The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 31 March 2012, of Senator Judith Anne Adams, Senator for Western Australia, places on record its appreciation of her long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement.
I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.
My recollection of Judith will be her intense interest in the lives of regional Australians. She committed to the task knowing she was never going to be a senior office holder. The reality is that many of the wider public would probably not even know her name. The strength about Judith was that this was not what was driving her.
She just wanted people to have their lives affected in a way which made things better for them. She didn't want the fuss and the bother of the laurels. Even when she was going around on her electric wheelchair in Parliament, she always said that this was only temporary and that she was getting better. I have a sneaking suspicion she realised the truth but just didn't want the attention to distract her from her job for others.
… I will do my best to represent you with honesty, sincerity and integrity.
Life experience cannot be bought or traded.
I live with cancer but I do not let it control my life.
Having travelled extensively throughout rural Western Australia, I understand the problems and issues confronting such a diverse state.
I wanted it to be known as a part of the remembrances of her, the brave and effective role she played in the ru486 campaign—
You will remember that Get Up did a petition, but in fact it was a 'PR' petition, effective but not able to be tabled in the Parliament.
The family planning organisations in each state under the umbrella of SHFPA—
did their own.
I was the one of those who worked with the organisations and coordinated the campaign for SHFPA whilst I was working for Family Planning NSW.
We created a web site all but overnight which met all the requirements of a petition to be tabled in the Australian Parliament
We got many thousands of signatories.
It was Judith who tabled it in the Senate.
This action greatly improved the lives of Australian women and their families. Importantly also it created a precedent.
It was the first electronic petition to be tabled in the Australian Parliament. and a great service to democratic process.
That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 1 April 2012, of the Honourable Lionel Frost Bowen, AC, former member for Kingsford-Smith, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in their bereavement.
Relations between Fraser and the Opposition remained acrimonious throughout Hayden's term as leader. Within weeks of Hayden becoming Opposition Leader, Fraser summoned him and his deputy Lionel Bowen to his office to inform them of some matters connected with security. Hayden nodded his head occasionally as Fraser spoke, but there was no response at all from Bowen. Eventually Fraser asked Bowen what was wrong with him. Bowen answered; 'I'm listening. It's just that I don't trust you, you bastard.' As they left Hayden congratulated Bowen for being so direct with the Prime Minister.
Lionel had a number of loves. First was for his family, his Church and God, his political party and his Irish heritage.
People who are now concerned about their sons are interested in the fact that there should have been a mandate from the Australian people. It is no use saying, as was said in the defence statement, that we cannot confront that Soviet Union. I think the Australian national spirit is such that we should be prepared and in fact would be prepared to confront anybody if the need so arose.
It adds lustre to that achievement, and for honourable members on this side of the House a very special significance, when I say that that record of service will then surpass that of our great and beloved leader Ben Chifley.
It follows, therefore, that the problems of Kingsford Smith—
are virtually the problems of the nation, whether they relate to health, housing, pollution or any other matter.
If all politicians, particularly ministers, had such a lack of pretension and conducted themselves as well as Lionel, politicians would be thought a lot more of in the community.
Mr Bowen is very, very low profile, so low profile in fact he almost shuns publicity.
Sure, he'll come on television and talk about this or that if you ask him nicely, but he's just as happy not to. He lives in a very unpretentious home in his lower middle-class electorate of Kingsford Smith and when he is here in Canberra it is not the flash Lodge or the first-class hotels for him. No, he lives in a converted garage in the backyard of one of his relatives.
Gough Whitlam said, "Listen Bowen, you're a Catholic aren't you? This schools report legislation has come back. Beazley is in hospital but I don't know whether I can trust you with this legislation". He said, "I've got Grassby here". I said, "Give it to Grassby, that's the best thing to do".
"No … I want you to have it. I want to get this bill through".
So I made a speech … I talked about the advantages the Catholic Education system has given to Australia, about the dedication of those who work in it, about the parents who support it. Are you going to deny these children a fair chance to compete on the same basis? … I said the best thing we could do was have a double dissolution on this. We'll take it to the people.
Ralph Hunt and Peter Nixon, two of the Country Party fellows, came round to me afterwards and said, Lionel, you don't really mean that. Of course we do, I said. We'll wipe the floor with you on this issue, you know that.
There are a couple of schools in our electorates that need a little topping up … Could you help us? …
So when the bill comes back on, I've increased their subsidy. There is a vote. The whole of the Country Party came across the floor and voted with us.
That, as a mark of respect to the memory of the late Senator Judith Anne Adams, the Senate do now adjourn.
(1) What is the target audience for the Australia Network, and was it determined by market research; if so, is this research publicly available.
(2) Has the department undertaken any studies to determine whether the Australia Network is reaching the determined target audience; if so: (a) when were the studies undertaken; and (b) what were the results.
(3) Did the department undertake a study of the Australia Network's effectiveness before the Government announced that it would put out to tender a new 10 year contract.
(4) Does the department consider that television remains the best medium for reaching the determined target audience; if so, why.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 543 on 25 March 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Was the Australian Government’s revenue from passport fees in the 2009-10 financial year equal to or greater than the cost of providing consular assistance.
Revenue received from passport fees was greater than the cost of providing consular assistance in 2009-10.
Did the Minister receive a brief from the department seeking approval of text contained in the request for tender and/or associated documents in relation to Australia Network before their release, if so:
(1) When was the brief received by the Minister's office.
(2) When was brief sighted by the Minister.
(3) What type of ministerial action was requested by the department, and was it agreed to by the Minister.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 932 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff request changes to the text contained in the request for tender and/or associated documents in relation to Australia Network; if so, when, and what was the nature of the requested changes.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 933 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Was the final version of the request for tender and associated documents in relation to Australia Network approved by Cabinet or the Minister; if so, when.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 934 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff receive a briefing, written or verbal, from the department or a member of the tender panel regarding any of the information provided by tenderers in their tender submissions in relation to Australia Network; if so, when and what was the nature of the information provided.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 935 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
When did the tender panel in relation to Australia Network finalise its report and did it include a recommendation as to a preferred tenderer.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 936 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Was it the panel's view that both tenderers met the requirements of the tender in relation to Australia Network.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 937 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff receive a briefing, written or verbal, from the Department or a member of the tender panel regarding the panel's progress in relation to the Australia Network tender.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 938 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
When was the tender panel's report in relation to Australia Network first sighted by the Secretary of the department.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 939 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Did the Minister or any of his ministerial staff receive a briefing, written or verbal, from the department regarding the tender panel's report and recommendation of a preferred tenderer in relation to the Australia Network tender:
(1) If so: (a) when was the brief received by the Minister's office; (b) when was the brief sighted by the Minister; and (c) what type of ministerial action was requested by the department, and was it agreed to by the Minister.
(2) If not, why not.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 940 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
(1) Did the department prepare a Cabinet submission detailing the tender panel's report and recommendation of a preferred tenderer in relation to the Australia Network tender; if so, when.
(2) Was input into the brief provided by other governments; if so, which ones.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 941 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
When was the department first notified of the Government's intention to extend the existing Australia Network contract, while additional information is sought from tenderers.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 942 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from the department and/or consultants regarding the expansion of the Australia Network into the Middle East and North Africa and its impact on the Network's penetration rates in Asia and/or the Pacific; if so, when and what was the nature of this advice.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 943 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
(1) Prior to the Cabinet's consideration of the Australia Network tender, who was the designated decision-maker for the tender.
(2) Assuming that the designated decision-maker was not Cabinet, on what legal basis was the decision-maker stripped of that role.
(3) Prior to the former decision-maker being stripped of this role had a decision been made as to who would be the successful tenderer.
(4) Who is now the decision-maker.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 944 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from the department and/or consultants regarding the additional costs associated with expanding the Australia Network's coverage into the Middle East and North Africa; if so, when and what was the nature of this advice and the additional cost.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 945 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Has the Minister or any of his ministerial staff received a briefing, written or verbal, from the department and/or consultants expressing their concerns about the change to the request for tender and/or association documentation in relation to Australia Network; if so, when and what was the nature of their concerns.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 946 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Has the Minister or any of his staff and/or the department received any correspondence from, or had discussions with, any of the interested parties involved in the tender process in relation to Australia Network concerning the impact of the Government's decision on the financial viability of their proposal; if so, when and what parties were involved, and what was the nature of the correspondence and/or discussions.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 947 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
In the period since Senator Johnston submitted Question on Notice 948 on 18 August 2011, the Government terminated the Australia Network tender process and instituted an investigation by the Australian Federal Police due to leaks of confidential information. The Auditor-General has also decided to conduct a performance audit of the administration of the Australia Network tender processes. As the Questions on Notice go to matters being considered by the Australian Federal Police and Australian National Audit Office, it would not be appropriate to comment.
Will a representative from AusAID or the Minister's office be attending the Global Microcredit Summit in Spain in November 2011: (a) if so, who will be attending the summit; and (b) if not, why is there no representative attending and what plans are in place for the Minister or AusAID to engage in the outcomes and learnings from the summit.
(a) AusAID was unable to attend the Global Microcredit Summit due to competing priorities at the time.
(b) A number of AusAID's microfinance partners participated in the Summit as panel members. These included the Consultative Group on Assisting the Poor; International Finance Corporation; Women's World Banking; United Nations Capital Development Fund; and the International Labour Organisation.
In regard to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA):
(1) What is ACMA's total expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel (including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) Can a breakdown of the expenditure in (1) be provided for each division within the ACMA on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel (including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(3) Within each divisional area, can a breakdown of expenditure be provided, for each Executive Manager on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel (including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(1) to (3) The response to this question has been answered by Senate Estimates Questions on Notice 246-24
(1) Can details be provided on total expenditure for the 2010-11 financial year for the department on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel(including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(2) Can a breakdown of the expenditure in(1) be provided for each departmental group within the department on :
(a) advertising;
(b) travel(including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(3) Within each divisional area, can a breakdown of expenditure be provided, for each Assistant Secretary on:
(a) advertising;
(b) travel(including a breakdown of business versus economy and domestic versus international);
(c) hospitality and entertainment;
(d) information and communications technology;
(e) consultancy;
(f) education/training to staff;
(g) external accounting;
(h) external auditing;
(i) external legal; and
(j) memberships or grants paid to affiliate organisations.
(1) to (3) The response to this question has been answered by Senate Estimates Questions on Notice 443-445 (the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy).
With reference to the answer to question no. BE11/0580 taken on notice during the 2011-12 Budget estimates of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, how much notice was given in each category of person or persons listed in the answer.
With respect to the Premier of Tasmania, Lara Giddings, notification of the commissioning of the new immigration detention facility at Pontville in Tasmania was given by telephone a few days prior to the public announcement. The Minister attempted to contact the Mayor at Brighton the day before the announcement, but was not successful until the day of the announcement.
With respect to the remaining categories of person or persons listed in the response to BE11/0580, notification was given by telephone on 5 April 2011, approximately one hour prior to the Minister's announcement.
(1) What is the current dollar value of equities owned or held in trust by the Future Fund; or funds under its management; or managed on behalf of the Future Fund by its investment managers, in each of the following companies:
(a) Alliant Techsystems Inc;
(b) The Babcock & Wilcox Company;
(c) Babcock International Group;
(d) BAE Systems;
(e) Bechtel Corporation;
(f) European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS);
(g) Finmeccanica;
(h) GenCorp Inc;
(i) General Dynamics;
(j) Goodrich Corporation;
(k) Honeywell International;
(l) ITT Corporation;
(m) Jacobs Engineering Group Inc;
(n) Larsen & Toubro Limited;
(o) Lockheed Martin Corporation;
(p) Northrop Grumman Corporation;
(q) Redhall Group;
(r) Rockwell Collins;
(s) Rolls-Royce;
(t) Safran Group;
(u) Serco Group; and
(v) Thales Group.
(2) Can a list be provided detailing the nations whose nuclear weapons programs the Future Fund considers to be: (a) legitimate; and (b) illegitimate.
(3) Does the Future Fund consider India's nuclear weapons programs to be legitimate.
(4) On what basis does the Future Fund consider it unacceptable to invest in companies that manufacture cluster munitions and anti-personnel landmines, but acceptable to investment in those that manufacture nuclear weapons.
(1) The Future Fund Management Agency has advised that the value of the Future Fund's holdings in the companies in question as at 19 January 2012 was:
(2) No, the Future Fund Board of Guardians does not make its investment decisions based on such a consideration. The Board's investment decisions are based on the requirements of the Future Fund Act 2006 and theNation-building Funds Act 2008 , the risk and return requirements of the mandate and the application of the Fund's investment strategy, policies and processes. The Board considers Australia's obligations under the international conventions and treaties it has ratified. These are explained in the Board's Statement of Investment Policies, which includes a policy on managing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.
(3) See response to Question 2.
(4) In applying the framework to its investment decisions, the Board first considers the activities of an entity or funding activity and then considers whether an investment is consistent with its policies. Where the Board becomes aware that the activities of an entity or funding activity may contravene an international treaty ratified by Australia, the Board will consider the exclusion or removal of the investment from the portfolio.
With reference to the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre:
(1) How many ambulance visits have there been to the detention centre since it was opened.
(2) How many ambulance visits have been necessitated for the treatment of detainees.
(3) Who bears the cost of ambulance visits to the detention centre.
(4) For what types of medical emergency were the ambulances required.
(5) In regard to the reported hunger strike:
(a) how many detainees have been on a hunger strike at any one time;
(b) how many have required hospitalisation or on-site medical treatment as a result of a hunger strike;
(c) on what date did the first hunger strike take place and how many participated in that hunger strike; and
(d) what was the basis of the hunger strike.
(6) Given that it has been claimed that certain representations were made to detainees as to community detention and the processing of their applications, can the Minister confirm that no such representations were made by departmental officials or Serco staff; if so, what advice can be provided as to the source of misapprehensions under which the detainees suffered in relation to community detention and the expeditious processing of their applications.
(7) Are the detainees taken on day trips; if so:
(a) how many day trips have been undertaken; and
(b) can a list be provided detailing those day trips, including:
(i) the location, for example, visits to the zoo or cinema, and
(ii) the associated costs.
(1) As at 07 February 2012, there have been 11 people transferred from Pontville Immigration Detention Centre (PVIDC) to Royal Hobart Hospital (RHH) by ambulance since the facility became operational on 01 September 2011. Of those, three were Serco staff.
(2) There have been 8 detainees transferred from PVIDC to RHH by ambulance since the facility became operational.
(3) The cost of ambulance visits to the centre is passed on by the Service Provider 'International Health and Medical Services' to the department.
(4) There were four types of medical emergencies that have required ambulance support:
(a) medical complaint
(b) complaints of chest pains
(c) cases of suspected pneumonia
(d) clients collapsing due to various medical conditions
(5) (a) The largest number of clients that have been classified as being on voluntary starvation over 24 hours at any one time is eight people in detention. These clients were all participating in separate voluntary starvation protests, for reasons personal to themselves.
