The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Produce a marriage code suitable to present day Australian needs, a code which, on the one hand, paid proper regard to the antiquity and foundations of marriage as an institution, but which, on the other, resolved modern problems in a modern way.
… the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
… this definition will remove any lingering concerns that people may have the legal definition of marriage may become eroded over time.
While marriage takes various forms across many different cultures and has assorted religious histories attached to it, marriages performed by the state are civil, not religious, in nature. It is imperative that religious interests are not privileged over the rights of all citizens to nondiscrimination and to be treated equally under the law.
I may never wish to marry but to be told that I cannot access one of the most valued aspects of our culture says that I'm not truly a full member of that culture …
This is about leadership and Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan all failed that leadership test. We're in a nation where the polls show 80 per cent of young people, a majority of Christians, four out of five Labor voters, a majority of conservative voters wanted this legislation passed, but that leadership of the nation failed and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition take that fair on their shoulders. They're responsible for this failure in the Parliament today.
… people will remember that at the elections next year where it was the Greens who solidly stood up with the majority of Australians to get rid of this discrimination against people in marriage. And, you know, hearts are broken all over Australia today. We just saw a mother lamenting the discrimination which has been delivered by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott against her child and partner, or potential partner, today in the Parliament. Look, it's - and Labor engineered this. They knew that if the Prime Minister were to go at the last Labor conference for a conscience vote rather than to take the lead and say, 'I am leading the country into getting rid of discrimination in marriage,' you'd get this result. The Christian lobby might be happy - they don't represent the churches or the majority of Christian voters. But it's a very poor outcome for democracy and that failure of leadership.
Labour said his appearance at the event was 'astonishing' and accused the Tories of paying 'lip service' to equality.
A party spokesman said: 'We haven't organised this event and are not in control of who attends.
'We strongly condemn Mr Bernardi's comments which don't reflect David Cameron's or the Conservative party's viewpoint in any way.'
I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.
An Aboriginal is not as intelligent as a Maori. There is no scientific evidence that he is a human being at all.
My position flows from my strong conviction that the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and should continue unchanged.
Emphatically, Islam forbids same sex marriage and regards it as a violation of the commands of God.
Marriage is universally known to be between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Marriage in Islam, as in all divine religions, does not mean sexual enjoyment only but also the establishment of a family on hygienic and safe foundations.
Sexual and reproductive acts are exclusive to the two parties who come together in holy matrimony, and therefore Same-Sex marriage is not considered legal in Islam.
1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.
3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.
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.'
I believe our parliamentarians should maintain this distinction, for the good of future children, while ensuring equal treatment for same sex couples through the legal recognition of civil unions.
In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children.
The State has an interest in privileging group units in society which are likely to enhance the prospects that future children will continue to be born with a known biological father and a known biological mother who in the best of circumstances will be able to nurture and educate them.
That is why there is a relevant distinction to draw between a commitment between a same sex couple to establish a group unit in society and a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family.
I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother. To date, international human rights law has appreciated this rational distinction.
Labor has a strong record in progressing the cause of the excluded, the marginalised and the vulnerable, dating back to the earliest days of our movement.
Labor legislated against discrimination on the basis of race, disability, age or sex.
That legacy has continued in the life of this government, through 84 pieces of legislation.
This great Labor tradition—our efforts to end discrimination in our workplaces, in our communities and in our homes—I believe extends to marriage.
Families are still seen as having the potential to provide the emotional security of permanent relationships, as well as a strong sense of identity arising from those relationships.... Family life is thought to teach us important lessons about loyalty, responsibility and compromise, and many Australians believe the quality of family life is an important index of the quality of life in the wider society.… Families are not necessarily expected to be happy, but they are still seen as one of society’s most precious resources.
… marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried child bearing, and high-conflict or violent marriages.
There seems to be a friendship between man and woman by nature.
In our view, changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be to change what marriage means. Currently marriage involves a comprehensive union between a man and a woman. Marriage has a place in law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity. It is worthy to note that in California after their legislature experimented with same-sex marriage, the people of California voted against the revisionist concept of marriage.
We do not take as a genuine claim the suggestion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past three years twice stated that that there is no human right for same-sex marriage.
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 12 OF 2012
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 19 September 2012 at 7.18 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That—
(a) the provisions of the following bills be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 October 2012:
Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Amendment Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Amendment Bill 2012
Excise Tariff Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Amendment Bill 2012
(see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(b) the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by the first sitting day of 2013 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral);
(c) the provisions of the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 29 October 2012 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and
(d) the provisions of the Law Enforcement Integrity Legislation Amendment Bill 2012 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 November 2012 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee considered the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012 and, noting that the bill had passed the Senate on 18 September 2012, resolved to recommend that the bill not be referred to a committee.
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
(Anne McEwen)
Chair
20 September 2012
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Legislation Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill
Excise Tariff Amendment (Per-tonne Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill
Clean Energy (Charges-Excise) Amendment Bill
Clean Energy (Charges-Customs) Amendment Bill
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Per-tonne
Carbon Price Equivalent) Bill
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Per tonne Carbon
Price Equivalent) Bill
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge-Auctions) Amendment Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To examine proposed legislation changes to the Carbon Tax regulatory and administrative arrangements and impacts on affected Australian businesses.
Possibl e submissions or evidence from:
Affected businesses
Energy economists
Committee to which bill is to be referred: \
Economics Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
September I October 2012
Possible reporting date:
October I November 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To consult further with producers, industry and stakeholders.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
TBC
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
TBC
Possible reporting date:
1st day of sitting 2013
Senator Siewert
(signed)
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMI T TEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Consider the implications for the dental health of Australians.
Possible submissions or evidence from: Australian Dental Association (NSW) Consumer Health Forum of Australia
The Association for the Promotion of Oral Health
State and Territory public dental health services
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by committee
Senator Fifield
(signed)
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Law Enforcement Integrity Legislation Amendment Bill
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Extensive proposed changes to integrity testing regime and increased powers need to be thoroughly examined by the committee.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Australian Customs and Border Protection Service
Australian Federal Police
Australian Crime Commission
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Attorney-General's Department
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Possible hearing date(s):
To be determined by the committee
Possible reporting date:
To be determined by the committee
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
That government business order of the day no. 2 (Judges and Governors-General Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2012) be considered from 12.45 pm today under the temporary order relating to non-controversial government business.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012 be extended to 25 September 2012.
That the Select Committee on Electricity Prices be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 9 October 2012, from 1.00 pm.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brandis for today, on account of parliamentary business.
That the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, from 12.30 pm, as follows:
(a) on Tuesday, 9 October 2012; and
(b) on Tuesday, 30 October 2012.
That the Community Affairs References Committee be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sittings of the Senate, from 12.30 pm, as follows:
(a) on Tuesday, 9 October 2012; and
(b) on Tuesday, 30 October 2012.
That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 24 April 2013:
The involuntary or coerced sterilisation of people with disabilities in Australia, including:
(a) the types of sterilisation practices that are used, including treatments that prevent menstruation or reproduction, and exclusion or limitation of access to sexual health, contraceptive or family planning services;
(b) the prevalence of these sterilisation practices and how they are recorded across different state and territory jurisdictions;
(c) the different legal, regulatory and policy frameworks and practices across the Commonwealth, states and territories, and action to date on the harmonisation of regimes;
(d) whether current legal, regulatory and policy frameworks provide adequate:
(i) steps to determine the wishes of a person with a disability,
(ii) steps to determine an individual's capacity to provide free and informed consent,
(iii) steps to ensure independent representation in applications for sterilisation procedures where the subject of the application is deemed unable to provide free and informed consent, and
(iv) application of a 'best interest test' as it relates to sterilisation and reproductive rights;
(e) the impacts of sterilisation of people with disabilities;
(f) Australia's compliance with its international obligations as they apply to sterilisation of people with disabilities;
(g) the factors that lead to sterilisation procedures being sought by others for people with disabilities, including:
(i) the availability and effectiveness of services and programs to support people with disabilities in managing their reproductive and sexual health needs, and whether there are measures in place to ensure that these are available on a non-discriminatory basis,
(ii) the availability and effectiveness of educational resources for medical practitioners, guardians, carers and people with a disability around the consequences of sterilisation, and
(iii) medical practitioners, guardians and carers' knowledge of and access to services and programs to support people with disabilities in managing their reproductive and sexual health needs; and
(h) any other related matters.
That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, by 28 September 2012, the following:
(a) the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Parent 1 Mark Up Questionnaire from the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children';
(b) the Wave 3 and Wave 4 Parent 2 Mark Up Questionnaire from the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children'; and
(c) documents which include an analysis of income management data in the 'Footprints in Time – The Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children'.
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012
That the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Excessive Noise from Wind Farms) Bill 2012 be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2012.
