The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hogg) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death, on 21 October 2012, of Corporal Scott James Smith, while on combat operations in Afghanistan, places on record its appreciation of his service to our country, and tenders its profound sympathy to his family, friends and colleagues in their bereavement.
(a) That the Select Committee on Electricity Prices be authorised to meet during the sitting of the Senate today from 3.15 pm and for a private briefing; and
(b) the Community Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011
Second Reading
Debate resumed on the motion:
That these bills be now read a second time.
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.
1) Clause 2 , page 2 (table item 2 ), omit the table item, substitute:
(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:
(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 7 to 11), omit:
substitute:
(a) supply—
(b) arrange for other persons to engage in dealings—
(a) includes supply by way of sale, exchange, gift, lease, hire or hire-purchase; and
(b) in relation to DSGL technology—includes provide access to DSGL technology.
(3) Clause 4, page 3 (before line 23), before the definition of Article 3(1) US Defence Article , insert:
arranges has a meaning affected by section 5A.
(8) Page 8 (after line 12), after clause 5, insert:
5A Arranging for persons to supply goods or DSGL technology
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (the broker )arranges for another person to supply goods or DSGL technology if:
(a) the broker acts as an agent of a person, or acts as an intermediary between 2 or more persons, in relation to the supply; and
(b) either:
(i) the broker receives, or is to receive, any commission, fee or other benefit for so acting; or
(ii) the broker so acts for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Subsection (1) does not limit the meaning of arranges for the purposes of this Act.
(13) Clause 15, page 19 (line 2) to page 21 (line 2), omit the clause, substitute:
15 Offence—arranging supplies in relation to the Defence and Strategic Goods List
(1) A person (the first person ) commits an offence if:
(a) either:
(i) the first person arranges for another person to supply goods, where the goods are listed in the Defence and Strategic Goods List and the supply is, or is to be, from a place outside Australia to another place outside Australia; or
(ii) the first person arranges for another person to supply DSGL technology, where the supply is, or is to be, from a place outside Australia to another place outside Australia; and
(b) either:
(i) the first person does not hold a permit under section 16 authorising the arrangement; or
(ii) the arrangement contravenes a condition of a permit that the first person holds under section 16.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,500 penalty units, or both.
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the first person is a member of the Australian Defence Force, an APS employee, a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force of a State or Territory; and
(b) he or she does the arranging in the course of his or her duties as such a person.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the first person arranges for another person to supply goods, or to supply DSGL technology, where the supply is, or is to be, from a place in a foreign country to another place in that country; and
(b) that country is a Participating State for the purposes of the Wassenaar Arrangement.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
Geographical jurisdiction
(5) Section 15.2 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
Definitions
(6) In this section:
place includes:
(a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft; and
(b) an area of water; and
(c) a fixed or floating structure or installation of any kind.
Wassenaar Arrangement means the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual‑Use Goods and Technologies, adopted in Vienna, Austria, on 11 and 12 July 1996, as amended from time to time.
(14) Clause 16, page 21 (lines 4 to 17), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) A registered broker may apply to the Minister for a permit under this section to:
(a) arrange for another person to supply goods, where the goods are listed in the Defence and Strategic Goods List; or
(b) arrange for another person to supply DSGL technology.
Note: Section 66 sets out application requirements.
(15) Clause 16, page 21 (line 24), omit "technology relating to goods", substitute "DSGL technology".
(16) Clause 16, page 21 (line 33), after "if", insert ", having regard to the criteria prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection and to any other matters that the Minister considers appropriate,".
(4) Clause 4, page 5 (before line 16), before the definition of foreign person , insert:
DSGL technology means a thing that is:
(a) technology, or software, as defined in the Defence and Strategic Goods List; and
(b) within the scope of that list.
Note: For paragraph (b), the Defence and Strategic Goods List contains exemptions relating to technology or software in the public domain and to basic scientific research.
(5) Clause 4, page 6 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of supply , substitute:
supply :
(a) includes supply by way of sale, exchange, gift, lease, hire or hire‑purchase; and
(b) in relation to DSGL technology—includes provide access to DSGL technology.
(6) Clause 5, page 7 (lines 2 to 10), omit subclause (1), substitute:
Article 3(1) US Defence Article
(1) Article 3(1) US Defence Article means goods:
(a) the initial movement of which is from a member of the United States Community to an Australian Community member, or to an Australian Community facility, for an activity referred to in Article 3(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty; and
(b) that are listed in Part 1 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List immediately before the start of that movement; and
(c) that are not listed in Part 2 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List immediately before the start of that movement.
(7) Clause 5, page 7 (lines 17 to 23), omit subclause (4), substitute:
Article 3(3) US Defence Article
(4) Article 3(3) US Defence Article means goods:
(a) acquired by, and delivered to, the Government of Australia as mentioned in Article 3(3) of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty; and
(b) that are listed in Part 1 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List at the time of that delivery; and
(c) that are not listed in Part 2 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List at the time of that delivery.
(18) Clause 36, page 56 (lines 16 to 21), omit subclause (3), substitute:
(3) Part 1 is to contain a list of either or both of the following:
(a) goods listed in the Defence and Strategic Goods List;
(b) goods listed in the United States Munitions List referred to in Article 1(1) (n) of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty.
(2) Page 9 (after line 20), at the end of Part 1, add:
9A General defence
(1) A person does not commit an offence against this Act if:
(a) a physical element of the offence exists because information was , or is to be, disclosed (whether by way of supply of the information or otherwise); and
(b) without the existence of that physical element the person would not commit the offence; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i) the information has already been lawfully made available to the public, or to a section of the public;
(ii) the information has been accepted for publication and/or submitted to a reviewer for the purpose of publication or presentation at a conference;
(iii) the information was created as a result of the conduct of open research;
(iv) the information was, or is to be, disclosed in connection with the conduct of open research;
(v) the information was, or is to be,disclosed during, or for the purposes of, the conduct of a course of study at a higher education institution;
(vi) the information was, or is to be, disclosed in connection with an application for a patent.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (1) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code ).
(2) For the purposes of subparagraphs (1) (c) (iii) and (iv), research is open research if:
(a) the results of the research would ordinarily be published and/or shared broadly within the scholarly community; and
(b) the conduct of the research is not subject to:
(i) a condition that the results not be disclosed; or
(ii) a condition that the results only be disclosed with approval.
(1) Page 9 (after line 20), at the end of Part 1, add:
9A Exclusion for research, education and information in the public domain
This Act does not apply to the following:
(a) information in the public domain;
(b) information that has been, or is intended to be, published in any publication available to members of the public;
(c) fundamental research, which is basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community (such research is to be distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production and product utilisation, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary reasons or subject to other access and dissemination controls);
(d) educational information or instruction provided in courses by a higher education provider;
(e) information that is the minimum necessary information for patent applications.
(a) information in the public domain;
(b) information that has been, or is intended to be, published in any publication available to members of the public;
(c) fundamental research, which is basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community (such research is to be distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production and product utilisation, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary reasons or subject to other access and dissemination controls);
(d) educational information or instruction provided in courses by a higher education provider;
(e) information that is the minimum necessary information for patent applications.
In the United States, if a university wants to use specifically controlled equipment or data, they would need a license or other approval to transfer this technical data or allow access to the equipment to a foreign person. … Universities in the United States are not exempted from U.S. ITAR and dual-use export controls.
(b) The following items are not subject to EAR:
… … …
(3) Publicly available technology and software, except software classified under ECCN 5D002 on the Commerce Control List, that:
(i) Are already published or will be published as described in 734.7 of this part;
(ii) Arise during, or result from, fundamental research, as described in 734.8 of this part—
underline 'fundamental research'—
(iii) Are educational, as described in 734.9 of this part;
(iv) Are included in certain patent applications, as described in 734.10 of this part.
Paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section and 734.11 of this part provide specific rules that will be used to determine whether research in particular institutional contexts qualifies as “fundamental research”. The intent behind these rules is to identify as “fundamental research” basic and applied research in science and engineering, where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community. Such research can be distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary reasons or specific national security reasons as defined in 734.11(b) of this part.
(b) University based research
(1) Research conducted by scientists, engineers, or students at a university normally will be considered fundamental research …
(a) Public domain means information which is published and which is generally accessible or available to the public:
(1) Through sales at newsstands and bookstores;
(2) Through subscriptions which are available without restriction to any individual who desires to obtain or purchase the published information;
(3) Through second class mailing privileges granted by the U.S. Government;
(4) At libraries open to the public or from which the public can obtain documents;
(5) Through patents available at any patent office;
(6) Through unlimited distribution at a conference, meeting, seminar, trade show or exhibition, generally accessible to the public, in the United States;
(7) Through public release (i.e., unlimited distribution) in any form (e.g., not necessarily in published form) after approval by the cognizant U.S. government department or agency …
(8) Through fundamental research in science and engineering at accredited institutions of higher learning in the U.S. where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly in the scientific community. Fundamental research is defined to mean basic and applied research in science and engineering where the resulting information is ordinarily published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from research the results of which are restricted for proprietary reasons …
Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there is a Department of Veterans’ Affairs in the Defence portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a minister in all cases.
We are shocked, surprised and very disappointed by the size of the royalty increase … [which] will further endanger jobs and investment in the coal industry.
It will mean job losses. It risks further mine closures and there are many coal projects on the drawing board that will now never get off that drawing board.
Dear Senator
I am writing in regards to your question to Senator Evans in regards to Emergency Relief. Senator Evans referred your question to me as this matter falls within my portfolio responsibilities.
Currently there are about 680 organisations receiving Emergency Relief funding and delivering services through about 1,300 outlets.
The Gillard Government has almost doubled funding for emergency relief since we came into Government in 2007. In the 2011-12 Budget, the Government allocated $181.2 million for Emergency Relief over three years.
Emergency Relief assists people in financial crisis to deal with their immediate crisis situation in a way that maintains the dignity of the individual and encourages self-reliance.
Assistance from Emergency Relief providers to clients is primarily in the form of:
The Government recognises that Emergency Relief services are an important gateway to other services and supports that can help people deal with more complex issues, including issues that have contributed to, or are a consequence of, financial stress. For example, Emergency Relief organisations also refer people to services such as financial counselling, financial literacy programs, drug and alcohol support, crisis accommodation, mental health and family support.
Julie Collins MP
Minister for Community Services
Minister for Indigenous Employment and Economic Development
Minister for the Status of Women
Dear Senator Payne
You asked a question of Senator Evans on 20 September 2012 regarding the Building Better Regional Cities (BBRC) program. As the program falls within my responsibilities, I wish to provide the following response.
You asked whether all the $112.1 million included in my announcement for BBRC has been locked in.
I can confirm that of the sixteen councils included in my announcement, thirteen have funding agreements with the Department. Negotiations are continuing with the remaining councils, with the finalisation of some agreements being delayed by the timing of the NSW council elections. No decisions have been made to reduce or remove funding from any of those projects.
The Hon Brendan O'Connor MP
Minister for Housing
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cormann and Edwards today relating to the minerals resource rent tax.
We have a high-spending, high-taxing government that, rather than wanting to support those parts of the economy that need help, wants to slow down the fast lane.
We have spent the best part of $2m in compliance to find that we are not paying the tax and that we wouldn't reasonably expect to pay the tax under almost any circumstance you can imagine as we go forward with the iron ore price.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Science and Research (Senator Evans) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to questions without notice asked by Senators Milne, Singh and Ludlam today relating to the white paper, Australia in the Asian Century .
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 1) 2012-2013
Appropriation (Implementation of the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers) Bill (No. 2) 2012-2013.
Purpose of the Bills
These bills allow for payments for offshore asylum seeker management, to address increased costs of irregular maritime arrivals resulting from rates of arrivals and the implementation of the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, including capital works and services for regional processing facilities on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea.
Reasons for Urgency
Timely passage for the Bills will provide for estimated payment required in 2012-13.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
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.
Purpose of the Bills
The Clean Energy Legislation Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill and related bills make technical amendments that allow for the effective implementation of linking the carbon pricing mechanism with overseas emissions trading schemes.
Reasons for Urgency
Liabilities under the Clean Energy Act 2011 commence on 1 July 2012. To enable liable entities and others to have certainty about the longer term operation of the carbon pricing mechanism, technical amendments that allow for the effective implementation of international linking should be made as soon as possible.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 SPRING SITTINGS
DENTAL BENEFITS AMENDMENT BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Dental Benefits Act 2008 to cease the Medicare Teen Dental Plan and replace it with an expanded Child Dental Benefits Schedule (CDBS).
Reasons for Urgency
As parts of its agreement with the Australian Greens on dental reform, the Government has committed to pass legislation to create the CDBS by the end of 2012.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account Bill 2012
Social and Community Services Pay Equity Special Account (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2012.
Purpose of the Bills
The bills would establish a special account under section 21 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to assist employers who are covered by Fair Work Australia’s Social, Community and Disability Services Industry Equal Remuneration Order and who are funded by the Commonwealth for the purposes of a prescribed program.
The equal remuneration order will provide wage increases ranging from 23 per cent to 45 per cent, phased in over eight years, in nine equal instalments from 1 December 2012 to 1 December 2020. Commonwealth supplementation would be delivered through funding drawn from the special account and paid to providers that employ the workers affected by the order.
Reasons for Urgency
The legislation needs to be enacted by 1 October 2012 to allow Commonwealth agencies to draw down from the special account and release funding to eligible employers, allowing the employers to meet their legal obligation to pay employee wage increases from 1 December 2012.
That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings:
Aviation Legislation Amendment (Liability and Insurance) Bill 2012
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Legislation Amendment Bill 2012
Higher Education Support Amendment (Maximum Payment Amounts and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Further 2012 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2012.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 SPRING SITTINGS
AVIATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (LIABILITY AND INSURANCE) BILL 2012
Purpose of the Bill
The bill amends the framework for the liability of air carriers in the event of an aircraft accident. The framework is established by the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 and the Damage by Aircraft Act 1999. The amendments address some of the shortcomings in the current framework that were identified in the development of the 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper.
The key amendments include:
The bill implements reforms agreed in the 2009 National Aviation Policy White Paper. The level of compensation payable to victims of air craft accidents has not been updated since 1994. From 1994 inflation has increased the cost of living by approximately 2.7 per cent per year. This represents a real imbalance between the compensation currently payable under the CACL Act and the increase in the cost of living since the bill’s inception. Delaying the progress of the bill will impact on the ability of air crash victims to obtain equitable compensation in the event of an aviation disaster.
This bill was passed unopposed in the House of Representatives.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 SPRING SITTINGS
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2012
Purpose of the Bill
This Bill will amend the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 and other legislation relating to Federal Magistrates’ entitlements to rename the Federal Magistrates Court as the ‘Federal Circuit Court of Australia’, and change the title of the Chief Federal Magistrate to ‘Chief Judge’ and the title of Federal Magistrates to ‘Judge’.
The Bill includes amendments to:
maintain current entitlements of Federal Magistrates under their new title
provide for styling of the Chief Federal Magistrate and Federal Magistrates under their new title
change statutory position titles, such as the Chief Executive Officer, consequential to the new name of the Court, and
provide for transitional and saving arrangements to ensure continuity of the Federal Magistrates Court and arrangements under which it operates.
This Bill will operate together with a separate, later Bill that will include consequential amendments for other Commonwealth legislation that references the Federal Magistrates Court and Federal Magistrates.
Reasons for Urgency
Since the Federal Magistrates Court commenced operation in 2000 its jurisdiction has expanded and the number and complexity of the cases coming before it have increased. It is the only federal court with a program of regular regional circuits. The current name of the Federal Magistrates Court and title of Federal Magistrates does not adequately capture the increasingly complex work undertaken by the court and its judicial officers.
The Attorney General proposes that legislation to implement the changes be passed so that the changes of title for the Court and Federal Magistrates can commence early in 2013.
This Bill provides a legislative basis for the changes to the name of the Federal Magistrates Court and title of Federal Magistrates, and is uncontroversial. Passage of the legislation in the Spring 2012 sittings will enable implementation in early 2013.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 SPRING SITTINGS
HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT AMENDMENT (MAXIMUM PAYMENT AMOUNTS AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to update maximum payment amounts for Other Grants and Commonwealth Scholarships to provide for indexation and to include the 2016 funding year.
The bill will also amend HESA to allow wider disclosure of certain information (including personal information) collected under HESA, specifically unit record data, which is information about student enrolments, student load, course completions and staff. The bill will allow disclosure of this information to higher education and vocational education and training providers under HESA, state and territory governments, the National VET Regulator, bodies or associations determined by the Minister by legislative instrument and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) to assess the impact of the Government’s higher education and VET reforms and to a third party contracted by the government to conduct surveys of staff, students and former students.
Lastly, the bill will amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to update the special appropriation funding cap administered by the Australian Research Council to include indexation adjustments and to add an additional forward estimate for existing schemes within the National Competitive Grants Program.
In respect of the indexation measures, the maximum payment amounts for Other Grants and Commonwealth Scholarships under sections 41-45 and 46-40 of HESA and the Annual funding cap amounts under section 49 of the ARC Act are amended on an annual basis to reflect indexation and other variations.
In regards to the information disclosure measures, TEQSA has written to the Department requesting access to unit record data by 1 October 2012 to enable it to undertake risk assessments of higher education providers by the end of 2012. Universities require access to unit record data towards the end of 2012 to assist in planning student loads for 2013.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2012 SPRING SITTINGS
SOCIAL SECURITY AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (FURTHER 2012 BUDGET AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL
Purpose of the Bill
The bill would introduce several measures from the 2012-13 Budget. The first of these would provide for a 12-month extension from 1 January 2013 of the welfare reform trial in the Cape York area. In a significant boost to Indigenous education, the bill would also amend the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to increase the Act’s legislative appropriation for several education initiatives.
The bill would also make some non-Budget amendments to clarify current Government policies and improve the operation of existing legislation. These amendments would include minor clarifications to the schoolkids bonus legislation, payments under which are due to start from 1 January 2013.
Reasons for Urgency
The Cape York welfare reform trial began in 2008, but is currently due to end on 31 December 2012. Passage of the bill in the 2012 Spring sittings would allow the trial to continue for 12 months, as announced in the Budget. To date, the trial has made a real and lasting difference in the lives of Indigenous people in Cape York, bringing improvements in school attendance, care and protection of children, and community safety. The 12-month extension would provide an opportunity to build on the success of the initiatives already underway, including the completion of an independent evaluation.
The minor clarifications relating to the schoolkids bonus also need to be passed in the 2012 Spring sittings, in time for the first payments of the new bonus to be made to families from 1 January 2013.
That general business order of the day no. 95, the Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Making Marine Parks Accountable) Bill 2012 be considered on Thursday, 1 November 2012, under the temporary order relating to consideration of private senators' bills.
That leave of absence be granted to Senator Brown for today, for personal reasons.
That leave of absence be granted to Senators McKenzie and Boswell for 29 October 2012 for personal reasons and to Senator Sinodinos for 29 October 2012 to 2 November 2012 for personal reasons.
that the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today from 5:30 pm to take evidence from the Future Fund in relation to the consideration of 2012-13 supplementary budget estimates.
That leave of absence be granted for Senator Hanson-Young from 29 October until 1 November on account of parliamentary business.
That the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Reference Committee be authorised to hold in camera hearings during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4 pm, and from 6:15 pm.
That the Senate—
(a) notes the recent report by the United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Cambodia which addresses the issue of election organisation and makes a number of recommendations in order for Cambodia's general election in July 2013 to meet international standards for democratic elections and for urgent and long-term reforms to give Cambodians confidence in the electoral process; and
(b) calls on the Cambodian Government to hold free and fair elections in 2013 and to ensure that opposition parties are able to participate fully in Cambodian politics without physical or judicial harassment or intimidation, including opposition leader Sam Rainsy, as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur.
That the Senate—
(a) notes:
(i) the Australian Institute of Marine Sciences study released on 2 October 2012 which found that the Great Barrier Reef has lost more than half its coral cover in the past 27 years, and that, if current trends continue, coral cover could halve again by 2022,
(ii) the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation report of 1 October 2012 which stated that ecological change across Australia in response to climate change is unavoidable; it will be widespread and substantial,
(iii) the Australian Bureau of Statistics Measures of Australia ' s Progress 2012 report released on 9 October 2012 which highlighted that we are failing to stop the decline in our biodiversity and our atmosphere, and
(iv) the Government's commitment to hand federal environmental responsibility for threatened and migratory species, Ramsar wetlands and heritage spaces to the states despite the likely damage to the nationally important places and species Australians consider too precious to lose; and
(b) calls on the Government to retain responsibility for making all major decisions on environmentally damaging projects that affect our nationally threatened species and wilderness places.
