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

Pursuant to standing orders 38 and 166, I present the following documents 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)

Senators’ Interests—Standing Committee—Report 1 of 2010: Annual report 2009 (received 25 March 2010)

(2)

Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—Inquiry into the changing economic environment in the Indian Ocean Territories (received 1 April 2010)

(3)

Procedure Committee—First report of 2010—Private senators’ bills – consideration; Bills relying on delegated legislation; Arrangements for the opening of Parliament (received 13 April 2010)

(4)

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Report—Human rights in the Asia-Pacific: Challenges and opportunities (received 19 April 2010)

(5)

Economics Legislation Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and submissions received by the committee—Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2010 [Provisions] (received 23 April 2010)

(6)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Interim report—National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions] (received 30 April 2010)

(7)

Finance and Public Administration References Committee—Report—Native vegetation laws, greenhouse gas abatement and climate change measures (received 30 April 2010)

(8)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 [Provisions] (received 4 May 2010)

(9)

Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee—Interim report—Sustainable management by the Commonwealth of water resources (received 5 May 2010)

(10)

Environment, Communications and the Arts References Committee—Interim report—Energy Efficient Homes Package (received 5 May 2010)

(11)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Interim report—Wild Rivers (Environmental Management) Bill 2010 [No. 2] (received 5 May 2010)

(12)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—Final report, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee—National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010 [Provisions] (received 7 May 2010)

(b)

Government responses to parliamentary committee reports

(1)

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Report—Review of the Defence annual report 200607 (with respect to recommendation 3) [note: on 25 February 2010, the government tabled a response to the report] (received 24 March 2010)

(2)

Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Standing Committee—Report—Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping operations (received 25 March 2010)

(3)

Environment, Communications and the Arts Committee—Report—Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff) Bill 2008 (received 30 April 2010)

(4)

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee—Report—Effectiveness of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 in eliminating discrimination and promoting gender equality (received 4 May 2010)

(c)

Government documents

(1)

Superannuation (Government Co-contribution for Low Income Earners) Act 2003—Quarterly report on the operation of the Government co-contribution scheme for the period 1 April to 30 June 2009, and the Super Co-contributions annual report 2008-09 (received 19 March 2010)

(2)

Treaties [5] relating to taxation (received 29 March 2010)

(3)

Department of Health and Ageing—Quarterly report on the operations of the Gene Technology Regulator for the period 1 October to 31 December 2009 (received 30 March 2010)

(4)

Independent review of Government advertising arrangements (Hawke Report) (received 31 March 2010)

(5)

Department of Finance and Deregulation—Campaign advertising by Australian government departments and agencies—Report for the period 1 July to 31 December 2009 (received 31 March 2010)

(6)

Housing Assistance Act 1996—Report for 2007-08 and 2008-09 on the operation of the 2003 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (received 12 April 2010)

(7)

Defence Act 1903—Part IIIAAA of the Act—Report—Utilisation of the defence force in accordance in section 51X of the Act in relation to the proposed visit by the President of the United States of America (Operation Mustang) (received 13 April 2010)

(8)

Australian Communications and Media Authority—National relay service provider performance—Report for 2008-09 (received 15 April 2010)

(9)

Review of the administration of the Home Insulation Program prepared by Dr Allan Hawke (received 22 April 2010)

(10)

Government response to report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce—Engage: Getting on with Government 2.0 (received 3 May 2010)

(11)

Australia’s future tax system—Part 1: Overview; Part 2: Detailed analysis (2 volumes) (received 3 May 2010)

(d)

Reports of the Auditor-General

(1)

Report no. 25 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Security awareness and training (received 15 April 2010)

(2)

Report no. 26 of 2009-20—Performance audit—Administration of Climate Change Programs: Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (received 20 April 2010)

(3)

Report no. 27 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Coordination and reporting of Australia’s climate change measures: Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (received 20 April 2010)

(4)

Report no. 28 of 2009-10—Performance audit—The Australian Electoral Commission’s preparation for and conduct of the 2007 federal general election (received 21 April 2010)

(5)

Report no. 29 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Attorney-General’s Department arrangement for the National Identity Security Strategy (received 21 April 2010)

(6)