There are no recorded incidents of group voluntary starvation protest at PVIDC.
(b) No clients required hospitalisation as a result of voluntary starvation action. People who are classified as being on Voluntary Starvation are monitored by service provider agencies onsite at PVIDC, including daily interaction with health service providers. Health service providers engage with clients, may take observations of health indicators and may provide treatment for certain conditions such as dehydration. In this sense all clients on Voluntary Starvation received medical treatment or attention as part of monitoring their health and well-being.
(c) The first recorded incident of a person in detention being classified as participating in voluntary starvation over 24 hours occurred on 19 September 2011 with only one client involved in this incident.
(d) The reason a person in detention participates in a voluntary starvation protest is their own and often varies from person to person.
(6) All clients accommodated at the PVIDC had already received information about the Community Detention program prior to transfer.
Departmental Case Managers at PVIDC (as at all Immigration Detention Facilities) are responsible for facilitating the progression of clients towards resolution of their immigration status. This involves addressing any obstacles which may be delaying such outcomes. Other actions may also entail initiation and submission of appropriate referrals, including referral to the Community Detention program.
Many clients at PVIDC were referred for consideration under the Community Detention program prior to being transferred to the centre. Clients who arrived at PVIDC without Community Detention referrals in place have subsequently had referrals initiated if it was believed they would meet eligibility criteria.
Departmental procedures ensure Case Managers regularly review each client. Further, Case Managers meet with all clients regularly to address any client concerns and deliver updates on case progression.
(7) (a) There have been a total of 307 trips for people in detention.
(b) List of trips
Activity Type No. of Trips
Religious 27
Botanical Gardens 35
Beach 60
Richmond 12
Bonorong Park 16
Salmon Ponds 31
Mens Shed 11
PCYC 13
Soccer 14
Swimming 15
Tynwald Park 2
Zoodoo 18
Callington Mill 14
Cricket 2
Oatlands 1
Brighton Memorial (Art) 4
Ross 1
Mt Wellington 22
Lawn Bowls 6
Hobart City 2
Orford 1
TOTAL 307
(c) The associated cost of excursions are included as a fixed price in the total cost of the detention services contract. The Department is unable to separately identify these costs.
(1) What communication (verbal or written) took place between the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the departmental Secretary, Ms Jane Halton, in the lead up to the CEO commissioning a literature review on the subject of naltrexone implants.
(2) Given that the CEO of NHMRC states in a letter to Western Australian MLA Peter Abetz that the Secretary asked him to prepare the naltrexone literature review, did the Minister have any communication with the Secretary seeking such a review.
(3) Prior to the document 'Naltrexone implant treatment for opioid dependence – Literature Review' being made public on the NHMRC website, did the Minister's office have any communication with any officer of NHMRC concerning the content of the review.
(4) Did the Minister or his staff make any representation to any staff or officials of NHMRC requesting that there be no naltrexone experts in the group established to examine the literature relating to naltrexone implants.
(5) Does the Minister condone the failure by NHMRC to follow its own guidelines, in particular, when it failed to: (a) involve any active naltrexone experts in the review process; and (b) identify any authors or reviewers of the literature review, particularly given that the NHMRC website states in the 'Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (1997)' document, 'Any part of an article critical to its main conclusion must be the responsibility of at least one author. An author's role in a research output must be sufficient for that person to take public responsibility for at least that part of the output in that person's area of expertise'.
(6) Who made the decision to first place, and then keep, the naltrexone literature review in the guidelines section of the NHMRC website given that it is clearly not a guidelines document.
(7) Given that Professor Gary Hulse of the University of Western Australia found that the use of naltrexone implants resulted in a reduction of opioid overdoses (from 21 in the 6 months prior to insertion of naltrexone implants to 0 in the 6 months after insertion): (a) on what basis did the NHMRC reviewers came to the conclusion that this was not statistically significant, particularly when Professor Hulse and others assert that this is significant at the P<0.0001 level; (b) can the name of the person who contributed the opinion to the review that the result was not statistically significant be provided; and (c) will the Minister instruct NHMRC to have an expert check if Professor Hulse's work is statistically significant.
(8) With reference to statements made by Ms Halton during the 2008-09 Budget estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Committee on 22 October 2008, in particular, that Dr George O'Neil had no interest in good manufacturing practice (GMP) despite Dr O'Neil lodging his first GMP applications in 2003 and 2004 and being granted a GMP licence in 2005, from what source was this information gathered.
(9) Why were no Australian or international experts on naltrexone or naltrexone implants consulted or involved in the production of the NHMRC literature review.
(10) Did Dr Alex Wodak have any involvement in the: (a) request for a literature review on naltrexone implants; (b) writing of the review; (c) peer reviewing of this literature review
(11) Given that Professor Philipp Lobmaier of the Norwegian Centre for Addiction Research, regarded as the most eminent world authority on naltrexone implants, has described the NHMRC literature review as being in the category of an 'ideologically motivated position paper', will the Minister urge NHMRC to withdraw this document until a full inquiry into the irregularities in its production has been made public.
(12) Can the Minister assure the public that all future literature reviews published on the NHMRC website will be produced in keeping with its protocols.
(13) Will the Minister ensure that NHMRC submits the literature review to world experts for revision as a matter of urgency.
(14) How long will the Minister tolerate the continuing display of this flawed document on the NHMRC website.
(1) This was previously responded to at the Senate Estimates Hearing on 20 October 2011. Available at the following link:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=@Hansard/s391.pdf
(2) No.
(3) As per standard practice for all externally released documents, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) informed the Minister of its intention to publish the Literature Review of Naltrexone Implants on the NHMRC website.
(4) No.
(5) (a) The objective of the literature review was to assess the evidence relating to the use of naltrexone implants for opioid dependence in clinical practice. As such expertise was sought in the areas of clinical practice, evidence based medicine, addiction, pain management and pharmacological regulation.
(b) The Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (1997) was rescinded in 2007 and replaced with the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007) which is explicitly applicable to research, not the development of health care advice, such as literature reviews by officials.
(6) The Chief Executive Officer of NHMRC authorised the placement of the literature review under the main Guidelines tab. It is current practice that all NHMRC publications are listed under the main Guidelines tab on NHMRC Home Page which, when accessed, provides a very clear explanation that the material on the website includes publications as well as guidelines.
(7) (a) This question has already been answered. Please refer to a previous response provided by the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, Senate Question Number S11000910 published on 19 September, 2011.
(b) NHMRC advises that the 'Naltrexone implant treatment for opioid dependence–Literature Review' (Literature Review) was drafted by staff of the Office of NHMRC. The Executive Director representing this work is Professor John McCallum.
(c) The NHMRC is an independent, expert scientific body which is well placed to advise government and the community on health issues.
(8) During the budget estimates hearing of the Community Affairs Committee on 22 October 2008, Ms Halton informed the committee that the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and Dr O'Neil had engaged in a 'very long conversation about the need to ensure that, if he is manufacturing, he meets good manufacturing practice.'
On 4 May 2011, the TGA imposed conditions on the manufacturing licence for Dr O'Neil's company 'Go Medical' which prevent further manufacturing at his Selby Street site as a result of safety and quality concerns.
(9) The objective of the literature review was to assess the evidence relating to the use of naltrexone implants for opioid dependence in clinical practice. As such, expertise was sought in the areas of clinical practice, evidence based medicine, addiction, pain management and pharmacological regulation.
(10) (a) No. For your information, please refer to a previous answer provided by the then Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, to Parliamentary Question on Notice R09000613 published on 12 May 2009."
(b) No.
(c) Yes.
(11) The NHMRC is an independent, expert scientific body which is well placed to advise government and the community on health issues.
(12) Yes.
(13) No. The NHMRC is an independent, expert scientific body which is well placed to advise government and the community on health issues.
(14) The Minister has confidence in NHMRC as an independent, expert scientific body which is well placed to advise government and the community on health issues.
What is the whole of government budget, across all portfolios, for intercepting, transferring, housing, processing (including administrative and judicial review) and removing asylum seekers in the: (a) 2010-11; and (b) 2011-12 (to date), financial years.
Under the budget framework, funds are appropriated to separate portfolios, and there is no whole of government budget for asylum seekers. The estimates of appropriations for intercepting, transferring, housing, processing (including administrative and judicial review) and removing asylum seekers can be found in the following Portfolio Budget Statements:
With reference to the Seasonal Worker Program announced by the Government on 18 December 2011:
(1) How will the $21.7 million allocated to the program be spent, and where will this funding come from.
(2) How does the Seasonal Worker Program differ from the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme.
(3) Which countries are included in the:
(a) Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme; and
(b) Seasonal Worker Program.
(4) Can copies of all signed Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) relating to the Seasonal Worker Program be provided.
(5) In regard to Nauru and Tuvalu, detailed separately:
(a) what is the current state of discussions in relation to an MOU;
(b) when did discussions commence; and
(c) when is the MOU expected to be signed.
(6) Was an evaluation report completed for the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme; if so, can a copy be provided; if not, why not.
(7) Can details be provided of the 'small scale, three year trial arrangements with cotton and cane growers, aquaculture ventures and accommodation providers in the tourism industry', including how these industries were selected to be part of the trial.
(8) What selection criteria are employers required to satisfy in order to be an 'approved employer'.
(9) How many applications by companies seeking to be an 'approved employer' have been: (a) received; (b) approved; and (c) denied, including the reason(s) for denial.
(1) The funding allocated to the Seasonal Worker Program will be spent on administering the program, technical and capacity building assistance for countries participating in the Seasonal Worker Program, and financial literacy training and other training to support seasonal workers' effective participation in the Program. Funding of $21.7 million has been allocated, which is offset from relevant departments and agencies as well as from Official Development Assistance funds.
(2) The Seasonal Worker Program differs from the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in the following ways:
(3) (a) East Timor, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have been invited to participate in the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme. (b)East Timor, Kiribati, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have been invited to participate in the Seasonal Worker Program.
(4) MOU for the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme between the Australian Government and the governments of East Timor, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu have been signed. The text of these MOU is available at:
http://www.deewr.gov.au/Employment/Programs/PSWPS/Pages/Contacts.aspx
(5) Discussions with the governments of Nauru and Tuvalu commenced following the
Prime Minister's announcement of the expansion of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in September 2011. The Australian Government and the government of Tuvalu signed an MOU for the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme in early March 2012. As of 16 March 2012, discussions with the government of Nauru for the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme are continuing.
(6) An evaluation report on the development impacts of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme has been completed. The report is available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/wai/econwp/11-09.html. An evaluation report on the domestic impacts of the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme is nearing completion.
(7) The trial with accommodation, aquaculture, cane and cotton growers will be implemented in selected regions, determined in consultation with key stakeholders. The industries were selected for the trial element of the Seasonal Worker Program given a range of factors, including seasonality, labour force information, expressions of interest from industry, and linkages with economic activity in participating countries.
(8) The selection criteria can be found in the Request for Expression of Interest Form at: http://www.deewr.gov.au/Employment/Programs/PSWPS/Pages/ApprovedEmployers.aspx.
(9) As of Friday 16 March 2012, the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has received applications from 61 separate entities seeking to become an Approved Employer. Of these applications:
(1) Following a letter dated 17 March 2011 from the Minister to the Member for Forrest, which stated that 'My Department, together with a number of other Government agencies, is currently reviewing the issues faced by individuals remaining in Australia long term as temporary residents. In this context concerns raised by Retirement visa holders, and possible options for resolution, are being given due consideration':
(a) has any continuing work been undertaken by the department in relation to this matter; if so, can details of this work be provided; and
(b) what further work is planned by the department.
(2) Has the department accepted the feasibility of any of the 'alternative scenarios' of the Australian Government Actuary (AGA) report into the estimated costs of 410 retirement visa holders gaining a pathway to permanent residence; if so, which scenarios.
(3) How has the AGA report been used since its publication to 'help inform Government discussions', as mentioned in a letter from the department to British ExPat Retirees in Australia (BERIA) in June 2010.
(4) What feedback has the department received on the issue of permanent residence for 410 retirement visa holders from 'other Government agencies, retirement visa holders and their representatives, including organisations such as BERIA', as mentioned in a letter from the department to BERIA in June 2010.
(1) (a) Yes, my Department is continuing to contribute to work on this issue with a range of other agencies as any decision to alter arrangements for long term temporary residents may have significant cost implications across portfolios. Decisions regarding this matter would need to be considered by Government in a budget context. As the work is continuing I am unable to provide details of the Department's work.
(b) The Department will continue to work with other agencies to advise the Government on this matter.
(2) The Department would not presume to question the professional opinion of the Australian Government Actuary (AGA) by making judgements about the feasibility or otherwise of the alternative scenarios costed.
The report summarises work undertaken by the AGA to develop a model of the potential direct costs to the Commonwealth of providing permanent residence to Retirement visa holders after 10 years on the visa and discusses the various assumptions used in developing this model. As stated in the report, various scenarios were included in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of outcomes with slightly different assumptions in relation to health cost inflation and mortality.
(3) As indicated in a letter sent to BERIA in June 2011, this report was one of many sources of information used to inform discussions about development of a pathway to permanent residence for these visa holders. For example, this report enabled staff in my Department to develop a better understanding of the factors to be taken into account in developing a costing, the basis for various assumptions and the relative sensitivity of outcomes to changes in these assumptions.
(4) In addition to an alternative costing model developed by BERIA the Government did receive some feedback from Retirement visa holders and their supporters concerned at what they perceived as issues or deficiencies with the report. For example, concerns were raised over not including scenarios which used various alternative assumptions regarding the take-up rate of permanent residence. This was, however, considered unnecessary as indicative figures could be calculated using the modelling outcomes without the need for this work to be undertaken by the AGA.
Per month, what is the total cost incurred through the use of hire cars associated with the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre.
The cost per month for the lease of four (4) cars for use by departmental staff at the Pontville Immigration Detention Centre is $5,447 GST exclusive.
A total of $29,414 GST exclusive has been incurred from August 2011 to February 2012. Of this, $2,178 has been incurred in the lead up to the Pontville opening and for a few weeks while Leaseplan vehicles were being organised.
With reference to the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative:
(1) Can a list be provided detailing all grants provided to the Government of Kiribati under the initiative, including the purpose of each grant.
(2) Have any of these grants been provided for national summits; if so, can details be provided, including:
(a) when the summit took place;
(b) the total number of attendees;
(c) the names of those who participated;
(d) the outcomes of the summit;
(e) whether Australia sent facilitators; and
(f) whether reports were provided to the Australian Government.
(1) Under the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, the following two grants have been provided to the Government of Kiribati:
(i) $250,000 to support the national summit on the Kiribati National Climate Change Framework.
The Government of Kiribati requested support from Australia to hold consultations on their National Climate Change Framework, which was provided by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) in conjunction with AusAID.
