The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
… there are considerable economies of scale in the fishery and the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.
Okay. The advice that I received is this: first of all, under national environmental law I don't have the legal power to block it altogether, What I do have is the legal power to impose a number of restrictions on it based on the impact that it can have not on the fish that it is targeting but on the by-catch: the seals, the dolphins, the other fish that are protected and listed and I have a responsibility for. So what I've signed off on today—
is effectively the big vessel will have to fish with the rules so the impact it has on the environment is no more than if it was fishing like a small vessel.
The latest and most comprehensive study and guidance comes from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force … supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program, a US conservation foundation, and brought together 13 eminent marine scientists including world experts in marine science … specialists in penguins, seabirds, marine mammals and marine conservation) and fisheries science.
- the fishing mortality is no more than half of the level that is usually considered to maximise the sustainable yield for an individual species;
- the average abundance of the forage fish is more than double the level usually considered to maximise the sustainable yield for an individual species, and
‐ fishing should be spread out so as to avoid localised depletions, especially in relation to any local ecological ‘hotspots’—
The Senate divided. [14:02]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [14:06]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
… it's not having an effect yet, but it does take time to work.
Well, I back Campbell up 100 per cent.
… very understanding … he and people like Joe Hockey have been incredibly supportive.
Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation to enable us to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Sport (Senator Lundy) to a question without notice asked by Senator Cash today relating to border protection and asylum seekers.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Ludwig) to a question without notice asked by Senator Wright today relating to Mr David Hicks.
That the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 from 1.45 pm.
That the Select Committee on Electricity Prices be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 19 September 2012, from 1.50 pm.
That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 6.15 pm.
That the time for the presentation of the following reports of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee be extended to the first sitting day in March 2013, as follows:
(a) provisions of the Protecting Local Jobs (Regulating Enterprise Migration Agreements) Bill 2012; and
(b) Fair Work Amendment (Small Business—Penalty Rates Exemption) Bill 2012.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on detention of minors be extended to 4 October 2012.
That the Senate—
(a) supports the rights of Australians to peacefully protest and condemns violent protests;
(b) deplores the violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists during protests on 15 September 2012 in Sydney that led to the injury of police officers; and
(c) condemns Green Left Weekly for its publication of articles blaming police for the confrontation that was instigated by violent protestors.
… the police goaded the protesters, in particular the youth, and so the police are responsible for the clashes that took place.
If this comes from opening our doors, then shut them. If this comes from multiculturalism, then scrap it.
If this is the fruit of our tolerance, let's try intolerance.
The Senate divided [15:54]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) from 15 October 2012, the Prime Minister (Ms Gillard) will visit India and will likely advance a bilateral uranium framework agreement while there,
(ii) the growing mass movement in India peacefully protesting nuclear reactors on grounds of health, safety and loss of livelihood due to radiation risks, and
(iii) brutal repression by the police and navy of the tens of thousands of peaceful protestors at the Koodankulam reactor, including two deaths due to police shootings, the latest being Mr Anthony Samy on 11 September 2012, and at least five related deaths over struggles against Koodankulam, Jaitapur (Maharashtra) and Gorakhpur (Haryana) nuclear power plants since 2010; and
(b) calls on the Government to:
(i) make representations to Indian authorities on the democratic right to peaceful protest,
(ii) recognise that, in the case of Koodankulam, nuclear reactors are being forced on local residents at gunpoint, and that uranium fuel loading is imminent despite 10 safety guidelines having not been met,
(iii) promote the independence of India's nuclear regulators from industry and government as best international practice,
(iv) not sell uranium to countries that stand outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its associated safeguards system, and
(v) implement recommendations made by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on bilateral uranium agreements.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the intention of the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to transfer responsibility for protecting our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to state governments by March 2013, and
(ii) that the New South Wales Premier (Mr O'Farrell) is ready to sacrifice the iconic Australian koala for mining and development; and
(b) calls on the Government to retain responsibility for all major decisions on environmentally damaging projects that affect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places.
The Senate divided [15:59]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) recognises that:
(i) torture is a gross violation of human rights,
(ii) Australian, Mr David Hicks, experienced torture and cruel and degrading treatment during his detention in Guantanamo Bay, and
(iii) recent reports indicate that while incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay Mr Hicks was forcibly administered drugs such as mefloquine for non-therapeutic purposes, when it is known to cause psychotic side effects and brain damage; and
(b) calls on the Government to conduct an independent inquiry into Mr Hicks' detention, treatment and unfair trial, including the role of the former Australian Government.
The Senate divided. [16:03]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The threat posed by existing and proposed government incursions into Australian’s right to privacy and the freedom of the individual.
Since 2001 terrorism laws have stripped away many of the civil rights built up in the history of the common law, which are essential to maintaining a democracy …
This extreme proposal is based on the notion that all our personal data should be stored by service providers so that every move we make can be surveilled or recalled for later data mining.
The OAIC welcomes the focus of the Inquiry on ensuring that the proposals it canvasses contain appropriate safeguards for protecting the human rights and privacy of individuals.
The Committee should have regard to whether the proposed responses:
(a) contain appropriate safeguards for protecting the human rights and privacy of individuals and are proportionate to any threat to national security and the security of the Australian private sector
… we are the freedom party. We stand for the freedoms which Australians have a right to expect and which governments have a duty to uphold. We stand for freedom and will be freedom’s bulwark …
History's lesson is still that countries are stronger, as well as better, with democratic freedoms than without them.
Freedom of speech is not just an academic nicety but the essential pre-condition for any kind of progress.
… we don't have the sort of obsession with free speech at any price or the right to carry arms, the sort of American view that these are rights that never have to be balanced with any other public good.
