Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Messages have been received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate of the appointment of members to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order at the request of the chairs of respective committees, I present reports and legislation from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Com­mittee, the Finance and Public Administra­tion Legislation Committee and the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, as listed at item 20 on today's Order of Business, together with the Hansard records of proceedings and documents presented to the committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2010. It essentially appropriates an extra year of funding for the Australian Research Council for the 2013 year as well as providing for indexation of the funding in the forward estimates. Other than that, the bill makes no substantial amendments to the ARC Act.

However, it is worth briefly giving some context to why research matters. Research is the engine of innovation, productivity and, of course, growth. In a modern advanced economy, research is essential to maintaining the edge over our competitors and improving the lives of Australians. Virtually every technology we use, every convenience we take for granted, has its roots in research. We might not see or think much about research, but its benefits are all around us. Spending on research is, quite simply, one of the best investments a government can make. In purely monetary terms, it produces a better return on every dollar spent than just about every other way the government can spend money. It advances human knowledge, produces countless direct benefits and spin-offs and, when commercialised, brings a wealth of benefits to our country, our economy and our people.

In all fairness, I am starting to sound like my friend Senator Carr, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, in expanding the benefits of research. In a sense I raise this because of mooted cuts to the budget of the National Health and Medical Research Council, the NHMRC. I know that Senator Carr and I am sure Senator Evans as well—being responsible for tertiary education—would agree with me that the funding of research is critical. It is a pity that the government is considering cutting those funds. I am hoping that Senator Carr, Senator Evans and others in the government that care about these things will make sure that Mr Swan and the bean counters do not get away with too much. I think it is fair to say that with research you cannot just cut it and then pick it up the next day, because when you cut it people leave, contracts are broken, relationships are destroyed and expertise often goes overseas.

Just the other day I was at the well-named Menzies Research Institute at the University of Tasmania where they are doing great work in the areas of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, Alzheimer's disease and multiple sclerosis. They have 150 researchers there and it is one of the Australia's great medical research institutes. I am really concerned about what might happen to that institute among others if those cuts that are being mooted in fact occur.

One of the great interests of former Prime Minister Mr Howard was medical research. Senators will remember that, between 1995 and 1996 and up until the 2008 budget, the coalition provided a fivefold increase in medical research funding with funding increasing to about $700 million annually. It was one of Mr Howard's great passions. I was told when I was at the Menzies Research Institute that the then Prime Minister spent nearly an entire day at the institute looking at the projects and the medical research being undertaken at the University of Tasmania. That is a long time for a prime minister to spend in one spot looking at one particular project. To the coalition, this is very important research not just for the researchers in Tasmania but for the Australian people.

I know the budget is being delivered tonight and I know there are financial constraints on the budget. I accept that and I think the country knows that. Suffice to say that cutting medical research at this time would be the wrong move because the benefits it brings to all Australians has great multiplier effects. I am hoping tonight that Mr Swan does not take an axe to that. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Research Council is a statutory authority within the Australian government's Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. Its mission is to deliver policy and programs that advance Australian research and innovation globally and benefit the community. In seeking to achieve its mission, the ARC provides advice to the government on research matters and manages the National Competitive Grants Program, a significant component of Australia's investment in research and development. Through the National Competitive Grants Program, the ARC supports the highest quality fundamental and applied research and research training through competitive selection processes across all disciplines, with the exception of clinical medicine and dentistry.

This is an appropriation bill to support the ongoing operations of the ARC. It will fund the high-quality research we need to address the great challenges of our time, to improve the quality of people's lives, to support the development of new industries and to remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. Bills to amend the Australian Research Council Act 2001 to receive administered funding occur each year. This is to apply indexation to existing approp­riation amounts, create an additional forward estimate and may also contain new funding for new initiatives. The current bill updates the special appropriation funding cap amounts administered by the Australian Research Council to include indexation adjustments to three existing financial year appropriation amounts and adds a forward estimate year in the Australian Research Council Act 2001. The bill adjusts the Australian Research Council's funding cap for the financial years beginning on 1 July 2010, 2011 and 2012 in line with indexation and sets the funding cap for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2013. Indexation adjustments and adding an additional forward estimate are part of the standard budget process and are administrative in nature. The proposed amendments change only the administered special appropriation; they do not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds.

The ARC is the major source of funding for the innovative, investigator driven research that has underpinned inventions ranging from the bionic ear to the Jameson flotation cell which saves the coal industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year. ARC centres of excellence provide key science and policy advice on the management of coral reefs, are developing automated control systems for the mining industry and agricultural sector and are taking some big challenges in medicine such as applying nanobionics to regenerate spinal cord injuries. ARC funding has enabled regional centres such as the Cairns campus of James Cook University to attract Australian and international leaders in tropical rainforest ecology to build world-class teams of researchers and postgraduate students. Ongoing funding for the Australian Research Council is essential to the vitality of the Australian higher education system. Excellent researchers across all areas of the university system must be able to compete for funding if we are to keep world-class academics in Australia working in our universities and teaching the next generation. Since 2007 the Australian Research Council has delivered on our 2007 election commitment of 1,000 Future Fellowships. The Australian government will provide, over five years, up to $844 million and will award up to 1,000 of these midcareer research fellowships. The inaugural 200 future fellows were announced in September 2009 and a second round of 200 was announced in October 2010. Sixty of the fellowships announced last October identified environment and climate change as a target research area.

In July 2010 we announced the establishment of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Change to address uncertainties in regional climate science. This world-class research centre, hosted by the University of New South Wales, will receive $21.4 million over seven years. The centre's research programs will investigate the effects of tropical convection on Australia's climate; risks; mechanisms and attribution of changes in Australian climate extremes; the role of land surface forcing and feedbacks for regional climate; drivers of spatial and temporal climate variability in extratropical Australia; and mechanisms and attribution of past and future ocean circulation change.

In January 2008 we announced the establishment of the ARC Advisory Council and a range of other measures to enhance the independence of the ARC. In January 2011 six new members were appointed to the council, increasing its overall size from seven members to 10, to enhance its range of expertise and experience and ensure it is well placed to provide strategic and policy advice.

In February 2008 we announced that the ARC would deliver the Excellence in Research for Australia framework. This is a world-leading research evaluation frame­work reflecting the Australian government's commitment to a transparent, streamlined evaluation of the quality of research undertaken in Australia's universities. The Australian government has provided $35.8 million over four years. Since 2008 the ARC has undertaken three years of comprehensive and widespread consultation with the higher education research sector on the develop­ment of ERA. The first full round of evaluations for ERA took place in 2010. The ARC delivered the ERA 2010 national report on 31 January 2011. This landmark report highlights both Australia's research strengths and areas with potential for further development. It will allow the Australian government to plan the future of research investment in Australia. It provides assurance to government, industry and the Australian public of the quality of research conducted in Australian higher education institutions and the value of government investment in the research sector. For ERA 2010 the ARC received data in relation to some 330,000 unique research outputs and over 55,000 researchers.

The ERA initiative is a key element of the government's agenda for the reform of Australia's higher education system, articulated in Transforming Australia's Higher Education System (2009), and its innovation agenda, expressed in Powering Ideas: An Innovation Agenda for the 21st Century (2009). ERA gives Australia, for the first time, the capacity to rigorously measure our achievements against our peers around the world. It draws together rich information about discipline-specific research activity at each individual institution, as well as information about the contribution to the national landscape of each discipline in each institution.

In March 2008 the government announced the opening of all ARC grant schemes to international competition and in July 2008 the government announced the opening of the ARC schemes to the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. The ARC continues to work closely with Indigenous researchers on a range of new initiatives for those Indigenous researchers.

In September 2008 the ARC introduced the Australian Laureate Fellowships Scheme to build strong teams around our very best research leaders. The Australian government will provide, over five years, up to $239 million and will award up to 75 fellowships. The inaugural 15 laureate fellows were announced in June 2009. In November 2010 the Prime Minister announced two additional laureate fellowships—the Kathleen Fitzpatrick Australian Laureate Fellowship in the Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences; and the Georgina Sweet Australian Laureate Fellowship in Science and Technology—for female researchers and research leaders of international repute. The new ARC scheme 'Researchers in Industry Training Awards', part of the government's Clean 21 initiative, will focus on increasing industry engagement in research and development projects through funding research student stipends in industry sectors vital to Australia's future. Up to 200 awards will be available—100 each in 2012 and 2014—an investment of $23.4 million over six years. The targeted industry sectors include built environment, clean energy, future manufacturing, industries supporting innovative regions and the marine and maritime industry.

The new Discovery Early Career Researcher Award scheme will provide more focused support for researchers and create more opportunities for early-career researchers in both teaching and research positions and research-only positions. It is expected that up to 200 three-year awards will be available each year, commencing in 2012.

The ARC has also introduced Research Opportunity and Performance Evidence to enable assessors to take into account any career interruptions, including those for childbirth and caring responsibilities—very welcome news. In November 2010 the Australian government approved $21 million in funding for the ARC Special Research Initiative in Stem Cell Science and announced the successful proposal of Stem Cells Australia, who will conduct world-class research and create a public awareness unit to provide public education and encourage public debate into the ethical, legal and public policy issues associated with stem cell science.

In July 2010, 13 new centres of excellence were announced, with total Australian government support of $255.9 million over seven years. This was in addition to the Australian government's announcement in February 2009 of an additional $82.25 million to extend the funding of the 11 existing centres of excellence.

Through this important legislation, the ARC will continue to advance our efforts to build a fairer and more prosperous Australia through innovation and education. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call on the minister to move the third reading, unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in the committee of the whole.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. This bill has two main components, one being to effect a reorganisation of digital television channels to realise what is commonly referred to as the 'digital dividend', and the second being to deal with amendments to the regulatory framework which provide free-to-air television via the new VAST satellite service as part of the digital television switchover. The switch to digital-only television will make the present spectrum used for television in the analog space in the frequency ranges between 694 and 820 megahertz available for other uses. Beyond that is a capacity and opportunity to restack the spectrum used in the digital space, further making capacity available.

Spectrum is of course a valuable com­modity, and I expect significant competition for this spectrum including from providers of superfast broadband, which we all know is increasingly the internet platform of choice for many Australians. This will of course provide a windfall of sorts to the government when that spectrum is allocated, auctioned or otherwise disposed of. I wish that I could say I have confidence that when this government receives windfall gains such as from the sale of spectrum it knows how to use the money wisely. However, I can but hope—given its history in pink batts, school halls or other areas—that there is a change of government in place by the time the dividend in financial terms to government from this spectrum reallocation is made available.

To enable this digital dividend, a more efficient organisation of broadcasting services spectrum is required, which will be overseen by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, otherwise known as ACMA, through a process, as I mentioned, known as restacking. This reorganisation requires amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act and Radiocommunications Act, which are presented in this bill. The coalition recognises the need to provide ACMA with the regulatory changes it needs to complete the restacking process effectively. However, as coalition senators outlined in their additional comments to the report of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011 inquiry, the coalition does have some concerns in relation to the realignment of the broadcast licence areas. Before I move onto those concerns, I place on record my thanks to the members of that committee for their work in that inquiry and, of course, to the committee secretariat as always.

The concerns raised by coalition senators in particular highlight the power that the amendments in this bill provide to the minister to direct ACMA to make or vary television licence area plans. These licence area plans, of course, set the boundaries into which different television broadcasters operate. While it is likely that there will be some change to licence areas, it appears the powers provided by these amendments offer, to some degree, free rein to the minister and ACMA in terms of those boundary changes, with few restrictions put in place. While I would not expect ACMA to just draw random maps for the sake of it, this is still a concern in terms of the lack of boundary and direction provided for in the bill. I also note that ACMA could allocate additional licences in some broadcast areas, potentially to significant industry players, which of course would come with a detrimental effect on existing broadcasters. In fact, in the Senate inquiry, the Department of Broad­band, Communications and the Digital Economy testified that the bills contained:

… no express prohibition on ACMA allotting broadcasting spectrum in whatever way it sees fit.

Of course, these are important issues, and local stations with local programming content and local advertising provide a great community benefit and help to foster strong, vibrant regions. They are good for regional business, good for regional people and good for regional communities as a whole. While the legislation and these amendments that provide for this capacity may all be of good intention, sometimes good intentions go astray and there is nothing wrong, of course, with taking a precautionary approach in relation to such amendments. On this basis, I would invite the minister to provide some response to those issues raised by coalition senators and to provide some comfort in regard to the overall capacity of the minister and ACMA to exercise these powers in relation to the boundaries and the allotting of broadcasting spectrum.

Prior to the finalisation of the restacking exercise and to achieving the entire dividend, critically related to this is the switch-over itself—the switch-over from the analog signal to the digital signal, which has already taken place in parts of my home state of South Australia as well as parts of Victoria and Broken Hill. It is quite clear that the planning for the switch-over and preparation for it has--certainly in my experience dealing with parts of regional South Australia--been somewhat lacking. Hundreds if not thousands of people in the regional switch­over area in SA are experiencing problems. They have contacted my office; I have spoken to them through media outlets and received their calls in many, many cases. We have written on many, many occasions detailing dozens and dozens and dozens of particular examples—and I am sure there are many more for all those who have contacted my office—in regard to problems people are having with the switch-over. Many of these problems remain and we are still getting new calls and inquiries some six months after the analog signal was switched off in parts of regional South Australia.

Unfortunately, the government seems to have failed to provide sufficient information to many households about how their antennas are set up and what things are needed for the switchover other than just getting the technology of a box or a new television in place. This failure has left them with poor or no television reception. In other cases there are technical reasons for why people are not getting the quality of television service that they previously enjoyed under the analog system. While Senator Conroy is well aware of my concerns in this area, I hope he is aware that these concerns are shared by many of my coalition colleagues, especially surrounding the preparation of further communities for the switch-over in regional areas. There is a real concern in many communities that not all current analog terrestrial transmission sites will be replaced with digital terrestrial transmission facilities. This, of course, will mean that many people who currently receive a terrestrial signal will have to switch to the VAST satellite service.

The government's VAST satellite service program—to cost some $375 million over 12 years—replaces community funding models which allow communities to invest in self-help transmission or retransmission services that allowed them to access terrestrial facilities. The minister ought to be aware, and others have made these points, that of the 680 current self-help sites it is estimated that around 570 will not be upgraded to provide for digital retransmission. This will affect hundreds of communities in regional Australia and will see some 127,000 households move from a terrestrial television service to a satellite television service, losing the local connections and content which, as I highlighted earlier, are so significant and important for many regional communities. With another budget to come this evening—another budget, no doubt, of further waste and incompetence on the government's part—you would think that Senator Conroy and the government might have paid some attention, and I can live in the hope that perhaps they have, to the views and submissions of the Local Government Association of Queensland, which stated in its submission to the exposure draft of this bill:

… converting many if not most existing analogue self-help transmission sites to digital is a more convenient and cost effective way to approach a conversion to digital TV.

Indeed, moving from terrestrial to satellite television will not be a cheap exercise for taxpayers, households or, in particular, for many small businesses—especially for retire­ment homes, motels and caravan parks. Last week I was in Georgetown, in Northern Queensland, where the motel owners expressed their concerns about the expense of changing over from a terrestrial service that they currently have on a self-help basis to a satellite service that will cost them greatly to transform every room in their motel. With no subsidy scheme for businesses, unlike for households, there is a real question for people like the motel in Georgetown as to how such businesses are to provide television services and, in doing so, fund the considerable cost of the new satellite equipment. Many simply will not be able to afford the expense or will see it as another hit to the bottom line, especially in the tourism industry, as well as for all those other small businesses.

There is an alternative that others have outlined, and that is that the government should move to allow communities to pool their VAST subsidies to pay for upgrades to their existing retransmission sites to a digital retransmission service. This would be a sensible win-win outcome for communities who would get to keep a terrestrial service and in many cases for many taxpayers who would actually save on cost. For instance, in Normanton, also in Queensland, some 552 households will be eligible for the $700 Satellite Subsidy Scheme, which, in addition to the householder co-payment of between $200 and $350, could total up to $600,000 in costs for Normanton households to access the VAST satellite system. Meanwhile, the minister himself has stated that setting up a digital terrestrial facility to retransmit all of the VAST channels would cost between $110,000 and $270,000. I think we can see in this example that there are opportunities to save money in relation to this switchover from the types of programs the government has proposed.

Also, on the total cost for households, it is likely that in many instances the $200 to $350 co-payment ,which applies to upgrading only one household appliance, will not be enough given that we know many households have multiple televisions as well as recording devices, so this will be a considerable cost to households in those communities as well. Keeping a terrestrial signal in place wherever possible is simply good for communities, good for small businesses and good for tourism operators in particular. It is unfortunate that the government is not taking this approach and I would again urge the minister and the government more generally to reconsider and to look at ensuring, wherever possible, that it does support the maintenance of terrestrial facilities.

Communities are not just concerned about the cost of the switch-over; many are also worried about the time they have to prepare. Broadcasters who have undertaken to convert existing analog transmission facilities to digital are required to do so six months before the switch-over date in any particular given region. This is to ensure that households have enough time to ensure that their digital reception equipment is working correctly. Without this time, many people are left with no TV services when the analog signal switches off. Indeed, my office has received calls from many people who, following the switch-off of the analog signal in South Australia, were left with no signal and felt they had little information about what to do to upgrade and in some instances had not had access to a digital signal so far in advance. In fact, the six-month rule was not observed in South Australia or in Mildura, and I would hope the government does ensure in future that it is observed in all switch-over areas in all cases. The six-month opportunity for people is important if they are to ensure that all of their equipment is working correctly before the switch-off occurs. It is simply not good enough and, as I indicated before, my office is still receiving many, many calls from South Australians receiving poor reception who really could have done with extra time to ensure their equipment was working before the switch-over.