Report no. 30 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Management of the Strategic Regional Program/Off-Network Program: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (received 22 April 2010)

(7)

Report no. 31 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Management of the AusLink Roads to Recovery Program: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (received 22 April 2010)

(8)

Report no. 32 of 2009-10–Performance audit—Management of the overseas owned estate: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (received 28 April 2010)

(9)

Report no. 33 of 2009-10—Performance audit—Building the education revolution – Primary schools for the 21st century: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (received 5 May 2010)

(e)

Documents, pursuant to order

(1)

Communications—Implementation Study for the National Broadband Network—Report (received 7 May 2010) [Note: motion of Senator Ludlam agreed to 11 March 2010]

(2)

Workplace Relations—Fair Work Amendment (State Referrals and Other Measures) Bill 2009—Bilateral intergovernmental agreements (received 7 May 2010) [Note: motion of Senator Fisher agreed to 18 November 2009]

(f)

Statements of compliance and letters of advice relating to Senate orders

(1)

Statements of compliance relating to indexed lists of files:

• Commonwealth Ombudsman (received 12 April 2010)
• Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) (received 23 April 2010)
• Department of Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water (received 5 May 2010)
• Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator (received 5 May 2010)

(2)

Letter of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency appointments/vacancies:

• Australian Institute of Family Studies (received 4 May 2010)

(3)

Letter of advice relating to lists of departmental and agency grants:

• Australian Institute of Family Studies (received 4 May 2010)

Ordered that the committee reports be printed.

In accordance with the usual practice and with the concurrence of the Senate, the government response will be incorporated in Hansard.

The documents read as follows—

Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade

Review of the Defence Annual Report 2006-2007

Government response to recommendation 3

Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the Government exempts the Remote Locality Leave Travel entitlement from fringe benefits reporting.

The Government does not agree with this proposal.

The fringe benefits tax (FBT) system plays an important role in maintaining the fairness and integrity of Australia’s taxation system. It places employees with access to fringe benefits on a more even footing with employees whose remuneration consists entirely of salary or wages.

The introduction of FBT was designed to remove a serious gap in the income tax law and ensure that all forms of remuneration paid to employees bear a fair measure of tax. The FBT system also facilitates the inclusion of fringe benefits in an employee’s income for the purposes of means testing benefits such as family tax benefit. This ensures that families with remuneration consisting entirely of salary are treated equally, when compared to those in receipt of fringe benefits.

FBT applies to virtually all employers, including Government, and is designed to be as inclusive as possible in the coverage of benefits received by employees in respect of employment are taxed, whether received in cash or otherwise.

Providing a FBT reporting exemption for the remote locality leave travel entitlement to members of the ADF would be inequitable to other employees working in remote locations who receive similar benefits (for example, employees working in the mining industry) and have them recorded on their payment summary. This exclusion would also have a broad range of implication across the transfer system.

Many of the existing FBT exemptions are work-related, that is, there is a general underlying principle that concessions or exemptions are provided on the basis that if these expenses were borne by the employee, it would be deductible to them. The Remote Locality Leave Travel Entitlement would not be deductible under the income tax law as there would not be the relevant nexus between the expense incurred and their employment. The expense, had the employee borne it themselves, would be considered private in nature.

The Australia’s Future Tax System Review, established by the Rudd Government in 2008 to review our tax and transfer system, delivered its final report to the Government at the end of 2009. Within the scope of the review was the taxation treatment of fringe benefits. The Government is currently considering the review’s recommendations and will release the report, and its initial response in early 2010.

Government Response to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on Australia’s involvement in peacekeeping operations.

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that, before the Australian Government commits personnel to a peacekeeping operation, it is satisfied that the mandate has:

• clearly stated and achievable goals based on an assessment and understanding of risks, including the worst case scenario;
• a level of commitment that can be sustained throughout the life of the mission in order to achieve the stated objectives; and
• adequate resources to meet the objectives—the proposed force to have the capacity and capability to fulfil its tasks as set out in the mandate, and sufficient financial resources available to implement the mandate.

Furthermore, where Australia is taking a key or lead role in the proposed mission, the committee recommends that the Government of Australia ensure the terms of the mandate strictly meet these fundamental requirements. This would be done in consultation with the host country, the UN and potential partners.

