Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010 and, in so doing, I have a couple of comments about a couple of risk provisos that I believe should be put into place. Firstly, this is an example of what Australians do best. We are innovative overseas. We do not tend to impose our standards overseas and we have great capacity in the history of being able to use local resources and work with local communities to achieve the goals. This bill will in fact allow a process in which this can be happening in a more organised and formal fashion. It also allows a tremendous conjunction between Defence, policing agencies, and public and private sectors in delivering the sort of aid and assistance that we believe would be necessary as a result of this act being passed.

The regions where I believe we should be most active are those where Australia has its sphere of influence—that is, in the Pacific Islands, South-East Asia and, to some extent, India and the Middle East. I would urge that we do not go too far beyond those boundaries. The types of incidents are obvious, especially those of natural disasters of the types that we have seen in our region in recent times. Can I also urge that there are other incidents that are unrelated to natural disasters where Australia has a proud history and where I think, under the auspices of this bill, we can be even more active—for example, a disease called the Nipah virus, which was detected in Malaysia some years ago. It was a virus disease affecting pigs and, through direct contact with pigs, humans. Through the excellence of Australian researchers under the auspices, as I understand it, of the Australian Biosecurity CRC for Emerging Infectious Disease where they worked with the Malaysians, and the integrated efforts of scientists around the world, they discovered what the disease was. It is a disease of some interest in Australia, because the Nipah virus is very closely related to the Hendra virus—an example where a corps properly established would quickly be even more active. I can also think of another example in the agricultural context where Australians can do what we do best, with regard to new crop rotations, minimum tillage, use of fertilisers and water conservation and that is to actually apply what we have succeeded with in this country to regions of the world where it will have its greatest benefit. I would urge acceptance of the bill so as to expedite that.

The benefits to recipients are enormous, to families, to communities in the recipient areas and to governments. But there are also enormous benefits to the providers. One of the great disadvantages of being an island is that not enough of us get off it and not enough people actually come to understand what the challenges are overseas. I am not talking about the holiday to Bali; I am talking about experiencing life in other communities around the world. Therefore there are enormous benefits to people who are expert in what they are doing here in Australia actually applying that expertise and learning something of the culture of people in our region. They themselves are enriched as a result of this experience.

I do have some provisos. I want an understanding of the risks that are involved. For example, there must be very careful screening of would-be candidates and those who want to participate. I would say that there would have to be thorough briefing in advance and early selection of team leadership for whatever project is contemplated. There needs to be a clear statement of objectives so that people have something in addition to goodwill and their own expertise. They must understand what they are there to do, what the KPIs are and the expected time frames involved. The deployment must be safe for all participants. It must have adequate protection: legislative protection, health and insurance and other protections. At the same time there must be support for families at home. As one who has worked overseas a good deal of my career, I know the pressure that goes on families remaining and they are all too often forgotten. Having said that, as with any military deployment there is the essence and the essential of some degree of post-deployment debriefing and counselling.

I have a couple of recommendations, if I may. There should be developed a register of interested persons and their areas of expertise so that well in advance of Australia making a decision under this act to deploy people we know who is available, what their expertise is and what the limits might be. The best way of establishing that is some sort of online facility where expressions of interest could be sought. It will then allow the department to do that preliminary vetting that is so necessary to make sure that the person is appropriate to the task and is capable of surviving in the overseas country, let alone lending their expertise. I mentioned the identification of potential project leaders. They may come from the public sector, the private sector; they may come from defence; they may come from policing organisations. But they should be identified and their availability understood, so that expectations are matched to deliverables. Country specific templates for countries for all participants could well be worked on in advance so that people understand the risks and they understand the opportunities of the employment they are contemplating when they are there and after they have returned. Given the brevity of time, my last recommendation would be to ensure that no lessons are lost, that anybody becoming contractually bound to participate in a project of this nature would also agree to actually prepare a report on their deployment within a limited period of time of returning—eight weeks would appear to me to be reasonable—so that they get the maximum benefit and the country in which they have been deployed gets the benefit but, most importantly, we learn lessons. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure indeed to be able to speak to the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010, because it is legislation which I think appeals to the ‘better angels’ of most senators. Sadly, in this place there are not too many occasions when we all feel comfortable about the fact that we are supporting legislation which has an element of great idealism. I think this particular legislation contains that element of idealism, so I am particularly pleased to speak to it today.

The broad idea of an Australian civilian corps, I assume, is based on the great American idea of a peace corps—which, as you will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President, was an idea that emerged from the Kennedy campaign for election to the presidency in 1959-60 and became rapidly an idea which many people embraced as something that reflected the idealism of the American people and that could make a very practical contribution to America’s role in the international arena.

We all recall Mr Sargent Shriver, who became the first director—and was a distinguished director—of the American Peace Corps. He was a Kennedy brother-in-law, as I remember. When he died, I think last year, many of his obituaries drew attention to his very distinguished service as the senior official in the American Peace Corps and went on at great length about his contribution and the great success that he made of the Peace Corps.

