michaela Byers, represented 9 plaintiffs
- Self represented, 6 plaintiffs
- Walter Madden Jenkins Solicitors, represented, 5 plaintiffs
- Victoria Legal Aid, represented 4 plaintiffs
- Mark A Cruice Lawyers, represented 4 plaintiffs
- Christopher Levingston & Associates, represented 3 plaintiffs
- Holding Redlich, represented 3 plaintiffs
- Carroll & O'Dea Lawyers, represented 2 plaintiffs
- Michel Jones, Solicitor, represented 1 plaintiff
- Thomson Playford, represented 1 plaintiff
- Burn and Swift Lawyers, represented 1 plaintiff
- Mark Andrews & Associates, represented 1 plaintiff
- Messrs Kazi & Associates Solicitors, represented 1 plaintiff
- McDonald Steed, represented 1 plaintiff
- Parish Patience, represented 1 plaintiff
- Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo Weste Solicitor, represented 1 plaintiff
- Freedman Lawyers, represented 1 plaintiff
- Milne Berry Berger Freedman, represented 1 plaintiff
- Christie & Strbac, represented 1 plaintiff
- Teakle Ormsby Conn, Lawyers, represented 1 plaintiff
- Wyatt Attorneys, represented 1 plaintiff
- AJ Torbey & Associates, represented 1 plaintiff
- Murphy Schmidt, represented 1 plaintiff
- PSK Legal lawyers, represented 1 plaintiff
(f) No firm, centre or practitioner has been in receipt of funding administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the purpose of bringing a claim for compensation for unlawful detention.
The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department administers Commonwealth funding arrangements for legal aid through the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services with the States and Territories. Services are delivered by State and Territory legal aid commissions which are independent State and Territory statutory bodies. Under the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services, "migration matters where assistance is not available from services funded by DIAC" are a legal aid service priority. It is up to legal aid commissions to determine whether to provide assistance according to eligibility requirements and in the context of other demands and available resources. The Attorney-General's Department also administers grants to community legal centres.
The Australian Government provides financial assistance to individuals to help with the cost of legal proceedings under certain Commonwealth laws, or where the Commonwealth holds a special interest and mainstream legal aid is not available. The Financial Assistance Section within the Attorney-General's Department is responsible for administering these grants of assistance under a number of statutory and non-statutory financial assistance schemes. There is a longstanding practice, endorsed by successive Attorneys-General, not to comment on whether assistance has been provided through these schemes in individual cases. This practice is consistent with obligations imposed by the Privacy Act 1988. It also protects information provided by applicants which would otherwise be subject to solicitor–client confidentiality.
In relation to the costs of travel and travel allowances paid to private staff of ministers and parliamentary secretaries:
(1) What has been the total amount paid by the department or by the Government in each financial year since the 2007 election for costs of travel.
(2) What has been the total amount paid each financial year since the 2007 election for travelling allowance to staff of: (a) ministers; and (b) parliamentary secretaries.
'Private staff' has been interpreted to mean personal staff employed under Part III of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984.
(1) The total amount payable by the Department of Finance and Deregulation for the cost of travel for personal staff of ministers and parliamentary secretaries is:
Note: The above figures include airfares (both domestic and overseas) Travelling Allowance (including Motor Vehicle Allowance) claims, and travel by taxis and hire cars.
(2) The total amount of travelling allowance paid to personal staff of ministers and parliamentary secretaries is:
Has the department engaged the services of a call centre from Excelion P/L; if so:
(a) for what reason was it deemed that the department required a call centre;
(b) where are the centre operators based;
(c) what services does the centre provide to the department and were these services previously performed 'in-house' by the department; and
(d) what is the cost and length of the contract.
No, the department has not engaged the services of a call centre from Excelion P/L.
(1) Has the department contracted a firm to provide a media plan for the Young Worker Toolkit.
(2) What are the anticipated outcomes of the plan.