The coalition does recognise the need for the switch-over to digital-only television and we recognise this bill's role in this process. We do, however, implore the government to look at some of the measures I have outlined today that would enable more people to receive a terrestrial signal, would save taxpayer dollars and would ensure that people could continue to receive the terrestrial signal as well as ensure that those matters that have been debated in this place previously, such as the six-month rule for the switch-over, are maintained and observed by the broadcasters and by the government in the setting of the switch-over dates.

The coalition also recognises the import­ance of local content wherever possible, and this is another reason why the opportunities of terrestrial services should be maintained. Overall we do not oppose this bill. We do recognise that it provides the necessary framework measures, particularly to achieve the financial dividend for taxpayers and the benefits of the spectrum becoming available for new technologies and new uses and to ensure that we get out of that public good of spectrum the best available return for all Australians in an economic sense, in a social dividend sense and also for taxpayers. We would urge the government, in relation both to how it manages that process and in particular to how it continues in managing the digital switch-over, to heed some of the concerns, to look for opportunities for cost saving and to show us that it is up to managing this process effectively into the future.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add some comments on behalf of the Australian Greens, and I advise the Senate at the outset that the Greens will be supporting this bill. We have a number of concerns, which Senator Birmingham has outlined, and the concerns that we raise are very similar. I will give advance warning that I will be moving two second reading amendments that address in particular one of the issues that Senator Birmingham just raised.

This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radio­com­muni­cations Act 1992. It has come in consequent to a process that we do support. The switch-over to digital television has been a long time coming. It has been delayed; it is probably running about a decade behind schedule considering when it was first proposed. It is appropriate that we are debating this legislation now with the process of the rollout where it is. The amendments introduce measures to effect­ively implement the reorganisation of digital television channels, to realise the digital dividend and to improve the regulatory framework for free-to-air digital TV services provided on the VAST satellite service and the switch-over to digital-only television.

The Australian Greens welcome the government announcement that 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum will be released as a digital dividend. This dividend will be released as a contiguous block of spectrum in the UHF band in the frequency range of 694 to 820 megahertz. The spectrum will become available as a result of the switch to digital-only television and the release of spectrum currently used for analog television. Digital switch-over will be completed in Australia, we understand, if all goes according to plan, by 31 December 2013.

The Greens have asked the government to estimate the overall revenue that will be raised by the auctioning of the digital dividend band, which of course is now an important and extremely valuable piece of taxpayers' property effectively. We have asked the government whether any sections of the band will be allocated for use by the emergency services or by other non-com­mercial services. I missed the first few minutes of Senator Birmingham's speech. I am not sure whether this is an issue that the coalition have taken an interest in or not. The Australian Communications and Media Authority should be able to tell us the commercial value of the 20-megahertz spectrum requested by the Police Federation of Australia on behalf of emergency services organisations, and we think that this information would be useful as the debate unfolds with regard to who gets what in the digital dividend.

We understand the government is still considering whether or not to reserve part of the digital dividend in the 700 megahertz band for police and emergency services, and if so how that will be organised. I will indicate now I have a number of questions with regard to this issue and a couple of others, and that I will be proposing that we take this bill into the committee stage so that we can debate some of these issues with the minister. We want to put on the record that the Greens' view is generally supportive of the proposal that we understand came forward from the Attorney, Mr McClelland, that 20 megahertz or thereabouts be reserved for these public safety agencies because it is vital for the services that Australians need during natural disasters and other critical events such as terrorist incidents, bushfires and so on, and that there are particular technical reasons why emergency service organisations are requesting that particular band of that particular part of the spectrum. As I understand it, all of Australia's police commissioners support the Attorney-General's proposal, including the New South Wales commissioner, who is the spokes­person on the matter, and the govern­ment's own chief commissioner, Tony Negus of the AFP, who in March 2011 told the Parlia­mentary Joint Committee on Law Enforce­ment how important access to that particular band is for police and emergency services workers. I understand the proposal is also backed by peak bodies representing fire authorities, ambulance services and so on across the country, and that the issue was raised at the February 2011 COAG meeting. So I suppose I am inviting at this stage the minister, if he is able to, to provide us with an update as to how that is going.

A hundred and twenty-six megahertz in the 700-megahertz range, the digital dividend, will soon be available for new users when Australia moves from analog to digital television, and of course police and emergency services are seeking 20 megahertz of that available spectrum, around 16 per cent of it. The remaining 84 per cent would then be available for auction to the big telecommunications carriers. I understand that there is resistance to the Attorney-General's proposal from the carriers and there has been a certain amount of debate in the public domain as to whether emergency services need that band, whether they are requesting something in the wrong place or whether it is irrelevant. Of course the carriers all want the available spectrum for commercial purposes, so they are just doing their jobs as well. I understand there is probably some contention even within the government, and maybe the minister can spell out for us what the views of the government are in this regard. I understand that the Attorney has a report from Access Economics which says that setting aside 20 megahertz of spectrum for natural disasters may not reduce the proceeds from auction because of the scarcity value of the spectrum, so in effect it decreases the amount that is available for bidding, which has been described as the waterfront property of radio spectrum.

There are essentially two alternatives to the Attorney's proposal. One is to insist that police and emergency services buy their communication services from commercial carriers. In effect, that means they would at this stage be reliant on Telstra, which is the only carrier in this space which has the reach that they need right across the country. This is the 'leave it to the free market' option that leaves our public safety agencies potentially at the mercy of Telstra, whose systems are not really built to importance level 1, which these services require for reliable, robust communications that survive natural disasters, to have that highest degree of network resilience that they obviously require.

The other option is to impose conditions on the commercial carriers which are successful in buying spectrum in this range at the forthcoming auctions. Such conditions would aim to ensure that the carriers meet the needs of police and emergency services, whether it be robustness, priority, security and so on. This approach was tried by the Obama administration in the States in 2008 and it failed because the carriers did not want to take on the onerous requirements that were necessary to meet the needs of first responders, quite understandably again. Their interests there are actually quite different. So subsequently President Obama reserved 20 megahertz for first responders in January 2011. They have rolled back in the US to the approach that the police and emergency services organisations are proposing here in Australia. If only mild conditions were imposed on the commercial carriers, the needs of first responders would not necessarily be achieved, and that is obviously something that they have great concerns about. We know the carrier systems regularly fail during natural disasters. Recognising that the NBN rollout will change the picture substantially, it is not going to change the underlying dynamic of the divergence of interests between the commercial carriers and emergency services personnel. So we believe that the Attorney-General's proposal probably has merit and is the only option that will ensure that police and emergency service authorities have the high-speed mobile broadband communica­tions that they effectively need in situations like natural disasters.

I understand that COAG has endorsed the need for these public safety agencies to achieve interoperability so as to protect the community in the range of circumstances that are foreseeable. I again give the minister notice now that I will be asking about that in the committee stage. This is a case obviously where the government's first priority, in our view, should be public safety and it should be the national interest rather than the interests first of the telecommunications carriers to maximise the value of the spectrum auction. I understand that a number of independent MPs are supporting the Attorney's proposal to reserve spectrum for natural disasters and other critical incidents. So we believe that public safety should come first and we are interested in pursuing the proposal to reserve spectrum for law enforcement agencies.

We come now to the other area that we addressed during the Senate inquiry earlier this year, which Senator Birmingham touched on in his remarks. It goes partly to the issue of pooling the Satellite Subsidy Scheme. During the caretaker period last year a letter from the department said the following concerning pooling:

The subsidy will be provided by way of a procurement model under which contracted satellite installers will be engaged to provide the equipment and installations for eligible households. It will not be paid directly. Because of this it does not lend itself to pooling of payments.

On 15 November last year I wrote again to the minister suggesting again the concept of pooling the SSS payments. This time the minister replied sometime around 21 December and in respect of the pooling matter a new series of arguments against pooling were raised. They were essentially twofold. Firstly:

Under the funding arrangements agreed to by the government for the satellite subsidy scheme, it is not possible to redirect funding from the scheme for other purposes such as making payments to councils to upgrade self-help facilities.

Secondly, the minister wrote:

I am also advised that pooling of the SSS funding in some areas could have the effect of increasing both the cost of the scheme to government and the copayment by individual households.

This is because—I am paraphrasing slightly here—of the model used maximising benefits from economies of scale that come from being able to contract for a specified number of households on a state-wide basis. If the number of households is reduced, the contractor's price might be expected to rise.

The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report of March this year shows in a bit of detail the objections and the counterproposals that were put in this matter by the Local Government Association of Queensland, Broadcasting Australia in particular and the Remote Area Planning and Development Board of Queensland, who took a particular interest in these issues. They provided responses within their submissions to the Senate committee as the same points were made by the minister in a letter of 9 December to the chairman of RAPAD. On the first point we believe that, just as the cabinet submission in relation to the scheme may have specified it being used only for DTH reception, so a subsequent cabinet decision could sensibly alter such a restriction if the arguments were made and if they were accepted. On the second point the department and the minister have said that such a procedure would distort the SSS scheme and result in higher copayment charges for the few remaining homes within the SSS VAST conversion structure. It is a reasonable argument, but we respectfully disagree. No bidder to an SSS tender can alter any quoted price on the basis of changes to the predicted number of homes regardless of the reason. This is reasonably well established. The exact wording from schedule 3, which is the pricing schedule for the required RFT response, says:

The exact number of Registered Households that will participate in the scheme may be higher or lower (than outlined in the Schedule) … The list of locations participating in the scheme may also vary due to decisions by the broadcasters to, or not to, convert self-help sites to digital …

So people coming into this process are well aware that the numbers of households can change. The second argument that the minister put to us in his letter does not actually hold water according to the documents. It is clear that broadcasters can quite freely decide to upgrade a self-help facility or not to upgrade one that they previously said they would at any time. The department does not seem to be concerned at this significant potential for a rise or fall in SSS participation and any effect on remaining homes. This already happened at Orroroo in regional South Australia after, we understand, the regional contract was signed with Skybridge. They lost more than half the predicted regional South Australian business. The same happened with Cohuna in regional Victoria. This town of 1,800 residents was removed from the department's scheme town list early in December 2010 after the broadcasters decided to upgrade the self-help transmitter at the end of November. We understand that that occurred after the contract with Skybridge had already been signed. Finally, we understand that total SSS business in regional Victoria is only running at about a third of the original predicted rate in the RFT documentation.

The pooling concept is fairly simple. Funds equivalent to the Commonwealth contribution for the relevant location—whether it be 400, 550, 700 or 980, depending on location—plus the manage­ment fee which is paid to the contractor for every eligible home serviced multiplied by the expected eligible household numbers for the location would be handed to the relevant council. This is something that councils are requesting to at least have the option to be able to do. If the Commonwealth were concerned about such a transfer, it could certainly coordinate an RFT process for such self-help upgrades, resulting in the relevant councils or the local government association and the Commonwealth entering into a bulk contract for all such regional—but mostly remote Queensland—self-help upgrades. I think this is a good model that could be extended elsewhere. The relevant local council would be responsible for all the extra initial establishment costs and continuing maintenance and operational costs—which is what the local government authorities up there are actually proposing. I understand that the LGAQ and RAPAD have been conducting tests of various digital terrestrial self-help technical models, the aim being to demonstrate, for example, a remote Indigen­ous community self-help transmission model. Again, as Senator Birmingham out­lined for the chamber, this is about retaining local programming and local terrestrial transmission. It is not about constricting choice or taking money off people making the government's life more complicated but about preserving the local broadcasters that people are used to.

Clearly, once technical feasibility, bulk costs and ongoing maintenance are identified, the next issue will be: can we pool the contingent SSS to assist the initial rollout cost? The Greens believe there are justifiable concerns from those who have questioned the logic of requiring the 265-odd self-help licensees, involving around 460 facilities, to examine digital terrestrial self-help options during the period 30 March to the end of January 2011. It was impossible for such an examination to be undertaken when the equipment necessary for such endeavours was not actually available. So we note the department's comment during the inquiry that they are willing to accept the position taken by some councils in rural and remote areas who have said that they were opting for the subsidy but if they subsequently find that there is a better terrestrial solution which proves cost-effective they will be able to implement that and they would actually prefer to do that for their communities.

The Greens recognise that there has to be a mixture of solutions to get television to people across Australia—part of that being satellite, part of it terrestrial. The question, obviously, is how services can be delivered most effectively. These issues were very well canvassed in the committee report. We remain concerned, however, that some viewers may be forced to receive a VAST service in rural and remote regions before alternatives have been tested. We understand that government may consider lengthening the time frame for consideration of self-help solutions and application for the scheme.

We have a second reading amendment which calls on the government to do this and I will move that shortly. We also have another second reading amendment that calls for an independent review. We may have created a certain amount of confusion in calling for a review that will actually be conducted before the rollout has concluded by 2013. That is intentional. Because it is a phased rollout, we will have a great deal of operational experience and we will have a very good idea of how the process has worked for the earlier regions once they have been bedded down, which we think will be useful to be conducted during the rollout in later regions, particularly as we start getting into the big metro areas. So we have some concerns remaining about the impact that these changes will have on the community and we believe that a review on the impact of delivery of television services to viewers across Australia, but in particular to regional and remote areas, should be undertaken no later than 24 months after the legislation has been put in place, which, as I say, will probably bring us in some time before the rollout has concluded. That is actually intentional. I move the two Greens amendments:

(1) At the end of the motion, add:

  but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should extend the timeframes for the consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the Satellite Subsidy Scheme.

(2) At the end of the motion, add:

  but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.

I conclude my comments and will come back with some questions for the minister, depending on the comments that he offers now.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly let me indicate on behalf of the government that it is our intention to oppose both of the second reading amend­ments that Senator Ludlam is proposing. It is our view that the proposed amendments would not have any practical effect upon the bill nor any practical effect in terms of constraining or obliging the government to do anything. We see them as being of no effect and we will oppose them.

In summing up on behalf of Minister Conroy, firstly let me say thank you to all honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Dividend and Other Measures) Bill 2011. After its introduction in the House on 24 February 2011, the bill was referred to the Senate Environment, Com­munication and the Arts Legislation Com­mittee for inquiry, as Senator Birmingham touched upon. The committee tabled their report in the Senate on 21 March 2011 and it recommended that the bill be passed.

The bill introduces amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 that are crucial to effectively implementing the restack of digital television channels needed to realise the digital dividend. On 24 June 2010, the government announced that 126 megahertz of broadcasting spectrum would be released as a digital dividend as a result of the switch-off of analog television services. The switch to digital-only television will be completed in Australia by 31 December 2013, releasing the channels used for analog television. The digital dividend will be released as a contiguous block of spectrum in the ultra-high frequency, or UHF, band. The UHF spectrum currently used for broad­casting services is highly valued for delivering wireless communication services, including superfast mobile broadband. The government aims to auction the digital dividend spectrum in the second half of 2012.

In order to release this highly valued spectrum, digital broadcasting services will need to be relocated—or, as Senator Fifield prefers, 'restacked'—out of the digital dividend spectrum and organised more efficiently within the remaining spectrum. The government intends that the digital dividend spectrum be cleared by 31 December 2014. While ACMA has some scope under its existing powers to commence digital channel restack planning, the bill would give it more flexible planning powers and allow the restack of digital television channels to occur in a timely and efficient manner. The proposed amendments will also improve the regulatory framework for digital switchover and the delivery of both terrestrial and satellite free-to-air digital television services.

During the inquiry of the Senate Environment and Communications Legisla­tion Committee into the provisions of the bill, some submissions raised concerns that the bill favoured satellite conversion over terrestrial conversion. The government recognises that both terrestrial infrastructure and a satellite service are required to provide all Australians with access to the full range of digital television services. Government policy does not advocate a preferred method of digital television reception. I might also take this opportunity to respond to Senator Birmingham's concerns regarding regional Australia by simply saying that this government is very proud indeed to have finally brought to viewers in regional and remote Australia, through our switchover program and the launch of a new satellite service, access to the same number of digital television channels as people in the capital cities enjoy. This is a historic outcome for viewers in regional and remote Australia, who for decades have received less choice and arguably lower quality reception in their television viewing than people have in the capital cities.

The bill will amend the conditional access scheme to provide commercial broadcasters in remote Western Australia with the opportunity to roll out their terrestrial digital television services before viewers they intend to serve can access the VAST satellite service. This will help to protect the integrity of the larger terrestrial television markets in remote Western Australia and avoids the need for viewers to purchase satellite reception equipment unnecessarily. The bill also proposes to allow viewers access to the VAST satellite service after a specified time after switchover in their licence area if it provides a superior number of commercial digital television services, including digital multichannels that are otherwise available terrestrially in their area. These provisions will provide the commercial broadcasters with the incentive to roll out all of their terrestrial digital television services before viewers in the area will be able to automatically access VAST.

Although commercial and national broadcasters can apply to the minister for exemption from converting terrestrial digital transmission sites under very limited circumstances, it is important to note that this exemption is not automatic. It is within the minister's discretion, having regard to the statutory criteria outlined in the bill, whether to grant a broadcaster an exemption. An exemption cannot be granted where a service has already commenced transmitting in digital. These provisions are intended to, amongst other things, minimise situations where consumers need to purchase both satellite and terrestrial reception equipment to receive the full suite of digital television channels. The bill will progress the government's digital television switchover program and will help realise the digital dividend, bringing significant social and economic benefits to all Australians. On behalf of the government, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement with respect to the amendments.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I shall make it brief and try to cover both amendments at once. In relation to the amendment that I think we are considering first—that is, the one relating to self-help solutions and sites and the potential to be able to pool funds—this was an area that I spent some time discussing in my remarks during the second reading debate. The coalition are favourably disposed to support the motion of the Greens in that regard. We think that it makes a lot of sense, that it provides positive outcomes for communities in terms of increasing the scope of terrestrial services and has the opportunity to provide positive outcomes for taxpayers by minimising the amount spent on satellite subsidies. So I indicate our support in that regard.