(ii) $51,000 to support attendance at the Kiribati side event at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in November and December 2009.
The side event provided an opportunity for the Government of Kiribati to influence the international climate change debate by raising awareness of the challenges faced by island nations like Kiribati. It also provided a forum for sharing knowledge and lessons learned by the Government of Kiribati through implementation of their climate change adaptation programs.
(2) Yes, for the national summit on the Kiribati National Climate Change Framework, as outlined in response (1)(i) above.
(a) 16-20 May 2011.
(b) Approximately 300 people attended.
(c) Attendees included representatives from the majority of Kiribati's outer islands, consisting of community leaders and officials, non-government and faith-based organisation representatives, women and youth. The President of Kiribati, HE Anote Tong, opened the summit. An official from DCCEE was invited and attended three days of the summit. AusAID officials from Australia's High Commission in Kiribati were present.
(d) The summit informed the development of the draft National Climate Change Framework and the next Kiribati Development Plan 2012-2015, which are currently subject to approval by the Government of Kiribati. The summit increased awareness and understanding about climate change, and how it relates to existing development priorities. Australia's assistance also enabled the development of Island Resilience Reports, in both English and Kiribati, which will assist island communities in identifying climate change impacts and adaptation measures.
(e) The Kiribati Office of the President invited an official from DCCEE to attend the summit. The DCCEE representative assisted in preparations for the summit.
(f) The Government of Kiribati has provided a post-activity report to DCCEE.
With reference to the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative:
(1) Can a list be provided detailing all grants provided to the Government of Kiribati under the initiative, including the purpose of each grant.
(2) Have any of these grants been provided for national summits; if so, can details be provided, including:
(a) when the summit took place;
(b) the total number of attendees;
(c) the names of those who participated;
(d) the outcomes of the summit;
(e) whether Australia sent facilitators; and
(f) whether reports were provided to the Australian Government.
(1) Under the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, the following two grants have been provided to the Government of Kiribati:
(i) $250,000 to support the national summit on the Kiribati National Climate Change Framework.
The Government of Kiribati requested support from Australia to hold consultations on their National Climate Change Framework, which was provided by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) in conjunction with AusAID.
(ii) $51,000 to support attendance at the Kiribati side event at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen in November and December 2009.
The side event provided an opportunity for the Government of Kiribati to influence the international climate change debate by raising awareness of the challenges faced by island nations like Kiribati. It also provided a forum for sharing knowledge and lessons learned by the Government of Kiribati through implementation of their climate change adaptation programs.
(2) Yes, for the national summit on the Kiribati National Climate Change Framework, as outlined in response (1)(i) above.
(a) 16-20 May 2011.
(b) Approximately 300 people attended.
(c) Attendees included representatives from the majority of Kiribati's outer islands, consisting of community leaders and officials, non-government and faith-based organisation representatives, women and youth. The President of Kiribati, HE Anote Tong, opened the summit. An official from DCCEE was invited and attended three days of the summit. AusAID officials from Australia's High Commission in Kiribati were present.
(d) The summit informed the development of the draft National Climate Change Framework and the next Kiribati Development Plan 2012-15, which are currently subject to approval by the Government of Kiribati. The summit increased awareness and understanding about climate change, and how it relates to existing development priorities. Australia's assistance also enabled the development of Island Resilience Reports, in both English and Kiribati, which will assist island communities in identifying climate change impacts and adaptation measures.
(e) The Kiribati Office of the President invited an official from DCCEE to attend the summit. The DCCEE representative assisted in preparations for the summit.
(f) The Government of Kiribati has provided a post-activity report to DCCEE.
(1) Can details be provided of all resources committed by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, as well as known contributions from other agencies, towards the return to Australia of three protesters who boarded the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru No. 2 in January 2012.
(2) What was the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service's total expenditure on this exercise.
(1) The Australian Customs and Border Protection Vessel Ocean Protector was tasked to divert from its fisheries enforcement patrol to retrieve the three activists and transfer them to the mainland. This operation lasted for nine days. The Agency fulfilled its role using existing Customs and Border Protection staff who are dedicated on an ongoing basis to maritime surveillance and response activities. Customs and Border Protection does not have details about other agencies contributions.
(2) The retrieval had direct additional costs to Customs and Border Protection of $155,000. This included costs for fuel, berthage and support services. This is in addition to the normal operating costs of the ACV Ocean Protector during the nine-day period, which were approximately $906,000. Due to the retrieval, nine days were lost to Customs and Border Protection in their fisheries enforcement patrol in the Southern Ocean.
With reference to the Radiocommunications Class Licence for wireless audio devices:
(1) Once a decision has been made in respect to changes to the class licence, how would typical users of wireless audio equipment, such as a teacher, priest, aerobics instructor, guitarist or small businessperson, find out exactly what spectrum the device they own uses.
(2) Based on the department's current modelling, how many wireless audio devices will become:
(a) non-compliant with the class licence; and
(b) unusable due to digital restack.
(3) Does the department have any advice as to whether there will be sufficient new stock of compliant wireless audio devices in Australia to replace all of the non-compliant devices prior to the switchover date.
(4) What is the expected economic impact on Australia if the current fleet of wireless audio devices is not replaced.
(5) What will the typical user's options be if their wireless audio device is no longer compliant.
(6) What kind of compliance action would typical users of wireless audio equipment be open to if they fail to replace their non-compliant equipment prior to the amendment of the class licence.
(7) Has the department increased its budget for compliance enforcement in respect to wireless audio devices for the period following the changeover date.
Transferred to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, on 22 February 2012.
(1) Information about the frequency or frequencies used by a given device is typically listed in the product specifications on product packaging, or in a product's instruction manual. Details and technical specifications for many devices are also available online, including on manufacturers' websites, or by contacting the manufacturer(s) directly.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has developed a website, available at www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_312475, specifically designed to assist wireless audio device users in understanding the frequencies their devices currently operate within, and those they will be required to operate within the future. It is updated regularly, and wireless audio device users are encouraged to visit the website. Contact details for further assistance are also available on the website.
(2) (a) and (b) The usability and compliance of wireless audio devices will be dependent on the frequencies in which they operate post-restack. The restack planning process is underway. The frequencies that will be used following restack have not been finalised, and the amount of change that will occur cannot be quantified.
(3) It is the ACMA's usual practice to communicate upcoming changes to licensing arrangements well in advance of anticipated variations, so that manufacturers are able to provide equipment in good time for new arrangements to come into effect.
Once the restack planning process is complete, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy will meet with equipment manufacturers to discuss the availability of wireless audio devices compliant with anticipated variations to the Radiocommunications Class Licence (Low Interference Potential Devices) 2000 (the 'LIPD class licence').
(4) As noted in the answer to Question 2 (above), the frequencies that will be used following restack have not been finalised, and the amount of change that will occur as a result of this decision cannot be quantified.
(5) The ACMA advises that when anticipated variations to the LIPD class licence come into effect, users of existing wireless microphone systems will be required to retune their devices to operate within the new frequency range(s), replace their existing equipment with devices compatible with the new frequency range(s), or cease transmission.
(6) Prior to amendments to the LIPD class licence, users of existing wireless microphone devices may choose to retune or replace their existing equipment, in anticipation of changes to the LIPD class licence coming into effect.
Should non-compliant wireless devices remain in operation after amendments to the LIPD class licence take effect, compliance enforcement action is handled by the ACMA in accordance with a 'complaints based' approach, initiated upon ACMA receipt of a formal complaint. In response to a complaint, the ACMA can take a number of actions including issuing a request to cease transmission.
(7) The ACMA is the agency responsible for radiofrequency spectrum compliance and enforcement activities, and will maintain this capability going forward. The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy is not funded to undertake this activity.
(1) For each of the financial years 2008 09, 2009-10, 2010 11, and for the period 1 July 2011 to 1 February 2012:
(a) how many private ruling applications has the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) received;
(b) how many private rulings were approved;
(c) can a breakdown be provided detailing the private ruling applications in terms of small business, large business and individuals;
(d) can a breakdown be provided detailing the private ruling applications by state;
(e) how many applications have been resolved within:
(i) 28 days, and
(ii) 60 days; and
(f) how many bankruptcy, insolvency and receivership proceedings have been instigated by the ATO.
(2) Is the ATO limiting payment plans to 2 years; if so, why.
(1) (a) Private ruling applications received:
*The number of private ruling applications received are indicative numbers only as:
An application may be initially classified as a private ruling but may then be reclassified as another type (for example, interpretative guidance) or visa versa. The misclassification generally arises for requests that come in via general correspondence rather than via the ATO private rulings form
A private ruling application may come in via a tax agent and be counted as one receipt. However, if the application contains the details of multiple taxpayers it can be actioned as multiple applications
Multiple applications received from entities of a corporate group can be actioned as one application
An application received from a family business could be actioned separately for the company and individual directors.
(b) Private rulings approved:
Approved rulings are rulings that have been approved by an authorised officer before being issued and do not include private ruling applications that were finalised as withdrawn, decline to rule, invalid or no further action.
Further description:
Withdrawn – application withdrawn at taxpayer's discretion
Refuse to rule – the Commissioner declines to rule based on reasons as defined by legislation, for example, prejudice or undue restriction on the administration of taxation law
Invalid – the application did not meet the requirements of a valid application, for example, it did not identify the entity to whom the ruling applies. The ATO assists taxpayers to make a valid application wherever possible
No further action – various reasons, for example, other guidance products may have been provided to satisfy the request or a request may have been incorrectly classified as a ruling.
(c) Private ruling applications finalised by market segment (micro, small and medium, large):
Table includes all private ruling cases (including cases that are withdrawn, decline to rule, invalid or no further action).
* Micro enterprises = businesses with an annual turnover under $2 million.
** Small and medium enterprises = business with an annual turnover of $2 million to $250 million.
*** Large businesses = corporate groups with an annual turnover above $250 million.
****Includes Not For Profit and Government
(d) Private ruling applications finalised by requestor's state:
Table includes all private ruling cases. Table includes all private ruling cases (including cases that are withdrawn, decline to rule, invalid or no further action).
*Unknowns are overseas clients or those not yet in the Australian tax system (for example, minors).
**State break downs are not available for 2008-09 from the legacy case management system.
(e) Private rulings finalised within 28 and 60 elapsed days:
Private rulings finalised within 28 days of receiving all information or for complex work by the negotiated due date:
(f) The numbers of personal bankruptcies and company wind-ups initiated by the ATO):
These figures represent the number of bankruptcies and wind-ups initiated by the ATO. They do not include instances where the ATO commenced bankruptcy or wind-up proceedings which were subsequently discontinued. For example, where the taxpayer makes a significant payment or enters into a satisfactory payment plan.
The ATO takes a balanced approach to managing debt based on a consideration of taxpayers' individual circumstances, including their lodgment and payment history and capacity to pay. The ATO supports and assists taxpayers willing to work with the ATO, while taking a firm approach in relation to those taxpayers who do not.
Business viability is an important consideration in determining the appropriate collection action.
As a result of the focus on business viability, ATO initiated wind-ups have increased. However they still represent only a small proportion of total wind-ups and the decision to initiate wind-up action is only taken after other courses of action have been exhausted.
The ATO has not instigated any receivership proceedings in 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 or 2011-12 as at 31 Jan 2012.
(2) Is the ATO limiting payment plans to 2 years; if so, why?
The ATO is not limiting payment plans to two years. The terms of any payment plan, including its length, are negotiated by the ATO and the taxpayer (or their authorised representative) based on a consideration of the taxpayer's individual circumstances.
Given that on 5 January 2012 Terrance Briscoe, an Aboriginal man, died in the Alice Springs watch-house after being arrested for drunkenness, and that the investigation into his death is being carried out by the Northern Territory Coroner, Greg Cavanagh, while the police are responsible for collecting all evidence and witness statements:
(1) Is the Minister aware of: (a) calls for an independent investigation into the death of Terrence Briscoe while in police custody; and (b) a letter sent to the Minister on 2 February 2012.
(2) Is the Minister aware that in Queensland, following three inquests into the death of Mulrunji Doomadgee, the Coroner rather than the police now investigates deaths in custody.
(3) Will the Minister commit to ensuring that investigations into deaths in custody will no longer be undertaken by police where police are involved.
(4) Is the Minister aware that, 20 years after the release of the report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the majority of the Royal Commission's recommendations have not been fully implemented; if so, what does the Minister intend to do to address this.
Investigation of deaths in custody is the responsibility of the coroner's court and investigation teams within police and corrective services within each jurisdiction. I am not in a position to comment on individual cases.
I am aware that there have been calls for an independent investigation into the death in custody of Mr Briscoe. However, this is a decision for the Northern Territory Government. I received a letter on 2 February 2012 from the National Police Accountability Network of the National Association for Community Legal Centres on this issue, to which I am responding.
My Department has agreed to participate in a survey of the implementation of the Royal Commission's recommendations across jurisdictions, being lead by the NSW Aboriginal Legal Service (ALS). The NSW ALS is expected to release its findings in the near future. A special edition of the Australian Indigenous Law Review (which is financially supported by AGD) is being published in 2012 on the 20th Anniversary of the Royal Commission. I understand that it will include articles from a range of contributors on the impact of the Royal Commission and the issues it raised. My Department will consider the findings of both of these reviews once they are released.
With reference to the Gondwana Rainforests of Australia World Heritage Area:
(1) On what grounds was the classification of World Heritage not deemed to be a controlling provision for the Metgasco Limited Casino Ipswich Gas Pipeline (EPBC ref. 2007/3877).
(2) What steps did the department take in order to satisfy itself that World Heritage was not required to be a controlling provision in this matter.
The delegate in this matter determined World Heritage values not to be a controlling provision for assessment of this proposal, because no likely significant impacts to those values were identified. A major consideration in reaching this conclusion was that the proposed pipeline route is within an existing road reserve, and the pipeline would be buried for its entire length with only the mainline valves being above ground.
The proponent has proposed mitigation measures, such as weed control and ensuring all actions are undertaken within the existing road reserve, to minimise potential significant impacts on World Heritage values. The future assessment of this proposal will further examine the likely significant impacts on listed threatened species known or likely to occur along the route of the pipeline, including the Eastern Bristlebird and Hastings River Mouse.
With reference to an article in Ashcroft 2012 Reflections & Insight dated 1 January 2012, headed 'Australia Post is up to no good with Clause 22!', can Australia Post provide: (a) a detailed response to the matters raised in the article; and (b) an explanation for its conduct surrounding these matters.
As this matter is still the subject of confidential negotiations between Australia Post and the Licensee it would be inappropriate to make any public comment on the article in question. However, Australia Post has advised it has no plans to withdraw postal services from the Vaucluse community and has kept the Member for Wentworth, the Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP, abreast of the situation.
(1) Is the department aware of its obligations under section 11C of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the Act) in relation to the freedom of information disclosure log.