(3) What was the cost of the plan.
(4) How many staff in the department are engaged to provide media and communications services.
(5) Why were these services contracted out rather than done in-house.
(1) The department used the services of the master placement agency Universal McCann to provide a media plan involving advertising on social media websites and the distribution of Avant Cards to youth-related networks to inform young people about the Young Worker Toolkit.
All departments and agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 are required to place their communication advertising through Universal McCann.
(2) The objective of the media plan is to inform teenagers and young adults about the Young Worker Toolkit. This is a web-based resource optimised for smart phone use which informs young people of their rights and obligations under the Fair Work Act 2009 and to assist them with employment issues.
The media plan covers the period July 2011 to January 2012 and involves advertising on Facebook and Nine MSN websites, and distribution of Avant Cards. The advertising takes place in three tranches:
(3) The total cost of the advertising activity covered by the media plan, including the development and distribution of Avant Cards, is $75,977.20 GST inclusive.
(4) One departmental employee dedicates approximately 20 percent of a full-time workload to managing communication activities for the Young Worker Toolkit.
(5) The department used Universal McCann because it is a requirement that Australian Government agencies contract media buying services through this agency.
Has the Department conducted or commissioned an assessment of fugitive emissions from landfills. If so,
(a) what were the results and recommendations from any assessment; and
(b) how has the Government responded to any of the recommendations.
The Department commissioned, on 16 May 2011, a consultant to conduct a study into fugitive emissions from landfills using data held by landfill operators based on measurements made over the last three years.
The study was initiated following a workshop with industry held in November 2010. The aim of the study is to provide input into the development of a more simplified approach to the 'higher order' method of emissions measurement currently available to facilities with methane capture systems in place.
The study concludes that the data collected from landfill operators could be used to simplify the existing 'higher order' measurement method available to the industry.
The Department is currently conducting further consultations with industry on how to operationalise the results of the study.
The Government's response to the study's findings will be incorporated into an amendment to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination , scheduled for exposure release in November 2011.
Has the department contracted the services of Incept Labs for the development of a list of research projects; if so:
(a) why were these services required;
(b) what was the brief given to Incept Labs;
(c) why was a list of projects developed; and
(d) at what level was the procurement of services authorised.
(a) The Australian Government's Critical Infrastructure Resilience Strategy (the Strategy) was released in June 2010, articulating two key policy objectives:
(i) Critical infrastructure owners and operators (including the Australian Government) are effective in managing foreseeable risks to the continuity of their operations, through an intelligence and information led, risk informed approach; and
(ii) Critical infrastructure owners and operators enhance their capacity to manage unforseen or unexpected risk to the continuity of their operations, through an organisational resilience approach.
This second objective is a new body of work and a new concept for Australian business, including owners and operators of critical infrastructure. It is important that owners and operators are provided with guidance on organisational resilience to develop a common understanding of the concept, and a shared objective – that of the overall resilience of Australia's critical infrastructure to all hazards.
Therefore, as one of the projects under the Strategy, the Attorney-General's Department procured the services of Incept Labs Pty Ltd (Incept) to investigate the breadth of research and analysis currently available on organisational resilience and, through consultation with key critical infrastructure stakeholders, develop a list of future research projects that would help to fill knowledge and information gaps in this policy area. Incept was also required to conduct a feasibility study into options for an organisational resilience mentoring program which would serve to propagate a common understanding of and practice in organisational resilience, and a business awards program to recognise business excellence in this area.
(b) Incept was required to interview up to 50 (fifty) CEOs to determine their understanding of organisational resilience and identify gaps in this understanding which would translate to possible future research projects. In addition, Incept was to undertake an environmental scan of research institutions conducting research into fields related to organisational resilience, and consult with research funding bodies to explore and identify avenues to progress organisational resilience-related research projects. Further, Incept was asked to review existing business awards and mentoring programs to assess the feasibility of developing similar stand alone programs to promote the concept and practice of organisational resilience.