The Senate divided. [12:03]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 March 2013:
The role played by the former Australian Government in Mr David Hicks' trial, treatment and detention, with particular reference to:
(a) his transfer from the custody of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance to the United States (US) military and subsequent transfer into detention at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba;
(b) his detention, interrogation and treatment in US custody;
(c) his 2004 charges and initial prosecution by the first US Military Commission;
(d) his subsequent 2007 charges and plea agreement under the Military Commission Act 2006 (US);
(e) his subsequent transfer to and incarceration in Australia;
(f) the control order placed upon him at the time of release from prison in Australia;
(g) whether Australia acted consistently with its obligations under international law in its dealings with the US in respect of the above matters; and
(h) any other related matters.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the contribution to Australia's vibrant multicultural society by citizens of all cultures and religions;
(b) condemns anyone who vilifies any cultural or religious group;
(c) notes:
(i) the application by Dutch politician Mr Geert Wilders to visit Australia to speak against multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, and
(ii) with alarm, his public statements describing Muslim culture as retarded and barbaric and comparing the Koran to Mein Kampf ; and
(d) calls on all members of the Australian Parliament to reject the hateful anti-Muslim views of Mr Wilders and his Australian sponsors.
(b) condemns anyone who vilifies any cultural or religious group;
The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) the Bald Hills wind farm in South Gippsland was approved by the Commonwealth in 2006 and has not yet been built,
(ii) the Commonwealth has allowed the project proponent to increase the height of the proposed 52 turbines from 110 metres to 135 metres without any assessment of the environmental impact of this increase,
(iii) the Commonwealth's 2006 conditions of approval failed to specify the height of the turbines permitted in the project,
(iv) the conditions of approval permit the proposed wind farm to cut directly across a migratory shorebirds flyway connecting three sites of international significance for six migratory shorebird species,
(v) the species are listed under the Commonwealth's 2009 Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species ,
(vi) the three sites of international significance flanking the Bald Hills area are identified in the Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian – Australasian flyway: population estimates and internationally important sites report which underpins the Commonwealth'sSignificant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species , and
(vii) the Bald Hills Wetland Conservation Reserve and the Kings Flat Flora and Fauna Reserve that directly abut the proposed wind farm site are an important habitat for a seventh species listed in the Commonwealth's Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species ; and
(b) calls on the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Mr Burke) to remove the Commonwealth's approval for the construction of the Bald Hills wind farm and to refer the project proposal for review as per the terms of the Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species , and in line with Australia's obligations under the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement, the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement and theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 .
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) today, due to the differences in the types of indexation, pensions will go up by $17.10 while allowances will only increase by $2.90, and
(ii) indexation against the consumer price index alone keeps Newstart so low it cannot adequately meet the true increases in the cost of living; and
(b) urges the Government to take immediate steps to appropriately index Newstart at the same rate as the pension to prevent an ever-widening gap.
The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
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 Australians expect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places to be protected by the Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, including the Australian Capital Territory's nationally heritage listed Namadgi National Park, which makes up almost 45 per cent of the territory; 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. [12:25]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Budget 2011-12 (Supplementary)—Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 27 June and 18 September 2012—Human Services portfolio.
Additional estimates 2011-12—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 27 June and 18 September 2012—Cross portfolio Indigenous matters.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 26 June and 20 September 2012—Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
Budget estimates 2012-13—
Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 4 June and 18 September 2012—
Indigenous matters across portfolios: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations; Department of Health and Ageing; Department of Human Services; Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio; National e-Health Transition Authority.
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio.
Health and Ageing portfolio.
Human Services portfolio.
National e-Health Transition Authority.
Economics Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 23 August and 20 September 2012—
Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education portfolio.
Treasury portfolio.
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee—Hansard record of proceedings and additional information received between 26 June and 20 September 2012—Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio.
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 23 August and 19 September 2012—
Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio—
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio.
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 23 August and 18 September 2012—
Finance and Deregulation portfolio.
Parliamentary departments.
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 29 June and 20 September 2012—
Attorney-General’s portfolio.
Immigration and Citizenship portfolio.
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That these bills be now read a second time.
This bill establishes the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission as a national regulator for the not-for-profit (NFP) sector.
The government believes in the importance of a strong and resilient charitable and NFP sector, and values the important contribution that the sector makes to building social capital and stronger communities right across Australia. The introduction of this bill represents a significant milestone in delivering reforms that will strengthen and support the sector, so it can continue to grow and flourish into the future.
Over the last 17 years, there have been six separate reviews of the charitable and NFP sector.
These have included the comprehensive 2001 Report of the "Inquiry into the Definition of Charities and Related Organisations", the 2009 "Review into Australia's Future Tax System" and the Productivity Commission's 2010 report, "Contribution of the Not-for-Profit Sector".
These reviews have recommended simplifying and harmonising taxation and regulation for the sector, with a national regulator and a statutory definition of charity.
The government is dedicated to supporting a strong, vibrant, diverse and independent NFP sector. At the last election, the government committed to introducing the most extensive national reforms the sector has experienced in our nation's history. These reforms reflect the importance of the sector and will support the ongoing growth, strength, and sustainability of the sector into the future.
Following on from this, in the 2011-12 budget, the government announced a series of reforms to strengthen and support the sector.
The cornerstone of the government's reform agenda is the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).
The NFP sector is diverse, with entities ranging from micro sized sporting and recreational clubs to large national and multinational charitable organisations.
NFP entities play an important and unique role in Australian society. In recognition of this important role, the sector receives a range of funding, including donations from members of the public, and tax concessions, grants and other support from government.
Ensuring that the sector can consolidate its standing in the community through enhanced transparency and accountability is essential to its ongoing growth and sustainability.
A regulatory system that promotes good governance, accountability and transparency for NFP entities will help to maintain, protect and enhance the public trust and confidence that underpins the sector.
Equally important is promoting a reduction in unnecessary regulatory obligations on the sector. The sector is currently subject to overlapping, inconsistent and duplicative regulatory and reporting arrangements.
The lack of an independent national regulator within government, with a dedicated focus on the particular needs of the sector, has hindered and held back the implementation of more streamlined regulatory arrangements across Australia.
This bill establishes a national framework for regulation of the NFP sector. Initially the ACNC will focus on regulating charities only; however, in the future the regulatory framework will be able to be extended to all NFP entities.
The regulatory approach of the ACNC will be proportional to size and risk in order to minimise regulatory duplication and compliance costs.
The bill also establishes a publicly available, online information register that contains details of entities registered with the ACNC. This register can be easily accessed by members of the public, including by donors and by volunteers. The public will be able to use the register as a source of reliable information, giving them confidence in their decisions to donate to, or volunteer for, a registered charity.
The ACNC will work to provide education and guidance to the sector to assist in their participation in the national regulatory framework. Likewise, the ACNC will play a key role in providing information and education to the public about the sector and how it is regulated. The educational role of the ACNC will help to improve public understanding of, and engagement with, the important work of the sector.
The ACNC bill has three objects. Its first object is to maintain, protect and enhance public trust and confidence in the NFP sector. Its second object is to support and sustain a robust, vibrant, independent and innovative NFP sector. The third object underlines the important role that the ACNC will have to promote the reduction of unnecessary regulatory obligations on the NFP sector.
The bill establishes the statutory Office of the Commissioner of the ACNC (ACNC Commissioner).
The ACNC Commissioner will have the general administration of the ACNC legislation. In undertaking his or her role, the ACNC Commissioner will have regard to a number of factors, including the diversity and distinctive role of the NFP sector and the importance of providing education and guidance to NFPs.
The bill provides the ACNC Commissioner with the power to register NFP entities under their specific charitable type or subtype. Registration is voluntary, however, entities will need to be registered to access government support in the form of concessions, exemptions and other benefits.
The bill also sets out the processes and grounds for the revocation of registration by the ACNC Commissioner.
The ACNC Commissioner will maintain a public register, containing key details about registered entities. The Commissioner may remove or withhold information from the register in specified circumstances.
Registered entities will need to comply with a set of minimum principles-based governance standards. Compliance with the governance standards is a condition of registration. Registered entities will also need to comply with external conduct standards.
The bill establishes a single reporting framework, which is proportional to the size of the registered entity, based on revenue thresholds. The differential reporting framework will minimise compliance costs, whilst ensuring appropriate levels of accountability and transparency.
The governance and external conduct standards, and the content of financial reports will be set out in statutory instruments. They will be developed through a consultation process that will include key stakeholders and advisory bodies, such as the NFP Sector Reform Council, and the public more broadly.
Registered entities will be required to notify the ACNC Commissioner of certain matters, for example, any changes to its contact details, or any significant contraventions of the bill or governance standards.
There are a range of powers and sanctions available to the ACNC Commissioner, to enable him or her to respond appropriately to the facts of each case. These powers allow the ACNC Commissioner to conduct regulatory oversight in an effective manner.