It could not be denied that whatever mechanism is chosen to ensure accountability speech will be restricted. In a sense, that is the purpose of the mechanism.
Libertarian theory was developed in the period of the Enlightenment … The theory was informed by a liberal belief that truth would emerge from the clash of competing opinions, and by a belief in the 'self-righting' capacities of public debate—
… to ensure that in rational and reasoned discourse, error would be vanquished. It was analogous to the free market theories of Adam Smith … However, Libertarian theory was to prove inadequate in the face of the new forces created by the industrialisation of the press and by the realities of 19th and 20th century media economics … On top of these economic and technological challenges to Libertarian theory, the intellectual climate of the 20th century was radically different from that of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Libertarian ideals flourished. The new intellectual climate placed higher store in collectivist, societal values and less on individualistic values.
The time, it is to be hoped, is gone by when any defence would be necessary of the 'liberty of the press' as one of the securities against corrupt or tyrannical government. No argument, we may suppose, can now be needed against permitting a legislature or an executive … to prescribe opinions to [the people] and determine what doctrines or what arguments they shall be allowed to hear.
… the objective of protecting human rights—such as the rights to life, liberty and security of person enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—is consistent with the objective of protecting Australian communities. Both objectives are fundamentally concerned with protecting the community and individuals from harm.
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his—
privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his—
honour and reputation.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
… the most significant grab for legislative power by security agencies in Australia since they took advantage of the hysterical political climate created by September 11 and the Bali bombings.
If these proposals become law, the capacity of security agencies to spy on citizens, to bully telecommunications providers and to inflict violence on persons subjected to raids, will be significantly enhanced.
To access a third party's computer which has no connection with the target is extraordinarily broad and intrusive. These are powers usually characteristic of a police state.
Without a rigorous set of legal safeguards and a means to measure the necessity, proportionality and reasonableness of the interference, States have no guidance on minimizing the risks to privacy generated by their new policies.
The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless.
That the Senate take note of the document.
It is important that a national regulatory system that promotes good governance, accountability and transparency for not-for-profit entities [so that it can] maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the not-for-profit sector.
Much has been said about the need for reduction of red tape. That was very much the rationale that led a number of the various government inquiries to recommend a national regulator. You will have heard, I am sure, that there is still concern in many sectors that particular legislation that we are now dealing with does not bring about the reduction of red tape that was envisaged.
That Senator Ludlam be appointed as a participating member of the Select Committee on Electricity Prices.
Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
PRIVACY AMENDMENT (ENHANCING PRIVACY PROTECTION) BILL 2012
The Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 is one of the most significant developments in privacy reform since Labor introduced the Act in 1988.
With this Bill, the Gillard Labor Government has implemented more than half of the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations in the 2008 "For Your Information" Report.
This Bill will bring Australia's privacy protection framework into the modern era. Labor is protecting the privacy of working families.
In an online world, we are increasingly sharing our personal information on social networking sites and paying our bills and buying footy tickets over the internet.
While these technological changes bring immense benefits to working families—there are risks. That's why Labor is tightening up the rules around how companies and organisations can collect, use and disclose personal information.
For the first time, new Australian Privacy Principles will apply to both the private and public sectors. The Principles will continue to deal with the collection, storage, security, use, disclosure, access and correction of personal information.
But we are introducing a new Privacy Principle for direct marketing and stronger protections for consumers when companies disclose personal information overseas. The new Direct Marketing Privacy Principle will more tightly regulate the use of personal information for direct marketing.
Put simply, it will give working families more power to opt out of receiving direct marketing materials. The onus will be on companies to provide a clear and simple way of opting out of receiving direct marketing materials.
Labor is also extending privacy protections to unsolicited information and introducing stronger and clearer rules around data quality and data correction.
There will be a new requirement in the Privacy Principles for organisations and companies to develop detailed privacy policies—and make them clear and easily accessible to consumers. Labor is shifting power away from big companies—back to working families.
There will be stricter rules about sending a families' personal information outside of Australia. Specifically, privacy policies will need to include whether a company or agency is likely to disclose information to overseas recipients, and if so, which countries the information is likely to go to.
In addition, before a company or government agency discloses personal information to an overseas recipient, the company must take reasonable steps to make sure the overseas recipient does not breach the Australian Privacy Principles. Privacy entities will continue to be accountable for information that is sent overseas.
The Australian Privacy Principles will also require a higher standard of protection to be afforded to "sensitive information"—which includes health related information, DNA and biometric data.
The Government is aware that Senators and Members receive numerous letters and emails about credit reports. Australia's complex and often confusing credit reporting system is being reformed.
In addition to the Gillard Government's responsible lending reforms in the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (2009), we are making it easier for consumers to access and correct their personal credit information.
It is the first major reform since Labor introduced credit reporting in 1990. This Bill modernises credit reporting provisions and will make the credit reporting regime more flexible and less prescriptive by emphasising industry-led complaint resolution.Banks and financial institutions will be able to see more accurate and positive information about:
1. the types of accounts that families have and when they were opened and closed;
2. the current credit limits of each account (but obviously not the day to day balance, to protect privacy); and
3. positive information about repayment history. For example, when a credit card was paid off on time, not just information about overdue payments.
These reforms will mean more families can access credit. And it will mean the banks can assess credit risks more accurately.
These reforms will be good for business. The finance and credit industry have been heavily involved in developing these reforms. They know—as does this Labor Government—that these reforms will enhance responsible lending in Australia.
It was Labor who supported Australia's economy through the Global Financial Crisis. We supported small business and created three quarters of a million jobs.
These reforms will give the Australian finance and credit industry more information—with the appropriate privacy protections—so that they can make more accurate risk assessments. More information—which will need to be more up to date and accurate under this Bill—will assist both consumers and the credit reporting industry.