(c) The interviews with CEOs could be considered baseline research to assess the level of understanding Australian CEOs have regarding the relatively new concept of organisational resilience. Through this process, gaps in CEO understanding of the concept can be identified, and projects can then be developed in a targeted way to fill these gaps. In this way, the list of projects identified by Incept contributes to Strategic Imperative 2 of the Strategy: Develop and promote an organisational resilience body of knowledge and common understanding of organisational resilience.
(d) The procurement of services was authorised at the Assistant Secretary (SES1) level.
Has the department contracted the services of Gfk Blue Moon Research for market research; if so:
(a) what is the market research on;
(b) what is the brief for the market research;
(c) why were the services acquired by a 'select' procurement method and who authorised this;
(d) who suggested the company;
(e) why was this company chosen; and
(f) what will be the cost of this market research.
(a) The Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Branch in the Attorney-General's Department has commissioned independent market research to benchmark current awareness and attitudes among the Australian public about violent extremism, and to build understanding of how key audiences are likely to respond to communication activities. Countering violent extremism is a complex issue and a sensitive topic for many communities. This research will inform and provide strategic guidance to CVE communication activities, programs and initiatives.
(b) The market research brief sought developmental and benchmarking research to inform the communication activities for the Department's CVE Program.
(c) In keeping with government policy and requirements under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act), a shortlist of suppliers was identified from the Australian Government's Communications Multi Use List (CMUL) and invited to tender. This select tendering method was authorised by the First Assistant Secretary of the National Security Law and Policy Division.
(d) Six market research companies were invited to submit proposals. These companies were recommended by the Communications Advice Branch, Department of Finance and Deregulation, from their Communications Multiuse List database of suppliers to identify a list of market research companies that have the requisite skills and experience to undertake the research.
(e) Of the six companies recommended by the Department of Finance and Deregulation, five companies submitted proposals and GfK Blue Moon was selected following a detailed assessment process. The proposals were assessed against the criteria of: understanding of the tender brief; research methodology; project plan; skills, experience and qualifications; and value for money. The Communications Advice Branch in Finance was also represented on the assessment panel.
(f) The expected cost of the research, including developmental research, benchmarking and concept testing is $294,363 excluding GST.
Do any staff at Fair Work Australia receive myki cards for railway transportation; if so:
(a) at what level are those staff engaged;
(b) for what purpose are the cards to be used;
(c) how many staff: (i) have access to the cards, and (ii) use the cards.
(d) what is the total cost of the cards and for what period does this cover.
Myki cards are part of the ticketing system used for travel on Melbourne's public transport system. Myki is a smartcard where monetary amounts or periodical fares, for example, yearly passes, are stored enabling myki holders to use the public transport system. The Transport Ticketing Authority in Melbourne has a 'Commuter Club' scheme which enables myki 365 day (yearly) passes to be purchased corporately offering a 10% discount off the retail price of the pass.
FWA will pay for the purchase of the periodic ticket e.g. yearly ticket and the employee repays the amount to FWA through after-tax deductions from their fortnightly pay over the period of the travel e.g. 12 months for a yearly ticket.
(a) Fair Work Australia provides ongoing employees, and non-ongoing employees with an employment contract of at least 12 months, the opportunity to participate in the transport fares assistance scheme.
(b) The myki cards are used for travel by Melbourne based employees.
(c) (i) Approximately 210 employees in Melbourne were eligible to participate in the transport fares assistance scheme during 2010-11
(ii) FWA purchased 71 myki cards for employees in 2010-11
(d) In the 2010-2011 financial year, the total cost of the myki's cards purchased from the Transport Ticketing Authority was $88,528.05. Noting that this amount is to be repaid by staff over the course of the twelve month (12) period). Each myki purchased contains a 365 day (yearly) pass.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Ministers portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
The following answers represent all departments and agencies within the Prime Minister's portfolio. The answers include investigations undertaken by the Public Service Commissioner in fulfilment of his statutory responsibilities.