(2) Why do some documents mentioned in the disclosure log appear with the message, 'This document is not currently available for download. Please contact 1300 363 079 to request a copy'.
(3) Is the department in receipt of any advice suggesting that documents may not be published and can be substituted with a message.
(4) Why has the department failed to satisfy section 11C of the Act.
(1) The department is aware of its obligations under section 11C of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act) in relation to the freedom of information disclosure log.
(2) Sub-section 11C(3) of the FOI Act provides that with respect to the obligation to publish information in accessed documents, "the agency, or the Minister, must publish the information to members of the public generally on a website by:
(a) making the information available for downloading from the website; or
(b) publishing on the website a link to another website, from which the information can be downloaded; or
(c) publishing on the website other details of how the information may be obtained."
The department complies with sub-section 11C(3) of the FOI Act by publishing documents in an accessible format or linking to another website (where possible) and where this is not possible, or impractical, by complying with paragraph 11C(3)(c) i.e. listing the information in the disclosure log and giving details of how the information may be obtained. Where a request is made for a document listed on the disclosure log, the document is then converted into an accessible format and published to the disclosure log.
(3) The department is not in receipt of any advice suggesting that documents may not be published and can be substituted with a message. The department relies on the plain meaning of paragraph 11C(3)(c) to underpin its approach to the disclosure log.
(4) The department has satisfied its obligations under section 11C of the FOI Act.
(1) Can the Minister advise how the Australian Government is discharging its World Heritage obligations in relation to managing Fraser Island.
(2) Did the Commonwealth Government provide any funding for Stage 1 of the Fraser Island Dingo Population Study, and is it providing any funding for Stage 2 of the study.
(3) When is the Stage 2 report due, and what caused the delay given that the Stage 1 report states its expected publication was July 2011.
(4) Does the Minister or department have a role in agreeing to and/or approving the Fraser Island dingo management strategy, and when will the strategy next be reviewed.
(5) Given that the Fraser Island Dingo Population Study was intended to inform the Fraser Island dingo management strategy on an ongoing basis, can the Minister advise how the findings of current studies are being incorporated in a timely fashion into the Fraser Island dingo management strategy, and/or operational procedures in managing the island.
(1) The Australian Government discharges its World Heritage Obligations in relation to managing Fraser Island through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) in which world heritage is afforded protection as a matter of national environmental significance. The 'matter protected' in relation to declared world heritage properties is the world heritage values of the property.
The Australian Government also works with the Queensland Government on the protection of the world heritage values of Fraser Island through the Fraser Island world heritage advisory committees. The day-to-day management of Fraser Island is undertaken by Queensland Parks and Wildlife.
(2) The Australian Government did not provide funding for the Fraser Island Dingo Population Study for either Stage 1 or 2.
(3) The Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) has advised that the Stage 2 preliminary report is due from the University of Queensland before the end of this financial year.
DERM has also advised that the timeframe for the final Stage 2 report was extended to allow the scientists additional time to finalise the statistical modelling.
(4) The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) supported the draft Dingo Management Strategy through its membership on the Fraser Island World Heritage Management Committee.
The strategy was reviewed in 2006. Further review of the strategy is not currently scheduled, and is a matter for the Queensland Government to determine.
(5) The findings of the study are used by the Queensland Government in its day-to-day management and will be incorporated into the Dingo Management Strategy. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities receives regular updates on the population study and the strategy via the Fraser Island world heritage advisory committees.
Future decisions relating to the strategy and operational management of Fraser Island are a matter for the Queensland Government.
With reference to coal seam gas exploration in the Pilliga Forest, and given that it is the largest temperate woodland left in eastern Australia, arguably a perfect example of an 'ecosystem of national significance': In the upcoming reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:
(a) will the Government open up the proposed new trigger of 'ecosystems of national significance' to public nominations, thereby enabling areas such as the Pilliga Forest to receive due recognition; and
(b) if not, will the Government undertake an assessment of the Pilliga Forest for potential classification as an 'ecosystem of national significance' if the reforms are implemented.
(a) The Government stands by its response to Recommendation 8 of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, that: "Ecosystems of national significance will be identified through strategic approaches, and there will be no separate public nomination process."
(b) As stated in the Australian Government's response to Recommendation 8 of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999: “Ecosystems of national significance will be identified, spatially defined and assessed through one of the following strategic approaches: regional environment plans, strategic assessments, or conservation agreements with the states and territories.”
As the reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 have yet to be considered by the Parliament, it would be premature to identify particular areas for consideration as ecosystems of national significance.
Does the Minister consider that Fair Work Australia's investigation into the Health Services Union has taken an unreasonable amount of time.
The General Manager of Fair Work Australia, an independent statutory office holder, is responsible for the conduct of the investigations into the Health Services Union.
I note however that at the recent Additional Estimates hearings the then Acting General Manager acknowledged “that on the face of it the inquiries and subsequent investigations have taken an unreasonably long time”. To that end, the Acting General Manager announced that KPMG will be undertaking an independent review into the conduct of the investigations and that the outcome of the KPMG review will be made public.
As the investigations are completely independent of the Government, the Government will consider the findings of the KPMG review before deciding whether to comment publicly on this matter.
With reference to the Minister's response to a question without notice on 27 February 2012 (Senate Hansard, proof p. 22), what components of the protected wild rivers of south-west Queensland fail to warrant protection under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as having 'national environmental significance'.
Queensland's Wild Rivers Act 2005 aims to preserve the natural values of wild rivers by providing for declarations of rivers as 'wild' and then regulating future development activities within the declared wild river and its catchment area.
In wild river areas, projects such as in-stream dams and weirs, surface mining, and intensive agriculture are subject to restrictions. Low impact activities such as small-scale commercial fishing, ecotourism, and sustainable industries are permitted with Queensland Government approval.
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) protects matters of national environmental significance:
The EPBC Act operates independently of Queensland's Wild Rivers legislation.
Under the EPBC Act, actions that have, or are likely to have, a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance require approval from the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the minister).
Matters other than matters of national environmental significance are not protected under the EPBC Act except in relation to actions proposed on, or that will affect, Commonwealth land and actions proposed by Commonwealth agencies, where the matter protected is the environment.
As at 31 December 2011, how many:
(a) permanent uniformed staff, both part-time and full time; and
(b) civilian staff, both part time and full time, were in each of the service areas (i.e. army, navy, and air force).
(a) As at 31 December 2011, the following permanent part-time and full time uniformed staff were in each of the three Service areas;
(b) As at 31 December 2011, the following part time and full time civilians were in each of the three service areas;
Navy, 846
Army, 1,206
Air Force, 912
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many uniformed full time, permanent personnel were recruited to each of the service areas (i.e. army, navy and air force).
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the following uniformed full time, permanent personnel were recruited into each service;
Navy, 440
Army, 1075
Air Force, 134
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many temporary civilian positions, both full time and part time, were created in the department, in the Defence Materiel Organisation and in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the following temporary civilian positions, both full time and part time, were created (averaged over the period):
1 Over the same period DMO inactivated 58 temporary positions, so there is no change to the overall number of temporary positions in the DMO.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many temporary civilian positions, including part time, existed in the department, in the Defence Materiel Organisation and in the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the following temporary civilian positions, including part time, existed (averaged over the period):
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many civilian employees, including full time and part time, were employed on contract and at what levels of remuneration.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the following civilian employees, including full time and part time, were employed on contract with the associated levels of remuneration;
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what was the average cost in recruiting each new uniformed person into each of the service areas (i.e. army, navy and air force).
The simple average cost per recruit for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $23,514 per recruit across Navy, Army and Air Force.
This is a simple average based on the total expenditure by Defence Force Recruiting in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 ($63.557 million) divided by the total number of uniformed personnel recruited to the Australian Defence Force through Defence Force Recruiting in this period (2,703).
While ceremonial activities and community based activities have an indirect benefit to recruitment, they are not classified as direct recruitment costs and as such are not included in these costs.
What was the total expenditure on recruiting for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011.
The total direct expenditure by Defence Force Recruiting on recruitment into the Australian Defence Force in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $63.557 million.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how much was paid to the Australian Defence Force prime recruiting agency for the provision of services.
The total amount paid to Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd for the provision of Australian Defence Force recruiting services in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011 was $31.449 million.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications':
(1) As at 31 December 2011, how many uniformed personnel, full time and part time, were employed.
(2) As at 1 July and 31 December 2011, how many uniformed personnel were employed on the projects.
(1) As at 31 December 2011, there were 58,034 full-time and part-time permanent uniformed personnel employed. This number, like the workforce data detailed in the Strategic Reform Program Indicative Workforce Implications, reflects full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
(2) The Government provisioned an additional 1,375 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2011-12 under the White Paper, as reflected in the Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen booklet and updated at Table 2.14 of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11.
This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The personnel ranged from sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper projects and initiatives being actioned, including through the Strategic Reform Program.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper project.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce':
(1) As at 31 December 2011, how many civilian personnel, full time and part time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.
(2) As at 1 July and 31 December 2011:
(a) how many civilian personnel were employed; and
(b) in what programs.
(1) and (2) (a)-(b) The Government provisioned an additional 1,556 civilian personnel (Defence inclusive of the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2011-12 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen and updated at Table 2.14 of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11. This provision applied on both 1 July and 31 December 2011.
The workforce data detailed in both publications are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
This workforce has been allocated across all Defence Groups to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan.
These Australian Public Service personnel ranged from junior to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper initiatives being actioned.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper initiative.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many uniformed personnel, including full time and part time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives.
The Government provisioned an additional 1,375 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2011-12 under the White Paper, as reflected in the Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen booklet and updated at Table 2.14 of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11.
The workforce data detailed in both publications are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The personnel ranged from sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper projects and initiatives being actioned, including through the Strategic Reform Program.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper project.
In relation to the overall military workforce, over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the Defence military workforce decreased from 58,861 full-time equivalent average uniformed personnel to 58,034, and the overall average over the period was 58,335.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what reduction has there been in the number of personnel, including full time and part time, employed in implementing:
(a) efficiency improvements;
(b) civilianisation; and
(c) support productivity improvements.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications - Military Workforce', for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) Implementation of the improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, which includes shared services initiatives and business improvement within Groups and Services, has led to a reduction of 24 military positions, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS), in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011;
(b) Civilianisation is part of the workforce reform element of workforce shared services reform and forms part of Defence's move to establish the best workforce mix of its non-combat-related workforce and to have the military workforce primarily undertake combat or combat related roles. A phased implementation has realised 50 AFS in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011.
(c) With regards to implementing the support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was no reduction in the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed. The support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program is a continuous improvement plan scheduled to commence in financial year 2014-15, following on from the completed implementation of the other workforce and shared services components of the Strategic Reform Program.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': As at 31 December 2011, what increase or reduction has there been in civilian personnel employed, full time and part time, in the department and in the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) since 1 July 2008.
The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers for each financial year.
On 30 July 2008 Defence (including DMO) employed 20,439 full-time equivalent average APS personnel and approximately 704 contractors (noting that contractor reporting mechanisms were not mature in July 2008). As at 31 December 2011, Defence (including DMO) was employing 21,891 full-time equivalent average APS personnel and 416 contractors.
This represents an increase in APS personnel of +1,452 (+7.1 per cent), and a reduction in contractors of approximately -288 (-40.9 per cent) since 1 July 2008. Of these overall changes, the APS increase in Defence was +881 (+5.9 per cent) while in DMO it was +571 (+10.5 per cent). The number of contractors in Defence decreased by -138 (-27.7 per cent) while in DMO they decreased by -150 (-72.8 per cent).
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many personnel, including full time and part time, were employed as Australian Public Service staff or contractors.
The workforce data detailed in the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications' are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
Over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, the Defence civilian workforce increased from 21,296 full-time equivalent average APS personnel and 408 contractors, to 21,891 full-time equivalent average APS personnel and 416 contractors.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many Australian Public Service staff or contractors, including full time and part time, were employed on White Paper/SRP initiatives.
The Government provisioned an additional 1,556 civilian personnel (in Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation, including Australian Public Service staff and contractors) for 2011-12 under the White Paper, as reflected in the publication The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen and updated at Table 2.14 of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11.
When staff savings resulting from the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) are accounted for, the net White Paper/SRP total reflected in the Defence Annual Report 2010-11 reduces to 1,261.
The workforce data detailed in The Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen and the Defence Annual Report 2010-11 are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers. Using the full-time equivalent (FTE) approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall quantity.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what reduction has there been in the number of Australian Public Service staff or contractors employed in implementing:
(a) efficiency improvements;
(b) civilianisation;
(c) support productivity improvements; and
(d) contractor conversion (reduction to contractors).
(a) with regards to implementing the efficiency improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was a reduction of 115 in the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed;
(b) with regards to implementing the civilianisation component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was no reduction in the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed. The civilianisation program will see growth to the Australian Public Service (APS) to equalise the reductions to Military personnel.
(c) with regards to implementing the support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was no reduction in the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed. The support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program is a continuous improvement plan scheduled to commence in financial year 2014-15, following on from the completed implementation of the other workforce and shared services components of the Strategic Reform Program; and
(d) with regards to implementing the contractor conversion component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was a reduction of 74 contractor positions in the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, and an increase of 171 APS full time equivalent. The increase in APS is associated with a lag in filling positions previously vacated by contractors in the previous year.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Civilian Workforce': As at 31 December 2011, what increase or reduction has there been in full-time and part-time Australian Public Service staff or contractors employed since 1 July 2008.
The information sought is contained in the response to Senate Question on Notice 1589.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) how many fully qualified personnel are 'Dolphin Qualified' and permanently employed in the Royal Australian Navy to operate submarines; and
(b) how many 'Dolphin Qualified' personnel were tasked with other duties and what were these duties.
(a) As at 31 December 2011, there were a total of 569 submarine-qualified personnel, 501 of which were Collins submarine qualified. The remainder included Oberon-qualified personnel and others who, though qualified, had taken up different career paths in Navy; however, still have the capacity to serve in some submarine support roles.
(b) There were 48 Collins submarine qualified personnel employed in other duties, including administration, operations, maintenance, logistics and personnel management roles. A number of these personnel have withdrawn their volunteer status for service in Collins submarines. Others have reached ranks for which there are no positions in the Submarine Force (for example, Petty Officer Cooks and Stewards).
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many personnel fully completed training courses and became 'Dolphin Qualified' and eligible to serve on submarines.
Thirty three personnel completed training and became submarine-qualified during the period 1 July to 31 December 2011.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, how many personnel completed training courses and became 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine.
As the Submarine Command Course ('Perisher') is run annually in the Netherlands during the first half of each year, no personnel became 'Perisher-Qualified' over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011. There are two Australian submariners on the current course.
As at 31 December 2011, how many Royal Australian Navy personnel were 'Perisher Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine.