The Senate divided [15:45]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The Gillard government's ongoing mining tax fiasco and its implications for the budget.
… all strength to his right arm, he's showing incredible courage …
Rio Tinto has announced it will slash more jobs across its coal mines in Queensland as the state raises its royalty rates.
… warned last week that the Queensland Government's decision to raise the royalty rate would directly impact its operations.
Now a Rio spokesperson has said that "the Queensland Government's decision last week to increase royalties is the latest example of the cost escalations affecting the coal industry.
Mining magnate Clive Palmer—
says any increase in mining royalty rates will "kill" the state's economy and drive thousands of Queenslanders out of work.
Increased mining royalties on top of widespread sackings is hardly a recipe for growth in this state.
Undeterred in his quest for carbon tax-induced wreckage—
the Coalition leader appears now to be claiming as evidence any unrelated piece of economic bad news.
Hence he appeared in mournful procession with his South Australian MPs—
With an $800 increase in just one bill, of which 70 per cent is due to the carbon tax, how can the Prime Minister possibly claim that Hetty's compensation is in any way adequate?
Committee reports
1. Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––Prevention and treatment of problem gambling (received 12 October 2012)
2. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––Report––Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2012 [Provisions] (received 23 October 2012)
Government responses to parliamentary committee reports
1. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee––Report––Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 (received 15 October 2012)
2. Environment and Communications References Committee––Report––Recent ABC programming decisions (received 16 October 2012)
3. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee––Report––Procurement procedures for Defence capital projects (received 16 October 2012)
4. Select Committee on Men's Health––Report (received 24 October 2012)
Government documents
1. Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID)––
Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
Addendum (received 15 October 2012)
2. Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
3. Australian Information Commissioner––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
4. Department of Immigration and Citizenship––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
5. Health Workforce Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
6. Migration Agents Registration Authority––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
7. Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
8. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and Comcare––Report for 2011 12 (received 12 October 2012)
9. Seafarers Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Authority (Seacare)––Report for 2011 12 (received 12 October 2012)
10. Special Broadcasting Service Corporation (SBS)––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
11. Australian Electoral Commission––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
12. Australian Federal Police––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
13. Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC)––Report for 2011 12 (received 12 October 2012)
14. Crimes Act 1914––Authorisations for the acquisition and use of assumed identities––Australian Federal Police (received 12 October 2012)
15. CrimTrac Agency––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
16. Department of Finance and Deregulation––Report for 2011-12 (received 12 October 2012)
17. Productivity Commission––Report No. 60––Default superannuation funds in modern awards (received 12 October 2012)
18. Witness Protection Act 1994––Report for 2011-12 on the operation of the National Witness Protection Program (received 12 October 2012)
19. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)––Report for 2011-12 (received 15 October 2012)
20. National Health Reform Act 2011––Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care––Report for 2011-12 (received 15 October 2012)
21. Australian Law Reform Commission––Report for 2011-12 (received 15 October 2012)
22. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)––Report for 2011-12, including report of the Australian Energy Regulator (AER) (received 16 October 2012)
23. Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (CALB)––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
24. Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee (CAMAC)––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
25. Department of Human Services––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
26. Inspector-General of Taxation––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
27. National Competition Council––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
28. Professional Services Review––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
29. Fair Work Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 16 October 2012)
30. Australian Human Rights Commission––Report No. 55––BZ and AD v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Immigration and Citizenship) (received 17 October 2012)
31. Family Law Council––Report for 2011-12 (received 17 October 2012)
32. Federal Magistrates Court of Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 17 October 2012)
33. NBN Co Limited––Report for 2011-12 (received 19 October 2012)
34. Australia Council for the Arts (Australia Council)––Report for 2011-12 (received 19 October 2012)
35. National Gallery of Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 22 October 2012)
36. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service––Report for 2011-12 (received 23 October 2012)
37. ComSuper––Report for 2011-12 (received 23 October 2012)
38. Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency Limited––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
39. Australia Business Arts Foundation Ltd––Financial statements for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
40. Australian Film, Television and Radio School (AFTRS)––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
41. Australian Landcare Council––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
42. Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism––Report for 2011-12, including report of Geoscience Australia (received 24 October 2012)
43. Australian Government Solicitor––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
44. Family Court of Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
45. Federal Court of Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
46. Screen Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
47. Wine Australia Corporation––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
48. Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
49. National Blood Authority––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
50. Supervising Scientist––Report for 2011-12 (received 24 October 2012)
51. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General––Report for 2011-12 (received 25 October 2012)
52. Skills Australia––Report for 2011-12 (received 25 October 2012)
53. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC)––Report for 2011-12 (received 25 October 2012)
54. Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity––Report of the Integrity Commissioner for 2011-12 (received 25 October 2012)
55. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade––Report for 2011-12 (received 26 October 2012)
56. Public Lending Right Committee––Report for 2011-12 (received 26 October 2012)
Report of the Auditor-General
Report no. 8 of 2012-13––Australian Government Coordination Arrangements for Indigenous Programs: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (received 24 October 2012)
Letters of advice relating to Senate orders
1. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:
Veterans' Affairs portfolio (received 15 October 2012)
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (received 19 October 2012)
2. Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:
Department of Foreign Affairs (received 12 October 2012)
Department of Veterans' Affairs (received 15 October 2012)
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio (received 19 October 2012)
Australian Organ and Tissue Authority (received 22 October 2012)
Government response to Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report
Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011
Introduction
On 3 November 2011, the Senate referred the Deterring People Smuggling Bill 2011 (the Bill) to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (the Committee), for inquiry and report.
The Committee held a public hearing on 11 November 2011, and released its report on 21 November 2011, with four recommendations:
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill be revised and reissued to explicitly articulate the exceptional circumstances necessary for the introduction of the Bill, its retrospective application and its application to current legal proceedings.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the
Attorney-General's Department, review the operation of the people smuggling offences in the Migration Act 1958 to ensure these offences continue to effectively deter people smuggling.
Recommendation 3
The committee recommends that the Australian Government examine the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Legislation Handbook and the Attorney-General's Department'sGuide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers to ensure that the articulation of policy is clear in relation to the introduction of retrospective legislation and legislation relevant to ongoing legal proceedings, with an emphasis on ensuring that the principles of the rule of law and the separation of powers within Australia's system of government are respected.
Recommendation 4
Subject to recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
A response has not been provided to the Committee about the Government's position in relation to the recommendations. This document forms the Government's response.
Government response to Recommendations
Recommendation 1
The committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill be revised and reissued to explicitly articulate the exceptional circumstances necessary for the introduction of Bill, its retrospective application and its application to current legal proceedings.
The Explanatory Memorandum was revised prior to the Bill being passed.
Recommendation 2
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, through the Attorney-General's Department, review the operation of the people smuggling offences in the Migration Act 1958 to ensure these offences continue to effectively deter people smuggling.
The Australian Government regularly reviews the effectiveness of offences in Commonwealth legislation. The Government is also currently considering the report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee on the
Migration Amendment (Removal of Mandatory Minimum Penalties) Bill 2012.
Recommendation 3
The Committee recommends that the Australian Government examine the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet's Legislation Handbook and the Attorney-General's Department's Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers to ensure that the articulation of policy is clear in relation to the introduction of retrospective legislation and legislation relevant to ongoing legal proceedings, with an emphasis on ensuring that the principles of the rule of law and the separation rye powers within Australia's system of government are respected.
The Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers (the Guide) was last reviewed by the Attorney-General's Department in 2011 in consultation with key stakeholders including the Australian Federal Police, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The Guide makes it clear that offences should only be given retrospective effect in rare circumstances and where there is strong justification. Similarly, the Legislation Handbook makes it clear that legislative provisions with a retrospective operation adversely affecting rights or imposing liabilities are to be included only in exceptional circumstances (paragraph 6.18 refers).
Recommendation 4
Subject to recommendation 1, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the Bill.
The Bill was passed by the Senate on 25 November 2011, and the
Deterring People Smuggling Act 2011 received Royal Assent on 29 November 2011.
Senate Committee on Environment and Communications
Inquiry into recent ABC programming decisions
Australian Government Response to the Committee's Report
Introduction
The Senate Environment and Communications References Committee conducted an inquiry in 2011 into the recent programming decisions made by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).
The Senate referred the matter of recent programming decisions by the ABC to the Senate Committee on 17 August 2011. The terms of reference for the inquiry were:
The decision by the television management of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) to significantly cut the number and amount of ABC-produced programs, jobs (including through forced redundancies) and potentially affect resources, as announced on 2 August 2011, with particular reference to:
(a) the implications of this decision on the ABC's ability to create, produce and own its television content, particularly in the capital cities of Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart;
(b) the implications of this decision on Australian film and television production in general and potential impact on quality and diversity of programs;
(c) whether a reduction in ABC-produced programs is contrary to the aims of the National Regional Program Initiative;
(d) the implications of these cuts on content ownership and intellectual property;
(e) the impact of the ABC's decision to end internal production of Bananas in Pyjamas and to outsource the making of a 'Bananas in Pyjamas' animation series to Southern Star Endemol Proprietary Limited;
(f) the future potential implications of these cuts on ABC television's capacity to broadcast state league football and rugby; and
(g) any other related matters.
The Committee received 336 submissions and two form letters from a wide range of interested individuals and organisations. A public hearing was held on 26 September 2011 in Canberra. On 13 October 2011 the Committee tabled its report to the President of the Senate. The Committee's report makes 10 recommendations. The Government's response to each of these recommendations is set out below.
The Australian Greens and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon have also made a number of recommendations. The Government's response to each of these is also set out below.
Background
The 2011-12 financial year represents the final year of the current ABC triennial funding agreement with the Government. In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government provided the ABC with an additional $165.3 million in new funding over the 2009-10 to 2011-12 triennium. This is the biggest funding increase to the ABC since its incorporation in 1983.
The new funding also fulfilled the government's 2007 election commitment to allow the ABC to increase the level of Australian drama that it produces to 90 hours per year, similar to that of the commercial broadcasters. As a result, the ABC is well placed to produce more quality programs. This increase in funding to the ABC also provided an important economic stimulus to the Australian production sector.
While the Government provides an overall level of funding for the ABC, it has no power to direct the ABC in relation to programming matters. Parliament has guaranteed this independence to ensure that what is broadcast is free of political interference. Internal ABC programming decisions are the responsibility of the ABC Board and Executive.
Recommendations of the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee
Recommendation 1
3.50 The committee recommends that the ABC ensure that it maintains an effective capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The committee notes that the increasing use of external producers has the capacity to diminish the ABC's independence and skill base.
Australian Government Response:
The ABC is committed to maintaining a significant capacity to internally produce quality programming across the regions in addition to news, sport and current affairs. The ABC makes television, including news and current affairs, in every state and territory. In other parts of the country it makes programs, including current affairs, for national broadcast. The ABC has stated that it remains committed to retaining a regional presence through internal programming, for example:
The ABC Charter states that the ABC is required to broadcast programs of wide appeal and specialised broadcasting programs. It currently runs a national slate with some local news and some local affairs. The ABC is in the process of determining the best way to manage the system to the maximum benefit for Australians and will adjust its programming accordingly.
The Government does not consider the mixed production model diminishes the ABC's independence or skills base. The mixed production model harnesses the skills and experience of both the independent and ABC production teams, and ensures viewers benefit from seeing more quality Australian productions.
The ABC has advised that internal production can be more cost efficient on a per episode basis due to the volume of content created, and for some program formats and genres (for example, studio based magazine style programs). However, the ABC has further advised that external production is able to deliver efficiencies where the total budgets are relatively high (for example, drama production) and where the ABC could not afford to fund them itself without significantly reducing broadcasting hours. External partnerships also allow the ABC to access (and foster) ideas and talent from outside the ABC. External productions therefore play an important role in ensuring the ABC is able to meet its Charter obligation to broadcast programs that contribute to a sense of national identity and inform and entertain, and reflect the cultural diversity of, the Australian community.
3.51 The committee calls on the ABC and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to identify and implement processes which ensure value for money, transparency and skill retention. In the context of the need to maintain the ABC's skills base, the committee calls on ABC management to immediately reassess the implications of any employment decision on its capacity to deliver quality programming across the network.
Australian Government Response:
Achieving value for money is an important consideration in all Australian Government budget and triennial funding decisions for the ABC. The government does not support the imposition of additional reporting requirements or accountability measures in relation to the ABC's programming strategy. The ABC is accountable for the funding it receives through a comprehensive governance and reporting regime which ensures that it remains transparent and provides value for money. The ABC is subject to a range of existing accountability mechanisms, including its annual report, various forms of parliamentary scrutiny including Senate Estimates, independent audits and triennial cost and performance reports.
The ABC has advised that it has a thorough commissioning framework which has been established over a considerable time. Editorial managers, genre heads, commission editors and channel controllers develop proposals in liaison with executive producers. All programming decisions are then based on the merit of the individual program. This ensures value for money while enhancing ABC TV's capacity to deliver quality programming.
The process of project development requires proposals to go through a number of 'gates'. These include Budget Review, Resources Assessment and Proposal Review. Projects are also assessed for OH&S and insurance risk. Following development, genre heads propose projects to the Television Content Executive, which is chaired by the Director of Television and comprises the Controllers of ABC1, ABC2, ABC Children's, ABC Multiplatform, Head of Business and Operations, Head of Marketing and Head of Strategy and Governance. ABC's Content Executive then assesses projects against a range of criteria including financial, scheduling, editorial policy compliance and compliance with the Television Strategic Plan and the ABC Charter.
If a project is approved, it proceeds to the formal Commissioning Body. The Commissioning Body is chaired by the Head of Business Operations and comprises of representatives from Director of Television, Head of Strategy and Governance TV, Head of Business and Operations TV, Director of ABC Resources, Head of Business Affairs, Team Leader (Acquisitions and Production) ABC Legal, and Head of Financial Control. Other attendees may include a Group Audit Representative, Commissioning and Project Manager TV.
The ABC has advised that the highest levels of scrutiny are applied through the process to ensure transparency. In terms of the transparency of editorial decisions, the ABC's Editorial Policies have been reviewed and updated a number of times, most recently in 2011. Section 13 of the Editorial Policies deal with external funding and includes safeguards to protect the independence and integrity of the ABC. In particular, high levels of scrutiny and assessment are applied to all commissioning proposals. Decision-makers are required to apply detailed criteria, to know the source of external funds before arrangements are formalised, and to keep appropriate records.
The Government notes that employment decisions are a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
Recommendation 2
3.69 The committee recommends that ABC management sets out in detail where it sees its future as a broadcaster and a content producer, and particularly with reference to the ABC Charter responsibilities of balancing programs of wide appeal and specialist interest as well as how ABC programming reflects the cultural and regional diversity of the Australian community.
Australian Government Response:
The ABC Board is responsible for compliance with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 (the ABC Act), which includes the ABC Charter. The Charter stipulates that the responsibilities of the ABC are to provide programming that reflects the cultural diversity of the Australian community as well as balance programs of wide appeal and specialist interest.
The ABC Board must also prepare corporate plans for the ABC, including a Strategic Plan which addresses how they will meet their obligations under the ABC Act. The Strategic Plan states that the ABC will offer a wide choice of popular and niche content, including content that is uniquely Australian, it will deliver content that recognises the diverse needs and interests of audiences in different parts of Australia and around the world, and it will embrace diversity.
The ABC's Charter, Corporate and Strategic Plan are available at: www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents.htm
The Australian Government does not support the imposition of additional reporting requirements in relation to the ABC's programming strategy. As previously stated, internal ABC programming decisions are the responsibility of the ABC Board and Executive.
Recommendation 3
3.74 The committee recommends that ABC management release a draft television production strategy for staff, community and private sector consultation, prior to its finalisation.
Australian Government Response:
The ABC has publicly released its Television Production Strategy 2011-2013, having earlier provided the strategy paper internally to ABC staff in December 2011. The development of its television production strategy is a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
Recommendation 4
3.75 The committee recommends that the ABC consult with stakeholders prior to making significant changes to either internal creative and production structures or state-based activities.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government considers that it is a matter for the ABC Board and Executive as to how they choose to manage change within their organisation. The ABC has advised that it is committed to consulting with stakeholders within the agreed consultation framework when considering production changes.
The ABC Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2010-2013 (the Agreement) outlines the process for consultation with staff, when the ABC has made a formal proposal to introduce a major change to production, program, organisation, structure or technology, and where this is likely to have a
significant effect on the employees. This involves the ABC formally notifying all staff and unions covered by the Agreement and discussing how it will impact on them and the organisation. The ABC must give prompt and genuine consideration to matters raised about major workplace change.
In addition, the government is committed to restoring the position of a staff-elected director on the ABC Board. This position will enhance the ABC's corporate governance by providing a mechanism through which staffing issues and perspectives can be formally brought to the attention of the ABC Board. In the case of the ABC management consulting with stakeholders prior to making significant changes to either internal creative and production structures, the staff-elected director will be well placed to ensure that relevant input from staff on these issues can be effectively communicated to the Board. An amendment restoring the staff elected position to the ABC Board is included in the National Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 which is due to be debated in the Senate.
Recommendation 5
3.76 The committee draws the attention of ABC management to the ABC Charter obligations to 'encourage and promote arts, including musical, dramatic and other performing arts' and calls on ABC management to urgently publish a strategy outlining how it can meet this obligation given the planned disbanding of the ABC arts unit.
Australian Government Response:
The ABC Board is responsible for compliance with ABC Act, which includes the ABC Charter. The Board must also prepare corporate plans for the ABC, including a Strategic Plan which addresses how they will meet their obligations under the ABC Act. Given the existing reporting arrangements that are in place, the government considers that it is not necessary that the ABC publish a separate strategy outlining how it can meet this obligation.
The ABC advises it will continue to promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia as is required under its Charter.
The ABC must continually review its programming to ensure it keeps pace with audience tastes and viewing habits and to ensure appropriate engagement with relevant issues in each genre, including the arts.
ABC Television advises it is committed to maintaining its position as the premier commissioner and distributor of innovative and engaging arts content for the widest range of Australian audiences on the widest variety of platforms.
The ABC has advised that the major areas of the arts with which ABC Television Arts will engage are:
Recommendation 6
3.87 The committee recommends that wherever appropriate the ABC include free archival use clauses in all future co-production contracts.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government supports this recommendation as far as practicable by the ABC.
The ABC has advised that it currently archives final copies of internal, fully funded co-produced and mixed funded co-produced television programs. Clauses requiring that a copy of these programs be made available to the ABC for archiving purposes are already included in contracts with independent producers.
The ABC has also advised that pre purchased and acquired content is not generally archived by the ABC as these programs are not made by the ABC. However, Screen Australia requires that copies of pre-purchased Australian programs that it funds are lodged with the National Film and Sound Archive.
In addition, ancillary material that forms part of a co-production is not necessarily passed on to the ABC. The ABC needs to assess on a case-by-case basis its resourcing capacity to hold such items and the value of keeping them to the ABC and the Australian community.
The ABC has further advised that items archived by the ABC, depending on rights, are available upon request, however, a cost (and appropriate rights clearances) may be associated with access to archived material. The ABC has a policy of contributing archival material it owns to independent ABC productions or co-productions on a non-cash basis. That is, the value of the archive material forms part of the ABC's overall contribution to the production and may be counted as either part licence fee or equity.
Recommendation 7
3.99 The committee recommends that the ABC publish annual targets of regional content on ABC television against which it reports in order to meet its Charter obligation to 'reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community' and to promote ongoing internal program production in the BAPH states and regional Australia.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government does not support this recommendation as it may interfere with the ABC's editorial independence and would not allow it flexibility in programming decisions.
Setting and reporting against targets for 'regional content' will not necessarily promote regional program production, as the production locale does not necessarily reflect the nature of the content. In addition, the fluid nature of television production does not lend itself to hard targets for 'regional content' and may produce inefficient outcomes.
As previously stated, the ABC is committed to maintaining internal production in regional areas, including the BAPH states, to provide local content including news, sport and current affairs. It is also committed to maintaining external program production through initiatives such as the factual agreements in Western Australia and South Australia.