Response

Partially agreed. The Government is committed to promoting well informed, clear mandates, as well as achievable goals and a commitment to adequate funding as a fundamental enabler of mission success. This is demonstrated by our engagement with the United Nations (UN) Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) on the development of peacekeeping doctrine.

The Government notes that in some circumstances it may be necessary to allow Australia to commit personnel prior to the full articulation of these mission aspects where our strong national interests are engaged. Flexibility is also required to enable ongoing review of a mission’s mandate and goals in response to developments over time, as has occurred with the UN and African Union’s efforts in Sudan.

Where Australia is considering or has taken a leading role in a mission, the ability to sustain an appropriate level of materiel, human resourcing and financial support over the life of the mission is a priority consideration for Government. This is evidenced through Australia’s ongoing support to missions including in Solomon Islands and East Timor.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to support actively the R2P doctrine and, through its representations in the UN, ensure that international deliberations are informed by the doctrine.

The committee also recommends that in the committee’s proposed white paper on peacekeeping (Recommendation 37). the Australian Government include a discussion on, and an explanation of, Australia’s current position on this evolving doctrine.

Response

Partially agreed. The Government is committed to advancing the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, and Australia is an active supporter of R2P within the UN and its own region. The Government is providing an overall package of $4.58 million to advance a number of R2P initiatives including a $1.86 million joint initiative with the Asia Pacific Centre for R2P at the University of Queensland; a $2 million Australian R2P Fund that will disburse grants to support R2P outreach and research projects in the Asia Pacific region; and $300,000 to the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and S417, 000 to the Non Government

Organisation (NGO) Coalition for R2P, both of which are based in New York. This package of Australian support will materially contribute to the advancement of R2P at the local, regional and global levels and across a range of political and civil society settings.

Government does not agree there would be benefit in a white paper on peacekeeping as noted in response to recommendation 37. See further response to recommendation 37.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that before the Australian Government decides to contribute to a non-UN mandated peacekeeping operation, it is satisfied that the mission has a proper legal framework with recognised authority to deploy the operation and is consistent with Australian law. In this regard the committee recommends that:

• as early as practicable, the UN is consulted and fully informed about developments and any proposals for a peacekeeping operation;
• the Australian Government places the highest priority on securing regional support for the peacekeeping operation;
• the host country, through its legally recognised authorities, has requested the establishment of a peacekeeping operation and willingly consented to the deployment of forces and the conditions under which they are to operate - the agreement to be documented in appropriate legal instruments and provided to the Security Council; and
• the legal documents authorising the deployment of a peacekeeping operation to be treated, if not in the form of a treaty, in a way similar to treaties; that is, tabled in Parliament with an accompanying National Interest Analysis and examined by a parliamentary committee.

Furthermore, that the operation’s mandate:

• is in complete accord with the UN Charter and is accountable to universally accepted human rights standards and Australian law;
• contains arrangements to ensure that the Security Council and the peacekeeping operation complement each other’s efforts to keep the peace; and
• includes provisions making the mission accountable to the UN and covers issues such as reporting procedures and channels for the exchange of information.

Finally, through both formal and informal channels, the government endeavours to obtain UN endorsement of the operation even though the operation may have commenced.

Response

Partially agreed. The Government will continue to ensure that, before contributing to non-UN mandated peacekeeping operations, the operations’ mandate is in accord with the UN Charter (including any relevant Security Council resolutions), applicable human rights standards and Australian law. The Government must satisfy itself that the conditions under which forces are to operate are documented in appropriate instruments. While in some circumstances a treaty- level instrument may be required, in other circumstances lower level instruments may be sufficient. Consistent with long-established Government policy, such lower level instruments are not tabled in Parliament.

The Government would only contribute to a non-UN mandated peacekeeping operation if satisfied that the host country, through its legally recognised authorities, requested the establishment of a peacekeeping operation and willingly consented to the deployment of forces.

The Government notes that in certain circumstances where a host country seeks a peace-keeping operation due to a humanitarian emergency (e.g., East Timor in 2006 and 2008 and Tonga in 2006), an instrument of less-than treaty status may be the only mechanism allowing relevant countries to consent to that operation in a timely manner. Such an instrument would be confidential to the participants and therefore the Government would not be in a position to table the instrument in Parliament for examination by a parliamentary committee. The Government considers it necessary only to table in Parliament those instruments that create binding international legal obligations on Australia.