These powers include information gathering and monitoring powers, the ability to give entities warning notices or directions, the ability to accept enforceable undertakings, the ability to apply for injunctions and the power to suspend or remove a responsible entity.
There are preconditions and thresholds which must be met before these powers can be exercised.
To ensure the accuracy of information provided to the ACNC, the bill provides a proportional administrative penalty regime.
The bill establishes an advisory board, to provide advice and make recommendations to the ACNC Commissioner in relation to his or her functions under the act.
The bill establishes a secrecy framework to ensure appropriate protections for personal or confidential information while ensuring the ACNC is able to fulfil its functions as the NFP sector's central regulatory body.
An entity that is directly affected by a decision of the ACNC Commissioner will be able to utilise full merits based review and appeal a decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The legislation imposes certain obligations, liabilities and offences on entities that are responsible for managing the registered entity. This ensures appropriate accountability for complying with regulatory requirements.
The transitional provisions provide for a smooth transition to the new framework, including providing for the automatic registration of charities that are endorsed by the ATO unless the entity opts out within six months, and grandfathers existing substituted accounting periods.
The government has worked in close consultation with the dedicated and passionate people and organisations that make up the sector to develop this legislation.
The government has been responsive to issues raised during the extensive consultation process. The government has also taken into consideration issues raised during the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics inquiry into the draft bills.
The committee reported on 15 August 2012 and recommended the bills be passed subject to a number of changes.
The government has reviewed the recommendations and agreed to make various changes in accordance with the recommendations.
A new clause has been added in the bill's objects, to make clear the important role the ACNC will have in promoting the reduction of regulatory burden. This will be achieved in part through initiatives such as the Charity Passport and the development of a “report-once, use-often” reporting framework, and through the ACNC Commissioner working and cooperating with other Government agencies.
Improvements have been made to ensure that registered entities have the opportunity to respond to compliance concerns, including the introduction of a requirement to issue 'show cause' notices unless the ACNC Commissioner, considering a number of factors, believes that immediate enforcement action is necessary.
A requirement has been introduced to provide that the ACNC Commissioner must not publish details of enforcement action on the register for a period of time after the action is taken, unless it is in the public interest to do so earlier. This provides time for a registered entity to respond before such information is made publicly available. Such information entered on the register will be removed after five years, unless the public interest requires that it be retained.
A new regulatory power has been included in the bill, to provide that the ACNC Commissioner must not include certain information on the register in prescribed circumstances. The government intends to use this power to make regulations to protect the privacy of private donors, such as those who maintain a private ancillary fund. The government strongly supports the role and importance of philanthropy in the Australian community, and will ensure that the ACNC provides a supportive framework for the important contribution of philanthropists.
The provisions of the bill governing obligations, liabilities and offences of incorporated and unincorporated entities have been redrafted to give effect to the committee's recommendations.
These have been revised to remove any criminal liability for directors of incorporated charities. They now also make clear that where there is a non-criminal contravention of the bill, a director of an incorporated charity is only liable for any amount payable by the body corporate where this arises from a deliberate act or omission of the director involving dishonesty, gross negligence or recklessness.
Additional detail has also been added to the explanatory memorandum to clarify the ACNC Commissioner's discretion regarding the issuing of administrative penalty notices.
Transitional reporting arrangements have been included to allow the ACNC Commissioner to treat a statement, report or other document provided to another government agency as meeting the reporting obligations of a particular registered entity under the ACNC reporting framework. This arrangement will apply until the 2014-15 financial year and can be extended by regulation.
Consistent with the committee's recommendation, the legislation will be reviewed after five years. The review will focus on the operation of the legislation and the ACNC, and how the objects of the ACNC bill have been achieved, including the object relating to reducing unnecessary regulatory obligations on the Australian NFP sector.
In summary, the work of the NFP sector has a profound impact upon the lives of so many individuals and the communities that we all comprise.
The government is committed to working collaboratively with this important sector to implement a series of important regulatory reforms to support and strengthen the sector for the future. The establishment of the ACNC is a key step in this process.
I commend the bill.
This bill accompanies the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012. This bill makes changes to the Commonwealth statute book necessary to give effect to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. It also provides transitional arrangements for entities to be transitioned smoothly to the new regulatory regime.
I commend the bill.
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Judges and Governors-General Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2012
That this bill be now read a third time.
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Change will come, including in the matter of marriage equality in Australia. And when it does, we will look back on the current state of the law that expressly enshrines inequality in the Australian federal statute book (as we now do on the old criminal laws against sexual minorities) with embarrassment, shame and ultimately astonishment.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
… Most in the church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.
Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue.
My religion … compels me to be against discrimination of any kind in our country, and I consider this—
a form of discrimination. I think it's unconstitutional on top of that.
… [Michelle and I] are both practising Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but … when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it's also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.
Over the course of several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbours, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf, and yet feel constrained even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone because they're not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.
Why Christians should support same-sex marriage.
1. Christians support equal rights for all [Australians].
2. Christians have long benefited from the freedom of religion in [Australia], indeed that is why many came here.
3. Modern Christians realise that marriage is not based only on procreation.
4. Christians should support marriage.
5. Christians realise that the Church has been discriminatory in the past and would want to seek amends for that.
6. Christians realise that marriage has never been a static institution, and therefore there is no reason that it should be now.
7. Christians support the separation of Church and State.
8. Christians have long known that the Church should not determine the laws of our society.
9. Christians are committed to justice.
10. Christians believe in the supremacy of God, not the supremacy of government.
… trying to topple the way things have been for millennia (like the Tarkine) just so that a minority can have a look in.
There comes a time when no amount of excuses should stand in the way of doing what is right.
From a very young age I knew that I was attracted to girls, but I was also taught from a very young age that this was wrong. The only laws I knew was my fathers law and gods law, and they were one in the same. As the pastors daughter, not only was I constantly exposed to the hatred of LGBTIQ people, but I was expected to exemplify it. At first I thought I could teach myself not to be attracted to women. I kept a rubber band around my wrist, and every time I thought about a girl I pulled back that band and let it snap my wrist. This self corrective behaviour led to extremes of cutting and deprivation of food.
By the time I was in my early teens, I no longer had an answer. I had lost my faith and everyone around me seemed to condemn me for what I was, and it was something I knew I couldn't change. In the darkest period of my life, I often contemplated suicide and would regard it as my solace.
I grew up in a small town in rural NSW and like most LGBTIQ people moved away straight after graduating high school. I came to Canberra which was a reasonably long way, but in the digital age it doesn't take long for news to make it back. In Canberra I learned to love and had my heart broken, I surrounded myself with loving friends and could finally be myself.
On a trip home in a university break I went out to the pub where I'd worked the summer after high school. Whilst having a beer with my sisters I was made to understand through threats of violence that people like me were not welcome there, that my sexuality which they had 'discovered' over social media made me unwelcome in a place I'd once been employed. The guys behind the threats had been acquaintances and school mates for years. It was difficult, but it only confirmed something my teenage self knew intuitively, that there was no space for me to be fully myself in a town that I had spent 18 years of my fife growing up.
Marriage equality isn't that important to me personally now, I know the value of my relationship now. It is none-the-less important. Equality in our laws would have been a message to my teenage self, and the countless other young people who live their teenage lives scared and isolated in rural and regional Australia, that it was those few people who made my town unliveable and not me that was wrong.
The Australian Labor Party stands for the political and social values of equality, democracy and freedom. These are the principles that I bring to the Senate.
… you are welcome; you are free to worship; you are free to honour your heritage; and, we will respect the differences between us.
And in return, you should agree to live by the standards and values of this society, the one you have chosen to be a part of.
… everyone who matters in the Liberal party has the same view about multiculturalism in Australia, and that is we strongly support it.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Rhiannon today relating to technical and further education funding.
Australian Government response to recommendations from the Inquiry into Commonwealth Funding and Administration of Mental Health Services report
Committee’s recommendation
Recommendation 1: The committee supports the increased funding to EPPIC and headspace in the 2011-12 Federal Budget on the proviso that this significant policy transformation be evaluated after two years. However, the committee urges the Government to identify or develop strategies that will address the need for early psychosis prevention and intervention in rural and remote areas.
Supported in principle.
The Australian Government acknowledges the importance of evaluating the headspace and EPPIC measures to ensure they are delivering cost-effective, good health outcomes. However, given that the expansion of both services is being done progressively, evaluation after two years may not capture the full benefits of the service models.
The Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) is working collaboratively with headspace in developing a suitable approach for the next headspace evaluation, which will include the 2011-12 Budget expansion.
An evaluation framework for the EPPIC model expansion measure is to be developed in consultation with successful jurisdictions and Orygen Youth Health, founders of the model. An independent evaluator will be engaged in Year 2 of the measure to undertake an ongoing national evaluation.