In relation to the amendment relating to a review, which I think we will deal with subsequently, the coalition will not be supporting that amendment. I hope the government are in a process of, shall I say, 'continuous learning' with regard to the digital switchover—that is, that as problems are uncovered in each region, they actually learn the lessons and address them before the next region, and in particular address them before we get to the 2013 switchover of metropolitan areas around Australia. I do not know that a formal review part-way through the process is going to add to this. I think it is far more important for the government to actually be learning those lessons as they go, fixing it as they go and getting it right as they go. That is what the coalition would be urging them to do. Therefore we will not be supporting the amendment on sheet 7053 pertaining to a review.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for two minutes.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then we can go into committee and we can leave these issues be. I thank Senator Birmingham for his support on at least one of these, as I think the issues that we were concerned about are sub­stantially pretty similar. It is about giving people time to make better arrangements, since they seem to be technically and economically feasible. I would invite the minister and maybe call him on his response when he spoke briefly to these amendments, saying—I am paraphrasing—'You are not compelling us to do anything so these amendments are irrelevant.' I think that is a rather cavalier attitude to take to an amendment which I believe the chamber will shortly carry that 'the government should extend the timeframes—as this amendment proposes—for consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the SSS'. That is inviting the government to do something constructive.

We have moved this in the form of a second reading amendment, and perhaps I should get it drafted as a committee amendment to compel the government to do exactly that. But I thought that, as a sign of goodwill, particularly with coalition support, a second reading amendment effectively advises the government that the chamber wishes it to take action in a certain way. I do not think we are asking anything unreason­able at all. It does not compel the gov­ernment to unpick the structure of the subsidy scheme. We are inviting the government to take another look at some of the constructive proposals that have been set forth by local government associations and Broadcasting Australia. I wonder whether the minister might indicate that the government would be prepared to take this amendment in the spirit in which it is proposed.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move second reading amendment on sheet 7053:

At the end of the motion, add:

but the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should cause an independent review of the impact of the delivery of television services under this legislation on viewers across Australia, and in particular in regional and remote areas, to be undertaken no later than 2 years after the commencement of this legislation.

Question negatived.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate, I have a number of questions that I would like to put to the minister relating to requests by emergency services authorities for the quarantining of 20-odd megahertz of the spectrum that is proposed to go to auction. I will not elaborate unless the minister wants me to. I just invite him to respond to those concerns.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   I thank Senator Ludlam. As I comprehend it, the issue here is state and territory public safety agencies seeking an allocation of digital dividend spectrum as a means of meeting their wireless broadband capability requirements. I think it is important for me to stress that the gov­ernment understands the critical importance of supporting our public safety agencies with the best possible communications networks.

The options for the best way to achieve the new mobile broadband capability sought by public safety agencies are—as you have touched upon—being looked at by the Attorney-General's Department. Senator Conroy's department and the Australian Communications and Media Authority, ACMA, are of course assisting the Attorney-General's Department in that endeavour. In fact, a roundtable meeting was held only this morning, on 10 May 2011, and that meeting was attended by public safety agencies, industry and Commonwealth agencies. In fact—this is hot off the press—I can advise that that meeting was also attended by the Attorney-General and Minister Conroy. At that meeting, agreement was reached to establish a steering committee with repre­sentatives from all interested parties to determine the best way to meet the spectrum needs of police and emergency services. This will involve ACMA working with police and emergency services to identify the appropriate spectrum to be reserved in the 800 band—which has been identified for public safety purposes in the harmonised band plans for the Asia-Pacific region. This is the appropriate and agreed process to address this issue, and I understand that there are no measures in this bill that in any way impede or otherwise affect that process.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   I have a couple of questions, but I first ask the minister whether or not he would be willing to table the document that he was reading from just then.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   It is my handwritten notes on the basis of a conversation. It is not such a glamorous document.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

( ):  It may not be decipherable other than to Senator Feeney.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is probably not the smoking gun you might be looking for, Senator Ludlam.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(   In relation to the issue of emergency service networks and their access to spectrum, the coalition have been particularly aware of this issue and concerned for some time now. We are aware that people raised issues in relation to this legislation. We believe that there is some merit in ensuring that particular considera­tion be given to this issue, and that is why we moved to establish terms of reference on it for the Senate Environment and Communica­tions References Committee, which is undertaking an inquiry into the capacity of communication networks and emergency warning systems to deal with emergencies and natural disasters. They are broad terms of reference that have the capacity to deal with a range of potential issues, but it is important to note that the terms of reference also include a capacity and requirement for the committee to look at new and emerging technologies, including digital spectrum, that could improve preparation for responses to and recovery from an emergency or natural disaster.

The coalition sees this as an important issue. We are encouraged that the chamber—including, indeed, Senator Ludlam—supported us in ensuring that these terms of reference were passed through to the committee. We do think that it is critical that the concerns of those state and territory agencies as well as the concerns raised by many other groups about spectrum access for emergency services be heard and properly considered. We trust that the government, as part of their responsibility, will do that, and this chamber is already doing that through the Senate Environment and Communica­tions References Committee. We think that that is an appropriate forum in which to air all of those issues properly and to ensure that, if the case for particular spectrum to be allocated is valid, the committee will make recommendations to the government for that spectrum to be allocated. We would hope that the government would look favourably upon such recommendations.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Birmingham for that contribution. You are quite correct: we did support that committee reference. I think it is timely and it is certainly a very good idea. But does not go to the heart of the issue that I am raising here, so I will perhaps put a question to the minister. I understood that what you told us just then was that the roundtable, or however you defined it, had convened to discuss the allocation of spectrum in the 800-megahertz range—I think that is what you just said—which is not actually what they are asking for, and I wonder whether you would like to clear up that discrepancy before we move ahead.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess, Senator Ludlam, that you are interested in the 400-megahertz band. On the 400-megahertz band the government has already made significant progress through the COAG process—which I think you touched upon, Senator Ludlam-to deliver an agreed national framework for improved radio communications interoperability. In April 2010, the ACMA announced arrange­ments for the provision of harmonised spectrum for use by government agencies in the 400-megahertz band. Under those arrangements, several segments in the 403-megahertz to 470-megahertz frequency range were identified for the exclusive use of government. That exclusive use is primarily to support national security, law enforcement and emergency services but is also available to support broader government use once those core requirements have been compre­hensively met. Provision of this dedicated spectrum for emergency services require­ments in the 400-megahertz band will ensure interoperability of voice networks between different state jurisdictions. These arrange­ments complement the objectives developed by COAG under the national framework.

In conclusion, the government remains committed to supporting the needs of public safety agencies, and the government will continue to work with the states and territories to determine the most efficient and effective communications network to meet Australia's emergency management and public safety needs.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, the issue that I addressed and my understanding of the area of spectrum that these organisations are most concerned about is in the 700-megahertz band, so it is well outside 400 megahertz. They are seeking a 20-megahertz slice of that spectrum, which, as I understand it, for technical reasons—and this is obviously not my specific area of expertise—carries further. It is a better piece of spectrum for the kind of equipment that these people seek to operate in that it can penetrate buildings and so on and not be subject to rain, other weather conditions or that kind of thing.

The question I put to you, and I would be happy if you could just give us a yes or no answer, is this: is the government committed to resolving these issues through the roundtable process that you have established prior to undertaking the auction—that is, will you commit to ensuring that the organisa­tions that you are with now at the table will have their concerns addressed before you give up that slice of what is effectively taxpayers property?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the answer to that is yes. The issues will be resolved prior to auction.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a succinct answer. I am a little bit taken aback and surprised. I thank the minister for that. I again invite the minister—through you, Senator Feeney—to resume communications with some of the local government authorities and other agencies who have been working on pooling the SSS, because I think there is potentially a good outcome there for everybody. Would the minister like to briefly address the question that I raised right before I moved the amendment? It was about the gov­ernment's attitude—and I certainly do not want to misquote the government's inten­tions—to the second reading amendment that the chamber just passed.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to do that, Senator Ludlam. I think you quite accurately characterised those two amendments put by you, one of which was passed only a few moments ago, as an expression of the will and sentiment of the Senate—and I think that is right. Those amendments do not amend the bill or impose any legal obligations on the government; rather, they are an opinion of the Senate expressed by the Senate. As a consequence of that, together with the fact that I am advised that a second reading amendment for a bill has no consequences for the House of Representatives and is rather an expression of opinion by the Senate, I said something to the effect—I cannot quite remember the phrase I used, forgive me—that these amendments would have no effect upon the bill. That was really what I was saying. I guess I made the remark on those two grounds. I cannot quite remember my phraseology, forgive me, but I guess I said something to the effect that these amendments would have no effect upon the bill. That is really what I was saying. I hope that is of assistance.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was certainly more politely worded than your comments prior to closing the second reading debate. I wonder whether the government can offer a commitment, then, whether or not they will extend time frames for the consideration of self-help solutions and applications in subsidy areas of the scheme. That is effectively what we are asking. Your response is, 'We're not legally obliged to do anything, so we're feeling free to ignore it'—again, I am paraphrasing. Can you offer a commitment as to whether the will of the Senate will be respected in this instance?

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Notwithstanding your vicious paraphrasing, Senator Ludlam, the govern­ment's answer is that it is and remains committed to working with local commun­ities. It has already granted extensions to local governments. It appreciates that there are particular concerns and it will regularly review the progress of this work.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just say by way of closing that I greatly preferred it when you stood up and just said yes. I have no other questions on this matter.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lovely to see you, Mr Acting Deputy President McGauran.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Likewise.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011. The coalition's key concern when it comes to electoral legislation is that the integrity of the electoral roll is maintained and strengthened. This bill does neither of those things.

In 2006, the Howard government introduced legislation that required provisional voters to produce evidence of identity within seven days of a federal election or referendum. This legislation was introduced because the then government identified a loophole in the rules that surround provisional voting whereby the integrity of the electoral roll could be compromised by people enrolling in marginal electorates to influence the result in that seat, despite actually residing elsewhere.

Now, with this bill, the government seeks to repeal the evidence of identity require­ments introduced by the coalition to ensure that the Australian electoral system is not rorted and to deter people from failing to comply with Electoral Act. This government wants to water down legislation that was introduced with the express purpose of strengthening the accuracy and integrity of the electoral roll, and the coalition will not support it in doing so. The coalition is opposed to any measure that would weaken the proof of identity requirements relating to provisional voting because it would remove an important deterrent that is designed to prevent voters from failing to maintain an accurate enrolment. Weakening proof of identity requirements will also remove an important measure that acts to deter those who may seek to engage in electoral fraud through multiple voting.

The government's stated reason for this bill is that getting rid of the proof of identity requirements will mean that provisional votes will be treated the same as other classes of votes such as postal votes, pre-poll votes and absent votes. This, in the eyes of the Labor Party, is a good thing. That attitude, we believe, is misguided. Votes cast as provisional are provisional for a reason—often because the voter is not found to be on the roll or because two people present to vote under the same name.

In both these scenarios it is entirely reasonable to expect the voter to provide evidence of their identity. Without such evidence, the accuracy of the electoral roll is fundamentally compromised and the accuracy of election results could become compromised as well. If a voter is found not to be on the roll, it could be the result of their failure to maintain an accurate enrolment. If two people present to vote under the same name, it is clearly necessary and entirely appropriate for some proof of identity to be sought.

To quote my coalition colleagues' dissenting report to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 2007 report:

Given that failure to properly maintain one's enrolment is a breach of the Act, it is not unreasonable for such persons to be subjected to a more stringent procedure to admit their vote, as a result of neglecting their responsibilities under the Act.

It is also not unreasonable for a more stringent procedure to apply before a vote is admitted for counting if two people are presenting to vote under the same name. The coalition believes that there must be consequences for people who fail to meet their obligations under the Electoral Act to maintain an accurate enrolment. If this bill passes through the parliament, there will be little incentive for people to uphold obligations surrounding their enrolment. If people have no incentive to maintain an accurate enrolment, then the integrity of the electoral roll as a whole will be compro­mised. The number of people casting provisional votes has increased over the past recent years. Between 1994 and 2004 the number of provisional votes rose from 112,344 to 180,878. In 2007 nearly 80 per cent of voters who wanted to cast a provisional vote presented evidence of identity. In 2010, 96 per cent of people seeking to cast a provisional vote presented evidence of identity. The high rate of compliance with these regulations demonstrates the effectiveness of the coalition's 2006 legislation.

It is interesting to note that although 81.65 per cent of provisional votes were rejected in 2010, only 28,000 out of a total of 203,488 provisional votes lodged were rejected as a result of a failure to produce evidence of identity. That is under 14 per cent of provisional votes. The rest of the votes were rejected due to other issues that did not relate in any way to evidence of identity. And less than half of those 14 per cent of voters were subsequently found on the certified list. So this bill can hardly be supported on the grounds that the 2006 legislation resulted in the exclusion of a huge proportion of eligible voters from participating in elections.

The coalition's position on the issues surrounding the electoral role has been consistent and justified over many years. The Liberal and National parties are committed to ensuring that electoral fraud is minimised and that the integrity of the electoral roll and electoral system are maintained and strengthened.

The 2006 legislation which this bill seeks to repeal was introduced not for partisan political reasons but with the very best of intentions. The coalition sought to strengthen the electoral system's defences against reporting by those who may seek to multiple vote, and to reinforce the integrity of the electoral roll. This bill, by repealing the proof of identity requirements currently in place for those who wish to place a provisional vote will leave the electoral system open to manipulation, and will compromise the integrity of the electoral roll.

It is entirely appropriate that a voter's failure to maintain an accurate enrolment as per the obligations under the Electoral Act result in them being subject to a slightly more stringent process. And the experience of the last election has shown that 96 per cent of those who seek to place a provisional vote do not find it to onerous a task to have to produce identification when presenting at the voting booth.

The opposition will support measures that allow the electoral roll to be maintained as accurately and truthfully as possible. But the coalition will continue to oppose any measures that will weaken the deterrents to fail to comply with the Electoral Act. This bill does exactly that, and will likely damage the integrity of the electoral roll. As such, the coalition will be opposing this bill.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011. This bill amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984.

Essentially, the bill will repeal the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of their identity before the votes are admitted to preliminary scrutiny. As senators in this place would be aware, a provisional vote is a type of declaration vote cast by an elector at a polling place on polling day. Like all declaration votes, it is a vote that is sealed inside an envelope. After this, the elector's details, including name, address, date of birth and signature are written on the outside of the envelope.

There are four main reasons an elector may be required to cast a provisional vote: the elector's name cannot be found on the certified list, the elector's name is marked on the certified list indicating that the elector has already voted, the polling official has doubts regarding the elector's identity or the voter is a registered silent elector whose address does not appear on the certified list. Currently, the Electoral Act determines that an elector who casts a provisional vote must provide a polling official with proof of identity at the time of voting, or to the Australian Electoral Commission—the AEC office—by the first Friday following polling day. If the proof of identity is not provided by the deadline, the envelope containing the ballot paper is excluded from the preliminary scrutiny and is not counted.

As the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Gary Gray MP, rightly points out, this requirement was put in place by the previous government in 2006. It resulted in a situation where provisional votes were dealt with in a way that was inconsistent with the treatment of other kinds of declaration votes, namely, absent, postal and pre-poll votes. This legislation will repeal the proof of identity requirement and ensure that all declaration votes are treated equally.

This bill will replace the proof of identity provision with a test which has been used in previous elections. The test which has been previously used is conducted by the divisional returning officer—the DRO. The DRO compares the signature on the provisional vote with the signature of the elector on their previously lodged enrolment form if there are any queries about the identity of the elector. Currently, the requirement for only provisional voters, and not other categories of declaration votes such as absent, postal and pre-poll, to provide proof of identity leads to inconsistencies in the treatment of different types of declaration votes. Essentially, the current arrangement means that an elector who is eligible to vote, and who only has a provisional vote rejected at preliminary scrutiny because of failure to provide evidence of identity would have their vote counted if they had instead voted by absent vote, postal vote all pre-poll declaration. There is no reason why otherwise valid provisional votes should be treated differently to other forms of declaration voting.

As a provisional vote can be cast in a referendum, this bill also amends the referendum act to be consistent with amendments made to the Electoral Act. At the 2007 federal election over 27,000 provisional votes were rejected at preliminary scrutiny because the voter did not provide evidence of identity by the first Friday following polling day. At the 2010 federal election over 28,000 provisional votes were rejected for the same reason. There are a number of reasons why electors may not provide proof of identity by the first Friday after the election. One reason is that electors may not be motivated to provide evidence of identity because the result of the election is already known. It does not necessarily indicate an attempt by electors to fraudulently vote.

The AEC has undertaken further examination of the 28,000 provisional votes cast at the 2010 election and identified 12,000 instances where the name of the voter was subsequently found on the certified list. So these people were in fact eligible voters, highlighting that the 2006 amendments are simply unworkable. What we are doing in this bill is making an amendment to restore the custom and practice of dealing with provisional votes.

The Australian Electoral Commission has provided support for this amendment bill through their submission to the current inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters into the 2010 federal election. The AEC has recommended that the requirement for production of evidence of identity by provisional voters should be repealed. The AEC believes that details provided by the elector on the outside of the envelope, such as the voter's name, address, date of birth and signature, allow the Electoral Commission to determine the voter's eligibility to have their vote included without the requirement for additional proof of identity.

