Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

I present four government responses to committee reports as listed on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO SENATE ECONOMICS COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE GROCERYCHOICE WEBSITE

Committee Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Auditor General investigate the tender process undertaken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to the data collection contract for the GROCERYchoice website.

Noted

The Auditor-General has discretion to exercise his powers and is not subject to direction in relation to whether or not a particular audit is to be conducted. The Auditor General considered this matter and determined that further investigation was not warranted.

Committee Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission take more care in the future to monitor and assess the performance of contractors that undertake data collection on its behalf.

Noted

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent statutory authority. The Government has confidence in the ACCC's ability to manage its contractor arrangements in accordance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.

Committee Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the Government reveal its plans for an industry operated grocery price data website.

Noted

The Government does not intend to mandate an industry-run website which compares grocery prices.

The Government notes that there has been an increase in the provision of online grocery price content by major supermarkets. The Government welcomes this move and encourages industry to continue to improve access to accurate, up-to-date information to assist consumers to make better informed purchasing decisions.

Committee Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Government note the unfair manner in which its contractual arrangements with CHOICE were prematurely terminated by the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, the Hon. Dr Craig Emerson MP, without affording CHOICE a right of reply, and ensure that such unprofessional and discourteous conduct does not occur again.

Not accepted

The Government met with all relevant parties, including CHOICE, prior to making its decision to terminate the Grocerychoice website. Following these consultations, the Government determined that it was not feasible to implement the originally envisaged Grocerychoice proposal.

Committee Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that both the Government and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission note that the operation of the GROCERYchoice website was prejudicial and unfair to independent retailers.

Not accepted

The Grocerychoice website was designed to improve transparency in the grocery market and to help consumers locate the cheapest overall grocery prices and supermarket chain in their area.

The selection of supermarkets for the Grocerychoice survey was generally restricted to those with a total floor area of greater than 1,000 square metres. However, a small number of exceptions to this were required where a sufficient number of supermarkets of this size did not exist. The survey was designed carefully to exclude 'express' or 'convenience' stores.

Committee Recommendation 6

Additionally and specifically, the committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission apologise to Tasmanian Independent Retailers for unfairly comparing small independent retailers to major chain supermarkets in its price surveys for the GROCERYchoice website, thereby disadvantaging smaller operators and contributing to undeserved negative press in the Mercury on 7 August 2008.

Noted

The ACCC is an independent statutory authority. The Government trusts that the ACCC will make its own decisions with respect to this matter.

Committee Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigate any potential breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to the role played by the Australian National Retailers Association in negotiations with CHOICE on the GROCERYchoice website.

Noted

The ACCC is an independent statutory authority established under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA, previously the Trade Practices Act 1974). The ACCC is tasked with the enforcement of the CCA including the prohibitions on anti-competitive conduct set out in Part IV of the CCA.

The Minister is specifically prohibited by the CCA from giving the ACCC a direction regarding its performance or the exercise of its powers under the anti-competitive conduct provisions of the CCA.

Whether anti-competitive conduct concerns arise in the context of trade associations advocating on behalf of their members will depend on the facts of each case. The Government understands that the ACCC has not identified any concerns under the competition provisions in the CCA with regard to the conduct of any party in relation to the Grocerychoice website.

Committee Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the Government learn from this episode of waste and mismanagement and ensure that such inappropriate and careless spending does not occur again in the future, noting that now, more than ever, value for money for the taxpayer should be a top priority.

Noted

The Government has confidence in the framework provided by the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act), which establishes a positive and personal obligation on every agency Chief Executive to manage the affairs of their agency in a way that promotes the 'proper use' of Commonwealth resources.

Proper use is defined in section 44 of the FMA Act as the efficient, effective, economical and ethical use of Commonwealth resources that is not inconsistent with the policies of the Commonwealth. Although the concepts of efficient and effective already encompassed the concept of economical, the Government inserted the term 'economical', with effect from 1 March 2011, to emphasise the requirement to avoid waste and increase the focus on the level of resources that the Commonwealth applies to achieve outcomes.