The Australian Government acknowledges the need to improve access to mental health services, including early psychosis prevention and intervention, in rural and remote areas.
The EPPIC model relies on high-intensity services delivered through 16 core components, and can be difficult to deliver without a critical population mass. Currently the EPPIC model is aimed at delivering prevention and early intervention services in a region with a population of 1,000,000 people. As a first step to making the service more widely available, DoHA is working closely with Orygen Youth Health to adapt the model to suit smaller population sizes, noting that there are workforce challenges associated with such smaller populations.
The Delivering National Mental Health Reform package included important measures that will help to increase access in rural and remote areas, such as the expansion of the Access to Allied Psychological Services program and establishment of a single mental health online portal. This will complement existing rural-focused initiatives, such as the Mental Health Services in Rural and Remote Australia program.
Chair’s Additional Comments
Recommendation 1: The Chair of the committee recommends that the rationalisation of the number of rebatable allied health sessions under Better Access be delayed until it can be demonstrated that other programs (such as ATAPS) are adequately equipped to provide services to people with a severe or persistent mental illness
Supported in Principle
While Better Access was neither designed nor intended to provide intensive services or ongoing therapy for people with severe and persistent mental illness, the Australian Government acknowledges that there are some people with more complex needs who have come to rely on the program.
The Government recognises that some of the services in the 2011-12 Budget package will need time to build capacity before they are fully able to provide care and support to those with more complex needs.
The 6 additional services available under ‘exceptional circumstances’ have been reinstated until 31 December 2012. The standard number of rebatable sessions under Better Access will remain at 10, consistent with the program’s focus on people with mental disorders where short term interventions are most useful. However, for the 2012 calendar year, eligible individuals can receive up to a total of 16 services.
The reintroduction of ‘exceptional circumstances’ for a limited period, provides time for consumers and mental health professionals to adapt to the new arrangements and time for the new mental health services to be able to respond to people with more complex needs.
Recommendation 2: The Chair of the committee recommends that the Government consider putting in place an interim program through the MBS that would allow access to six additional sessions under Better Access for consumers who meet tightened criteria based on the severity of their conditions
Refer to response to Recommendation 1 of Chair’s Additional Comments.
Recommendation 3: The Chair of the committee recommends that the Government continue to evaluate Better Access and keep a watching brief on how the program is being accessed nation wide with a particular focus on the take up of Better Access services by hard to reach groups.
Supported
The Government will continue to monitor the uptake and use of Better Access as a national program, including access by hard to reach groups.
Recommendation 4: The Chair of the committee recommends that the Government develop guidance materials as quickly as possible to assist Medicare Locals and GP divisions in meeting the full potential of the expanded ATAPS program. This material should include examples of nation wide best practice in areas such as financial management and the development of innovative projects targeting hard to reach groups.
Supported
The Australian Government recognises the importance of appropriate resources and guidelines to support the expansion of the ATAPS program, particularly in the areas of growth targeted in the 2011-12 Budget such as child mental health, indigenous mental health and suicide prevention.
Operational guidelines for ATAPS were revised in consultation with key stakeholders and the ATAPS Expert Advisory Committee and distributed to Divisions of General Practice and Medicare Locals in December 2011. This includes operational guidelines to support provision of suicide prevention services.
Purchasing guidance for child mental health services, being developed by the Australian Psychology Society, is currently being finalised and will inform the finalisation of child mental health specific operational guidelines and the training supports needed to upskill the existing allied health workforce to provide appropriate mental health services to children and their families.
Indigenous specific operational guidelines are also being finalised in consultation with the ATAPS Expert Advisory Committee and other key stakeholders. Arrangements are being put in place to provide culturally appropriate training to allied health providers delivering ATAPS services to Indigenous people in consultation with the Australian Indigenous Psychologists Association.
Effective development of local clinical governance arrangements is being supported by a nationally consistent framework and resources being developed by the Australian General Practice Network (AGPN) in consultation with key stakeholders. These will be rolled out in early 2012 and the AGPN will work with Divisions of General Practice and Medicare Locals on implementation.
The Department is commissioning work to undertake an economic analysis of the current ATAPS program (including different funding models) to develop options for enhancing the program’s efficiency, including possible introduction of activity based funding for ATAPS and the identification of efficient business models. The project is expected to be completed by mid 2012.
Recommendation 5: The Chair of the committee recommends that a comprehensive performance assessment framework be established as part of the ATAPS expansion. The data gathered should be used to develop benchmarking tools to compare ATAPS service delivery across Medicare Locals and GP Divisions with similar geographic and demographic indicators.
Supported
The Australian Government acknowledges the role of performance monitoring in ensuring cost effective, targeted service delivery. The development of an activity based funding framework outlined in recommendation 4 will enable benchmarking of service delivery across Medicare Locals and support the development of relevant performance indicators.
The current monitoring and evaluation framework for ATAPS will be progressively reviewed to ensure effective capture of benchmarking and performance indicator data, as well as responding to the monitoring and evaluation needs arising from the expansion of ATAPS.
Recommendation 6: The Chair of the committee urges the Government to revise its scheduling for the 2011-12 Federal Budget changes to ensure continuity of care.
Refer to response to Recommendation 1 of Chair’s Additional Comments.
Recommendation 7: The Chair of the committee recommends that any tightening of eligibility for Better Access be delayed until the youth mental health initiatives funded in the 2011-12 Federal Budget are fully expanded and operational.
Refer to response to Recommendation 1 of Chair’s Additional Comments.
Recommendation 8: The Chair of the committee considers that consumers must have a central role in any mental health advisory body, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be represented. The National Mental Health Commission, which will have nine Commissioners and a Chair, should include at least one Commissioner who is a consumer, one who is a carer and one who has Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage.
Supported.
The Australian Government acknowledges the importance of a central role for consumers, carers and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders peoples in the National Mental Health Commission (‘the Commission’). This will be fundamental to enabling the Commission to fulfill its role in providing cross-sectoral leadership and driving transparency and accountability in the system so that better outcomes for consumers and carers can be achieved.
Appointed Commissioners include a mental health consumer, a carer, and a person of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage. This was announced by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Mental Health Reform, the Hon Mark Butler MP, on 11 December 2011
(see http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/Content/mr-yr11-mb-
mb223.htm?OpenDocument&yr=2011&mth=12).
Recommendation 9: The Chair of the committee recommends that the Government review the operation and structure of the National Mental Health Commission after two years with a view to placing it on a statutory basis.
Supported in principle.
The Australian Government intends to review the Commission after two years, to ensure it is performing well and meeting its objectives. As such, the results of the review will determine any future decisions by Government about the operation and structure of the Commission. The review will also help determine whether the executive agency model is supporting the Commission to operate effectively or whether a statutory model would be more appropriate.
Recommendation 10: The Chair of the committee believes that the new Mental Health Commission should undertake ongoing monitoring of the two-tier Medicare rebate for psychologists to ensure that patients have access to the most appropriate practitioners and that workforce balance across the mental health sector is maintained.
Partially Supported
The Commission has been established by the Government to increase transparency and accountability in the mental health services system and provide advice to Government on achieving better outcomes for people with mental illness and their families and carers.
In doing so it will work with consumers, carers, experts, professional groups, other stakeholders and governments, to increase accountability and transparency in funding, delivery, evaluation, effectiveness and outcomes of a range of mental health programs and services.
The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that patients have access to the most appropriate practitioners, that those practitioners have relevant skills and qualifications and that workforce balance across the mental health sector is maintained. The issue of the two-tier Medicare rebate for psychologists under the Better Access program reflects the international benchmarks regarding qualifications, skills and experience in delivering psychological therapy services.
Consistent with its role in policy development and administration DoHA will continue to monitor the uptake of services provided by psychologists as part of the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of Better Access. The Government would also welcome any input the Mental Health Commission might provide as part of this process.
Minority Report – ALP
No recommendations made n/a
Dissentin g Report by Coalition Senators
No recommendations made n/a
Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognised in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The family is natural and fundamental group unit of society—
Article 26. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. …
We are here today asking for recognition of the depth of our relationships and the dignity of our sexuality.
As a parent, it is quite heartbreaking when I see that my one son has all the advantages and he has not done anything special to have those advantages, and yet my gay son ... the one with the relationship is seen as second rate.
Thank you so much for sponsoring the bill on marriage equality. It is a proud and historic day for the Territory and I hope we will be among one of the first states and Territories of Australia to recognise the dignity and equality in love. I deeply applaud your position on this matter and the support you have shown for the LGBTI community.
From the bottom of my heart to you and your colleagues who support this vital and important cause to take Australia into a future of equal rights and equal love, I THANK YOU.