As at 31 December 2011, 16 Royal Australian Navy officers of the ranks Lieutenant Commander and Commander were 'Perisher-Qualified' and eligible to command a submarine.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, which submarines were undergoing maintenance / refit programs and for what length of time.
Over the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, submarines undergoing maintenance / refit programs were as follows:
(i) HMAS Collins was completing a planned certification extension docking, which concluded on 18 August 2011. The submarine continued unscheduled maintenance until 21 October 2011.
(ii) HMAS Farncomb commenced a planned intermediate maintenance availability on 16 November 2011, which was ongoing for the remainder of the period.
(iii) HMAS Waller commenced a planned mid-cycle docking on 13 September 2011, which was ongoing for the remainder of the period. From 4 July to 13 September 2011, Waller was conducting mid cycle docking preparations.
(iv) HMAS Dechaineux conducted unscheduled maintenance from 5 to 9 August 2011.
(v) HMAS Sheean was conducting a planned full cycle docking throughout.
(vi) HMAS Rankin was conducting a planned full cycle docking throughout.
(1) Given that video communications are integrated into robots, soldiers and unmanned aerial vehicles, network centric warfare is becoming the organising principle of war fighting, and frontline demands for bandwidth are rising at a rapid rate, for the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, what did the Australian Defence Force do and how much did it spend on:
(a) establishing a network centric warfare capability; and
(b) addressing the issue of increased bandwidth?
Network Centric Warfare Capability Policy and Plans
(1) A similar question has previously been asked under Senate Question on Notice No.760 for the period 1 January to 30 June 2011 and a response was provided. The response to this question provides updated information for the requested period of 1 July to 31 December 2011 and should also be read in conjunction with the response to Senate Question on Notice No.484, which covered the period 1 July to 31 December 2010. Defence was engaged in the following network centric warfare activities from 1 July to 31 December 2011.
Network Centric Capability and Increased Bandwidth
On the matter of increasing bandwidth, Defence was engaged in the following activities from 1 July to 30 December 2011.
- Phase 2 - Risk reduction program for the implementation of Variable Message Format (VMF) into the F/A-18A/B 'Classic' Hornet has been completed. Around $6.5 million has been spent on this program.
- Phase 2B - Implementation of VMF into the F/A-18A/B 'Classic' Hornet continues. Around $12 million has been spent on this program in the period.
- Phase 2A - Implementation of advanced Tactical Data Links (comprising of Link 16 and VMF) into the ANZAC Class frigate and shore facilities. Around $41 million has been spent on this program in the period.
- Phase 2A - Implementation of an Initial Common Support Infrastructure as a Proof of Capability to manage the NCW networks. Around $15 million has been spent on this program.
The DMO Tactical Information Exchange Integration Office (TIEIO), operating the Australian Defence Force Tactical Data Link Authority (ADFTA), has been providing technical and engineering integration support to the ADF TIED and NCW objectives (approximately $5.0 million in the period).
- Phase 3F - Defence continues the development of a long term satellite ground station capability on the Australian West coast ($7.2 million);
- Phase 3H - Delivered trial equipment to enable a trial of an advanced modulation technology that may allow more efficient and flexible use of Australia's WGS capacity ($4.2 million).
- Phase 4 - continued milestone payments for the sixth Wideband Global SATCOM satellite ($41.073 million); and
- Phase 5A - Defence continued the acquisition of an Ultra High Frequency payload on the IS-22 commercial satellite over the Indian Ocean Region, which was launched in March, and will become operational later this year ($11.001 million).
- completed the rollout of 400 watt High Frequency (HF) Automatic Link Establishment (ALE) radio systems in a transit case solution to army units ($9.2 million), and
- upgrades to thirteen Black Hawk helicopters with HF ALE capable radios ($7.03 million)
Joint Project 2072 (Battlespace Communications Systems – Land) Phase One, continues to deliver the new generation of Combat Net Radio and Tactical Data Radios from Harris and Raytheon. The Initial Materiel Release milestone was achieved in June 2011 with the majority of equipment and vehicle installations to occur throughout 2012 ($58 million). JP2072 Phase 2B is currently tendering a communications capability for deployed headquarters that includes network management, as a means of more effectively managing increased bandwidth requirements.
Communications Architecture
In addition to increasing bandwidth, Defence is pursuing means to better use the available bandwidth through Network Optimisation protocols, improved integration and aggregation of services and the use of Cross Domain Solutions.
(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, for each agency within the responsibility of the Minister, how much was spent on media monitoring.
(2) As at 1 July and 31 December 2011:
(a) how many staff, uniformed and civilian, full time and part time, were employed in public relations and/or the media in the department or each agency within the responsibility of the Minister;
(b) what were the position levels of these staff; and
(c) how many of these staff were: (i) permanent, (ii) temporary, or (iii) contractors.
(1) Department of Defence $331,703 (GST inclusive), Defence Housing Australia $22,641.31 (GST inclusive).
(2) (a) The majority of staff engaged in public affairs roles within the Department of Defence are located in the Communication and Media Branch and Strategic Communication Branch.
As at 1 July 2011 the Communication and Media Branch employed 60 civilians, nine military personnel (including one deployed member) and four contractors.
As at 31 December 2011 the Communication and Media Branch employed 58 civilians, nine military personnel and four contractors.
As at 1 July 2011 Strategic Communication Branch employed 42 permanent military, 21 part-time military and five permanent civilian staff.
As at 31 December 2011 the Strategic Communication Branch employed 41 permanent military, 15 part-time military and five permanent civilian staff.
In addition, as at 1 July 2011, outside of the Communication and Media and Strategic Communication Branches there were a further 36 civilians, 14 military staff and one contractor who provided public affairs support as part of their regular duties within the Defence Groups and Services.
As at 31 December 2011 there were 44 civilians and 14 military personnel.
(2) (b) and (c) Communication and Media Branch
(2) (b) and (c) Strategic Communication Branch
(2) (b) and (c) Personnel outside of the Communication and Media Branch and the Strategic Communication Branch who provided public affairs support as a part of their regular duties within Groups and Services
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, for each agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary:
(a) what communications programs were undertaken or were planned to be undertaken; and
(b) what was the total spend in each communications program.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011, in regard to the department and each agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary:
(1) How many Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were received.
(2) How many FOI requests were granted or denied.
(3) How many conclusive certificates were issued in relation to FOI requests.
(1) During the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011, Defence received 157 FOI Requests.
(2) During the period 1 July 2011 to 31 December 2011, 173 FOI requests were finalised by Defence under section 15 and three under section 48 of the FOI Act. The following table provides a breakdown of these requests:
Section 15 requests Completed
Section 48 requests Completed
(3) Conclusive certificates no longer exist. They were abolished under the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Act 2009.
——————
Notes
1. Where a document is identified and exempted in full, access to the document can be denied, with reference to the relevant exemption provisions of the FOI Act. During the period in question, one denial related to documents to which section 47E certain operations of an agency provisions applied, two denials related to documents to which section 47C deliberative processes provisions applied.
2 Section 24A of the FOI Act provides for requests for access to documents to be refused if the documents cannot be found or do not exist. Access may also be refused if the work involved in processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert resources of an agency. For the period in question, all nine refusals related to documents that did not exist or could not be found.
3 In accordance with section 21 of the FOI Act, where a decision has been made to grant access, a decision maker may defer access to a document for a period of time. There were two such deferrals during this period.
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 2011; and (b) when will the Government respond to the each of these reviews.
(5) As at 31 December 2011, what was the cost of each of these reviews.
Response to Senate Question on Notice No.1500 details reviews that were being conducted or had recently concluded as at 31 January 2012.
As at 31 December 2011:
(1) Is it still planned to acquire 12 submarines as per the White Paper direction 'the Government takes the view that our future strategic circumstances necessitate a substantially expanded submarine fleet of 12 boats in order to sustain a force at sea' (Defence White Paper 2009, p. 64, paragraph 8.40).
(2) What plans and strategies are in place to man the 12 future submarines given the great difficulty, in 2010 11, of manning and operating the current fleet of submarines.
(3) What is the expected cost of acquiring 12 future submarines, over the next:
(a) 12 months;
(b) 5 years;
(c) 10 years; and
(d) 15 years.
(4) What funding has been provided to assist in the planning for the 12 future submarines.
(5) When is it expected that the first pass approval will be provided to advance the purchase of the 12 future submarines.
(6) What are the expected through life support and operating costs of a fleet of 12 future submarines over a 30 year operating period.
(7) When is it envisaged that the first of the 12 future submarines will be launched and fully operational.
(8) What is the expected cost per year of maintaining and operating the existing 6 Collins Class submarines until they are de commissioned, broken down by year until 2025.
(9) What is the specific phasing out program for the existing Collins Class submarines.
(10) What are the projected costs and project time-lines of the Submarine Lifetime Extension Program.
(1). Yes.
(2) Crewing requirements for the future submarines are yet to be determined and will depend on a range of factors that will be examined by the SEA1000 program. Appropriate crewing strategies will be developed as part of this process.
(3) Options are currently being developed and are yet to be considered by government.
(4) Funding allocated to date is $19.377 million.
(5) On current schedule, first pass approval is planned for late 2013-early 2014.
(6) and (7) As a decision is yet to be taken on the platform to be acquired, this has not yet been determined.
(8) The Department of Defence estimates Defence Management Finance Plan (DMFP) costs over a 10-year period. A Collins Class submarine program budget for 2021-22 has not as yet been allocated.
Table 1 details current allocations for sustainment costs for the Collins class submarine, which are primarily incurred for contracted services to support the platform. These costs also include provision of Escape and Rescue Services, the Submarine Escape and Rescue Training Facility and support to the combat system. Additional funds are being sought through the Defence committees for financial year 2012-13 and beyond.
Table 1- Current Funded DMFP financial years 2011-12 to 2020-21
The expected operating budget for the six Collins Class submarines in each of the financial years 2011-12 to 2021-22 is outlined in the table below:
Table 2 - Submarine Capability Direct Operating Cost Budget
The Collins operating cost estimates methodology has been revised subsequent to the answer in previous QoN responses, such as QON 504 (8). This revised cost estimates methodology includes Defence (inclusive of DMO) operating costs that directly contribute to submarine capability. Direct operating costs include the cost of suppliers, military workforce, civilian workforce, fuel, explosive ordnance, maritime ranges and communications sustainment. Table 2 does not include Collins sustainment cost, project costs or depreciation. Depreciation is estimated at around $160 million per annum.
(9) The Collins Class notional disposal/phase out dates are from 2025.
(10) The Service Life Evaluation Program is focussed on conducting an evaluation of the Collins Class to determine if the class can reach its planned withdrawal dates and potentially one operating cycle beyond. No estimates have yet been made in respect to schedule or cost for a life extension.
With reference to the Strategic Reform Program (SRP):
(1) For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) where specifically have the provisional savings of the forecasted total been made under the SRP; (b) can a detailed explanation be provided of where these savings have been realised; and
(c) what one off savings been made.
(2) For the period 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2011, what workforce savings, both in personnel reductions and dollar savings, per area as specified in the Budget Audit Review, have resulted where the gaps to average performance have been:
(a) improved and realized; and
(b) reduced to zero.
(1) (a) Cost reductions under the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) are based on a reduction of annual budgets. The rate and timing of the achievement of cost reductions over the reporting cycle varies from stream to stream depending on the initiatives they are measuring. Providing information on their achievement on a 6 month basis does not give a meaningful picture of stream performance. SRP governance closely monitors stream activities to ensure that planned activities remain on schedule.
Cost reductions under the SRP are based on annual budgets. In 2011-12 the cost reduction target under the SRP was $1,283.9 million. The work streams delivering these cost reductions are detailed in Table 1.
Table 1: SRP cost reduction targets
*Summation variances are due to rounding
(1) (b) and (1) (c) SRP savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis. They are not broken up by sub-categories of productivity, one-offs or other descriptors. The annual budgets for activities targeted through streams have been reduced by amounts that reflect cost reductions agreed by Government.
The Department will publish the stream cost reductions achieved under SRP in the Defence Annual Report which is expected to be released in late 2012.
(2) (a) and (b) Outcomes of the Budget Audit Review are being achieved across three specific areas covering Workforce Reform, Business Process Improvements and Shared Services.
Through Workforce Reform 360 military, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS), and 604 contractor positions have been reduced and replaced with Australian Public Service (APS) employees. Combined with Efficiency and Effectiveness reductions of 292 APS the reforms have delivered $198.6 million in savings.
Twenty four AFS and 266 APS reductions generating $43 million in savings have been achieved through Business Process Improvements primarily as a result of Consolidation of regions, reduction in administration support to Senior Officers, amalgamation of Australian Defence Force Intelligence System and pooling of paralegals and rationalisation of help lines.
Improvements to Shared Services have seen reductions of 114 AFS and 132 APS generating $47.6 million in savings. This has been achieved largely through reforms in Education & Training, Career Management and Payroll and Personnel Administration.
Reforms are being implemented across the department in a wide range of areas. Many of these areas are integrating and implementing multiple reforms. The effort and attendant cost of monitoring and reporting changes in performance, and attributing the changes to specific reform initiatives is prohibitive.
Consequently there are no performance metrics (beyond efficiency metrics) defined that are able to indicate the performance impact attributable to specific SRP reforms.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) of the savings expected over the period 2010 to 2019, what specific savings have been made in the optimising of inventory holdings and the introduction of more efficient management techniques; and
(b) what one off savings been made.
(a)-(b) Strategic Reform Program (SRP) savings are tracked, reported and managed on a stream-by-stream basis, they are not broken up by sub-category of optimising inventory holdings, introducing more efficient management techniques, one-offs or other descriptors.
The Smart Sustainment stream, which includes inventory, is comprised of a range of specific initiatives across the spectrum of Defence and the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO). These initiatives are at various stages of maturity and SRP governance closely monitors the progress of these initiatives against the planned schedule and achievement of agreed cost reductions.
The Department will publish the stream cost reductions achieved under SRP in the Defence Annual Report which is expected to be released in late 2012.
For the period 1 July to 31 December 2011:
(a) what 'First Pass' Project approvals; and
(b) what 'Second Pass' Project approvals, have been made.
The tables below address both questions and provide information on the total 30 project based approvals achieved during the period 1 July to 31 December 2011. The total is made up of five first pass approvals, 16 second pass approvals, and nine 'other' approvals (such as studies, project re-scoping and real cost increases).
Government Approvals 1 July 2011 – 31 December 2011 - Summary
Note: Summary includes 'other' project approvals such as studies, project re-scoping, real cost increases, capability technology demonstrator and project development funding
First Pass Approvals
Note: All figures are rounded. Totals may not match due to rounding errors.
Second Pass Approvals
Note: All figures are rounded. Totals may not match due to rounding errors.
Other Approvals
Note: All figures are rounded. Totals may not match due to rounding errors. Land 112 Ph 4 - ASLAV – Cancellation of the previously approved second pass project.