It is important that we pass this measure to avoid inconsistencies with other forms of declaration voting. This is to ensure that our electoral system supports all eligible voters having their votes counted. This legislation clears up the unworkable 2006 amendments by repealing the proof of identity requirement for provisional votes and ensures that all declaration votes are treated equally. This is an amendment, as I have said, that is recommended by the AEC. I would urge all those opposite to support this legislation.

I want to recap exactly what this bill seeks to do because the opposition, as I understand it, will not be supporting this piece of legislation. I ask that they go back and have a look at exactly what the legislation seeks to do, and that is to increase the franchise. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Provisional Voting) Bill 2011 will repeal the requirement for provisional voters to provide evidence of identity before their votes are admitted to preliminary scrutiny so that they are treated no differently to absentee votes and other declaration type votes. The bill also will implement recommendation 2 of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the conduct of the 2007 federal election and matters related thereto, which has been tabled. This measure was also one of the federal Labor government's 2007 election commitments. This piece of legislation delivers on that commitment.

Basically, we have an election commitment that this bill seeks to deliver on, we have the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommending it in their 2007 report and we have the AEC suggesting that this provision needs to be repealed. As I said earlier, of the 28,000 votes that were set aside from the 2010 federal election, 12,000 were found, after a check on the certified roll, actually to be on the roll. That result is not particularly surprising, as a polling official will put the vote in an envelope if they have any doubts, as people in this chamber well know.

There is no real reason for us to treat this type of declaration vote any differently to other types of declaration votes. It is well known on this side of the chamber that these amendments were put in the act in 2006 for political reasons. It was a decision by the then Howard government to make it as hard as possible for people to cast a valid vote, for people to have their democratic say in an election. What this says to people is, 'If you are left off accidentally or the polling official just cannot find your name then we are going to place more onerous task on you than we would on any other elector.' We say to them: 'We will put your vote in an envelope. We will take your name, address, date of birth and then we are going to set that aside and you have until the Friday following the election to come down and show us proof of identity that you are indeed this person.' It is something we do not do for any other type of declaration vote.

Those changes were made by the then Howard government to make it harder for a certain group of electors, probably because they felt they were less likely to vote for them. (Time expired)

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 20:00

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

I table the budget statement for 2011-12 and other documents as indicated on the list circulated in the chamber. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. I move:

That the Senate take note of the Budget statement and documents.

The list read as fo l lows—

Budget statement and documents 2011-12

Budget speech 2011-12—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Swan), dated 10 May 2011.

Budget papers—

No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook 2011-12.

No. 2—Budget measures 2011-12.

No. 3—Australia's federal relations 2011-12.

No. 4—Agency resourcing 2011-12.

Ministerial statements—

Australia's international development assistance program 2011-12

Investing in regional Australia

Investing to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians

National mental health reform 2011-12

Our cities, our future—A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future

Debate (on motion by Senator Wong) adjourned.

I table particulars of proposed and certain expenditure in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber and seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of estimates.

Question agreed to.

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

I table the portfolio budget statements for 2011-12 for the Department of the Senate and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office.

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

I table portfolio budget statements for 2011-12 for portfolio and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. I can advise the chamber that copies are available from the Senate Table Office.

The list read as follows—

Budget Related Documents—10 May 2011

2011-12 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS)

1.1   Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio

1.2   Attorney-General's portfolio

1.3   Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy portfolio

1.4   Climate Change and Energy Efficiency portfolio

1.5A   Defence portfolio

1.5B   Defence portfolio (Department of Veterans' Affairs)

1.6   Education, Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio

1.7   Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio

1.8   Finance and Deregulation portfolio

1.9   Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio

1.10   Health and Ageing portfolio

1.11   Human Services portfolio

1.12   Immigration and Citizenship portfolio

1.13   Infrastructure and Transport portfolio

1.14   Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio

1.15A   Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio

1.15B   Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio (Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government)

1.16   Resources, Energy and Tourism portfolio

1.17   Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities portfolio

1.18   Treasury portfolio

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 6 March this year, I had the opportunity to visit McMullen Abbeyfield House in Huonville in southern Tasmania for its 10th birthday celebrations. McMullen Abbeyfield House, in Huonville, is part of Abbeyfield Australia, which is the peak national body that represents 26 affiliated Abbeyfield associations. Across Australia, there are 23 Abbeyfield houses and three hostel aged care facilities. These facilities are located in Tasmania, Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales, the ACT and Queensland. Tasmania has five Abbeyfield houses, with the others being in Burnie, Launceston, Chigwell and Glenorchy. Tasmania is certainly well represented in Abbeyfield houses, given the state's small population, but bearing in mind the percentage of the population over 65 this is possibly not surprising.

McMullen Abbeyfield House is a group home that encourages independent living in a supportive environment. Residents come and go as they please, retaining their indepen­dence and personal interests, but they have the company of others if they choose to socialise in shared areas of the home. McMullen House has a wonderful vegetable garden and many fruit trees. Many of the residents enjoy harvesting the wide variety of vegetables and fruit grown and also cook and preserve much of the produce. Indeed, I was quite envious of the many preserve jars on the wall unit.

The residents have a real sense of pride and belonging in their home. They have a housekeeper and are provided with home-cooked meals. The residents tell me the food is wonderful, and if they want to cook they are encouraged to do so. I think this is one of the aspects that makes the facility a real home for many: the fact that they can make a cake, cook a dinner or just be in the kitchen with the housekeeper.

Costs are met by residents paying 70 per cent of the base pension plus 100 per cent of their rent assistance to Abbeyfield. Payments cover food, accommodation, cleaning, materials and power, plus a gardener for those bigger gardening jobs, and rates on the building. If family visit and wish to stay overnight, there is a guest room, and family and friends can stay for meals, both at small cost. This is a real sense of home; it is not at all institutionalised. There is a real sense of warmth and personality, and the residents really enjoy the mix of independence, while still feeling supported. A couple of the residents told me it was the best move they had ever made. McMullen Abbeyfield House was largely funded by a private estate. Land and the equivalent costs of seven rooms and en suites were included. The remaining three rooms were funded by the state government and the normal public housing eligibility criteria apply.

There is another Abbeyfield House, in the northern suburbs of Hobart. Abbeyfield Glenorchy was developed with funding under the Local Government Community Housing Program, and a contribution from the Commonwealth government, at the time the Keating government. The Common­wealth government funding came in the form of two separate grants, $440,000 in the 1992-93 financial year and $40,000 in the 1993-94 financial year. This project was also greatly supported by Rotary, Lions and the Trust Bank Foundation.

While I am mentioning Abbeyfield Glenorchy, I would like to congratulate the five people who were awarded life membership of Abbeyfield Glenorchy Inc. for their service last year. They are Mrs Anne Gunn, Mrs June Flood, Mrs Merle Diakovsky, Mr Max Maynard and Mr Leo Hurst. Mr Hurst is also a director on the Abbeyfield Australia board. He is joined there by fellow Tasmanian David Kay, who is the national treasurer.

Abbeyfield's focus has been providing assisted group housing for Australians aged 55 and over. However, there is now also accommodation for people with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. This change in direction has occurred as a result of need in the community.

Abbeyfield Australia is part of a worldwide movement with 18 countries using the concept of group housing, which began in the United Kingdom in 1955. The concept came about when Richard Carr-Gomm volunteered his services to help elderly people needing practical assistance and companionship. Mr Carr-Gomm went further than just being a helper and companion. He purchased a house, made it available for people to live in and became the housekeeper, although this was only for a very short time. Mr Carr-Gomm then founded the Carr-Gomm Society, which operated on the same principles. Abbeyfield in Australia began in 1986 with a home in Melbourne. Other countries using the concept include Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jersey, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, the United States of America, and an associate member, Mexico. At present more than 9,000 people live in 850 Abbeyfield houses worldwide. Abbeyfield Australia is a registered not-for-profit company and registered charity.

The national peak body advocates for all Abbeyfield houses and helps to maintain a management and support framework for all associations. This includes providing: legal and governance advice; national repre­sentation and advocacy; planning, building design and project management; a national framework of policies and operational procedures; a comprehensive suite of tar­geted insurance policies; affiliation and man­age­ment agreements; ongoing operational guidance; and collegial support and volunteer networking opportunities

Abbeyfield Australia understands that Australia's demand for affordable housing will continue to increase at a rapid rate as the 'baby boomer' generation ages. They also recognise that group living is a highly cost-effective way in which to provide quality community based accommodation. Abbeyfield Australia has both the capacity and the experience to assist in meeting the demands of the nation's changing population.

Each Abbeyfield house is managed by a local incorporated association with its own volunteer committee of management. The local association must manage the house in line with the Abbeyfield Australia gov­ernance principles and procedures. The association is responsible for: compliance with tenancy legislation and food safety standards; induction and continuing liaison with residents; employment of the live-in housekeeper; budgeting and financial management; and consultation with residents on both an individual and a house level

Abbeyfield Australia is hopeful that it will be able to help meet the demands for affordable and cost-effective community housing. Abbeyfield believes its expertise and community volunteer commitment, combined with financial support from the Australian government, can deliver good outcomes in an economically responsible way. Once built, there is no need for ongoing financial support from government as all operational costs are met through the rent. The Abbeyfield business model allows for consistent outcomes while maximising local community involvement and ownership.

Each Abbeyfield house has room for 10 residents with each having their own bedroom with ensuite and tea and coffee facilities. Shared areas of the house include lounge and dining areas, a laundry and an outdoor area. When I was at Abbeyfield House in Huonville each room had its own little outdoor area and many of the residents had tables and chairs where they could relax with family. As mentioned, a housekeeper provides nutritious meals and the maintenance and house costs are covered by the local association.

One of the most important things about an Abbeyfield house is that they are designed to feel like a home and not like an institution or facility. Abbeyfield residents experience many benefits, which may include: affordable, supportive, safe and long-term secure accommodation; greater indepen­dence for older residents; an opportunity for people with disability to move out from their parents' home; enhanced social relationships and companionship; increased community participation; and the lessening of isolation for those people who live in isolated areas. They also allow people to stay within the area they have grown up in. That was a great benefit at the Huonville home I visited. There is also additional opportunities to access work, especially for residents with disability. It eases the burden on family members who have been previously caring for the resident.

I believe Abbeyfield is a great concept in that it provides affordable housing as well as allowing residents to live independently while still receiving support when needed. Abbeyfield Australia has developed a strategic plan for 2010 to 2015 and it has set a target of having 46 households across the nation by the end of that period. With that many houses, about 650 people will be living in Abbeyfield accommodation. Further to this, by 2025 it is envisaged Abbeyfield Australia will have more than 100 properties accommodating approximately 1,300 people.

In conclusion, I would point out that Australia has approximately 522 local government areas. If there were just one house in each local government area that would accommodate more than 5,200 people. That is certainly something worth thinking about.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand tonight to speak to a matter of serious concern relating to the professionalism, or lack of it, of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen. On 4 April the minister, on behalf of the Labor Gillard government, caved in to coalition pressure and overturned Labor's ban on the distribution of Bibles and other holy books as gifts at citizenship ceremonies. Labor's changes to the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code in 2008 specifically banned the giving of Bibles and other holy books as gifts at citizenship ceremonies. That was confirmed by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship in answers to questions on notice that I put in October last year and again in the Senate in February. The ban was also accepted by the relevant minister in this place, Senator Kim Carr, in answer to a question I asked. He even tried to blame it on the Howard government. But we see that, as of 4 April, Minister Bowen tried to pretend that there was never a ban at all—both ministers directly conflicting with each other.

The serious concern I have relates to the lack of a response from the minister, Chris Bowen, to correspondence I forwarded to him on 28 October seeking clarification of the matter following Senate estimates in October. I wrote:

Dear Minister

I am writing to seek clarification on the current confusion surrounding the status of Bibles as "gifts" under the Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code. I refer also to recent communications I have had with the Bible Society of Tasmania who have serious concerns. I seek your confirmation that Bibles have not been—and will not be—banned at citizenship ceremonies.

I never received a response to that letter. On 12 January I followed up in a courteous way in another letter. I wrote:

I refer to my previous correspondence dated October 28, 2010 addressing the confusion surrounding the status of Bibles as "gifts" under the current Australian Citizenship Ceremonies Code.

As at the date of this letter no response has been received. Your early response would be greatly appreciated.

And still no response. On 28 March, there was still no response. So what do I do? I write to the Prime Minister, the Honourable Julia Gillard, and ask her to take up the matter with her cabinet colleague Minister Chris Bowen. As of today, Tuesday, 10 May, there is still no response from this government.

If they are treating a senator, a fellow member of the federal parliament, in this way, how are they treating members of the public? With disdain and contempt, no doubt. The lack of a response from this minister is outrageous. It is not only patronising and demeaning; it is condescending, disrespectful and downright insulting. For the minister not to provide any response in any way, shape or form—either via an email, a hard copy letter or a telephone call from his office—is not good enough.

The reason I raise this in the Senate is that this parliament is meant to have some sort of standards. There is meant to be some sort of ethic to the way that they deliberate. Clearly it is not good enough. I raised it with the Prime Minister on 28 March, and here we are early-ish in May and there has still been no response—absolutely nothing. If they are treating a fellow member of the federal parliament in this way, how are they treating members of the public—with the same level of disdain and contemptuous behaviour? That is a question I pose, and it remains to be answered.

Why would the minister not respond? Clearly, there is a conflict in understanding with respect to their views on whether or not there was a ban. Clearly there is a conflict between Senator Kim Carr and the minister. It is on the Senate Hansard. He put out a media release in early April, indicating that they overturned the ban. He did not use those words; members of the public have used those words. Indeed, the Mercury newspaper used those words. Their headline on that day, 5 April, was 'Unholy row ends as bibles stay'. I congratulate Bruce Mounster for writing that report, which read as follows:

AN unholy row over a ban on the issuing of bibles as gifts at citizenship ceremonies has finally ended.

A campaign led by Tasmanian Liberal senator Guy Barnett since last October against "political correctness gone mad" bore fruit yesterday when federal Immigration and Citizenship Minister Chris Bowen overturned the ban.

The row flared after Clarence Council was ordered by Immigration Department officials to stop proffering bibles, supplied to ceremonies by the Bible Society of Australia.

Hobart City Council and others in Tasmania had already stopped the practice.

Clarence Mayor Jock Campbell yesterday said the ban had been foolish.

"It was an attempt at political correctness and in my opinion stupid," Alderman Campbell said.

The Mercury got it right and I thank them for covering that story. But I would like to know whether it is right and appropriate for a minister of this government not to respond to or to communicate in any way with a fellow member of the federal parliament.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Typical!

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it typical, Senator Humphries? If so, that is very disappointing, but I am not surprised. I would ask those on the other side in this chamber to take it up with the minister and ask, 'Why haven't you responded? Are you treating fellow members of parliament with disdain and contempt in the same way you treat members of the public?' That question has been asked. Two letters have been sent. It was raised in Senate estimates. I have raised it a third time in writing to the Prime Minister. Nothing has happened. Be it on your own heads in terms of the manner in which you behave in this place.

Finally, in the few moments I have remaining, I would like to pay a special tribute tonight to the world champion from Launceston, Tasmania, Daniel Geale. He is known as the 'real deal'. He was born and bred in Launceston. He studied at Brooks High School in Launceston. He has stunned the world by becoming a world champion, winning the International Boxing Federation middle-weight crown in Germany, just a few days ago. It was Sunday the 8th, and it was reported widely across the nation and in particular in the Tasmanian media. I thank the media there, including the Launceston Examiner, for giving him the appropriate recognition.

It was against the odds, it was in Germany, it was against a German and it was in front of a parochial crowd. He is only 30 years old and he still has a very long way to go. He is now a world champion. I say congratulations to Daniel Geale, to his team, to his family. Congratulations and well done.

I particularly note the comments by Graeme George, his trainer, who had trained him as a young boy in Launceston. He said that he would like to make the first defence of his IBF middle-weight crown in Tasmania and has urged the state government to get behind the state's newest world champion to make sure that it happens. I want to support that call and call for the state government, the Labor government in Tasmania, to try and wriggle out of the despair and dismay that it is in at the moment—the wrecking of the Tasmanian economy, the trashing of the budget and the sacking of thousands of Tasmanian public servants and others—and just for a moment to grab hold of this wonderful opportunity, get behind it and support this event, so that the defence of this title can take place in Tasmania. It would do wonders not just for tourism and not just for the people who would attend such an event, but Tasmania would be the eyes of the world. The international media and tele­vision would be focusing on Tasmania for such an event. I hope that other members and senators in this place and those in Tasmania as well will get behind this push to make sure that Daniel Geale can defend his IBF title in Tasmania. Wouldn't that be just fantastic? Wouldn't it just be so good?

I also note that it is beamed all around the world. It would be a big confidence boost for Tasmania in terms of the hosting of events. There are a whole range of different sporting events but this would be one of the biggest opportunities, and we should grasp it with both hands. I call on the state government to get behind this call, make it a success and give Daniel Geale the honour that he deserves. I thank the Senate.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following Mothers Day, I want to speak this evening about the privilege I had recently to be in a roomful of true 'supermums' while presenting the Victorian Mother of the Year award, hosted by Barnardos. Being a Victorian senator is indeed a privilege and a role that I relish, but being a mum is an even greater privilege and a role I delight in.