(1) (a) and (b)—
(2) (a)—
(b)—
(3)—
(4)—
(5) There were six ongoing investigations on 29 August 2011.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) A total of 11 Code of Conduct investigations were conducted in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations during the 2010-2011 financial year. (b) A total of two Code of Conduct investigations have been conducted in the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in the current financial year .
(2) (a) Five of the 11 investigations in 2010-2011 established a breach of the Code of Conduct. (b) Six of the 11 investigations in 2010-2011 established no breach of the Code of Conduct.
(3) The following provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached for each case:-
(4) The following sanctions were applied where the investigation established that the Code of Conduct was breached:-
(5) Two Code of Conduct investigations are ongoing.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011- to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) Four completed cases, (b) Nil.
(2) (a) Two, (b) One.
(3) Case 1. s13 (1), s13 (5), s13 (8), s13 (10).
Case 2. s13 (2), s13 (11).
Case 3. s13 (1), s13 (4), s13 (5), s13 (8), s13 (9), s13 (10).
Case 4. s13 (3).
(4) (a) Fine, (b) Reduction in salary.
(5) One.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) During the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, there were 22 finalised misconduct investigations. (b) During the period 1 July 2011 to 31 August 2011, there were 3 finalised misconduct investigations.
(2) For the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011:
(a) 15 investigations established a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.
(b) 7 investigations established no breach of the APS Code of Conduct.
For the period 1 July 2011 to 31 August 2011:
(a) 2 investigations established a breach of the APS Code of Conduct.
(b) 1 investigation established no breach of the APS Code of Conduct.
(3) For the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 the following elements of the Code found to have been breached were:
* An individual employee can be counted against more than one element of the Code of Conduct
# 1 employee was subject to 2 separate investigations.
For the period 1 July 2011 to 31 August 2011, the following elements of the Code found to have been breached were:
* An individual employee can be counted against more than one element of the Code of Conduct
(4) For the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011, the following sanctions were imposed:
* An individual employee can incur one or more outcome (sanction)
For the period 1 July 2011 to 31 August 2011, the following sanctions were imposed:
* An individual employee can incur one or more outcome (sanction)
(5) As at 31 August 2011, there were 10 ongoing misconduct investigation.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
(1) (a) For 2010-11 the Department of Human Services (Medicare Australia, Centrelink, Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service and the Department of Human Services) finalised 196 Code of Conduct investigations. (b) From 1 July 2011 to 29 August 2011 there were 11 finalised cases.
(2) (a) Of the 207 finalised investigations (2010-11 and up to 29 August 2011), 194 employees were found to have breached the Code of Conduct. (b) Of the 207 finalised investigations 13 employees were found not to have breached the Code of Conduct.
(3) —
* Individual employees can be suspected of breaching several elements
(4) The following penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken:
(5) As at 29 August 2011 there are 133 ongoing cases.
(1) How many Code of Conduct investigations have there been within the Minister's portfolio for the financial years (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011- to date.
(2) How many investigations established: (a) a breach; or (b) no breach, of the Code of Conduct.
(3) In each case, what provisions of the Code of Conduct were thought to have been breached.
(4) What penalties were applied where the Code of Conduct was broken.
(5) How many investigations are ongoing.
Please refer to the answer provided to Senate Parliamentary Question on Notice 1058.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 846 which refers to the 'structure of staff within an office' and not whether any 'direction or advice' was offered, can the following information be provided: Has the Caucus Communications Team or anyone in the Caucus Communications Team offered any direction or advice to ministers on how to structure their media staff: if so:
(a) who offered direction or advice and to which Ministers; and
(b) what advice was given.
(a) and (b) Direction and advice surrounding the employment of media staff are matters for the employing Ministers and their Chiefs of Staff.
(1) What is the actual location, including the full street address, of each premises occupied by the department.