It is expected that these reforms will lead to decreased levels of over indebtedness and then lower credit default rates.
For Australian businesses and the credit industry more comprehensive credit reporting will enable better management of capital and growth targets, improve credit decisions and enhance the effectiveness of how credit reporting agencies collect data.
It is also expected to lead to more competition and efficiency in the credit market, which may in turn lead to more affordable credit and mortgage insurance for families and first home buyers.
Credit providers will now have positive obligations to help consumers correct their credit information. It will be easier to make complaints about incorrect credit reporting information. The Bill will also prohibit the collection of credit reporting information about individuals reasonably known to be under the age of18.
Businesses will get more information, particularly in relation to repayment history—but Labor will protect the privacy of this information. For example, given the sensitive nature of repayment history information, this information will only be available to credit providers who are subject to responsible lending obligations under the National Consumer Credit Protection Act (2009).
In addition, repayment history information can only be retained for a rolling two year period, rather than five years like most of the other information in the credit reporting system.
For families to fully utilise these new powers, they need to be able to get an enforceable remedy. That's why the Gillard Labor Government is enhancing the powers of the Australian Privacy Commissioner to improve the Commissioner's ability to resolve complaints, conduct investigations and promote privacy compliance.
Under this Bill, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to make a determination to direct an organisation to take specific steps to stop certain conduct, or take reasonable action to redress any loss or damage suffered.
The Commissioner will also be able to obtain enforceable undertakings from an organisation. A Court can then make appropriate orders, including orders for compensation.
The Commissioner will also be able to apply to the court for a civil penalty order against organisations. Penalties range from 200 penalty units—$22,000 for an individual and $110,000 for a company—to 2,000 penalty units, which is $220,000 for an individual and $1.1m for a company. For serious and repeated breaches of privacy, the penalty will be 2,000 penalty units. This is another remedy for consumers and will encourage compliance with the Privacy Act.
The Privacy Commissioner will also be able to direct agencies to perform a Privacy Impact Assessment, and will be able to conduct Privacy Performance Assessments to check that agencies and organisations are complying with the Australian Privacy Principles.
This Bill will make dispute resolution simpler, quicker and cheaper. The Commissioner will have a new power to recognise and approve an external dispute resolution scheme for credit reporting disputes. There are new conciliation provisions, so that conciliation can be a dispute resolution option.
In essence, the Australian Privacy Commissioner will have new powers, including the power to seek enforceable remedies for consumers who have had their privacy breached. These are major reforms.
They are major reforms which will help working Australians in practical ways—from correcting their credit information when they apply for a loan, to making a complaint against a bank or telecommunications company. Labor is giving more power to working families.
The Government is allowing industry and government agencies nine months to review and update their privacy policies and practices. That's why the Bill will commence nine months after Royal Assent.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the stakeholders who have worked so hard on these reforms since 2008. The Government is looking forward to continuing to work with them on the Regulations and the Credit Reporting Code.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012
Consumer Credit Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2012
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
… the most efficient way to fish may include large scale factory freezer vessels.
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Debate resumed on the motion:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Labor Party's got a clear position about the Marriage Act that is a party position, so you should expect to see the Labor Party voting as a political party, voting in unison if that proposition comes to the parliament.
Will you allow a free vote on gay marriage on your side of politics?
Same-sex couples who engage in the act and commitment of marriage are not putting the public at any risk of health, safety or order, are not breaching the rights of freedoms of other people, and as such should not be subject to such limitations.
In Australia, functional equality has already been achieved. I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions, other than the right to call the relationship a marriage. Certainly that is so in federal law. For example, there is complete equality in terms of rights in relation to the division of property and the payment of maintenance on relationship breakdown.
Although the family takes many forms in contemporary Australian society, it is uncontroversial to insist that the ideal family environment is that in which children are raised by their own mother and father. According to a 2004 study, 73.6% of children under 18 in Australia live with their biological parents in intact families. It is a statistic we expect most Australians would applaud: the more children growing up in such circumstances, the better. The institution of marriage is instrumental in realising this ideal, by binding a man, a woman, and their biological children in a stable family unit.
From a sociological perspective, the ascendancy of the campaign for gay marriage provides a fascinating story about the dynamics of the cultural conflicts that prevail in Western society. During the past decade the issue of gay marriage has been transformed into a cultural weapon that explicitly challenges prevailing norms through condemning those who oppose it … As a result, it does not simply represent a claim for a right but a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values.
Instead of stating 'All persons have the right to marry', the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: 'The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised.' The Covenant asserts: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.'
Children who experienced instability had higher teacher and observer reports of problem behaviors than those from stable family structures.
Consistent with our initial hypothesis, a more positive father-child relationship is associated with a reduced risk of delinquency and substance abuse above and beyond the effects of the mother-child relationship. These results remain consistent even after using controls for various aspects of mother-child relationships, maternal monitoring and other maternal characteristics, family and household-level characteristics and child-level characteristics.
The key thing to understand is that this issue is not …going to be won or lost in the Labor Party on the question of merit, because on an issue of merit we will go down 80-20. It's … going to be won in the Labor Party if it is perceived to be electoral suicide if they go ahead and change their policy …
Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment.
Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other.
So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.
My father has since acknowledged that he regrets not attending my commitment ceremony in 2006, adding that 'I pray I will be given the opportunity to right my wrong and see my eldest son legally marry the man he loves'.
It is time for all of us to soften our hearts and accept that the expression of love and commitment through marriage should be available to all couples, irrespective of sexuality.
Marriage has been reserved as a sacred bond between a man and a woman across times, across cultures and across very different religious beliefs. Marriage is the very foundation of the family, and the family is the basic unit of society. Thus marriage is a personal relationship with public significance and we are right to recognise this in our laws.