The Senate divided. [16:15]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That the Senate take note of the report.
That the Senate take note of the report.
The committee therefore recommends that the government should defer these measures until the outcome of that inquiry is known.
Regrettably the statement of compatibility that accompanied the bill did not include a sufficiently detailed analysis of the bill's compatibility with human rights.
… the committee notes that the provision of a more comprehensive statement at the introduction of the bill would have greatly assisted the committee in its scrutiny of this bill and would have improved the parliament's understanding of the precise impacts of these changes …
However, the committee notes that it does not necessarily follow that the measures seeking equity are justified as it is not apparent to the committee that the government has considered any alternative options in this regard.
With regard to the question of whether there is a rational connection between the measures and the objective, the committee's examination of the available evidence indicates that this is not a matter that can be conclusively proven up front. The committee considers that on balance, the government has provided sufficient supporting evidence to suggest that the proposed measures may go some way in achieving the stated objectives.
However, the committee considers that the lack of decisive evidence highlights the need for appropriate monitoring mechanisms …
The committee notes that while individuals who are transitioned from Parenting Payment to Newstart will still have access to social security benefits, significant questions have been raised regarding the extent to which Newstart is adequate to provide a reasonable standard of living for jobseekers.
The committee considers that if Newstart combined with other benefits is not sufficient to provide an adequate standard of living for affected individuals, the measure to remove the grandfathered Parenting Payment provisions risk being incompatible with the obligation in article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ensure minimum essential levels of social security.
The committee is not yet convinced by the government's assertion that all affected individuals will maintain access to appropriate levels of social security support.
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:.
Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee—
Appointed—Senator Milne
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations References Committee—
Discharged—Senator McKenzie
Appointed—
Senator Boswell
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Electricity Prices—Select Committee—
Discharged—Senator Cormann on 3 October 2012, and Senator Macdonald on 4 October 2012
Appointed—Senator Macdonald on 3 October 2012, and Senator Cormann on 4 October 2012
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Discharged—Senator McKenzie
Appointed—
Senator Boswell
Participating member: Senator McKenzie
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—
Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Sterle to replace Senator Stephens for the consideration of the 2012-13 supplementary Budget estimates on Wednesday, 17 October and Thursday, 18 October 2012
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Milne to replace Senator Siewert for the committee’s inquiry into the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Australian Food Labelling) Bill 2012 (No. 2)
Participating member: Senator Siewert.
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) Bill 2012
Increasing the profitability, competitiveness and sustainability of Australia's agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry industries—
We work to sustain the way of life and prosperity of all Australians.
Western Australian wheat farmers are calling for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to step in and front up to the nation’s largest export wheat growers and explain why his Federal Liberal Party is refusing to follow through on its previous commitment for full deregulation of the wheat industry.
The vacuous comments made today by Deputy Liberal Leader Julie Bishop in defending the Federal Coalition’s decision to not support the full deregulation of WA's $2.5billion wheat export industry—
clearly shows that Mr Abbott's Liberal Party Deputy is either ineffective, incompetent - or both - in advocating the interests of Western Australian wheat farmers.
Julie Bishop: This is a matter that we have been looking at over recent times.
This is a transition period and there are views depending on which side of the country you live and whether you are.
But what is yours?
Wheat grower in the west or wheat grower in the east, I believe that we need to go carefully on this one. Of course we believe in deregulation. It is a question of timing.
So it could be another couple of years before deregulation happens? A fair question. Ms Bishop says:
Not necessarily. It is a question of timing and we are looking very closely at it. We are national opposition so you have to take into account the views of the West Australians, who have a very good case about deregulation, but also on the east coast, those who want a smoother transition to full deregulation.
The bill is likely to have a significant and unintended negative impact on the quality and international competitiveness of the Australian university sector. Australia will miss out on getting some of our best internationally-based researchers to return to Australia rather than go somewhere else.
After visiting Australia many times over the past 15 years, in June 2011 I was offered the opportunity to work in Australia. I signed a 4 yr contract to come to work in Sydney and in August 2011 my wife and I made the move here. When making the decision to come we calculated my net pay (including the Living Away from Home Allowance component which was offered as part of my contract) in accordance with all Australian tax law and ATO guidance. Upon doing so, my wife and I were satisfied that although the cost of living in Sydney was far higher than in our home town in Yorkshire UK the fact that we would get the tax free allowance of LAFHA would enable us to afford to come to Australia.
We wound up a small business we were running in the UK and I signed a fixed term contract on that basis. This was completed prior to any mention of any consultation on reform of LAFHA. At the beginning of November 2011, again before any mention of LAFHA reform we signed up to a two year contract on a rental property. The budget again was calculated with LAFHA included.
Nationals of a Contracting State shall not be subjected in the other Contracting State to any taxation or any requirement connected therewith, which is other or more burdensome than the taxation and connected requirements to which nationals of that other State in the same circumstances, in particular with respect to residence, are or may be subjected.
With reference to the Kokoda Track:
(1) When did the Papua New Guinean Government request the term ‘Track’ be used when referring to the Kokoda Trail.
(2) Was the request an initiative of the Papua New Guinean Government or the Australian Government.
(3) Who is the head of the PNG National Taskforce.
(4) Was the Australian War Memorial consulted in the decision to change the official name; if so, what was the response.
(5) Was the Returned and Services League of Australia or any other ex-service organisation consulted prior to the decision being made; if so, what was the response.
(6) What was the annual remuneration package, including salary and allowances, for the Chief Executive Officer of the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority (PNG KTA), Mr Rod Hillman, for the period 2009 to 2012.
(7) What was the annual remuneration package for all other Australian personnel attached to the PNG KTA, for the period 2008 to 2012.
(8) In relation to the Special Envoy on Kokoda appointed by the former Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd: (a) who was appointed to this position; (d) did the individual receive any payment; if so, what are the details of the remuneration package; and (c) what have been the outcomes of the appointment.
(1) The term ‘Kokoda Track’ was adopted for the implementation of the Kokoda Initiative on the basis of the Papua New Guinean Government’s use of the term in establishing the Kokoda Track Authority to oversee the management of the Track; by nominating Papua New Guinea’s ‘Kokoda Track and Owen Stanley Ranges’ to the World Heritage Tentative List, as well as using the term in the Papua New Guinea-Australia Joint Understanding on the Kokoda Track and Owen Stanley Ranges.
(2) The use of the term ‘Track’ is the preference of the Papua New Guinean Government.
(3) The Secretary of the Papua New Guinean Department of Environment and Conservation.
(4) There was no such decision. See the answer to Q1 above.
(5) There was no such decision. See the answer to Q1 above.
(6) The annual salary for Mr Rod Hillman from 2009-2012 aligned with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’ Enterprise Agreement at the Executive Level 2 level. Mr Rod Hillman’s allowances during this period aligned with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Conditions of Service for Papua New Guinea.
(7) Four Australian personnel were attached to the Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Government, during different periods between 2008 and 2012 and remunerated indirectly by the Australian Government through a local service provider. Their remuneration packages aligned with the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities’ Enterprise Agreement at the time and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s Conditions of Service for Papua New Guinea based staff. These included one Executive Level 2 level package and three Executive Level 1 packages at different times during the period.
(8) (a) Mr Sandy Holloway AO;
(b) Yes. The Special Envoy’s remuneration was $1980 AUD (GST inclusive) for a full day, or for periods less than a day, $275 AUD (GST inclusive) per hour
(c) Development of, and securing Papua New Guinea agreement to, both the first and second Joint Understandings between the Papua New Guinean and Australian governments to protect the Kokoda Track; development of the Kokoda Safety Package; and securing Papua New Guinean Government funding of approximately $8.5 million AUD over five years to support the Kokoda Initiative.
With reference to the Kokoda Trail, has any market research been conducted to determine: (a) why people want to trek across the Trail, including whether they were motivated by history, the physical challenge, the local culture or the environment; (b) what was thought of the experience; (c) suggestions to improve the experience, such as whether people would prefer the Trail in its natural or in an improved condition; and (d) interest in visiting other destinations in Papua New Guinea as a result of the experience.
(a) Yes. Market research was funded by the Australian Government under the Kokoda Initiative to assist in the development of a Regional Tourism Strategy. The main reasons people wanted to trek were physical challenge and the wartime history.
(b) The final report from the market research summarises the experience as follows: “Whatever the initial motivation to trek Kokoda, the overwhelming outcome is a sense of achievement and fulfilment at completing the trek plus a heightened awareness of the importance and relevance of what the Australian soldiers endured in WW2. While the physical challenge gives bragging rights, it is the emotional challenge that is less expected, more confronting and certainly is reported as the life changing factor.” (Report ‘Trekking the Kokoda Track – A Summary of Findings’ prepared by Bentley, A. & Wadsworth, C. for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, March 2011).
