Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present documents listed on today’s Order of Business at item 17 which were presented to the President, the Deputy President and temporary chairs of committees since the Senate last sat. In accordance with the terms of the standing orders, the publication of the documents was authorised.

The list read as follows—

(a)    Committee reports

1.   Environment and Communications References Committee—Interim report—The status, health and sustainability of the koala population (received 13 May 2011)

2.   Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Report—Child Support (Registration and Collection) Amendment Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 19 May 2011)

3.   Environment and Communications Legislation Committee—Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill and related bills [Provisions]—

Interim report (received 20 May 2011)

Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee (received 27 May 2011)

4.   Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing—52nd report—Estimates for the Department of the Senate 2011-12 (received 24 May 2011)

5.   Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee—Interim report—Exposure draft and explanatory memorandum of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill 2011 (received 25 May 2011)

6.   Environment and Communications Legisla­tion Committee—Interim report—Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Bioregional Plans) Bill 2011 (received 27 May 2011)

7.   Community Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Planning options and services for people ageing with a disability (received 30 May 2011)

8.   Community Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Impacts of rural wind farms (received 30 May 2011)

9.   Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—Administration of health practitioner registration by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (received 3 June 2011)

10.   Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee—Report—Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 3 June 2011)

11.   Community Affairs Legislation Committee—Interim report—Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 3 June 2011)

12.   Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—Interim report—Water Act 2007 provisions relating to the development of a Basin Plan (received 6 June 2011)

13.   Community Affairs Legislation Committee––Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee––National Health Reform Amendment (National Health Performance Authority) Bill 2011 [Provisions] (received 9 June 2011)

(b)    Government responses to parliamentary committee reports

1.   Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee—Meat marketing—

2.   Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries—Final report—Food production in Australia (received 20 May 2011)

3.   Community Affairs References Committee—Report—Hear us: Inquiry into hearing health in Australia (received 30 May 2011)

4.   Economics References Committee––Report––The regulation, registration and remuneration of insolvency practitioners in Australia: the case for a new framework (role of liquidators and administrators)––Interim response, together with options paper: a modernisation and harmonisation of the regulatory framework applying to insol­vency practitioners in Australia (received 9 June 2011)

(c)    Government document

Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Digital television transmission and reception (received 13 May 2011)

(d)    Reports of the Auditor-General

1.   Report no. 40 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Management of the explosive ordnance services contract: Department of Defence (received 17 May 2011)

2.   Report no. 41 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Maintenance of the Defence estate: Department of Defence (received 17 May 2011)

3.   Report no. 42 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Establishment, implementation and administration of the council allocation component of the regional and local community infrastructure program: Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government (received 18 May 2011)

4.   Report no. 47 of 2010-11—Performance audit—Development and administration of National Research Flagships: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (received 8 June 2011)

(e)   Statements of compliance and letters of advice relating to Senate orders

1.   Statements of compliance relating to indexed lists of files:

2.   Letter of advice relating to lists of contracts:

3.   Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments and vacancies:

4.   Letters of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:

Ordered that the committee reports be printed.

In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate I ask that the government responses be incorporated in Hansard.

The documents read as follows—

Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Meat Marketing Inquiry

Interim Report

September 2008

Response to Recommendations

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, through the forum of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, seek the support of state and territory primary industries ministers to harmonise national standards for all domestic meat slaughtering and processing establishments. The committee further recommends that, regardless of the model adopted, the harmonised national standard must include maintenance of dentition as the standard for classifying an animal as lamb and must require that 100 per cent of animals classified as lamb are mouthed at slaughter.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, through the forum of the Primary Industries Ministerial Council, consider the costs and benefits of applying the West Australian standard as the model for national harmonisation including examination of compliance and enforcement issues.

Response to Recommendations 1 and 2

Agreed in part.

The Australian Government supports harmonisation of national standards where possible including for all domestic meat slaughtering and processing establishments; provided these standards are voluntary and at the initiative of industry.

The Australian Government does not agree that a national standard requires 100 per cent mouthing of animals classified as lamb at slaughter as this may prove onerous on some jurisdictions.

Following the release of the Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport’s interim report of its Inquiry into Meat Marketing, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, former Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry included the issue of meat marketing on the agenda of the November 2008 Primary Industries Ministerial Council (the council) meeting.

The council established a working group which examined whether models used for all red meat, not just sheep meat, may be suitable for national adoption. One of the models considered was the Western Australian standard, which requires 100 per cent mouthing of animals at slaughter. The examination of models was undertaken in the context of considering the costs and benefits of adopting each model including compliance and enforcement issues.