I was interested to read in the papers recently about Gail Kelly, the Westpac boss, speaking about how she used to cope when she had four children under the age of three—triplets amongst them. One of Australia's most successful businesswomen, Mrs Kelly revealed that she briefly checked one of her babies into the paediatric ward of a local hospital so that she could get some sleep. Mrs Kelly admitted to once getting caught up in a business call on her car phone and totally forgetting that she was supposed to be taking her young son to school. She pulled into her work car space only to hear a little voice in the backseat saying, 'Mum, have you forgotten about me?' Another time, neighbours complained about the noise from her little girl, because the girl's screaming was interfering with their plans to have some drinks in their garden. Noting that the noise had actually stopped, Mrs Kelly told them, 'Don't worry, I just killed her.' As we all know, it pays to have a sense of humour as a mum.

It is a great privilege to celebrate the fact that mothering bonds many of us. We may not earn Mrs Kelly's salary and we may not have smashed the glass ceiling in the way that she has, but what we have in common is more powerful than any of that: our kids, our shared experiences as mothers, and doing the best we can, day in and day out. Whilst Mrs Kelly said she was uncomfortable with the term 'supermum', I am not—particularly when I had the pleasure of being among so many of them at the Barnardos function—and it is these mothers that I think we can and should celebrate. This is the 16th year of Barnardos hosting the Mother of the Year awards, and I am thrilled that they celebrated the achievements of mothers and their contributions to our community. As we all know, there is no way we could put a figure on everything that mothers do. What is important is that we continue to highlight how vital mothers are at every stage of life and that we continue to promote and support motherhood.

I would like to say a few words about a debate—some call it a 'war'—that I had hoped had been settled long ago; but, unfortunately, it is still alive and well today. That is the 'battle' between the stay-at-home mum and the working mum. I noticed recently an article in the Herald Sun with two pictures: one of a stay-at-home mum, surrounded by her kids, and the other of a working mum at her desk. The story revealed that a new survey had found that mums feel stigmatised—whatever they do! Worst of all, other mums are the biggest offenders for making them feel bad about their choices. Almost 60 per cent of working Mums were made to feel that they were not taking parenting seriously enough, while 40 per cent of stay-at-home mums experienced negativity about their decision not to be in the paid workforce.

Recently, radio presenter Jackie O said that debate about her returning to work two months after giving birth made her feel like a second-rate mum. One Melbourne mum set up a parent-support website after other mums called her 'evil' for putting her three-month-old son into child care so that she could return to university study.

What is going on here? Why have mothers declared war on each other? Since when did we rate mums as first class, second class and so on? Why did we go tribal, forming into camps, defending our territory and throwing spears at others who have made decisions different to our own? At the risk of using a cliché, surely we should focus on the things that unite us rather than those that divide us. In fact, many mothers do different things at different stages of their family processes. As I said earlier, our common bond is our kids, and what a powerful bond that is. We need each other's help and support more than ever. Surely we can rise above this divisiveness, because it really is sowing guilt and creating real harm where we should be offering encouragement and support.

I was not particularly interested in whether the three Barnardos finalists in Victoria—Sharon Bailey, Dianne Brown and Shirley Iaconis—were stay-at-home mums or working mums because, really, that does not matter. Having said that, I do believe it is crucial that babies have the opportunity to bond with their parents, particularly their mothers, in those vital first months and years. That is why I am so pleased and proud to be part of this government that has established Australia's first paid parental leave scheme to support that. What matters most of all for our children is their safety, their care and their happiness. What also really matters is whether our mums have received the love and support they have needed along the way, and still need, because the job of mothering never ends.

It is my sincere hope that mums can stop beating up on each other—stop the snide remarks and judgments—and unite under the banner of motherhood, declaring loudly and proudly that we are mothers first. I also hope that we can create a culture where we celebrate and genuinely support all mothers, not just those who fit our personal definitions. That also means reaching out to other groups of more marginalised mums—like teenage mothers, who are often unfairly judged and treated, like single mothers and any mum you know who is struggling, for whatever reason. Haven't we all struggled at times?

I read with interest the profiles of the three Barnardos Victorian finalists, and one thing they all share is their positive outlook and their selfless, gutsy attitudes as well as their genuine desire to help others and to put others' needs before their own. I really was inspired by their stories. The world is a much better place for having Sharon Bailey, Dianne Brown and Shirley Iaconis in it, and I salute them for their courage and com­mitment as mothers and carers of a broader family network. I also congratulate Barnardos Australia's 2011 Mother of the Year—Rebecca Healy, from the Northern Territory. At just 25, the mother of two has really turned her life around. After leaving home at 12, Rebecca lived in refuges for seven years and was taken in by friends. At 19, she decided to clean up her act—which included buying her first home and losing 50 kilos. As well as being a single mum to her two boys aged four and three, Rebecca also cares for her 16-year-old sister full time and is an emergency foster parent. She works as an Indigenous economic development officer and is a passionate advocate for local youth. What an inspiration for young woman and mothers. I read recently that children are happiest when their mothers are happy. But, according to the research, when their mothers were unhappy, only 55 per cent of youngsters were satisfied with their home life. Interestingly, the study found that a father's happiness makes no real difference to his offspring. What this tells me—as if we needed research to prove it—is that kids need happy mothers. As Rebecca Healy puts it, 'a happy healthy mum equals happy healthy children.' While on some days as mums we don't feel particularly happy, I know that most of the time mothers make tremendous efforts to be happy for our kids. Everything a mother does is for her kids: to ensure that they are happy and healthy and to ensure that their family life is strong and stable. I was delighted to present the Victorian Mother of the Year Award and to speak about a subject I am passionate about—that is, that we should do more to promote motherhood.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I take the opportunity to speak about the Senate Economics References Committee's recently completed second interim report on its inquiry into the impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry. Even though I will not be around for the conclusion of that inquiry in the second half of this year, I have been around for a considerable part of the history of the dairy industry's experience of deregulation, including the process of the states agreeing to deregulate their industries back in 1999. It was at that stage a policy was put forward by the leaders of the dairy industry and it was ultimately supported by the government and the opposition, even though there was a Senate inquiry at the time regarding deregulation in the course of which a number of important findings were made. One of the findings was that there was a risk that , in the process of deregulation, the supermarkets might seek to capture more of the value of the dairy industry than they had hitherto, at the expense of the dairy industry. How true that protection turned out to be!

Arising from that process, the gov­ernment, with the support of the opposition and at the request of the industry, implemented a process of levying consumers to supply money which would go to assist in the restructuring of the dairy industry. So, for every litre of milk that consumers purchased, they paid 11c towards that levy which, until it was abolished in 2008, raised $1.8 billion. Consumers paid $1.8 billion towards the rearrangements in the dairy industry, including payments to farmers to leave the industry and payments which allowed farmers to re-equip their dairy operations.

The price that farmers are paid for milk has often been at issue between farmers and dairy processors of varying sorts. It has often been the subject of conflict and consternation for farmers. Of course, the fresh milk industry was the key focus of the deregulation process because that was the part of the dairy industry that was regulated in states such as New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia . In those states, the production of milk was much more dependent on regulation than it was in states such as Victoria which, of course, produces over 60 percent of the milk produced in Australia.

It is interesting to note that, well after deregulation had occurred, the Weekly Times recorded in an article of 20 February 2009 that the cost of milk to processors had risen in the previous year by 12c to 15c a litre, yet supermarkets were only paying processors another 9c a litre—less, in fact, for their privately branded product, and this has been the subject of great consternation in recent times. So at all times since deregulation there has been a testy relationship between processors and the supermarkets as to the price processors were paid for their milk, yet at some times dairy farmers have done much better than they have been doing in recent years, particularly as, immediately before the global financial crisis, dairy farmers around the country were being paid much higher prices than they were at the beginning of deregulation.

In the period since deregulation we have seen the emergence of two markets for dairy farmers in this country: the markets—the states of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia—in which the dairy industry relies upon exports for the bulk of their production and the markets—the states of New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia—in which the dairy industry relies on the production of drinking milk. Over the period since deregulation, a significant difference between those states has emerged in the price paid to dairy farmers for their milk. For example, in the last recorded figures, as set out on page 37 of the committee's recently released draft interim report, the price in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia was 33.9c, 34.6c and 34.6c per litre respectively; whereas in Western Australia it was 42.4c, in New South Wales it was 48.7c and in Queensland it was 55.8c. In Queensland, the differential had gone up to 65 per cent higher than the price in Victoria, which is one of the states producing milk for export.

In the interim report there were dissenting comments by Senators Xenophon, Heffernan, Milne and Williams in which they suggest that a floor price should be implemented for domestic drinking milk supply as an urgent interim measure. Nothing further has been suggested about a price or how that mechanism would work, but essentially what those senators are urging is a return to regulation for the dairy industry after consumers paid $1.8 billion to move away from it, at the urging of the dairy industry and with the support of the states.

I do not believe that this country ought to or will return to a regulated price for milk. The fact is that the bulk of the milk produced in this country is produced in states which predominantly export. Those states' farmers will be paid prices which have regard to the international price. And that is what is happening now, if you look at the figures that I just mentioned. In these states, particularly New South Wales and Queensland, the cost of production is higher, and dairy farmers will not remain in the dairy industry if they are only paid the international price when it is low. That is why there has been an emergence of a great differential in prices for milk between those states.

To simply say we should somehow have a floor price does not address that differential. How do we set a floor price which addresses that differential? And how do we justify to the farmers, say, in Victoria, that their floor price would, of necessity, be many cents lower than that in Queensland set by regulation, because the businesses relying on their milk in many circumstances could not survive on the higher price being paid north of the Queensland-New South Wales border? So I am concerned at the trend which has emerged in that dissenting report because the trend indicates to me perhaps an appeal to popularity rather than a regard to the historical circumstances of the industry and its future.

The industry has gone through hard times. It has gone through a period where prices were high, but also in drought. It then went through the global financial crisis when prices fell sharply because of a fall in international prices. And now it is going through a period of uncertainty where supermarkets are seeking to capture more of the value using the price of drinking milk as a major marketing tool, with the Coles 'Down, down' and so-called 'Staying down' campaign, where milk is being valued at around $1 a litre—some say, much less than the price of water in a bottle. So, in other words, the water, having gone through the cow, has been devalued.

Can I suggest that it would be appropriate for the committee, when they consider this matter further—and I am sure that they will—to have regard to all of those circumstances. It would be appropriate for the committee to look at the circumstances in which dairy farmers find themselves bargaining with processors about the price of the milk that they sell every day. That is one thing that dairy farmers have to do: they have to sell their milk every day. They cannot store it and sell it when the price is high; they have to sell it fresh every day. They are dependent on what happens in their bargaining with the processors.

It would also be appropriate for the committee to have a close look at the power of the supermarkets. We have a very powerful supermarket sector in this country. They are able to drive prices down in this and a number of other areas. But we do have to have regard to the consequences for primary producers, and manufacturers and processors of product, that ultimately have to sell their food products to consumers—and we do depend on that. But they should not be placed in circumstances where there is excessive power to the supermarkets in the equation, perhaps delivering lower prices to consumers but making some businesses, farm and manufacturing nonviable.

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chairing the parliament's Joint Select Committee on Cyber Safety, I have heard from many about their concerns regarding privacy and related issues. One that causes great concern is that of identity theft. It is an achievement of this government that this issue is being addressed in part through the passage of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Act 2010. The bill for the act passed quietly, but the reforms that resulted are significant and they touch each and every person.

Identity theft is real, it is epidemic, and its manifestations range from the simple theft of a wallet or purse to elaborate online frauds, all with the aim of using the victim's personal details, without his or her knowledge, to fraudulently obtain goods, services, cash or credit. Many of us know someone whose stolen credit card has subsequently been used without his or her knowledge or authorisation. We know people who have received those emails known as 'phishing', where criminals, posing as legitimate organisations such as banks, use apparently corporate websites to solicit passwords, tax file numbers and the like. Indeed, many of us in this chamber have received those emails, too. Clearly, sufficient numbers of people respond to these emails to make the scams worth continuing.

It would appear that, even if we do not shop or bank or pay bills online, our personal details can still be available to increasingly sophisticated hackers. The majority of information now has some connection to the world wide web, and if we have ever, for example, registered a car, claimed a Centrelink benefit—which, of course, is deposited to a bank account—obtained household insurance or made any other similar transactions, our personal details could eventually be uncovered by way of increasingly sophisticated computer tech­nology. Meanwhile, the plumber, our accountant and many other service providers will happily hand over their BSB and account details for direct deposit of payments.

There are numerous examples of crimes and potential crimes, and most of those I have highlighted are personal crimes. But small businesses and even large corporations are subject to such fraudulent practices. The consequences of these crimes for persons, small businesses and large corporations can be significant. A victim of identity theft can be completely oblivious until he or she finds that their bank account has been emptied, that credit has been obtained in their name, or even that a crime has been committed, allegedly by the victim. Such consequences can take months, sometimes years, to repair. The victim's creditworthiness can be damaged. He or she may unknowingly have a criminal record that comes to light well after the alleged offence, but in time to jeopardise a job offer or a visa application. You can only imagine the shock of finding out any or all of these things, and the effort, time and expense involved in repairing the damage and restoring one's reputation. You can imagine the emotional strain that could ensue, possibly over a very extended period of time.

My research shows that estimates of the financial cost of identity theft in Australia can reach up to $4 billion per year, and that crimes of this nature are growing faster than any other area of criminal endeavour. Of course, identity theft is a transnational crime. It is clear that the instances I have outlined are likely to represent only a tiny part of a more organised and highly sophisticated underlying criminal structure, both here in Australia and overseas. That is why we need to be increasingly vigilant in relation to our personal information and the ways in which we disclose it.

The act to which I refer comprises a number of amendments to do with law enforcement, privacy and related matters. Chief among these is the creation in the Criminal Code of three offences to do with identity theft. They are: dealing in iden­tification information where the perpetrator intends to pass him or herself off as another person—living or dead, real or fictitious—to commit or assist in the commission of an indictable offence under Commonwealth law; the possession of identification information where the perpetrator intends to use the information to commit or assist in the dealing offence; and the possession of equipment to create identification docu­mentation where the perpetrator or another person intends to use the equipment to create documentation so as to engage in conduct constituting the dealing offence. The act also provides for an extended geographical jurisdiction. As identity theft is a trans­national crime, so too the three offences will also be applicable to an Australian citizen or citizens, or an Australian body corporate outside this country.

These provisions represent significant progress in the fight against identity crime, but increased vigilance, as I mentioned earlier, is the key to protecting ourselves against crimes of this nature. It may sound simple, but just on a personal level we can facilitate this by actually checking the transactions on our credit card statements and then disposing of these by shredding them and not just tossing them into the recycling bin. We can cut up expired drivers licences, credit cards and the like instead of disposing of them intact. We can take care when opening emails from an unfamiliar source, and particular care when our personal or financial details are requested by an unknown—or even a known—person or organisation, whether in person, on the telephone or online.

As the 2008 OECD Policy Guidance On Online Identity Theft points out with particular reference to the latter:

Online ID theft is a fraudulent activity which has become increasingly complex, relying on ever changing high-tech methods. Tackling it requires concerted, collaborative efforts by all stakeholders (i.e. government, business, and consumers). Education and awareness are therefore necessary to ensure that both consumers and businesses are aware of the importance of the problem, and knowledgeable about its evolving forms.

Enhancing community and business awareness is key to combating this expanding and constantly evolving global problem, as well as criminal sanctions, such as those encapsulated in the act for those who engage in it.

With those remarks, I take this opportunity to commend our government for its foresight in legislating to combat these 21st century crimes through the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Identity Crimes and Other Measures) Act 2010.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to extend my comments to 20 minutes.

Leave granted.

I recently had the opportunity to be part of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program that visited Afghanistan, in particular Oruzgan province in the first week of May. This was a unique experience that provided me with a comprehensive insight into the rationale of our operations, along with the scale of the logistics—an opportunity that I wish all Australians could share.

The visit presented the opportunity to understand the complexities of a country beset with the challenges of rival tribes, power struggles and ideological battles for the hearts and minds of its people in a country which is notable for its dramatic, harsh and unrelenting climate and landscape. My short time in Afghanistan, walking in the footsteps of our courageous professional and just soldiers has reaffirmed my pride in being an Australian.

The visit not only gave me an opportunity to assess our involvement in the war on terror but it also brought me into direct contact with our troops of all ranks, and reaffirmed my perceptions and assumptions about the men and women of the Australian Defence Force.

Before I make some general observations, I would like to acknowledge Lynton Dixon, Executive Officer of the ADFPP and Major Micah Batt from HQJOC, our escort, guide and mentor, who ensured that our daily schedule worked and kept us busy and safe. He was pivotal to our safekeeping.

We flew to the ADF's theatre headquarters at Al Minhab, the location of the Joint Task Force 633, where we met with the commander of HQJTF633, Major General Angus Campbell. We were given a very thorough and candid overview by the Major General, along with Air Commodore John Oddie. This was an early indication of the open and transparent approach that was taken by all who we met.

The logistical magnitude of the military presence in the Middle East starts at AMAB, where personnel and supplies are sent for demarcation into Afghanistan. The base is currently home to 550 men and women. It can support twice that number, and conditions personnel in climate and hygiene challenges, and equips personnel for their next stage. We received a shortened drill in the diversity and evolving physical manifestations of improvised explosive devices, known as IEDs, the type of terrain and machinery where they had been found and the invidious damage they cause. A session of weapon training at the rifle range demonstrated, however, why we should focus on influence through the power of the word rather than our prowess with the rifle. In retrospect, I realise that this was a bit like a holiday camp before we were embedded with the troops in the multinational base at Tarin Kot.