Senator Xenophon Recommendation 1

That the government improves competition in the groceries sector by requiring supermarkets to provide full price transparency to enable and empower consumers with pricing information before they shop, enabling greater entry to the market by independents and small retailers; and by addressing geographic price discrimination, predatory pricing and other anti competitive practices.

Noted

The Government is committed to encouraging competition in the groceries sector and has undertaken a range of measures to increase opportunities for entrants and promote competition. To date, the Government has:

In addition, on 16 June 2011, the Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. This Bill includes proposed amendments to clarify the operation of the mergers and acquisitions provisions of the CCA in relation to 'creeping acquisitions'. These amendments were previously introduced in 2010, but lapsed at the time of the 2010 Election.

The Government is also working with the States and Territories, through the Council of Australian Governments, to ensure that any unnecessary or unjustifiable planning and zoning restrictions that protect existing businesses from new and innovative competitors are eliminated. To assist in this process, in April 2010, the Government requested that the Productivity Commission undertake a study of the operations of the states and territories' planning and zoning systems. The Productivity Commission released its report, Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation: Planning, Zoning and Development Assessments, on 16 May 2011. The report identifies best practice approaches to support competition in land use markets.

Further, the ACCC has announced agreements with major supermarket operators to phase out restrictive provisions in supermarket leases. Coles, Woolworths, ALDI, Franklins, SPAR, Foodworks, Metcash and Supabarn have all agreed with the ACCC that they will not include restrictive provisions in any new supermarket leases. For existing supermarket leases, the supermarket operators have also agreed that they will not enforce any restrictive provisions beyond five years after the commencement of trading.

The Government notes that a prohibition on geographic price discrimination was considered and rejected by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics in its inquiry into the Trade Practices Amendment (Guaranteed Lowest Prices – Blacktown Amendment) Bill 2009, which proposed to amend the CCA. 

Senator Xenophon Recommendation 2

That the system of dealing with tenders by the ACCC be improved and more transparent given the curious and unsatisfactory explanation given for why Informed Sources was not awarded this tender on the basis of cost and its prior work with the ACCC.

Noted

The ACCC is an independent statutory authority. The Government has confidence in the ACCC's ability to manage its contractor arrangements in accordance with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines.

Senator Xenophon Recommendation 3

That prior to any government-run or government funded price comparison website being established in the future, significant time be allocated towards planning, modelling and consultation so to ensure effectiveness, relevance and requirements of such a website.

Noted

The Government does not intend to re establish a government-run website which compares grocery prices.

Senator Xenophon Recommendation 4

That companies providing bids for government projects identify any potential conflict of interest and that they be required to provide detailed information on how confidentiality and integrity of the project will be adhered to. Further, that an ongoing audit of their work be carried out at random intervals throughout the project, regardless of whether an incident has first arisen to cause suspicion.

Noted

The Government is confident that the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and Fraud Control Guidelines under the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 provide agencies with the appropriate framework to effectively manage their contractor arrangements, including conflicts of interests.

Senator Xenophon Recommendation 5

That the Trade Practices Amendment (Guaranteed Lowest Prices – Blacktown Amendment) Bill 2009 is enacted, to deal effectively with the anti-competitive practice of geographic price discrimination.

Noted

As noted in the Government's response to Senator Xenophon Recommendation 1, a prohibition on geographic price discrimination was considered and rejected by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics in its inquiry into the Trade Practices Amendment (Guaranteed Lowest Prices – Blacktown Amendment) Bill 2009.

Australian Government Response to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee Report:

Operations of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (First, Second and Final Reports)

September 2011

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE SENATE INQUIRY INTO THE OPERATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 (CTH)

The Senate Standing Committee on Environment, Communications and the Arts commenced an inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) in 2008. The Inquiry produced two reports: the first report, tabled on 18 March 2009, covered the operation of the EPBC Act generally and the second report, tabled on 30 April 2009, covered the interaction between the EPBC Act and the Regional Forest Agreement Act 2002 (Cth).