The Australian Civilian Corps has, it is fair to say, rather more prosaic origins. It comes, as I understand it, from the government’s 2020 Summit in April 2008 and was announced by former Prime Minister Rudd in October 2009. I do not think it is being churlish to say that this is one of the better ideas from the 2020 Summit. Indeed, it is one of the few ideas that have found their way into legislation. Regardless of its origins, I think we can recognise that this is a good idea and a strong idea, and it is one that the coalition is very pleased to support. It recognises and highlights the reality that when natural disasters and crises occur around the world, particularly when there are conflicts involved, assistance to alleviate human suffering is often a vital requirement. As we contemplate events around Australia—although this bill is directed to external activity—and think about the earthquake in Christchurch and the earthquake and subsequent tsunami in Japan, and the terrible suffering that those events have created, we see that they underscore the assistance that the Australian Civilian Corps will provide to people who may need it.

Civilian assistance early on in a crisis, and after an event or a tragedy of the kinds that have occurred recently in our region, often helps with rebuilding. It helps to stabilise a situation and can give great encouragement to countries when they need to recover. The idea that there ought to be a discrete and specific Australian corps, a scheme in which idealistic Australians can be involved in helping recovery, is a very good one. It is a practical and innovative way of addressing what is clearly, and sadly, an important growing international need.

The report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on this bill supported the bill enthusiastically. It was a unanimous report. It made a series of recommendations about the way in which the bill could be improved. The government has accepted some of those, and I welcome that, but it has chosen not to accept others. I will say a bit more about that in a moment, but there are two concerns that I want to raise in the early stages of my remarks which reflect general concerns within the coalition about the bill. One relates to the direct financial impact that the bill might have. The explanatory memorandum notes that there is no direct financial impact. On the other hand, in AusAID’s Focus Online there is a note that $52 million will be provided for the rapid deployment of Australian civilians into overseas disaster and conflict affected countries. That seems to be inconsistent with the declarations within the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps the minister would care to make an observation about that when he makes his closing remarks. I note that, in his contribution, Senator Back made the point that it is vital that those who might commit themselves to this task be provided with a great deal of security. We are particularly concerned to know how the security of the civilians who sign on to the corps will be provided—how they will be protected during the course of their operations. That seems to me to be a vital concern.

The second broad question relates to a potential conflict of interest in the legislation. The legislation is cast in a way whereby the Director-General of AusAID will primarily be the responsible party. He will create a register, as I understand it, of those who wish to volunteer for this kind of activity. The legislation makes clear—and I do not have any particular objection to this—that people employed by AusAID could in fact become part of the Civilian Corps. That makes a great deal of sense, because there is a tremendous amount of expertise within AusAID that could be very useful in circumstances of the kind we are contemplating in this piece of legislation.

None of that concerns me terribly much. What does raise some questions is the matter of who determines whether the person deployed overseas goes as an employee of AusAID or as a member of the ACC and what kinds of implications might follow from the fact that an AusAID person is taken offline—what sort of impact might it have on their responsibilities within AusAID itself. It seems to me that the director-general is potentially in a difficult situation. He—or she, but for the moment he—is in a situation where he has to make decisions as to whether having AusAID employees is in the interests of his agency or whether to have people with similar kinds of expertise as volunteers on the register. These are matters that need a bit of clarification.

The Senate report made 11 recommendations, as I noted. I was very delighted to see that the government at least fully accepted four of them. It partially accepted two of the recommendations but rejected four of the recommendations. I want to spend a few moments making a few remarks on some of the recommendations that were rejected or partially rejected. Regarding the first recommendation of the report, the committee was of the view that the legislation should include a statement on the humanitarian and developmental purpose for establishing the Australian Civilian Corps. This recommendation was made by several of the submissions to the committee, most notably by World Vision. It commended itself to the committee because this is an exciting new venture that deserves some sort of clarity of statement about the intention behind the legislation. Why the government would reject that possibility is somewhat confusing to me. I would have thought it was something the government would readily agree to.

The second recommendation from the report, which was only partially agreed, related to values of the ACC in relation to the Australian Public Service. I do not often find myself in this place supporting the suggestions of the CPSU, or indeed any other union within the organisation. But the CPSU made a recommendation to the Senate committee suggesting that a stronger connection should be made within the legislation between the ACC values and those of the Australian Public Service. The committee supported that suggestion, and I think it is something that the government might have turned its mind to.

Recommendation 5 was not agreed to by the government. It relates to what I call the no disadvantage test that might be applied in these circumstances. The committee recommended that the legislation ensure that members of the Public Service, or indeed other employees, would not be disadvantaged in terms of their entitlements should they decide to commit themselves to an ACC deployment. It seems to me fundamental and without contest that, if an idealistic Australian chooses to make a commitment of this kind and chooses to become involved in the ACC, they should not suffer any kind of work or professional disadvantage in doing so. The committee was very strongly of the view that this was something that ought to be included in the legislation and, sadly, the government has chosen not to accept that recommendation.