Tarin Kot is a stark place—flying in over Pakistan into a landscape of jagged mountains chiselled out of a barren, hard baked earth. Along the meandering brown waters of the Helmand River, subsistence farmers have learnt the ways of past centuries, with irrigation channels effectively carved into the baked earth. The romantic illusion of flower beds dotted along the river banks was shattered with the realisation that the pink flowers were the seeds of the heroin trade. We had arrived at the beginning of Nesh, the harvest season of the opium poppies.

Afghanistan accounts for 90 per cent to 92 per cent of the world's production of heroin—currently a necessary financial imperative for these subsistence farmers. The drug lords demand that the farmers grow the opium poppy as part of their crop, taking 10 per cent of the profits. The sale of opium allows them to invest in seed for wheat or other crops and pays for the fertiliser, so necessary in this desolate part of the world. This continues to be a challenge for the provincial government . The sale of opium delivers a $100 million annual boost to the Afghan economy. To destroy opium crops is to destroy the economic viability of the province. The province needs to be weaned off this dependence with significant support—and, in so doing, breaking the nexus with the drug lords. Some of this manufactured product, as we know, ends up on our streets in Melbourne and Sydney and beyond. It is a socially destructive trade that destroys lives, and its genesis is here in the meandering delta of what is known as the green zone.

In Tarin Kot we were embedded with the troops, where we shared their shipping container accommodation, their mess huts and, more importantly, their views on why they were there, what they were doing and achieving, and the difference they were making on the ground to the lives of the Afghans. There is no Australian equivalent that can be used to describe this backward province. In the words of the Australian Deputy Commander, Colonel Dennis Malone, it is the Tennant Creek of Afghanistan—and I do not in any way wish to impugn the residents of Tennant Creek. Those who live in the area do so largely because it is their traditional home. Running water and sanitation do not exist and hygiene is a challenge, with malaria ever present. The locals live in qualas—a construction comprising of a baked mud wall that encloses a small room where they sleep with perhaps another room used for an animal or agricultural storage. It is subsistence living at its most basic.

Without the work of our troops, roads would be nothing but hardened dirt tracks and they would remain beholden to the demands of the drug lords. The safety of the people was at the whim of the Taliban, many of them warring tribal clans who received the support and encouragement of al-Qaeda to fund their war against Western civilisation through the sale of the opium poppy. It was places like Oruzgan Province that provided safe havens for the insurgents, home to the al-Qaeda training camps—camps that were nothing more than bases for teaching the killing skills of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

The multinational base here has made extraordinary progress in securing so much of the area, restoring stability and enabling the Afghan people to return to a more normal life. We were provided open access to the members of the Combined Team Uruzgan under the command of US Colonel Jim Creighton, who gave us a high-level account of the strategy in securing the province and the impressive military intelligence and hardware tools that they employ. The camp is home to 3,000 troops and most of the Australian deployment. Whilst the senior commanding officers provided us with a great insight, it was the informal discussions with so many of our soldiers that I found so productive.

I have always had a great respect for the men and women of the ADF and their choice to fight for our democratic freedom and the protection of Western civilisation values. My admiration and respect grew exponentially as I moved amongst them, listening to them and observing them. Their professionalism, integrity and courage were carried like a mantle around their shoulders. Never before have I been so proud of my fellow Australians. The leadership skills that they have learnt through their education and training in the ADF were on full display and I was truly humbled to spend time with them.

My experiences demanded that I reflect on the numerous inquiries launched by the Defence minister in response to alleged offences that happened recently in ADFA. Whilst I do not condone stupid, puerile, sexist or immature behaviour of a few undergraduates, it would be a terrible injustice to judge and ascribe unprofessional behaviour to the rest of the ADF. The men and women I saw demonstrated that the recent concerns raised in Australia do not apply to them. The comradeship and mutual respect shown to each other underly the gender equality, integrity and professionalism that they apply to their daily lives. Given the harsh environment of the base, its size, the close proximity of the environment that they share and the military challenges they face, they conduct themselves in an exemplary manner. The Hercules pilot tasked with flying us into Tarin Kot was Liesl, a wonderful example of a capable woman in a demanding job. It was a very symbolic way in which to arrive in Afghanistan.

The advances that have been made and are sustained in the province were implicit in the activities that we participated in. One of the highlights of the trip was a visit to a number of the reconstruction projects that are managed and funded through the financial support of AusAID. These reconstruction projects are critical as they build on the local capacity for independent endeavours and underpin the strategic approach of the coalition forces in removing the insurgents and practically enabling the locals to resume lives free of fear, intimidation and reprisals. There are nine AusAID officers in the country, who oversee the rebuilding of basic amenities. With military escorts, we visited an impressive Australian-built mosque and a school currently being built for 500 girls. In the province, the literacy rate for women is only three per cent—for men it is not much better; it is only eight per cent—so the construction of a girls' school is significant progress that is supported by the locals. We also travelled to a trades centre school, where men and boys, some as young as 12 or 13, are taught the critical skills of building, plumbing and painting—all skills that provide a meaningful way in which they can earn a living.

The Australians have also assumed responsibility for the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Army and the Afghan Police. This undertaking is without question the most compelling contribution that can be made in helping them develop the capacity to sustain relative stability when coalition forces are withdrawn. The Afghanis are recruited from within and outside the province, which also assists in breaking down the allegiance to local tribes. The locals are proud of what they are achieving with our support, with close to 100,000 people recruited to date.

The most impressive visit, however, was to Patrol Base Wali, where we were briefed by Intelligence Officers Captain Jim Wallace and Captain Chris Stuart. This visit was made on a Black Hawk flight located some 30 minutes from the main base, an area that has been secured in only the last six months. The courage, leadership, strength and resilience that these men showed was awe inspiring and I salute them. We also had a flight to Kandahar, meeting with senior Australian embedded staff, including the Deputy Commander, Brigadier Bruce Scott, and a tour of the Heron Intelligence Coordination Centre and control centre, amongst many other site visits. These visits only reinforced my view that our contribution to this war against terror is a necessary and important one.

The successful covert operation by US forces to remove the head and symbolic face of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the death of thousands of men, women and children, should only serve to reinforce our resolve to stay the course and ensure the stability of Afghanistan. We must be resolute in ensuring that the country does not return to its former status as a safe haven for terrorists, whose mission in life is to destroy the democratic principles of Western civilisation and the values that we uphold.

In closing, I would like to acknowledge my appreciation to the ADF for their support of the program and to the many people who gave their time and provided the logistical support to ensure our safe keeping. I salute our men and women in Afghanistan who are fighting on our behalf. They have my unqualified support and admiration.

Senate adjourned at 21:04

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 29 September 2010:

(1) (a) Can an itemised list be provided of how much the department has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.

(2) For each Minister and any associated parliamentary secretary: (a) can an itemised list be provided of how much each office has spent on hospitality since 24 November 2007; and (b) of this, how much was spent on alcohol.

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

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) (a) The Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency's (and its predecessor the Department of Climate Change) total hospitality spend from 24 November 2007 to 30 June 2010 was $200,138 comprising:

295 Australian based events costing $155,390; and

19 International events costing $44,748.

The Department is unable to provide further details of each event as it would involve an unreasonable diversion of resources.(b) Details of the alcohol component of any official hospitality are not recorded separately. Provision of these details would involve an extensive manual process and therefore, in the context of existing workloads, an unreasonable diversion of resources.

(2) (a) Details of events for each Minister to 30 June 2010 are as follows:

(b) Details of the alcohol component of any official hospitality are not recorded separately. Provision of these details would involve an extensive manual process and therefore, in the context of existing workloads, an unreasonable diversion of resources.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

I would like to clarify the employment and working conditions for Aboriginal workers employed under the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program (SIHIP), including under what conditions participants in Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program, traineeships or work-for-the-dole programs may be employed. I have received some disturbing reports from communities in central Australia of the inconsistent treatment of Aboriginal workers.

The main allegations I have heard are:

I am concerned that, if some or all of these allegations are true, they are undermining the positive employment outcomes that could be achieved by the significant opportunity provided by SIHIP, therefore:

(1) What proportion of jobs on SIHIP is made up of CDEP workers.

(2) Can a breakdown be provided, by community, of the number of Indigenous SIHIP workers: (a) on grandfathered CDEP payments; (b) in receipt of CDEP via Basics Card; (c) on other work experience programs; (d) being paid real wages; and (e) who received top-up wages, including the amount received.

(3) How is it that the promised 'real jobs for real wages' under SIHIP are subject to income management.

(4) Which organisations pay CDEP participants who are employed on SIHIP or SIHIP ancillary jobs.

(5) (a) Can the accreditation requirements, workplace agreements and remuneration standards that are required by contractors who are providing construction or maintenance services under SIHIP be clarified; and (b) can an explanation be provided as to how these apply to organisations that are providing CDEP placements, traineeships or work-for-the-dole programs.

(6) Can Aboriginal organisations or organisations employing Aboriginal workers be required to provide a certain number of CDEP places.

(7) If there are accredited Aboriginal contractors willing and able to do construction or maintenance work, can and should they be excluded in favour of CDEP workers.

(8) What are the arrangements concerning top-up pay for workers who are on income support and having their income managed under the Northern Territory Emergency Response.

(9) Are companies providing training or managing CDEP or work-for-the-dole programs required to clearly inform workers up-front as to how many hours they can work and how much top-up money they will be paid.

(10) Should the amount of top-up pay decrease over time.

(11) If there are changes to top-up arrangements or numbers of hours worked, are organisations required to inform workers beforehand.

(12) What can workers do if they believe they have worked a significant number of hours for which they have not been paid.

(13) (a) What are the contractual obligations of Community Enterprises Australia (CEA) and New Future Alliance under SIHIP; and (b) are they required to report on employment outcomes, number of hours worked, rates of pay etc.

(14) What remedy is there for JSA providers who have referred participants to CEA and/or SIHIP but have not received placement or outcome fees due to a lack of reporting.

(15) Which other communities who are in receipt of SIHIP housing or renovations also have, or will have, CDEP and work experience participants working on them.

(16) What action, if any, is the Government taking to remedy: (a) the underpayment of CDEP workers; (b) the lack of placement or outcome fees for referring JSA providers due to inadequate outcomes reporting by CEA; or (c) the loss of potential wages to Aboriginal contractors paying Aboriginal workers real wages for doing real work, who were overlooked in favour of the cheaper CDEP or work experience option.

(17) In regard to the CDEP program: (a) what proportion of available CDEP positions are now being taken up; and (b) can the latest data be provided on ex-CDEP participants, including: (i) the total number, (ii) how many ex-participants have jobs, and (iii) how many are on income support.

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

The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Employment of CDEP workers in SIHIP is limited to the New Future Alliance 3A package. At 22 November 2010, of the 58 Indigenous people employed in this package 17 were on CDEP. Across SIHIP this represented 4.9 per cent of the total Indigenous employment recorded across the program at that time.

(2) (a) and (b) As of 3 December 2010, there were 24 CDEP participants working on the SIHIP program at three locations:

Grandfathered CDEP participants, on CDEP wages, are those listed as 'continuing participants'.

New CDEP participants receive income support, are subject to income management and will be issued with a basics card. However, no CDEP participants are paid via the basics card. As at 3 December 2010, there were 19 CDEP participants receiving income support.

(c) Alliance partners do not employ workers under the Work for the Dole or work experience programs. However, in some locations with larger capital works packages, the Alliances assist Job Services Australia and other employment providers to run work experience or pre-employment programs with provision of tools and materials.

(d) All new participants, noted in (2) (a) above, are paid real wages at award rates for every hour worked.

(e) Continuing participants as noted in (2)(a) above, receive top-up payments for hours worked in excess of the 15 hours (on average) covered by CDEP wages. The actual amount of top-up paid depends on the number of hours worked over and above the first 15 hours (on average). At 3 December 2010, there were five continuing participants involved in SIHIP.

(3) Where a CDEP participant is classified as 'new', that is they commenced on CDEP after 1 July 2009, they participate on the program in receipt of income support. This change was part of the reforms to the CDEP program to ensure that incentive and participation requirements of CDEP participants were aligned with other Indigenous job seekers. As with other income support recipients, all wages earned from employment must be declared to Centrelink. All new participants will have a participation obligation under CDEP, however, this does not preclude them from obtaining part-time employment such as through SIHIP. Payment for all work with SIHIP is paid at or above award rates and is not subject to income management. Continuing participants, that is those on CDEP wages, are not subject to income management.

(4) There are four CDEP provider organisations that are paid by the New Future Alliance for part-time work undertaken on SIHIP. These CDEP providers then pay relevant participants at the award hourly rates. The four providers are: Central Desert Shire Council, Community Enterprises Australia Ltd (Alice Springs), Tangentyere Council Incorporated and Tjuwanpa Outstation Resource Centre Aboriginal Corporation.

(5)(a) Funding for SIHIP works, under NPARIH, requires contracted organisations constructing houses and refurbishment/rebuilds to be compliant with all relevant Australian Government and Northern Territory Government legislation/regulations.

The Australian Government and the Northern Territory Government also requires that all works meet quality standards as described in the Building Code of Australia and that housing design and amenity complies with the Nation Indigenous Housing Guide. Compliance with Federal Safety Commissioner (FSC) is also mandated.

Alliance partners must meet all relevant industrial relations legislation as they are the employer of an individual. They may also contract parts of the work to smaller subcontractors who will have similar employer obligations. In addition, subcontractors working in the building and construction sector in the Northern Territory are also required to be Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL) compliant. To obtain CAL accreditation contractors must:

CDEP providers must also ensure that work experience employers comply with all relevant laws, industrial agreements and instruments (part of the CDEP Funding Agreement).

(b) Alliance partners do not employ workers under the Work for the Dole or work experience programs. However, in some locations with larger capital works packages, the Alliances assist Job Services Australia and other employment providers to run work experience or pre-employment programs with provision of tools and materials. CDEP Work Experience Agreements are not applicable for periods under 13 weeks. As short-term refurbishment packages are usually two to twelve weeks CDEP participants were provided under a labour hire arrangement rather than a Work Experience Agreement.

Where the CDEP participant has been directly employed, safety and workplace requirements are incorporated into their training. A CDEP participant's wages are consistent with the award under which they are employed as it is for other non-CDEP employees.

In the case of the labour hire arrangements in package 3A in the Southern Refurbishments, Community Enterprises Australia are providing the labour to New Future Alliance. New Future Alliance undertakes training of the participant ensuring that all OH&S and safety requirements are met. Community Enterprises Australia remains the employer for the participant, ensuring all relevant industrial requirements are met. In addition, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Service and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) monitors compliance of CDEP providers to all aspects of their funding agreements.

(6) No, there is no requirement to guarantee a certain number of places for CDEP workers.

(7) No, accredited Aboriginal contractors are not excluded in favour of CDEP workers. Accredited Aboriginal contractors are also able to employ CDEP participants, similar to any other employer. Alliances have subcontracted work to 13 local Indigenous businesses including –Thamarrurr Development Corporation, and Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island Enterprises (GEBIE Civil & Construction).

(8) New participants (those on income support) on the CDEP program who obtain part-time work with a SIHIP employer must declare all earnings to Centrelink. Income received from working (wages) is not income managed but may impact on the participant's income support which is subject to income management.

(9) Before placing new and continuing participants with a Work Experience Employer, CDEP providers must execute a Work Experience Agreement with the Work Experience Employer. This Work Experience Agreement details the pay and conditions on which the CDEP participants are engaged and must be signed by the CDEP participants. For the short-term placements under the labour hire arrangement, the hours a participant works are negotiated between the CDEP provider, SIHIP employer and the individual. All hours worked are paid at or above award rate.

(10) Only continuing CDEP participants are eligible to receive top-up pay. The CDEP provider will pay CDEP wages to the continuing participant for, on average, the first 15 hours worked per week. Any additional hours worked must be paid by the employer, in this case New Future Alliance. These hours will be paid at award rates and would be considered 'top-up'. Pay for 'top-up' is dependent on the hours per week worked – if hours decrease, top-up pay decreases and if hours increase, top-up pay increases.

(11) Yes.

(12) In the first instance, a worker should raise the query with their local CDEP manager. The Government will investigate any claim made that workers are not being fairly remunerated.

(13) (a) Community Enterprises Australia is a CDEP provider and has no contractual obligations under SIHIP. It has an agreement with New Future Alliance to provide labour hire personnel. Their contracts are commercial-in-confidence but include amounts for workers compensation, superannuation and administration costs.

(b) Yes, both the CDEP provider and the Alliance Partner have separate reporting requirements with regard to Indigenous employment and keep records of all hours worked and paid for CDEP participants.

As a CDEP provider, Community Enterprises Australia must record and report all participants against relevant activities. Under their labour hire arrangement, this includes signed time sheets. Community Enterprises Australia would submit outcome claims for all employment outcomes.

New Future Alliance reports to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in the Northern Territory on employment information. This information includes – number of indigenous employees, hours worked and training participation.

(14) It is a requirement under the CDEP funding agreement and JSA deed, that all CDEP and JSA providers must enter into Service Level Agreements (SLA) where they service the same locations. The SLA should outline how the two providers will jointly service their shared participants, including communications and reporting between the two parties. If a JSA provider feels the SLA is not being honoured they can raise the matter with their Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) contract manager who will liaise with the relevant CDEP agreement manager in FaHCSIA.

(15) Please refer to (2)(a).

(16) (a) The Government will investigate any claim made that workers are not being fairly remunerated. FaHCSIA's investigations have shown that to date CDEP participants working on SIHIP are being remunerated appropriately. In order to address confusion around CDEP participants undertaking short-term employment with a SIHIP employer, FaHCSIA has advised CDEP providers that any placement with a SIHIP employer that is not under a formal Work Experience Agreement, that is for placements of less than 13 weeks, the CDEP participant must be exited from the program.