Marriage laws are fundamentally a question of what's best for society rather than a question of individual rights.
… the legalisation of same-sex marriage on the basis of psychological evidence showing the mental health benefits of marriage and the harm caused by social exclusion and discrimination arising from not having the choice to marry.
Decades of psychological research provides the evidence linking marriage to mental health benefits and highlighting the harm to individual's mental health of social exclusion. The APS supports the full recognition of same-sex relationships on the basis of this evidence.
Poor health outcomes are the result of the high levels of psychological distress experienced growing up surrounded by negative attitudes and behaviours to same-sex attraction. Growing up gay or lesbian is to grow up as something you've been taught to hate. These 'homophobic' messages continue to occur into adulthood and can intensify the distress.
They can take the form of hate crime, workplace discrimination and being excluded from 'normal' society. Worst of all, this homophobia can be internalised leading same-sex attracted people to hate and harm themselves.
Studies from North America and Europe have shown that feelings of well-being, security and acceptance among same-sex attracted people and their family members increases dramatically when same-sex couples have the choice to marry.
This is for two reasons. First, some of the most negative messages internalised by same-sex attracted people are about the instability and worthlessness of same-sex relationships. Second, marriage, with its emphasis on care, commitment and fidelity, continues to define the meaning of love and relationships in our society. The government reinforces the very worst stereotypes about gay and lesbian people when it excludes them from marriage.
The American Psychological Society states:
"The denial of civil marriage, including the creation of legal statuses such as civil unions and domestic partnerships, stigmatizes same-sex relationships, perpetuates the stigma historically attached to homosexuality, and reinforces prejudice against lesbian, gay and bisexual people."
The best public-policy interventions are those which target a significant problem, have a clear rationale, are supported by research evidence, are least costly to implement and have strong community support. Legalising gay marriage as an alcohol and drug policy response meets these criteria … It is now time to legalise gay marriage, as an important contribution to reducing alcohol and other drug harm in Australia.
… as Australians, we bring our children into this world believing this country has a free and equal society, but when a loved one “comes out” we soon learn this is a myth.
… … …
It should be noted that our lesbian daughters and gay sons want no more or less than their heterosexual siblings, which is to just be equal. And we as their parents also want equality for them which includes the right to marry their partner of choice regardless of sexual orientation.
We believe that if allowed to marry it will minimise depression and substance abuse that comes with low self esteem and unfortunately, many of our sons and daughters in the LGBT community do suffer mental health issues because of how they feel about themselves which is mainly due to societal attitudes and them being told in some subtle and sometimes not so subtle ways they are inferior. This is why suicidal ideation is such a problem in the LGBT community. Marriage equality will be a huge step forward in this area, because it will show that the government no longer condones discrimination under the cloak of “tradition” and the outdated belief of “marriage being between a man and a woman”.
(1) Has the Australian Government made inquiries of the German, Costa Rican and Japanese Governments as to the
whereabouts and circumstances of Captain Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society; if so, can details of those inquires be provided.
(2) Has the Australian Government made inquiries of Interpol as to its response to a request made by Costa Rica that Interpol issue a notice for Captain Watson’s arrest; if so, can details of those inquires be provided.
(3) Is the Australian Government aware of the grounds on which Captain Watson was held under house arrest in Germany for an offence that allegedly occurred in the Guatemalan high seas and involved a Costa Rican vessel; is so, can a detailed explanation be provided.
(4) If Captain Watson was to seek assistance and refuge in Australia: (a) would he be free to enter; and (b) would he be able to stay safely within the country or would he potentially be the subject of extradition proceedings and/or related mutual assistance agreements.
(5) Does Australia have an extradition agreement with Costa Rica or Japan.
(1) The Australian Government has not made enquiries of Germany, Costa Rica or Japan in relation to Mr Watson as he is a dual citizen of Canada and the United States. It is a matter for those countries to make those enquiries.
(2) The Australian Government is aware that an Interpol Red Notice was issued in respect of Mr Watson at Costa Rica’s request. The Australian Government did not make inquiries of Interpol as it would not expect to be a party to discussions concerning the issue of an Interpol Red Notice made at the request of another country.
(3) The Australian Government is not aware of the grounds on which Mr Watson was held under house arrest in Germany and would not expect to be provided with information concerning Germany’s domestic law enforcement.
(4) Mr Watson’s ability to enter Australia would be governed by the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). If Mr Watson wished to make a claim for asylum it would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of that Act. An extradition or mutual assistance request could be made to Australia in respect of Mr Watson. Any request would be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) and/or the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) and any applicable treaty provisions.
(5) Australia does not have a bilateral extradition relationship with Costa Rica. It cannot consider an extradition request from Costa Rica other than for offences covered by multilateral conventions attaching extradition obligations to which both Australia and Costa Rica are parties. Australia can consider an extradition request from Japan as Japan is declared in the Extradition (Japan) Regulations 1988 to be an ‘extradition country’ for the purposes of the Extradition Act.
Given that the Australian National University Student Union has used funds acquired under the student Services and Amenities Fee to purchase jelly beans and cupcakes for a free giveaway, as well as a jumping castle for students to use: (1) Is the Government implementation of a student Services and Amenities Fee being employed as intended? (2) Did the Government envisage the spending of funds on such items? (3) Does the Government consider this an appropriate use of funds acquired in accordance with the student Services and Amenities Fee? (4) What avenues are available to students who feel that their funds are being misspent?
(1) Under subparagraph 19-37 of the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (the Act), universities are able to collect a fee to support the provision of student services and amenities. Universities cannot spend student services and amenities fee (SSAF) revenue in ways that are not specified in the Act. The Department has been working with universities to ensure they understand the provisions. Currently, the Department’s understanding is that universities have complied with the Act in implementing the SSAF.