Government further notes that Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations does not require Member States participating in a regional peacekeeping operation to provide a copy of the relevant instrument to the Security Council. If requested by the UNSC, the Government would use its best endeavours to seek the agreement of the other participants before providing copies of the relevant instrument to the Security Council. Likewise, if the UN requests the Government provide further information or report periodically on the progress of Australian contributions to a regional peace-keeping operation, the Australian Government would seek to cooperate fully with the UN.

Recommendation 4

In light of the concerns raised about the conditions under which some members of ATST -EM were deployed, the committee recommends that the ADF conduct a review of this deployment to identify any shortcomings and ensure that lessons from ATST-EM’s experiences inform the deployment of similar small contingents. This case study would, for example, examine matters such as their preparation to serve as unarmed peacekeepers, the chain of command

arrangements and the provision of health services.

Response

Agreed. The Government is already in compliance with this recommendation. Headquarters Joint Operations Command (HQJOC) staff is reviewing the Australian Training Support Team East Timor (ATST-EM) deployment to ensure that relevant lessons have been captured and incorporated into planning processes where appropriate.

Beyond the specific case of the ATST-EM, the ADF has an ongoing ‘lessons learned’ process which integrates lessons through small evaluation teams focussed on designated objectives. These teams capture data and information, during the actual conduct of each operation as well as reporting from commanders, senior staff and participants. The information is recorded in the ADF Activities Analysis Database System.

In addition to the ‘lessons learned’ process, HQJOC has implemented an Operational Capability Review (OCR) process to review the tasks and composition of all deployed elements. The OCR process will enable information and issues from theatre to be captured and conveyed to HQJOC directly, allowing timely action such as force design and training adjustments for follow-on rotations, and the application of lessons to other relevant situations. The OCR process is being rolled out progressively with priority to larger and more complex contingents, but will in time be applied to every ongoing ADF deployment.

With regard to medical support for our deployed personnel in East Timor, Defence establishes and maintains medical facilities to support ADF personnel in Australian-commanded missions. Health facilities supporting ADF personnel in East Timor have matured since the first Australian deployment in 1999. For Timor, UN health facilities are currently augmented by the contracted ADF facility for more serious medical conditions/cases.

UN-assigned personnel routinely receive first line medical support through organic UN health facilities. Where ADF local support is not available to provide a back-up facility, ADF personnel within UN contingents receive agreed health support through the local UN health facilities (if available). ADF personnel also receive Combat First Aid training and are issued with a deployable medical kit. Additionally, there are agreed higher levels of care available regionally where ADF personnel can be evacuated for treatment if required.

Government is committed to ensuring that the very best health support is available

ADF personnel. As noted in the response to Recommendation 27, Defence has commissioned the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to conduct the Deployment Health Surveillance Program, a series of longitudinal health studies of deployed personnel, including mental health issues.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that, before deploying Australian personnel to a peacekeeping operation, the Australian Government ensure that all instruments covering the use of force are unambiguous, clearly understood, appropriate to the mission and provide adequate protection.

Response

Agreed. Prior to approving deployment of Australian personnel to a peacekeeping operation, the Government determines whether the legal basis allows for sufficient force protection in light of the assigned mission and after considering all the prevailing circumstances of

the proposed peacekeeping operation.

The Government notes that the legal basis for use of force contained in the authorising UN mandate for a particular peacekeeping operation cannot be unilaterally amended by the Government to ensure that it is ‘appropriate to the mission and provide[s] adequate protection.’ Instead, the mission’s rules of engagement (ROE) must be appropriately defined and suitably tailored to complement the legal basis for use of force. If the legal basis for the mission is deemed to be inadequate, then the Government may either decline to contribute to the peacekeeping operation or seek changes to the mandate that would satisfy its concerns.