(2) In relation to each of the premises referred to in (1), are these premises:
(a) owned by the Commonwealth; or
(b) rented.
(3) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to the department at each of the premises.
(4) What is the actual amount of space in square metres occupied by, or allocated to, the Commonwealth Government at each of the premises.
(5) For each of the premises that are owned by the Commonwealth:
(a) what was the total purchase price of these premises and what was the purchase date;
(b) what amount has been allocated as building depreciation from the date of purchase to the current date; and
(c) what is the estimated current market value of these premises and on what basis has this market value been calculated or derived.
(6) For each of the premises that are rented, what are the current lease terms including:
(a) the date the lease was entered into;
(b) the current expiry date of the lease;
(c) any further options available under the lease;
(d) the rental amount payable per square metre on an annual basis; and
(e) the total rental amount payable for the premises on an annual basis.
(7) When is the next rental review due and on what basis will any new rental be determined.
(1) Australia
a. The Treasury Building (A, C & E Block), Langton Cres Parkes ACT 2600.
b. The Treasury Building (B & D Block), Langton Cres Parkes ACT 2600.
c. MTAA House, Level 1, 39 Brisbane Avenue Barton ACT 2600.
d. MLC Building, Level 42, 19 Martin Place Sydney NSW 2000.
e. Level 10, 63 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000.
Overseas
f. Apartment D1503 Eastlake Villas, 35 Dongzhimenwai Main Street, Beijing, 100027, China.
g. Australian Embassy, 21 Dongzhimenwai Main Street, Beijing, 100027, China.
h. Jalan Wijaya III No10 Melawai – Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta, Indonesia.
i. Australian Embassy, Jalan HR Rasuna Said Jakarta, Indonesia.
j. Australian High Commission, Australia House, The Strand, London WC 2B 4LA, United Kingdom.
k. A22, Third Floor, West End, New Delhi, 110 021, India.
l. Australian High Commission, 1/50 Chanakya Puri, Plot 1, Block 50G, New Delhi, India.
m. Apartment 3, Australian Embassy, 4 Rue Jean Rey, Paris, France.
n. Australian Embassy, 4 Rue Jean Rey, Paris, France.
o. Apartment 262, 1-14, 2 Chrome Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
p. Australian Embassy, 1-4, 2 Chrome Mita, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
q. 2710 31st Place NW, Cleveland Ave, Washington, USA.
r. Australian Embassy, 1601 Masachusetts Avenue NW Washington, USA.
(2) Australia
a. Owned by Commonwealth.
b. Owned by Commonwealth.
c. Rented.
d. Rented.
e. Rented.
Overseas
f. Rented.
g. Owned by Commonwealth.
h. Rented.
i. Owned by Commonwealth.
j. Owned by Commonwealth.
k. Rented.
l. Owned by Commonwealth.
m. Owned by Commonwealth.
n. Owned by Commonwealth.
o. Owned by Commonwealth.
p. Owned by Commonwealth.
q. Owned by Commonwealth.
r. Owned by Commonwealth.
(3) Australia
a. 18,587m².
b. 762m².
c. 641m².
d. 92m².
e. 253m².
Overseas
f. Not Available (Residential Lease).
g. 52.9m².
h. Not Available (Residential Lease).
i. 46m².
j. 54.4m².
k. Not Available (Residential Lease).
l. 38.1m².
m. Not Available (Residential Lease).
n. 35.1m².
o. Not Available (Residential Lease).
p. 44.4m².
q. Not Available (Residential Lease).
r. 100.6m².
(4) This is a question for the Department of Finance and Deregulation, being the building owner.
(5) This is a question for the Department of Finance and Deregulation, being the building owner.
(6) Australia
(a) —Lease Start: 22/12/2000.
—Lease End: 21/12/2015.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m² Office (16,538m²): $370 per m² (Ex GST).
Annual Rent Non Air conditioned storage (447m²)—$150 per m² (EX GST).