The working group provided a report to the council at its November 2009 meeting. In its report the working group found:

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs consider, when available, the findings of the Sheepmeat Council of Australia and the Australian Meat Industry Council's review of Lamb Brand Control and Verification. The committee recommends that, where appropriate and feasible, the relevant Commonwealth agencies assist the sheepmeat industry to implement recommendations arising from the review.

Response to Recommendation 3

Agreed.

The joint Sheepmeat Council of Australia/Australian Meat Industry Council report has not been completed. The Australian Gov­ernment understands that the industry decided not to finalise the report.

Senate Standing Committee for Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport

Meat Marketing Inquiry

Final Report

Released 30 June 2009

Response to Recommendations

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Recommendation 1

The Commonwealth Government negotiates with the states and territories to have the AUS-MEAT system applying to exported meat extended to all domestic processors in Australia.

Response to Recommendation 1

Noted.

The Australian Government’s position is that any decision about the national adoption of the AUS-MEAT system in domestic processing establishments (which are overseen by the states and territories) should be by consensus through the Primary Industries Ministerial Council process, or by the initiation of industry.

Legislation requiring the use of the AUS-MEAT language by retailers passed through the New South Wales Parliament on 26 November 2009. However, proclamation was delayed until an industry consultation process could take place. A retail reference group comprising New South Wales Government officials and beef industry representatives was formed to negotiate the contents of the underpinning regulations.

Regulations under the New South Wales legislation came into effect in August 2010 with a moratorium on enforcement to February 2011. The regulations require retailers to label according to the Domestic Retail Beef Register created by AUS-MEAT. If a retail term contained in the register outside of the basic category of ‘beef’ is used then the label must also contain an age-based descriptor.

The working group on meat marketing was established by the council to examine the national implications of the finalised NSW legislation. The working group found that the national implications of the legislation, in its current form, have not been significant. However, the industry remains concerned about the potential for unfavourable labelling requirements to be introduced in the future given legislation is now in place that enables the prescription of a labelling scheme. The working group also noted that other states and territories do not intend to introduce similar legislation in their jurisdictions.

Recommendation 2

Subject to the current Australia and New Zealand Food Regulation

Ministerial Council review into food labelling, the government create separate country of origin labelling regulations for food products that recognise the importance of the origin of ingredients in processed food as well as the place where production processes occurred.

Response to Recommendation 2

Noted.

The current Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council policy guideline on country of origin labelling of food indicates that in developing a new standard for country of origin labelling in the Food Standards Code, FSANZ

should ensure that: country of origin labelling applies to the whole food, not individual ingredients. Any amendments to this policy guideline would need to be agreed to by the Ministerial Council.

There may be considerable costs to business in complying with a country of origin scheme based on ingoing ingredients. For example, manufacturers may need to maintain several lines of labels so they can be changed depending on the source of the ingredients in certain seasons or market conditions.

The existing ‘Made in’ provisions in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 support the Australian manufacturing sector as a broad range or inputs, including ingredients, packaging, labour and overhead costs, are considered in determining a product’s eligibility to bear a ‘Made in Australia’ claim.

The Council of Australian Governments agreed to the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council commissioning an independent review of food labelling laws and policy. This review provided for a comprehensive examination of food labelling laws and policies.

The Committee undertaking the review was chaired by Dr Neal Blewett AC. Other committee members were public health law academic Dr Chris Reynolds, economic and consumer behaviour expert Dr Simone Pettigrew, food and nutrition policy academic Associate Professor Heather Yeatman, and food industry communications, marketing and corporate affairs professional Mr Nick Goddard.

Terms of Reference for the review are available at

Approximately 6 800 submissions were received.

The final report was released on 28 January 2011. Any consideration of amending the current country of origin labelling policy or standard will be undertaken in the context of the Council of Australian Government’s consideration of the outcomes from the labelling review.

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURAL AND RELATED INDUSTRIES REPORT

Inquiry report: Food production in Australia

On 25 June 2008 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries for report by 27 November 2009:

Food production in Australia and the question of how to produce food that is:

(a) affordable to consumers

(b) viable for production by farmers and

(c) of sustainable impact on the environment.

The Select Committee subsequently sought and received extensions to the reporting date. The report, which included a dissenting report, was tabled in the Senate on 23 August 2010.

The Select Committee report made four recommendations:

1. The committee recommends an audit be undertaken to establish the extent of foreign ownership of commercial agricultural and pastoral land, and ownership of water, in Australia, with particular emphasis on ownership by sovereign and part sovereign-owned companies.

2. The committee recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report to the Senate on the current level of agricultural research in OECD countries as a percentage of GDP and the trend for investment over the last ten years.

3. The committee recommends that IP Australia advise the Senate what patents, if any, have been granted over biological discoveries as opposed to inventions, with reasons for them being granted.