On 13 March 2009, the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP wrote to the independent reviewer of the EPBC Act, Dr Allan Hawke and requested that Dr Hawke consider the findings and recommendations of the Senate Inquiry in his Independent Review of the EPBC Act.

The recommendations of the Report of the Independent Review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the Review Report) have taken into account the recommendations of the Senate Inquiry. The Australian Government Response to the Senate Inquiry is based on the Australian Government Response to the Review Report.

The Australian Government Response to the Review Report has been released and can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-review-govt-response.html

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security

Review of Administration and Expenditure No. 8 - Australian Intelligence Agencies

Tabled 21 June 2010

Government’s Response to Committee’s Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include AFP counter-terrorism elements in the list of organisations that the Committee reviews.

The Government does not support this recommendation. The Government has previously considered whether the PJCIS should extend its oversight to include Australian Federal Police (AFP) counter terrorism elements, and most recently advised the PJCIS in 2010 that the Government was not proposing to extend the mandate of the PJCIS to include oversight of the AFP’s counter terrorism functions. This is to avoid duplication with existing, extensive oversight mechanisms and to avoid placing an additional burden on the AFP requiring extra resources to meet PJCIS oversight requirements.

The AFP is not part of the Australian Intelligence Community (AIC) and, as a law enforcement agency (not a hybrid law enforcement and intelligence agency), is subject to different oversight mechanisms to the AIC. It is important that the PJCIS does not duplicate existing oversight mechanisms which already include a range of Parliamentary committees. The AFP is subject to statutory reporting on individual powers including telecommunications interception, controlled operations, control orders and surveillance devices. Significant external oversight of AFP activities is also provided by the legal system. In fact, oversight by the courts during prosecution and other processes is a key difference between the AFP and the AIC.

Specific parliamentary oversight is provided by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, which has the following functions concerning the AFP:

As well, the AFP’s Professional Standards area provides internal oversight and is responsible for all organisational professional standards matters. The Commonwealth Law Enforcement Ombudsman maintains an oversight role in relation to conduct issues, public complaints and has the power to initiate investigations into AFP practices and procedures. Further, the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity is an independent and proactive agency established to detect and prevent serious and systemic corruption by the AFP and the ACC. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) will conduct independent reviews of Commonwealth counter-terrorism and national security legislation and provides another oversight mechanism. The PJCIS may refer a matter to the INSLM for it to consider as part of its functions.

Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Government agree to amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to enable specific material which does not affect current operational activity to be provided to the Committee. A small working group drawn from relevant departments, agencies and the Committee should be set up to prepare this amendment for consideration by the Government.

The Government does not support this recommendation. The current accountability framework supports the provision of candid and impartial advice to government. Expanding the role of the PJCIS by amending the Intelligence Services Act 2001, as proposed, would create ambiguity in accountability and oversight arrangements as well as duplication between the roles of the PJCIS and the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (IGIS). The PJCIS and the IGIS are the two primary, and complementary, pillars of external accountability arrangements for the AIC.

The Government believes the existing division of labour between the Committee and IGIS remains sound and do not want to alter this longstanding and successful arrangement. The IGIS role is to ensure that the agencies act legally and with propriety, comply with ministerial guidelines and directives and respect human rights. IGIS provides independent assurance for the Prime Minister, senior ministers and Parliament as to whether Australia's intelligence and security agencies act legally and with propriety by inspecting, inquiring into and reporting on their activities.

For more specific and operational issues, IGIS is well positioned to oversee agencies’ activities. The independence of the Office of the IGIS and the scope of its powers ensure that operational decisions, intelligence assessments and information to aid government decision making are not subject to public or partisan contention. The Government notes that the importance of the IGIS role is recognised in Recommendation 8, concerning the resources for that Office.

Under the current arrangements, the PJCIS notes that the AIC provides it with ‘significant and meaningful information’ to support the Committee’s review of the AIC’s administration and expenditure in the Government’s view. The current practices for briefing the PJCIS on delicate matters work well to facilitate this.

Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government monitor resources allocated to e-security to ensure they are adequate.

The Government supports this recommendation. The Government considers cyber security to be one of Australia’s top national security priorities, as recognised in the 2008 National Security Statement. Australia’s ever increasing dependence on information and communications technology means the Government must remain vigilant to emerging online threats. Cyber security threats pose a range of challenges to Australian Internet users, business and Government—and all systems connected to the Internet are potential targets. Australia’s national security, economic prosperity and social wellbeing are critically dependent upon the availability, integrity and confidentiality of a range of information and communications technology.

Australia’s security and intelligence agencies have stated publicly that they are experiencing increasingly sophisticated attacks on systems in the public and private sectors. As the quantity and value of information has increased so too have the efforts of malicious actors. For example, ASIO's mandate includes working with domestic stakeholders in government and private enterprise to counter all aspects of foreign nation state espionage—including electronic espionage. ASIO has expressed concerns about the scale and reach of electronic espionage against Australian interests, both in government and commercial computer systems, as it presents resource challenges.

The Government has allocated resources for cyber security across portfolios and agrees it would be prudent to keep this matter under review. Any proposals brought forward for additional funding would need to comply with the Budget Process and Operational Rules. A number of relevant mechanisms have been initiated since the release of the Committee’s Review. These mechanisms are intended to ensure adequate consideration is given to resources aspects, including distribution among relevant agencies:

Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the medium and long term accommodation requirements of those members of the Australian Intelligence Community presently housed in multiple locations in Canberra. Where multiple locations for a single agency diminish operational effectiveness or efficiency, consideration should be given to planning alternative longer term accommodation at the one site.

The Government, in principle, supports this Recommendation, however, believes that many of the accommodation issues identified at the time of the report have now been resolved. This was achieved through the establishment of a dedicated ASIO building (due for completion in 2012), as well as provision for the leasing of a new building for ONA.

Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that, should the proposal to amend the open access period of the Archives Act 1983 proceed, consideration should be given to special provisions for AIC documents to be exempted, on a case by case basis, from release at 20 years.

The Government notes this recommendation.

The ‘open access’ period in the Archives Act 1983 (Archives Act) has been amended since the release of the Committee’s Review by the Freedom of Information Amendment (Reform) Act 2010. These amendments reduced the open access period for most Commonwealth records from 30 years to 20 years. While the amendments do not contain special provision for AIC documents, there are exemptions in the Archives Act available for sensitive information which warrants protection from public disclosure, including exemptions for information concerning security, defence and international relations and information communicated in confidence. The changes to the open access period began on 1 January 2011 and will be phased in over a 10-year period.

An Access Examination Working Group formed in 2008 has supported ongoing formal and informal consultation between the National Archives of Australia and agencies about the release of information concerning security, defence and international relations and information communicated in confidence. The working group is chaired by the National Archives and its membership is made up of representatives from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Department of Defence, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Australian Federal Police and security agencies.

Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review the potential adverse effects of the efficiency dividend on the Australian Intelligence Community having particular regard to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report The efficiency dividend and small agencies: Size does matter.

The Government does not support this recommendation. The efficiency dividend is an integral part of the devolved financial management framework where agencies are provided with the flexibility and autonomy to spend the funds appropriated directly to them by the Parliament. Successive governments have used the efficiency dividend as an effective mechanism to secure public service efficiencies, thus allowing the Australian taxpayer to share in these gains. It also important to recognise the significant funding growth in the AIC over the last decade, which materially outweighs the size of the efficiency dividend for these agencies.

In relation to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit report ‘The efficiency dividend and small agencies: Size does matter’, it should be noted that the Government did not agree to a blanket exemption for small agencies but, rather, stated that it continued to consider it appropriate that all Commonwealth entities continue to operate efficiently and make further productivity gains, irrespective of their size. It did accept that, from time to time, circumstances may arise in individual entities that magnify the impact of the efficiency dividend, and it concluded that such situations should be addressed individually on their merits by seeking additional funding through the budget process.