(2) Under subsection 19 38(4) of the Act SSAF revenue may be expended for a range of purposes, including to:
(3) The Government considers it appropriate for universities to use the funding for the purposes identified in subsection 19 38(4) of the Act. Under the legislation, universities are required to consult with student representatives on the use of fee revenue.
As at 30 June 2012, what specific savings have been made in the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) ‘Provisional Savings and Costs – SRP Stream Costs’ for:
(a) information and communications technology;
(b) inventory;
(c) smart maintenance;
(d) logistics;
(e) non-equipment procurement;
(f) preparedness and personnel and operating costs;
(g) reserves;
(h) shared services;
(i) workforce; and
(j) Mortimer implementation.
There are no savings associated with the ‘SRP Stream Costs’. The ‘SRP Stream Costs’ are those funds allocated for investment in stream reform. The SRP includes over $2 billion in the Defence Budget to 2018-19 in order to support investment and enable implementation of reforms. In 2011-12, investments to enable reforms have been made in Information and Communications Technology, Smart Sustainment (including Inventory), Logistics, Preparedness and personnel and operating costs, Reserves and Workforce and Shared Services.
For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, 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.
(1) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012: (a) what was the hospitality spend for each agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary; and (b) for each hospitality event, can the following details be provided: (i) the date, (ii) the location, (iii) the purpose, (iv) the cost, and (v) the number of attendees?
(2) For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, can details be provided of the total hospitality spend for the office of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary?
(1) (a) The Defence Portfolio’s expenditure on hospitality (excluding the Minister’s Office and minor Portfolio bodies) for the period 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 is as shown in Table 1.
(b) Details of date, location, purpose and (GST exclusive) cost of each event are provided at Table 2.
(2) Table 3 provides details of hospitality spending for the period 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012, for the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries. Details provided include date, location, purpose and (GST exclusive) costs of each event for the period 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012.
Attachments:
Table 1: Summary of Hospitality and Representational Allowance Expenditure for the Period 1 January 2012 to 30 June 2012 for Defence, DMO and DHA.
Table 2: Event Level Detail for Defence, DMO, and DHA ( available from the Senate Table Office ).
Table 3: Event Level Detail for Ministerial Hospitality.
Hospitality spend for the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries
For the period from January 12 to June 12
Minister for Defence
29 February 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Working lunch – Australia/Brunei Ministers Defence Bilateral Discussions
$788.18
22 March 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Singaporean Minister for Defence Bilateral discussions
$62.75
22 March 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Lunch for Singapore Minister for Defence
$1058.64
*Cost includes $81.00 for alcohol
23 March 2012
Frasers Restaurant, Kings Park, Perth
Conclusion of bilateral activities with Singaporean Defence Minister and his delegation
$1,735.67
*Cost includes $403.00 for alcohol
Minister for Defence Materiel – Mr Clare
27-28 September 2011
Parliament House, Canberra
Projects of Concern Meetings
$402.77
(Additional amount to the same event reported in the period 1 July 11 to 31 Dec 11)
23 April 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Projects of Concern meeting
$496.36
24 April 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Projects of Concern meeting
$103.64
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence – Mr Feeney
Nil Expenditure
Minister for Defence Materiel – Mr Carr
Nil Expenditure
Minister for Defence Science & Personnel - Mr Snowdon
20 March 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Bilateral meeting with Belgian Delegation
$88.58
Parliamentary Secretary for Defence – Mr Kelly
4 June 2012
Parliament House, Canberra
Reimburse Dr Kelly afternoon tea costs
$49.34
Note: This list includes one Hospitality event, which occurred in the previous period, but was not reported until current period.
For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012: (a) what savings have been made in reducing the cost of combat capability through the use of Reserves and deployable contractors; and (b) have any one-off savings been made; if so, where were these savings found?
This question has been previously answered under Parliamentary Senate Question on Notice No. 1626 on 18 June 2012 for the period of 1 July to 31 December 2011. The response to that question remains correct. There have been no 'one-off' savings in relation to the use of Reserves on operations for the period of 1 January to 30 June 2012.
As at 30 June 2012:
(a) of the savings expected over the period 2010-2019, what specific savings have been made in Storage and Distribution (logistics) Reform where the adoption of automated technologies and improved business practices ensure cost effectiveness and efficiency; and
(b) what one-off savings have been made?
(a) Achievement of Savings to 30 Jun 2012. Logistics reform savings of $19.212m have been realised since 2010 under the logistics stream of the Strategic Reform Program. Further savings are anticipated following the re-tender of the Defence Integrated Distribution Services contract through efficiencies derived from consolidation of warehouses, improved and standardised layouts and improved processes enabled by improved technology. The total projected savings resulting from the Defence Logistics Transformation Program over the period 2010-2019 are $350.453m. This includes some $79.9m of savings following reform of Defence distribution processes and procedures and $100m saving from Warehousing reform.
(b) One Off Savings. The savings delivered under Logistics Reform are expected to be recurring savings to operating costs, not one off savings opportunities.
As at 30 June 2012:
(1) From which areas of expenditure will the enhanced force protection measure be made?
(2) What specific programs will be cut or deferred to meet this cost?
(3) Why did the Government cease disclosing deferrals in expenditure in the 2008-09 Budget which has continued through to the 2012-13 Budget?
(4) (a) What are the specific deferrals in expenditure since 2008-09; and
(b) Why have these deferrals been made?
(5) What percentage increase, if any, will be made to enable future capital equipment initiatives over the forward estimates period?
(6) As it is not clear in the 2012-13 Budget, what specific projects are planned for approval in 2012-13?