(b) Please refer to (14).

(c) FaHCSIA is not aware of any specific information about potential losses to Aboriginal contractors. Any complaints should be directed to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in the Northern Territory.

(17) (a) At 30 November 2010, a total of 10,400 participants were active on the CDEP program out of the 14,891 available places (69.84 per cent).

(b) (i) The total number of exits from the CDEP program between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010 was 12,897. The total number of program exits between 1 July 2010 and 30 Nov 2010 was 6,421. These exits are for multiple reasons and include multiple episodes of participation for the same people.

(ii) Between 1 July 2009 and 30 June 2010:

(iii) Of the 19,318 exits from the CDEP program since 1 July 2009 it is not possible to report how many of these are currently in employment or on income support.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 24 November 2010:

With reference to the answer provided on 14 May 2010 through additional estimates that:

'Green Loans were made available for a range of home improvements. Abatement estimates are not available at this time',

and the answers provided on 17 November 2010 through Budget estimates, months after the 22 March discontinuation of the loans component of the Green Loans Program, that:

'As at 31 August 2010, the total value of the 7,448 loans for which the Department had paid subsidies and application fees was $67,900,866.00', and

'As at 31 August 2010, the total sum of subsidies and application fees paid to all financial institutions participating in the program was $13,553,381. This is based on the 7,448 loans for which payments had been made as at 31 August 2010':

(1) For what reason are these answers given 'As at 31 August 2010'.

(2) Is the department expecting to pay, or has the department paid, any subsidies or application fees later than 31 August 2010.

(3) (a) What information has been kept on the home improvements made or planned as a result of the securing by householders of Green Loans; and (b) can an itemised list be provided by eligible action (e.g. fridge, hot water system replacement) of: (i) the number of Green Loans provided, (ii) the total value of Green Loans provided, and (iii) the total number of such eligible actions subsidised (noting that each Green Loan might subsidise more than one eligible action).

(4) What are the estimated emissions reductions resulting from subsidised Green Loans, including:

(a) a total estimate for the loans component of the program;

(b) a total estimate for the entire program if different; and

(c) an itemised listing of emissions reduction by eligible action (e.g. fridge, hot water system replacement).

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

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The 31 August 2010 date coincided with the date on which data was collated by the Department to respond to Senator Birmingham's original question.

(2) One invoice is still to be paid for loans that were approved prior to the 22 March 2010 closure date. The Department is seeking clarification from the relevant financial institution about a number of items included in this invoice. Once the items claimed for payment have been verified, this invoice will be paid as a matter of priority.

(3) Information on improvements planned as a result of the securing by householders of a Green Loan is contained on the loan declaration provided by applicants to the relevant financial institution. The Department has not yet received this information from the financial institutions but will do so as part of the overall audit and evaluation strategy.

To ensure householders have adequate time to see the benefits of both making improvements to their property and sustained behavioural changes, the evaluation and audit of Green Loan recipients is planned to occur in the first quarter of 2011.

As of 14 December 2010, there were 7,774 loans approved, with a total value of $70,930,829.25.

(4) The Department is exploring whether it is possible to provide answers to some or all of these questions.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:

(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.

(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.

(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.

(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

I am advised that the general ongoing practice is that Ministers' letters in the portfolio are printed on plain paper with the 'letterhead' being part of the electronic document. There is however a requirement for some letters from the Prime Minister to be printed on pre-printed letterhead. No expenditure on pre-printed letterhead paper was incurred in the period covered by this question as paper is ordered in bulk and used over an extended period.

The following Ministers use 'Stephen Swiss White' 115gsm A4 paper and matching DL envelopes for ministerial correspondence:

the Prime Minister, the Honourable Julia Gillard MP;

the Minister for the Arts, the Honourable Simon Crean MP;

the Cabinet Secretary, the Honourable Mark Dreyfus MP, and

the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Senator the Honourable Kate Lundy.

The cost of the Stephen Swiss White paper and envelopes are:

one ream (500 sheets) is $32.87 or $26.40 per ream if bulk orders (50 reams or more) are placed; and

DL envelopes are $76.50 per box of 500.

As at 29 November 2010, standard white paper (A4 80gsm) and 'Stephen Swiss White' envelopes were used for ministerial correspondence for the other Ministers in the portfolio, i.e:

The cost of one ream (500 sheets) of standard white paper is $4.90.

The 'Stephen Swiss White' product is carbon neutral. The standard white paper used more generally for ministers is not carbon neutral.

The total cost for stationary used by each minister over the period since 14 September 2010 cannot be identified as stationery is ordered in bulk, sometimes for several ministers, and then used over an extended period. The costs have therefore been presented as an amount per ream or batch of stationary.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans ' Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 2010.

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:

(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.

(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.

(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.

(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) From 14 September 2010 to 28 February 2011 the total amount expended on publications was $1,258.56. Expenditure on stationery is recorded by the Department under a single account code and it would be too resource intensive to identify what proportion was attributed to the Office of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs.

(2) The Minister's Office does not use printed letterhead and instead prints the letter template straight onto blank paper. As expenditure for blank paper supplied by the Department is recorded under a single account code, it would be too resource intensive to identify what proportion was attributed to the Minister's Office.

(3) Until mid-January 2011 the Minister's Office used 50% recycled copy paper that is 80 GSM for correspondence from the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. From mid-January to date the Office has used a paper that is 110 GSM. This was used to exhaust stocks that the Department of Defence had provided to the Office. The Office will shortly transition to a new paper that is 104 GSM.

(4) The 80 GSM and the 110 GSM papers used for ministerial responses were not carbon neutral. The 104 GSM paper that the Office will transition to shortly is carbon neutral.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries in their portfolio:

(1) What has been the total amount spent on stationery and publications, including a breakdown of all spending.

(2) What has been the total amount spent on printing ministerial letterhead.

(3) What is the grams per square metre [GSM] of the ministerial letterhead.

(4) Is the letterhead carbon neutral.

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

The Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

Please refer to the Special Minister of State's answer to Question 266*.

*All figures quoted in the answer to Question 266 are shared between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, in accordance with the SMOS' dual role as Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:

(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.

(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.

(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.

(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.

(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.

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

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) No.

(2) (a) 20, comprising 10 Blackberries and 10 Next G cards. (b) $7,729.44. This figure relates to costs incurred between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010.

(3) The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 October 2010.

(4) The cost of official travel for Parliamentarians paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation is reported bi-annually. Travel costs for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010 will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011.

In addition, between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010, the total cost of short-term transport (such as hire cars and taxis) was $4,587.06.

(5) The Special Minister of State will respond on behalf of other Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries in relation to the total travel for all staff, by office. Please refer to the answer to Question No. 308.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:

(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.

(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.

(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.

(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.

(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.

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

The Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

Please refer to the Special Minister of State's answer to Question 308*.

*All figures quoted in the answer to Question 308 are shared between the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of Finance and Deregulation, in accordance with the SMOS' dual role as Special Minister of State for the Public Service and Integrity and Special Minister of State.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 29 November 2010:

Since 14 September 2010, for each Minister and any Parliamentary Secretaries within their portfolio:

(1) Do the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries have access to a departmental credit card; if so, can a copy be provided of all bank statements.

(2) (a) How many mobile devices are provided to the Minister's office; and (b) what is the total spend on mobile devices for each office to date.

(3) At what level is each staff member employed in the office.

(4) What has been the total cost of travel for the Minister and Parliamentary Secretaries.

(5) What has been the total travel for all staff, by office.

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

The Special Minister of State has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) No.

(2) (a) 18, comprising 8 Blackberries, two mobile phones and eight Next G cards. (b) $10,593.16. This figure relates to costs incurred between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010.

(3)The employment of staff under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 is administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation. On 19 October 2010, the Department tabled with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee a list of Government Personal Staff Positions as at 1 October 2010.

(4) The cost of official travel for Parliamentarians paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation is reported bi-annually. Travel costs for the period 1 July to 31 December 2010 will be tabled by the Special Minister of State in the last sitting week of June 2011.

In addition, between 14 September 2010 and 29 November 2010, the total cost of short-term transport (such as hire cars and taxis) was $3,228.23. Similar costs incurred by Departments on behalf of their Portfolio Ministers should be reported separately by each Department.

(5 )A table outlining the cost of travel paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation for the staff of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries is at Attachment A. It should be noted that Departments may have incurred additional staff travel costs directly, and if so, these costs will be reported separately by each Department.

Attachment A

Cost of travel paid for by the Department of Finance and Deregulation for employees of Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries for the period 14 September to 29 November 2010

The figures in the above table reflect the cost of travel, including domestic and overseas airfares, car transport and Travelling and Motor Vehicle Allowances for all employees of each Minister or Parliamentary Secretary employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (MOP(S) ACT), and includes both personal and electorate employees. The figures do not include travel on Special Purpose Aircraft which is administered by the Department of Defence.

As employees are able to lodge claims for Travelling Allowance up to 60 days after completion of the relevant travel, and allowing time for ticket charges and refunds, the total cost of travel may not be reflected in the table above. However, the information provided is correct as at 8 December 2010.

* Role ceased on 14 September 2010 when the new Ministry was sworn in. Please note that a Direction made under the MOP(S) Act defers the termination of staff for a period of two weeks after an Office Holder ceases to hold office. Staff are eligible for limited official travel at Government expense during this period.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

With reference to the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) and Burma: Has EFIC provided any services, assistance, funding or insurance to Australian companies investing or doing business in Burma; if so, can a detailed explanation be provided of those services.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

In the past decade, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has not provided finance or insurance to support Australian company investments or contracts in Burma.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

Given that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) has provided new loan support to West African mines and according to a media release on its website dated 30 August 2010, EFIC is providing a 4 year loan facility to the Australian business, African Underground Mining Services Pty Ltd (AUMS), for its contract underground mining operations in Ghana and Mali to the value of US$15 million:

(1) On what date did EFIC sign the loan contract and the contract become valid.

(2) Did EFIC apply its environment policy to benchmark the application against International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards and the Equator Principles before making the decision to approve this loan facility to AUMS.

(3) Does one of the four contract mining agreements that AUMS has entered into relate to Newmont Mining Corporation's Ahafo gold mine in Ghana, located in a farming region northwest of the country's capital Accra.

(4) When EFIC approved this transaction, classifying it as a Category B project (rather than a Category A – significant impacts), was it aware of any controversy surrounding the Ahafo gold mine since its commencement in 2006.

(5) Can comment be provided on the following 'known' controversies associated with the Ahafo gold mine: (a) allegations of human rights abuses by security forces protecting the mine; b) displacement of 10 000 people (95 per cent of whom were subsistence farmers); (c) inadequate compensation; (d) irresponsible practices; and (e) a serious cyanide spill in October 2009.

(6) Was EFIC aware that a ministerial panel of the Government of Ghana has recommended that the Newmont Mining Corporation be fined US$4.9 million for failing to prevent a major cyanide spill in October 2009 at its Ahafo gold mine, and for failing to properly report on and investigate the spill.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) African Underground Mining Services Ltd (AUMS) is not an Australian business but is an Australian-owned joint venture incorporated in Ghana. The EFIC US$15 million facility relates to AUMS's operations in Ghana and Mali.

The effective signing date of the Ghana loan contract is 8 April 2010 and the effective signing date of the Mali loan contract is 13 September 2010.

(2) EFIC assessed this transaction under its Environment Policy. As required under the Policy EFIC assessed the activity of our client using the IFC Performance Standards as the benchmark.

The Equator Principles apply only to project finance and were not relevant to this transaction which does not involve project finance as described in the Equator Principles.

(3) EFIC provided a loan of $US15 million to AUMS, a Ghanaian joint venture company, owned by two Australian companies. The purpose of the loan was to allow AUMS to purchase mining machinery manufactured in Australia for use in contract mining services provided by the Ghanaian joint venture to its clients in West Africa. Those clients included Newmont Ghana Gold Limited which operates and owns Ahafo Gold Mine.

(4) EFIC's assessment included a review of publicly available information (at the time of assessment) on its client's customer, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited and its Ahafo Gold Mine Project. That information indicated that the project was assessed and funded by the commercial arm of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), and that the IFC financing of the project was subject to the mine operator meeting stringent environment and social standards. The IFC also has ongoing monitoring and reporting in place, including assessments by independent consultants. Since the financing was approved by the IFC, the project has publicly reported on its management of environmental and social issues. EFIC's review provided adequate assurance that World Bank Group policies and guidelines had been met at the time of that review.

(5) EFIC cannot comment on these issues specifically as they are related to the operator and owner of the Ahafo gold mine, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited, and EFIC has no relationship with that company.

(6) EFIC is aware from news reports of payment by Newmont Ghana Gold Limited of an unspecified amount as compensation for an accidental overflow at the Ahafo Gold Mine.

EFIC cannot comment specifically on this issue as it is the responsibility of the operator and owner of the Ahafo Gold Mine, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited. EFIC has no relationship with that company.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

With reference to the publication dated 18 August 2010 on the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) website which states that EFIC had signed a 10 year $50 million loan agreement with Australian business Orica Limited, to support the construction of an industrial grade ammonium nitrate plant in Indonesia: Why were the social and environmental impacts of this large scale project not considered to be significant enough to have the project classified as a 'Category A' under the EFIC environment policy.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

EFIC assessed this transaction under its Environment Policy. As required under the Policy, EFIC assessed the activity of its client using the IFC Performance Standards as the benchmark. EFIC considered that this project's social and environmental impacts were few in number, generally site specific, largely reversible and readily addressed through mitigation i.e. the characteristics of a Category B project.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

Has the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) provided any services, assistance, funding or insurance to Australian coal companies or coal projects operating overseas; if so, can details be provided of what has been provided, to which company and to what project; if not, can details be provided clarifying whether there is anything preventing coal projects or companies from accessing EFIC assistance in the future.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

In the past 12 months, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC) has participated in a trade receivables purchase facility between Westpac and entities of Anglo American Metallurgical Coal Pty Ltd. The receivables relate to purchases of various grades of coking coal by ArcelorMittal, a Luxembourg-registered company.

Under its mandate EFIC has no bias in its support for any specific sector and is reactive to requests for support from any Australian exporter. As such, there is nothing preventing coal projects or companies from seeking EFIC's assistance. EFIC may provide support to coal projects or companies if they comply with EFIC's environmental and social requirements; the projects are technically and commercially viable; and there is a 'market gap' for the financial support.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

With reference to the 5 year environment and social policy review conducted by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC):

(1) What steps have been taken by EFIC to promote the current review.

(2) What kinds of efforts were made by way of consultation and encouraging public submissions.

(3) Has EFIC provided a public document outlining the review process and opportunities for consultation and engagement.

(4) What efforts were made to seek input from EFIC supported projects where communities have been affected, and from other stakeholders in host countries.

(5) In relation to the submissions received by EFIC as part of its review: (a) how many have been received and from whom; (b) will they be made public; (c) will EFIC publish a public response to the submissions and recommendations received during the current review; (d) will EFIC respond to these submissions beyond a letter of acknowledgement; and (e) is there anything in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 that prevents EFIC from responding to the substance contained in the submissions.

(6) Has EFIC engaged in a public forum or public hearing process during the review; if not, will EFIC hold such a public consultation event before approving the revised policy.

(7) Have the proposed new EFIC Social and Environment Policy and Procedure documents been reviewed by an independent corporate social responsibility expert during the review process.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) EFIC commenced the current review of its Environment Policy more than 18 months ago. Over that time EFIC has consulted its stakeholders through a variety of methods including one-on-one discussions, distribution of a questionnaire to clients, a formal public consultation period (discussed under questions 2 and 3) and a workshop with respondents to the formal consultation (discussed under question 6).

(2) (3) and (4) EFIC formally consulted its stakeholders by posting a draft revised Environmental Policy and Procedure on its website and requesting submissions from interested parties. The consultation period was open between 6 August and 1 October, 2010 and was twice extended following the separate requests of two civil society organisations that eventually made submissions.

To encourage submissions EFIC directly emailed details of the consultation period and the consultation documents to those people and organisations registered with EFIC to receive alerts when EFIC's Category A register is updated. (The Category A register advises stakeholders of EFIC's potential involvement in projects with a potential for significant environmental and social impact).

(5) (a) EFIC received three submissions from civil society organisations (CSOs): Oxfam Australia, Jubilee Australia and the Mineral Policy Institute. (b), (c), (d) and (e) EFIC organised a workshop in December 2010 with the three CSOs that responded to its request for submissions on its Environment Policy Review (discussed under question 6). One of the outcomes of that workshop was an agreement that EFIC will publish on its website:

- copies of the submissions received (subject to the author's consent);

- EFIC's response to the submissions. This comprises an analysis of the submissions that was used as the basis for the workshop discussions; and

- a paper summarising the workshop outcomes. This was prepared by an independent facilitator engaged for the workshop and represents a set of agreed outcomes that will help inform the finalisation of EFIC's revised Policy and associated Procedure.

(6) EFIC organised an independently facilitated one day workshop between EFIC, DFAT and the three CSOs that made submissions on its Environment Policy Review. The workshop's aims were to:

- provide an opportunity for EFIC and the CSOs to discuss the Policy, Procedure and the submissions, and

- identify and develop some consensus views that will inform the Policy and Procedure finalisation.

- An independent facilitator was engaged for the workshop to both facilitate discussions and also to prepare a paper summarising the workshop outcomes.

(7) EFIC has internal expertise in environmental and social impact assessment and management. However EFIC did not engaged an independent corporate social responsibility expert. A combination of that expertise and consultation with stakeholders and the other activities noted above has provided a broad basis for the preparation of the new Policy and Procedure.