Finally, and along much the same lines, recommendation 8 of the committee’s report suggested that the bill contain provisions governing the protection of whistleblower rights, prohibition on patronage and favouritism and promotion of employment equity. This is one of the recommendations which was only partially accepted by the government. The recommendation in relation to patronage and favouritism was accepted. The government chose not to accept the recommendation with regard to whistleblowers or the promotion of employment equity. There is an explanation in the government’s response. I do not find it particularly persuasive. I would have thought that these were elementary requirements that might well have been accepted and found favour with the government in the implementation of the legislation.

With those reservations, I say that the coalition enthusiastically supports this piece of legislation. Senator Back, in his contribution to the debate, made some very good points. I am not in a position to comment on the observations he made in the earlier part of his speech with regard to viruses of one kind or another, but I am sure they were very incisive and insightful and should also recommend this legislation to the government. I suggest that the observations I have made about the concerns we have about the bill should also be taken seriously in resolving this legislation.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As you can see, Madam Acting Deputy President, the opposition is very supportive of this interesting and important piece of legislation, the Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010, which formalises our relationship with our overseas neighbours and others who become affected adversely by natural events, disasters and all manner of conceivable mayhem where our expertise is required to deliver some assistance. Indeed, we think of Japan, we think of tsunamis and we think of all sorts of things that have occurred in our recent past that have required us to get aboard aircraft and to be delivered into foreign lands and to administer services and expertise.

I want to say thank you to Senator Trood and Senator Back. Obviously they have taken some great time to study this legislation and participate in the committee reports surrounding it. They are much wiser and more knowledgeable than me with respect to these matters. I also want to support the issues that Senator Trood raised with respect to a fundamental threshold issue: the protection of our personnel overseas. The legislation appears to be light on with respect to that, may I say. The conflict and overlap between the Australian Civilian Corps personnel and AusAID appears to be ill defined, if I can say that. Having said that, I do not want to detract from the benefits of formalising and putting on the table a template of rules and a structure for our assistance overseas. The explanatory memorandum to the bill states:

The Australian Civilian Corps Bill 2010 … creates a legal framework for the employment and management of Australian Civilian Corps employees. 

Australian Civilian Corps employees will be a unique category of Commonwealth employee, engaged for specified periods to work in crisis environments overseas before returning to their regular employment.

This is clearly a very positive formalisation of what has been, to a very large extent, an ad hoc situation.

A couple of other issues that come to me through the legislation include that the report is contained within AusAID. Again this underlines Senator Trood’s concerns with respect to the operation. Annually we have to sift through the AusAID report to see what ACC employees have been getting up to and how they have been managed and what matters they have undertaken. Can I also say that the values as espoused within the legislation but unspecified are awaiting the regulations, as is the code of conduct. These are two very important things, yet the legislation goes on to deal with what will happen if there is a breach of the code of conduct. So we have legislation setting out the punitive response for a breach of yet undefined codes of conduct. I find that rather curious.

Having said all of that, as you can see, Madam Acting Deputy President, the opposition is very supportive of formalising these matters, as it appears there will be ever-increasing call upon our expertise to travel overseas and to provide assistance to our near neighbours and further. Thank you.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Civilian Corps is an important new capability that will enable Australia to more effectively respond to requests for assistance following natural disasters and conflict. For this initiative to be successful, the bill provides for a framework for the effective and fair employment and management of Australian Civilian Corps employees. The bill has been considered by the Senate, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee. The Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee received submissions from the Community and Public Sector Union and the Australian Red Cross, amongst others. In response to a number of recommendations made by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, amendments to the bill will be moved. The amendments will provide Australian Civilian Corps employees with the right to seek external review of disciplinary decisions made by the AusAID Director-General concerning those employees. The external review arrangements and the powers of the reviewer will be substantially similar to those under the Public Service Act that currently apply in relation to misconduct decisions concerning Australian Public Service employees.

To address the concerns raised by the committee, other minor amendments to the bill will also be moved. These minor amendments include an express requirement to include reasons in any notice of termination of employment with the corps. Another amendment makes it explicit that a Commonwealth employee cannot be compelled to serve in the corps and participation in the corps is entirely voluntary. In addition, an amendment will be moved to expressly prohibit patronage and favouritism in relation to Australian Civilian Corps employees.

In relation to a couple of the questions that Senator Trood raised, I am advised that the budget impact is $52 million, which is in program expenditure. This bill creates the regulatory framework for the employment of the corps. Funding comes from core AusAID funding. In relation to the appointment of the director-general and any conflict of interest, my advice is that the director-general is best placed to make operational decisions and all staffing decisions. Obviously this will be based on the register and the framework which I have just mentioned. Regarding security of our personnel, which of course the government takes seriously at all times, processes are in place. There will be pre-deployment planning and assessment of security. Security recommendations will then be made to the Director-General of AusAID. Adequate security plans will be put in place based on a risk mitigation strategy, and the government will have an opportunity to approve the plans. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.