(c) No.
(d) Yes. The market research funded by the Australian Government showed that Kokoda is chosen as a destination in its own right, not as part of a broader Papua New Guinean visit.
With reference to the Kokoda Trail and trek operators:
(1) How many trek permits to walk the Kokoda Trail have been issued since 2008.
(2) Can a list be provided detailing the number of trek operators’ forums held between 2009 and 2012, including for each forum: (a) how many operators attended; (b) the cost incurred to hold the forum; (c) how many Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority (PNG KTA) personnel attended; and (d) the cost per PNG KTA personnel to attend.
(3) Was any draft legislation prepared to support the Code of Conduct, developed by PNG KTA in 2009, for Kokoda trek operators.
(4) What action has been taken to implement legislation to support the Code of Conduct.
(5) What management protocols have been promulgated to ensure trek operators abide by the Code of Conduct.
(6) How many trek operators have been licensed by the PNG KTA, detailed per year between 2009 and 2012.
(7) Is it a requirement for all Kokoda trek operators to have a current public liability insurance policy as a condition of obtaining a trek operator’s licence; if not, why not.
(8) How many licensed trek operators hold valid public liability insurance.
(9) Have any Australians trekked with a licensed operator who does not have public liability insurance; if so, how many.
(10) Was an expert consultant engaged to develop a Trekker Activity and Operator Safety map ‘to assist trekkers in preparation for and throughout their trek’; if so: (a) what amount was paid to the consultant for the project; and (b) how many mapping expeditions did the consultant complete in order to verify the accuracy of the map.
(11) Has the accuracy of the map been validated.
(12) How is the map distributed to trekkers and how many have been distributed.
(13) What was the total cost of the mapping project.
1) The Australian Government does not collect statistics on Kokoda Track trek permits. The administration of trek permits is the responsibility of the Papua New Guinean Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Governments. The Kokoda Track Authority is established under the relevant Papua New Guinea legislation and is not responsible to the Australian Government. The question should be directed to the Papua New Guinea Government.
2) The Kokoda Tour Operators’ forums are run by the Kokoda Track Authority. The Kokoda Track Authority is a Special Purposes Authority of the Kaori and Kokoda Local Level Governments, established under the relevant Papua New Guinea legislation. The Kokoda Track Authority is not responsible to the Australian Government. The question should be directed to the Papua New Guinea Government.
a) See answer to Question 2.
b) See answer to Question 2.
c) See answer to Question 2.
d) See answer to Question 2.
1. 3) The Australian Government is unaware of any draft legislation on this matter.
4) See answer to Question 3.
5) The Kokoda Track Code of Conduct was developed by the Kokoda Track Authority and is a voluntary measure set in place to encourage low-impact, culturally sensitive and environmentally friendly travel whilst on the Kokoda Track. The Code of Conduct is monitored by the Kokoda Track Authority.
6) The Australian Government does not collect these statistics. The administration of Commercial Operations Licences for operating tourism related businesses within the Kokoda Track Corridor and collection of licence statistics is the responsibility of the Kokoda Track Authority.
7) Yes. The Kokoda Track Authority’s Commercial Operations Licence conditions include the requirement for trek operators to maintain a policy of public liability insurance at all times during the period the licence is held.
8) The Australian Government does not collect these statistics. The administration of Commercial Operations Licences for operating tourism related businesses within the Kokoda Track Corridor and collection of licence statistics is the responsibility of the Kokoda Track Authority.
9) The Australian Government does not collect these statistics. The administration of Commercial Operations Licences for operating tourism related businesses within the Kokoda Track Corridor and enforcement of licence conditions is the responsibility of the Kokoda Track Authority.
10) Yes.
(a) $41,849.50 AUD.
(b) The Trekker Activity and Operator Safety maps were developed using GPS data collected by the consultant during two visits to the Track and GPS and other spatial data provided by the Kokoda Track Authority and other PNG Government Departments. The accuracy of the maps is being verified by the Kokoda Track Authority.
11) The accuracy of the maps is being validated by the Kokoda Track Authority. The Authority has advised that some minor errors have been noted.
12) The maps are distributed by the Kokoda Track Authority to tour companies for their use and distribution to trekkers for comments and feedback. The Authority has distributed approximately 150 trekker activity maps and 120 operator safety maps to date.
13) $41,849.50 AUD.
With reference to the Kokoda Initiative Annual Report 2010-2011, in particular the goal of ‘A safe and well-managed Kokoda Track, which honours its wartime historical significance and protects and promotes its special values’:
(1) What action has been initiated to develop a Wartime Heritage Interpretation Plan, to honour the wartime historical significance of the Kokoda campaign.
(2) What reports have been compiled in relation to preserving and commemorating the military history of the Kokoda campaign.
(3) What are the ‘special values’ associated with the Kokoda Trail.
1) An Interpretation Scoping Study has been commissioned by the Australian Government under the Kokoda Initiative to assess the options for interpretation planning for the Kokoda Track Region, including the Owen Stanley Ranges and Brown River Catchment area.
2) The following reports have been commissioned by the Australian Government:
3) Under the Kokoda Initiative the Australian Government is providing assistance to Papua New Guinea to help identify and assess the special values of the Kokoda Track and surrounding Owen Stanley Ranges and Brown River Catchment region. These may include natural values such as the outstanding biodiversity of the region, the importance of the local Papua New Guinean cultural heritage and the military history values.
With reference to the Kokoda Initiative Annual Report 2010-2011, in particular the goal to achieve ‘Enhanced quality of life for landowners and communities through improved delivery of basic services, income generation and community development activities’:
1. Did the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority (PNG KTA) consult with the Papua New Guinean Department of Community Development, Religion and Sports in relation to community development projects along the Kokoda Trail between 2009 and 2012; if so, with what outcomes.
2. What activities have been initiated in regard to ‘income generation’ in local villages along the Kokoda Trail, and how much income has been generated as a result of these activities.
3. What community development projects have been initiated along the Kokoda Trail.
4. Has the Papua New Guinean Department of Community Development, Religion and Sports been involved in the initiatives.
5. What amount of money has been spent on each initiative.
1. Information on any consultation undertaken by the Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Governments, in relation to community development projects is held by the Authority.
2. The Australian Government has provided funding under the Kokoda Initiative for the Sustainable Livelihoods Program, which is delivered through the Kokoda Track Authority, Statistics on how much income has been generated have not been collected at this time, however the program will be reviewed in 2013.
3. Australian Government funding was provided under the Kokoda Initiative to deliver the Kokoda Development Program administered by AusAID, and questions on this issue should be referred to AusAID.
4. Questions relating to the Kokoda Development Program should be referred to AusAID.
5. Questions relating to the Kokoda Development Program should be referred to AusAID.
With reference to the Kokoda Track, consultants and non-government organisations (NGOs):
1. How much did the partnership between the Kokoda Track Authority (KTA) and Conservation Volunteers Australia cost, and what were the outcomes of the partnership.
2. Which Australian consultants have been engaged by the Australian Government, between 2009 and 2012, to assist the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority (PNG KTA), and what was the total cost incurred to engage each consultant.
3. What was the: (a) budget; and (b) actual cost and outcome, per consultant engaged by the Australian Government to work on projects along the Kokoda Trail, between 2009 and 2012.
4. Was the owner of EcoSustainAbility, Mr Guy Chester, engaged as a consultant or awarded any contracts during the period in which Mr Rod Hillman was Chief Executive Officer of PNG TPA; if so, can details be provided of the: (a) costs; and (b) outcomes, for each contract or engagement.
5. Can a list be provided of the NGOs that have received funds for projects along the Kokoda Trail, between 2009 and 2012, including details of the: (a) tender process; (b) funds allocated; and (c) outcomes, of each project undertaken per NGO.
6. Can a list be provided detailing how many Conservation Volunteers Australia workers have been involved in ‘track maintenance’ along the Kokoda Trail between 2009 and 2012, including the total amount spent on: (a) international and domestic flights (including charter flights) and accommodation; and (b) any other costs associated with the engagement of these workers.
7. Were unemployed Koiari and Orokaiva people given the opportunity for paid work in relation to track maintenance prior to Australian volunteers being contracted.
8. What are the Key Performance Objectives in regard to track maintenance, as carried out by Australian volunteers between 2009 and 2012.
1. The Australian Government provided funds under the Kokoda Initiative to the Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Governments, for infrastructure and track maintenance. The Kokoda Track Authority determined that it did not have the human resources to undertake track maintenance itself, and entered into a partnership with Conservation Volunteers Australia. The partnership costs were $99,974 AUD.