The ABC Board is responsible for compliance with the ABC Act, which includes the ABC Charter. The Board must also prepare corporate plans for the ABC, including a Strategic Plan which addresses how they will meet their obligations under the ABC Act. Given the existing reporting arrangements
that are in place, the government considers that it is not necessary that the ABC publish annual targets of regional content on ABC television.
Recommendation 8
3.132 The committee recommends that the ABC actively manage its production facility
infrastructure, particularly in the BAPH states, so that it is utilised as effectively as possible.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government considers that the management of production facility infrastructure is a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
The ABC has advised that it actively manages its production infrastructure through comprehensive internal processes across Divisions to promote the most effective utilisation of its production assets as possible.
The ABC is accountable for the funding it receives through a comprehensive governance and reporting regime which ensures that it remains transparent and provides value for money.
Recommendation 9
3.133 The committee recommends that the government take into account the findings of the Convergence Review about the structure of the media market and investment in Australian content by all broadcasters when considering the ABC's funding needs in the forthcoming triennial funding round.
Australian Government Response:
The Convergence Review committee published its final report on 30 April 2012. The Government delayed consideration of the triennium funding process by one year so that the outcomes of the Convergence Review could be taken into consideration in this process. The Government will assess the recommendations of the Convergence Review and how they may affect the national broadcasters in preparing its response to that review.
Recommendation 10
3.148 The committee recommends that as part of the triennial funding round, the government consider the ABC's capacity to maintain a critical mass of staff, skills, infrastructure and production in regional areas.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Funding requirements for the ABC will be considered in the context of the next triennial funding round.
As part of the next triennial funding round, the ABC is required to complete a review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the previous triennial funding agreement. The Government will use this review to assess how well the ABC has utilised its resources to deliver services in line with its Charter.
Recommendations of the Australian Greens
Recommendation 1
2.11 The Australian Greens recommend that the ABC engage an external provider to conduct a performance and financial audit of the Television division's production commissioning model and to recommend ways to improve the transparency of the ABC's commissioning decisions, including an articulation of the willingness of ABC management to consider internal staff proposals for programming ideas.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government considers this to be a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
The ABC has advised that it will revise its current strategy for receiving and assessing projects put forward by ABC staff. Guidelines will be placed on the intranet, there will be a six-week response on submissions and a quarterly report will be provided to the Managing Director.
The ABC also notes that consistent with the ABC's commissioning framework, it assesses each idea for new programs submitted by team members on its merits. For example, the idea for the new program Auction Room was generated from within the Collectors production team.
Recommendation 2
3.5 The Australian Greens recommend that ABC management reconsider its decision to axe its only TV arts magazine program and disband the television arts unit, and instead retain a team of specialist arts programmers for the creation and commissioning of quality arts content including critical, review type programming.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government considers that programming decisions are a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
As noted previously, the government provides an overall level of funding for the ABC, but has no power to direct the ABC in relation to programming matters. Parliament has guaranteed this independence to ensure that what is broadcast is free of political interference.
The ABC has advised that it is committed to fulfilling its responsibility as set out in the Charter to encourage and promote the musical, dramatic and other performing arts in Australia. The ABC is currently reviewing the arts unit, and will retain a smaller production team as a result. This production team will consist of an Executive Producer, a Production Manager, a Production Assistant, a Gateway Editor and a Creative Shooter/Editor.
These individuals will form a team to curate all the arts material from across the ABC, foster and manage the flow of incoming content from major stakeholders including galleries, individuals, ABC Open and ABC Regional. They will also be responsible for covering major events, festivals and creating a level of unique content for the Gateway. There will also be an additional Creative Shooter/Editor position in Sydney created to further cover the major art centres. These individuals will work full time on Arts.
Recommendation 3
3.6 The Australian Greens recommends that the ABC adopt a mandated proportion of regional content on ABC television in order to meet its Charter obligation to 'reflect the cultural diversity of the Australian community'.
Australian Government Response:
The Government considers that it would be inappropriate to mandate a proportion of regional content on ABC television, as it would encroach on the integrity and independence of the ABC. Forcing a mandated proportion of regional content could inhibit the ABC Board when making decisions about meeting its obligations as set out in the ABC Charter. The ABC Board is responsible for ensuring that the programming mix is effective and delivered efficiently.
The ABC has advised that it has employed specialist staff to work with internal staff and the independent production sector to determine an appropriate program mix. These specialists will ensure that the ABC is well placed to respond flexibly to a dynamic and competitive environment. The ABC has further advised that forcing the ABC to have a certain percentage of regional content may result in the ABC missing valuable opportunities in other areas, and a reduction in the overall quality of programming on the ABC.
Recommendations of Independent Senator Nick Xenophon
Recommendation 1
1.30 The August 2, 2011 announcement of forced redundancies to be reversed and the level of ABC internal program production be restored and maintained at least at 2010 levels on an ongoing basis.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government considers that staffing and programming decisions are a matter for the ABC Board and Executive.
This recommendation is, in part, addressed in the response to Recommendation 1 of the main report.
Recommendation 2
1.31 The ABC engage an independent external provider to conduct a performance and financial audit of the Television division's production commissioning model and to recommend ways to improve the transparency of the ABC's commissioning decisions, including reference to the recent SAFC FACTory initiative and Screen West outsourcing arrangements.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government does not support the imposition of additional reporting requirements or accountability measures in relation to the ABC's programming strategy. The ABC is accountable for the funding it receives through a comprehensive governance and reporting regime which ensures that it remains transparent and provides value for money. The ABC is subject to a range of existing accountability mechanisms, including its annual report, various forms of parliamentary scrutiny including Senate Estimates, independent audits and triennial cost and performance reports.
The ABC has advised that it has a thorough commissioning framework which has been established over a considerable time. Editorial managers, genre heads, commission editors and channel controllers develop proposals in liaison with executive producers. All programming decisions are then made based on the merit of the individual program. This ensures value for money while enhancing ABC TV's capacity to deliver quality programming.
Recommendation 3
1.32 The committee recommends the Minister for Communications stipulates that as part of the ABC's next triennial funding allocation, the ABC quarantine funding for the National Interest Initiative (Nil) and the Regional and Local Program Initiative (RLP) to promote ongoing internal program production in the BAPH states.
Australian Government Response:
The Australian Government does not agree with this recommendation.
The government made the decision in the 2009-10 Budget that the funds for the National Interest Initiative (NII), also known as Regional and Local Programming (RLP) initiatives, be incorporated into the ABC's ongoing base funding in order to provide a greater level of certainty for the level of services achieved with this funding.
The ABC has advised that it continues to apply these funds to programming activities in line with the purpose for which they were originally provided. For example, in 2011-12, ABC TV committed $7.25 million to the regional/rural programs through the National Interest Initiative funding, including:
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE REFERENCES COMMITTEE'S FINAL REPORT:
PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES FOR DEFENCE CAPITAL PROJECTS
Executive summary
1. The Government welcomes the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's final report Procurement procedures for Defence capital projects. Government understands the importance of reform to Defence's capability procurement. This is why Government has already initiated action on a number of procurement reforms, including:
a. project management accountability;
h. progress with the Projects of Concern process;
c. reforms to Support Ship Repair and Management Practices (the Rizzo Report);
d. capability and procurement reforms; and
e. reforms in the sustainment of Australia's Collins Class submarines (the Coles Review).
2. This is also why the lessons learnt from the Coles Review will also play an important role in the development of the Future Submarine Project, including the need to take a long term view of maintenance and sustainment of the Future Submarine from the outset of the project.
3. The Government remains committed to progressing further capability development and procurement reforms that will enhance the delivery of Defence capability projects, strengthen Australian Defence industry and improve accountability. In this light, Government has carefully examined this 334 page report to see what further insights might be offered. From this review, of the report's 28 recommendations, the Government has:
a. agreed in full to 13 recommendations;
b. agreed in principle to four recommendations (Recommendations 5, 10, 11 and 19);
c. agreed in part to seven recommendations (Recommendations 2, 3, 4, 6, 15, 16 and 26).
4. The Government notes the report's emphasis on increasing the role of the Capability Managers, which is why the Government has also agreed Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 in part. These recommendations relate broadly to increasing and enhancing the role of Capability Managers in capability acquisition, and Defence supports this intent. In this respect, Defence has already undertaken a range of initiatives to strengthen the role of Capability Manager's in this process. However, Defence does not agree to the aspects of these recommendations that suggest transferring financial resources for acquisition to Capability Managers. Funding following government approval is provided to Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) to improve DMO's authority and accountability for outcomes (that is, the delivery of the materiel equipment elements of a project).
5. Apart from agreeing to these 24 recommendations, for the remaining four recommendations, these were not agreed as follows:
a. Recommendation 9 (DMO's independence). The Committee's recommendation is inconsistent the Government's previous public advice. The DMO will continue as it is, as a prescribed agency. Both the Kinnaird and Mortimer reports have previously recommended DMO become an executive agency. However, governments of both political persuasions have not accepted these recommendations.
b. Recommendation 13 (Capability Managers have sole responsibility for acquisition projects). Having the Capability Managers with sole responsibility for acquisition projects is contrary to the current business model approved by Government following the Kinnaird Review. A recent review undertaken by Independent Project Analysis Inc., an independent international benchmarking organisation, made the observation the current organisational structure with materiel equipment acquisition centralised in DMO is consistent with best practice. Nevertheless, cognisant of the intent of this recommendation, Defence will examine Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 to ensure the primacy of the Capability Managers is maintained in the acquisition process.
c. Recommendation 17 (Respond publicly to the Committee's criticisms about lessons not learnt and current planning on submarines). As SEA 1000 is still pre-first pass, it is premature to respond to criticisms raised by the Committee. The project will be brought through the normal first and second pass process to ensure appropriate lessons are applied and the necessary contestability is applied to affirm this.
d. Recommendation 20 (Publish as an addendum to its portfolio budget statements). The reporting requirements proposed by this recommendation would mix data from pre-second pass activities, when option sets are being developed, against costs detailed in an acquisition contract versus the evolving costs for the sustainment of a capability as it matures and ages. The existing Portfolio Budget Statement reporting enables data to be appropriately compared via the extant reporting mechanisms and avoids creating significant overheads with little obvious benefit.
Overview of report
1. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's final report Procurement procedures for Defence capital projects was reviewed based on the eight specific areas and 28 recommendations contained in the report. Table l summarises the report's structure and the Government's response to each recommendation.
Table 1: Summary of Recommendations
Analysis of report's findings
2. The report suggests there is a growing disconnect between strategic guidance and capability development, confused accountabilities, poor appreciation of risk, and a need for structural reform in Defence procurement. Government supports the thrust of the report's findings and Defence is already implementing a number of initiatives which will address some of the Committee's concerns.
3. In particular, Government has already initiated action on a number of procurement reforms, including:
a. project management accountability;
b. progress with the Projects of Concern process;
c. reforms to Support Ship Repair and Management Practices (the Rizzo Report);
d. capability and procurement reforms; and
e. reforms in the sustainment of Australia's Collins Class submarines (the Coles Review).
4. This is also why the lessons learnt from the Coles Review will also play an important role in the development of the Future Submarine Project, including the need to take a long term view of maintenance and sustainment of the Future Submarine from the outset of the project.
5. Nevertheless, Government will draw upon the advice in the Committee's report and integrate this advice into existing reforms. Within Defence, the Capability Development and Materiel Reform Committee will progress such matters.
Areas of agreement
6. The following are areas where there is broad agreement with the report:
a. The need for continuous improvement, as evidenced already with a range of capability development and acquisition reforms.
b. Providing personnel with the right skilling to perform their duties.
c. Recognising there are critical skills (e.g. engineers) where Defence needs to attract these skilled personnel.
d. Where possible, encouraging longer tenures.
e. As per the Black Review, Defence agrees there is a need for an alignment of accountability and responsibility.
f. While risk management policies and procedures are in place, further training in the application of these may be worth exploring.
g. Building an improved test and evaluation (T&E) capability, including the development of an equal stakeholder relationship between the Services T&E organisations and the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO), enabling the early engagement (pre-first pass) of T&E activities for the identification and mitigation of risks.
7. The rationale for agreeing in principle to these four recommendations is as follows:
a. Recommendation 5 (Mandatory gate reviews). Recommendation 5 reflects current practice as defined in Gate Review policy documentation. However, Gate Reviews have not been held for `DCP Entry' as there is currently no clear milestone for this event and at that point there is often little for the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) to review. The first clear and useful milestone is Project Initiation and Review Board (PIRB) and corresponding Project Initiation and Options Definition Gate Reviews have been instituted.
b. Recommendation 10 (DSTO's independent advice). While, there is no precedent for a Ministerial Directive to a Defence group head, the Chief Defence Scientist (CDS) is currently required by government to advise on technical risks for all major capability submissions. This was confirmed in the government's response to the Mortimer Report. Defence's existing processes ensure that DSTO advice is both independent and available without modification and CDS's advice on technical risks is included verbatim in the submission to Cabinet.
c. Recommendation 11 (DSTO and risk assessments). Defence agrees to strengthen the role of the Technical Risk Assessment (TRA) in test and evaluation (T&E) by ensuring the TRA addresses the potential for T&E. Defence is of the view that the TRA is best conducted by technical experts in DSTO and should remain as independent advice. All submissions currently presented to Government on major capital projects include advice on technical risks that are provided directly by the Chief Defence Scientist. To ensure that the risks are appropriately described and presented, DSTO provides training in technical risk assessment and has implemented a review group to ensure the quality of TRAs.
d. Recommendation 19 (2013 White Paper). Recommendation 19 contends that, in developing the 2013 White Paper, Defence should ensure that all procurement proposals are costed and scheduled realistically, and that industry should be comprehensively consulted prior to the inclusion of procurement proposals. Defence notes that the approach taken in the development of this White Paper is somewhat different to that used to develop the 2009 White Paper, and that procurement proposals will continue to be developed and considered through the current two-pass capability development process. Defence also considers that the way in which in the 2013 White Paper is developed, the inclusion of capability proposals and the consultation processes are properly decisions for Government.
8. The seven recommendations agreed in part are as follows:
a. Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 (Capability Managers, DMO and Capability Development Group (CDG)). Both Kinnaird and Mortimer recommended that service chiefs should be accountable for service specific procurements in the context of a stronger assurance role to ensure that there is appropriate oversight and coordination of all elements necessary to introduce a capability. For example, Kinnaird stated that "Capability managers will be accountable for monitoring and reporting to Government for the whole of capability from the point where government approves a particular capability option, that is at second pass approval, through to the time that the capability is retired from service. During the acquisition phase, the capability manager monitors the development of all capability elements, including equipment delivery by the DMO. This responsibility does not imply any authority to directly instruct the DMO on any aspect of its function as the manager of equipment acquisition." In addition, a recent review undertaken by Independent Project Analysis, an independent international benchmarking organisation, made the observation that the current organisational structure with materiel equipment acquisition centralised in DMO is consistent with best practice. However, Defence does not agree to the aspects of these recommendations that suggest transferring financial resources for acquisition to Capability Managers. Funding following government approval is provided to DMO to improve DMO's authority and accountability for outcomes (that is, the delivery of the materiel equipment elements of a project). This approach has previously been weed by Government following the Kinnaird review and reinforced by the Mortimer review.
b. Recommendation 6 (Relocation of Independent Project Performance Office). The Independent Project Performance Office (IPPO) was specifically formed in the DMO following the Mortimer Review to improve DMO's project management performance through the provision of expert analysis, advice and assistance to DMO projects. This ensures the necessary commercial, engineering and project management expertise is readily available and brought to bear in an environment of management ownership, accountability and follow through. The relocation of the IPPO outside of DMO would diminish the effectiveness of this arrangement. The remainder of Recommendation 6 is agreed.
c. Recommendation 15 (streamlining and consolidation of skills). Defence does not agree to adopt in full the recommended organisational changes specified in Recommendation 13. However, Defence agrees that Strategic Policy Division and CDG should have more strategic analytical skills. Defence agrees that DMO has the resources and support to build on the efforts already under way to develop its multi-discipline skills base.
Following from the recommendations of the Black review, further work is currently being undertaken to build the skills base of CDG and DMO, including optimising the utilisation of the Capability and Technology Management College to provide better and more focused support to CDG and DMO. The Australian Public Service (APS) Job Families and business skilling initiatives will drive skill development of the military as well as the APS Strategy workforce.
d. Recommendation 16 (Chief of Navy to manage SEA 1000). As you announced on 6 September this year, Mr David Gould has been appointed as General Manager Submarines and he has been given responsibility for the oversight of the maintenance of the current Collins Class fleet and the Future Submarine Project. Hence, the intent of this recommendation has been met, but management of SEA 1000 will be overseen by Mr Gould rather than Chief of Navy. The remainder of Recommendation 16 is agreed.
e. Recommendation 26 (Planning for investment). Defence recognises the importance of certainty to industry and continues to improve the planning for the Public Defence Capability Plan within the inherent limitations of the project development environment. The Public DCP is intended to provide as much information as is known within the four year Forward Estimates period. The DCP and Defence Capability Guide seek to provide as much information as possible, noting that an increasing level of uncertainty is inevitable in the outer years. The Department will engage with industry to address the level of information that can be generated and published about projects plans at early stages of their development. Although Defence regards continuity as an important aspect of maintaining the supply chain, the timely delivery of required military capabilities must remain the key feature of capability planning. Defence agrees that to the extent permissible to protect sensitive information, data on the reasoning and analysis underlying Defence's demand can be published. Defence agrees to publish information based on the most reliable cost estimates it is able to generate, noting again the inherent uncertainty for projects in the outer years.
9. Notably, Defence has agreed to Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 in part. These recommendations relate broadly to increasing and enhancing the role of Capability Managers in capability acquisition, and Defence supports this intent. In this respect, Defence has already undertaken a range of initiatives to strengthen the role of Capability Manager's in this process, as outlined in paragraphs 14 to 16 below.
Aspects of report not agreed
10. Defence has not agreed to four recommendations on the basis that some activities are no longer undertaken for very sound reasons or that, even reflecting the Committee's considered views, there are sound reasons to adopt an alternative approach in some cases.
11. The four recommendations not agreed are as follows:
a. Recommendation 9 - DMO becoming a statutorily independent agency. The Government has previously considered whether DMO should be an executive agency, as has past governments. In each case, the decision has been made after careful consideration to have DMO as a prescribed agency.
b. Recommendation 13 - Service Chiefs as sole client with the contracted suppliers. The report envisages the accountability for all service specific procurement items should be exclusively transferred with budgets to Service Chiefs, who should be responsible for all procurement and sustainment of their materiel. The Committee also envisages the movement of individuals between DMO and the Capability Manager at varying times in the project phases. This recommendation is quite contrary to the current business model approved by Government following the Kinnaird Review. A recent review undertaken by Independent Project Analysis Inc., an independent international benchmarking organisation, made the observation the current organisational structure with materiel equipment acquisition centralised in DMO is consistent with best practice. Whilst not agreeing to Recommendation 13, Defence will examine Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 13 to ensure the primacy of the Capability Managers' role is maintained. Defence's Capability Development and Materiel Reform Committee will progress this matter.
c. Recommendation 17 - Respond publicly to the Committee's criticisms about lessons not learnt and current planning on submarines. As SEA 1000 is still pre-first pass, it is premature to respond to criticisms raised by the Committee. The project will be brought through the normal first and second pass process to ensure appropriate lessons are applied and the necessary contestability is applied to affirm this.
d. Recommendation 20 - Additional PBS reporting. The reporting requirements proposed by this recommendation would mix data from pre-second pass activities, when option sets are being developed, against costs detailed in an acquisition contract versus the evolving costs for the sustainment of a capability as it matures and ages. The existing Portfolio Budget Statement reporting enables data to be appropriately compared via the extant reporting mechanisms and avoids creating significant overheads with little obvious benefit.
Clarifications
12. Report contradictions. Defence considers that the report contains some internal contradictions which means that accepting one recommendation would have an adverse impact on another of the report's recommendations. For example. the recommendations to empower the Capability Managers (Recommendations 2, 3 and 13) are contrary to ensuring DMO's independence, with adequate resources (Recommendations 9 and 14). The Government understands the intent of the report and intends to take a holistic perspective to both the report's recommendations and extant reform measures. Thus, for example, Defence is already updating the Memorandum of Arrangements (MOA) between Defence and DMO. This MOA will be used to ensure the relationship between the Capability Managers and DMO is adequately described and agreed.