Annual Rent Air conditioned storage (1,337m²)—$175 per m² (Ex GST).
Annual Rent Café area (265m²)—$370 per m²
—Total Annual Rent: $6,518,135 (Ex GST).
(b) —Lease Start: 01/01/2008.
—Lease End: 21/12/2015.
—Options: Further option until 7/03/2017.
—Annual Rent per m²: $390 per m² (Ex GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $297,180 (Ex GST).
(c) —Lease Start: 14/03/2010.
—Lease End: 13/03/2012.
—Options: Further 3 year option until 13/03/2015.
—Annual Rent per m²: $461.23 per m² (Ex GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $295,650.66 (Ex GST).
(d) —Lease Start: 01/09/2010.
—Lease End: 31/08/2012.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $861 per m² (Ex GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $79,212 (Ex GST).
(e) —Lease Start: 15/01/2009.
—Lease End: 14/01/2013.
—Options: Further 4 year option until 14/01/2017.
—Annual Rent per m²: $335.30 per m² (Ex GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $84,931.49 (Ex GST).
Overseas
(f) —Lease Start: 21/01/2010.
—Lease End: 20/01/2012.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A.
—Total Annual Rent: $115,296 (No GST).
(g) —Lease Start: 01/07/2008.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $702.12 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $37,142.28 (No GST).
(h) —Lease Start: 17/12/2008.
—Lease End: 16/12/2011.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A.
—Total Annual Rent: $42,000 USD (Ex GST).
(i) —Lease Start: 01/07/2008.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $392.19 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $18,040.54 (No GST).
(j) —Lease Start: 1/07/2009.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $1,061.21 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $57,729.72 (No GST).
(k) —Lease Start: 15/07/2011.
—Lease End: 14/07/2012.
—Options: Further 2 year option until 14/07/2014.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A.
—Total Annual Rent: $114,170 (Ex GST).
(l) —Lease Start: 01/07/2011.
—Lease End: 30/07/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $1,138.10 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $43,361.66(No GST).
(m) —Lease Start: 1/07/2011.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A.
—Total Annual Rent: $133,691(No GST).
(n) —Lease Start: 01/07/2008.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $1,172.73 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $41,162.76 (No GST).
(o) —Lease Start: 01/01/2009.
—Lease End: 30/06/2011. (Currently on month to month).
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A.
—Total Annual Rent: $225,000 (No GST).
(p)—Lease Start: 01/07/2008.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $2,103.30 per m² (No GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $93,386.30 (No GST).
(q) —Lease Start: 01/09/2006.
—Lease End: 31/08/2011. (Currently on month to month).
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: N/A
—Total Annual Rent: $160,000 (Ex GST).
(r) —Lease Start: 01/07/2008.
—Lease End: 30/06/2013.
—Options: No Option.
—Annual Rent per m²: $611.83 per m² (Ex GST).
—Total Annual Rent: $61,550.06 (Ex GST).
(7) Australia
(a) Market rent review – due 22/12/2012.
(b) Market rent review – due 6/9/2013.
(c) Market rent review—due 14/3/2012 (If option is taken up).
(d) Market rent review—due 1/9/2012 (If new lease is taken up).
(e) Fixed rent increase of 4%—due 15/1/2012.
Overseas
f. Market rent review – due 21/1/2012 (If new lease is taken up).
g. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
h. Market rent review – due 17/12/2011 (If new lease is taken up).
i. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
j. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
k. Fixed rent increase of 8.5% (Per exchange rate)—due 15/7/2012 (If option is taken up).
l. Fixed rent increase of 3%—due 1/7/2012.
m. Fixed rent rate. No increases for term.
n. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
o. Market rent review – due 31/10/2011.
p. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
q. Market rent review – due 31/10/2011.
r. Fixed rent increase of 2%—due 1/7/2012.