(7) (a) What programs in 2012-13 will now have to be resourced through absorbed costs; and
(b) what programs have been cancelled or deferred to enable these costs to be absorbed?
(8) Of the $20.6 billion worth of savings under the Strategic Reform Program (SRP) it appears that $4.6 billion of this involves the re-allocation of funds and is not a savings item at all - how can this claim of savings be made when it is in fact a reallocation of funds?
(9) Under the SRP: (a) why has the number of civilian employees to be cut been reduced from the forecast 3 125; and (b) what is the new figure?
(1) The Defence funded component of the Force Protection Review, $912 million has been funded as follows:
(2) Defence has either delayed or revised the expenditure spread for a total of 11 Defence Capability Plan Projects to fund the Force Protection Review.
(3) Defence has not ceased disclosing information. As a consequence of the 2009 Defence White Paper, a new funding model was applied to the Defence budget and therefore there was no appropriation reprogramming in the 2009-10 budget.
Appropriation reprogramming was again undertaken in the 2010-11 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2010-11 (Pg 22, Table 10: Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
Capital Investment reprogramming was undertaken in the 2011-12 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2011-12 (Pg 28, Table 11: Defence 2011-12 Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
Efficiencies and reprogramming was undertaken in the 2012-13 budget as shown in the Portfolio Budget Statements 2012-13 (Pg 29, Table 15: Defence 2011-12 Budget Measures and Other Budget Adjustments).
(4) (a) and (b) See Annex A ( available from the Senate Table Office ).
(5) The total Approved Major Capital Investment Program is $3,138.3m in 2012-13 and $7,394.1 million over the 13-14 to 15-16 forward estimates period (refer Table 18 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2012-13). The amounts in each year of the Approved Major Capital Investment Program is not managed on a percentage increase basis but rather reflects the cash flow required to support the delivery of particular projects. This may or may not be a linear relationship.
(6) DCP projects in development for consideration by Government were provided on page 133, tables 84 and 85 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2012-13. The DCP and its associated regular updates are available through the Defence website (refer http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/dcp.cfm ).
(7) (a) and (b) As shown on page 29, table 15 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2012-13, the following Budget Measures have been absorbed within Defence's existing budgets in 2012-13:
As shown on page 31, Table 17 of the Portfolio Budget Statements 2012-13, Defence will absorb some costs associated with Defence Operations and Enhanced Force Protection Capabilities.
(8) The Strategic Reform Program is a comprehensive program that features many aspects of reform that are not directly focused on efficiency. The reallocation of funds in the "Other Cost Reductions" component reflects an increase in the efficiency with which Defence allocated resources. It also reflects improved Defence planning and understanding of the Defence Budget. These are all key outcomes of the Strategic Reform Program.
(9) (a) and (b)The workforce reductions from efficiency savings and the 0.7% productivity have been combined to give Defence Budget Audit workforce reduction totals of 3,125 civilians and 1,713 military compared to SRP reductions of 1708 civilians and 859 military.
The difference is attributed to adjustments to Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) workforce savings, removal of operational and capability related workforce from the baseline and savings, inclusion of efficiency and effectiveness savings for DMO and DSTO, and inclusion of Logistics workforce savings.
Within SRP, there is growth within civilian positions under the Workforce and Shared Services Reform (WSSR) and Non Equipment Procurement streams. The total APS workforce growth is 1,416 (civilianisation 535 and contractor conversions 881) across the decade realising approximately $1b in savings due to the reduced cost of employing civilians into these support roles.
Total APS efficiency improvements comprise APS WSSR efficiency savings of 1,374 Full Time Equivalent (FTE), 5 FTE associated with ADF Gap Year reductions and 0.7% productivity savings of 729 FTE. The net civilian workforce impact by 2018-19 after taking into account FTE workforce growth associated with civilianisation is a saving of 1,573 FTE.
Further savings of up to 124 FTE associated with Logistics stream reform are yet to be finalised so have not yet been included in workforce guidance trails.
(1) Did Tourism Australia have an official partnership with the Northern Trust Open for the 2012 PGA TOUR tournament held from 14 February to 19 February 2012.
(2) Can the Minister and/or Tourism Australia confirm whether Tourism Australia VIPs participated in an exclusive clinic with a PGA TOUR professional during the tournament; if so: (a) at what location and on what date was the clinic held; (b) how many Tourism Australia VIPs participated in the clinic; and (c) what were the full names of the individuals who participated in the clinic.
(3) Were 18 Tourism Australia VIPs also involved in coordinating or participating in other events and promotions run by Tourism Australia at the Northern Trust Open; if so, can details of their involvement be provided.
(4) Was Tourism Australia responsible for the transport and accommodation of 18 Tourism Australia VIPs who participated in the clinic and/or coordinated or participated in other events and promotions run by Tourism Australia.
(5) What was the cost of travel, accommodation, food and other expenses for the Tourism Australia VIPs at this event.
(6) What was the additional cost, if any, of the exclusive clinic held between Tourism Australia VIPs and a PGA TOUR professional.
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes.
(a) Location was Riviera Country Club Driving Range on 17 February 2012 for 30 minutes.
(b) The clinic was provided as part of Tourism Australia’s overall sponsorship package of the Northern Trust Open 2012 and was not a Tourism Australia sponsored event. As such attendance by Tourism Australia’s guests was not mandatory and not officially recorded. Unofficial records indicate ten Tourism Australia guests participated in the clinic.
(c) Ten people are known to have participated in the clinic from media and golf tourism related organisations. The names of attendees cannot be provided due to privacy of the individuals concerned.
(3) Yes. Tourism Australia’s guest participated variously in the following events and promotional activity:
(a) Tournament related events: opening luncheon and Tourism Australia sponsored Wednesday ‘pro-am virtual draw and awards reception’.