13. Capability Manager roles and joint capabilities. The report identifies that "capability managers have been sidelined with CDG and DMO assuming key positions during the acquisition phase" and "capability managers require the authority that now resides with CDG as departmental coordinator and centre of power" (both quotes from para 15.39 of the report).
14. Defence has recognised that there is room for improvement in this areas and has made a number of changes to its practices over the past six months to address these issues, including:
a. providing authority to Capability Managers through including them as a signatory, together with CDG and DMO, on Materiel Acquisition Agreements (MAAs); and
b. the implementation of Capability Manager Steering Groups to assist Capability Managers to review, monitor and control the process and progress for their post-second pass projects as these projects progress through the acquisition process.
15. The report's discussion on Capability Managers focuses on each of their capability areas. In this context, Defence is also taking a number of steps to better integrate capability to support Joint Force Operations and the Joint Force-in-Being. It is also important to recognise that while the Service Chiefs and Deputy Secretary Intelligence and Security have clear and easily identifiable responsibilities for the delivery of capabilities and materiel that will be operated in the maritime, land, air and intelligence environments, there are some joint capabilities that do not fit neatly within any one of their areas of responsibility alone.
16. This is particularly the case for joint command, control, communication, computer, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, electronic warfare and ICT-dependent operational capabilities. Under Defence's Capability Coordination Model, a Capability Coordinator is designated to ensure delivery of a cohesive joint capability that will meet the needs of the Capability Managers and Chief of Joint Operations. Where this model is invoked, the Capability Coordinator is required to engage closely with the Services and Groups to ensure their requirements are understood, and that all parties are kept informed of any issues and the status of the capability. The Vice Chief of Defence Force, as the Joint Capability Authority, is responsible for:
a. ensuring that new and extant capabilities are developed in accordance with joint concepts and doctrine;
b. appointing Capability Coordinators to be responsible for the delivery of joint capabilities that service the ADF and Defence; and
c. providing the conceptual basis for the future joint force and integration of its component capabilities.
17. Recommendation 18 - AIR 8000 Phase 2 Statement of Operational Requirement (SOR). This recommendation implies Air Force did not intend to conduct T&E against the approved SOR. This is not correct. As part of the acquisition process, T&E results from the United States Air Force (USAF) for the capability will be reviewed and the Aerospace Operational Support Group will conduct T&E against key requirements to provide early identification of potential issues with the AIR 8000 Phase 2 project that could delay introduction into service. Whilst formal T&E against the SOR was not conducted prior to second pass, evaluation of the capability against the requirements was completed using evidence available from both the manufacturer and USAF to further mitigate risk of any non-compliance with the SOR.
18. Paragraph 8.54 — DSTO moral hazards and conflicts of interest. Paragraph 8.54 of the report states -there is another matter of concern with potential conflicts of interest or moral hazard in that the opportunities for collaborative activities and funding have in the past driven DSTO to recommend a course of action that may not be in Defence's best interest", without any
reference or further details to validate this statement. Defence refutes this statement. As both a developer and an adviser on technology to Defence, DSTO recognises the potential conflict of interest and has established an independent Probity Board to advise the Chief Defence Scientist on how to manage any potential conflicts, including through independent review of DSTO's advice.
Way ahead
19. There are aspects of this report where its advice can be incorporated into existing reform activities. The governance and oversight of all these activities will be provided by the Capability Development and Materiel Reform Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer Defence Materiel Organisation. Such an approach avoids creating unnecessary, duplicative reporting mechanisms.
1. The Australian Government welcomes the report of the Senate Select Committee on Men's Health and the opportunity to respond to its recommendations. The Australian Government is committed to improving the health of Australian males and has achieved significant milestones in the area of male health in the context of a broad health reform agenda to improve health outcomes for all Australians.
2. The overarching policy initiative to address male health was the release in May 2010 of the National Male Health Policy (the Policy; Attachment A). The Policy, a 2007 election commitment, is only the second male health policy to be released worldwide and places Australia at the forefront in addressing male health issues. The overarching aim of the Policy is to provide a framework for improving the health of all males across Australia and achieving equal health outcomes for population groups of males at risk of poor health.
3. The assumptions underpinning the Policy, drawn from the consultation process and an extensive review of the literature conducted during its development, are:
4. The Policy sets six key priority areas for action.
5. Priority 1: Optimal health outcomes for males – Develop and deliver health-related initiatives and services taking into account the needs of Australian males and ways of promoting optimal health outcomes for males.
6. Priority 2: Health equity between population groups of males – Develop and deliver health-related initiatives and services taking into account the needs of different population groups of Australian males and ways of promoting health equity between different groups of males.
7. Priority 3: Improved health for males at different life stages – Develop and deliver health-related initiatives and services taking into account the needs of Australian males and different population groups of males, in different age groups and during key transition points in the life course.
8. Priority 4: A focus on preventive health – Develop and deliver health-related initiatives and services taking into account the needs of Australian males and different population groups of males at risk of poor health outcomes.
9. Priority 5: Building a strong evidence base on male health – Build the evidence base, particularly in relation to population groups of males at risk of poor health; widely disseminate evidence; and use it to inform the development of policies, programs and initiatives.
10. Priority 6: Improved access to health care for males – Tailor health care services and initiatives to facilitate access by males, particularly in relation to population groups of males at risk of poor health.
11. To accompany the release of the Policy, the Australian Government has committed $16.7 million to support male health programs. This includes:
12. In August 2010, following the release of the Policy, the Minister's Male Health Reference Group (the Group) was established to advise on progress in addressing male health policy challenges and to ensure an ongoing focus on male health. The Group was established by the Hon Warren Snowdon MP, Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister of the Centenary of Anzac, and Minister for Indigenous Health, who also has responsibility for male health. Comprised of eminent researchers, practitioners and key stakeholders, the Group provides expert advice on the implementation of male health programs that support the Policy and on broader male health priorities and future directions in addressing male health.
13. In addition, the Policy is being implemented in the context of the significant broader health care reforms and cross-government initiatives that impact on men's lives and this will enable major gains in health for Australian men into the future.
Recommendation 1
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government give due consideration to the findings of this committee and to the evidence gathered by it in the course of this inquiry in developing the National Men's Health Policy.
Response
14. The development of the National Male Health Policy (the Policy) was informed by a wide range of sources including a thorough review of male health literature and extensive consultation with male health stakeholders, including experts, consumers and policy and program stakeholders. Broad ranging Policy Consultation Forums were conducted across Australia during 2009, with more than 1300 people participating in 26 public forums held in regional and metropolitan locations in each State and Territory. Individuals and organisations also made more than 90 submissions which were considered in the development of the Policy. The Policy therefore reflects the views of males, male health experts, policy makers and program deliverers across Australia.
15. The evidence gathered in the course of the Senate Inquiry contributed to the development of the Policy and the six priority areas noted for action. For example: the specific health needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males and gay males highlighted in the Inquiry, contributed to the development of Priority 2 'Health equity between population groups of males' in the Policy. Both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males and those who are gay, bisexual, transgender, or from intersex groups, are identified as those at risk of poor health outcomes.
16. Similarly, the Inquiry's recognition of the need for education and awareness raising in regard to men's health and the specific factors that impact on men's health outcomes contributed to the development of Priority 5 'Building a strong evidence base on male health' and Priority 6 'Improved access to health care for males'.
17. The Policy is further supported by nine supporting documents (Attachment B) that provide a comprehensive assessment of the evidence relevant to male health, current actions and potential future actions for key areas addressed in the Policy. The supporting documents are:
18. The broad range of sources that contributed to the development of the Policy has ensured a document that recognises the significant strengths of males in Australia as well as highlighting the challenges in male health and possible policy and program responses.
Recommendation 2
The Committee recommends that legislative drafting instructions and administrative procedures applying in all Commonwealth Government departments and agencies include a mandatory requirement that they consider the impact of legislation and policies on men as well as women.
Response
19. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring all people are able to participate in society and receive the protection of the law, regardless of their sex or gender. The
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in a range of public activities including work, accommodation, education, the provision of goods, facilities and services, the activities of clubs and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.
20. Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation is located in four separate and distinct laws: the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, and the Age Discrimination Act 2004. The Australian Government is seeking to consolidate the federal anti-discrimination laws and provide the opportunity to explore opportunities to improve the effectiveness of the legislation to provide equality of opportunity to participate and contribute to the social, economic and cultural life of our community. A single Act will address current inconsistencies and make the system more user-friendly by clarifying relevant rights and obligations. Importantly, there will be no diminution of existing protections currently available at the federal level.
21. The impact of gender on health outcomes and the experience of the health system are widely acknowledged. Gender issues are routinely considered by the Australian Government in policy planning, research, implementation and evaluation to ensure that gender inequities are not perpetuated and national resources and knowledge are distributed appropriately. The importance of gender equity is one of the foundation principles of both the National Male Health Policy and the National Women's Health Policy 2010.
22. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has a significant role in considering the impact of legislation and policy on men and women. This is pursued through avenues such as reviewing submissions of portfolios from across government, prior to consideration by Cabinet, advising on and making recommendations that will achieve gender-equitable outcomes.
23. A range of other initiatives to promote and support the consideration of the impact of legislation and policies on men and women are being implemented. For example, the establishment of a Gender Panel, a procurement panel of gender experts, by the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs was announced in March 2011. The Gender Panel provides opportunities for Government departments and agencies to draw on the expertise of panel members to enhance their capacity to support the integration of gender equity for men and women into policy, programs and research.
24. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Servicer and Indigenous Affairs is also continuing to support the COAG Select Council on Women's Issues in developing a framework for considering gender equality of outcomes between women and men.
25. The Australian Government will continue to observe its international human rights obligations in the course of developing and implementing policies, programs and legislation. This includes ensuring that these activities do not result in gender inequality and provide, so far as practicable, equal opportunity for males and females.
Recommendation 3
The Committee strongly recommends that a Longitudinal Study of Men's Health building on the work already undertaken by Andrology Australia and other stakeholders be established and funded by the Commonwealth Government.
Response
26. Under the National Male Health Policy (the Policy) the Australian Government has committed $6.9 million over four years for the Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health (ALSMH). The ALSMH will provide longitudinal and population-based research into the health of Australian males by examining the social, economic, environmental and behavioural factors that affect the length and quality of life. The primary objective of the ALSMH is to provide a national research resource of current and valid information on male health that is relevant to the development of male health and wellbeing policies and service provision.
27. The scope of the ASLMH was informed by a number of sources, including the work undertaken by Andrology Australia and advice from the Minister's Male Health Reference Group. The ALSMH is being undertaken by the University of Melbourne. The establishment and pilot phase of the ALSMH commenced in June 2011.
28. The ALSMH will complement significant existing studies including the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health, the Australian Health Survey and the Longitudinal Study on Australian Children.
29. Under the Policy $400,000 over four years is also provided for the development and publication of a suite of regular male health bulletins to provide up-to-date data and information for health professionals, academics, policy makers and the general public. The first male health bulletin – The health of Australian males – prepared by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, was released in June 2011. The bulletin provides a summary of the health and wellbeing of the Australian male population by outlining the lifestyle factors influencing male health, the health status of Australian males and access to health services.
30. The Australian Government is also currently providing significant funding for male health related research, as outlined in response to Recommendation 12.
Recommendation 4
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government investigate the feasibility of introducing a structured, comprehensive annual health check for men. The proposed health check should be designed to be carried out in a range of contexts – general practice, the workplace and through community health programs. Consideration should also be given to providing a specific Medicare item which provides adequate time for consideration and minimises the costs to the patient.
Response
31. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring access to health care for all males, particularly those at risk of poor health. Priority Area 6 under the National Male Health Policy is 'Improved access to health care for males'. This priority action area recognises the role of health services in being responsive to male health needs and addressing barriers that men may face in effectively accessing health care.
32. Existing Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) health assessments, available for males and females, primarily target specific critical life stages or medical conditions and are supported by four time-based health MBS assessment items. Rather than creating new health assessment items for men, the Australian Government considers that effort should be directed towards clarifying for both patients and doctors, that existing Medicare items are available to support regular, clinically relevant health assessments.
33. The current set of MBS health assessment items are of direct benefit to men. The health assessment items include services for:
34. For example, the 45 Year Old Assessment helps to ensure that men aged 45 to 49 years old who are at risk of developing a chronic disease receive a health check that assesses a range of risk factors such as smoking, lack of exercise, alcohol use, high cholesterol and family history of chronic disease.
35. Existing support through Medicare, which covers a very wide range of medical, nursing and allied health services, provides a very broad scope for doctors to assess men's health and generally to meet their chronic and acute health care needs.
36. The Australian Government, through the Healthy Workers Initiative under the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health, also provides up to $289.2 million for the States and Territories to fund healthy living programs in workplaces. Funding commenced in July 2011. Programs will be introduced to a wide range of workplaces, including those with a high percentage of male workers, and target obesity, nutrition, alcohol abuse and smoking.
37. The National Male Health Policy (the Policy) also recognises the important role of men in taking responsibility for their health needs and in being aware and informed in relation to health issues. Under the Policy funding is provided for the development and distribution of a range of health promotion materials for males. The first phase of this activity focuses on providing health promotion materials to all Men's Sheds across Australia through the DIY Health Toolbox. Funding is also provided to Andrology Australia, the Australian Centre of Excellence in Male Reproductive Health, to distribute Men's Health GP Summary Guidelines to interested General Practitioners across Australia and undertake training of General Practitioners in the use of these Guidelines in culturally and linguistically diverse communities.
Recommendation 5
The Committee recommends that the feasibility of offering incentives to nurses to undertake training as men's nurse practitioners be investigated by the Commonwealth Government.
Response
38. From 1 November 2010, eligible nurse practitioners and midwives have had access to the Medical Benefits Schedule (MBS) and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This access is provided under the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Act 2010 and reflects the Australian Government's broader health reform agenda, supporting improved access to primary health care services and promoting multidisciplinary team-based approaches to health care. This initiative will facilitate more effective use of this workforce, particularly in primary health care and rural settings, including eligible nurse practitioners treating men's health issues.
39. The Australian Government also funds the Nursing and Allied Health Scholarship and Support Scheme to assist students to enter the workforce, nurses to re-enter the nursing workforce and existing nurses to up-skill or undertake other continuing professional development activities. This assistance includes nurse practitioner scholarships. These programs will increase the capacity of the health workforce and will benefit the overall population.
40. The Australian Government is also building the health workforce through a range of scholarships for registered and enrolled nursing students under the Nursing and Allied Scholarship and Support Scheme and Aged Care Nursing Scholarships, including for nurse practitioners. Registered nurses working in the areas of men's health may apply for these scholarships, administered on behalf of the Australian Government by the Royal College of Nursing Australia, for courses that enable them to be registered as a nurse practitioner.
41. In recognition of the significant burden of disease associated with mental illness and to assist in the treatment of mental disorders, the Australian Government funds the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program. This program assists health care practices to engage mental health nurses to provide both men and women with serious mental health issues with better coordinated treatment and care.
Recommendation 6
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government initiate discussions with its State and Territory counterparts with the object of introducing, as appropriate, programs that encourage boys to take responsibility for their health and wellbeing.
Response
42. The Australian Government has recognised the importance of the health and wellbeing of boys. One of the six priority areas for action of the National Male Health Policy is 'Improved health for males at different life stages', which recognises the importance of boys' early years in establishing patterns of behaviour which may have long term consequences for health and the opportunities for supporting health that early life-course transitions present.
43. The Healthy Children Initiative under the National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health provides up to $325.5 million to States and Territories to fund healthy living programs for children and young people aged from birth to 16 years. Funding commenced in July 2011. Programs will be delivered in a range of settings such as schools, early childhood education and care environments, and focus on physical activity and nutrition programs. While programs target the general population of children and young people, young males can be reached through these settings and help in establishing health nutrition and physical activity habits.
44. The Australian Government is also undertaking a wide range of activities which address the social and emotional wellbeing of boys and youth. Under the National Male Health Policy $6 million is provided for the Strong Fathers Strong Families (SFSF) Initiative which aims to promote the role of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander men within the family, as fathers and partners, grandfathers and uncles, and encourages them to participate in their children's and families' lives, especially in the antenatal period and early childhood years. SFSF promotes a clear message that positive male role models are important in the life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
45. The National Suicide Prevention Program promotes activities across the Australian population, as well as for specific at-risk groups, such as boys and young males. For example, the Yiriman Project in Western Australia focuses on youth activities with support from senior Aboriginal men and links with local agencies such as cultural activities and camps that build strong relationships, self-identity and confidence in young people in the Fitzroy Valley. Similarly, the Wesley Mission Expanding Horizons project in Queensland is aimed at young people aged between 13 to 17 years who are engaging in self-harming behaviours or who have expressed suicidal ideation.
46. Programs that encourage boys to take responsibility for their health and wellbeing in general fall under the Health and Ageing portfolio. However, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs also fund a number of initiatives which connect with the Department of Health and Ageing's agenda under the National Male Health Policy.
47. The Family Support Program (FSP) funds services to support families and children to improve family functioning, safety and child development. The FSP recognises that helping men develop and maintain strong family relationships has a positive benefit on overall health outcomes of men and boys, particularly in reducing the risks of depression and associated problems including self-harm and suicide. A number of FSP service providers are providing family and relationship services with a particular focus on services to men and their families to help them improve and better manage their relationships, raise their awareness of family relationship issues, develop their parenting skills and increase their skills and participation. The Government also provides funding for Mensline Australia, a 24 hour-a-day, seven days a week, confidential telephone counselling information and referral service. Mensline is a national service funded to increase men's access to a range of support services. Funding to Mensline also provides for a website which targets youth and younger men.
48. The Australian Government recognises that student wellbeing and safety are essential for academic development. All students should be able to learn and develop in safe, supportive and respectful environments. As part of a national approach to supporting schools to build safe school communities, the Australian Government collaborated with State and Territory education authorities to review and revise the National Safe Schools Framework (the Framework). The Framework was endorsed by all ministers for education through the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs in December 2010.
49. In addition, while the Australian Government plays a leadership role and provides funding for areas of national educational significance, schooling in Australia is the responsibility of the State and Territory government and non-government education authorities. This includes the provision of learning programs that encourage boys to take responsibility for their health and wellbeing.
50. The KidsMatter Primary school initiative is the national primary school mental health promotion, prevention and early intervention initiative developed in collaboration with beyondblue, the Australian Psychological Society and Principals Australia. As part of the 2010 election, the Australian Government announced it would expand the KidsMatter Primary School initiative to an additional 1,700 schools by 2014 with funding of $18.4 million from the start of 2011.
51. The Australian Government remains committed to supporting boys within the family, schools, communities and more broadly and to developing boys' capacity to take responsibility for their own health and wellbeing.
52. All Australian government have established the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) to develop an Australian Curriculum from Foundation to Year 12. Education ministers have agreed to the prioritization of Health and Physical Education (HPE) within phase three of the development of the Australian Curriculum and to make HPE a course learning requirement for all Australian students from Foundation to Year 10.
53. The development of an Australian Curriculum in HPE is currently underway, with ACARA initially preparing a curriculum "shape paper". ACARA is consulting extensively with the education community in developing the curriculum.
54. The Australian Curriculum for HPE may provide Australian students with the opportunity to learn about male health and wellbeing issues.
Recommendation 7
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government take the initiative in conjunction with the States and Territories in examining strategies for improving trauma treatment in Central Australia.
Response
55. On 2 August 2011, a new National Health Reform Agreement was signed by all governments. The Agreement sets out the intention of the Australian Government and State and Territory governments to work in partnership to improve health outcomes for all Australians. This agreement outlines a revised range of initiatives to be implemented under the National Health Reform Agreement. As part of these reforms, the Commonwealth is providing additional funding to the Northern Territory through the National Partnership Agreement on Improving Public Hospital Services (NPA IPHS) and National Partnership Agreement on Hospital and Health Workforce Reform (NPA HHWR). Investments in improving emergency department services form part of the new national strategy for Australia's health and hospital system.
56. Through the NPA IPHS, the Australian Government has committed $3.4 billion to the States and Territories including $750 million over five years to improve access to timely and safe health services for emergency departments. This is through the National Emergency Access Target (NEAT), where 90% of patients presenting to a public hospital emergency department will be admitted, referred for treatment, or discharged within four hours. Funding of $48.8 million has been allocated to the Northern Territory from which Darwin Hospital Emergency Department will receive $5.6 million in facilitation funding and $5.9 million towards capital development. Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department will receive $0.7 million in facilitation funding and $1.6 million towards capital development.