Outcomes were:
2. Using the definition of a consultant under the department’s procurement guidelines, the following Australian consultants have been engaged by the department as part of the Kokoda Initiative between 2009 and 2012 to assist the Kokoda Track Authority:
3. a. The Kokoda Initiative had the following total budget:
b. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities has engaged the following consultants in the financial years 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 to work on projects under the Kokoda Initiative:
4. Mr Rod Hillman was the Joint CEO of the Kokoda Track Authority, not the TPA. Yes, the Australian Government, under the Kokoda Initiative, engaged EcoSustainability to develop a Tourism Framework for the Kokoda Region.
a. $41,611.03 AUD.
b. Tourism Framework for the Kokoda Region.
5. Under the Kokoda Initiative the Australian Government has engaged the Kokoda Track Foundation and the Kokoda Track Authority has engaged Conservation Volunteers Australia to undertake projects between 2009 and 2012.
a. The Australian Government provided funding to the Kokoda track Authority which used its procurement process to engage Conservation Volunteers Australia. The Kokoda Track Foundation was engaged in 2009 through a formal Request For Quote process run by the former Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
b. Conservation Volunteers Australia: $99,974 AUD; and the Kokoda Track Foundation: $36,905 AUD.
c.
-Local people at each of 6 villages were paid to assist the Conservation Volunteers Australia and undergo training. They are now qualified track builders that the Kokoda Track Authority can draw on for future track maintenance work.
-Relationships improved between villages and Kokoda Track Authority.
-Dangerous and degraded parts of the track identified in the Track Analysis document were repaired and made safe, which skilled villagers were able to continue to maintain.
6. The Australian Government provided funding under the Kokoda Initiative to the Kokoda Track Authority in 2009 to engage Conservation Volunteers Australia to undertake Track Maintenance work. Twelve volunteers were located in 6 villages along the track. Information on any other projects undertaken by Conservation Volunteers Australia on the Kokoda Track would be held by the Kokoda Track Authority.
a. Airfares and charters: $16, 203.08 AUD; and accommodation and food: $29,088.48 AUD.
b. Tools: $3,169.75 AUD.
7. Yes.
8. In relation to the Conservation Volunteers Australia work for 2009 Track Maintenance, objectives were to:
With reference to the Kokoda Track and the Sustainable Livelihoods Project:
1. What is the Sustainable Livelihoods Project.
2. Was the project an initiative of the Australian Government or the Papua New Guinean Government.
3. Who was awarded the tender to conduct the project.
4. What are the Key Performance Indicators for the project.
5. What is the cost of the project to date.
6. What are the specific outcomes of the project,
7. Is the project considered to be a sustainable project for villages along the Kokoda Trail.
8. How many village workshops were conducted between 2009 and 2012, for: (a) Orokaiva people from the Northern Province; and (b) Koiari people from the Central Province.
9. Who was engaged as a facilitator for these workshops.
10. Was the facilitator fluent in Tok Pisin and familiar with Melanesian culture.
11. What were the outcomes and total costs of conducting these workshops.
1. The Sustainable Livelihoods Project aims to increase the capacity of Kokoda Track communities to generate income from tourism by adding value to the trekking experience. It has included activities such as a study exploring issues of demand and supply and labour availability; three Pilot Projects in 2010-11; and activities undertaken in 2011-12 developed with reference to the outcomes of the Pilot Projects.
2. The Sustainable Livelihoods project was a joint initiative of the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments under the Kokoda Initiative.
3. The Kokoda Track Foundation was engaged to undertake a study on the Sustainable Livelihoods Project following a formal Request For Quote process undertaken by the former Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.
The Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities entered into a funding agreement with the Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Government, in 2010 to deliver activities under the Kokoda Initiative, including Sustainable Livelihoods activities.
4. Objectives for the Livelihoods Project are to:
5. $452,205 AUD.
6. Increased the capacity of Kokoda Track communities to generate income from tourism by adding value to the trekking experience.
7. Yes.
8. a. The Sustainable Livelihoods Project is delivered by the Kokoda Track Authority on behalf of the Kokoda Initiative. The Australian Government is aware that the Kokoda Track Authority held workshops in the Northern (Oro) Province between 2009 and 2012, however questions regarding the specific details of the consultations should be directed to the Kokoda Track Authority.
b. The Australian Government is aware that the Kokoda Track Authority held workshops in the Central Province between 2009 and 2012, however questions regarding the specific details of the consultations should be directed to the Kokoda Track Authority.
9. A Livelihoods Officer from the Kokoda Track Authority was present to help facilitate all workshops and technical experts and consultants were engaged as appropriate to assist. Further questions about these workshops should be directed to the Kokoda Track Authority.
10. Questions regarding the specific details of the consultations should be directed to the Kokoda Track Authority.
11. Questions regarding the specific details of the consultations should be directed to the Kokoda Track Authority.
With reference to the Kokoda Track:
(1) What projects have been initiated by Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority (PNG KTA) between 2009 and 2012.
(2) What is the ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ project and was it authorised by PNG KTA.
(3) What funds have been provided by the PNG KTA in support of the ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ project.
(4) What are the outcomes of the ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ project.
1) A list of projects funded by the Australian Government and undertaken by the Kokoda Track Authority (a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Governments) under Kokoda Initiative funding between the beginning of 2009 and the end of the 2011-2012 financial year is below. Information on other projects undertaken by the Kokoda Track Authority during this time would be held by the Kokoda Track Authority.
2. The ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ Project is not a Kokoda Initiative or Australian Government project. The Australian Government understands that the project is run by the Kokoda Track Foundation and cannot advise on any authorisation for the project by the Kokoda Track Authority.
3. No Australian Government funding has been provided to the Kokoda Track Authority to support the ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ Project under the Kokoda Initiative. The Australian Government cannot advise on other Kokoda Track Authority funding for the project.
4. The Australian Government is not involved in the ‘Krappers for Kokoda’ Project, which is the responsibility of the Kokoda Track Foundation, and cannot advise on the outcomes.
With reference to the Kokoda Track:
1. What was the cost of upgrading the Sogeri to Owers Corner road to all-weather capability.
2. What budget has been allocated to maintain the road between 2012 and 2013.
3. What is the budget for the upgrade of the Kokoda airstrip.
4. How much has been spent on the upgrade of the airstrip between 2009 and 2012.
5. Are there any plans to upgrade the airstrip to support a Dash-8 aircraft.
6. What was the cost of operating the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority office at Boroko between 2009 to 2012.
7. (a) How many Papua New Guinean personnel have visited Australia between 2009 to 2012; and (b) what was the purpose, cost and outcome of each visit.
1. Under the Kokoda Initiative Safety Package, Australian Government funding of $2,034,298 AUD was provided to the Kokoda Track Authority, a Special Purposes Authority of the Kokoda and Koiari Local-level Governments, to upgrade Owers’ Corner Road to all weather capability.
2. Under the Kokoda Initiative, Australian Government funding of $374,000 AUD has been allocated to maintain Owers’ Corner Road for the 2012-13 financial year.
3. Under the Kokoda Initiative, the budget for Australian Government funding for the Kokoda Initiative Safety Package activities, including improving the Kokoda airstrip, is $5.13m AUD.
4. Under the Kokoda Initiative Safety Package, Australian Government funding between 2009 and April 2012 to the Kokoda Track Authority of $723,211 AUD has been spent on activities to improve the Kokoda airstrip, and a further $22,279 AUD has been spent on delivering and installing airstrip safety equipment to the Kokoda airstrip and five other airstrips in the Kokoda region.
5. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the department) is unaware of any plans to upgrade the airstrip to support Dash-8 aircraft.
6. Under the Kokoda Initiative, the total Australian Government funding provided by the department to the Kokoda Track Authority to support operating the Boroko office during the period 2009-2012 was $46,667.09 AUD. Any additional costs for operating the Boroko office during this period are the responsibility of the Kokoda Track Authority.
7. a. The department does not have information on all Papua New Guinean personnel who have visited Australia between 2009 to 2012.
b. See answer to 7 a.
With reference to the Kokoda Track:
(1) What research was conducted to determine the need for massage services along the Kokoda Trail.
(2) (a) Who conducted the research; and (b) what were the results.
(3) Was the project put out to tender; if so, what process was undertaken.
(4) (a) Who is funding the project; and (b) what is the cost of the project.
(5) (a) How much is the provider being paid for the project; and (b) what are the Key Performance Indicators for the project.
(6) Has the provider been engaged on any other projects along the Kokoda Trail; if so, for each project: (a) what was the cost; (b) how much was the provider paid; and (c) what are the Key Performance Indicators.
1. The remedial massage skills training project resulted from community consultation and an associated trekker survey undertaken in July 2010 by the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority. The survey sought views from trekkers on the trekking experience and included questions around additional local business opportunities or products that could be offered to trekkers, including remedial massage.
2. a. Refer to the answer to question 1.
b. The survey indicated that 97 of 142 people would be interested in remedial massage if it was available along the Kokoda Track.