4. The committee recommends that the senate re-establish the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries in the new parliament to further examine issues relating to food production, including the implications of any proposed emissions trading scheme for affordable, sustainable food production and viable farmers.

A dissenting report was prepared by Senators Sterle and O'Brien. The dissenting report raised issues that they believe the Select Committee should have pursued but made no recommendations.

Australian Government Response

The Australian Government has considered the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee report. The government's response to the recommendations is as follows.

Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 1

The committee recommends an audit be undertaken to establish the extent of foreign ownership of commercial agricultural and pastoral land, and ownership of water, in Australia, with particular emphasis on ownership by sovereign and part sovereign-owned companies.

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation.

Foreign investment is important to the Australian economy and to support economic growth and creation of jobs for Australians. Investment in agriculture, whether from foreign or domestic investors, helps to stimulate jobs on farms, and supports services such as harvesting, transport, and processing. These jobs have flow on effects for regional towns and communities through local purchases of inputs, machinery, and the general necessities of life. Moreover, new investment can help Australian agriculture to be more efficient, competitive and profitable in world markets, providing increased opportunities in global markets and access to new technologies and practices.

The available evidence is limited but suggests the current level of foreign ownership of Australian agricultural land and water resources is very low. For example, a survey of commercial broadacre and dairy farms, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) in 2007-08, indicates that an overwhelming majority (99 per cent) of these farms are family operated. Of the remaining 1 per cent, it is estimated that only around 0.1 per cent are foreign owned. Broadacre and dairy farms account for around 70 per cent of Australian farm businesses. Further, investment in the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector is a small part of overall foreign investment in Australia, ranging between 0.06 per cent and 1.53 per cent of approved proposals, by value, made through the Foreign Investment Review Board in the last ten years.

However, the Australian Government recognises there are concerns about the sale of rural land and agricultural businesses to foreign investors. These concerns are compounded by the limited data available on foreign ownership. The government is addressing these concerns by taking action to strengthen the transparency of foreign ownership of rural land and agricultural food production. The Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Bill Shorten MP, has asked the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to collect more information about rural land and water ownership in order to provide a better statistical picture of the foreign investment landscape.

In addition Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, has asked the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC), in collaboration with ABARES, to report on the role and history of foreign ownership in the development of Australian agricultural land and the factors driving foreign investment in Australia.

The RIRDC and the ABS are working to have this information available later in 2011.

Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) report to the Senate on the current level of agricultural research in OECD countries as a percentage of GDP and the trend for investment over the last ten years.

The Australian Government does not agree to this recommendation.

As there is an existing body of work in this area, the Australian Government does not consider it necessary for RIRDC to commission a specific study on this.

Over recent years there have been many studies by ABARES and other researchers that have assessed expenditure on agricultural research and development over the long term. These studies have analysed the relationship between productivity growth in the agriculture sector and the drivers of that growth, including levels of investment in research and development. Agricultural research and development investment is an ongoing area of interest to the Australian Government and ABARES will continue to examine the relationship between productivity growth and research and development investment in Australian and other developed countries and disseminate results as appropriate.

Much of the literature agrees that there are significant lags between research and development investments and the realisation of productivity benefits, often occurring over decades, highlighting the importance of taking a long term perspective to research and development funding. Analyses of investment in research and development are generally undertaken over multi-decadal time frames in order to identify investment trends and their impact on productivity growth.

A number of international studies cite reduced investment in agricultural research and development as an important element contributing to the slow-down in agricultural productivity growth in recent years. Public sector investment in agricultural research and development in developed countries grew by an average of 1.89 per cent per year during the 1980s. However, this growth slowed to 0.38 per cent per year through the 1990's and has continued at around the same rate through the last decade (Pardey, 2009).

These studies also use research intensity to compare the levels of agricultural research and development in different countries. Research intensity measures investment in agricultural research and development as a percentage of agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the economic size of the agricultural sector, and provides a better basis for comparing relative levels of investment in agricultural research and development than when compared to national GDP.

Pardey (2009) estimates that although public research intensity grew during the 1980's from 1.62 per cent to 2.33 per cent in 1991, it has remained static since (2.36 per cent in 2000). Public research intensity in developing countries has also remained relatively constant over the past 30 years, albeit at a much lower percentage than developed countries—around 0.5 per cent in 2000.

In regard to Australia, studies (e.g. Mullen 2010 and Sheng et al 2010) indicate that public research intensity grew strongly from the early 1950s through to the late 1970s, peaking at between 4 and 5 per cent of agricultural GDP between 1978 and 1986. More recently, public research intensity in Australia has declined to around 3 per cent of agricultural GDP.

Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that IP Australia advise the Senate what patents, if any, have been granted over biological discoveries as opposed to inventions, with reasons for them being granted.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

Under Australian law, as prescribed by the Commonwealth Patents Act 1990, patents can only be granted for inventions. Discoveries are not inventions, and thus are not patentable, irrespective of whether they are biological or not. IP Australia, the government agency that administers Australia's intellectual property rights system, specifically patents, trade marks, designs and plant breeder's rights, applies Australian law in its assessment and decisions to grant IP rights.

Senate Select Committee report Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the senate re-establish the Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries in the new parliament to further examine issues relating to food production, including the implications of any proposed emissions trading scheme for affordable, sustainable food production and viable farmers.

The Australian Government notes this recommendation.

The decision to re-establish the Senate Select Committee on Agricultural and Related Industries is a matter for the Senate to consider.

The Australian Government notes that the Senate Procedure Committee considers that there should be no more than three select committees at any one time. There are currently two select committees and one joint select committee; with two more joint select committees foreshadowed.

References

Mullen, J.D., 2010, “Agricultural Productivity Growth in Australia and New Zealand.” Chapter 5 of J.M. Alston, B.A. Babcock, and P.G. Pardy (eds.) Shifting Patterns of Agricultural Production and Productivity Worldwide, Iowa, April 2010.

Pardy, P.G., 2009, “Reassessing Public-Private Roles in Agricultural R&D for Economic Development” in World Food Security- Can private Sector R&D Feed the Poor,? proceedings of The Crawford Fund annual conference, Canberra, 27 28 October 2009.

Sheng, Y., Gray, E. and Mullen, J. 2010, “Public investment in R&D and extension and productivity in Australian broadacre agriculture”, Conference paper prepared for the 16th World Productivity Congress and 2010 European Productivity Conference at Antalya, Turkey, November 2010.

Response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report

HEAR US: INQUIRY INTO HEARING HEALTH IN AUSTRALIA

MAY 2011

Hear Us: Inquiry into Hearing Health in Australia

Government Response

Introduction

On 10 September 2009, the Senate referred a matter concerning the state of Hearing Health in Australia to the Community Affairs References Committee (the Committee). The Committee sought submissions and undertook extensive national hearings with stakeholders to examine the following issues:

(a)   the extent, causes and costs of hearing impairment in Australia;

(b)   the implications of hearing impairment for individuals and the community;

(c)   the adequacy of access to hearing services, including assessment and support services, and hearing technologies;

(d)   the adequacy of current hearing health and research programs, including education and awareness programs; and

(e)   specific issues affecting Indigenous communities.

Over 180 submissions were received by the Committee and published on its website from a wide range of stakeholders. The Committee tabled its report, Hear Us: Inquiry into Hearing Health in Australia, in Parliament on 13 May 2010 making 34 recommendations.The Australian Government welcomes the Committee’s report and thanks the Committee for its considered approach to the recommendations made in the report.

The Government recognises that currently the prevalence of hearing loss in Australia is estimated to be one in six, rising to one in four by 2050, making hearing health a significant issue for many individuals and also the wider Australian community.

Hearing impairment affects individuals across their life course, requiring a range of service responses from early childhood to late adulthood, across disability, health, communication and other areas. These services assist hearing impaired people to engage socially and economically in the community and fulfil their life goals, are supported by professional bodies and a number of government agencies at both the Commonwealth and state/territory levels, and are delivered by providers in both the public and private sectors.

The Government currently provides funding for a wide range of services and programs for people with hearing impairment. These include: the Hearing Services Program (HSP), providing hearing related services to eligible people; the funding of around 2000 Disability Employment Services assisting people with a disability, including hearing impairment, to secure and maintain sustainable employment; free Australia wide access to Auslan interpreter services for deaf adults and children attending private medical appointments; and funding for research through a number of arrangements such as the National Acoustic Laboratories, the HEARing Cooperative Research Centre, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the HSP Hearing Loss Prevention Program.

The 2011-12 Federal Budget announced measures which will address a number of the recommendations and concerns outlined in the Committee’s report. Additional funding of $47.7 million over four years will support changes to the Australian Government’s Hearing Services Program (HSP) to provide for: extended eligibility for young people to hearing aids, services and cochlear speech processors; increased access to hearing aids and cochlear speech processors for more children, and additional hearing services and aids for Indigenous adults and people with complex hearing problems. Funding will also be provided for automation of application and voucher services to enable clients to access services faster and for service providers to electronically access client information to support them to provide more timely services to clients.

The Budget provides new funding of $200 million through the More Support for Students with Disabilities Initiative to assist students with disabilities, including the hearing impaired. State and territory education authorities will receive funding up until December 2013 for activities that will better equip teachers and