57. Through the NPA HHWR, the Australian Government has committed $1.5 billion to the States and Territories including $750 million to take pressure off public hospital emergency departments and reduce waiting times for treatment. Funding of $9.8 million has been allocated to the Northern Territory from which Darwin Hospital Emergency Department will receive $5.9 million and Alice Springs Hospital Emergency Department will receive $2.35 million.
58. Initiatives such as these and others under the National Health Reform Agreement are enhancing trauma treatment across Central Australia through building the capacity of the Royal Darwin Hospital, which incorporates the National Critical Care and Trauma Response Centre, and Alice Springs Hospital.
Recommendation 8
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government take the initiative, in cooperation with the States and Territories, to reduce complexity and simplify the application process for health related grants.
Response
59. On 1 July 2009, the Australian Government introduced the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines (the Guidelines) that provide a whole-of-government policy framework grants administration. The Guidelines apply to all agencies subject to the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA) and are intended to improve the transparency and accountability of grants administration. The Australian Government has mandated transparent and accountable decision-making processes for grants and timely public reporting through agency websites.
60. The Guidelines also recognise the importance of adopting processes that are in proportion to the scale and risk profile of grant activities, and the need to work collaboratively and in partnership with grant recipients, including voluntary and 'not-for-profit' organisations.
61. All grants processes undertaken from 1 July 2009 will take into account both the mandatory and sound practice elements of the Guidelines. This includes grants processes that involve State governments where they are covered under Regulation 3A (1) and not otherwise exempted under 3A (2) of the FMA Regulations. Accordingly, the issue of proportionality in relation to application processes will be considered in the context of the scale and risk of the requisite program.
62. In 2010, the Australian Government commissioned a review of the administrative arrangements in the Health and Ageing portfolio. The purpose of this review was to examine the alignment of resources within the portfolio to ensure it is best placed to implement and manage the Government's key health and ageing priorities and programs, including the National Health Reform agenda, as well as position the portfolio to respond to emerging health and ageing challenges over the medium and longer term.
63. The review of the portfolio has resulted in the establishment of larger, flexible funding pools from 1 July 2011. These funding pools will simplify and streamline grant funding processes for stakeholders. In addition, over time, many grant recipients currently maintaining and reporting against multiple funding agreements will move to an arrangement where they operate under one single agreement with the Department. This will reduce the administrative burden for grant recipients, leaving them more time to focus on their core business.
Recommendation 9
The Committee recommends that the integration of health service provision to recognise the interconnectedness of men's health issues be made a central part of the forthcoming national men's health policy.
Response
64. The National Male Health Policy (the Policy) recognises and addresses the interconnectedness of male health issues and the wide range of social determinants that influence male health. The Policy recommends that this be taken into account in the development and delivery of policies and services that impact on male health. The Policy provides a framework for improving male health across Australia, with a focus on taking action on multiple fronts and recognising the social determinants of health.
65. The interconnectedness of men's health issues is recognised in the range of programs funded under the Policy. For example, $3 million over four years is provided to support Men's Sheds across Australia. This program recognises the role of Men's Sheds as meeting places where men, particularly marginalised and isolated men, can find social support and camaraderie and the significant contribution to male health and wellbeing that such support can have. Support for men's sheds with a high veteran concentration is also offered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs through its Veteran and Community Grants Program.
66. Similarly, the first ever Australian Longitudinal Study on Male Health is based on a social determinants model of male health and is designed to provide information on the social, economic, environmental and behavioural factors that affect the health of men and boys in Australia. This information will assist in developing policy and program responses across the range of Australian Government portfolios that impact on male health.
67. A key role of the Minister's Male Health Reference Group is to draw attention to the interconnections in male health and wellbeing and provide advice in relation to relevant policy and program responses.
68. The Policy is being implemented in the context of broader health care reforms and cross-government initiatives that impact on men's lives and will allow major gains in health for Australian men into the future. To ensure the health system is more responsive to the needs of individuals and local communities, Medicare Locals are being established as a coordinated network of primary health care organisations. Medicare Locals are critical to supporting and driving improvements in primary health care for both patients and health care providers and will provide both males and females with increased access to information about services available in their local areas as well as making it easier to navigate their local health care system.
69. Medicare Locals will also support primary health care professionals and organisations to identify and address local health care needs and improve the delivery of integrated primary health care. As they develop, each Medicare Local will develop plans for their particular population and its health needs, including preventive health activities.
70. The interconnectedness of male health issues is recognised across the range of Australian Government portfolio areas. The majority of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs programs, including mental health programs, are targeted to the broader population, and impact both males and females and may include specific sub-activities targeted at males. For example, while the Communities for Children initiative targets the whole community, when a need is identified, specific strategies focus on particular target groups such as Aboriginal fathers.
71. In a targeted manner, the Department of Veterans' Affairs delivers Men's Health Peer Education with the specific aim of raising awareness about men's health issues by encouraging all members of the veteran and ex-service community to share the responsibility for managing their own health and well-being.
72. The Australian Government will continue to address the interconnectedness of male health issues through activities under the National Male Health Policy and more broadly.
Recommendation 10
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government investigate standardised service models for mental health to facilitate a uniform standard of care throughout Australia.
Response
73. The Fourth National Mental Health Plan – An agenda for collaborative government action in mental health 2009-2014 (the Fourth Plan), endorsed by all Health Ministers in September 2009, identifies for action the development of a national service planning framework that establishes targets for the mix and level for the full range of mental health services.
74. The development of the national service planning framework will draw upon established models of mental health service planning that have been developed using Australian epidemiological data as a foundation. This will enable a nationally agreed population- based model that will inform governments and service coordinators how to best meet the mental health service needs of their populations, including the necessary resources.
75. The revised National Standards for Mental Health Services (the Standards) were endorsed by the Australian Health Ministers' Conference in September 2010. The Standards provide a blueprint for new and existing services to guide quality improvement and service enhancement activities. Consumers and carers are able to use the Standards as a checklist for service quality and as a guide about what to expect from mental health services.
76. There is a strong values base in the Standards relating to human rights, dignity and privacy which has been guided by the principles contained in the National Mental Health Policy 2008, the United Nations' Principles on the Protection of People with a Mental Illness and the Australian Health Ministers' Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.
77. The Fourth Plan also commits governments to better target services and address service gaps through cooperative and innovative service models for the delivery of primary mental health care. Through the Fourth Plan governments are also committed to a review of the Mental Health Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and ensuring accreditation and reporting systems in health and community sectors incorporate the Standards.
78. The National Suicide Prevention Program (the Program) promotes suicide prevention activities across the Australian population, as well as for specific at-risk groups, such as young males. The Program has men as a priority target group for funding and 13.6% of the national Suicide Prevention Program has been committed to target this priority group specifically form 2011-12 to 2012-13.
79. Recognising the social determinants that increase the risk of suicidality for men, and that men are least likely to seek help, the Government is providing $23.2 million over four year to provide more support and services for men as part of the Mental health: Taking Action to Tackle Suicide package. These measures will increase the capacity of the beyondblue helpline to assist up to 30,000 more each year, expand the beyondblue National Workplace Program to increase coverage to specific sectors and to subsidise participation by small businesses, and deliver targeted awareness campaigns to encourage men in high risk groups to seek assistance for depression and mental illness. A National Stigma Summit, held in October 2011, brought together leading experts in research, media, consumer and carers to assist in the development of these targeted awareness campaigns.
80. Further investment of $22.6 million is also being provided through other elements of the Mental health: Taking Action to Tackle Suicide package for community prevention activities for high risk groups, including men.
Recommendation 11
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensure that the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource is provided with sustainable funding at a level that would enable it to complete its tissue collection and carry out the necessary work in support of prostate cancer research outlined in chapter 4.
Response
81. The Australian Government recognises the importance of strategies that aim to prevent conditions that have adverse impacts on male health, including prostate cancer. The Australian Government is committed to supporting research into the causes, diagnosis, and effective treatment of prostate cancer, and to providing quality care and support for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, and their families and carers.
82. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) will provide close to $5 million from 2004 to 2015 to the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource through the nationally competitive Enabling Grants Scheme.
83. The Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource facility was reviewed by the NHMRC in 2009 and it was agreed to extend funding to early 2015 in recognition that prostate cancer was a National Health Priority Area, and that the facility was operating at a high international standard with strong in-kind support from its host institutions.
84. In addition, the 2008-09 Budget committed $15 million over five years from 2008-09 for the establishment of two dedicated prostate cancer research centres, located in Victoria and Queensland, to develop improved diagnostic tests, screening tools and treatments for prostate cancer. The establishment of the dedicated prostate cancer research centres aims to enhance collaboration, boost research efforts in the field, and encourage additional, complementary research groups to focus on this disease.
Recommendation 12
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide funding to the Prostate Cancer Foundation to ensure that the Prostate Cancer Information Pack program proceeds.
Response
85. The Australian Government remains committed to ensuring the availability of quality information for people diagnosed with cancer. The Australian Government acknowledges the valuable work undertaken by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) in supporting men with prostate cancer, including the piloting of a National Prostate Cancer Information Pack.
86. The Australian Government, through Cancer Australia, is providing a total of $3.97 million over 3 years, to 30 June 2014, to the PCFA to develop resources for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, their families and carers, and for the establishment of up to 90 peer support groups for men with prostate cancer, particularly in rural and regional Australia.
87. Through Cancer Australia, the Australian Government is also working to improve the coordination and quality of cancer care nationally. A total of $4.4 million is being provided, to 30 June 2013, to fund a range of organisations through the Building Cancer Support Networks Grants program (the Program). To date 66 projects have been funded under the Program. Through the Program, Cancer Australia works with the community and organisational partners to identify and respond to the support needs of people affected by cancer, in order to facilitate increased access to cancer support in each State and Territory.
88. Under Round 1 of the Program, PCFA was funded to provide information and increase support to existing groups, and to establish new groups in Queensland, Northern New South Wales and the Northern Territory. Funding was also provided to the Association of Prostate Cancer Support Groups South Australia, to provide support and information to patients and their families and carers. Under Round 4 of the program, Cancer Australia is partnering with the PCFA to fund a range of face-to-face and online training to be delivered to prostate cancer support group conveners and peer group facilitators.
Recommendation 13
The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government expedite funding for the provision of specialist prostate cancer nurses, particularly in rural and regional Australia.
Response
89. The Australian Government funds the Nursing and Allied Health Scholarship and Support Scheme to assist students to enter the workforce, nurses to re-enter the nursing workforce and existing students to up-skill or undertake other continuing professional development in many areas, which may include prostate cancer. This assistance includes scholarships for nurses to undertake study/professional development and while these programs are not aimed at men's health directly, increasing the capacity of the health workforce will benefit the overall population.
90. The Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) is piloting the Prostate Cancer Specialist Nursing Program. Under this national 3-year pilot program selected area health services will host a cancer specialist nurse. The PCFA will evaluate the pilot and bring the results of the evaluation to the Australian Government for consideration.
91. A wide range of primary and allied health care services are provided to rural and remote areas through a variety of programs. The Rural Primary Health Services (RPHS) program funds a range of organisations – State and local government entities, Aboriginal Medical Services, Medicare Locals and other non-government organisations to provide additional primary and allied health care services in rural and remote communities. The actual service delivered, including mental health, community nursing, nursing in a specialist role, podiatry, physiotherapy, community health education and promotion services, depend on identified needs of the target communities. Service providers are able to determine which mix of services and health professionals best suit the needs of their communities and the availability of health professionals.
92. The program is directed at rural populations located in Australian Standard Geographical Classification – Remoteness Area (ASGC-RA) categories 2 (Inner Regional) to 5 (Very Remote) with priority given to small rural communities and communities located in ASGC-RA 3 to 5.
93. The Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program (MSOAP) was established in 2000 to improve the access of rural and remote communities to medical specialist outreach services. MSOAP aims to complement medical specialist services provided by the State and Northern Territory governments and private providers by encouraging specialists to deliver outreach services to targeted areas of need in rural and remote Australia. This is achieved by meeting costs associated with delivering outreach services such as travel, accommodation and venue hire.
94. MSOAP service delivery is determined in consultation with an Advisory Forum in each jurisdiction to ensure that specialist services are directed towards the priority health needs of local communities. MSOAP has been highly effective in increasing access to medical specialists' services for people living and working in rural and remote Australia. Over 100 speciality disciplines and sub-specialities are supported under MSOAP, including oncology specialist services, which specifically relates to men's health. In the current year MSOAP plans to deliver 24 surgical urology services and 10 oncology services in regional and remote locations throughout Australia.
95. The Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program – Indigenous Chronic Disease (MSOAP- ICD) aims to increase access to a range of health services provided to people in rural and remote Indigenous communities for the treatment and management of chronic disease. The focus of the program is on the provision of services by multidisciplinary teams, which may include specialist nurses.
96. The program commenced in April 2010 as part of the Australian Government's contribution to the National Partnership Agreement on Closing the Gap in Indigenous Health Outcomes.
Attachments A & B
The National Male Health Policy 2010 and supporting documents is available at http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/male-policy
Hard copies of the publications can be obtained by contacting National Mailing and Marketing on:
Phone: (02) 6269 1000
Email: health@nationalmailing.com.au
That the reports of the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform and the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be printed.
That consideration of the committee report and the government responses to committee reports be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) to a resolution of the Senate of 14 August 2012 concerning polio eradication
Minister for Mental Health and Ageing (Mr Butler) to a resolution of the Senate of 13 September 2012 concerning suicide
Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Ms Macklin) to a resolution of the Senate of 13 September 2012 concerning the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Office of the Premier of New South Wales, the Premier of Queensland (Mr Newman) and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory (Mr Mills) to a resolution of the Senate of 19 September 2012 concerning domestic violence
That the Senate take note of the item Minister for Mental Health and Ageing (Mr Butler)—Suicide (agreed to 13 September 2012).
That the Senate take note of the item Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Bob Carr) and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Ms Macklin)—United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (agreed to 13 September 2012).
Public Service Amendment Bill 2012
Personal Liability for Corporate Fault Reform Bill 2012
Tax Laws Amendment (Clean Building Managed Investment Trust) Bill 2012
That the Senate take note of the reports.
Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Dental Benefits Amendment Bill 2012
That the Senate take note of the document.
The Australian Government has consistently urged Sri Lanka to investigate all allegations of crimes committed by both sides to the conflict, including those raised in the UN Secretary-General's Panel of Experts report.
That––
That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:
Environment and Communications References Committee—
Appointed—
Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Waters for the committee’s inquiry into container deposit schemes
Participating member: Senator Waters
Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee—
Discharged—Senator Humphries
Appointed—Senator Ruston.
Clean Energy Amendment (International Emissions Trading and Other Measures) Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Amendment Bill 2012
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
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) Bill 2011
That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
CLEAN ENERGY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2012
The Australian government accepts the advice of scientists that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change and this poses great risks to our environment, our economy and our society. Climate change is a diabolical international problem with an achievable international solution. Australia has a choice. We can be part of growing international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use the market to reduce emissions at least cost to our economy. Or we can reject the advice of scientists and economists, ignore our international responsibility, and put our future prosperity at risk.
The Australian government has a responsibility to act in our national interest to be part of the international solution. Australia is one of the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters internationally, and the highest per capita emitter amongst the advanced economies. Anyone who suggests to the Australian community that we can have a free ride, that other nations with lower per capita emissions and less developed economies must take all the responsibility, is engaged in an act of deceit. That pathway will lead to retaliation in our trading relationships.
Does anyone seriously think that our Asian trading partners, that are so vital to our economic future, that have lower per capita income, that are dragging hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, will give us a free ride in tackling climate change? Australia must do its fair share—and it is in our economic interest to do so. The economies that will be competitive in the 21st century will be those that innovate, those that move to clean energy, those that reduce the emissions intensity of their economy. If we are the innovators, if we reduce the emissions intensity of our economy, if we utilise our renewable energy resources, Australia will have the competitive edge.
The Gillard government has begun this process through the enactment of the clean energy legislation and the commencement of the carbon price. And let us be clear—we have introduced an emissions trading scheme that commences with a three-year period where the carbon price is fixed. After that transitional period, we will have a fully flexible emissions trading scheme where the carbon price is set by the market—a market that will be international. The carbon price began 80 days ago. From 1 July 2015, when emissions trading commences, national greenhouse gas emissions will be capped, enabling Australia to meet targeted cuts in emissions each year. These targeted cuts in emissions reflect the commitments made by Australia in the international community—commitments that reflect our fair share of the task in tackling climate change, commitments that both sides of politics have signed up to. But the baseless fear campaign by those opposite against action on climate change has demonstrated that they have no commitment at all. The only thing that matters over there is shallow political opportunism.
As our Prime Minister made clear just over a year ago, the government is on the right side of history. This bill makes amendments to the Clean Energy Act 2011 and related acts which will extend the international dimension of our contribution to the challenge of climate change. They give legislative effect to an interim link between Australia’s emissions trading scheme and the European Union Emissions Trading System, along with a number of changes to Australia’s scheme to facilitate this. This bill also makes minor changes designed to improve the flexibility of Australian auctions of carbon units and to recognise specific circumstances around the treatment of natural gas under the Australian scheme.
International linking
This bill means that from 1 July 2015, we will be linking the Australian carbon price to the European Union Emissions Trading System. It confirms that the fixed carbon price will end in 2015 and we will move to a fully-flexible emissions trading scheme where the Australian carbon price reflects the price in the largest carbon market in the world. In other words, the Australian carbon price will reflect the price in our second largest trading bloc and be the same as in at least 30 other countries—including the UK, France and Germany. Our carbon price will be consistent with that which applies in countries inhabited by 530 million people—making a mockery of the fallacious argument that Australia is acting alone, or has a carbon price ahead of the pack.
The European Union Emissions Trading System was the first international carbon market and now makes up more than three-quarters of the world’s carbon market. It has operated since 2005 and has delivered cost-effective emissions reductions. Overall, linking the Australian emissions trading scheme with the European Union Emissions Trading System is good for Australian industry, good for the economy and good for the environment. Linking means that an Australian business with a carbon price liability will be able to purchase a carbon emissions unit—effectively a permit to emit a tonne of greenhouse gas—in either the Australian or European carbon markets. Those permits can be bought now, for compliance in the period following 1 July 2015.
Businesses know that the most cost-effective way to cut pollution is through an open market mechanism and that is exactly what this will provide. Providing Australian businesses access to the world’s largest carbon market allows emissions to be reduced in the most efficient way, by broadening the pool of carbon units that can be used by businesses. As well as benefiting businesses, linking also has wider economic benefits. Linking will reduce the cost of the emissions reduction effort to the Australian economy. As Treasury modelling demonstrates, without the ability to purchase international permits, the cost of reducing emissions would double in order to meet Australia’s bipartisan unconditional reduction target.
We have always recognised the benefits of linking and that is why it has always been the Labor government’s policy to link with international carbon markets. In fact, linking with international carbon markets has been Australian government policy since 2007 under Prime Minister John Howard. The Australian government’s 2007 Shergold report stated:
“As a supporter of the development of a global system, Australia has a direct interest in promoting links between comparable schemes. Any Australian domestic trading scheme should be designed to enhance the scope for links, both formal and informal, with as many different systems as possible.”
It is common sense to support international linking because it assists in providing emissions reduction at least cost and contributes to knitting together different national and regional schemes. It develops a common carbon price across economies, a common incentive to cut emissions, and fairly shares the burden of doing so.
We have a responsibility, as the leaders of this nation and as elected representatives of the federal parliament, to act in the interests of all Australians, both current and future generations. Ultimately, the scientists have warned us that the planet is warming and that warming is caused by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They have warned us that continued warming will have severe consequences, which may include more frequent droughts, more days with high fire danger, changes in rainfall patterns, increased heat waves and more intense cyclones. This poses a risk to the environment, our economy and our way of life. No responsible government can ignore these risks. Responsible governments must take action—action that is environmentally effective, economically efficient, and socially fair: action we can take to protect our country and minimise the risk of the most extreme impacts occurring.
This is a global problem and it requires global efforts to reduce pollution. There are many out to mislead the Australian public by saying that Australia is acting alone and our efforts are meaningless unless part of global action. But this argument falls down on two fronts. Firstly, Australia is far from acting alone. Every major economy is taking action—from 2013, 850 million people will live in a place where polluters pay for their pollution. The world is acting and we are part of that action. The second reason the argument of these detractors falls down is because many of these same people who say a global solution is required also categorically oppose international linking. If you accept that climate change is a global problem that needs a global solution, it follows that you should support opening up trade with other countries to ensure pollution is reduced at the least cost. A globally coordinated approach must be fundamental to Australian climate change policy.