The preparation of the proposed new Policy and Procedure for EFIC's environmental and social review of transactions has been in progress for about 18 months and was informed by a broad range of activities including:

- direct discussions with stakeholders as outlined in the responses to previous questions;

- the participation of EFIC's staff in a variety of external forums. Coincidental to EFIC's Environment Policy review there has been a review by the International Finance Corporation of the Performance Standards (EFIC's benchmark) and a review of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development "Common Approaches" (EFIC's international obligation). EFIC staff have been actively participating in these reviews.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 13 December 2010:

With reference to the current environment policy and reporting procedures of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC), and drawing on examples of the export credit agencies operating in Canada, the United States of America (US) and Japan:

(1) In terms of establishing international benchmarks for the practice of export credit agencies and their environment policies, is it fair to compare EFIC to other export credit agencies such as Export Development Canada (EDC), Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC); if not, why not.

(2) Has EFIC adopted an environment policy that is consistent or comparative with the environment policies adopted by EDC, Ex-Im Bank and JBIC.

(3) Is EFIC complying with industry best practice; if so, can a copy of its guidelines, policies or standards outlining industry best practice be provided.

(4) Given that the EDC's implementation and compliance with its Environmental Review Directive is reviewed every 5 years by the Auditor General of Canada: (a) has EFIC's implementation and compliance with its environment policy been independently reviewed and audited by the Australian Auditor-General or an independent third party in the past 5 years; and (b) is there anything in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (the Act) that prevents the Australian Auditor-General performing this audit.

(5) Can the Minister confirm that the export credit agencies Ex-Im Bank and JBIC disclose monthly summaries of the minutes of meetings of the Board of Directors, in addition to media releases published, in order to provide a level of public accountability and to keep domestic stakeholders up to date with transactions.

(6) Does EFIC disclose summaries of its Board minutes to the Australian public; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from disclosing these summaries to the Australian public.

(7) Given that the Canadian export credit agency, EDC, has at least one corporate social responsibility (CSR) representative on the Board of Directors, does EFIC have a CSR representative/expert on their Board; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents the appointment of a CSR representative/expert to the EFIC Board.

(8) With reference to the JBIC and Ex-Im Bank process, where, after receiving submissions on Category A projects, a summary of their benchmarking against International Finance Corporation Performance Standards is published to demonstrate compliance and transparency to domestic stakeholders: (a) how many Category A projects did EFIC disclose in the 2009-10 financial year; (b) does EFIC respond to public submissions on Category A projects beyond a letter of acknowledgement; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from responding to the substance contained in public submissions; and (c) does EFIC publish summaries of project benchmarking; if not, is there anything in the Act that prevents EFIC from disclosing summaries of project benchmarking.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Trade has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) export credit agencies (ECAs) have agreed that they will use a common approach for addressing environmental issues relating to officially supported export credits. The agreement is referred to as the OECD Common Approaches. As a result, all OECD ECAs (including EFIC, EDC, Ex-Im Bank and JBIC) apply the same standard for transactions involving officially supported export credits.

However, a number of ECAs provide products and services beyond officially supported export credits that are appropriate to their Government mandate. As an example, US Ex-Im's mandate is largely focussed on the provision of export credits, whilst, in addition to export credits, JBIC provides a broader range of products in fulfilling a development and strategic acquisition role for Japan. EDC in Canada has a very broad mandate and operates more closely to a commercial bank.

Accordingly, the environmental policies of ECAs may need to cover both export credits and other types of business. The variations in mandate and differences in environment policies make direct comparisons somewhat difficult.

(2) As indicated in the response to question 1 it is difficult to directly compare EFIC's Environment Policy with the environmental policies of other ECAs. Some points of difference may further illustrate this:

EFIC has adopted the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards as its benchmark for conducting environmental and social reviews of transactions (since the IFC Performance Standards were introduced in 2006 no other benchmark has been used by EFIC for transactions). The other three ECAs referenced in the question nominate and use either the World Bank Safeguard Policies or the IFC Performance Standards depending on the transaction type.

EFIC's Environment Policy applies to all transactions. EFIC understands that this is not the case for EDC and the Ex-Im Bank while JBIC's position is unclear in this respect.

EFIC considers that the standards and procedures nominated in its Environment Policy benchmark well in comparison to that of any other OECD ECA.

(3) The IFC Performance Standards are widely regarded as the best practice benchmark for environmental and social assessment. The Performance Standards and associated Guidelines are applicable to almost any type of activity.

A copy of the Performance Standards and Guidelines can be found at:

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/PerformanceStandards

EFIC occasionally supplements the IFC Performance Standards with other guidelines or standards and this is determined according to the needs of specific transactions. For example, EFIC has referenced the community development toolkit of the International Council on Metals and Mining (ICMM) and has also used the Human Rights Guidance Tool for the Financial Sector developed by the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI).

(4) (a)There is no legislative requirement that the Australian Auditor-General audit EFIC's Environment Policy. The last external review of EFIC's implementation of its Environment Policy was commissioned by EFIC from PriceWaterhouseCoopers in 2004.

As part of its current Environment Policy review, EFIC is considering a regular independent audit of the application of its Environment Policy. The audit frequency has yet to be determined. EFIC's preference would be to engage a specialised environmental consultancy to undertake the proposed audit so that people with the requisite experience and skills are involved, which would enhance the effectiveness of the audit.(b)There is nothing in the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1991 (the EFIC Act) that prevents the Australian Auditor-General performing this audit. The appointment of the Australian Auditor-General to perform such an audit would be regulated by the Auditor-General Act 1997 (Cth).

(5) The US Ex-Im Bank publishes a brief summary of its Board meetings. The information provided is limited to the names of the parties involved in a transaction, the transaction type, the amount and term of the financial support provided for the transaction, the country where the transaction is located and the Board's decision.

JBIC does not appear to publish summaries of its Board of Directors meetings nor do any other OECD or non-OECD ECA publish information concerning Board meetings.

(6) EFIC complies with the reporting and other obligations of a Commonwealth authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth)(CAC Act). Those reporting obligations do not include the provision of summaries of its Board minutes. Section 87 of the EFIC Act contains provisions which prohibit the disclosure by EFIC employees, officers and Board members of information relating to EFIC's business under the EFIC Act.

(7) The 2009 EDC Annual Report reveals there are no Board members with responsibility for CSR. EDC has an individual in its Executive whose responsibilities include CSR issues, as does EFIC. Appointments to the EFIC Board (other than the Managing Director) are made by the Minister. Both the EFIC Act and the CAC Act impose obligations and duties on EFIC Board members, including a duty to act in the best interests of EFIC with due care, skill and diligence.

Before an EFIC board position is vacated, depending on the specific position and taking account of the skills required to ensure that the Board has appropriate balanced membership to meet its functions, an extensive list of potential candidates is prepared. This list is then provided to the Minister and a short list of candidates determined. The candidates short listed are contacted and resumes submitted. The Minister then selects a suitable candidate from this list.

(8) (a) EFIC disclosed its potential involvement in three Category A projects during the 2009-2010 financial year. (b) EFIC provides a letter of acknowledgement to those that make a written submission on Category A projects. EFIC incorporates these submissions into its due diligence process prior to making a decision to provide or decline support for a transaction. Section 87 of the EFIC Act contains provisions which prohibit the disclosure by EFIC employees, officers and Board members of information relating to EFIC's business under the EFIC Act. (c) EFIC does not publish summaries of project benchmarking. EFIC is aware of only one ECA that regularly publishes a summary of project benchmarking; JBIC, which publishes a very brief overview of each of its 'Category A' projects. The published summary contains little information on a project's environmental and social impacts and resultant management response. JBIC is also not a directly comparable organisation to EFIC as it also fulfils a development and strategic acquisition role for Japan.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, upon notice, on 3 February 2011:

(1) What amount of funding has been spent and/or committed under the Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program (AISAP).

(2) How many companies have received funding under the AISAP; of these, how many have merged and with whom have they merged.

(3) How many individuals have received funding under the AISAP.

(4) What amount of funding remains uncommitted under the AISAP for the 2010-11 financial year and for each (if any) subsequent year.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows:

(1) As at 25 January 2011, $35,213,036 had been committed under the structural adjustment element of AISAP.

The total amount of funding spent under the labour market element of AISAP as at 25 January 2011 is $9 million (this element is the responsibility of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR)).

(2) As at 25 January 2011, nine companies had received funding under the structural adjustment element of AISAP. Of these, three companies had received funding assistance to undertake mergers and acquisitions. Information regarding mergers and acquisitions is commercial in confidence.

(3) As at 25 January 2011 there were a total of 2,718 job seekers who received support as a result of funding provided under the labour market element of the AISAP (DEEWR).

(4) As at 25 January 2011, $34.495 million remained uncommitted under the structural adjustment element of AISAP for the financial year 2010-11. No funding is appropriated for subsequent years under the structural adjustment element of AISAP.

As at 25 January 2011, there is a total of $27.3 million uncommitted funds under the labour market element of AISAP (DEEWR).

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, upon notice, on 25 February 2011:

In regard to the extraction of coal seam gas:

(1) What is the average amount of methane released in such operations.

(2) What is the estimated maximum for methane release.

(3) How is such a release measured.

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

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

Methane emissions from the extraction of coal seam gas are estimated and reported within the National Greenhouse Accounts, as part of the fugitive emissions from natural gas production and processing, venting and flaring. It is not possible to separately identify the emissions associated with the extraction of coal seam gas. According to the National Greenhouse Accounts, fugitive methane emissions from natural gas production and processing (leakage and venting) for Australia in 2008 were 33,335 tonnes.

The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008 (the Determination) provides methods and criteria for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and energy data under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Methodologies for determining the fugitive methane emissions from the extraction of coal seam gas are provided in the Determination under Divisions 3.3.6 and 3.3.9 for natural gas production and processing.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 1 March 2011:

(1) What formula or formulas are used to calculate: (a) the total annual level of permanent migration targeted over the past 5 years (2006 to 2011); and b) the total annual level of skilled and family permanent migration over the same period.

(2) Has the formula, or its parameters, changed between 2006 and 2011; if so: (a) in what way; and (b) what have been the impacts on the targeted level of migration.

(3) What are the objectives which drive the level of permanent migration in Australia.

(4) What work has been undertaken to assess whether the targeted levels of permanent migration have met these objectives.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) (a) and (b) The Permanent Migration Program is planned and managed on an annual basis through the setting of the annual permanent skill and family intake levels.

In determining the size and composition of the Migration Program, a range of factors are considered, including:

- immediate and forecast long-term social, demographic and economic trends;

- expected demand for skilled labour in key occupations and industries over the medium to long term;

- estimated demand for Migration Program places within categories that are uncapped under existing legislation, in particular the Partner and Child categories;

- specific social, economic and labour market advice and analysis from other Australian Government agencies including Skills Australia, as well as feedback from key industry and business bodies, community groups and state and territory governments through the conduct of annual migration program consultation meetings and receipt of written submissions;

- research and analysis of the current and projected labour demand in Australia;

- an identified need to address critical immediate and emerging longer term labour force skill shortages, that are unable to be met by the domestic labour market or training schemes or through temporary migration programs; and

- the economic and social contribution of the permanent migration program and any adjustment costs and wider considerations which need be balanced against the above considerations.

Annual permanent migration planning levels are indicative and are revised and reviewed regularly by the Government to ensure that they are meeting their aim. The proportion of visa grants in Skill Stream categories can be readjusted in response to changes in economic circumstances.

(2) (a) and (b) The method of determining the size and composition of the annual Migration Program has not changed over the last five years. However, since 2010 the Department analysed temporary migration trends alongside permanent migration program trends. This information has been considered alongside the migration program to ensure that immigration levels are optimal in terms of their economic contribution, and balanced against adjustment costs which flow from resultant population growth.

(3) The Migration Program has the objective of facilitating the entry of migrants who can contribute to economic growth by enhancing the size, skill level and productivity of the Australian labour force; as well as the reunion of immediate family members such as partners and children, and other family members within the extent that the social gain is balanced against the fiscal cost.

(4) The Department consults industry, businesses and community groups on the effectiveness of the Migration Program to meet their critical skill and social needs. Input from these consultations is considered as part of future Migration Program planning. Regular internal and external evaluations and reviews of migration programs and policies are also undertaken to ensure these are meeting their objectives. For example the Independent category of the Skill Stream was reviewed in 2010, and the Business Skills and Employer Sponsored Category is currently under review, as is the Student Visa program which is a key feeder category for the permanent program.

The Department regularly commissions external research on current and emerging issues associated with immigration, population, multiculturalism and settlement and undertakes evaluations to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of migration priorities, legislation and policy settings.

Longitudinal and continuous surveys of Australia's migrants are conducted to evaluate the labour market and settlement outcomes of migrants. The Department also collects and analyses a range of immigration related statistics to monitor the progress of our programs.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, upon notice, on 2 March 2011:

With reference to the Government's promise to resettle 500 UNHCR registered refugees from Indonesia: Can the Government confirm whether this target has been met; if not (a) how many from the promised 500 have been resettled; and (b) what will be the timeframe for resettling the remaining refugees.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(a) The Australian Government resettles UNHCR mandated refugees from a number of locations globally.

In relation to refugees resettled from Indonesia, in the 2009–10 Program year (which runs from 1 July to 30 June), 109 visas were granted to UNHCR mandated refugees under the Humanitarian Program.

In the 2010–11 Program year to 28 February 2011, 457 visas have been granted to UNHCR mandated refugees in Indonesia under the Humanitarian Program.

(b) Most refugees who are granted visas travel shortly after visa grant, however this is subject to flight availability and ensuring that appropriate settlement services are available in Australia.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice, upon notice, on 3 March 2011:

(1)When the Minister decided on 12 November 2009 that Mr Charles Zentai be extradited to the Republic of Hungary, was the Minister aware of any of the following information that had been provided to the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department and the Minister's office:

(a) that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had advised the Australian Federal Police (AFP) that there was no evidence to support a charge against Mr Zentai of a war crime (or any other crime);

(b) that the DPP and the AFP had therefore decided not to prosecute Mr Zentai for the alleged war crime, although if there had been sufficient evidence to support a charge, (which there was not) it would have been open to the Australian authorities to charge Mr Zentai and have him tried in Australia, rather than extradite him;

(c) that the Republic of Hungary only wanted Mr Zentai to be extradited to Hungary for interrogation, as no charge has been laid against him.

(2) If the Minister was aware of all or any of that information: (a) what information was he aware of; and (b) did he give consideration to it before making his extradition determination; if so, what were his reasons for deciding that an Australian citizen, Mr Zentai, be extradited to Hungary.

(3) If the Minister was not aware of any or some of that information before he made the decision to extradite Mr Zentai, was he made aware of it after the decision of Federal Court Justice McKerracher in December 2010; if so, why did the Minister authorise an appeal against Justice McKerracher's decision that had set aside the Minister's determination to extradite Mr Zentai.

(4) Has the Minister ever suggested to the Hungarian authorities that they conduct their 'investigation' and/or 'interrogation' of Mr Zentai in Australia; if so, what was the Republic of Hungary's response; if not, why has the Minister not made that suggestion to the Republic of Hungary, having regard to the age and health of Mr Zentai, the fact that the Hungarian authorities have said they only want him for interrogation and the fact that Mr Zentai has stated that he is prepared to cooperate with investigators and is prepared to answer questions on oath.

(5) To date:

(a)what has been the total cost to the Commonwealth Government (including departmental personnel time and cost) in seeking to extradite Mr Zentai; and

(b)what is the estimated further cost of pursuing the appeal against the decision of Justice McKerracher.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Justice has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ' s question:

(1) As set out in the judgment of His Honour Justice McKerracher in Zentai v Honourable Brendan O'Connor (No 3) [2010] FCA 691, prior to making a surrender determination in respect of Mr Zentai, the Minister was provided with a submission (annexing relevant documentation) prepared by the Attorney-General's Department. The submission discussed advice provided by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the Australian Federal Police on evidentiary issues relating to the allegations against Mr Zentai and also discussed the basis on which the Republic of Hungary sought Mr Zentai's extradition. As the issues raised by Senator Boyce are the subject of proceedings currently before the Full Court of the Federal Court, it is not appropriate to comment further.

(2) The submission prepared by the Attorney-General's Department referred to in response to Question (1) above was before the Minister at the time he determined that Mr Zentai was to be surrendered to Hungary to face prosecution for a war crime. In view of the issues raised in current litigation in this matter, it is not appropriate to comment further.

(3) The decision of Mr Justice McKerracher of 2 July 2010 raises significant and complex issues for the administration of Australia's extradition scheme. It is appropriate that an appeal be pursued.

(4) The Republic of Hungary made a formal request under the Treaty on Extradition between Australia and the Republic of Hungary for the extradition of Mr Zentai to face prosecution for a war crime. Australia has an obligation to consider that request in accordance with the Treaty and the Extradition Act 1988.

(5) (a) The approximate cost to the Commonwealth of litigation in the matter of Mr Zentai's extradition to date is $455,000 (including GST and disbursements). These include costs of approximately $247, 000 incurred in earlier proceedings instituted by Mr Zentai challenging various aspects of the extradition process, including the constitutionality of the Extradition Act 1988. Mr Zentai was unsuccessful in those proceedings. The Australian Central Authority for extradition in the Attorney-General's Department does not maintain records of the time particular officers spend on particular matters. (b) It would be inappropriate to provide an estimate of the costs of the current appeal proceedings in circumstances where the proceedings are ongoing and at a relatively early stage.