(b) Tourism Australia guests were also provided with semi private viewing and dining and refreshment facilities during the event. Sponsorship included:
(c) In partnership with Tourism Victoria, Tourism Australia hosted a consumer display in The Grove Exposition Space during tournament week where fans entered to win a VIP trip to Australia provided by Tourism Victoria and Down Under Endeavours (a Chicago based specialist tour operator). This display was visited by more than 15,000 consumers each day and Down Under Endeavours generated more than 500 consumer leads.
(d) Tourism Australia held a ‘Golf Roundtable’ discussion in conjunction with Australian tourism initiative Great Golf Courses of Australia and the travel agents and wholesalers in attendance, to discuss how best to approach the US golf travel market, access product, communicate to consumers, utilize media channels, create branding, implement marketing tactics, gather research and develop product opportunities. 18 people from key wholesalers, tour operators, media representatives, and state tourism partners attended. The names of attendees cannot be provided due to privacy of the individuals concerned.
(4) TA provided airfares and one night accommodation for participants who were not local to the event.
(5) The cost of travel, accommodation, food and other expenses for Tourism Australia guests to attend sponsorship events associated with the Northern Trust Open 2012 was: $11,749.41
(6) There was no additional cost for the clinic.
With reference to the map ''South-west Marine Region - Petroleum Titles (May 2012)'' (www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/reserves/pubs/map-sw-petroleum-titles.pdf ), which identifies petroleum titles and acreage releases that intersect with or are immediately adjacent to the final Commonwealth marine reserves proposal in the South-west Marine Region:
(1) Does the map show all petroleum titles and acreage releases that intersect with or are immediately adjacent to the network of marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region; if not, can a complete map be provided, and if a complete map cannot be provided, why not.
(2) For each intersection identified on the map, will the petroleum title or acreage release be affected by the proposal; if so, can details be provided; if not, why not.
(1) The map ''South-west Marine Region - Petroleum Titles (May 2012)'' identifies petroleum titles and acreage releases that intersect or are immediately adjacent to the final Commonwealth Marine Reserves proposal in the South-west Marine Region” as stated on the map up to and including the May 2012 acreage release. Only the leases that intersect or are adjacent to the reserves were included. For the purpose of determining adjacency, a 5km margin was applied, that is titles or acreage releases within 5km of the final Commonwealth Marine Reserves proposal were identified.
(2) This question is more efficiently dealt with by treating the intersections as a group, as the response is the same for each.
The content of the reserve management plan for these areas is still a matter to be finalised. However, the inclusion of all or part of a petroleum title within Commonwealth marine reserves that are zoned to permit those activities is not expected to significantly complicate operational arrangements for exploration or development of a petroleum resource.
There may still be perceptions in the market that the conditions applied to petroleum activities affecting an area inside a marine reserve will be less favourable than those applied to the same activity outside. If this were the case it would be a reflection of the operational requirements determined by the environment in which the two activities are located, rather than a result of one being located within a reserve and the other outside.
The activities compatible with each International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category within the proposed marine reserves network have already been determined based on the Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) Regulations pertaining to each IUCN Category. Australia’s interpretation of the IUCN category VI is that the exploration and production of oil and gas is consistent with that category. Consequently, oil and gas exploration and development will be permitted in all IUCN VI zones within the new proposed South-west Commonwealth marine reserves (with the exception of Special Purpose Zones which explicitly exclude oil and gas exploration and development i.e. the Special Purpose Zone off the Capes region in the SW marine region).
Prior Usage Rights, Section 359(1) of the EPBC Act exempts any seabed usage rights that pre-date the proclamation of a reserve from the provisions of the reserve’s management arrangements. Subsequent titles, such as a retention lease granted following on from an exploration permit, are not protected by section 359.
Release areas S12-1, S12-2 and existing titles of WA379-P, WA380-P, WA481-P, EPP37 - 42, overlap Commonwealth marine reserves and proposed reserves zoned Multiple Use Zones (IUCN VI), or Special Purpose Zones (IUCN VI) that allow petroleum activities. A permit or approval by the Director of National Parks will be required for petroleum activities in these areas of overlap.
The areas are also subject to other applicable EPBC Act provisions and Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) requirements. That is, while some petroleum related activities in these areas require assessment and approval due to their potential to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance (NES), all petroleum related activities require approval by the Director of National Parks (unless specifically identified in the management plan as not requiring approval). In addition, all petroleum activities must have approved and comply with an Environment Plan accepted by the National Offshore Petroleum, Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA), the regulator under the OPGGS Act.
Irrespective of where petroleum activities occur in the Commonwealth marine area, the regulatory regime established by the Australian Government under national environmental law, the EPBC Act, and the OPGGS Act, already ensure high standards of environment assessment, approval and practice apply to the industry.
How many:
(a) iPad 2 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 July 2011;
(b) iPad 3 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 April 2012; and
(c) iPhones have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 November 2010?
(a) Six iPad 2 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 July 2011;
(b) Two iPad 3 or equivalent tablet devices have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 April 2012; and
(c) Six iPhones have been provided to departmental personnel since 1 November 2010.
Defence also has 203 iPad 1s that have been provided to departmental personnel.
If iPhones and/or iPads have been provided to ministerial office and departmental personnel, why have they not been supplied to Opposition staff and Shadow ministerial offices?
Portfolio Departments are not responsible for the provision of iPhones and/or iPads or other information technology services to Opposition staff and Shadow Ministerial offices.
How many (a) Qantas Club memberships; and (b) other airline club memberships, are provided to departmental personnel and at what cost.
Some Defence employees have airline club membership funded by Defence where it provides value for money outcomes to Defence and is approved by an authorised financial delegate.