The Government further notes that while deployed, all ADF commanders and AFP personnel have an obligation to continually review the authorised ROE or Use of Force, and to seek clarification or request any necessary changes if they are considered to be unclear or inadequate to cover the security situation. The Government understands the importance of having an appropriate and unambiguous use of force regime that is fully understood by all personnel involved, whether the mission is a UN or non-UN peacekeeping operation.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that all government agencies advising the Australian Government on Australia’s participation in a proposed peacekeeping operation address clearly the adequacy of force protection provided in the mandate and accompanying ROE. This consideration is not only from the perspective of the physical safety of Australian personnel but also their mental wellbeing. Ultimately, the government must be satisfied that the mandate matches the needs on the ground.

Response

Agreed. A primary consideration when advising Government on a decision to commit personnel to a peacekeeping operation is the adequacy of available force protection measures for the overall wellbeing of Australian personnel.

The Government is committed to ensuring that high quality mental health support is available for Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel and the ex-service community. As discussed in the Government response to Recommendation 23, Government has developed a Mental Health Lifecycle Initiatives Package. The Package includes nine strategic mental health initiatives targeted across the four stages of an ADF member’s lifecycle: recruitment, service, transition, and resettlement into civilian life. As part of these initiatives, the Australian Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health (ACPMH) is undertaking research and learning processes to enhance current practices. Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs are working closely with the ACPMH on the lifecycle initiative.

In addition, Defence has commissioned the Centre for Military and Veterans’ Health to conduct the Deployment Health Surveillance Program, a series of longitudinal health studies of deployed personnel, including mental health issues.

The Government notes that, in the case of a UN-mandated peacekeeping operation, force protection policy and military ROE applicable to Australian personnel are ultimately derived from the UN mandate, which as previously noted cannot be unilaterally amended.

Prior to approving Australian participation in a peacekeeping mission, the Government receives advice on the sufficiency of ROE and force protection measures in view of the needs on the ground. This process applies to all ADF operations including those not led by the UN, and non- peacekeeping operations.

As noted in the response to Recommendation 5, all ADF commanders deployed on peacekeeping operations have an obligation to continually review the authorised ROE, and to seek clarification or request any necessary changes if they are considered to be unclear or inadequate to cover the military situation.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that, when considering a proposed peacekeeping operation, the Australian Government examine in detail the mission’s exit strategy to ensure that Australia’s contribution is part of a well-planned and structured approach to achieving clearly stated objectives. When committing forces to an operation the Australian Government should clearly articulate its exit strategy.

Response

Partially agreed. The Government recognises the importance of exit strategies. However, as noted in response to Recommendation 1, a degree of flexibility is required, as there may be circumstances where it is not appropriate to articulate an exit strategy.

The Government conducts a classified annual review of the ADF’s commitments to peacekeeping operations. This review critically examines each mission and considers the continuance, or otherwise, of the ADF’s contribution.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that the ADF place a high priority on its undertaking to give training for peacekeeping operations a ‘more prominent place’ in its training regime. This training should extend to reservists as well as regular members of the ADF.

Response

Agreed. Training for peacekeeping operations has been identified as a fundamental element to the continuum of training in the ADF, especially within the Army. Land Command provides collective training for regular and reservist personnel aimed at meeting operational requirements, and peacekeeping is included as part of this requirement for operational training. In addition, the ADF Peace Operations Training Centre (formerly the ADF Warfare Centre (ADFWC)) includes peacekeeping operations modules on most of its joint courses and incorporates peacekeeping and stabilisation operations in joint exercises, such as the Talisman Sabre series with the United States. Peacekeeping operations are covered in a dedicated civil- military cooperation course, and also in a variety of other courses conducted by the ADFWC through presentations, syndicate tutorials and discussion periods.

The ADF Peacekeeping Centre also provides the ADF UN Military Observers’ Course, which prepares selected military personnel from Australia and overseas for service as military observers in UN or multinational peacekeeping operations. The course is focused on meeting the standards stipulated by UN DPKO’s Integrated Training System. Since 2008, components of the course have been merged into a course conducted by the AFP’s International Deployment Group.

Previously, the ADFWC ran the International Peace Operations Seminar (IPOS). The Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCM COE), created in 2008, now has responsibility for conducting 1POS, and has split the seminar into two courses focused on enhancing whole-of-government and whole-of-nation capabilities, and promoting civil-military UN and international engagement in the