(1) (a) How many training days have been allocated to Reserves in each state and territory; and (b) what is the budget allocation to provide these training days.
(2) (a) How many training days were actually used by Reserves in each state and territory; and (b) what was the actual expenditure to provide these training days.
(1) (a) and (b)—
(2) (a) and (b)—
With reference to the major project Airborne Surveillance for Land Operations JP 129, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Establishment of Special Operations Command JP 199, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Next Generation Satellite Communications System JP 2008 Phase 4, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Ultra High Frequency Satellite Communications JP 2008 Phase 5A, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project ADF SATCOM Capability Terrestrial Upgrade JP 2008 Phase 3F, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Jindalee Operational Radar Network (JORN) JP 2025, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Joint Command Support Environment (JCSE) JP 2030 Phase 8, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project High Frequency Modernisation JP 2043, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Amphibious Watercraft Replacement JP 2048 Phase 3, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment JP 2048 Phase 4 A/B, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Bulk Liquid Distribution JP 2059, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Geospatial Information Infrastructure and Services (GII&S) JP 2064 Phase 2, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Lightweight Torpedo Replacement Phase 3 JP 2070, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Lightweight Torpedo Replacement Phase 2 JP 2070, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Battlespace Communications Systems (LAND) JP 2072, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Logistics for the Warfighter JP 2077, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project ADF Deployable Logistics Systems JP 2077 Phase 2B.2, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Mulwala Redevelopment Project JP 2086, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Air Defence Target System JP 66 Phase 1, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to the major project Establishment of Tactical Assault Group (East) JP 2088 Phase 1, can the following details be provided:
(a) the date that the project was first proposed to Government as a major capital equipment initiative;
(b) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for first pass approval, as per the Defence Capability Plan (DCP), or when it was first proposed to Government;
(c) the date of the first estimated date, time period, for second pass approval, as per the DCP, or when it was first proposed to Government;
(d) the date of first pass approval;
(e) the date of second pass approval;
(f) the estimated acquisition cost when first proposed to Government;
(g) the amount spent to date on this project;
(h) the current estimated acquisition cost;
(i) the date of estimated initial operational capability when first proposed to Government;
(j) the current date of estimated initial operational capability; and
(k) the reason(s) for the delay in this project, if applicable.
The information you are seeking would require considerable research into historical Defence Capability Plans and project approval/management documents, and as such, is considered an unjustified diversion of resources from the Capability Development Group's core business.
Publicly available documents such as the Public Defence Capability Plan, Portfolio Budget Statements and the Defence Annual Report provide some detail on the information being sought.
With reference to defective parade boots within the Australian Defence Force:
(1) What was the nature of the defect.
(2) When were the defective parade boots first issued.
(3) How many pairs of the defective boots were: (a) issued; and (b) subsequently recovered.
(4) How many Reports on Defective or Unsatisfactory Materiel (RODUMs) were submitted in regard to the potential defect.
(5) How long did it take, from the time that the first report was lodged, until a replacement directive was issued.
(6) What action was taken to ensure all defective boots were removed from service.
(7) What was the cost incurred by the Commonwealth to replace the boots.
(8) Was any of this cost transferred to the boot manufacturer.
(9) Is the manufacturer still contracted by the department.
(1) The issue that led to the recall and modification of the patent leather parade boot involved a de-lamination of the sole. This occurs when the bonding compound that joins the sole to the upper fails and the sole separates from the remainder of the boot.
(2) These boots were introduced into service in late 1999.
(3) (a) Due to changes in the relevant electronic record keeping systems, Defence does not have readily available access to the required records to determine the number of boots issued prior to September 2004. From September 2004 until December 2007 approximately 27,000 pairs of boots were delivered by the contractor. Of the 27,000 boots delivered by the contractor, approximately 14,000 pairs were issued to Service personnel.
It is not possible to state the exact quantity of boots that were defective. Many boots did not suffer from de-lamination, but all boots delivered in this period were treated as suspect.
(3) (b) Since May 2009 3,417 pairs of boots issued to soldiers have been returned and replaced.
(4) There have been 182 RODUMs regarding sole de-lamination since these boots entered service in 1999.
(5) The first RODUM for sole de-lamination was received in March 2000 and the faulty boots were replaced by the contractor. Defence continued to receive a small number of RODUMs per year and faulty boots continued to be replaced by the contractor on a 'one for one' basis until mid 2008. In mid 2008 the clothing systems program office identified a systemic problem with sole de-lamination.
A detailed technical investigation was conducted in 2008 and early 2009. In March 2009 it was decided that all boots should be stitched to further reduce any risk of failure. Army Headquarters released a Directive outlining the replacement process on 3 April 2009.
In addition to the Army Headquarters Directive, the clothing systems program Office and Army Headquarters also placed articles outlining the replacement process in the Army News in March 2009, April 2009, September 2009, October 2009, April 2010, May 2010, October 2010 and June 2011. Army Headquarters also released follow up Directives in October 2009 and December 2010.
The total period from mid 2008 until April 2009 was approximately ten months.
(6) In February 2009 any boots manufactured prior to January 2008 were removed from clothing stores. These older boots were then quarantined and returned to the manufacturer for stitching. As stitched boots became available the remaining stock of the unstitched boots that was delivered in 2008 and 2009 was also returned and stitched.
Soldiers were advised of the replacement process through the Directives and news articles outlined in the response to Question 5 above.
(7) The total cost of this replacement has been approximately $265,000. In addition, Defence spent approximately $10,000 testing boots as part of the investigation into the de-lamination.
(8) The cost to re-stitch boots returned to the contractor by Defence was met by the contractor.
(9) The contractor has completed the delivery of parade boots. The contractor is delivering other footwear through until July 2012.
With reference to Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) ships and personnel development:
(1) What is the proposed posted strength of the LHD.
(2) What is the breakdown of personnel posted to the LHD in each of the service areas (ie. army, navy and airforce).
(3) What will the ORBAT be, including the: (a) size; (b) nature; (c) Corps, Category or Mustering; and (d) ranks.
(4) Can details be provided of how the members will be stationed aboard, including: (a) if it will be a posting or short-term secondment; and (b) the length of time.
(5) Which service area will have command over personnel.
(6) What allowances will be paid to members on board.
(7) Does the department currently have technically proficient personnel for each component of the LHD, in particular, for high voltage ancillaries.
(8) What tri-service training has been conducted to prepare members for employment aboard the LHD.
(9) Where will members be sourced from, for example, from a single brigade, ship or group.
(10) Has a tri-service training continuum been developed.
(1) The proposed posted strength for each of the permanent LHD crews is 351 Australian Defence Force personnel.
(2) The breakdown of the personnel is as follows:
Navy: 292
Army: 57
Air Force: 2
(3) The embarked landing force will be drawn from a Battle Group based upon the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment and a cross section of combat and enabling capabilities. This Battle Group will form the core of the amphibious ready element and the amphibious ready group. The ready element will be based upon a combat team and the ready group will be based upon the Battle Group. The ready element and ready group will be task organised and tailored for specific missions. As such it is not possible to provide specific details regarding the size, corps, trade and ranks that will form the embarked landing force as they will change dependant on the task.
(4) (a) and (b) Permanent crew will be posted to the ship on an 18 month to 2 year posting cycle. Embarked force and other attached support will be allocated for shorter periods to be determined by the requirement of the force generation cycle and operational imperative.
(5) The Ship's commanding officer will exercise command over the LHD's crew in all matters and over all other embarked forces, mainly Army personnel, for some administrative and safety issues. Responsibility for the conduct of actual amphibious operations will rest between the Commander Amphibious Task Force (CATF - a Naval officer) and the Commander Landing Forces (CLF - an Army officer). The CATF is normally separate to the Ship's commanding officer. The CATF and CLF are considered co-equal commanders and close cooperation between the two is critical to success.
(6) Permanent members of the ship's crew including Army and Royal Australian Air Force personnel, as detailed in the scheme of complement, will be eligible for seagoing allowance. Members of the embarked force will generally be eligible for an equivalent hard lying allowance payable once the ship has sailed.
(7) The prime contractor for the LHD capability has the responsibility for development of introduction into service individual training. This training will provide specific proficiencies for operation and maintenance of equipment fitted to the LHDs that is not currently in service in the ADF and builds upon the competencies of the personnel designated for the LHD positions. High voltage is a relatively new area of training for the Royal Australian Navy, with specific training to be delivered as part of the LHD introduction into service training. The Navy, however, is already building its expertise in high voltage through the training delivered for the acquisition and operation of HMAS Choules, which is fitted with a high voltage electric podded propulsion system similar to the LHDs.
(8) Significant overseas training has been accessed in the past few years to prepare ADF personnel for the new amphibious capability. Personnel from Army and Navy have been attending United States amphibious courses in increasing numbers. Air Force personnel will conduct training this year with United States Marine Corp and United States Navy air control agencies. Further individual training opportunities with the United Kingdom have been scheduled. Several UK and US collective training activities have been attended by ADF personnel in the past few years, all with a focus on development of amphibious proficiencies. These opportunities are managed through bi-lateral working groups with the UK and US.
(9) The core of the embarked landing force will be drawn from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment from the 3rd Brigade. Combat and other enabling capabilities that may be tasked as part of the amphibious ready element or amphibious ready group could be drawn from the 1st Brigade, 6th Brigade, 16th Aviation Brigade, 17th Combat Service Support Brigade and Special Operations Command.
(10) A tri-service training continuum for the amphibious ready element and amphibious ready group is currently being developed by the deployable Joint Force Headquarters. This involves enabling exercises for the components of these task groups that are scheduled in the program of major service activities and additional force collective training activities to certify the ready element and ready group models.
(1) How many people were approached by the Minister to apply for the latest round of Fair Work Australia appointments.
(2) How many of the individuals approached by the Minister were subsequently appointed.
(3) What were the names of those individuals:
(a) approached; and
(b) appointed.
Five people were approached by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations exploring if they wished to submit an expression of interest in being appointed as a member of Fair Work Australia. Two of those people, Ms Anna Booth and Mr David Gregory, expressed interest, were assessed as suitable for appointment by the selection panel and were subsequently appointed. It would be inappropriate to provide the names of the other persons who chose not to submit an expression of interest.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1532:
(1) Was the answer provided in the same form as when it was received from the Productivity Commission.
(2) Were changes made by, or as a result of any input from, the Minister's office.
(1) Answers to Questions on Notice are given by the relevant Minister and in this case, certain information provided by the Productivity Commission in a suggested answer was removed by the Minister's office as that information was not sought by the Question.
(2) As above.
(a) ahead of the Government's decision, were any representations made by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations or the Minister for Small Business; and
(b) if so, can details be provided.
The answer to this question was provided in response to Question on Notice 1305 (Senate Hansard 28 February 2012, proof p.101).
(1) What is the current estimated cost of Commonwealth regulation in Australia for:
(a) agencies which implement regulation; and
(b) businesses and entities that are subject to regulation.
(2) What is the current estimated impact on productivity resulting from new regulations imposed since 2007.
(3) With reference to the department's annual report for 2010 11, which includes the statement 'Outcome 1 Informed decisions on government finances and continuous improvement in regulation making through: budgetary management and advice; transparent financial reporting; a robust financial framework; and best practice regulatory processes':
(a) what evidence can be provided indicating that the Government has achieved 'best practice regulatory processes' and that there has been 'continuous improvement in regulation making'; and
(b) can details be provided as to which regulators have shown improvements in regulatory performance and efficiency, and which regulators have reduced regulatory fees and charges to customers.
(1) (2) and (3) The Government's Deregulation Agenda reflects the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) Guiding Principles for Regulatory Quality and Performance (OECD 2005) which require governments (inter alia) to "design economic regulation in all sectors to stimulate competition and efficiency, and eliminate them except where clear evidence demonstrates that they are the best way to serve broad public interests."
The focus of effort of OECD members, including Australia, is on ensuring the regulation is fit for purpose, is developed in consultation with stakeholders and does not impose unnecessary compliance and administrative cost burdens on business and the not-for-profit sector. Measures of costs are not of themselves, therefore, a measure of the efficiency of regulation which necessarily strives to deliver a net community benefit.
All Commonwealth decision-makers are required to adhere to the provisions of the Government's Best Practice Regulation Handbook 2010 which requires that they undertake regulation impact analysis for all regulatory proposals which would have an impact on business or the not-for-profit sector which is anything other than minor or machinery in nature.
The Australian Government's approach to regulatory management features a high degree of transparency, with regular reporting concerning compliance with the requirements for regulation impact assessment, progress against reforms progressed by the Council of Australian Government's Seamless National Economy national partnership agreement and regular reviews of Commonwealth regulatory frameworks by the Productivity Commission as part of its "Regulatory Burdens" series of reviews.
Successive Australian governments have required decision-makers in choosing to regulate, to determine where the balance between costs and benefits of individual regulatory proposals should lie, consistent with their statutory responsibilities. In its review of regulatory reform in Australia ("Towards a Seamless National Economy: OECD, 2010) the OECD concluded that "Australia is one of the front-running countries in the OECD in terms of its best practice."
With reference to the Australian Rainforest Foundation (ARF):
(1) What funding and support has been provided to ARF by the Commonwealth Government.
(2) In relation to all funding provided: (a) what outcomes were expected to be delivered by ARF; and (b) have all of these obligations on ARF been satisfied.
(1) The following funding and support has been provided to the Australian Rainforest Foundation (ARF) since 2008-09:
(a) Under the Grants to Voluntary Environment, Sustainability and Heritage Organisations Program (GVESHO), formerly Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO), the ARF was provided $1,500 in each of 2008-09 and 2009-10.
(b) Under the Community Action Grants program in 2010-11, ARF was awarded $22,000 for project work to be carried out on land at Mission Beach, Queensland. The project involved identifying and spraying noxious weeds and re-vegetating and managing the land through the planting of trees.
(2) In relation to all funding provided:
( a ) The GVESHO program helps eligible community based organisations to value, conserve and protect Australia's natural environment and historic heritage and to promote sustainability by assisting with their administrative costs. The GVESHO grant amount must be clearly identified as a separate line item in the organisation's financial statement as income from the "Australian Government's GVEHO/GVESHO program".
(b). The ARF has not met its obligation to acquit its 2008-09 and 2009-10 GVESHO grants as per the contractual agreement and therefore the 2010-11 grant of $1,500 has been withheld.
The Community Action Grant project at Mission Beach is still in progress and is due to be completed by 30 June 2012. The final report is due 30 August 2012.
For the financial years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, how many:
(a) employer nominations were submitted under regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994, listed separately by Regional Certifying Body (RCB);
(b) employer nominations were approved per each RCB;
(c) visas were approved for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa per each RCB;
(d) Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa holders were subject to a Notice of Intention to Cancel in line with section 137Q of the Migration Act 1958; and
(e) previous Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa holders had a Subclass 857/119 visa cancelled in line with section 137Q of the Migration Act 1958.