Because the Australian and European systems both cap the overall level of emissions, the use of a European allowance by an Australian emitter means that one less tonne of carbon pollution is released in Europe. Our challenge is to reduce global emissions. One tonne of pollution reduced in Europe delivers the same environmental benefit as a tonne of pollution reduced in Australia. We are an open economy and a trading nation. This is one more commodity that needs to be included in our trading relationships with other countries. By opening up trade in carbon, we will ensure that pollution is reduced at the least cost which will benefit households, businesses and the environment. The type of economic xenophobia and anti-market rhetoric that has been used when it comes to linking emissions trading schemes is backward and irresponsible.
We are proud to stand on this side and say this will be the first intercontinental linkage of emissions trading schemes. It represents an important development towards the establishment of an interlinked global carbon market and global action on climate change. It is the first link between Europe and emerging carbon markets in the Asia-Pacific. Emissions trading schemes are being developed in:
In fact, market based mechanisms to reduce pollution are in place or being developed in eight of our top ten trading partners.
Other key economies in the Asia-Pacific, such as Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam, are also entering the carbon market. This will lead to the development of a cooperative Asia-Pacific carbon market in the future. The link with the EU is also very important for the competitiveness of Australian industries. The linking arrangements have the potential to increase the effective assistance delivered to our emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries by the Jobs and Competitiveness Program. For example, if a highly emissions-intensive activity is able to source Kyoto units on the market for half of the price of European allowances, their effective assistance rate in 2015-16 would rise to 97 per cent. The assistance delivery also retains the incentive for emissions savings.
This bill and the amendments it contains are intended to provide the legislative foundation for this link and future links with other emissions trading schemes. The link with the European Union Emissions Trading System will first allow European allowance units to be used for compliance under the Australian scheme for liabilities incurred between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2018. This will be followed by a full bilateral link from 1 July 2018 where units from both schemes may be used for compliance in either system. To simplify the linking arrangements and facilitate the convergence of Australian and European carbon prices, the government has announced that it will no longer proceed with the carbon price floor, and that it will restrict the quantity of eligible Kyoto units that Australian entities can use to discharge their liability.
This bill eliminates the price floor from existing legislation by removing the requirement for a minimum auction reserve price for the financial years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18, and repealing the act that provided for a surrender charge on eligible international emissions units. The bill also limits Australian entities’ use of eligible Kyoto units to 12.5 per cent of their total liability and provides the government with the ability to introduce other limits on eligible international emissions units should this flexibility be required in the future. In relation to the designated limit of 12.5 per cent for Kyoto units, the bill provides that this designated limit percentage may not be changed before 1 July 2020. This will provide certainty to Australian liable entities in relation to their allowable surrender of international units, and hence certainty in relation to their emissions reduction investment and compliance strategies.
The bill also provides the government with flexibility to implement the most appropriate set of registry arrangements to establish the interim link with the European Union Emissions Trading System, and flexibility in establishing future registry arrangements with other jurisdictions should links to other schemes be concluded in the future.
Equivalent carbon price
The bill also alters the current arrangements for applying an equivalent carbon price to synthetic greenhouse gases and some liquid fuel use, to ensure that it reflects the effective carbon price faced by liable entities under the Australian emissions trading scheme when linked to the European Union Emissions Trading System.
Auctions
The government proposes to make minor and technical changes to the design of the auction scheme for the Australian emissions trading scheme, to improve its operation and streamline the arrangements. These changes take account of further consultation on the detailed design of the auction scheme and the commencement of the detailed design process. The amendments increase the carbon unit auction limit from 15 million to 40 million for 2015-16 carbon units that are auctioned in 2013-14, and 20 million for all other advance auctions before a pollution cap is set. The amendments also establish that where there is not a pollution cap in place, units cannot be sold at auctions held more than three years in advance of their vintage year. In addition, the bill provides for the approach to setting auction reserve prices to be determined in a ministerial determination.
Finally, the bill simplifies the treatment of relinquished carbon units.
Natural gas
In order for the carbon price to maintain effective and complete coverage of natural gas, the bill allows regulations to be made to provide for coverage of alternative natural gas arrangements, supporting competitive neutrality in the industry. The bill also amends the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, so that from 1 July 2013 the methods to measure and adjust liabilities for liquid and gaseous fuels may be set out in a disallowable ministerial determination. This will give more certainty to the liquid and gaseous fuels sectors and more flexibility in emissions reporting, which is appropriate given the complex commercial arrangements in these sectors.
Conclusion
Countries around the world are taking action to tackle climate change. Australia’s carbon price is now part of this global action. With emissions trading schemes in 33 countries and 18 sub national jurisdictions expected to be in operation from 2013, it is likely this linking arrangement is the first of many to come, which will lead to a deep and liquid global carbon market. It gives the lie to the claims that no other countries are acting. Linking to the European Union Emission Trading System is a historic achievement not only for Australia but for global action on climate change. When future generations look back on the Clean Energy Act, the emissions reductions it will have driven and the global carbon market it supported, they will thank the members of this parliament who have rejected delay and embraced a clean energy future.
Judges and Governors-General Legislation Amendment (Family Law) Bill 2012
Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development) Bill 2012
That Social Security (Administration) (Declared income management areas) Determination 2012, made under section 123TFA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.
That Social Security (Administration) (Vulnerable income management areas) Specification 2012, made under subsections 123UCA(3) and 123UGB(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.
That Social Security (Administration) (Vulnerable Welfare Payment Recipient) Principles 2012, made under subsection 123UGA(2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.
That Social Security (Administration) (Specified income management Territory – Northern Territory) Specification 2012, made under subsections 123UCB(4) and 123UCC(4) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.
That Social Security (Administration) (Declared child protection State – New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) Determination 2012, made under section 123TF of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.
… charting the distribution of disadvantage throughout Australia was intended to concentrate positive, inclusive forms of assistance for individuals and families caught in entrenched disadvantage, not to increase their exposure to sanctions.
NEW research from a major study of indigenous children and their families in 11 sites around Australia shows overwhelming support for income management, with 77 per cent of respondents saying income management had led to positive changes to communities.
There is no clear evidence that the policy is working. In none of the locations in which it operates is there unambiguous evidence for or against the effectiveness of income management. The overall picture emerging from the available evidence is one in which positive changes have been uneven and fragile.
In addition to undermining autonomy and self-determination—which are pre-requisites for good health and wellbeing—universal compulsory income management violates Australia's human rights commitments and the principles of citizenship.
(a) the person is unable, due to a lack of financial resources, to obtain goods or services, or to access or engage in activities, to meet his or her relevant priority needs; and
(b) the lack of financial resources mentioned in paragraph (a) is not solely attributable to the amount of income earned, derived or received by the person.
(c) is using, or is at risk of needing to access, emergency accommodation or a refuge.
The Senate divided. [18:29]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Furner)
Defence Trade Controls Bill 2011
… the President shall certify to Congress that the Government of Australia has—
(A) enacted legislation to strengthen generally its controls over defence and dual-use goods, including controls over intangible transfers of controlled technology and brokering of controlled goods, technology, and services, and setting forth:
(i) the criteria for entry into the Australian Community …
(ii) the record-keeping …
… … …
(iv) the requirements for Exports and Transfers of United States Defense Articles outside the Approved Community—
US researchers in accredited higher education institutions enjoy broad exclusions from export control under the relevant Export Administration Regulation (EAR) and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), for fundamental (basic and applied) research in science and engineering that is ordinarily published and shared with the scientific community.
Our Defence department has taken a much narrower view of what can be left out of their proposed regulatory net. They only concede exemptions that are already written into the DSGL—
items in the public domain and the results of basic scientific research.
The Australian government’s investment in research, like the private sector’s, is largely driven toward achieving outcomes for Australia’s national priorities to support economic prosperity, health and innovation. As a result, the great majority of Australian research is pursued with some application in mind. The narrow definition of basic research in the DSGL thus captures a large swathe of research activities where there is low-risk and arguably no-risk for the transfer of information that would lead to harm and where the risk can be managed more appropriately and effectively at the institutional level with benefit of the disciplinary expertise in the university and in accordance with established academic codes of practice.
As the National Tertiary Education Union has said—
in its letters to members of parliament recently:
“We are dismayed that the Government would seek to legislate such a radical reform without completing a regulatory impact assessment, or consulting with those likely to be affected by the change. The implications of this amendment must be thought through carefully before it is passed, and not left to be considered after the legislation has been formalised.”
In the US and the UK, and in other advanced western economies, export control over dual-use technologies is not entrusted to defence departments; in the US it is the Department of Commerce and the Department of State, in the UK the Department of Trade and Innovation.
Importantly, in the US and UK we see that open academic research is explicitly protected from the type of restrictions contained in our Bill. The introduction of export controls in the US and the UK was also the subject of considerable public debate prior to their passage.
For example, in the UK, the Baroness Miller of Hendon spoke eloquently in the House of Lords when export controls on intangibles relating to controlled technology were introduced in the UK.
“The extension of the control of export of goods to the control of intangibles—the control of thoughts and ideas—is a radical step, unheard of in a democracy. It has serious constitutional implications. Goods are exported if they are physically moved out of the country. It is physically impossible to control ideas. But that is what the Government are trying to do. By virtue of Clause 2(2)(c), they are even attempting to control the exchange of ideas within the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that a solid body of academia is totally opposed to some of the Government's proposed provisions —
which are inappropriate in a country where universities have been centres of learning, research and discovery for over 900 years.”
1. The Secretary of State may not make a control order which has the effect of prohibiting or regulating any of the following activities—
(a) the communication of information in the ordinary course of scientific research;
(b) the making of information generally available to the public; or
(c) the communication of information that is generally available to the public, unless the interference by the order in the freedom to carry on the activity in question is necessary (and no more than is necessary).
2: The question whether any such interference is necessary shall be determined by the Secretary of State by reference to the circumstances prevailing at the time the order is made and having considered the reasons for seeking to control the activity in question and the need to respect the freedom to carry on that activity.
… information in the public domain;
… information that has been, or is intended to be, published …
… fundamental research … basic and applied research ... where the … information is ordinarily published …
… educational information or instruction provided … by a higher education provider;
… information that is the minimum necessary information for patent applications.
The Senate divided. [20:10]
(The Chairman—Senator Parry)
(2) Clause 11, page 14 (after line 21), after subclause (3), insert:
(3A) If a person makes an application under subsection (1), the Minister must decide whether or not to give the person a permit:
(a) if the Minister considers the application to be non-complex—within 15 days after the application is made; or
(b) otherwise—within 35 days after the application is made.
(3B) If the Minister fails to make a decision within the period required under subsection (3A), the Minister is taken to have decided to give the person a permit to do each activity covered by the application.
(9) Clauses 10 and 11, page 10 (line 4) to page 15 (line 16), omit the clauses, substitute:
10 Offence—supply of DSGL technology
(1) A person (the supplier ) commits an offence if:
(a) the supplier supplies DSGL technology to another person; and
(b) either:
(i) the supply is from a place in Australia to a place outside Australia; or
(ii) if the supply is the provision of access to DSGL technology—at the time of the provision of access, the supplier is in Australia and the other person is outside Australia; and
(c) either:
(i) the supplier does not hold a permit under section 11 authorising the supply of the DSGL technology; or
(ii) the supply of the DSGL technology contravenes a condition of a permit that the supplier holds under section 11; and
(d) there is no notice in force under subsection 14(1) in relation to the supplier and the supply.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,500 penalty units, or both.
Exceptions
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the supply is of DSGL technology in relation to original goods; and
(b) the supply is by an Australian Community member or by a member of the United States Community; and
(c) the supply is to an Australian Community member or a member of the United States Community; and
(d) the supply is for an activity referred to in Article 3(1) (a), (b), (c) or (d) of the Defense Trade Cooperation Treaty; and
(e) at the time of the supply, the original goods are listed in Part 1 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List; and
(f) at the time of the supply, the original goods are not listed in Part 2 of the Defense Trade Cooperation Munitions List.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the DSGL technology is supplied by a person who is a member of the Australian Defence Force, an APS employee, a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force of a State or Territory; and
(b) he or she supplies the DSGL technology in the course of his or her duties as such a person.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in the circumstances prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
Geographical jurisdiction
(5) Section 15.2 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
Definition
(6) In this section:
place includes:
(a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft; and
(b) an area of water; and
(c) a fixed or floating structure or installation of any kind.
(a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft; and
(b) an area of water; and
(c) a fixed or floating structure or installation of any kind.
… a person who is a member of the Australian Defence Force, an APS employee, a member or special member of the Australian Federal Police or a member of the police force of a State or Territory; and
(b) he or she supplies the DSGL technology in the course of his or her duties as such a person.
(10) Clause 14, page 16 (line 24) to page 17 (line 12), omit subclause (1), substitute:
(1) If the Minister believes or suspects that, if a person were to supply to another person particular DSGL technology in any circumstances or in particular circumstances, the supply would prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia, the Minister may give the person a notice:
(a) prohibiting the person from supplying that DSGL technology; or
(b) prohibiting the person from supplying that DSGL technology unless conditions specified in the notice are complied with.
Note: Section 67 deals with giving notices under this Act.
(11) Clause 14, page 18 (lines 9 to 25), omit subclause (10), substitute:
Offence
(10) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person supplies DSGL technology; and
(b) the supply contravenes a notice, or a condition specified in a notice, that is in force under subsection (1); and
(c) the person knows of the contravention.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,500 penalty units, or both.
(17) Clause 27, page 33 (lines 8 to 10), omit note 2, substitute:
Note 2: The offence in section 10 (about supplying DSGL technology) may not apply to the holder of an approval.
(21) Clause 63, page 75 (line 7), omit "an activity", substitute "a supply".
(22) Clause 71, page 82 (lines 26 and 27), omit "technology relating to goods", substitute "DSGL technology, or technology relating to goods,".
(24) Clause 73, page 85 (table item 1, column 2), omit "activity", substitute "supply".
(25) Clause 73, page 86 (table item 1, column 1), omit "an activity", substitute "a supply".
(1) If the Minister believes or suspects that, if a person were to supply to another person particular DSGL technology …
A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person supplies DSGL technology; and
(b) the supply contravenes a notice, or a condition specified in a notice, that is in force under subsection (1); and
(c) the person knows of the contravention.
A person commits an offence if:
(a) either:
(i) the person publishes DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means; or
(ii) the person otherwise disseminates DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means;
… the Minister may, in writing, approve a person publishing or otherwise disseminating specified DSGL technology to the public or to a specified section of the public. The Minister may give an approval only if the Minister is satisfied it is in the public interest to do so.
If the Minister gives an approval under subsection (3), the Minister must give the person the approval.
(12) Page 18 (after line 28), at the end of Division 1, add:
14A Publishing etc. DSGL technology
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) either:
(i) the person publishes DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means; or
(ii) the person otherwise disseminates DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means; and
(b) the person does not hold an approval under this section authorising the publication or dissemination of the DSGL technology.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years or 2,500 penalty units, or both.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the DSGL technology has already been lawfully made available to the public or to the section of the public.
Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code .
Approvals
(3) The Minister may, in writing, approve a person publishing or otherwise disseminating specified DSGL technology to the public or to a specifiedsection of the public. The Minister may give an approval only if the Minister is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.
(4) If the Minister gives an approval under subsection (3), the Minister must give the person the approval.
Note: Section 67 deals with giving approvals under this Act.
Geographical jurisdiction
(5) Section 15.2 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against subsection (1).
Approval not a legislative instrument
(6) An approval under this section is not a legislative instrument.
(23) Clause 73, page 85 (line 2), after "section 14,", insert "subsection 14A(3),".
… makes it an offence for a person to publish or otherwise disseminate DSGL technology to the public, or to a section of the public, by electronic or other means where the person does not hold an approval under this section.
This offence will cover persons who intentionally release controlled DSGL technology into the public domain. As a safeguard, the offence provision will include the ability for the Minister to give written approval for the publication or dissemination of DSGL technology if it is in the public interest to do so.
The offence does not apply if the DSGL technology has already been lawfully made available to the public, or to a section of the public.
Subsection (1) does not apply if the DSGL technology has already been lawfully made available to the public or to the section of the public.
The Senate divided. [21:03]
(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Parry)
(19) Clause 58, page 71 (line 3) to page 72 (line 8), omit the clause, substitute:
58 Keeping and retaining records
Permit holders under Part 2
(1) A person must keep records of supplies that the person makes under a permit given to the person under section 11.
(2) A person must keep records of arrangements that the person makes under a permit given to the person under section 16.
Approval holders under section 27
(3) A person who holds an approval under section 27 must keep records of activities that the person does that are prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection.
Form of records
(4) Records under this section must contain the information prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. The regulations may prescribe different information for different kinds of records.
Retention of records
(5) The person must retain the records for a period of 5 years.
Offence
(6) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person is subject to a requirement under this section; and
(b) the person contravenes the requirement.
Penalty: 30 penalty units.
(7) An offence against subsection (6) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .
(8) Section 15.4 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category D) applies to an offence against subsection (6).
(20) Clause 59, page 72 (line 11), omit "make", substitute "keep".
(3) Page 86 (after line 20), after clause 74, insert:
74A Strengthened Export Controls Steering Group
(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must appoint, in writing, the members of a Strengthened Export Controls Steering Group.
(2) The Group's functions are to advise the Minister and Research Minister on:
(a) the adequacy of the organisational and governmental arrangements, and the identification, assessment and management of risks, costs and administrative burden, associated with intangible transfers of DSGL technologies; and
(b) the oversight, design and delivery of a pilot program to identify the adequacy of this Act, the regulations, the implementation arrangements and the resources for regulating intangible transfers of DSGL technologies; and
(c) recommendations for amendments to this Act, the regulations and the implementation arrangements in view of the pilot program; and
(d) whether this Act, the regulations and the implementation arrangements are not more restrictive than United States export control regulations in relation to university activities.
The Group also has any other functions determined, in writing, by the Minister.
(3) The Group must:
(a) consider quarterly progress reports from participants in the pilot program on implementation of the strengthened export controls; and
(b) through its Chair, report to the Minister and the Research Minister every 6 months; and
(c) if required by the Minister and the Research Minister, provide additional reports.
(4) The Group must advise the Department in relation to obtaining appropriate technical and scientific expertise regarding Australian Government consideration of the control lists of international regimes and of the Defence and Strategic Goods List.
(5) The Group may establish subgroups to support its functions. Subgroups must report to the Group.
(6) The Group's membership must include:
(a) Australia's Chief Scientist, as the Chair of the Group; and
(b) no more than 4 representatives of the industry sector, one of whom is a co‑Deputy Chair; and
(c) 2 representatives of the university sector nominated by Universities Australia, one of whom is the other co‑Deputy Chair; and
(d) the Chief Executive Officer of the National Health and Medical Research Council, or its nominee; and
(e) the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Research Council, or its nominee; and
(f) a representative of the Department; and
(g) a representative of the Department administered by the Research Minister.
(7) The Group must meet at least once each quarter.
(8) A quorum of the Group is constituted by the Chair, one representative referred to in paragraph (6) (b), one representative referred to in paragraph (6) (c) and the representatives referred to in paragraphs (6) (f) and (g).
(9) The Group must report every 6 months, in writing, to the Minister and the Research Minister, including any dissenting views of a member of the Group.
(10) The Group must give its final report to the Minister, and the Research Minister, before the second anniversary of the day the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America concerning Defense Trade Cooperation done at Sydney on 5 September 2007 enters into force.
(11) The Defence Export Control Office must provide a secretariat for the Group.
(12) The secretariat must:
(a) prepare and circulate agendas in conjunction with the Chair; and
(b) work with the authors of agenda papers to ensure quality and timeliness; and
(c) ensure that the agenda approved by the Chair and papers are received by members at least 1 week before each meeting; and
(d) prepare and provide to the Chair, within 1 week of the meeting, the minutes of the meeting; and
(e) circulate the meeting outcomes to all members following clearance by the Chair, and maintain Group records.
(13) The office of a member of the Group is not a public office within the meaning of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 .
(14) The Group may determine the procedure to be followed in performing its functions.
(15) The Minister must cause a copy of the Group's final report to the Minister to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day the Minister receives the final report.