3. The Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority was responsible for the procurement process for the remedial massage skills training project. According to the Authority, a Request for Quote process was undertaken and the contract was awarded to a provider who demonstrated the best value for money and had the necessary skills to undertake the training.
4. a. The Australian Government provided funding to the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority for Livelihoods activities as part of the Second Joint Understanding 2010-2015 between Papua New Guinea and Australian on the Owen Stanley Ranges, Brown River Catchment and Kokoda Track Region.
b. The Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority advise that the cost of equipment and logistics support for the training was $5,823 AUD.
5. a. The training service provider undertook the training free of charge.
b. The Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority advise that the key performance indicator for the project was that remedial massage is available in at least four villages along the Kokoda Track by June 2012.
6. The provider has not been engaged by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on any projects under the Second Joint Understanding. Questions regarding the provider’s involvement in other projects along the Kokoda Track could be directed to AusAID or the Papua New Guinea Kokoda Track Authority.
a) See answer to 6, above.
b) See answer to 6, above.
c) See answer to 6, above.
With reference to the answers provided to question nos AE12/0251, AE12/0252, AE12/0255, taken on notice during the 2011-12 Additional estimates hearing of the
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, and question no. BE12/0296, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the same committee, and the inability of the department to provide the requested data:
(1) Why was data able to be provided in answer to question nos AE12/0251, AE12/0252, AE12/0255, and not in relation to question no. BE/0296.
(2) What changes have occurred to the department’s system that prevents data of this type from being provided or collated, and on what date did these changes take place.
(3) Who authorised this change in data collection and at what cost.
(4) What was the rationale or public policy imperative put forward in support of this change.
(5) In relation to the answer provided to question nos AE12/0251, AE12/0252, AE12/0255: (a) who collated the data provided; (b) how was it collated; and (c) what departmental system was used.
(1) The questions at Additional Estimates in February 2012 (AE12/0251, AE12/0252, AE12/0255), is different from the question asked in Budget Estimates in May 2012 (BE/0296). Information for answers to questions raised in Additional Estimates was available only for Indonesia following detailed analysis of entry interviews. The specific data required to answer question no. BE/0296 is not available due to incomplete or fragmented information provided by IMAs.
(2) No changes to the Department’s database have occurred.
(3) No changes to the Department’s data collection have occurred.
(4) No changes have occurred.
(5) The responses to question nos. AE12/0251, AE12/0252, AE12/0255 were provided from information collated from a database administered by the Immigration Intelligence Branch.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0048_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee: (1) Can a breakdown be provided of each ‘share’, including who is responsible and the value of each, in relation to the cost of wage increases. (2) What percentage will the Commonwealth fund.
The social and community services (SACS) sector is funded, on average, 30 per cent by the Commonwealth, 30 per cent by states/territories and 40 per cent from the sector’s own resources – noting these proportions vary across providers and programs and states and territories.
In November 2011, the Prime Minister committed the Government to pay the Commonwealth’s share of any wage increases awarded as a result of an equal remuneration order by Fair Work Australia, and the equal remuneration decision of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission in 2009 relating to certain SACS workers in Queensland as applying from 1 December 2012. The Prime Minister announced on 15 July 2012 that the Commonwealth’s share of the wage increases equates to around $3 billion to June 2021.
The Commonwealth will be providing supplementation to providers that are funded to deliver Commonwealth funded social and community services programs that have been assessed as in-scope of the equal remuneration decisions. Supplementation will also extend to those providers that receive Commonwealth funding indirectly through the state and territory governments.
With reference to the answer provided to question no. EW0277_13, taken on notice during the 2012-13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, can details be provided of all other advice provided by the department, including: (a) the date; (b) the nature of the advice, for example, legal or departmental; (c) who provided the advice; and (d) to whom it was addressed.
The Department provided ongoing legal and other advice in relation to the Federal Court proceedings from 27 March 2012. It is not is not practical to identify each occasion on which such advice was provided and it would unreasonably divert departmental resources to provide such further particulars.
(1) What are the proposed benefits.
(2) What are the benefits of unity of policy, alignment of strategy and policy integration.
(3) Have estimates been conducted on the potential savings from the proposal.
(4) What are the anticipated changes to staffing numbers.
(5) What areas of duplication currently exist between the two organisations and what is the cost of this.
(6) Given that the proposal does not seek to change the level or structure of levy payments, is it the best way forward.
(7) How can it be ensured that funds currently dedicated to research and development and market development and access are quarantined for those purposes within the new unified organisation.
(8) Does the Minister have any objections to the proposal.
On 8 December 2011, I received a letter from the chairs of the Winemakers’ Federation of Australia (WFA) and the Wine Grape Growers Australia (WGGA) which sought my support to merge the Wine Australia Corporation and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC) into a single statutory organisation.
In my response, I agreed to WFA and WGGA undertaking further investigation into this proposal, including a consultation process to ascertain levels of support or opposition from levy payers.
On 21 August 2012, WFA and WGGA provided me with a formal submission recommending a merger. I have asked the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry to analyse the proposal before the government considers whether it should support the merger.
For further reference, WFA has published the formal submission on its website at http://www.wfa.org.au and WGGA advised the department on 6 September 2012 that it will also be made available on the WGGA website at www.wgga.com.au.
With reference to the aerial dingo baiting trial being conducted to reduce dingo populations below the Dog Fence in the South Australian Arid Lands region:
(1) What changes have occurred in the region to require an aerial baiting trial.
(2) How much has been allocated in funding from Australian Wool Innovation Limited, and what are the: (a) conditions for the funding; and (b) deliverables.
(3) How many dingoes are anticipated to be baited.
(4) What are the identified causes for the increased dingo population.
(5) Has any research been conducted on the link between camels that have been shot and left to rot, and dingo feeding habits.
(6) What percentage of other animals or birds are likely to be inadvertently baited in the trial.
(1) The number of dingos/wild dogs inside the South Australian Dog Fence has gradually increased over the past few years, as it has in rangeland ‘sheep zones’ in other states. This has occurred for several reasons:
(2) Advice from Australian Wool Innovation Limited is that $163 000 has been invested in dingo/wild dog control below the Dog Fence in the South Australian Arid Lands region. This funding has been for:
(3) No targets for “dingos baited” were set for the trial.
(4) Refer to the response to Q(1).
(5) No.
(6) Research to date suggests that wild dog baits do not pose a significant threat to any off-target wildlife populations in the region.
The high sensitivity of wild dogs to the toxin, in comparison with native carnivores, means that baits can be prepared that carry a toxin dose too low to be toxic to native animals of the region and are also too large to be taken by the native animals. The toxin does not bioaccumulate and sub-lethal doses are excreted within 24 hours. The risk of off-target impacts is thereby minimised.
Can details be provided on departmental and administered funds provided for matters pertaining to housing, including the: (a) number and level of allocated staff; and (b) departmental structure down to section level.
Treasury does not have responsibility for administration of any housing programs.
Treasury currently has an average staffing level (ASL, including full-time and part-time staff) of: 3.8 Executive Level 2 staff members, 2.5 Executive Level 1 staff members, and 1 APS 5 staff member allocated to look at housing issues. This includes provision by Treasury of secretariat support as required for the National Housing Supply Council.
In terms of Departmental structure, the Cities, Housing and Planning Unit, and the National Housing Supply Council Unit both operate within the Infrastructure Division.
With reference to the answer to question no. EW0306_13, taken on notice during the 2012–13 Budget estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee:
(1) Can the exact date be provided.
(2) Can the Minister advise who came up with the idea and why.
(1) The Department was requested by the then Minister’s Office to provide advice in relation to possible amendments to the Bill on 17 October 2011.
(2) The Government consulted with a number of stakeholders on possible amendments to the Bill. Details of those consultations remain a matter between the Government and the stakeholders.
With reference to the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate Contract Notice CN769731:
(1) What is the name and title of each individual who received media training.
(2) Why was media training required.
(3) Who authorised the training.
(1)
Leigh Johns – Chief Executive
Brian Corney – Chief Counsel
Madeleine Jones – State Director - WA
Ian Wolsoncroft – A/g Team Leader - WA
Michelle Cozadinos – State Director - VIC
Mark Temple – State Director - SA
Neale Smith – A/g State Director - QLD
Chanelle Pearson – Media Adviser
Cameron Jackson – Media Adviser
Jessica Kendall – Senior Adviser Stakeholder Engagement
Simon O’Dea – Senior Adviser Stakeholder Engagement
(2)
FWBC staff regularly deliver presentations to industry stakeholders, and answer questions from building industry participants.
This training was required to ensure staff confidently manage presentations and meetings in a manner that delivers clear, correct and consistent information to their audience.
(3)
Glyn Cryer, Executive Director, Industry & Public Affairs