The subsequent review ‘Report of the Review of the Measures of Agency Efficiency’, which was commissioned by the Government to examine the best way of promoting efficiency in government on a continuing basis, was released in April 2011. In its response to this review, the Government agreed to allow flexibility in the application of the efficiency dividend by enabling Portfolio Ministers to reallocate the efficiency dividend between agencies within their portfolio with effect from the 2011-12 Budget.

Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to include a provision requiring the ANAO to report to the Committee on its review of the AIC.

The Government does not support this recommendation. As the Committee will be aware, the Auditor-General Act 1997 sets out the responsibility of the Auditor-General to report to the Parliament. The Act also provides the Auditor-General with discretion in the conduct of his or her functions or powers (Section 8 of the Act refers). Successive Auditors-General have been responsive to requests by the Parliament and Parliamentary Committees, including to appear and discuss issues of importance to Committees. The Auditor-General supports the continuation of this practice.

Against this background, the Auditor-General would prefer the current arrangements, which involve the Auditor-General responding to a request from the Committee, remain in place in lieu of a legislative approach, for which there is no direct precedent. The Government agrees with the Auditor-General’s view.

Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that, due to the increased activities of the Australian Intelligence Community and the additional functions required of the IGIS, the budget of the Office of the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security be increased.

The Government does not support this recommendation. The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Dr Vivienne Thom, has advised that the resources (including staff) currently available to her are sufficient to ensure that her Office can provide effective oversight of the activities of the AIC. She is able to prioritise and reallocate resources when inquiries arise.

The Inspector-General regularly reviews the resourcing of her office, especially as and when new inquiries are commenced. Supplementary funding may be requested if the Inspector General considers that any particular inquiry requires resources additional resources. Dr Thom has advised that, in her experience, when such supplementary funding is requested, the Government has made it available. For example, funding for the office was supplemented to the value of:

Joint Standing Committee on Treaties

Report 116: Review into treaties tabled on 24 and 25 November 2010, 9 February and 1 March 2011; Treaties referred on 16 November 2010

Government Response

Recommendation 4

The Committee supports the Exchange of Letters implementing Amendments to Article 3, and to Annex G, of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) and recommends binding treaty action be taken.

Recommendation 5

The Committee recommends the Minister of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research report to the Committee on the measures implemented to address the impact of “duty drawback” on Australia's structured apparel sector under the amendments to Article 3 and to Annex G of ANZCERTA, and monitor the ongoing effects on the sector after 2012.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (the Department) notes the Recommendations in Item 6 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) Report 116 concerning the Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend Article 3 of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement, and Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend Annex G of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement.

The Department is pleased that JSCOT's Recommendation 4 of Item 6 supports the Exchange of Letters Constituting an Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend Annex G of the Australia New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (ANZCERTA) and recommends binding treaty action be taken. Action to amend ANZCERTA is at an advanced stage. The amendments will reduce the administrative burden on businesses, facilitate eligibility of duty-free entry of goods into both markets, and provide greater consistency between the ANZCERTA Rules of Origin and those of other trade agreements negotiated by Australia. It will ensure ANZCERTA remains the benchmark for Australia's free trade agreements.

In relation to JSCOT's Recommendation 5 of Item 6, the Department notes that it is the principle agency responsible for implementing Australia's obligations as a signatory to ANZCERTA. The Department notes that New Zealand and Australia both have duty drawback schemes. The Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (Innovation) and the Treasury are the principle agencies responsible for policy oversight of Australia's Duty Drawback Scheme, which is administered by the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service (Customs and Border Protection). Duty drawback payments enable Australian exporters to obtain a refund of customs duty paid on imported goods where those goods will be treated, processed or incorporated in other goods for export; or are exported without being used or consumed while in Australia. Innovation advises that Australian exporters are able to apply for duty refunds under duty drawback arrangements, including duty paid on imported inputs to goods exported to New Zealand under ANZCERTA.

The Department and Innovation have an ongoing commitment to monitoring the effects of ANZCERTA on all Australian industry and will continue to monitor the ongoing e