(16) The Group is abolished immediately after its final report is given to both the Minister and the Research Minister unless, before then, the Minister and the Research Minister determine, in writing, that the Group is to remain in existence until the end of a specified period.
(17) An instrument under this section is not a legislative instrument.
(18) In this section:
Research Minister means the Minister administering theScience and Industry Research Act 1949 .
Customs Amendment (Military End-Use) Bill 2011
The Senate divided. [21:17]
(The Deputy President—Senator Parry)
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Bill 2012
Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2012
…it is important to recognise that the introduction of any new reporting obligation on congregations, no matter how minor, will be another layer of legislative obligation and reporting for local members who are generally neither skilled nor trained for this burden.
… we remain yet to be convinced that the proposed legislation will work for the sector and its donors, eliminate the red-tape overload, and be adequately reflect the sector’s diversity in terms of compliance requirements.
… reducing red-tape by reducing duplication of reporting requirements and assisting the efficiencies of the sector, however this will not occur without the involvement of the states and territories to align reporting requirements with the ACNC reporting framework.
… the reporting requirements for medium sized entities are too onerous. In our view the increase in compliance obligation will make it more difficult to fill volunteer roles within local congregations as well as requiring more time to be spent on compliance matters and therefore less time on matters that will provide a benefit to the community,
There is also an assumption of state uniformity and co-operation in various parts of the proposed legislation. If this does not eventuate the result will be an additional compliance burden for charities and not-for-profit organisations, particularly those that operate in multiple states,
The lengthy list of powers proposed in the ACNC Bill focuses on matters which appear more appropriate for a criminal investigation authority rather than a body which is intended to promote and educate.
… … …
All groupings of systemic schools, independent Catholic secondary schools and many primary schools will be classified as "large charities" and therefore be subject to the highest level ACNC financial reporting and accountability requirements.
The outcome for schools is an unreasonable compliance burden …
WVA considers that the tone and structure of the enforcement powers continue to suggest a heavy-handed approach weighted against the interests of registered entities and responsible entities. Further efforts should be made to ensure that the powers are better targeted, fairer, not used to inappropriately interfere with an organisation's legitimate operations and do not impose undue costs on an entity in taking action against the ACNC.
… to achieve zero death from breast cancer by 2030.
… … …
Starting chemotherapy was the toughest time of my life, it was scary and I felt just awful. After a period I got used to the cycles and was able to feel okay most of the time. I set about getting back my life. I was fortunate enough to move in with some very supportive friends, bought myself some treats and started looking for work again, and realised not only did I have a life worth living, but what a fantastic life it would be!
I am now out of the dark and into the ever-increasingly bright light. Cancer truly does give you that all important perspective on life. Each day brings a beauty to it that I might have otherwise missed. Sunsets have never been more beautiful, birds singing never sounded sweeter. It has also given me a strength that I never knew existed, and a confidence that I can tackle anything life throws at me. As for love.... he'd have to be a pretty special guy to fit into my life now, as it is full to bursting, doing all the things I love in life, including bringing awareness to young women about breast cancer. This is my life now, and I wouldn't change it for the world.
… an unshakeable belief in the power of responsive, evidence-based policy to drive progressive reform at many different levels.
(1) Have staffing numbers in agencies within the Minister's portfolio been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts; if so, in which areas and at what classification.
(2) Are there any plans for staff reduction in agencies within the Minister's portfolio; if so, can details be provided i.e. reduction target, how this will be achieved, services/programs to be cut etc.
(3) What changes are underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs, and if reductions are envisaged can details be provided, including reasons, target numbers etc.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
(1) and (2) APRA's planned 2011/12 staffing numbers have been reduced by 10 (to 607) due to a reduction in the deficit for which it sought approval.
(3) APRA has no plans to change graduate recruitment in 2012 at this stage.
Australian Taxation Office
(1) The ATO has not specifically reduced staff as a result of the efficiency dividend or other budget cuts.
(2) The ATO's expected full time equivalent (FTE) levels over the next three years are set out below. These expected FTE levels include the Australian Valuation Office (AVO) and the Tax Practitioner's Board (TPB).
The ATO's budget is forecast to increase by $70 million in 2012-13 then reduce by $107 million in 2013-14. Assuming a 9% pay rise over the next 3 years, the ATO estimates that staffing numbers in that period will reduce by 1,284 FTE. To do this the ATO will rely on natural attrition, controlled recruitment and the flexibility provided through its temporary workforce. While there is an increase in the ATO's budget in 2012-13 (as a result of increased funding for a range of new policy initiatives), there is a reduction in FTE driven largely from the cost of pay increases and efficiency dividend. In 2013-14 there is a larger reduction in FTE due to new policy funding for the Strategic Compliance Measures finishing, pay increases and efficiency dividend. The ATO is currently in negotiation on a new Enterprise Agreement.
As Tax Time (July to October) is the ATO's peak workload time, the number of actual staff employed has increased by 249 (1%) from 25,009 at 30 June 2011 to 25,258 at 14 September 2011. Please note this refers to actual numbers of people employed, not FTE figures, and includes part-time staff. Ongoing staff numbers have decreased by 137 (0.5%); non-ongoing staff numbers have decreased by 40 (8%); and irregular/intermittent staff numbers have increased by 426 (18%). All staff numbers/FTE include all ATO, AVO and TPB staff.
Following Tax Time, the ATO plans to reduce overall staffing levels over the remainder of the 2011-12 financial year. To do this the ATO will reduce its temporary workforce, as well as rely on natural attrition, and control recruitment to manage within its budget.
(3) The ATO aims to recruit at least 200 graduates each year depending on budget and business needs. In 2012 the ATO plans on recruiting around 280 graduates. In 2011 the ATO recruited 403 graduates, the highest number ever recruited. This was possible because of additional funding received in the May 2011 Budget for specific compliance activity. Graduate recruitment is a key strategy to invigorate and renew the ATO's workforce.
The ATO also plans to recruit 12 information technology apprentices and cadets, an increase from the eight recruited in 2011.
APS 1 Project
This recruitment project aimed to build and sustain the entry level workforce across all sub-plans, with 126 APS 1s commencing work in May and June 2011. Approximately 70% of placed candidates have a degree or are completing one, 41% are male, 59% are female and 70% are under 30 years of age. The ATO is planning for further similar campaigns to be undertaken each year.
Indigenous programs
The ATO is working to improve its recruitment and development of Indigenous Australians. In 2012 the ATO plans to recruit 6 Indigenous cadets.
The ATO is also planning an intake of 10 school-based trainees for the first year of a school-based traineeship 'Indigenous School to Work' program. This program was previously a three year sponsorship program as part of the Queensland Government Education's toward Employment Program but has been transitioned to create a formal employment pathway into the ATO for Indigenous Australians.
The ATO will also offer a 12 month entry level traineeship program designed to recruit Indigenous jobseekers with limited experience in government. The ATO will pilot the program in selected sites in 2012 before expanding it in 2013.
Disability programs
In 2012, the ATO is implementing a school-based traineeship program to create a formal employment pathway into the ATO for people with disabilities. This will replace the previous two year scholarship program for high-school students which commenced in 2007. The ATO has awarded 18 scholarships since the program started.
The ATO also has a 'Stepping into Program' overseen by the Australian Employers' Network on Disability. This program provides work experience to university students in the final year of their degree who may otherwise find it difficult to obtain experience due to their disability. The ATO started participating in 2007 and have provided placements for 43 students over this time. Continued participation in the program is planned for 2012 with a similar sized intake to previous years.
Community Programs
The ATO also provides a range of work experience and temporary employment programs through its partnerships with external community organisations. These programs enable the ATO to tap into diverse segments of the community and broaden its entry base.
The largest of these programs is Youth to Work, an 18 month program which targets young people aged 17-24 with limited education and/or work experience. To date over 300 young people have been part of the program. Similarly, the Pathways Program, in partnership with a not-for-profit organisation Whitelion, provides 12 months casual work for disadvantaged youth or those who are becoming disengaged from the community.
Other programs target skilled migrants, young mums, and disadvantaged university students and offer a mix of sponsorships, casual and non-ongoing employment opportunities. These programs offer the ATO's business areas a flexible pool of talented workers and the ATO expects the demand for these programs will continue to grow.
Australian Bureau of Statistics
(1) The ABS has not reduced staff numbers in 2011-12. New funding for economic statistics programs and the peak in Population Census cyclical funding have more than offset the impact of the efficiency dividend, resulting in net recruitment rather than reduction in ABS staff numbers over the year.
(2) Towards the end of the 2011-12 financial year, processing of the Population Census will begin to phase down. Over the period May 2012 to December 2012, temporary employment contracts for some 650 non-ongoing staff working at the equivalent of APS1-6 levels will conclude, as scheduled. Some 75 ongoing ABS staff working at APS5- SESB1 levels at the Census Data Processing Centre will progressively move back to mainstream ABS operations over this period. The effect of the latter is expected to slow ongoing staff recruitment demand, rather than result in a need for a program of deliberate ongoing staff reductions.
(3) The ABS has an annual graduate and cadetship intake, and the number of graduates is determined annually by the operational requirements of each area within the ABS. The ABS is expecting to recruit 165 graduates for the 2012 intake. This is a slightly smaller intake than the previous year (180).
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
(1) ASIC reduced staff within the Deterrence and Shared Services areas after a review of ASIC's business functions. These redundancies were unrelated undertaken as a result of changes required in technology, processes and skills to deliver on the recommendations of the review, rather than arising from the efficiency dividend or budget cuts. We also achieved departmental efficiencies by reducing travel expenses, office requisites, consultants, forensic costs, computer expenses and corporate operating costs.(2) At this stage, there are no planned staff reduction initiatives.
(3) The number of graduates recruited in 2011/2012 will remain the same as the 2010/2011 intake of 22. We plan to recruit two indigenous cadets to commence in January 2012. This is the first time ASIC has recruited cadets.
Inspector-General of Taxation
NIL.
Productivity Commission
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) Nil.
Australian Office of Financial Management
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) Graduate recruitment is the major recruitment pipeline for AOFM. It is undertaken with a view to workforce plans and varies from year to year. Graduate recruitment targets generally vary from 1 to 5 graduates in any year taking into consideration turnover and work priorities. This process is ongoing and no changes to it are planned.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(1) No.
(2) No.
(3) The number of graduates engaged by the ACCC each year is subject to business area requirements and funding and is determined annually. At this stage the ACCC does not expect to reduce the number of the graduate intake next year.
Royal Australian Mint
(1) The staffing numbers at the Royal Australian Mint have not been reduced as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or budget cuts.
(2) There are no plans for staff reduction.
(3) The Royal Australian Mint has no changes underway or planned for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
(1) No. CAMAC has only 3 full-time staff. It has therefore not reduced staffing numbers as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts, but has made adjustments in other areas.
(2) No.
(3) None. These programs are not suitable for an agency of CAMAC's size.
National Competition Council
(1) The National Competition Council has not reduced staffing numbers as a result of the efficiency dividend and/or other budget cuts.
(2) The National Competition Council has no plans for staff reduction.
(3) The National Competition Council has no changes underway or planned change for graduate recruitment, cadetships or similar programs.
With reference to the Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia report, A good house is hard to find: Housing affordability in Australia, dated June 2008:
(1) Of the 33 recommendations, of which at least eight directly relate to the department, how many have been implemented to date.
(2) Can an update on any action be provided, including progress and outcomes made on all recommendations relating to the department, since the report was released.
(3) Given that recommendation 4.1 states ‘In the interests of more informed discussion of arrangements to encourage affordable housing, the Treasury be asked to publish current estimates of various taxation and related measures affecting the housing market’, can a current estimate of taxation and related measures affecting the housing market be provided, including a disaggregated breakdown for spending across all relevant departments.
(1) & (2) Please refer to the responses given at the 2011-12 Senate Community Affairs Committee Supplementary Estimates Hearings by the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs Portfolio. Question 86 on Hansard Page 20/10/2011, CA49.
(3) As noted in the Government response to the Select Committee’s report, a number of estimates of tax and other measures affecting housing are currently published.
The Tax Expenditures Statement is published annually. Estimates of the capital gains tax concession on owner occupied housing were developed for the 2008 Tax Expenditures statement, and are now included annually. The publication also estimates the tax expenditure from exempting certain regional and remote area employer provided housing from fringe benefits tax.
The Australian Taxation Office publishes Taxation Statistics annually. The detailed tables give estimates of negatively geared rental housing each year.
The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority regularly publishes data on First Home Saver Accounts. Departmental expenditure estimates for the First Home Saver Accounts program are also available in the Treasury Portfolio Budget Statement published annually.
(1) Since 3 December 2007, when Mr Rudd was Prime Minister or later as Foreign Minister:
(a) how many times did he visit the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in total;
(b) what meetings has he had with Sunland Group Limited or its representatives in either the UAE or Australia;
(c) has he ever received free accommodation or hospitality at any property owned or controlled by the Sunland Group Limited in either Australia or the UAE;
(d) what representations have been made by him to any of the ruling families of the UAE, its Government or to individual Emirates, on behalf of Sunland Group Limited or its related entities;
(e) has he attended any meetings with any:
(i) members or representatives of the Al-Qasimi royal family with Soheil Abedian also in attendance,
(ii) members or representatives of the Al Maktoum Royal Family with Soheil Abedian also in attendance at such meeting,
(iii) members or representatives of the Al Nahyan Royal Family with Soheil Abedian also in attendance at such meeting,
(iv) members of the Gulf Australia Business Council with Soheil Abedian or Sahba Abedian also in attendance, and
(v) consular staff of the UAE Embassy in Australia with either Soheil Abedian or Sahba Abedian in attendance; and
(f) has he ever requested Soheil Abedian or Sahba Abedian to make representations on behalf of himself or the Australian Government in respect of the UAE vote for Australia's United Nations Security Council seat bid; if so, what was the nature of these representations.
(2) What representations has the Minister personally made on behalf of Australia to the UAE in respect of the interests of Matthew Joyce and Marcus Lee.
(3) Is the Minister aware of evidence given in an open court, under oath, in the Victorian Supreme Court hearing of Sunland Waterfront (BVI) and Others v. Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd and Others which shows clearly that Matthew Joyce, Marcus Lee and their co-accused are the innocent victims of a false complaint.
(4) Has the Minister brought recent developments in the Victorian Supreme Court hearing of Sunland Waterfront (BVI) and Others v. Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd and Others to the attention of relevant authorities in the UAE; if not, when will he do so.
(1) (a) 5 visits, including one stopover (not including transits);
(b) The records of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the Office of the Foreign Minister indicate that the Minister has not had any meetings with the Sunland Group or anyone claiming to represent Sunland. This has been checked against the list of Sunland executives as provided by DFAT. It is estimated that Sunland has up to 1,000 employees;
(c) No;
(d) None;
(e) (i) – (iv) The Minister has no record or recollection of any meeting with members or representatives of these families with Soheil Abedian also in attendance;
(v) No;
(f) No.
(2) Mr Rudd made representations on the case to the UAE Foreign Minister on 9 June 2011. These representations have been followed up by Mr Rudd's staff as well as the Australian Embassy in the UAE.
(3) The Minister has been briefed in general terms on the cases of Mr Joyce and Mr Lee.
(4) Through respective legal representatives, the transcript of the civil court case in Victoria has been brought to the attention of relevant authorities in the UAE.
(1) Can details be provided of all resources committed by the department, as well as known contributions from other agencies, towards the return to Australia of three protesters who boarded the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru No. 2 in January 2012.
(2) What was the department's total expenditure on this exercise.
(1) Officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's North Asia Division, International Organisations and Legal Division, Consular, Public Diplomacy and Parliamentary Affairs Division, and the Australian Embassy in Tokyo worked on this issue.
Questions regarding expenditure by other agencies are best answered by those agencies.
(2) The Department managed the incident from within existing resources.
(1) Can a list be provided of all office locations for each department or agency within the Minister's portfolio, detailing:
(a) the department or agency;
(b) the location;
(c) the size;
(d) the number of staff at each location and their classification;
(e) if the office location is rented, the amount and breakdown of rent paid per square metre;
(f) if the location is owned by the department or agency, the:
(i) value, and
(ii) depreciation, of the building; and
(g) the type of functions and work undertaken.
(2) For each department and agency within the Minister's portfolio, can details be provided of all public relations, communications and media staff, listed by department or agency, including:
(a) the number of ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location;
(b) the number of non-ongoing staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location; and
(c) the number of contracted staff, specifying:
(i) their classification,
(ii) the type of work they undertake, and
(iii) their location.
(1)
Treasury
The information provided in the table above was taken from the Treasury HRMIS dated 23 March 2012.
*Further information on staff breakdowns can be found in the Treasury Annual Report 2010-11 (refer to staffing information on page 131).
Australian Bureau of Statistics
*Includes non-ongoing and inoperative staff as at 3 April 2012.
(g) The ABS provides statistics on a wide range of economic, social, population and environmental matters, covering government, business and the community. It also has a legislated role to coordinate the statistical operations of official bodies and liaise with international organisations.
The ABS functions include:
In addition to the national statistical responsibilities, regional offices also have primary responsibility for the delivery of statistical services to their state or territory. In Western Australia and Tasmania, the Regional Director administering the ABS regional office is also the State Government Statistician.
The ABS provides a range of information solutions for customers, including self-serve statistics accessible through the ABS website, a national information and referral telephone service, user-pays information consultancies and support for the complex needs of researchers through streamlined access to, and use of, microdata. The ABS is also supporting a national approach to improving statistical literacy and capability across the Australian population.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
*Includes ongoing and non-ongoing employees as at 1 April 2012. This list excludes Commissioners.
# Prior to 30 July 2012 the ACCC Hobart office was located at 3rd Floor, AMP Building, 86 Collins Street, Hobart TAS 7000
(g) All staff in the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) offices across Australia support the ACCC in its role as an independent statutory authority which administers the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 and other acts. The ACCC promotes competition and fair trade in the market place to benefit consumers, business and the community. It also regulates national infrastructure industries. Its primary responsibility is to ensure that individuals and businesses comply with the Commonwealth's competition, fair trading and consumer protection laws.
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
* APRA staff are engaged under the APRA Act
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
1 Currently in a rent free period until March 2012 as part of a lease agreement
2 Currently vacant and in the process of being surrendered
3 Sub-leased from March 2012
4 Lease ends Mary 2012 and has been vacated
(d) Classification of Staff
The way in which the number of staff in each location (listed above) has been calculated is based on the Australian Government Property Data Collection (PRODAC) specification and methodology, which is reported annually to DoFD and does not require details of staff classifications. The effort required to provide this level of detail would require an unreasonable diversion of resources to compile the data.
Australian Taxation Office (including the Australian Valuation Office (AVO), Tax Practitioners Board and the Australian Business Register)
1 Sub leased’ – refers to premises that are leased from the ATO by other organisations including private companies and Australian Government departments.
2 Staffed two days per week by one APS 3 from Sydney (Lang St) office
3 Staffed two days per week by one APS 3 from Parramatta (Macquarie St) office
4 Staffed one day per week by APS 3 from Northbridge( Francis St) office
COMP – Compliance related functions and activities;
OPS – Includes contact centre operations, debt and client account management, including lodgment and exception processing;
AVO –Australian Valuations Office functions and activities;
CS&L –Corporate Services, including people and financial management, legal services and relationship management related functions,
EST – Enterprise Solutions and Technology includes any information technology-related activities and includes the following business lines: Business Solutions, Information and Communications Technology, Office of Chief Knowledge Officer.
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
Inspector-General of Taxation
National Competition Council
Productivity Commission
Royal Australian Mint
(2)
Treasury
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Australian Office of Financial Management
Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority
Australian Securities and Investment Commission
Australian Taxation Office
Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee
Inspector-General of Taxation
National Competition Council
Productivity Commission
Royal Australian Mint
What percentage of carbon reduction is achieved per dollar of revenue collected under the Carbon Tax.
The Australian Government, through measures such as the Clean Energy Future package, has committed to achieve a 5 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from 2000 levels by 2020. According to Treasury modelling in Strong Growth, Low Pollution, this is a 23 per cent reduction from the projected emissions level in 2020 without a carbon price.
The Clean Energy Future package is broadly Budget neutral over the forward estimates period.
The marginal cost of abatement achieved by the carbon pricing mechanism will be equal to the carbon price. This will vary over time.