The table at Attachment A lists employer nominations lodged for Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) according to Regional Certifying Body (RCB^).
The table at Attachment B lists employer nominations approved for RSMS according to Regional Certifying Body (RCB^).
The table at Attachment C shows RSMS visas granted according to RCB^.
The table at Attachment D shows the Notice Of Intention to Consider Cancellations (NOICCs) issued under section 137Q of the Migration Act 1958.
The table at Attachment D shows the RSMS visas cancelled under section 137Q of the Migration Act 1958.
^Please note that the name of the RCB is not a mandatory data field when processing nominations and applications in DIAC systems and as such is not always captured. This results in the RCB being listed as ' Unknown ' in reporting.
Attachment A
Employer Nominations lodged for RSMS
Attachment B
Employer Nominations Approved for RSMS
Attachment C
RSMS Visas Granted
Attachment D
NOICCs Issued and Cancellations Under Section 137(Q)
(1) What is the annual catering budget for Cabinet?
(2) How much of the catering budget for the 2011-12 financial year has been used.
(3) What is the cost of catering an average Cabinet meeting.
(1) There is no annual budget allocation. Consistent with long standing arrangements, each minister makes a personal contribution to the Cabinet Trust Fund to assist in the costs of catering for Cabinet and committee meetings. The Fund is administered by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
(2) From 1 July 2011 to 13 March 2012 $38,970.73 was spent on catering for Cabinet and Cabinet committee meetings.
(3) The average catering cost for a Cabinet meeting is $385.84.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1096 (Senate Hansard, 7 February 2012, proof p. 176), relating to corporal punishment in non-state schools:
(1) Can an explanation be provided regarding the situation of corporal punishment in non-state schools in Queensland?
(2) What is the Commonwealth Government's understanding of Section 280 of the Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899, in relation to the use of corporal punishment in non-state schools?
(1) Response from the Office of Non-State Education, Department of Education and Training, Queensland:
“Although Queensland state schools are prohibited from using corporal punishment, this policy is not enforceable in non-state schools. Behaviour management policies in non-state schools are an internal governance matter for each school. The decision to use corporal punishment is made by each school's governing body, and therefore is a matter for each school to determine. Section 280 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 provides that 'It is lawful for a parent or a person in the place of a parent, or for a schoolteacher or master, to use, by way of correction, discipline, management or control, towards a child or pupil, under the person's care such force as is reasonable under the circumstances.' However, even if a school permits the use of corporal punishment, if the force used is unreasonable in the circumstances the staff member will not be protected by the Criminal Code. Only a very small number of non state schools in Queensland incorporate corporal punishment into their student behaviour management policies.”
Response from Independent Schools Queensland
“There is no legislation in Queensland which bans corporal punishment in non-state schools.
Independent Schools Queensland is the representative body of 183 independent schools in Queensland; however, each independent school governing body is responsible for its policies and operations. Whilst section 280 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 Queensland is relevant, it is not a generally accepted means of behaviour management and has not been for many years. Further, Independent Schools Queensland's advisory behaviour management policies and processes templates do not include corporal punishment as a strategy. Our legislatively mandated Student Protection processes support this approach and require that inappropriate behaviour, suspected harm and harm to students be reported to the school, and in certain cases, the relevant state authority.”
Response from the Queensland Catholic Education Commission
The Queensland Catholic Education Commission on behalf of the 22 Catholic school authorities representing 292 Catholic school communities educating 138 000 students, advises that:
“Corporal punishment in Catholic schools in Queensland, albeit permissible pursuant to s280 Criminal Code Act 1899 Qld, has not been accepted as a means of behaviour management for approximately 15 years. Further, Catholic School Authorities' behaviour management policies and processes do not include corporal punishment as a strategy. Our legislatively mandated Student Protection processes support this approach and require inappropriate behaviour, suspected harm and harm to students to be reported to the school, and in certain cases, the relevant state authority.”
(2) It is inappropriate for the Commonwealth Government to provide interpretation of state legislation.
Section 280 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) provides that it is lawful for a schoolteacher or master (or parent or person in the place of a parent) to use by way of correction, discipline, management or control, towards a child or pupil under the person's care “such force as is reasonable in the circumstances.”
The Commonwealth Government does not endorse corporal punishment as an approach to disciplining school students.
With reference to the Australian Government Office for Women (OfW) website, which states: 'The Office for Women delivers many of the programs and services relevant to women outlined in this website. The programs and services can be found as follows:
Reducing Violence: Relating to reducing violence against women and their children - National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children, Women's Safety Programs, Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault help details, support for victims of people trafficking.
Equal Place in Society: Activities and engagement with women's organisations, aimed at improving women's equal place in society'.
International Engagement: The Australian Government's work in international forums, and policy on international matters affecting women.
Research and Data: Research and data relating to women in Australia.
Economic Security: Aimed at increasing the economic security of Australian women - including pay equity, superannuation, managing money, women in business.
Australian Government Panel of Gender Experts (Gender Panel) User Guide: The Gender Panel supports the development of gender expertise across the Australian government by providing a range of services to promote the integration of gender equality into policy, programs and research.
Social and Community Sector Workers Equal Remuneration Case: The Prime Minister announced on 10 November 2011, that the Australian Government and the Australian Services Union have reached an agreement in the Social and Community Sector Workers Equal Remuneration Case'.
(1) In relation to each of the programs and services outlined above, can details be provided for every program and service delivered by the OfW, including how the program or service is delivered.
(2) Are there Key Performance Indicators for the delivery of each program and/or service; if so, what are they; if not, why not.
(3) Which programs and/or services are not delivered by the OfW, and can an explanation be provided as to why they are not delivered.
(4) For each program and/or service not delivered by the OfW, can details be provided as to:
(a) which office or department is responsible for the delivery;
(b) whether the OfW liaises with the office or department; if so, how; if not, why not; and
(c) how the OfW ensures that the program and/or service is delivered to a satisfactory standard.
(1) The Gender Equality for Women program guidelines, publicly available on the Internet, provides details about the program, including the program/service deliverables, Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and components of the program. Please refer to:
www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/funding/Pages/respectful_relationships_round_three.aspx
(2) The Gender Equality for Women program KPIs are available in the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 2010-2011 Annual Report, for Outcome 6.1. Please refer to:
www.annualreport.fahcsia.gov.au/part2/chapter10/
For more detailed performance measures refer to:
www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/funding/Pages/respectful_relationships_round_three.aspx
(3) The programs/services not delivered by the Office for Women are those more appropriately delivered by another Commonwealth Department or agency, or by State and Territory Governments.
(4) (a) to (c) Consistent with the Beijing Platform for Action, this Government and the previous Government have supported gender mainstreaming as the best practice approach to ensuring gender is considered in the full range of decisions affecting women.
Departments are accountable through a range of mechanisms and on a range of matters from the Financial Management Accountability Act 1997 to the Parliament Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Estimates hearings.
(1) What feedback has the department received in relation to the proposal to impose a $600 annual fee upon marriage celebrants.
(2) Are submissions made in response to the department's discussion paper available on its website.
(3) How will the proposed fee benefit marriage celebrants.
(4) Given that marriage celebrants already bear substantial costs, such as buying marriage certificates and registers, paying for mandatory ongoing professional development, along with all the other standard and significant costs of being in business, how can the department justify imposing yet another cost without measurable value to the celebrant.
(5) Will the imposition of a fee seriously damage the relationship between celebrants and the department.
(6) Has the department considered a more scalable solution, such as a per-wedding fee.
(7) How does the department intend to reduce the number of celebrants.
(8) Is the department hoping that the introduction of a fee will result in attrition of celebrant numbers.
(9) How does the department intend to improve its service to celebrants, including frequent communications and the provision of an extended hours (including weekends) help desk for celebrants.
(10) Has the department investigated improving the current processes for lodging the Notice of Intended Marriage.
(11) Has the department considered a moratorium on new marriage celebrant appointments, especially considering the current high number of celebrants.
(12) What disclosure is given to prospective or new celebrants on the state of the market.
(13) Why does the Government not provide budget funding for the regulation of the celebrant program, or pass on responsibility to the state registries of births, deaths and marriages.
(14) How many civil weddings have been held each year since 2002.
(15) How many celebrants have never performed a wedding.
(16) What is the average cost of ongoing professional development for celebrants.
(17) Who reviews the standard, of ongoing professional development training for celebrants, including the content and the training providers.
(1) In the May 2011 Budget, the Government announced a measure to improve the Marriage Celebrants Program, including a move to cost recovery with the introduction of an annual registration fee. This aims to improve the services delivered to Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants including increased access to the Department, new technology and enhanced information. It will also allow the Commonwealth to effectively regulate Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants through strengthened application, performance review and complaints handling mechanisms.
Following the Budget announcement, the Department committed to extensive consultation on its details with marriage celebrants and the broader community. The Department hosted 17 face to face consultation meetings across Australia in October and November 2011. Of the approximately 10,300 marriage celebrants invited to attend a meeting, over 1,300 people responded that they intended to attend one of the meetings. Approximately 700 people attended a meeting.
Written submissions were also invited by 9 December 2011, regardless of attendance at a face to face meeting. Over 280 submissions were received from individuals and associations via email, mail or hand delivered during the consultation meetings.
National consultations have now concluded. A paper summarising the feedback provided through the consultations is on the Department's website at www.agd.gov.au/marriage. Further consultations will be held from mid-2012.
(2) No, submissions have not been published on the Attorney-General's Department website. Publishing the written submissions would be a significant resource undertaking for the Department in terms of scanning documents and seeking permission from writers. However, a paper summarising the feedback provided through the consultations is on the Department's website at www.agd.gov.au/marriage.
(3) The precise nature of the broader Program reforms, for example improvements to service delivery by the Attorney-General's Department to support marriage celebrants, are the subject of the consultation process. However, marriage celebrants can expect improved service and accessibility to the Department through an online celebrant portal, a dedicated phone service and enhanced written information, guidance and advice to assist marriage celebrants in performing their role. It will also allow the Commonwealth to effectively regulate Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants through strengthened application, performance review and complaints handling mechanisms.
(4) The reforms being undertaken to the Marriage Celebrants Program will deliver the benefits outlined in response to question (3). These will lead to less red tape and greater certainty in administration and advice for celebrants.
(5) No. The reforms to the Marriage Celebrants Program will enhance the relationship between marriage celebrants and the Attorney-General's Department by ensuring the financial viability of the Program over the long term. This will enable the Department to provide the benefits to marriage celebrants identified in the response to question (3) above and properly regulate the Program. The Department is committed to extensive and ongoing consultation with marriage celebrants and the broader community to ensure that improvements to the Program are well-directed and constructive.
(6) The Department is considering this issue. The subject of a scalable fee was discussed as part of the consultation process undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department. Some celebrants suggested that the fee be applied on a sliding scale depending on the number of weddings a celebrant performs annually, and that exemptions should also be available for people who are unwell or have compassionate circumstances. However, there was no majority view that a sliding scale was the preferred option.
(7) There is no intention to introduce measures that actively reduce the number of Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants.
(8) No.
(9) The precise nature of the broader Program reforms, for example improvements to service delivery by the Attorney-General's Department to support marriage celebrants, are the subject of the consultation process. However, celebrants can expect improved service and accessibility to the Department through an online celebrant portal, a dedicated phone service and updated written information, guidance and advice to assist marriage celebrants in performing their role. They can also expect improved standards of regulation by the Government through the Department.
(10) Couples give their Notice of Intended Marriage (NOIM) to their marriage celebrant who then lodges it with State and Territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages when registering the marriage. The NOIM form is on the Attorney-General's Department website free of charge to be downloaded by couples or marriage celebrants.
This issue was raised through feedback from the consultations. The reforms to the program are unlikely to consider this issue at this time. However, the Department will consider this issue further should the opportunity to revise the marriage registration process arise.
(11) No. In the consultations undertaken by the Attorney-General's Department, some marriage celebrants suggested that a moratorium on new marriage celebrant appointments be reinstated until the Program reforms have been implemented. However, there was no majority view that this was the preferred option. The Government does not believe a moratorium would achieve the objectives of cost recovery, being to improve services and effectively regulate the Program, thereby improving the compliance and professionalism of marriage celebrants to the benefit of marrying couples and society more generally.
(12) Information for prospective marriage celebrants about the reality of the market and challenges of working as a celebrant is set out on the 'Becoming a celebrant' page of the Attorney General's Department website (Attachment A) and is also included in the application packages provided to prospective celebrants.
(13) The Commonwealth has Constitutional responsibility for marriage. This is why the Government funds the Marriage Celebrants Program. It is also why the Program, and regulation of Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants, is not the responsibility of State and Territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
The Attorney-General's Regulation Impact Statement released soon after the announcement of the reforms considered the option of passing responsibility for regulation of marriage celebrants registered under the Program to State and Territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages. This option was identified as not addressing the key objective as it would simply shift the problem of effective regulation of non compliant celebrants to the State and Territory authorities.
(14) The Australian Bureau of Statistics compiles data on religious and civil wedding ceremonies.
The term 'civil celebrants' groups both Commonwealth-registered civil celebrants and officers in State and Territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages (the latter are not regulated by the Department). 'Religious celebrants' groups Ministers from Recognised Denominations and Commonwealth-registered ministers from non-aligned religious organisations (the former are not regulated by the Department). Therefore, the information on the number of civil marriages registered in Australia each year since 2002 is not entirely accurate for the purposes of administering the Marriage Celebrants Program. Based on these definitions, the number of 'civil weddings' registered each year since 2002 are in the following table.
(15) Information on how many celebrants have never performed a wedding is not held by this Department. While information could be sought from State and Territory Registries of Births, Deaths and Marriages about how many celebrants have performed a wedding, it is not readily available and would be time and resource intensive.
(16) Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants must do five hours of ongoing professional development (OPD) each registration year (1 January to 31 December). OPD consists of one compulsory activity of one hour's duration, and elective activities.
OPD can only be completed through one of three registered training organisations on the Attorney General's Department's panel of OPD providers.
OPD is delivered using face-to-face, online or distance delivery methods. The average annual cost of OPD for marriage celebrants is $180 for face-to-face delivery, $140 for distance delivery and $160 for online delivery.
(17) The Registrar of Marriage Celebrants, in the Attorney-General's Department, reviews and approves the elective activities developed by the OPD panel before they are registered for delivery. The Department writes the content for the compulsory activity each year, and the panel develops it into a deliverable form.
The panel of OPD providers (see response to question (16) above), is responsible for reviewing the standard of OPD training for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants and developing elective activities suitable for delivery of OPD using face-to-face, online or distance delivery methods.
An OPD Monitoring Group has been established to monitor OPD delivery and considers feedback from marriage celebrants about activities and suggestions for future topics. The Monitoring Group comprises representatives of the panel of OPD providers, the Coalition of Celebrant Associations (CoCA) (the peak representative body for Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants), and the Attorney-General's Department. CoCA represents the views of celebrants in this forum.