However it is not possible to provide accurate data on the total number of Defence employees who have these memberships funded by Defence. Payment is by various means (Defence Travel Card, Defence Purchasing Card or on a reimbursement basis) to one or more airlines and these transactions are not itemised separately in Defence’s financial management system or enterprise management system.
Under the Whole-of-Australian Government travel arrangements, some airlines do offer discounted lounge membership rates to government employees.
Which departmental personnel have earned ‘frequent flyer’ points from airlines since July 1 2011, and what methodology is used to determine this information?
As an agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997, personnel in the Department of Defence do not earn ‘frequent flyer’ points when using airlines appointed to the Whole-of-Australian Government (WoAG) air services panel. Under this arrangement the Department of Finance and Deregulation (the contract manager) instructed airlines contracted to supply both domestic and international air travel to switch off their Frequent Flyer Points/Loyalty Reward Points from 1 July 2010. Where an airline was unable to meet the system change, travel management companies were requested to switch off points from their booking systems until affected airlines had a solution in place.
Frequent Flyer Points/Loyalty Reward Points may be accrued from airlines outside WoAG arrangements as there is no obligation by these airlines to turn off points. Defence has no way of tracking if points are accrued from official duty travel; however Defence personnel are required to comply with government policy and only use points accrued from official duty travel for future duty travel.
Of the $227 million spent on travel in the 2011-12 financial year, how much was attributed to:
(a) uniformed personnel; (b) civilian personnel; (c) officers at or above executive level 1; and (d) officers at or above senior executive service levels.
The information sought is not readily available. Defence does not have a single data source that identifies each trip undertaken by Department of Defence personnel, for both ADF and APS, and at various ranks and levels.
With reference to the travel expenses of the Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Force, how much is expected to be saved by utilising video conference or similar technology in the 2012 13 financial year?
The requirement for the Secretary and Chief of the Defence Force to travel is often necessary to meet Australia's international commitments and video teleconferencing is not an appropriate substitute. The Secretary and Chief of the Defence Force make use of videoconferencing, webcasting and other telephony services as part of their day to day management of the Department of Defence to communicate with and stay in contact with different components of Defence, our partners and allies. The travel programs of both the Secretary and Chief of the Defence Force have been structured for some time around utilisation of such technologies to the greatest extent possible and so there is no expectation that substantial further savings can be made in this regard.
With reference to the snail problem on the Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula and in other regions of South Australia:
(1) What action has Wheat Exports Australia (WEA) taken to: (a) address this problem; and (b) ensure the quality of grain leaving South Australia is not contaminated with abandoned snail shells collected during grain harvest.
(2) How much has WEA spent, or is expecting to spend, on dealing with this problem.
(3) Who will be responsible for the integrity of Australian grain exports given the proposed phasing-out of WEA in 2012.
(1) Wheat Exports Australia (WEA) has no role in managing the quality of Australian wheat exports.
(2) See answer to Part 1.
(3) While Australia does not have legislated quality standards for the export of wheat, industry has a well established market-driven system to secure and maintain
long-term access to key export markets, particularly those which return a price premium.
This system is supported by a number of government and industry initiatives.
For example, DAFF Biosecurity provides export inspection and certification services to ensure trade descriptions are accurate and to reduce the risk of insects, pests and noxious weeds. The National Residue Survey monitors compliance with Australian Maximum Residue Limit standards and works with bulk-handling companies to sample bulk shipments of wheat.
Wheat Quality Australia, a joint initiative of the Grains Research and Development Corporation and Grain Trade Australia (GTA), manages Australia's wheat variety classification and consults regularly with domestic industry and international customers. GTA is responsible for the development of receival standards applied by storage agents across the country. These are also reviewed annually in consultation with industry.
With reference to the snail problem on the Eyre Peninsula, Yorke Peninsula and in other regions of South Australia:
(1) Since 2003, what action has the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) taken to address this problem.
(2) Does GRDC have a role in ensuring the quality of grain leaving South Australia is not contaminated with abandoned snail shells collected during grain harvest.
(1) The Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) has funded 10 Research Development & Extension projects in relation to snail control since 2003 with a total investment of $1 957 828.
GRDC has also undertaken extensive communication and extension activities in relation to snail control and management. These include:
(2) No.
With reference to the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation and the primary industries health and safety program:
(1) What quantitative measures will be used to assess how many accidental deaths and injuries are mitigated by the $200 000 cited in the 2012-13 Budget Ministerial statement (page 35).
(2) How does this program ensure that health and safety issues are given high priority by farmers, fishers and foresters.
(3) What tangible measures are used by the department to assess changes in health and safety culture, including the 'beliefs and values' of farmers, fishers and foresters.
(4) What actions are being taken with the allocated $200 000.
(5) How much of this funding will be spent on the administration of the program.
(6) Does the training being provided meet national and international standards.
(1) The Primary Industries Health and Safety Program ('the Program') routinely collates data on the health and safety of Australia's primary industries. Recent data shows that:
However, no specific studies have been commissioned to determine how many deaths and injuries are mitigated directly as a result of funding under the Program.
(2) In addition to publishing research outcomes, the Program partners utilise existing rural networks to communicate key outcomes to farmers, fishers and foresters.
(3) The Program has undertaken specific research addressing:
These reports provide baseline information that can be used to measure change over time.
(4) The Program completed a program of activity against the Primary Industries Health and Safety Five Year Plan in June 2012.
(5) All of the $200 000 will be allocated to research and development activities. None of the $200 000 will be spent on administration of the program.
(6) The Program focuses on delivering research and development outcomes to improve the health and safety of workers and their families in farming and fishing industries across Australia. A number of training programs have benefitted from this work, however the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation does not register or accredit training providers or courses.