The Productivity Commission, Professor Ross Garnaut, the Grattan Institute and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have advised that a price on carbon is the most cost effective and efficient way to achieve abatement of greenhouse gas emissions.
The Treasury modelling suggests that economic growth will continue to be strong under a carbon price.
How many Certificates of No Impediment have been issued to same-sex couples seeking to marry overseas, detailed per month since their introduction.
Following the Attorney-General’s media release on 27 January 2012, between 1 February and 13 July 2012 a total of 35 Certificates of No Impediment have been issued to Australians seeking to enter into a same-sex marriage overseas.
It is not possible at this stage to provide data broken down on a monthly basis.
With reference to the answer to question on notice no. 1865 (Senate Hansard , 20 June 2012, proof p. 127), in relation to the National Broadband Network (NBN):
(1) Is this to be interpreted to mean that no information has been collected by the NBN on the documents lodged with local governments.
(2) Has the NBN lodged plans with local governments.
(3) Can the full details requested in question on notice no. 1865 be provided.
(1) No.
(2) As outlined in response to Question No. 1865, NBN Co submits plans to each local council in accordance with its obligations under the Telecommunications Act 1997 for low impact facilities and other applications as required under relevant state or territory planning laws.
(3) The level of detail requested in Question No. 1865 would require a significant diversion of resources to compile. In addition to this, the Tasmanian pre-release sites were designed by Aurora Energy, which was responsible for lodging the appropriate notices and approval applications.
In relation to the Household Assistance Package:
(1) What market research, creative testing, advertising design and implementation informed the development and execution of its advertising campaign.
(2) Can a list be provided detailing the cost, contractor, timeline and other relevant factors for all relevant consultancies, including consultancy briefs, consultancy contract values, reports provided as a result, media buy details and other related campaign factors.
(1) A review of existing research was undertaken to inform the development of the Household Assistance Package communication campaign. For phases one and two of the campaign, three rounds of concept testing were undertaken to inform the development of the advertising materials. A creative advertising agency was contracted to develop and refine the materials.
(2) Provided in the table below.
* Note: contract value is the anticipated expenditure but does not reflect the final cost which may be lower.
(1) How many Australian Taxation Office (ATO) staff were on workers compensation as at:
(a) 31 December 2011;
(b) 31 March 2012; and
(c) 30 June 2012.
(2) How many people are employed by the ATO.
(3) Do ATO staff have monthly processing targets; if so:
(a) how are these targets determined; and
(b) how are they monitored.
(4) If monthly processing targets are required what percentage of ATO workers:
(a) achieve their targets;
(b) over achieve their targets; and
(c) under achieve their targets.
(1) (a) On 31 December 2011 the number of Australian Taxation Office (ATO) employees with an open, accepted case with Comcare was 595 or 2.4% of total employees1.
(b) On 31 March 2012 the number of ATO employees with an open, accepted case with Comcare was 599 or 2.4% of total employees1.
(c) On 30 June 2012 the number of ATO employees with an open, accepted case with Comcare was 645 or 2.6% of total employees1.
(2) As at 31 July 2012, the total number of ATO employees (including ongoing, non-ongoing and casual employees) was 24,764.
(3) No, ATO staff do not have individual workload targets. A range of criteria are used to measure individual staff performance, depending on the type of work undertaken. For example, service representatives in ATO contact centres are assessed and managed under our coaching framework. This framework covers a range of metrics including timeliness, service and the quality of information provided to a caller. The performance of a service representative during a call is assessed against agreed performance expectations. The agreed performance expectations are based on research into industry best practice combined with our own internal expectations such as the ATO values and codes of conduct.
(4) As per response to question 3 above, individual processing targets are not applied.
__________________
1The percentage of employees with an open, accepted Comcare case is based on the ATO total employees at that date. Total employees includes ongoing, non-ongoing and casual employees.
With reference to the meeting of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in April 2010, in which COAG agreed that the Housing Supply and Affordability Reform Working Party would report to COAG on the impact of the First Home Owners Scheme by the end of 2010 [Attachment B, COAG Communiqué 19 and 20 April 2010]:
(1) Has the Working Party reported to COAG on the impact of the First Home Owners Scheme.
(2) What is the current status of the report and when will it be released publicly.
(3) Will a response from COAG be provided on the report and when would this be expected.
(4) Given that the COAG website currently states 'In April 2010, COAG endorsed a housing supply and affordability reform agenda to build on current initiatives and provide new reform options to decrease the time it takes to bring housing to the market, and to reform government policies that artificially stimulate demand or act as barriers to supply', can specific examples of reform of government policies that artificially stimulate demand, to date be provided.
(1) Yes, the Housing Supply and Affordability Reform (HSAR) Working Party reported to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on the impact of the First Home Owners Scheme (FHOS) as part of its Final Housing Supply and Affordability Reform Report (the report).
(2) COAG publicly released the report on 30 August 2012.
(3) COAG has agreed to the report's recommendations.
(4) The New South Wales 2012-13 Budget included a proposal to reform the FHOS by restricting grants to the purchase of newly-constructed dwellings.
With reference to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Housing Reform Agenda and Timeline [Attachment B, COAG Communiqué April 2010] where it was agreed that the Housing Supply and Affordability Reform Working Party would report to COAG on 12 key aspects of housing demand and supply:
(1) What is the status to date, for each of the following reports requested on the housing supply pipeline, and when will each be released publicly:
(a) the potential to reform land aggregation, zoning and planning processes and governance, including assessing and leveraging the work of housing and planning ministers and the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group (due mid 2010);
(b) nationally consistent principles for housing development infrastructure charges (due mid 2010);
(c) the merits of measures to ensure greater consistency across jurisdictions, including local governments' planning approval processes, in the application of building regulations (due mid 2010);
(d) the impacts of titling systems, such as residential strata title arrangements, on the housing supply market (due end 2010);
(e) the efficiency and effectiveness of housing supply/land release targets (due end 2010);
(f) whether strategic planning requirements for cities should be extended to other high growth/large population regions across the country (due mid 2011); and
(g) extending the land audit work to examine 'under utilised' land and to examine private holdings of large parcels of land (due mid 2010).
(2) What is the status to date for each of the following reports requested on government policies that may act as barriers to supply or that stimulate demand and when will each be released publicly:
(a) the impact of the First Home Owners Scheme (due end 2010);
(b) Commonwealth policies that impact the housing market (due end 2010);
(c) the impact of both Commonwealth and state energy efficiency regulations and environmental acts, including the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, on house prices (due end 2010);
(d) the impact of both supply and demand side affordable housing initiatives, such as inclusionary zoning, dwelling mix and distribution of lot sizes, on the housing market (due mid 2011); and
(e) relevant Commonwealth and state taxation settings, with timeline to be dependent on the Commonwealth Government's response to Australia's Future Tax System.
(3) Will a formal response from COAG be provided to these reports; if so, when will this occur.
(1) All of the listed items were examined in the Housing Supply and Affordability Reform (HSAR) Working Party's Final Housing Supply and Affordability Reform Report (the report). The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) publicly released the report on 30 August 2012.
(2) All of the listed items were examined in the report. COAG publicly released the report on 30 August 2012.
(3) COAG has agreed to the report's recommendations.
(1) Given that the Australian Government has previously stated it 'will further support, at home and abroad, global efforts to improve governance and financial transparency in the resources sector' and as part of this support, the Government in 2011 announced it would undertake a pilot of the Global Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, can an update be provided on the pilot.
(2) Given that the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case known as Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., is considering whether a law of the United States of America (US) – the Alien Tort Statute – applies to corporate human rights abuses that have taken place in countries other than the US, will the Australian Government intervene by filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court of the United States; if so, what will be the Government's position.
(3) Has the Australian Government consulted with Australian businesses about this case and/or its position on this case.
(4) Have Australian companies, individuals or other entities asked the Australian Government to intervene in this case.
(5) Has the Australian Government consulted with any other stakeholders or outside groups, such as human rights organisations or those whose human rights have been affected by corporate operations, about intervening in this case or Australia's position on this case.
(1) The Australian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) pilot has been under way since October 2011. A multi-stakeholder group comprising government, industry and non-government organisation representatives has been established to provide guidance on how the pilot will proceed in testing EITI in the Australian context. An Administrator for the pilot has also been appointed.
(2) No
(3) Yes
(4) One company indicated that it would welcome the submission of an amicus curiae brief by the Government.
(5) No
With reference to the rollout for the National Broadband Network (NBN) in the Australian Capital Territory:
(1) Is the rollout on schedule; is not: (a) how long are the delays, and (b) what are the reasons for the delays, detailed separately for each suburb.
(2) How many: (a) private residences; and (b) registered businesses, have an active NBN connection.
(3) What is the average data speed to date.
(4) What NBN packages are available for: (a) private residences; and (b) small businesses, detailed separately including the: (i) data allowance, (ii) data speed, and (iii) costs.
(5) How many: (a) individuals; and (b) small businesses, have signed up to NBN training.
(6) Is any part or suburb of the Australian Capital Territory not scheduled for the NBN rollout; if so, which parts or suburbs.
(7) What was the total forecast funding for the NBN in the Australian Capital Territory in the: (a) December 2010; and (b) August 2012, corporate plans.
(8) How much has the Australian Capital Territory NBN rollout cost to date.
(9) Is any additional funding allocation anticipated.
(1) As NBN Co recently announced publicly, a number of factors have contributed to delays in Gungahlin including the additional nine months it took to finalise the Definitive Agreements between Telstra and NBN Co, along with initial challenges in the company's planning systems integration. However, NBN Co is still aiming to get areas of Gungahlin connected by the end of the year. To achieve this, NBN Co has reprioritised construction plans to connect central Gungahlin (9CRC-03) and parts of Palmerston (9CRC-04) first. This results in moving dates out for other fibre serving area modules in the area.
(2) As of 17 September 2012, there were 99 active services in ACT greenfields sites, covering Macgregor and Watson. As of 17 September 2012, there were 14 active Interim Satellite Services in the ACT. Data is not available on the breakdown of private residences and registered businesses.
(3) This calculation has not been carried out specifically for the ACT. However, as of May this year NBN Co's analysis showed that overall 38 per cent of active services on the fibre network have been on the fastest speed tier, which is 100/40 megabits per second. In April, this trend was even stronger, with almost 50 per cent of new active services being on the highest speed tier. General information about speeds tiers is available in the NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan on page 64.
(4) This varies from retail service provider (RSP) to RSP. This information is available on individual RSP websites. General information about pricing is available in the NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan on pages 58-59.
(5) The ACT Government has been successful in applying for grant funding to provide both Digital Enterprise, in partnership with the ACT Business Council, and Digital Hub training services in the Australian Capital Territory. The delivery of training to individuals and small business by the ACT Government is still in the design phase and services are expected to commence within the next few months for Digital Enterprise and early 2013 for the Digital Hub.
(6) No. 100 per cent of Australian premises will have access to the NBN.
(7) Both Corporate Plans are available on the NBN Co website at www.nbnco.com.au.
(8) The rollout is not readily broken down by state or territory as much of the infrastructure crosses borders and is shared between states; for example the transit network and satellite services. Estimated network rollout costs across the country and across technologies are available in the NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan on page 44.
(9) Anticipated funding is in the NBN Co 2012-15 Corporate Plan which is available on the NBN Co website at www.nbnco.com.au.
In respect of AusAID funded scholarships to Australian educational institutions for overseas students from developing countries;
(a) what conditions must students awarded scholarships satisfy and what criteria is used to determine whether these conditions have been satisfied,
(b) is there a requirement for students to work in their country of origin once they have completed their scholarship, and
(c) what are the;
(i) intended countries of origin for the 2012-13 scholarship intake, and
(ii) processes followed by AusAID in determining which countries students are selected from.
(a) AusAID’s Australia Awards are the Australian Development Scholarships, for study in Australia, and the Australian Regional Development Scholarships, for study in the Pacific. Applicants must:
Applicants for Australian Development Scholarships must also satisfy all of the eligibility requirements set out by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a temporary subclass 576 visa.
The proposed area of study for each applicant must be relevant to the development priorities of their particular country, and applicants may also need to satisfy country specific criteria agreed with their government.
Academic transcripts, English language test results, application forms and references are used to assess whether these conditions are met. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has additional processes in place to determine whether visa conditions are met. Australian tertiary education institutions also have procedures in place in regard to enrolment of students.
(b) Yes.
(c) (i) See attachment A.
(ii) AusAID’s Australia Awards are part of the broader aid program strategies for each country or region. The number of Awards, and the priority areas of study and the level of study for Awards is determined for each country or region on the basis of Australia’s development focus and the needs and priorities of the country or region.
ATTACHMENT A
What measures will AusAID take to ensure that its $5 million donation to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust will be used in accordance with AusAID's Transparency Charter?
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee Trust (the Trust) will report to donors on progress, including publishing information on activities on the Trust's website. In line with the Transparency Charter for the Australian aid program, AusAID will publish information about the Trust in a format that is useful and accessible on AusAID's website.
In respect of the formulation of AusAID's Community Society Engagement Framework (CSEF):
(a) what
(i) analysis was undertaken, and
(ii) legal advice was sought, by AusAID to ensure that the CSEF is compliant with Australia's international and treaty obligations
(b) when was the legal advice in part (a)
(iii) sought and obtained, and
(c) what consultation process did AusAID undertake with
(i) Australian Government, and
(ii) international government agencies.
(a) AusAID's Civil Society Engagement Framework addresses commitments made in the Australian Government's aid policy An Effective Aid Program for Australia: Making a difference—delivering real results. The Framework is an overarching policy statement that sets out, among other things, how Australia will work more effectively with civil society organisations in Australia and overseas to increase the impact of aid for the world's poorest.
(i) In formulating the Framework, AusAID drew on a range of sources including the National Compact between the Australian Government and the not-for-profit sector, AusAID's Head Agreement with Australian non-government organisations, the Australian Council for International Development's Code of Conduct and the Office of Development Effectiveness' report Working Beyond Government: Evaluation of AusAID's engagement with civil society in developing countries.
(ii) Legal advice was not sought by AusAID in the formulation of the Civil Society Engagement Framework because it is an overarching statement of purpose and strategy for the Government to broaden and strengthen ties with civil society organisations. Compliance with international and treaty obligations is built in to all AusAID agreements with NGOs, which follow the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines. Legal advice is sought on all AusAID contract and grant agreements with NGOs, including advice on whether the organisation is listed as a terrorist organisation under Australian law or under UN regulations.
(b) See (a) (ii) above.
(c) AusAID conducted a broad consultation process during the development phase of the Civil Society Engagement Framework. The draft Framework was made available on AusAID's website for public consultation in March 2012. Nineteen submissions were received.
(i) The Framework draws on whole-of-Government policy statements, including the National Compact between the Australian Government and the not-for-profit sector and An Effective Aid Program for Australia.
(ii) AusAID discussed the draft Framework with donors including the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The Framework was informed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—Development Assistance Committee's How Development Assistance Committee Members Work with Civil Society Organisations report and the Office of Development Effectiveness' Working Beyond Government report.
In respect of the formulation of AusAID's Community Society Engagement Framework,
(a) what investigation(s) has AusAID undertaken to ensure that Civil Service Society Organisations (CSSOs) in Australia and overseas are not encouraging or supporting separatist activities, and
(b) what governance processes has AusAID implemented to ensure CSSOs in Australia and overseas are not encouraging or supporting separatist activities.
In line with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Commonwealth Grant Guidelines, AusAID's contracts and grant agreements require our civil society partners to comply with:
NGOs that receive funding from AusAID are required to provide AusAID with financial reports and project plans. Project plans are required to outline objectives, outputs and targets for all activities. These are assessed against the objectives in AusAID's guidelines and are subject to approval before funding is granted.
AusAID's contracts and grant agreements with NGOs require NGOs to have regard for, comply with, and use their best endeavours to ensure that all delivery organisations comply with relevant and applicable laws, regulations and policies, both in Australia and in the partner country. NGOs are also subject to an ongoing program of audits to ensure compliance with these requirements.
Australian NGOs receiving funding under the AusAID NGO Cooperation Program must be accredited. Accreditation is a 'front-end' risk management tool that assesses NGOs' governance, program management capacity, partner management, links with and support from the Australian public, and risk management, including fraud risk.
For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, how much was paid to the Australian Defence Force prime recruiting agency for the provision of services.
The total amount paid to Manpower Services (Australia) Pty Ltd for the provision of Australian Defence Force recruiting services for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012 was $43.356 million.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications – Military Workforce': for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, how many uniformed personnel, including full-time and part-time, were employed in implementing the White Paper initiatives?
The Government provisioned an additional 1,375 full-time equivalent uniformed personnel for 2011-12 under the White Paper, as reflected in the Strategic Reform Program: Making It Happen booklet and updated at Table 2.14 of the Defence Annual Report 2010-11.
The workforce data detailed in both publications are based on approved allocations at the time of publication and reflect full-time equivalent average numbers, known as Average Funded Strength (AFS) for military personnel. Using the AFS approach, Defence counts full-time and part-time service as one overall average quantity.
This workforce has been allocated to the Services to implement a range of White Paper initiatives including the Defence Capability Plan. The personnel ranged from sailors, soldiers and airmen/women to senior officers on an as needed basis according to the particular White Paper projects and initiatives being actioned, including through the Strategic Reform Program.
Because of the breadth and depth of the White Paper initiatives, the number of personnel varied throughout the specified period and it is not possible to provide a specific total referenced to each White Paper project.
In relation to the overall military workforce, the 2011-12 allocation (published as the Revised Estimate in the Defence Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 2011-12) was 58,257. Over the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, the Defence military workforce decreased from an Average Funded Strength (AFS) of 58,034 to 57,285, and the overall average over the period was 57,628.
The decrease was due to changes in the external labour market and a consequent acceleration of separation rates, combined with the success of measures in place in 2010-11 and 2011-12 to return AFS to the budgeted level after a period of overachievement.
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications - Military Workforce': For the period 1 January to 30 June 2012, what reduction was made in the number of personnel, including full-time and part-time, employed in implementing: (a) efficiency improvements; (b) civilianisation: and (c) support productivity improvements?
With reference to the White Paper and the Strategic Reform Program 'Indicative Workforce Implications - Military Workforce', for the period 1 January to 30 June 2012:
(a) Implementation of the efficiency improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, which includes Shared Services initiatives and business improvement within Groups and Services, has led to a reduction of 82 military positions.
(b) Civilianisation is part of the Defence's workforce reforms element of Workforce Reform and Shared Services and forms part of Defence's move to establish the best mix of its non-combat-related workforce and to enable have the military workforce to focus on primarily undertake combat or combat related roles.
Civilianisation requires the dis-establishment of a military position, and the establishment and recruitment to an Australian Public Service position. Where the position is being filled by the military member moving to the Australian Public Service under Section 72 of the Public Service Act 1999, there is no discontinuity in the positions being established/ dis-established, and filled.
A phased implementation has realised 156 Average Funded Strength reductions across the 2011/12 financial year.
(c) With regards to implementing the support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program, there was no reduction in the number of full-time equivalent personnel employed. The support productivity improvements component of the Strategic Reform Program is a continuous improvement plan scheduled to commence in financial year 2014-15, following on from the completed implementation of the other Workforce and Shared Services components of the Strategic Reform Program.
For each portfolio/agency within the responsibility of the Minister/Parliamentary Secretary:
(1) How many reviews are currently being undertaken in the portfolio/agency or affecting the portfolio/agency?
(2) What was the commencement date of each review?
(3) When will each review conclude?
(4) (a) Which reviews were completed in the period 1 November 2007 to 30 June 2012; and
(b) when will the Government respond to the each of these reviews?
(5) As at 30 June 2012, what was the cost of each of these reviews?
Response to Question on Notice No.69 taken from Senate Budget Estimates on 28/29 May 2012 provides an update on reviews conducted or were concluded recently by Defence as at 30 June 2012.
This response supplements Parliamentary Senate Question on Notice No. 1500 which details reviews that were being conducted or had recently concluded as at 31 January 2012.
For reviews completed in the period 1 April 2007 to31 January 2012 see responses to Senate Question on Notice Nos. 820-821 tabled on 16 March 2009, 950 tabled on 1 December 2007, 1329-1330 tabled on 14 May 2009, 2555 tabled on 25 February 2010, 2099-2100 tabled on 28 October 2009, 126-128 tabled on 9 February 2011, 500-502 tabled on 11 October 2011, 776-778 tabled on 11 October 2011 and 1618-1620 tabled on 8 May 2012.