Finally, each of the OPD Panel members is a Registered Training Organisation which are monitored nationally by the Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA). ASQA regulates courses and training providers to ensure nationally approved quality standards are met.
(1) When will a response be provided to the recommendations of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal relating to the recognition of Royal Australian Air Force personnel who served at Ubon air base in Thailand between 1965 and 1968 with the award of the Vietnam Logistic and Support Medal.
(2) Given that the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence, Senator Feeney, was provided the relevant inquiry report on 24 February 2011, can an explanation be provided for the 12 month delay in the provision of a response.
(3) Will the recommendations of the tribunal be accepted; if so, will Letters Patent be drafted in order to give effect to the recommendation.
(4) It the recommendations of the tribunal will not be accepted, with which of the tribunal's conclusions does the Government disagree and why.
(1) The response is presently with the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence for consideration.
(2) The recommendations of the report posed a number of issues that require further investigation within Defence before a response is provided for government consideration.and
(3) and (4) It is not possible to provide a response to these questions until government consideration of the report is finalised.
(1) Can a list be provided detailing those pensions and allowances for which payments from feed-in tariffs for household solar energy systems are considered income.
(2) For each of the payments identified in (1), can a detailed breakdown be provided of how each is deemed, including:
(a) how income from feed-in tariffs is identified;
(b) the dollar threshold per allowance or pension at which monies from feed-in tariffs is considered income; and
(c) at what ratio pensions or allowances are then deemed (for example, a {Question Text}.50 reduction in pension/allowance per $1 of feed-in tariff income).
(3) Is the Minister aware of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) private ruling number 88668; if so, how does this ATO ruling inform the deeming of pensions and allowances administered by the department.
(1) Feed-in tariffs from household solar energy systems, paid as cash, are assessed as income for all social security income support payments. These cash payments are assessed as income over a 12 month period. For example, if a pensioner received a cheque from their electricity company for $260, it would be counted as $10 income per fortnight for 26 fortnights.
Feed-in tariffs paid as a credit on an electricity bill, are not assessed as income for social security income support payments.
(2) (a) Feed-in tariffs paid as cash are assessed in the same way as other ordinary income. Social security income support payment recipients are required to report feed-in tariffs from household solar energy systems to the Department of Human Services under the usual notification provisions.
(b) The full amount of a cash feed-in tariff is included in a person's income. However, this may not affect the person's entitlement to a payment as all payments have income free areas. The following income free areas apply.
The income free area for single pensioners is $150 a fortnight. It is $264 a fortnight for partnered pensioners, combined. These limits apply to the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment.
The income free area for Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment Partnered, Partner Allowance, Widow Allowance, Youth Allowance (other) and Sickness Allowance payments is $62 a fortnight.
The income free area for Youth Allowance (student), ABSTUDY and Austudy is $236 a fortnight.
The income free area for Parenting Payment Single with one child is $174.60 a fortnight (plus $24.60 a fortnight for each additional child).
This information is set out in a publication distributed by the Department of Human Services, "A Guide to Australian Government Payments" and is available at the Department of Human Services website: www.centrelink.gov.au.
(c) Income over the income test free areas reduces pension by 50 cents in the dollar for single pensioners and by 25 cents in the dollar for partnered pensioners. This applies to the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment.
For allowances, personal income in excess of the applicable income free area reduces entitlement as follows.
For Newstart Allowance, Parenting Payment Partnered, Partner Allowance, Widow Allowance, Youth Allowance (other), and Sickness Allowance, for income between $62 and $250 a fortnight, the withdrawal rate is 50 cents in the dollar, and for income over $250 a fortnight the withdrawal rate is 60 cents in the dollar.
For Youth Allowance (student), ABSTUDY and Austudy, for income between $236 and $316 a fortnight the withdrawal rate is 50 cents in the dollar, and for income over $316 a fortnight the withdrawal rate is 60 cents in the dollar.
For Parenting Payment Single, for income over $174.60 a fortnight (plus $24.60 a fortnight per additional child) the withdrawal rate is 40 cents in the dollar.
Partner Income does not reduce a person's entitlement until it exceeds the relevant partner income free area. Generally, for an adult recipient, the partner income free area is $830 a fortnight. Partner income in excess of this amount reduces the person's entitlement by 60 cents in the dollar. In the special case where one member of a couple is getting a pension, the combined income of both persons is halved, and then the usual income test of the payment that each person is receiving is applied.
This information is set out in a publication distributed by the Department of Human Services, "A Guide to Australian Government Payments" and is available at the Department of Human Services website: www.centrelink.gov.au.
(3) The Minister is aware of the Australian Taxation Office private ruling number 88668. This ruling does not affect the social security income test treatment of feed-in tariffs from solar energy systems.
With reference to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) notice to extend the EPBC assessment time of the Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility (EPBC ref. 2009/4837):
(1) What further information has been requested of the proponents relating to the direct, consequential and cumulative impacts of the proposal.
(2) What is involved in the 'cumulative coordinated impact assessment studies' currently being undertaken by the proponent.
(1) The outcomes of the cumulative impact assessment work being jointly undertaken by a set of proponents at Abbot Point has been requested.
(2) The industry proponents at Abbot Point and the North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited are working together on a coordinated, cumulative impact assessment, focussed on the combined impacts of proposals at Abbot Point, and within the context of other developments adjoining the Great Barrier Reef. A number of studies are being undertaken as part of this process, including coordinated studies on the potential impacts of habitat loss, lighting, visual amenity, and shipping arising from the Abbot Point proposals.
With reference to question on notice no. 1322 (Senate Hansard , 27 February 2012, proof p. 120), and given that the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences provides statistics about Australian forest and wood products in cubic metres, not tonnes, in relation to that e export of sawn native forest timbers from Western Australia, for each of the following financial years: 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11:
(a) how many cubic metres of sawn jarrah and karri were exported from Western Australia on a per species basis;
(b) what was the total volume exported; and
(c) which ports received the timber (for each port, provide details of the quantity of each species received and the total volume exported).
(a) Data is not captured in cubic metres.
(b) N/A
(c) This question was answered in SEN 1322, also asked by Senator Ludlam, including the details of the ports in receipt of timber, measured in tonnes. The data is not available for cubic metres.
(1) Has the department or Minister's office been approached by, or provided funding and other support to, any of the following organisations since March 2011:
if so, for each organisation:
(a) can details be provided of the nature of the contact or funding and support; and
(b) did the contact or funding and support relate to proposals to develop a port at Point Torment, Western Australia.
(2) Has the department been approached by any organisation (other than those listed above) in regard to a proposal to develop a port at Point Torment since March 2011.
(1) The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) has not been approached, or provided funding or other support to the following organisations since March 2011:
(a) FaHCSIA has provided funding to the Western Australian Government for a number of programs.
(b) None of the contracts or funding provided to the Western Australian Government relate to proposals to develop a port at Point Torment.
(2) FaHCSIA has not been approached by any other organisation in regard to a proposal to develop a port at Point Torment since March 2011.
With reference to the report that the Adagold Aviation Pty Ltd contracted Middle East Area of Operation (MEAO) aircraft, operated by the Portuguese carrier Hi Fly, was involved in an incident at Darwin airport after departing Sydney on Tuesday, 28 February 2012:
(1) When did the incident occur.
(2) What were the weather conditions when the Hi Fly aircraft experienced a heavy landing at the Darwin airport.
(3) What damage was sustained by the Hi Fly aircraft during the landing.
(4) What is the nationality of the pilot/s who landed the aircraft.
(5) What certification and qualifications are held by the pilot/s who landed the aircraft.
Was the aircraft inspected by Australian authorities to determine its air-worthiness; if so:
(a) when; and
(b) can a copy of the inspection report be provided.
Given that the aircraft involved in the incident was held in Darwin subject to a technical assessment by the aircraft operator and an investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), can:
(a) details of the investigation into the technical status of the aircraft; and
(b) a copy of the ATSB report, be provided.
(6) When was the aircraft cleared by ATSB as ready to fly and operate on the MEAO Air Sustainment Charter.
(7) What was the age, model and condition of the aircraft.
(8) In regard to the replacement aircraft used to fly to Dubai:
(a) who provided the necessary certification enabling a replacement aircraft to be flown to Dubai without undergoing inspection in Australia;
(b) can a copy of this certification be provided;
(c) from whom was the aircraft chartered; and
(d) how did it meet the very strict operating conditions of the MEAO Air Sustainment Charter in such a short period of time.
(1) Tuesday, 28 February 2012 at 23:27 CST.
(2) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(3) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(4) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(5) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(6) The aircraft was not inspected by CASA. The responsibility for airworthiness oversight of this aircraft lies with their National Airworthiness Authority.
(7) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(8) ATSB didn't clear the aircraft as ready to fly as it is not a role or function of the ATSB.
(9) The ATSB investigation is ongoing and this information will be discussed and published in the final report (expected by June 2012).
(10) HiFly's management advised CASA that the replacement aircraft registration CS-TQL operated the flight. This aircraft is listed on HiFly's Air Operators Certificate Operations Specifications and no action in relation to this substitution was required from CASA.
(1) Is the Minister aware of the ongoing dust problems associated with phosphate loading at Christmas Island.
(2) Are the impacts of the dust associated with phosphate loading being monitored on an ongoing basis.
(3) Are the impacts of spilled phosphate on the surrounding marine environment monitored.
The export of phosphate is important to the economy of Christmas Island.
Measures are in place to manage phosphate dust during the loading of ships in the working port of Christmas Island.
The Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) licenses Phosphate Resources Limited (PRL) trading as Christmas Island Phosphates under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA)(CI) to conduct bulk material loading and unloading of phosphate. The licence contains a number of conditions relating to dust monitoring and management including a requirement to update and submit a Dust Management Plan by 30 November 2012. During ship loading, the licensee is required to take specified measures which vary according to the wind direction and monitor the dust levels using a mobile dust monitor. Results of dust monitoring are provided to DEC in accordance with licence conditions.
Monitoring of phosphate levels in the marine environment is not considered necessary. Given the high energy of the marine environment, phosphate is rapidly dispersed and this significantly reduces the likelihood of any detrimental environmental impact. Phosphate is a naturally occurring substance on Christmas Island and after heavy rains can leach into the marine environment.
Given that members of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) serving in the Solomon Islands and Sudan on capacity building missions receive the Police Overseas Service Medal, can the Minister provide an explanation as to why AFP members deployed on similar, often hazardous, missions in locations such as Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and Papua New Guinea are denied appropriate recognition by the awarding of the medal.
The current Police Overseas Service Medal (POSM) Regulations recognise the service given by members of an Australian police force who perform a 'peacekeeping' service either as part of an international operation or following a request for assistance by a foreign government.
As the United Nations is a peacekeeping organisation, AFP members deployed as part of the UN missions to Sudan and Timor-Leste are eligible for the POSM.
The Regional Assistance Mission in the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) has been declared a peacekeeping mission and members deployed to RAMSI are eligible for the POSM. The RAMSI mission is transitioning to capacity building and the AFP are monitoring this situation and will advise the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet when RAMSI is no longer considered peacekeeping and is therefore not eligible for the POSM.
Service in Papua New Guinea and Afghanistan have been determined as capacity building and training respectively. As this is not peacekeeping service, it does not fall under the current requirement for the POSM and members who deploy to these missions are not entitled to the award.
There are currently no awards within the Australian Honours system for police officers who perform overseas capacity building or training service. AFP members may be nominated and receive awards under the AFP's Internal Awards Framework specifically for such service/operations. These include awards such as the Commissioner's Medal for Excellence, Commendations and Group Citations for Bravery, Conspicuous Conduct, Excellent and Hazardous Overseas Service and the AFP Operations Medal.
With reference to the development of the Cyber White Paper:
(a) which agencies are involved in the paper;
(b) will a draft be released for community consultation;
(c) what is the expected release date;
(d) does the Cyber White Paper Committee plan to take evidence through public hearings; and
(e) what budget and staffing resources have been allocated.
Corrigendum: On 11 April 2012, Senator Ludlam's office advised that the reference to 'the Cyber White Paper Committee' in part (d) of QON 1732 should read 'the Cyber Policy Coordinator and the Cyber Security Policy and Coordination Committee'.
(a) The following agencies have been members of the governance committees associated with developing the Cyber White Paper:
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Attorney-General's Department
AusAID
Australian Communications and Media Authority
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Australian Federal Police
Australian Government Information Management Office
Australian Postal Corporation
Australian Taxation Office
Department of Broadband, Communications, and the Digital Economy
Department of Defence
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Department of Finance and Deregulation
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
Department of Human Services
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education
Department of Infrastructure and Transport
Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts & Sport
Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner
Office of Best Practice Regulation
Office of National Assessments
Treasury.
(b) No, however there was an extensive public consultation process undertaken as part of the development of the Cyber White Paper.
(c) Mid 2012.
(d) No, however there was an extensive public consultation process undertaken as part of the development of the Cyber White Paper.
(e) Costs for the Cyber White Paper are being met from the current departmental allocation. Approximately $250,000 has been allocated to the Cyber White Paper. At its peak, 11 officials from across Government were working on the Cyber White Paper.
(1) Has permission been sought for a domestic pet to travel on a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) VIP flight by any minister or the Prime Minister; if so, can details of each such flight be provided, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
(2) Has a domestic pet been listed on a flight manifest for a RAAF VIP flight by any minister or the Prime Minister; if so, can details of each such flight be provided, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
(3) For each flight where permission was sought for a domestic pet to travel on a RAAF VIP flight with a minister or the Prime Minister; or, where a domestic pet was at any time listed on a flight manifest for a flight involving a minister or the Prime Minister, can details be provided for each flight where the domestic pet did not subsequently travel, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
(1) Permission has not been sought by the Prime Minister, or on her behalf, for a domestic pet to travel on Special Purpose Aircraft.
(2) N/A.
(3) N/A.
(1) Has permission been sought for a domestic pet to travel on a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) VIP flight by the Prime Minister or any minister; if so, can details of each such flight be provided, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
(2) Has a domestic pet been listed on a flight manifest for a RAAF VIP flight by the Prime Minister or any minister; if so, can details of each such flight be provided, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
(3) For each flight where permission was sought for a domestic pet to travel on a RAAF VIP flight with the Prime Minister or a minister; or, where a domestic pet was at any time listed on a flight manifest for a flight involving a minister or the Prime Minister, can details be provided for each flight where the domestic pet did not subsequently travel, including the:
(a) date; and
(b) departure and arrival points.
Since 2007, Air Force is not aware of any domestic pet being carried on a RAAF VIP flight. Since 2007, no Prime Minister or Minister has sought permission for a domestic pet to be transported on Special Purpose Aircraft flights. Should such a request be received and approved, however, no flight manifest details are kept as pets would be treated and carried as cargo.