(1) What was the total expenditure of the department for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to:
(a) advertising;
(b) air travel within Australia in business class;
(c) air travel within Australia in economy class;
(d) air travel within Australia by charter flight;
(e) air travel outside Australia in first class;
(f) air travel outside Australia in business class;
(g) air travel outside Australia in economy class;
(h) air travel outside Australia by charter flight;
(i) hospitality and entertainment;
(j) information and communications technology (ICT) costs generally;
(k) ICT costs to external providers;
(l) external consultants generally;
(m) external accounting services;
(n) external auditing services;
(o) external legal services; and
(p) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, what is the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year.
(1) The total expenditure of the department for the 2010-11 financial year in relation to the following categories is as follows.
(2) In relation to each of the items referred to in question 1, the budgeted total expenditure for the 2011-12 financial year are as follows:
Notes:
1. Figure includes all expenditure on campaign advertising. Where advertising related services are delivered by consultants, this expenditure will be reflected in the answer to both parts (a) and (l).
2. Figure excludes resources received free of charge from the Australian National Audit Office.
3. The Treasury did not pay any grants to affiliated organisations in 2010-11.
4. Figure includes planned expenditure on campaign advertising and consultancies for campaign advertising.
5. Budgets are not broken down by class of travel, total budgeted expenditure has been given for air travel within Australia and air travel outside Australia.
6. Budget does not include any consultants who may provide advertising related services.
7. The Treasury does not have a budget for grants to affiliated organisations for 2011-12.
(1) When will a decision be made to bring Australian small polluting engines in line with the standards of other first world countries, such as the United States of America, Canada, China, Japan and the European Union.
(2) Is the Minister aware that these small polluting engines are major emitters of carbon and that an Australian lawn mower pushes out 40 times the pollutants per hour of a small car.
(3) Given the commitment of the Federal Government to cut carbon emissions, when will the Small Engine Emissions Regulations for Australia be announced.
(1) Environment Ministers from all jurisdictions recently endorsed the development of a new National Plan for Clean Air. This new plan will provide a robust framework for identifying cost effective actions to reduce air pollution, and implementation arrangements for air quality actions. Non-road spark ignition engines and equipment is to be considered under this Plan. The Decision Regulation Impact Statement is currently being finalised.
(2) I am aware that non-road spark ignition engines and equipment emit a number of air pollutants, amongst them, carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide. I am also aware that they are high polluters relative to their engine size and usage. That is why the then Environment Protection and Heritage Council agreed to undertake a Regulation Impact Statement to identify options to manage air pollutant emissions from these sources.
(3) The Government's commitment is not only focused on reducing carbon emissions, but also on improving air quality in general for all Australians. The development of a new National Plan for Clean Air will be an extensive program of work that will require consideration and input from all jurisdictions.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) Nil.
(2) Nil.
(3) Nil.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) There were no allowances paid to employees or contractors working at sea during
2010-11.
(2) There is no daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) There were no days spent at sea by employees or contractors during 2010-11.
With reference to the department and all agencies within the Minister's portfolio:
(1) What was the total cost of allowances for government employees or contractors working at sea for the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) What is the daily allowance for working at sea.
(3) How many days in total were spent at sea in the 2010-11 financial year.
(1) The Department did not pay any allowances to employees or contractors for working at sea during the 2010-11 financial year.
(2) The Department's prevailing collective agreements do not contain provision for the payment of an allowance for working at sea.
(3) No time was spent at sea by departmental employees or contractors in the 2010-11 financial year.
Can Fiscal Table 1 on page 41 of the explanatory memorandum for the Clean Energy Bill 2011 be provided on an underlying cash balance basis.
Table 1 of the explanatory memorandum to the Clean Energy Bill 2011 has not been replicated on an underlying cash balance basis. The Government has published a detailed table on a fiscal balance basis.
A full economic update will be published in the 2011-12 MYEFO. The impact of the Clean Energy Future Package will be reflected in the published budget balances.